The Proper Response to Uncertain Risk is Overreaction

 At almost two years into a pandemic, it's only natural that we are seeing more and more takes on the policy choices (and even some personal choices) made in response to the threat of a deadly contagion. Also as expected, most of these takes are using the clarity of hindsight to criticize specific choices which were made in the face of uncertainty. While analyzing what worked, what didn't, and what we should do the next time is necessary and valuable, it can only be done properly if we accept the timeliness of the unknown vs. known.

I think the simplest way to demonstrate this concept is to quantify things, even if only an arbitrary manner. These are all actually fuzzy and complicated subjects, but the premise is the same. When faced with a new risk, even if it's just a variation on known risks, the uncertainty that comes along with it needs to be factored into any response.

So let's say we're at the start of a new, deadly virus spreading around the globe. How bad is it going to be? Some people might say it's only a 5 - about the same as a bad flu season. Others might say it's a 50 - approaching an extinction-level event. Even the level-headed experts will disagree, but if you follow the science and listen to a consensus, you can get an approximate level to use as your basis. Let's say the weighted average comes out to a 15. Great, we have a number to work with. 

But you really shouldn't base your response on a 15. If 15 is the average, then there's around a 50% chance it will be worse than that. If you react as if it's going to be a 15, there's a very strong likelihood you will end up underreacting and face grave consequences. If you wait for more certainty you will respond too late and suffer because of it, especially when facing a risk known to grow exponentially. Instead, you factor in the uncertainty by assuming it's going to be a 20 (with 90% confidence it will be less than that), react at that level knowing you will likely overreact a little bit, which generally has much lower costs than any level of underreaction. So you deliberately overreact compared to the consensus expectation.

And yes, when it ends up being a 17, some people will criticize your overreaction. Some will even say foolish things like: I predicted it would be a 17 and you should have listened to me. Of course, my cousin Jimmy predicted Tampa Bay would win the Superbowl before last season. The fact that he was right doesn't change the more important fact that he predicts that every year, so to have listened to him last season (and not all the seasons before and since) would have been foolish even though he turned out to be right.

Hindsight is valuable, and we have made a lot of improvements on our reactions and we've learned from experience and analysis. With more certainty comes better reactions. We don't worry about masking outside as much. We aren't obsessing over wiping down every surface every fifteen minutes. We know we have to take more care with the elderly, especially in group home situations. We even can keep kids in the classroom as long as we take precautions proven effective: universal masking, vaccines for those eligible, improved ventilation, and frequent testing. But it was absolutely the right call to close down schools when all those things were uncertain because we've also found out that when schools are open without proper precautions things go bad really fast. Our overreactions were good, and with the clarity of hindsight I see a lot of places, a lot of policy, and a lot of people who underreacted based on wishful thinking of assuming a level 10 just because someone, somewhere said so. With a million people dead in the U.S., tens of millions more with long-term health damages (we still don't know the extent of), those who look back and speak with certainty are not the voices to listen to. Cousin Jimmy speaks with confidence and certainty, but at the end of the day, he's from Florida. Do you really want to listen to him?

It's Not Racist If It's True

When a friend of mine made disparaging comments on social media about a quote from James Baldwin and the ideas behind the Black Lives Matter movement, claiming he couldn't see any evidence that Black Americans are disadvantaged or discriminated against, I challenged him. I asked him how he explained Black people having 1/10th the wealth of whites, receiving less pay for the same jobs with the same education, paying more in mortgage rates for homes that appraise for less. I asked why is it that Black men are locked up at three times the rates of white men for drugs (even though they use and sell them at the same rate), that they face tougher plea deals and are more likely to get convicted by juries and then serve more time for the same crimes. What leads Black women to suffer more deaths in childbirth, Black men to die younger, and all of them to be less likely to receive necessary healthcare even with the same insurance? After some bobbing and weaving, he finally said bad things happen to people who make bad choices.

It became clear to me that he really believed that all the discrepancies in outcomes for Black Americans were somehow the fault of Black people. In his mind Black people just make more bad choices. It was their own fault in some way he couldn't really describe and didn't feel comfortable stating directly (he said he was worried people would take it the wrong way). When I pointed out this was a negative generalization based on race, he ignored the implication. When I asked why someone would choose to pay higher interest rates or get arrested more often, he didn't have an answer. When I asked how personal choice explained redlining or where our highways ended up he simply didn't understand what I was talking about. When I asked if he'd look at some more evidence and consider a different conclusion he remained silent. When I suggested he needed to be willing to confront his own racism if he wanted to understand the state of our world he took great offense and walked away.

To be perfectly clear here: my friend is a white guy. A rich and successful white guy. Well educated, quite smart and reasonable. Very nice guy. Works with and for a number of Black people. I think his understanding of racsim is typical of his group and shared among a surprising (to me) number of my friends. And what it comes down to is this: it isn't racism if it's true. He looks at the outcomes for Black people and uses that to justify his belief that Black people are inferior. And he doesn't feel the least bit racist for believing it. His opinion isn't based on any real reading of the evidence but simply his life experience. So as far as he knows, as far as he wants to know, he's right and therefor cannot be wrong (racist).

I think a lot of it stems from the fact he believes he accomplished everything he did because of his own merit, so anyone who does not succeed the same way must be lesser than him. And anything that threatens that view of his own self-worth is to be denied with all haste never to be discussed or evaluated. If Black people are disadvantaged, he realizes it  means he was advantaged - but that is not how he sees himself. If many other people (like him) feel the same way, then it must be valid and also true. If you treat individuals fairly and equally, then you cannot be racist because being racist is bad. He knows in his heart of hearts he is a good person (and society certainly affirms this). He's simply honest about race and honest is good. He  cannot be racist so racism cannot be a real problem.

Mind you, he believes racsim exists. But if believing Black people are inferior doesn't count as racism, what does? Well, using the n-word. But only if you use it seriously - it's okay to use it in a song, or as long as no Black people are around. It's wrong to deny a Black person a job based on their race, but it's fine to only grant interviews to those who seem like they would fit in. Trust your gut. It's racist to be impolite to a Black colleague, but completely natural to admit Black communities are strife with crime and drugs. Racism is blatant and mean, not subtle and pervasive. We used to have a problem with it but all that went away after the Civil Rights movement (which worked because it was completely peaceful). So yes, there are still some racist people around, but they are few, they are generally poor and uncouth, they exist somewhere else and they don't have any real power or affect society at large. Racism writ large is a thing of the past.

After all, that's what the white guy reading the news tells him. That's what his white friends tell him. That's what his politicians tell him - at least the white guy politicians he listens to and agrees with. The people saying otherwise are Black, and how much can we really trust them on the issue? They're just complaining because they can't succeed like he did. Further proof that something is wrong with them. And the white people (like me) who try to point out the evidence of systemic racism are merely deluded, self-hating liberals who got duped by those (inferior) Black people or are being manipulated by white politicians who are fighting racism solely to gain power. No need to engage with such people (or their evidence) because he already knows he's right.

And against such certainty, motivated by self-protection, I have come up against a brick wall. I don't know how to reach people like him. I suppose I ought to keep trying, that we could still be friends because of our other shared interests and ability to discuss trivial matters in a inconsequential way. If he'd never shown me what he believes I probably would have never asked and our friendship would be fine. But once that window to the soul is opened it cannot be closed. I cannot ask how his 401k is doing without wondering how much of his wealth comes at the expense of others. I cannot hear him praise his Black boss at work without wondering if he voted in favor of increasing our carceral state that disproportionately targets Black youths. I don't really want to be friends with anyone who is willingly doing harm to others, even it's just through willful ignorance. Maybe that's my failing. Or maybe too many of us white folk are willing to keep letting things slide on the unrealistic hope that ignoring the problem will lead to incremental progress which will ultimately reach the goal. But we know that isn't true. We know that ignoring a problem, denying evidence, and resisting change is never the way to improvement. Maybe those of us who desire change need to continue to make ourselves and our friends uncomfortable. Maybe we all need to face a little loss, be it losing friends or losing face. Maybe the truth is what we all need, because racism is true.

The Fight for Democracy: False Equivalencies

I’ve seen a lot of people deflecting any real discussion of the seriousness of the incidents at the Capitol this week by comparing them to the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer, and I think it’s necessary to point out some truths to address it.

Many people start with: ‘all violence is wrong’. But that’s not true, at least not for Americans. We are a country literally established by a violent overthrow of an existing government. Some of our proudest moments as a nation come from violence, whether collaborative action of the state (winning WWII) or actions of individuals (churchgoer kills gunman). We lionize our military and the trope of the plucky underdog defeating the oppressive authorities through violence is core to our national identity. The most popular movie franchise in history (MCU) is built around the joy of seeing the good guy beat up the bad guy. Americans love violence - as long as they feel it’s justified.

The next step in the comparison is to decry ALL crime. Surely you liberals will agree breaking the law is definitely bad? No, not really. Look up that American Revolution and you’ll see it was illegal. Slavery was legal; Harriett Tubman was a criminal. Martin Luther King, Jr., the very model of proper protesting BLM is asked to follow, was arrested dozens of times. McCarthyism was legal. The shooting of Tamir Rice was deemed legal. Legal does not equal moral or just. Once again, we Americans know this, we just don’t like to admit it because it leads to the next point.

What makes right or wrong is subjective, which requires nuance and examination, and us Americans (especially on social media) don’t like nuance.  If the ‘reasonable middle’ crowd make it this far, they will simply say that since it’s subjective, both sides must be equally right (or equally wrong). But that’s not true either. There is such a thing as objective reality and we, as a society, constantly define what is considered right. The earth is not flat. We did land on the moon. Climate Change is driven by human actions and the Theory of Evolution has been proven true even if it has theory in its name. And just because someone believes they are right does not make their actions just. Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof thought they were right, but we know they were wrong.

These generalizations lead us back to the specifics of this week and this summer. The cries of hypocrisy when liberals won’t denounce BLM. The deflection from the Right to minimize the failed coup because a bunch of other people protested over something else. It’s all to avoid examining what has really happened and where blame really lies. So let’s examine.

The BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. Thousands of protests with less than 5% leading to any violence. Millions of protestors with less than 1% being violent. And of that violence, the part directed at people came from the State - police shooting rubbing bullets and teargas at peaceful crowds; physically assaulting citizens for standing still and asking for justice. The violence from the protestors was directed at property. The rioting and looting people decry only harmed things; it only served to disrupt commerce.

And what is the BLM movement’s justification for their actions? What is their goal? They seek to end racial bias in our criminal justice system. A bias that is objectively true - you can argue its causes or importance, but the data overwhelmingly proves bias exists. Their protests seek to draw attention to a wrong that society admits is a wrong; they seek to drive us into action to rectify that wrong by encouraging political change through the ballot box and legislature - exactly how our society approves such change. It’s the only way America has been forced to improve since its founding.

The storming of our Capitol, on the other hand, was based on blatant lies. Its justification is the claim that Trump won the election which he demonstrably lost by a wide margin. It’s based on claims of mass voter fraud which have been investigated by all levels of law enforcement and scrutinized by all levels of our courts and found to be baseless. The political right is built on the lies of their leaders who do so for their own political machinations. Justification cannot be built off of deliberate misrepresentations of reality.

The violence of the right is also of a different nature. Whether it’s the storming of the Capitol or the plot to kidnap a governor, the violence is directed at people and institutions of democracy. The violent mobs killed a police officer on Wednesday and posed a very clear threat to the lives of our elected officials, going so far as to erect a gallows on the Capitol steps. Its goal is to interrupt the functioning of our government and the peaceful transfer of power to the legitimate winners of elections. By its very nature, right-wing violence seeks to impose the will of a minority government over the voice of the people. It’s as anti-American as you can get.

There is no equivalency between the protests for racial justice and the insurrection at our Capitol, and any argument otherwise is fundamentally dishonest, even if those who make it are lying to themselves. Either way, we do not need to entertain it and should dismiss it out of hand.

That's Not the Choice You Think It Is

 A common argument I hear about inequalities in the US is that it's all a matter of choice. If you make good choices, you will be successful in life. If you make bad choices, you won't. There's even a lot of data used to back this up: if you finish high school, don't use drugs, and don't have children young and out of wedlock, your chances of succeeding are really good. It seems like an obvious answer - personal choice determines outcomes - since it's true for most of the people making the argument, and they use it as an argument against programs that help out the poor. Their solution is people should just choose to be successful like they did. But choice is not what you think it is.

First, it ignores the many cases where choice clearly isn't the main determinant of outcome. Even the data shows that a significant portion of people who make all the right choices still end up in bad situations. People who are poor because a cancer diagnosis wiped out their savings. People who can't work because a car accident left them with a traumatic brain injury. Even if these things represent a small percentage, that's still millions of people who need support even if they made good choices. And if you try to set up a program to help those in need, but tie that help to sorting out who is 'deserving' vs. who is not, then you inevitably open a can of worms that leads to less efficiency and less help overall. Helping people without judgment is not only a better moral position but a more effective policy.

But let's get back to those personal choices. People make choices in specific environments under specific circumstances and those are not all equal. For a kid growing up in a white suburb, with a decent school system and middle-class parents, the decision to finish high school is a no-brainer. It's what's expected of them, all their friends are doing it, and it's the path of least resistance. But to a poor kid in a neighborhood filled with gangs, a poorly funded school, a single-parent who never finished high school, and a bunch of older neighborhood kids who don't graduate, finishing high school must seem like an impossible challenge that no one expects them to accomplish. Their choice is simply much different, much more difficult and they shouldn't be judged for it the same way the middle-class kid is.

And it's also very true that the consequences for bad choices are not the same for everyone. Avoiding drugs is a pretty big indicator for success, but I know a ton of successful white guys who smoked a lot of pot in high school and college (and still do to this day). They never faced any consequences for their bad choice. They never even feared consequences. But Black Americans are three times more likely to get arrested for using marijuana. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine (used more often by Black Americans) are seven times stiffer than those for powdered cocaine (used more often by white Americans). If the consequences for making bad choices fall unequally on a certain group then using choice as your criteria for judging outcomes is biased.

Making good choices is the best way to find success, but blaming people's failures on their personal choices is not at all an accurate or fair way to pass judgment. And since that is the case, using such judgments to restrict programs meant to help those in need is simply an exercise in bias and an excuse to be cruel. We can pat ourselves on the back for getting where we are without using our other hand to beat down those less fortunate than us.

The Fight for Democracy 2020: Why Should You Care?

Look, I get it. Politics sucks. Especially on social media. We’re all tired of the stupid memes, the clickbait stories, the anger and invective. Talking politics pisses everyone off and it doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Both sides are awful and none of it matters. We are all struggling with our own problems and working our butts off to keep our heads above water and maybe, just maybe, have a little fun and see what our friends and family are up to. When we talk politics it kills the buzz and puts everyone on edge. And there aren’t nearly as many cool kayaking videos as there used to be. I hear you.

I used to tune out politics too. Used to not bother to vote. Which side controlled which part of the government didn’t affect my life to any large degree so why should I bother? It certainly made life simpler and more pleasant for me. And it didn’t seem to hurt me in any way I noticed. Just ignore it and leave the details to all those ‘activists’. Live my life, be kind to my neighbors, and let the world take care of itself.

Then I started to pay more attention to what those ‘activists’ were saying. I started to listen to the stories from the people who couldn’t afford to ignore politics because it puts their very existence at risk. I studied the facts and figures showing how many people are suffering under conservative policies, and how effective government intervention can be for the most marginalized. And even if I didn’t know those people personally, it became very clear that politics does matter to the material lives of many of my fellow citizens. It can be a force to improve their health and happiness, to recognize their humanity and struggle, and to make our world better; or it can dehumanize people, leave them to suffer or die, and destroy our culture and environment for generations to come. It might not have immediate and obvious costs for me, but politics really does matter and my role in it, however small, is important and necessary. Because to turn away and willfully ignore those who are suffering - that is a political choice in and of itself.

You should care that 200,000 Americans, disproportionately People of Color, have died unnecessarily from a virus our current Administration has done little to prevent or remedy. You should care that Black Americans are twice as likely to be killed by police and face racial bias in every aspect of our criminal justice system (not to mention in healthcare, housing, employment, etc).  You should care that 84 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured and our current administration is actively fighting to make it worse, including a legal battle to let insurers ban people for pre-existing conditions. You should care that gay couples only recently got the right to marry and one of our political parties wants to rescind that right. That same party wants to ban Transgender Americans from military service, they support banning people of certain religions from entering our country, and they have no moral qualms locking up brown-skinned kids in cages and permanently separating them from their parents. You should care that the world is hotter, storms are bigger, and our climate is changing in dangerous ways which we CAN stop if our government takes a lead and makes changes. Maybe none of these things affect you directly and immediately, but they will affect us all sooner or later. If you don’t care for yourself you should still care for the others, for those who suffer now and future generations who will suffer later. And you can do something simple to help. Vote. Vote for Democrats. Vote for an imperfect party that won’t solve all the problems but will help many of those in need. It takes so little of you to do that but it means so much to many. Show you care because you can. Because I believe you do.