Spread of Body Cameras

A couple of weeks ago, I published Sound Familiar? pointing out that spotting trends is not difficult with a little bit of critical thinking and imagination.  So autonomous cars lead to autonomous trucks or robotic taxicabs or mail delivery.

In this case I was thinking about body cameras as two people on TV discussed how to clarify when police were using appropriate force.  This should be much more reliable than cellphone video that may capture only part of the exchange or even eyewitnesses whose memory often reflects their own prejudices.

But it’s not that straightforward, as one source tells us.  “The implementation of body-worn cameras has gained increased attention and use among law enforcement professionals, who use them for functions such as obtaining evidence during investigations, promoting officer safety, and improving law enforcement community relations, and accountability. Police body-worn cameras present novel legal and policy questions.”  These include questions of constitutionality, especially regarding privacy.

In another case, there seems to be a problem of the novelty wearing off.  “D.C. police officers wearing body cameras reported using force about as often as colleagues who didn’t have them, and citizen complaints against the two groups were about even, according to a new study that bucks early expectations about the impact of the devices.”  The report found this surprising, but considering that they had them for more than three years, the initial feeling of someone always watching, on both sides of the badge, can easily erode.  Think about reality shows or the people who volunteer to have cameras in their houses.  Before long they start behaving as if the cameras weren’t there.

Another problem is that the cameras cannot be always on.  Omaha is working with a company that sells a device to activate the camera automatically when officers draw their weapons or stun guns.  Ordinarily they “are on standby mode until an officer presses a button twice to activate it. It then will record audio and video — including video from the previous 30 seconds.”  But when acting in self-defense or in immediate emergencies, drawing the firearm take precedence over activating the camera.

Just the same, other cities, the later adapters, continue to buy the equipment.  For example, a headline reads, “Peoria police officers to widely use body cameras by spring [of 2018].”

This brings me to my projection.  Where will this lead?  With so many cases in the news of sexual assault and other altercations, cases where it’s often one person’s or one group’s word against another, how long before more and more people begin wearing some sort of recording device on a regular basis?  Look how far cell phones have come in the last decade.  Millions of people carry more computer power in their pocket today than was packed into the entire Cassini spacecraft that just dove into the planet Saturn after a twenty-year mission.  

So how long will it be until vendors start selling designer body cameras for self-defense and entertainment?  We already have sports cameras selling for less than $100 – wear it on your forehead to capture the thrills of skiing or snowboarding.  Other more expensive versions are less than half the size of a smart phone.  Some non-law enforcement folks have dash-cams mounted in their cars.  In the not-too-distant future we’ll be buying broaches and other jewelry with cameras and everyone will want one.  It will be like the old spy-movie spoofs, “Please repeat that into this button.”  Imagine the constitutional and privacy questions then!

To Your Health!

We live in an age of miracles.  This is the tenth anniversary of the iPhone.  Imagine taking a walk in the park and seeing a dark cloud on the horizon.  What do you do?  You take out your telephone and get the current weather radar from the Internet to see if rain is coming your way and it’s time to head for the parking lot.  Ten years ago this would have been impossible; twenty-five years ago, unbelievable; today it’s a logical course of action.

Ten years ago Facebook was in its infancy, and today almost a billion people are in touch with relatives, and can enjoy pictures of vacations or concerts others are attending, even as it happens.  The downside is that we get to fight with friends and strangers about politics, we waste time seeing what others ordered at the restaurant, as more people take and post pictures of victims of tragedies than attempt to assist.  And today Twitter seems to be supplanting Facebook in popularity.  Nonetheless, the whole social network scene is miraculous if seen from the eyes of someone living in the year 2000 – so recently!  And we take it all for granted.

Today people talk of self-driving cars and trucks as a near-term reality.  Amazon toys with the idea of drone deliveries.  Robots cook pizzas in California.  With all these technological marvels it’s no wonder that we have come to expect miracles in all the other aspects of our lives.

This came to mind a couple of days ago when the “health news break” revealed advice from Harvard on how to boost your immune system.  I could not find the exact reference, but this one gives a good summary of the same information:

• Don't smoke.
• Eat a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in saturated fat.
• Exercise regularly.
• Maintain a healthy weight.
• Control your blood pressure.
• If you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation.
• Get adequate sleep.
• Take steps to avoid infection, such as washing your hands frequently and cooking meats thoroughly.
• Get regular medical screening tests for people in your age group and risk category.
• (The only thing missing is to get a flu shot.)

Upon hearing this, my wife said, “That’s not news.”  Indeed, it’s not.  In fact the article where I found the above information is over 3 years old – and it wasn’t news then!

This is simple, straightforward stuff that our grandmother could have told us, but still we yearn for the miracles, because this is basic, but difficult for many people.  Typical of many other discipline issues, such as retirement savings, we must do the same things over and over and do them well to enjoy favorable outcomes.

So it’s not surprising that even a reputable organization like the New York Times reports health tricks and secrets, like how being in a good mood might make your flu shot more effective.  It was based on post hoc analysis of a single observational study of 138 people, which isn’t even scientifically valid.  (Note:  A post hoc analysis means looking at all the data and seeing if any relationships at all can be found.)  Coincidental, not causal, relationships are common.  This was the method used in the intentionally misleading “Eating Chocolate Causes Weight Loss” study.

There are miracles in medicine as well, but there is nothing like Moore’s Law (the doubling of chip speed every couple of years) in medicine or in personal wellness.   And the purveyors of health tricks and secrets are more interested in your attention or your money than in your wellbeing.

Have a Correct Halloween

Speaking of tolerance, as I did last time, along comes news of offensive Halloween costumes.  They are not offensive in themselves, but have been declared offensive by various groups of teachers and other authorities.

As we learn here, “From first-graders to college seniors, schools are cracking down on a wide swath of Halloween costumes.”  The list of banned costumes is long and varied.  Anything considered controversial is disallowed.  Some elementary schools have cancelled Halloween in favor of an “orange and black” celebration with no costumes involved.

The schools are walking on eggshells prohibiting any dress that can be considered racist by anyone!  Superhero costumes are discouraged for violence or carrying pretend weapons.  “Tufts University last year threatened investigations by campus police against any student whose costume was deemed offensive, especially if the outfit is thought to be culturally appropriated or ‘relating to tragedy, controversy, or acts of violence.’”  Imagine being detained or arrested for your choice of costume based on one administrator's hypersensitivity!

Halloween is a big holiday.  Last year spending on candy, costumes and decorations was projected to be $9.1 billion in 2017.  But maybe the fun is coming to an end.

The only fun left seems to be trying to guess what is acceptable and what will get you sent home, or worse.  Based on the vague guidelines one writer opined that students are “presumably restricted from dressing up as samurais, hombres, geishas, belly dancers, Vikings, ninjas, rajas, French maids, Bollywood dancers, Rastafarians, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Zorro, or Thor.”  The list goes on.  It reminds me of the story about magician Penn Jillette going to his daughter’s preschool party dressed as a ghost and suddenly realizing he might be mistaken for a Klansman.

“The company HalloweenCostumes.com recently pulled an outfit of Holocaust victim Anne Frank from its website after it was hit with a slew of criticism.”  Personally, I wouldn’t recognize an Anne Frank costume if I saw it, but someone objected.  Clowns are out, because of recent creepy-clown incidents.  A hobo was a favorite years ago, but it could be interpreted as disrespecting the homeless.

Remember from last time:  It’s more acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils down to the same thing.  What one person thinks is cute or funny, can be banned by a single complaint.  What’s worse is that the “injured party” is free to go on social media to try to exact revenge by destroying a reputation or a business or even indirectly calling for violence.

The reaction to this by schools is understandable.  They too are required to guess what a single person might find objectionable and do “everything possible” to avoid it.  (These are the institutions with zero tolerance policies.)

Think of how well off one has to be, how unconcerned with survival, how sheltered from conflict, to let someone else’s choice of a Halloween costume for a day out of the year cause such upset as to drive that person to complain!  But being offended and complaining is the new national pastime.  Some are so needy that they will be offended on behalf of a group they don’t even belong to.  Where is the perspective?  Where does the insanity end?

Compassion and Tolerance (continued)

Last time I wrote about how the terms compassion and tolerance are often used, even in academic circles, without sufficient regard for clear definitions.  It’s the old “I know it when I see it” approach.  I explained how compassion is a tricky concept.  Just seeing someone with difficulty and automatically lending assistance may provide satisfaction to the helper while being a disservice to the one with the problem.

Now I will look at tolerance the same way.  Again, it’s impossible to see into the mind, so the only evidence we have of another’s tolerance is observed behaviors that fit a clear definition.  Tolerance is usually defined as a willingness to tolerate opinions or behaviors one does not necessarily agree with.

Ideally, everyone would be tolerant of any opinion or action that does not cause a direct threat to one’s personal safety and wellbeing.  Let speakers speak on any subject to anyone interested in listening.  Let demonstrators demonstrate peacefully without disrupting the lives of others.  Let people marry anyone they want to.  Let people take the drugs to cure disease or just to feel better, e.g. pain relievers, caffeine, heroin.

The only exception should be for direct responsibility:  parents for children, teachers for students, military leaders for their troops, etc.  But this gets tricky in a couple of ways.  In a society where everyone’s medical costs become everyone else’s responsibility because of insurance, perhaps your health habits should be everyone else’s business.  But in this area we tend to pick and choose.  Smokers are shunned, but to scorn or shame the overweight is seen as rude and insensitive.  Alcohol is acceptable in moderation, but recreational drugs are illegal.

Also, for Christians, Jews and even Muslims there is that pesky chapter in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel where the Lord orders everyone to step in to keep your neighbor from sinning or you will suffer the same punishment.  It concludes in Chapter 3, verse 21:  “But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”  Based on that premise, some opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, are not haters at all.  They genuinely care about the salvation of others and themselves.  (I warned it would get tricky.)

It seems tolerance must be narrowed down to make any sense.  A reasonable starting place is the current commotion over freedom of speech where college students and others on both political extremes heckle, shout down and even riot to keep speakers from delivering their message.  It’s a safe bet that these people have not been inspired by reading Ezekiel nor are they doing it out of concern about their health insurance premiums.  Instead they seem to feel that allowing contrary opinions is immoral, dangerous, or offensive.  They imply by their actions that everyone else is too stupid or ignorant to resist the lure of a faulty or insidious argument, so they must step in to silence the messenger.  Apparently, the alternative of answering ideas with ideas is passé.  The default becomes shouting accusations of being evil – either fascist or communist.  If anyone needs an example of a critical thinking disaster, this is it.

A more passive way to shut people up is to claim their opinions are offensive.  It’s more acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils down to the same thing.

If we can’t even agree on something as basic as freedom of speech, that tolerance we all seem to cherish ends up in practice being tolerance only for what we deem appropriate.  We have little tolerance for those intolerant people who don’t agree.

When concepts like compassion and tolerance are promoted as worthy goals, people tend to nod in agreement.  Deeper thought shows that the two are not as straightforward as they appear.  There is a lot of room for discussion and many instances for honest disagreement.  When clearly defined, compassion and tolerance are probably good things, but both require a degree of moderation and a less cavalier acceptance of vague, unexamined notions.

Whenever we try to peer into the minds of others to find compassion or tolerance, or for that matter, economic understanding, discipline, responsibility, critical thinking, and perspective, the only way to get there is through observation and interpretation of behavior based on clear definitions or examples.  That is why I have posted 670 (and counting) explanations and examples to foster agreement about what we are looking for in the five key dimensions and the dangerous consequences of not finding it.

Compassion and Tolerance

One of the purposes (or maybe just a side effect) of my writing is to inspire readers to investigate or to think about the world in a slightly different way.  The entry last week about mindfulness and focus seems to have done the trick in at least one case.

I received an email with several embedded links and the conclusion:  “It is interesting that longer and deeper thinking tends to lead people to more compassionate and tolerant approaches.”  I dug deeper and began to think that ideas like this that we take for granted are not so simple.

The words compassion and tolerance have become very popular.  At least a couple research organizations are on a campaign to convince as many as possible that these two mental attitudes will combine to yield a more successful future for the world.  We need more, and mindfulness training for adults and children may be the key.

I am inclined to ask:  How do we measure compassion and tolerance, and more important, what are they?

Whenever I see words like more or better, I believe some measurement must be involved.  Finding metrics for mental activity can be deceptive.  Self-reporting is always suspect.  One way to identify compassion is to observe some behavior and label it compassionate, but such classification is impossible without a clear definition.  Someone must define what behaviors demonstrate compassion.  How do we know it when we see it?  As researchers report more positive brain scans on compassionate people, they still must have a definition that distinguishes compassion from other traits.  The same goes for tolerance.

The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education operating at Stanford says, “Compassion unfolds in response to suffering,” recognizing it, feeling empathy and concern, which “motivates us to take action, and help relieve that suffering.”  They promote compassion by saying, “With compassion, our empathy for the suffering of others can give rise to altruism – bringing immediate and long-term happiness and tranquillity [sic] to our lives.”  (But technically, if we are motivated to do it by the good feelings it gives us, that’s hardly altruism.)  A simple dictionary definition of compassion is concern for the suffering of others.  But, since no one can go into people’s head and actually see it, they must infer this concern from observing behavior – she did or said this or that, therefore, she is compassionate.  Then they can observe and classify the brain scans.

But here’s where it gets tricky.  When others are suffering, is it always wise or proper to step in and “take action, and help relieve that suffering”?  Is that always the best solution?  Sometimes suffering is the result of bad luck or natural disaster or birth defect, but sometimes suffering is the direct result of the action or inaction of the individual.

Behavior has consequences.  The purpose of those consequences is to encourage or discourage similar behavior.  In bowling, the feedback comes from the number of pins knocked down.  If you get a strike, try to do the same thing again.  If you get a gutter ball, make a change.  A coach can work with the bowler on technique and equipment as long as the bowler is dedicated to improving.  If the bowler is not interested and expects the coach to do the bowling for him, the consequences have failed; any lesson is lost.  If the bowler decides on a course of action that results in him being unable to roll the ball, no coaching will help.

Likewise in life, immoderate compassion, the taking action to relieve the suffering when the suffering is self-inflicted, crosses the line from aiding to enabling.  Yet so many people are motivated by that “happiness and tranquility” that it brings to our lives and fail to see the long term damage it does to others and to society.

Parents who give in to a child’s every desire or step in to solve every problem are not being compassionate, even as they believe they are recognizing suffering and taking action to relieve it.  They are robbing the child of valuable lessons on how to survive as an unselfish, responsible grownup.  Likewise a society that steps in to assist all adults who appear to be suffering regardless of the source of the suffering are, in some cases, negating the consequences (lessons) of poor decisions, encouraging a continuation of that behavior and possibly contaminating others.

Bad things happen when we get carried away by our emotions and our caring but are still rewarded by those feelings of happiness and tranquility.  It’s called unintended consequences. Compassion requires care as well as caring.

And what of tolerance:  The willingness to tolerate opinions or behaviors one does not necessarily agree with?  This too is difficult and will be taken up next time.