3 ms·
Presumably the optimal solution would be to prepare fake but easily executed plans (tuned to appeal to whoever's on the committee) to go with your fake numbers.
by yew 6y ago
Presumably the optimal solution would be to prepare fake but easily executed plans (tuned to appeal to whoever's on the committee) to go with your fake numbers. But probably no amount of regulating police will help if your regulators are also chasing metrics (say, to make themselves look better than their opponent for voters).
Random sampling is one effective (if adversarial) way to validate numbers. For policing I guess that looks like "secret citizens" reporting crimes and sending the results back up the chain? But that doesn't solve the second half of the problem.
- hef19898 6y agoYou optimize what you measure, don't you? It is crucial to that any set of metrics considers this effect. DOne right, a metrics system points an organisation is the "right" direction and sets priorities for everone. Done wrong, and the organisation will run, sometimes ruthlessly efficient, in the wrong direction. For policing, just counting the number of arrests and tickets written (something German police is guilty of to certain degree), pushes investigations and police work to pursueing "easy" crimes. And sometimes harassing people for minor stuff to meet numbers. No idea what could be a better way, absennce of issues is so hard to quantify and faces the same risk of optimizing for one thing at the cost of another.