4 ms·

Like I said to another commenter, actual prevention and the appearance of prevention are different problems. They are not mutually exclusive. Reducing the publ

by diego 14y ago

Like I said to another commenter, actual prevention and the appearance of prevention are different problems. They are not mutually exclusive. Reducing the public perception of risk is not the same as reducing the actual number of casualties (otherwise people would stop driving). Most people do not behave as Bayesian rationalists, and policy must take this into account. By the way, the HN feature of delaying the option to respond as a thread grows (presumably to prevent flame wars) is not a good idea. It stifles interesting and civilized exchanges like this one, and flame wars happen regardless; people just start new comments or edit their existing ones. Edit: to the commenter below, you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment. Besides, that would be similar to asking the public about the next chess move for Kasparov; most people are not qualified to answer. There are reasons not every public policy decision is a votable proposition.

kybernetikos 14y ago
I hear this argument a lot, but how do you think most people would respond if asked outright "do you want to increase the size of the federal government, and spend around 8 billion a year on making air travel more annoying and humiliating, while doing nothing to actually make things safer in order that people will feel safer?"
kybernetikos 14y ago
Response to edit: > you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment I'm not really sure what dichotomy you think I'm arguing. I'm not saying we can only do one of (a) make people safer and (b) make people feel safer, I'm saying that only one of those is a good use of public resources. > Besides, that would be similar to asking the public about the next chess move for Kasparov; most people are not qualified to answer. If you're asking people what should be done to make them safer, that is outside their area of expertise, and I'm happy with not asking them about that (they'd probably answer stupid things like a Transport Security Administration or more scanners, or fewer liquids on planes or racially segregated flights, with only English being allowed to be spoken). If on the other hand the question is 'how much are you prepared to pay to feel safer (while not actually being safer)', that is definitely within the competence (and right) of the public to decide. To decide that people's money should be spent 'for their own good' on making them feeling safer and not even being prepared to ask them if that is true is arrogant, patronising and the opposite of safeguarding freedom.
scythe 14y ago
>Like I said to another commenter, actual prevention and the appearance of prevention are different problems. That's not the government's job, though. It is not the role of the government to make people feel safe. It is not, in fact, the role of government to make people feel anything in particular, be it safe, happy, calm, or sexually aroused. It can be argued that the government should -actually- keep people safe, but it is very hard to defend the position that we need to have the Feeling Police, which is a few neural folds away from being the Thought Police. edit: If you'd like to ask "then, who should make people feel safe?", my answer is "psychotherapists".
MaysonL 14y ago
Re: actual casualties How many people have had heart attacks and strokes brought on by TSA-induced stress?

by diego 14y ago

kybernetikos 14y ago

I hear this argument a lot, but how do you think most people would respond if asked outright "do you want to increase the size of the federal government, and spend around 8 billion a year on making air travel more annoying and humiliating, while doing nothing to actually make things safer in order that people will feel safer?"

kybernetikos 14y ago

Response to edit: > you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment I'm not really sure what dichotomy you think I'm arguing. I'm not saying we can only do one of (a) make people safer and (b) make people feel safer, I'm saying that only one of those is a good use of public resources. > Besides, that would be similar to asking the public about the next chess move for Kasparov; most people are not qualified to answer. If you're asking people what should be done to make them safer, that is outside their area of expertise, and I'm happy with not asking them about that (they'd probably answer stupid things like a Transport Security Administration or more scanners, or fewer liquids on planes or racially segregated flights, with only English being allowed to be spoken). If on the other hand the question is 'how much are you prepared to pay to feel safer (while not actually being safer)', that is definitely within the competence (and right) of the public to decide. To decide that people's money should be spent 'for their own good' on making them feeling safer and not even being prepared to ask them if that is true is arrogant, patronising and the opposite of safeguarding freedom.

scythe 14y ago

>Like I said to another commenter, actual prevention and the appearance of prevention are different problems. That's not the government's job, though. It is not the role of the government to make people feel safe. It is not, in fact, the role of government to make people feel anything in particular, be it safe, happy, calm, or sexually aroused. It can be argued that the government should -actually- keep people safe, but it is very hard to defend the position that we need to have the Feeling Police, which is a few neural folds away from being the Thought Police. edit: If you'd like to ask "then, who should make people feel safe?", my answer is "psychotherapists".

MaysonL 14y ago

Re: actual casualties How many people have had heart attacks and strokes brought on by TSA-induced stress?