Longread #93 -- Troublemakers -- 6/14/12

Today's longread is another article from Malcolm Gladwell. In this piece, Gladwell starts to tackle the issue of how generalizations and stereotypes guide public policy, and he does so largely by juxtaposing bans on pitbulls with profiling of potential terrorists. Unfortunately, as with many social issues, when it comes to generalization, it is easier to identify problems than solutions. It seems to me that mindful cost-benefit analysis is vital when examining how generalizations affect public policy. Key questions include

• How accurate are our generalizations?
• At that level of accuracy, can they positively influence policy to improve the public good? If so, by how much?
• What are the risks of using the generalizations?
• Related to the risks -- is the generalization applied in such a way that it violates the rights or liberties of individuals?

In the case of pitbulls, generalizations may not be fully accurate, and people who want aggressive dogs could just switch to another breed. But is there really much harm in banning pitbull ownership (and possibly ownership of other dogs that are often aggressive)? To me, the risks are acceptable for the potential benefit to society. 

In the case of profiling, however, the risks involved do violate the rights of individuals and also provide support to what I consider to be racist categorizations of certain groups of people. As such, even if profiling could improve the public good in the aggregate, I think it would be ethically unacceptable as public policy. 

Nevertheless, it strikes me that part of Gladwell's point is that it is difficult to achieve the type of nuanced discussion of generalizations required to effectively analyze these costs and benefits. Sadly, I'm not sure that Gladwell offers any way out of this conundrum, perhaps because in his eyes there isn't one.

"Troublemakers" by Malcolm Gladwell

Published in the New Yorker, February 6, 2006

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html

Eric