3 ms·

You're asking if we should judge the horror more differently? Certainly. One (school shootings) is obviously far more horrible, for obvious reasons. But, if

You're asking if we should judge the horror more differently? Certainly. One (school shootings) is obviously far more horrible, for obvious reasons. But, if you're commenting on how common something is (as the original poster did), then having an actual understanding of the frequency is important. For instance, I don't think we need armed police and metal detectors on every single campus. That would be an over reaction but one that you might make if you thought the problem was bigger and more widespread than it actually is. I am somewhat surprised that I am having to explain why keeping perspective is important on HN. Sign of the times, I guess.

haswell 5y ago
> then having an actual understanding of the frequency is important In which case it’s important to add some more context to the numbers you cited. Lightning strikes kill about 50 people/year. Police kill about 1,000 (US). You’re significantly more likely do die at the hands of police than you are from lightning. Does that make either occurrence particularly likely? That’s where things get messy. Lightning doesn’t discriminate. Cops do. A person of color has no disadvantage against lightning, but they do when police are involved. Bottom line: this comparison is problematic and misleading. This was the point of my first response. Understanding that on the whole it’s extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning doesn’t mean someone should go stand in a field during a lightning storm holding an umbrella.
- brigandish 5y ago
  If context is important then how many people go out in thunderstorms and how many of those shootings were justified?
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> I am somewhat surprised that I am having to explain why keeping perspective is important on HN. Sign of the times, I guess. Even on HN, people have an allergic reaction to even a suggestion that a report arguing for the conclusion they already believe in could be based on flawed data or flawed methodology. (A sure-fire way to have this conversation on an arbitrary topic is to point out base rate fallacy - so many reports and arguments omit the base rate, either accidentally or on purpose, which often leads to making a sensation out of a non-story.) Still, bad reasoning has to be pointed out, or else we fall into darkness. The big problems ahead of us are of the kind where intuition alone won't help us. We've had thousands of years honing our intuitions and refining them into saws, cultural norms, religious beliefs, etc. The problems we find hard today are precisely the ones where you need rational, correct reasoning.

haswell 5y ago

> then having an actual understanding of the frequency is important In which case it’s important to add some more context to the numbers you cited. Lightning strikes kill about 50 people/year. Police kill about 1,000 (US). You’re significantly more likely do die at the hands of police than you are from lightning. Does that make either occurrence particularly likely? That’s where things get messy. Lightning doesn’t discriminate. Cops do. A person of color has no disadvantage against lightning, but they do when police are involved. Bottom line: this comparison is problematic and misleading. This was the point of my first response. Understanding that on the whole it’s extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning doesn’t mean someone should go stand in a field during a lightning storm holding an umbrella.

brigandish 5y ago
If context is important then how many people go out in thunderstorms and how many of those shootings were justified?

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> I am somewhat surprised that I am having to explain why keeping perspective is important on HN. Sign of the times, I guess. Even on HN, people have an allergic reaction to even a suggestion that a report arguing for the conclusion they already believe in could be based on flawed data or flawed methodology. (A sure-fire way to have this conversation on an arbitrary topic is to point out base rate fallacy - so many reports and arguments omit the base rate, either accidentally or on purpose, which often leads to making a sensation out of a non-story.) Still, bad reasoning has to be pointed out, or else we fall into darkness. The big problems ahead of us are of the kind where intuition alone won't help us. We've had thousands of years honing our intuitions and refining them into saws, cultural norms, religious beliefs, etc. The problems we find hard today are precisely the ones where you need rational, correct reasoning.