http://haptonstahl.org/polimath Patterns in Politics Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:39:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=75&cpage=1#comment-363 Michelle Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:39:50 +0000 http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=75#comment-363 Great post, Steve. Your argument is similar to that advanced by Bianco and Sened (2005), and one of the reasons I like their piece so much (and the uncovered set v. acceptable policy range argument). If only I was a little more clear on their grid estimation procedure... :) Great post, Steve. Your argument is similar to that advanced by Bianco and Sened (2005), and one of the reasons I like their piece so much (and the uncovered set v. acceptable policy range argument). If only I was a little more clear on their grid estimation procedure…

]]> http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-5 Steve Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:08:47 +0000 http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=12#comment-5 Eduardo, the argument stands if $latex A_1 \cdot B_1$ is small. My point hinges on the fact that most critics of airport security focus on $latex A_1$ being perceived as small but ignore that likelihood that $latex B_1 > B_2$. We have seen successful air-based terrorist attacks, not just on 9/11, so $latex A_1$ is not minuscule. If we set airport security lower one can reasonably expect /both/ $latex A_1$ and $latex B_1$ to increase, assuming a constant level of hostility on the part of the would-be terrorists. Eduardo, the argument stands if $latex A_1 \cdot B_1$ is small. My point hinges on the fact that most critics of airport security focus on $latex A_1$ being perceived as small but ignore that likelihood that $latex B_1 > B_2$. We have seen successful air-based terrorist attacks, not just on 9/11, so $latex A_1$ is not minuscule. If we set airport security lower one can reasonably expect /both/ $latex A_1$ and $latex B_1$ to increase, assuming a constant level of hostility on the part of the would-be terrorists.

]]> http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-4 Eduardo Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:48:03 +0000 http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=12#comment-4 I agree in spirit (terrorists are strategic and all that). But ... as long as A1 or B1 are very small, the argument stands. The fallacy is in estimating the terrorism risk by looking solely at actual deaths. Which of course is nonsense. (Perhaps a good analogy would be nuclear facilities safety protocols.) I agree in spirit (terrorists are strategic and all that). But … as long as A1 or B1 are very small, the argument stands. The fallacy is in estimating the terrorism risk by looking solely at actual deaths. Which of course is nonsense. (Perhaps a good analogy would be nuclear facilities safety protocols.)

]]> http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-3 M@ Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:30:54 +0000 http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=12#comment-3 Peanut butter has never approved of my choices. Peanut butter has never approved of my choices.

]]> http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=4&cpage=1#comment-2 Polimath » Blog Archive » Terrorism is not Lightning or Peanut Butter Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:11:54 +0000 http://haptonstahl.org/polimath/?p=4#comment-2 [...] About « The Engineer’s Fallacy [...] [...] About « The Engineer’s Fallacy [...]

]]>