Conquer Club

Two very dubious "sciences". Both get plenty of media attention in their own ways. Both rely on past models and predict future behaviour. Which do you trust more- the profilers, or the economists?

Honestly...how do the two inter relate? Obviously I'm being thick....

KoolBak wrote:Honestly...how do the two inter relate? Obviously I'm being thick....

Inter-relate? Why would they? They're similar, but only as dubious predictive models. Think of it more as a "do you prefer tea or coffee" kind of question.

Which do you consider more trustworthy- economic forecasts or criminal profiles?

As a head start on the Criminal Profiling is more BS front:

Dangerous Minds by Malcolm Gladwell, The NewYorker

Long read, but worth the time.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I read the entire New Yorker article. "Fascinating..." as Mr. Spock would say.

The article makes one question the value of criminal profiling as a science. Studying such aberrant human behavior is both fascinating and difficult.

And I have read one of Malcolm Gladwell's many books and find him a very insightful writer and thinker.

As far as economic forecasting, that too is difficult. Econ is a "soft" social science, one reason being that a person cannot isolate an economic factor, such as in a test tube in lab or a Higgs Boson in the LHC....LoL. And the real "lab" of economics is the incredibly complex and interconnected "economy" of the entire world. Chaos theory, anyone?

JP4Fun

Symmetry wrote:

KoolBak wrote:Honestly...how do the two inter relate? Obviously I'm being thick....

Inter-relate? Why would they? They're similar, but only as dubious predictive models. Think of it more as a "do you prefer tea or coffee" kind of question.

Which do you consider more trustworthy- economic forecasts or criminal profiles?

As a head start on the Criminal Profiling is more BS front:

Dangerous Minds by Malcolm Gladwell, The NewYorker

Long read, but worth the time.

Glad you liked the article- he's a very incisive writer.

I think one of the ways they relate is that they're both good at explaining the past, and very poor at prediciting the future.

In retrospect, some things seem easily predictable- how could that guy not have been flagged as a killer? How could extending credit to people who couldn't afford it not be seen as a risky policy? etc.

I think criminal profiling is better, specifically the eugenicists.

DoomYoshi wrote:I think criminal profiling is better, specifically the eugenicists.

Of course you do, DY.

Interesting, just read a book on this topic not even one month ago; "Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy" by Cathy O'neil. I'd say they're both equally bad because they basically make the same mistakes. They both rely on generalized assumptions and discriminate through self-fulfilling prophecies.

waauw wrote:Interesting, just read a book on this topic not even one month ago; "Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy" by Cathy O'neil. I'd say they're both equally bad because they basically make the same mistakes. They both rely on generalized assumptions and discriminate through self-fulfilling prophecies.

That sounds like a book I'd be interested in. Will add it to my reading list. Thanks.

I have a degree of sympathy towards economics and ciminology when they analyse past data, but they both seem to fall short whe it comes to predicting future behaviours.

Social Sciences can be just as dangerous.

warmonger1981 wrote:Social Sciences can be just as dangerous.

Can you be more specific? Economics and Criminology are both social sciences, so do you mean that they're both equally dangerous, or do you mean that some other social science is?

I am a science type, so the validity of a scientific theory (or idea) is "proven" in its ability to PREDICT things. Mendeleev, when he "invented" or devised the Periodic Table of Elements, predicted the existence of two undiscovered elements, one of which he called "eka-silicon" now known as germanium (Ge), an important element for microchips. The other is gallium, Ga. He also predicted properties of their oxides, all based on organizing KNOWN data and info about the elements.

Comparable things can be said for the Kinetic Molecular Theory. Also, similar predictions were made by Einstein and Newton, in Physics.

So I agree with you, Symmetry, about the value of predicting. Social Sciences, by their very nature, deals with more variables, it seems to me, making predictions more difficult.

Have you ever read the science fiction Foundation Trilogy (by Isaac Asimov)? That tackles this question, in a way......

Mike JP4Fun

Symmetry wrote:Glad you liked the article- he's a very incisive writer.

I think one of the ways they relate is that they're both good at explaining the past, and very poor at prediciting the future.

In retrospect, some things seem easily predictable- how could that guy not have been flagged as a killer? How could extending credit to people who couldn't afford it not be seen as a risky policy? etc.

Behavioral sciences. The information obtained can manipulate future societies. Whether used in government propaganda or corporations manipulating the human subconscious. Edward Bernays was pretty good at understanding the basics.

warmonger1981 wrote:Behavioral sciences. The information obtained can manipulate future societies. Whether used in government propaganda or corporations manipulating the human subconscious. Edward Bernays was pretty good at understanding the basics.

so... economics.

Too bad Beebs isn't here. You're baiting empty waters, sym.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Too bad Beebs isn't here. You're baiting empty waters, sym.

-TG

BBS? He's long gone, I know. But it was usually enough to deflate his pretend economist gig by asking him a few simple questions. I never needed any kind of elaborate trap, let alone bait.

The reason I put economists into the mix was because of a lot of recent debate about the validity of economists and their predictions here in the UK- specifically the failure to predict the financial crisis and the failed predictions about the consequences of Brexit.

Economic forecasting is critical to budgets (state, nationaly, corporate, etc.) These determine where to spend money to respond to needs and future considerations (e.g, jobs to create/fill; new equipment to purchase; new initiatives, etc.) In my state of Virginia, that impacts my slary as a teacher since that is partly funded by the State. Our State economists were off (predicting revenue from taxes up 5%, when they rose only about 1.5% or so). This caused our Governor to make cuts in the budget, never a FUN thing to do. My meager pay raise may not occur as a result.

Economic forecasting, IMO, is like forecasting the weather: Often right, but enough misses to keep it an art and not a true science. AND some misses are VERY BAD (8 inches of snow and not JUS 2 inches; only 1.5% growth instead of 5%).

Forecasts are like.....armpits, everyone has one, and some STINK..! LoL

Mike JP4Fun

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Too bad Beebs isn't here. You're baiting empty waters, sym.

-TG

BBS? He's long gone, I know. But it was usually enough to deflate his pretend economist gig by asking him a few simple questions. I never needed any kind of elaborate trap, let alone bait.

The reason I put economists into the mix was because of a lot of recent debate about the validity of economists and their predictions here in the UK- specifically the failure to predict the financial crisis and the failed predictions about the consequences of Brexit.

jusplay4fun wrote:Economic forecasting is critical to budgets (state, nationaly, corporate, etc.) These determine where to spend money to respond to needs and future considerations (e.g, jobs to create/fill; new equipment to purchase; new initiatives, etc.) In my state of Virginia, that impacts my slary as a teacher since that is partly funded by the State. Our State economists were off (predicting revenue from taxes up 5%, when they rose only about 1.5% or so). This caused our Governor to make cuts in the budget, never a FUN thing to do. My meager pay raise may not occur as a result.

Economic forecasting, IMO, is like forecasting the weather: Often right, but enough misses to keep it an art and not a true science. AND some misses are VERY BAD (8 inches of snow and not JUS 2 inches; only 1.5% growth instead of 5%).

Forecasts are like.....armpits, everyone has one, and some STINK..! LoL

Mike JP4Fun

Weather forescast are an interesting parallel. A lot of peeps in the UK are comparing the economic forecasts to a infamous weather broadcast from the bbc:



You really don't need to bother watching the whole thing, about 15 seconds will do- the worst storm in three centuries hit the UK the next day, killing 19 people.

It's the kind of parallel that people are drawing- if you can't see the really bad ones coming, what's the point if you just get the small stuff right?

This sounds as a spur to say chaos theory is a science of its own.

IMO economic forecasting is worse, a lot worse.

The dumbest, most incompetent criminal profiling isn't going to bring down a national economy or collapse a global economy. The scope and range of bad profiling is very limited as to the number of damaged parties.

Economic forecasting on the other hand can be so bad that entire economies get crushed which leads to tens of thousands losing their jobs, their savings, their livelihoods and debilitating depressions. Such events can and do lead to revolutions where tens of thousands of people get killed. The ramifications of bad forecasting can also last for years or even decades.

So yeah, if you got a choice between having to deal with the fallout of bad criminal profiling or the fallout of bad economic forecasting who the held would rather pick the bad economic forecasting?

Dukasaur wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Social Sciences can be just as dangerous.

Can you be more specific? Economics and Criminology are both social sciences, so do you mean that they're both equally dangerous, or do you mean that some other social science is?

Feminist drum circle composing for lesbian interpretive dance degrees are what is causing the world to regress.

RGJ

BoganGod wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:Social Sciences can be just as dangerous.

Can you be more specific? Economics and Criminology are both social sciences, so do you mean that they're both equally dangerous, or do you mean that some other social science is?

Feminist drum circle composing for lesbian interpretive dance degrees are what is causing the world to regress.

RGJ

To a world where flint-makers are paid equally and given adequate maternity leave?