TSA mess and the police

[bicker]

So everyone is on-board with a large increase in the price of airline tickets to implement a non-invasive search method for everyone (dogs, LEO's on planes etc)?

Thanks for bringing that up... again we have a touchstone for the reason why the critics' perspective fails: The vast majority of Americans choose saving money over quality and reliability; why is it so surprising that they'll choose saving money over something like this. The critics try very hard to try to make these security measures sound dirty or evil, but they're simply not. That's just self-serving propaganda.

So if things were to be determined using reasonable consideration in light of the obligations and objectives placed on the agency and the government, etc., then (unsurprisingly) the current policy would be one very legitimate logical conclusion. It seem clear to me that the only way critics can prevail, instead, therefore, is to try to undermine reasonable consideration as the means of coming to a conclusion.

 

[Muushka]

IIRC, he sold all his shares. I read something about that the other day.

Oh good. That must mean that it is coming to an end.

 

[bicker]

I also believe people are basically good and wouldn't lie in a poll. Difference of opinion.

There have myriad studies that have taken this out of the realm of opinion. It is referred to as the Attitude-Behavior Gap. You have often taken positions that are belied by this very long-standing and well-established litany of research to the contrary, often to try to assert that your own personal preference is actually more pervasive and compelling than it really is. In a way, I wish that was true (and not only for your sake). However, it is clear from our best knowledge about people that your wish is simply not the case. And in discussions of public policy it is important to factor in what the reality is rather than your personal preference.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Oh good. That must mean that it is coming to an end.

You never know with that guy.

I've read some scary stuff about him but I will say he knows how to make money.

 

[OceanAnnie]

There have myriad studies that have taken this out of the realm of opinion. It is referred to as the Attitude-Behavior Gap. You have often taken positions that are belied by this very long-standing and well-established litany of research to the contrary, often to try to assert that your own personal preference is actually more pervasive and compelling than it really is. In a way, I wish that was true (and not only for your sake). However, it is clear from our best knowledge about people that your wish is simply not the case. And in discussions of public policy it is important to factor in what the reality is rather than your personal preference.

Huh?

Additionally, if people are such liars, why have any polls at all?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Israeli security involves behavioral profiling to build cause for a physical screening, it isn't (according to a recent NPR interview) racial, ethnic or religious.

One interesting fact from that interview . . . if/when a security screener misses a "threat" in a test, it is immediate termination - from the job. Compare that with TSA - allthough its test results are not announced the Fail rate is reorted to be well over 50%.

 

[bicker]

I think there is a middle ground. You're accepting that we have to have the new procedures or pay more for other methods. There may be other solutions.

I think the assertion that neither of those are the "middle ground" is a bit self-serving. Indeed, "other solution" may be the more extreme options. However, the important aspect of this is that assertion of this type are clever tactics used when critics don't like something. They raise the specter of the unknown to evoke doubt (and/or fear), when what I referred to earlier as reasonable consideration and society's duly authorized determination doesn't break their way.

Let's turn it around: If these other methods are better, then explain precisely why they weren't the conclusion of the reasonable consideration of the issue? You're again implicitly asserting wrong-doing, but without justification other than the conclusion that was arrived at ran counter to your own personal preference.

 

[bicker]

Huh?

What didn't you understand? Summing it up: Well-established research has establishing that your assertion is without merit, and that people generally say what they think will best serve their preferences, rather than necessarily saying the truth about the actions that they would take.

Additionally, if people are such liars, why have any polls at all?

You're asking why critics would have a poll? Well, it would be to have some more FUD-laced propaganda to try to wrest control of the situation away from reasonable consideration and drive control toward mob mentality.

There are ways to craft polls so as to get people to reveal things that they wouldn't reveal, if it was clear their responses would drive certain reactions (to the poll). However, critics would just attack such polls, again falling back on such opportunism. If the polls can't support their efforts to derail what I called reasonable consideration, above, then the polls must be evil.

To be fair, such abuse goes on on all sides of polarized issues. There is little support for polls that don't support one side of an issue. That's why governing by poll is considered to be a bad thing.

An example of the Attitude-Behavior Gap may help make it clearer. A cable company surveys customers asking, "Would you pay $5 more for the same service you get now?" The vast majority of people would say, "No." Then the cable company raises prices $5 and keeps service the same. They lose a small minority of subscribers. How would you interpret that reality? It's easy: It's a manifestation of the Attitude-Behavior Gap. People answer what they believe will drive the reactions they want, rather than necessarily revealing the truth about their own behaviors.

 

[OceanAnnie]

What didn't you understand? Summing it up: Well-established research has establishing that your assertion is without merit, and that people generally say what they think will best serve their preferences, rather than necessarily saying the truth about the actions that they would take.

The, "..you often take the positions...", part. No big deal. It got my attention though.

You're asking why critics would have a poll? Well, it would be to have some more FUD-laced propaganda to try to wrest control of the situation away from reasonable consideration and drive control toward mob mentality.

There are ways to craft polls so as to get people to reveal things that they wouldn't reveal, if it was clear their responses would drive certain reactions (to the poll). However, critics would just attack such polls, again falling back on such opportunism. If the polls can't support their efforts to derail what I called reasonable consideration, above, then the polls must be evil.

To be fair, such abuse goes on on all sides of polarized issues. There is little support for polls that don't support one side of an issue. That's why governing by poll is considered to be a bad thing.

An example of the Attitude-Behavior Gap may help make it clearer. A cable company surveys customers asking, "Would you pay $5 more for the same service you get now?" The vast majority of people would say, "No." Then the cable company raises prices $5 and keeps service the same. They lose a small minority of subscribers. How would you interpret that reality? It's easy: It's a manifestation of the Attitude-Behavior Gap. People answer what they believe will drive the reactions they want, rather than necessarily revealing the truth about their own behaviors.

No, I was referring to polls in general. I'm not looking at it from a "critic's" perspective. A person can post a poll that is not biased even though they have an opinion.

The OP declined the poll anyway. Doesn't matter.

 

[JLTraveling]

Actually, that's the Isreali basis as well. They simply use a different procedure to determine the innocence of all passengers - live, trained personnel. Passengers need to arrive several hours prior to departure. Cars are subject to search. Every passenger is (may be - I don't feel like searching for the information again, but I've found and read it several times) interviewed intensively, and then may be questioned again by a different officer.

Then, if they're satisfied that your vehicle was safe and your responses and demeanor indicate you don't intend to do any harm on the flight or in the airport, you get to board the plane. I'm not sure how many Americans - impatient and self-important as we are - would tolerate that treatment, either.

No, that's not the Israeli basis at all. The Israeli basis is that it is not worth the time and effort screening the 99.9% of people who are innocent. They just have a much more efficient way of picking out those who are not innocent. The vast majority of people are only asked a couple of questions, in a perfectly friendly "how are you enjoying your trip" sort of way. Only those who pop for a potential risk (either from their responses or based on travel patterns) are interviewed more thoroughly. Of those, most are let go after a few more questions--is there a reasonable explanation for why you've been traveling extensively in enemy states and now want to board a plane in Israel? Cool, have fun! The tiny minority that doesn't have reasonable explanations for travel patterns or starts acting all weird is then subject to more invasive scrutiny. I hardly think you can compare a short, friendly conversation with a full body scan or enhanced pat down!

It is more than that. The principles of our society expressed through its institutions also came down on the side opposite your personal preference. Again, you're just trying to excuse putting your own personal preference -- not only over that of others -- but over what is the reflection of our society's overall determination through its duly authorized means for determining such things.

What a useless bunch of bunk! The TSA has NEVER been symbolic of the principles of our society. A shadow organization not created by democratic vote but forced upon us without option to be recalled. Checkpoints that as soon as we enter we are, in effect, detained with no probable cause, no legal counsel, no Miranda rights and no right to simply turn around and walk away. Agents that are accountable to no one. A formal complaint process that goes right back to the same agency that's detaining us in the first place. Sorry, but the TSA has not reflected anything resembling American principles since its inception, so your entire argument is useless.

Thanks for bringing that up... again we have a touchstone for the reason why the critics' perspective fails: The vast majority of Americans choose saving money over quality and reliability; why is it so surprising that they'll choose saving money over something like this. The critics try very hard to try to make these security measures sound dirty or evil, but they're simply not. That's just self-serving propaganda.

So if things were to be determined using reasonable consideration in light of the obligations and objectives placed on the agency and the government, etc., then (unsurprisingly) the current policy would be one very legitimate logical conclusion. It seem clear to me that the only way critics can prevail, instead, therefore, is to try to undermine reasonable consideration as the means of coming to a conclusion.

And your proof for this is, what, exactly? Just because it's "common knowledge" that Americans are cheap doesn't make it accurate.

What didn't you understand? Summing it up: Well-established research has establishing that your assertion is without merit, and that people generally say what they think will best serve their preferences, rather than necessarily saying the truth about the actions that they would take.

Well, clearly one of us was misinformed in school. I was taught exactly the opposite in both sociology and psychology courses at a well-respected university. I wonder why we learned such vastly different things?

An example may help make it clearer. A cable company surveys customers asking, "Would you pay $5 more for the same service you get now?" The vast majority of people would say, "No." Then the cable company raises prices $5 and keeps service the same. They lose a small minority of subscribers. How would you interpret that reality? It's easy: It's a manifestation of the Attitude-Behavior Gap. People answer what they believe will drive the reactions they want, rather than necessarily revealing the truth about their own behaviors.

Way to contradict yourself. In the post I quoted above, you claimed that Americans will not pay more, no matter what. In this post, you just claimed that they will, despite saying that they won't. So either people WON'T pay more for higher quality security, indicating that polls showing that they will are not accurate, or they WILL pay more, indicating that polls showing that they will ARE accurate. But you have just made the circular argument that they both will and won't, and it's all based on poll data.

 

[bicker]

The, "..you often take the positions...", part. No big deal. It got my attention though.

And truly not significant to the point I was making.

No, I was referring to polls in general. I'm not looking at it from a "critic's" perspective. A person can post a poll that is not biased even though they have an opinion.

First, I did say clearly that all sides of polarized issues do the same thing. Second, while a biased person can indeed post an unbiased poll, as I mentioned, the Attitude-Behavior Gap practically ensures that respondents will still seek to twist the poll toward advocating what they want, rather than describing what they actually would do. Indeed, it may be that the polls that have the most immunity from that are polls that are simply intended to gauge what people want to see happen.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Way to contradict yourself. In the post I quoted above, you claimed that Americans will not pay more, no matter what. In this post, you just claimed that they will, despite saying that they won't. So either people WON'T pay more for higher quality security, indicating that polls showing that they will are not accurate, or they WILL pay more, indicating that polls showing that they will ARE accurate. But you have just made the circular argument that they both will and won't, and it's all based on poll data.

How? People answer what they believe will drive the reactions they want:
Cable company: "Would you pay $5 more for the same service?"
Customers: "No!"
because they expect the result of the survey response will be that the cable company will not raise the price $5 while keeping the service the same.
Then the cable company raises the price with no change in service, and the vast majority of customers continue that service with the $5 increase. Responding to the survey in a certain way had no result on the final outcome. This demonstrates bicker's statement that people generally say what they think will best serve their preferences, rather than necessarily saying the truth about the actions that they would take. There's no valid reason to think the actual response to the current airport security screening would differ from any poll response in a similar manner.

 

[bicker]

What a useless bunch of bunk!

What an utterly pointless and meritless waste of space in the thread! If you have a cogent argument against what it posted then please post that, and please don't post silly, self-fulfilling exhortations.

The TSA has NEVER been symbolic of the principles of our society.

Says the person who wants people to believe that his/her personal preference is. Sorry, JL, but we are a civilized society. Your personal preference doesn't get to trump what our collective perspective has put in power. It gets factored in, just to its appropriate measure. I can understand if you're upset that it didn't override what the agency decided to do, but keeping our own personal preferences in perspective is essential.

A shadow organization not created by democratic vote but forced upon us without option to be recalled.

Good luck with that. Until then, your assertion is ridiculous. They are a duly-authorized agency of the duly-authorized government, and therefore their determination is a reflection of the co-mingling of perspectives of the nation - while your personal preference is not. Your preference is just yours; just like my preference is mine.

Your line of reasoning, which is used by many advocates of one thing or another, or even just of their own personal satisfaction, indicates the reason why people hate government so much, these days: Many Americans act like spoiled children, expecting that government will bend over and kowtow to their own personal preferences. That's not a reasonable expectation. Reasonable people disagree. There is no legitimacy to your implication that in such a case that your personal preference should prevail over someone else's. Instead, duly authorized reasonable consideration of the various perspectives prevails.

It seem clear to me that the only way critics can prevail, instead, therefore, is to try to undermine reasonable consideration as the means of coming to a conclusion.

And your proof for this is, what, exactly?

Now you're trying to tell me what is clear to me? Holy cow that's bold.

As it is, the duly authorized reasonable consideration came up against the critics. That's a very clear indicator that the critic's perspective is a failing perspective when given the light of reasonable consideration. And instead of participating within the duly authorized reasonable consideration just look at the media and you'll see very clear evidence that the critics are taking their case to the media instead, inciting people's emotions with FUD instead of acknowledging the entirety of the issue and outlining an alternative satisfies all the considerations better. Indeed, just look at this thread and you'll see that despite repeated invitations for those in this thread who support the critics to outline all the relevant obligations and objectives that the agency and the government must address, no one has done so. The only sound assumptions would be that either that they don't know (that's the "U" in FUD), or that they realize that outlining all those criteria would undercut the validity of the criticisms, since it would show the criticisms for how one-dimensional and inadequate they are (that's the "F").

Well, clearly one of us was misinformed in school.

Then it must be you.

I was taught exactly the opposite in both sociology and psychology courses at a well-respected university. I wonder why we learned such vastly different things?

I can only speculate that perhaps you heard what you wanted to hear. Do the research now - learn what you failed to learn before.

Way to contradict yourself. In the post I quoted above, you claimed that Americans will not pay more, no matter what.

Way to pervert what someone else wrote so as to have something easier to argue against.

What I indicated was that people tend to vote less for people who would increase their taxes. They'll also choose the lower cost supplier, regardless of other consideration. However, many people who said that they'd leave the country if taxes got raised are still here. Many people who said they'd drop cable if the price went up are still subscribing.

Now, before you pervert another post, so as to have something easier to argue against, be sure that you note that I used the word "many" - it would be analogous to what you've done in this case for you to turn around and reply to what I wrote here by claiming I said "no one" left the country because taxes went up, or that "no one" dropped cable because the price went up, when, of course, that's not what I wrote.

 

[JLTraveling]

What an utterly pointless and meritless waste of space in the thread! If you have a cogent argument against what it posted then please post that, and please don't post silly, self-fulfilling exhortations.

I'll post what I like, just as you'll post what you like. Sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but you do not in fact get to control what others post here.

Good luck with that. Until then, your assertion is ridiculous. They are a duly-authorized agency of the duly-authorized government, and therefore their determination is a reflection of the co-mingling of perspectives of the nation - while your personal preference is not. Your preference is just yours; just like my preference is mine.

No, their determination is nothing more than the co-mingling of the opinions of a lot of people (read, lobbyists) motivated by many factors that have nothing to do with the perspectives of the nation (read, money). The fact that you choose to have blind faith in them to do what's right by us does not in fact make us their primary concern at all.

Your line of reasoning, which is used by many advocates of one thing or another, or even just of their own personal satisfaction, indicates the reason why people hate government so much, these days: Many Americans act like spoiled children, expecting that government will bend over and kowtow to their own personal preferences. That's not a reasonable expectation. Reasonable people disagree. There is no legitimacy to your implication that in such a case that your personal preference should prevail over someone else's. Instead, duly authorized reasonable consideration of the various perspectives prevails.

And this is the same argument you and I have been having for at least 40 pages now. As soon as they present evidence of this duly authorized reasonable consideration, I will take a look at it. For now, there is no more proof that this was done in a legitimate effort to keep us safe than is that it was done for more nefarious reasons.

Now you're trying to tell me what is clear to me? Holy cow that's bold.

Not at all. I used the "quote" function to quote a post in which you stated what was clear to you. If you've changed your mind since making that post, I can hardly be held accountable for your changing whims.

As it is, the duly authorized reasonable consideration came up against the critics. That's a very clear indicator that the critic's perspective is a failing perspective when given the light of reasonable consideration.

Or a very clear indicator that the "duly authorized reasonable consideration" was neither reasonable nor considered. Just because you see it differently doesn't make your determination accurate.

The only sound assumptions would be that either that they don't know (that's the "U" in FUD), or that they realize that outlining all those criteria would undercut the validity of the criticisms, since it would show the criticisms for how one-dimensional and inadequate they are (that's the "F").

The only one-dimensional and inadequate argument here is the circular one you've been making for at least 40 pages, using quite a few words to say absolutely nothing.

Then it must be you. I can only speculate that perhaps you heard what you wanted to hear. Do the research now - learn what you failed to learn before.

My field is mental health. I can assure you that I am well-versed in all relevant research concerning human behavior. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.

Way to pervert what someone else wrote so as to have something easier to argue against.

What I indicated was that people tend to vote less for people who would increase their taxes. They'll also choose the lower cost supplier, regardless of other consideration. However, many people who said that they'd leave the country if taxes got raised are still here. Many people who said they'd drop cable if the price went up are still subscribing.

I perverted nothing. In one post you stated that we cannot use higher-dollar security measures because the American public won't stand for it. In another post, you stated that the American public will, in fact, tolerate higher prices in all goods and services. So which is it? We'll stop flying if the price goes up, or we'll keep flying if the price goes up?

Now, before you pervert another post, so as to have something easier to argue against, be sure that you note that I used the word "many" - it would be analogous to what you've done in this case for you to turn around and reply to what I wrote here by claiming I said "no one" left the country because taxes went up, or that "no one" dropped cable because the price went up, when, of course, that's not what I wrote.

Re-read this entire thread. Unlike you, I have never resorted to attacking someone's precise wording. I actually attack the issues.

 

[themilesfamily]

I think, what it comes down to for me is I don't believe that I should have to show my naked body or allow my genitals to be touched in order to travel freely about the country.

I'm also concerned that these scanners and patdowns are a placebo -- giving the illusion of making us safer -- but not really making us safer.

TSA agents have a high fail rate on patdowns. And the use of scanners has been discontinued by other countries because they've been found to be ineffective.

I think we're giving up too much for too little in return.

ETA: My other concern -- today these machines are in airports. Where will they show up next? Schools, my place of employment? There is a company making money off of these machines. They're going to look to expand their market.

 

[skater]

It's a great question, but luckily our society has a long-standing and well-established means of determining such things. That's my point: You're trying to assert your personal preference over that means of establishing collective preference.

It is more than that. The principles of our society expressed through its institutions also came down on the side opposite your personal preference. Again, you're just trying to excuse putting your own personal preference -- not only over that of others -- but over what is the reflection of our society's overall determination through its duly authorized means for determining such things.

It makes it better than imposing your personal preference over someone else's, based solely on it being your personal preference. There will always be disagreement. No one has the foundation to assert royal fiat, and reject what society does, whenever it suits them. If your preference was so venerated, as you claim, then it would have been reflected in society's determination. It wasn't.

According to this tactic you're supporting, you basically extol government when it agrees with you and say it has no authority when it disagrees with you.

None of this is true.

 

[skater]

I think the assertion that neither of those are the "middle ground" is a bit self-serving. Indeed, "other solution" may be the more extreme options. However, the important aspect of this is that assertion of this type are clever tactics used when critics don't like something. They raise the specter of the unknown to evoke doubt (and/or fear), when what I referred to earlier as reasonable consideration and society's duly authorized determination doesn't break their way.

Let's turn it around: If these other methods are better, then explain precisely why they weren't the conclusion of the reasonable consideration of the issue? You're again implicitly asserting wrong-doing, but without justification other than the conclusion that was arrived at ran counter to your own personal preference.

So, why do you think we need the new methods?

 

[skater]

No, that's not the Israeli basis at all. The Israeli basis is that it is not worth the time and effort screening the 99.9% of people who are innocent. They just have a much more efficient way of picking out those who are not innocent. The vast majority of people are only asked a couple of questions, in a perfectly friendly "how are you enjoying your trip" sort of way. Only those who pop for a potential risk (either from their responses or based on travel patterns) are interviewed more thoroughly. Of those, most are let go after a few more questions--is there a reasonable explanation for why you've been traveling extensively in enemy states and now want to board a plane in Israel? Cool, have fun! The tiny minority that doesn't have reasonable explanations for travel patterns or starts acting all weird is then subject to more invasive scrutiny. I hardly think you can compare a short, friendly conversation with a full body scan or enhanced pat down!



What a useless bunch of bunk! The TSA has NEVER been symbolic of the principles of our society. A shadow organization not created by democratic vote but forced upon us without option to be recalled. Checkpoints that as soon as we enter we are, in effect, detained with no probable cause, no legal counsel, no Miranda rights and no right to simply turn around and walk away. Agents that are accountable to no one. A formal complaint process that goes right back to the same agency that's detaining us in the first place. Sorry, but the TSA has not reflected anything resembling American principles since its inception, so your entire argument is useless.



And your proof for this is, what, exactly? Just because it's "common knowledge" that Americans are cheap doesn't make it accurate.



Well, clearly one of us was misinformed in school. I was taught exactly the opposite in both sociology and psychology courses at a well-respected university. I wonder why we learned such vastly different things?



Way to contradict yourself. In the post I quoted above, you claimed that Americans will not pay more, no matter what. In this post, you just claimed that they will, despite saying that they won't. So either people WON'T pay more for higher quality security, indicating that polls showing that they will are not accurate, or they WILL pay more, indicating that polls showing that they will ARE accurate. But you have just made the circular argument that they both will and won't, and it's all based on poll data.

I love you JLTraveling . I especially love the stuff about the tsa. Its my opinions stated in a way I couldn't do today (too tired ).

 

[kaytieeldr]

TSA agents have a high fail rate on patdowns.

Source? Not arguing, asking. I know they miss things in luggage, but I wasn't aware of a high fail rate with patdowns. If this has been the case, perhaps the new front-hand patdowns will provide better results.

 

[npcougar]

I actually feel kind of sorry for the TSA agents. Next time you are in line look at the people around you. Lots of old, stinky, disheveled people. I know that would be a major turn on to grope them. What percent of Americans are obese? I'm sure they are awesome to look at "nude." Seriously, how many people really think someone would get turned on looking at your x-ray or doing a pat down on you. My wife wouldn't even want to do those things to me.