I believe I may have a good solution to the problem of "profiling." It was spurred by a question I was asked during a recent interview on our Two Plus Two PokerCast regarding my new book, DUCY?, written with Dr. Alan Schoonmaker. I realized that some of the ideas in that book could be combined in a way that just might fix the problem and satisfy almost everybody. I may very well add this thought to our next printing. But, I think it is too important to delay writing about it.
There is no denying that some criminal activity is more likely to be carried out by people with a specific set of physical characteristics (or wardrobe). And as long as law enforcement resources are limited, more crime would be prevented or caught if the authorities took that statistical fact into account. The problem is that if this is done, a large number of innocent people will be inconvenienced, stigmatized, and made to feel bad solely because of the way they look.
In my book, I point out that this problem would be overlooked if the statistics were overwhelming and the danger was great. If 10 percent of red heads were known to carry bombs onto air planes while only 1 in 100 million non-red heads carried bombs, everyone would want red heads to be given extra scrutiny. Even red heads themselves would want this, especially if they were about to board a plane.
But, when the statistics are not so lopsided, many people have a different view. They do not feel it is right to make a whole category of people angry, ashamed, etc. for a relatively small increase in safety. Everyone should be searched equally, they think. It’s especially important not to single out race or religion. But others disagree. And there doesn’t seem to be a good way to reconcile those opposing opinions.
But, you may not have to. Some of the chapters in DUCY? hint at a win-win solution. Let’s continue with the airport example. At the moment, I believe two unsatisfying techniques are being used. They are either spreading resources too thin by searching people who are almost certainly not dangerous or they are profiling and then lying about it.
My solution would be to openly profile, but also take actions to mitigate it. If you pull a Middle Eastern couple out of line, hand them a flowery card containing words along these lines:
"We deeply regret that, because you have physical characteristics that are statistically correlated with people known to attempt harm to air planes, we must subject you to an extra layer of scrutiny. Please accept this box of chocolates and $50 gift certificate for your next flight with us as our expression of apology for any distress this may have caused you."
I believe that if the authorities exhibit contriteness along with offering of gifts, the vast majority of those normally opposed to profiling or being profiled will change their minds. Exactly how much they should be offered, I am not sure. It should be enough to satisfy about 90 percent of those profiled. But not so much that many people will be tempted to don disguises to get the goodies themselves. As far as who would pay for these gifts, I would think that the rest of the airport patrons would be glad to. If 2 percent of people were profiled under my scheme, it would cost everyone else about $1 each. Surely, most people would think that was well worth it for the increase in safety.
Recently, a committee of experts from various medical fields created a major controversy by changing the recommendations regarding mammograms. They said that it was better to wait until age 50 to have your first one, rather then at 40, as had been previously recommended (unless you were in certain high risk groups).
Their reasoning was that the downside of these tests out weighed the upside. Of course, the upside is that the mammograms might catch breast cancer early enough to save a woman’s life. But, the experts contended that this happened so rarely (I believe it was about 1 in 2,000 women who benefited) that it was a risk worth taking to avoid other major problems. I am not speaking of the cost of the mammograms themselves, but rather, all the misery caused by false positives. (Or true positives that detect tiny cancers that won’t progress) A woman in her 40s who gets a positive result is apparently much more likely to have received an incorrect result then actually have cancer. Yet, all these women will endure anxiety as well as expensive, painful, and intrusive tests; such as biopsies. This needless aggravation is apparently 100 times more likely then effective needed treatment.
But, these arguments were not persuasive to the general public. They claimed that it was not worth taking any chance of missing a cancer regardless of the number and impact of false positives. Really? Then, why not recommend mammograms for women in their 30s or even in their 20s? Breast cancer at that age is very rare, but does occur. So the concept excepting some very small risks is already okay with most people and their reaction to the new guidelines was basically irrational.
But, the experts were dumb as well. Specifically, they committed the TJ Cloutier mistake. TJ is notorious for writing that you should more likely play five-four off suit then five-four suited because five-four suited can too easily get you into trouble in no-limit hold ’em. Hopefully, you see that this can’t be good advice for rational players because, at the very least, they can pretend that their five-four suited is unsuited and disregard their flushes and flush draws. They will still win more often with the suited hand when their flush doesn’t have to call a bet.
Same with the mammograms. The costs of the tests may be a legitimate factor, but not the false positives. Regardless of how common they are, it’s not a reason for experts to recommend that the tests not be given. (This is also true for PSA prostate tests by the way.) Rather, they should be recommending that positive results in younger women be treated, in most cases, similar to negatives.
If the results are clear cut, do what has to be done. If not, the doctor should make note of his suspicions and monitor the situation, but not immediately subject the patient to an ordeal. Furthermore, unless the patient specifically requests otherwise, non-clear cut positives shouldn’t even be reported to the patient. I understand that there are malpractice issues that have to be addressed under my scheme, but that is not a good enough reason to abandon it. After all, it would save lives.
Let me be clear, I can not prove logically that my idea is better then simply sticking to the old standard of testing all women in their 40s and treating everyone who tests positive. But I can prove that it is better then the new TJ Cloutier type of advice. DUCY?
