In a recent essay, called “In Defense of Profiling,” Sam Harris defends profiling. The basic idea is sound, even though he’s gotten some opposition. You look at some person and figure “Oh, that person is very unlikely to be a terrorist” based on some model or another, and ignore them. Then you look at another person and you go “Oh, that person is much more likely to be a terrorist … better check ‘em out” and so on. If your concept of what makes a person more likely a terrorist is correct, then you will have a better chance of catching a terrorist, and it will take fewer resources to do so.
What do Bigfoot, Aliens and Sex have in common?
Tags9/11 Activism archaeology Atheism Bachmann Bad Cops Charles Darwin Church State Separation Clean Energy Climate Change creationism Death Penalty Denialism denialism Education Election 2012 Energy evolution Feminism Firearms Gay marriage Gingrich GLBTA Global Warming gun control gun ownership Linux Occupy Wall Street Politics Protest Race and Racism Rebeccapocalypse Rebecca Watson Religion Republicans Romney Same Sex Marriage Santorum Sexism Skepticism Tea Party Trayvon Martin troy davis War on Christmas weblogue