Perceived security and security perception

I have just read a chapter on the use of Bayesian theory to direct Russian artillery bombardment, to decrypt the Enigma messages and to search for German submarines, all during World War 2.

I have also just finished reading a few chapters on the ridiculous security theatre that goes on in airports these days, which I get to act in a lot when travelling with work.

I wonder if there is a connection between the finding of u-boats in the Atlantic with finding terrorist cells? Would some form of bayesian process help analyse all the data, rather than continuing to waste time having everyone drinking all their water and remove belts & shoes.

This is all going down at PZ Myers' and Sam Harris' blogs.

I see it like this...

If 10 minutes, on average, have been added for everyone in an airport security queue, and 630 millions folk go through US airports each year, then that's an extra ~12000 man/years added to standing in a queue. Given an average for a persons life span of about 80 years, that's roughly 150 people 'die' from standing in pointless airport security queues each year.

It's been over a decade since 9/11 so that's 1500 people 'dead' over this time. Let's double that number to roughly cover the rest of the world. So 3000 people have 'died' because of extended, pointless security theatre.

I find that as terrible as 3000 people dying suddenly in one act of terrorism.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Identification Conflict

Check out this article from the Guardian

So what is the underlying psychological process going on here from the perspective of ISA and how could be picked it apart with a ipseus instrument.

There are two aspects at work. First, how do you evaluate someone, including yourself? Do you evaluate positively or negatively? Second, how much do you see of yourself in the other person?

You can share attributes that you deem negative with someone else, even though you evaluate the other positively. This is part of an identification conflict.

What's going on in that ad though is the other type of identification conflict. They are trying to link a shared attribute that would generally be deemed positive with someone who would generally be evaluated negatively.

To resolve the identification conflict you can either change your mind on which side of the fence you deem positive, which is unlikely if that attribute spectrum is backed with a strong conviction.

Alternatively, you can accept that the world is not black & white, that there is some bad in good people & some good in bad people, and not let silly emotional advertising like this have any effect.

I should invoke Godwin's rule now and mention Hitler and atheism in the same sentence now, but I won't :-)



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad