6 ms·

>> "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer inaccurately. > Of course. Yet we should try, shouldn't we? I mean, maybe? If y

by dlss 10y ago

>> "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer inaccurately. > Of course. Yet we should try, shouldn't we? I mean, maybe? If you see a way to do it that you think would actually work? What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would work, and that I've spent quite a while looking for one. At best it's a pure waste of time, at worst you accidentally trick yourself into believing you've found something. Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you and I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this problem looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity or cult formation. > Bob says: "I honestly have no clue why black males en mass (apparently) commit the most crimes. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate behavior. We should stop and frisk and detain black males based on these statistics. Can you honestly tell me that this is wrong?" This is a very very different statement than the one above. Although the sentences have similar structure, mine is about the limits of knowledge, and yours is someone being overconfident about a policy recommendation (since there are presumably many other possible approaches to policing that would need to be considered before a policy could be deemed best). If you're asking how I'd respond to someone saying that today? I dunno, the hypothetical speaker sounds dumb. I guess I'd ask for references and do some reading before coming to a conclusion. That's what I did for the pockets argument, and how I came upon the above economic rebuttal. I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime statistics mentioned above... are you saying the statute literally mentioned race? If so that seems dumb / unjustifiably specific. If not, well, you just failed an ideological turning test[1]. My understanding as someone who doesn't follow politics is that some parts of the country are sufficiently high crime that people want to designate those places as essentially airports (so you'll need to be screened if you'd like to enter). That doesn't sound insane to me, but then again I haven't really read anything on the subject. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

brenschluss 10y ago
> What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would work, and that I've spent quite a while looking for one. > Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you and I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this problem looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity or cult formation. History! Research! That's the best we can do, but there are entire disciplines devoted to trying to understand. I would rather that humankind as a species is enlightened enough to try to understand the universe, past and future and present, and to consider that 'why' and 'how' is a more important question then, I don't know, appeasing some shareholders. It sounds like you're interested in highly deterministic ideas of why, and any form of inaccuracy is unacceptable, so to find highly accurate 'proofs' for 'why' something happened in such a highly complex system as "the world" is nearly impossible. Better not to try. It's difficult, yes, because there are no clear answers. But part of many things is about making decisions without clear answers, or clear reasons. Does it sound like madness? Sure, from the point of view of statistics or pure models. But in the field, in situ, improvisation and heuristics and 'best-guess' progress is currently what we have. > I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime statistics mentioned above... Stop and frisk is racial profiling. Racial profiling is based upon prejudices or statistics about crime based on race. Please do a little bit of research. There's a reason why it was ruled unconstitutional in New York City.[1] -- At the end of the day, I think that approaches like yours are dangerous because the choices you make will unwittingly map onto the choices that others have made, previously. What seems like an independent decision with independent analysis actually is an amplifier of others' existing decisions. I am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent and clear thinking. Take for example 'turning high crime areas into required screening areas' that "doesn't sound insane" to you. On the surface, it might make sense. Dangerous areas should be segregated. That way we can lower the danger. Diagnose the symptom and stop it. However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons (which is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the history of racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2], you'd understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason why these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a feedback loop. The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area? Are these analyses trying to understand 'why' going to be rock-solid 100% verifiable? No. Is the symptom 100% verifiable? Yes. Despite that, it makes sense to at least TRY to understand the cause. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-raci...
- dlss 10y ago
  The point I was trying to make was not that good judgement under uncertainty is impossible. As you mentioned, I'm a statistician... as such, I'm 100% certain I would never say that :p What I was trying to say was that the methods commonly used in social sciences departments, and the watered down versions used in popular social science writing (perhaps typified by OP's essay) are basically a waste of time if your goal is understanding rather than entertainment. That's not to say I think that real world action (including ethical action) is impossible, or that it's not worth doing. That's to say I have a strong, somewhat professional, opinion on how it should be done. I am not alone in this. There are groups of statistically minded people who are making headway avoiding the traps of "common sense". http://www.givewell.org http://www.givewell.org might be a good introduction, perhaps reading about how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation allocates funding would also be helpful if you'd like details. They do around ~500 times more measurable good per dollar donated than the average charity (source: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins... etc). That this level of improvement was possible is a harsh critique of the sort of watered down social sciences methods we're discussing. > I am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent and clear thinking. I mean, I get that you're saying that... but oh man is a citation needed there. "What"/"How" is normally the question that leads to insight and paradigm change in my experience. I don't usually cite Kuhn, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re... might be worth a read for you. Why almost invariably leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error , both in my experience and according to the literature. > However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons (which is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the history of racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2], you'd understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason why these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a feedback loop. > The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area? I'm so confused. You think the reason people have proposed stop and frisk is because they haven't considered what the major factors correlating with future crime are? (ie what makes a high risk area, how to city plan around that, etc) I would be very surprised if that were the case. If it's a stupid policy (and I'm more than willing to believe that it is) I would have thought it would be an example of shoddy social sciences thinking (ie people who shouldn't have asked "why") How do you think government officials decide which policies to enact? They went to some of our nations best schools (yes, that's meant to be a critique of those schools). It's not like doing what social science has been doing, only harder, will somehow change the results we're seeing. Or at least that's my best guess. As we start talking about academia being dumb I have read more :p ---- If you haven't read it "Politics is the Mind-Killer" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/) is short and rather amazing as well. (Not wanting to go funny headed is the main reason I've avoided reading about stop and frisk). Just for fun here's a quiz letting you guess which interventions do the most good (as you might imagine "common sense" isn't going to be much help) https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-guess/ https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-guess/

by dlss 10y ago

brenschluss 10y ago

> What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would work, and that I've spent quite a while looking for one. > Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you and I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this problem looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity or cult formation. History! Research! That's the best we can do, but there are entire disciplines devoted to trying to understand. I would rather that humankind as a species is enlightened enough to try to understand the universe, past and future and present, and to consider that 'why' and 'how' is a more important question then, I don't know, appeasing some shareholders. It sounds like you're interested in highly deterministic ideas of why, and any form of inaccuracy is unacceptable, so to find highly accurate 'proofs' for 'why' something happened in such a highly complex system as "the world" is nearly impossible. Better not to try. It's difficult, yes, because there are no clear answers. But part of many things is about making decisions without clear answers, or clear reasons. Does it sound like madness? Sure, from the point of view of statistics or pure models. But in the field, in situ, improvisation and heuristics and 'best-guess' progress is currently what we have. > I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime statistics mentioned above... Stop and frisk is racial profiling. Racial profiling is based upon prejudices or statistics about crime based on race. Please do a little bit of research. There's a reason why it was ruled unconstitutional in New York City.[1] -- At the end of the day, I think that approaches like yours are dangerous because the choices you make will unwittingly map onto the choices that others have made, previously. What seems like an independent decision with independent analysis actually is an amplifier of others' existing decisions. I am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent and clear thinking. Take for example 'turning high crime areas into required screening areas' that "doesn't sound insane" to you. On the surface, it might make sense. Dangerous areas should be segregated. That way we can lower the danger. Diagnose the symptom and stop it. However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons (which is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the history of racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2], you'd understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason why these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a feedback loop. The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area? Are these analyses trying to understand 'why' going to be rock-solid 100% verifiable? No. Is the symptom 100% verifiable? Yes. Despite that, it makes sense to at least TRY to understand the cause. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-raci...

dlss 10y ago
The point I was trying to make was not that good judgement under uncertainty is impossible. As you mentioned, I'm a statistician... as such, I'm 100% certain I would never say that :p What I was trying to say was that the methods commonly used in social sciences departments, and the watered down versions used in popular social science writing (perhaps typified by OP's essay) are basically a waste of time if your goal is understanding rather than entertainment. That's not to say I think that real world action (including ethical action) is impossible, or that it's not worth doing. That's to say I have a strong, somewhat professional, opinion on how it should be done. I am not alone in this. There are groups of statistically minded people who are making headway avoiding the traps of "common sense". http://www.givewell.org http://www.givewell.org might be a good introduction, perhaps reading about how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation allocates funding would also be helpful if you'd like details. They do around ~500 times more measurable good per dollar donated than the average charity (source: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins... etc). That this level of improvement was possible is a harsh critique of the sort of watered down social sciences methods we're discussing. > I am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent and clear thinking. I mean, I get that you're saying that... but oh man is a citation needed there. "What"/"How" is normally the question that leads to insight and paradigm change in my experience. I don't usually cite Kuhn, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re... might be worth a read for you. Why almost invariably leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error , both in my experience and according to the literature. > However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons (which is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the history of racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2], you'd understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason why these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a feedback loop. > The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area? I'm so confused. You think the reason people have proposed stop and frisk is because they haven't considered what the major factors correlating with future crime are? (ie what makes a high risk area, how to city plan around that, etc) I would be very surprised if that were the case. If it's a stupid policy (and I'm more than willing to believe that it is) I would have thought it would be an example of shoddy social sciences thinking (ie people who shouldn't have asked "why") How do you think government officials decide which policies to enact? They went to some of our nations best schools (yes, that's meant to be a critique of those schools). It's not like doing what social science has been doing, only harder, will somehow change the results we're seeing. Or at least that's my best guess. As we start talking about academia being dumb I have read more :p ---- If you haven't read it "Politics is the Mind-Killer" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/) is short and rather amazing as well. (Not wanting to go funny headed is the main reason I've avoided reading about stop and frisk). Just for fun here's a quiz letting you guess which interventions do the most good (as you might imagine "common sense" isn't going to be much help) https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-guess/ https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-guess/