I feel this author's pain, but appealing to the data doesn't actually answer the question of "how do we enact [desired change]", it merely kicks the question down the road a bit, because the data you gather is inevitably going to be biased by the means you gather it and the society you gather it in, and the conclusions you reach based on that data are inevitably contentious because people are capable of looking at the exact same thing and coming to wildly different conclusions about it.
Within lib circles, "evidence-based policy" is a decent means of fighting reactionary thinking. You can go a long ways pushing good stuff with that line in blue cities and states.
It's almost useless with conservatives and DOA for the more rabid MAGA crowd.
Okay but in many of the cases today we know concretely and in clear terms how to solve the problems based on data we do have.
Not to mention that the alternative of guessing / thought experiments is surely worse.
More data doesnt necessarily mean more clarity, especially in insanely complex economic systems that are still in motion and actively reacting to regulation as it’s created
Return of the mboop :meow-fiesta:
although worsening the punishment for a crime would dissuade a rational actor from committing it, we know for a fact that harsher sentencing does not actually reduce crime rates.
This is because when you have low risk of punishment it doesn’t matter what it is, if you have 5 percent chance risk of getting caught, you don’t run mental calculation of 0.05*10 years. If it where 50 percent though you probably would. Humans dont do low probabilities, they think won’t happen.
Also, small note: education reduces crime in the future , like 10 years down the road. Having more cops photo shoots makes people fuzzy today, now :shrug-outta-hecks: electoral politics says you’ll get bonked after first term (like boudin)
