3 ms·

> Immediate Reaction: Um, yes? Only the naive, self-deluding, and techno-utopians would have expected otherwise. Vs. an experienced teller from a well-run 1950'

by JadeNB 3y ago

> Immediate Reaction: Um, yes? Only the naive, self-deluding, and techno-utopians would have expected otherwise. Vs. an experienced teller from a well-run 1950's podunk bank could tell you that no security technology is worth crap if the managers don't actually care, or are crooked themselves. If one isn't trained as (or thinking as) a scientist, then I think it's easy to miss the importance of documenting expected results. One shouldn't believe a conclusion, even an expected and obvious conclusion, without data supporting it. This makes gathering data to support expected results a valuable process, and one that should be recognized. (For example, in this particular context, if one wants to argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient accountability, being able to argue from specific cases where the accountability has been subverted is much more likely to be useful than arguing from a general feeling that they won't be used properly.)

bell-cot 3y ago
> If one isn't trained as (or thinking as) a scientist, then... Reaction: When possible, leave "science" out of any broad-based public policy discussion. Between the people with negative reactions to the word, and those who tune out "because science is hard stuff", and those who start judging the arguments by "how fancy is his lab coat?" criteria - it's seriously counter-productive. > ...if one wants to argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient...argue from specific cases where... YES, that is the right approach. Go directly there. And pick your specific cases very carefully, to make it extra-clear to your audience that naive quick fixes - which all-too-many of them really want to believe in - are nothing but different brands of square tires.
coldtea 3y ago
>If one isn't trained as (or thinking as) a scientist, then I think it's easy to miss the importance of documenting expected results. (...) (For example, in this particular context, if one wants to argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient accountability, being able to argue from specific cases where the accountability has been subverted is much more likely to be useful than arguing from a general feeling that they won't be used properly.) That would only matter if it was a matter of "better argument" setting the issue. Whereas it's a matter of power balance: those in power want the police on their side, and the police wants less oversight. Though the parent does not "argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient accountability". I think they're rather pointing that the accountability they offer in "optimal use", don't matter if police chiefs don't care how they're used/bypassed/workaround-ed/and so on, and this is allowed to have minimal impact on the officers and them.

by JadeNB 3y ago

bell-cot 3y ago

> If one isn't trained as (or thinking as) a scientist, then... Reaction: When possible, leave "science" out of any broad-based public policy discussion. Between the people with negative reactions to the word, and those who tune out "because science is hard stuff", and those who start judging the arguments by "how fancy is his lab coat?" criteria - it's seriously counter-productive. > ...if one wants to argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient...argue from specific cases where... YES, that is the right approach. Go directly there. And pick your specific cases very carefully, to make it extra-clear to your audience that naive quick fixes - which all-too-many of them really want to believe in - are nothing but different brands of square tires.

coldtea 3y ago

>If one isn't trained as (or thinking as) a scientist, then I think it's easy to miss the importance of documenting expected results. (...) (For example, in this particular context, if one wants to argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient accountability, being able to argue from specific cases where the accountability has been subverted is much more likely to be useful than arguing from a general feeling that they won't be used properly.) That would only matter if it was a matter of "better argument" setting the issue. Whereas it's a matter of power balance: those in power want the police on their side, and the police wants less oversight. Though the parent does not "argue against police claims that body-cams offer sufficient accountability". I think they're rather pointing that the accountability they offer in "optimal use", don't matter if police chiefs don't care how they're used/bypassed/workaround-ed/and so on, and this is allowed to have minimal impact on the officers and them.