Dramatic are we? This isn’t a bump in the road for Scottie.
The idea is to minimize both Type I Error and Type II Error. There is not an either/or limitation. Humans are capable of the “AND”.
“Reject the tyranny of the OR and embrace the genius of the AND.” Jim Collins
If the sole focus is to either Type error, the other will suffer. Genius addresses both Type errors.
As you might guess, politicians are not very good with the “AND.” A party victory is more important than a process improvement. So they will put their focus on the error Type that garnishes the most votes or donations.
Youtube and instagram comments form the basis of the opinion you shared? How do you know that the people making racist comments behind an internet profile are white, let alone their politics?
They’re not harmless at all… those rejects keep voting for destructive policies that harm black communities the most never mind their complete lack of self-awareness. They treat black Americans like they have no agency or ability to discern right from wrong. They’re childminded and nearly useless in any capacity save the Arts and Leisure section of the New York Times
Ever see the reverse? Overt racism against whites is not only ok it’s championed… simply because whytes are the majority and it’s a perfect wedge to drive between people
I thought that was a good explanation of the apparent thought process we’re seeing in this thread. To your broader point, it is another way of pointing out that liberals often seem to reach their policy conclusions by comparing bad or murky outcomes to an idealized scenario.
The basic Democrat playbook in 2024 is to shine a light on particular bad outcomes, suggest that their opponents desire those bad outcomes and electing them is how you stop the bad outcomes. This playbook has worked and will work as long as bad outcomes exist in the world. I hear they can even control the weather we’ll experience 50 years from now.
The bad outcome of Michael Brown dying by police gunfire is a good example pertinent to this thread. Last time I checked, his mother is a perennial invitee on stage at the Democratic National Convention. Ferguson, MO was terrorized because of this bad outcome. Here we are, still talking about it a decade later. Democrats still say Michael Brown’s name in their ongoing efforts to undermine law and order.
The only problem is that the bad outcome of Michael Brown dying from police gunfire was a reasonable and justified byproduct of the good outcome, which was that officer Darren Wilson did not have to risk the potential bad outcomes from losing control of his weapon a second time.
Of course, none of that is nearly as catchy as “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”.
This is why I wouldn’t make a leap from Michael Brown to Scottie Scheffler, at least not within this framework. One scenario is an opportunistic play on a false racism narrative manipulating an outcome for leniency against black criminals engaged in criminal activity. The other is, more and more seemingly, police overreach and abuse of power via levying charges to form a narrative. So there is a comparison to be made around false narratives via leveraged power, but and each scenario is wrong.
I’m not willing to dismiss the American concepts of freedom, liberty and innocence until proven guilt - with the caveat that while a court ultimately judges guilt, overreach in the form of false detainment is playing on the field.
For the third or fourth time, I appreciate your view of giving hall passes for optics but do not believe the issue is one to minimize considering the gravity of consequences.
This argument sounds very similar to me to people who want to ban AR-15s, but are not anti-gun because they will allow us to have rifles they deem appropriate to own, and AR-15s are not the primary weapons of choice for hunting anyways-so the legal right to their ownership is minimized for the “greater good”.
It’s a bullshit argument, especially considering inalienable rights, which is a trump card. No logic gymnastics necessary.
I’m not really interested in scrolling back for it. I’m paraphrasing your comment about siding with the officer regardless of the scenario at hand to send a message though. You may not have used the word “optics” specifically, but it’s what you were describing.
Only a convergent problem can be solved with a simple solution.
The criminal justice system is a divergent problem. Addressing one aspect without considering all possible consequences is a gross failure. It requires system thinking.
Consider the following:
Today’s problems come from yesterday’s “solutions.” - Solutions that merely shift problems from one part of a system to another often go undetected because those who “solved” the first problem are different from those who inherit the new problem.
The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back. - When our initial efforts fail to produce lasting improvements, we “push harder”–faithful to the creed that hard work will overcome all obstacles, all the while blinding ourselves to how we are contributing to the obstacles
ourselves.
Behavior grows better before it grows worse. - A typical solution feels wonderful, when it first cures the symptoms. It may be two, three, or four years before the problem returns, or some new, worse problem arrives. By that time, given how rapidly most people move from job to job, someone new is sitting in the chair.
The easy way out usually leads back in. - Pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions, while fundamental problems persist or worsen, is a reliable indicator of nonsystemic thinking-- what we often call the “what we need here is a bigger hammer” syndrome.
The cure can be worse than the disease. - The long‑term, most insidious consequence of applying nonsystemic solutions is increased need for more and more of the solution. This is why ill‑conceived interventions are not just ineffective, they are “addictive” in the sense of fostering increased dependency and lessened abilities of local people to solve their own problems.
Faster is slower. - The optimal rate is far less than the fastest possible growth. When growth becomes excessive, the system itself will seek to compensate by slowing down, perhaps putting the organization’s survival at risk in the process.
Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. - There is a fundamental mismatch between the nature of reality in complex systems and our predominant ways of thinking about reality. The first step in correcting that mismatch is to let go of the notion that cause and effect are close in time and space.
Small changes can produce big results–but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious. - High‑leverage changes are usually highly nonobvious to most participants in the system. They are not “close in time and space” to obvious problem symptoms. This is what makes life interesting.
You can have your cake and eat it too–but not at once. - They only appear as rigid “either‑or” choices, because we think of what is possible at a fixed point in time. Next month, it may be true that we must choose one or the other, but the real leverage lies in seeing how both can improve over time.
Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants. - Living systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole; to understand the most challenging managerial issues requires seeing the whole system that generates the issues.
There is no blame. - Systems thinking shows us that there is no outside, that you and the cause of your problems are part of a single system. The cure lies in your relationship with your “enemy.”
