Prescient Thinking On Fear Of Terrorism
My friend, forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith, who specializes in the psychology of violence, sent me a link to a very smart piece she published on September 27, 2001. An excerpt:
People at airports seem to favor stringent enforcement of these policies. For example, after the World Trade Center tragedy, one passenger at United Airlines stated that she was glad the authorities were keeping lines long to check for coffee cups with sharp edges. (No, really.) "This makes me feel really safe,"she said. "I feel like they are doing something." Doing something is nice, but perhaps it would be better to do something effective. "Feelings" may not care about effectiveness, but terrorists do. We see a similar dynamic with zero tolerance weapons policies in schools. Sure, it makes sense to expel a kid who brings a real loaded gun to school, but most of the time, innocent kids are expelled for drawing a picture of a weapon (something boys have been doing since time immemorial) or for pointing a finger and going "bam, bam!" Has this averted one act of school violence? It's doubtful.What these rules actually do is punish the average citizen who is not doing anything wrong. But that's actually part of the dynamic. There are far more law-abiding citizens: by punishing them the authorities reassure other law-abiding citizens that they are acting. If they only acted against people who were actually violent, most ordinary citizens (i.e., voters) wouldn't notice. Unfortunately, these policies also leave the rest of us with a false sense of security. At least, that is, until the next mass murder takes place and we are left shaking our heads, wondering why our symbolic solutions have done nothing to solve the problem. Of course, this is what these kinds of symbolic solutions are all about--the appearance of doing something. Whether or not that something works to reduce random acts of violence is not even the question.
This is not surprising. From primitive times to the present, people have engaged in magical thinking in times of terror. Magical thinking is the practice of associating a
particular action with a desired result even though there is no logical connection between the two. It's like ancient priests sacrificing babies to prevent an earthquake, or a modern student carrying a rabbit's foot in the hopes of passing a test. Studying would be better, but it's also work.
Right on! Great piece!
The costs, both material and social, for this fake security are staggering... almost unfathomable. The opportunity costs are scarcely, if ever talked about, but we've seen a massive drop in foreign tourism and foreign investment... it's simply easier to do business elsewhere.
The sad fact is that while Deputy Fife is busy detaining some tourist for taking pictures at the Mall of America, he could be doing something that would contribute to genuine security. Our country remains wide open... we can't even control our own borders against people, drugs or other contraband.
Security requires restraint and common sense, and it's mostly quite boring. These trigger-happy yokels and drama kings have no place in a real security organization.
dervish at September 19, 2011 6:12 AM
"This is not surprising. From primitive times to the present, people have engaged in magical thinking in times of terror. Magical thinking is the practice of associating a
particular action with a desired result even though there is no logical connection between the two. It's like ancient priests sacrificing babies to prevent an earthquake, or a modern student carrying a rabbit's foot in the hopes of passing a test. Studying would be better, but it's also work."
So true. Work is hard, prayer and hoping are much easier.
Dave B at September 19, 2011 9:49 AM
I was thinking about all this when the local news did a piece on the "enhanced patdowns" at the local NFL game over the weekend.
It's worthless, but it makes people somehow FEEL better. They interviewed several guys an a BUNCH of women on how they felt about it, and the guys didn't like it but were resigned, the women were glad to have it. :shrug: It's the stadium prerogative, tho it's the NFL pushing this. Private venues don't need a reason, but last I checked, most NFL stadiums aren't actually private, they are owned by taxpayers. I'd bet this was the recommendation of homeland [in]security, so the govt. is prolly also on board. What're they going to do when it's actually cold out, and everyone is wearing a coat an longies?
All the more reason to never pay their over-inflated ticket prices, and watch 3 different games, and other stuff from home. Where I am ACTUALLY secure, not just wishfully.
SwissArmyD at September 19, 2011 11:00 AM
We spend $3,333 per USA resident every year on "national defense," the VA and "homeland security."
It makes you feel better.
BOTU at September 19, 2011 11:05 AM
I do "feel" better when someone like OBL gets snuffed.
Dave B at September 19, 2011 11:41 AM
I wish somebody would snuff butthead, who finds a way to link military spending with any and all topics even they are not in any way related
ronc at September 19, 2011 12:17 PM
Hey, while you are sniveling about TSA pat-downs on your privates, your wallet is being lifted to the tune of $3,333 out of your rear pocket. Every year.
If you actually pay federal income taxes, probably double that. About $6k per taxpayer. Annually.
That's every year. In the next 10 years, kiss $60,000 good-bye and hand it over to the DoD-VA-HS megaplex-boondoggle.
But keep whimpering about TSA pat-downs. That's what the GOP wants. They want the "dumb vote."
They don't want to stop handing money over to the gaggle of grifters and frauds attached to federal agencies.
BOTU at September 19, 2011 2:01 PM
Yes, BOTU, and the two things are NOT RELATED.
You do not compare the cost of a bicycle with the cost of a car. You compare the cost of each with what you get for your money.
And you forgot to use your favorite, "coprolitic". Much like your mantra.
Radwaste at September 19, 2011 4:27 PM
If anyone has watched the Fast and Furious investigation (blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/01/grassley-issa-expand-fast-and-furious-investigation/) at all, one of the first responses was to try and impose more gun control laws and regulations.
Those laws would place more restrictions on those trying to buy guns legally, while not doing anything about the illegal gun trade. F&F also told Federally Licensed Firearms dealers to sell guns to known straw buyers.
Here's a question that no one has ever provided an answer that has some kind of rational reason:
If I have a fully legal concealed carry permit, with a reciprocal agreement between my state and the distant end, why can't I carry on a plane?
Jim P. at September 19, 2011 8:18 PM
"If I have a fully legal concealed carry permit, with a reciprocal agreement between my state and the distant end, why can't I carry on a plane?"
The bald answer is that you do not have the permission of the authorities in the middle, busy reserving power for themselves.
And actually, your permit is an expression of that power. Want to defend yourself and others in a certain way? You must have permission, from anonymous authorities.
An authority without power is not one. That's simple job protection.
Radwaste at September 20, 2011 2:30 AM
Leave a comment