The Illogic of Racial Profiling
From time to time, I like to talk about game theory. It is appealing because its logic is so crisp and clear. The logical path is a comforting way to live. It’s perhaps why so many people relate to Spock and hardly any relate to Bones.
I bring us back to diamond stealing. Say Man A is trying to steal a diamond from Man B. Man B has two safes. One safe is at work and Man A has a 90 percent chance of cracking it. The other safe is at home and Man A has a 50 percent chance of cracking it. Man A only has the time to pursue one safe. Which safe should Man B choose to hide his diamond and which safe should Man A choose to look for the diamond?
If Man B thought very little, he would put it at home. It’s the better safe. Man A is limited to a 50 percent chance of success. Of course, if he thought a little more, he might consider putting it at work. If he put it there and Man A chose the home safe, Man A would have a 0 percent chance of success. Of course, maybe Man A knows Man B is going to do this and goes to the work safe. His odds would jump to 90 percent. Ug, second-guessing!
The good thing for Man B to do is randomize. Say Man B flipped a coin (and let Man A know he was flipping a coin). The result would determine the diamond’s location. Now, the odds for Man A drop. He only has a 45 percent chance with work safe and a 25 percent chance with home safe. In this case, he would always choose work safe and achieve a 45 percent chance of success.
The best thing for Man B to do is weight the randomization. If the man places the diamond at home 64 percent of the time and at work 36 percent of the time, Man A always has a 32 percent chance of success. It’s in Man A’s best interest to treat both safes equally and get out of the game of second-guessing.
Now, replace the diamond with a weapon or bomb. Man A is TSA trying to find the weapon or bomb. Man B a terrorist group. The safe is a terrorist.
A terrorist group can choose to hide their weapon on an Arab-looking individual which has a certain percentage chance of success or they can hide their weapon on an Anglo-looking individual which has a better percentage chance of success. If they stick to one or the other, they limit their chances of success. They do best with weighted randomization. Now, knowing that the group will use weighted randomization to some extent, it is in TSA’s best interest to get out of second-guessing and to treat both groups equally.
Down with racial profiling, Q.E.D.
I bring us back to diamond stealing. Say Man A is trying to steal a diamond from Man B. Man B has two safes. One safe is at work and Man A has a 90 percent chance of cracking it. The other safe is at home and Man A has a 50 percent chance of cracking it. Man A only has the time to pursue one safe. Which safe should Man B choose to hide his diamond and which safe should Man A choose to look for the diamond?
If Man B thought very little, he would put it at home. It’s the better safe. Man A is limited to a 50 percent chance of success. Of course, if he thought a little more, he might consider putting it at work. If he put it there and Man A chose the home safe, Man A would have a 0 percent chance of success. Of course, maybe Man A knows Man B is going to do this and goes to the work safe. His odds would jump to 90 percent. Ug, second-guessing!
The good thing for Man B to do is randomize. Say Man B flipped a coin (and let Man A know he was flipping a coin). The result would determine the diamond’s location. Now, the odds for Man A drop. He only has a 45 percent chance with work safe and a 25 percent chance with home safe. In this case, he would always choose work safe and achieve a 45 percent chance of success.
The best thing for Man B to do is weight the randomization. If the man places the diamond at home 64 percent of the time and at work 36 percent of the time, Man A always has a 32 percent chance of success. It’s in Man A’s best interest to treat both safes equally and get out of the game of second-guessing.
Now, replace the diamond with a weapon or bomb. Man A is TSA trying to find the weapon or bomb. Man B a terrorist group. The safe is a terrorist.
A terrorist group can choose to hide their weapon on an Arab-looking individual which has a certain percentage chance of success or they can hide their weapon on an Anglo-looking individual which has a better percentage chance of success. If they stick to one or the other, they limit their chances of success. They do best with weighted randomization. Now, knowing that the group will use weighted randomization to some extent, it is in TSA’s best interest to get out of second-guessing and to treat both groups equally.
Down with racial profiling, Q.E.D.
posted by American Dilettante at
12:31 PM
3 Comments:
I'm reminded of the words of the great criminologist and statistician Ed Hocken, who said, "Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50 - 50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that."
He was talking about OJ. This seems to bear on racial profiling somehow.
By
The Rogue Progressive, at 7:46 PM
A relevant article - you'll have to spend a few seconds reading an ad if you don't subscribe to Salon (which you should):
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/06/16/askthepilot190/index.html
The trouble with using profiling to secure our airports isn't that it's racist or discriminatory. The trouble is that it doesn't work.
Here's a quiz:
# In 1985, Air India Flight 182 was blown up over the Atlantic by:
a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
b. Bill O'Reilly
c. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
d. Indian Sikh extremists, in retaliation for the Indian Army's attack on the Golden Temple shrine in Amritsar
# In 1986, who attempted to smuggle three pounds of explosives onto an El Al jetliner bound from London to Tel Aviv?
a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
b. Michael Smerconish
c. Bob Mould
d. A pregnant Irishwoman named Anne Murphy
# In 1962, in the first-ever successful sabotage of a commercial jet, a Continental Airlines 707 was blown up with dynamite over Missouri by:
a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
b. Ann Coulter
c. Henry Rollins
d. Thomas Doty, a 34-year-old American passenger, as part of an insurance scam
# In 1994, who nearly succeeding in skyjacking a DC-10 and crashing it into the Federal Express Corp. headquarters?
a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
b. Michelle Malkin
c. Charlie Rose
d. Auburn Calloway, an off-duty FedEx employee and resident of Memphis, Tenn.
# In 1974, who stormed a Delta Air Lines DC-9 at Baltimore-Washington Airport, intending to crash it into the White House, and shot both pilots?
a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
b. Joe Scarborough
c. Spalding Gray
d. Samuel Byck, an unemployed tire salesman from Philadelphia
The answer, in all cases, is D.
By
mizerock, at 8:43 PM
Let's try that link again.
http://tinyurl.com/l6hd8
By
mizerock, at 8:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home