Can TYT Try to Improve Their Research?

[vanidackp]

While I appreciate that TYT is a progressive media outlet we never had before, at times I still find it dissapointing that TYT does not do better research, and as such TYT is prone to buying into misleading propaganda, or making poorly informed takes on subjects.

Take TYT’s video “D.C. Councilmember Takes DRASTIC Step To Curb Violent Crime”, TYT does not qualify the fact that violent crime is a very complex issue, and TYT never really goes into any analysis of the three factors claimed to contribute to D.C.'s rising violent crime rate.

While Cenk does address that the cuts to police funding were not really cuts, such a time would have been perfect to mention that there is no correlation between year-to-year police spending and crime rates (crime, complex issue). Furthermore, when Cenk disccussed lack of prosecution, such a time would have been perfect to bring up mass incarceration, and the societal problems associated with mass incarceration. This leads perfectly into the factor of recidivism, allowing you to point out that while mass incarceration initially reduced recividism, the gains were small, especially compared to the economic and socioeconomic costs of mass incarceration. Instead of just throwing out the bare minimum about some random things that might reduce recividism, you could have then discussed how incarceration rates do not correlate with reduction in recidivism, education reduces recidivism, and that research indicates rehabilitation programs instead of prisons may be a more effective way to reduce recidivism.

Though I understand that discussing violent crime is a complex issue, I think your audience is smart enough to handle it, and you could have touched upon the factors that correlate to increased crime rates (to varying degrees), such as income inequality, poverty combined with other factors, criminal inertia, race or ethnicity, the stresses of the initial phases of rapid urbanization and industrialization, economic prosperity and decline, changes in the demographic structure, etc. At some point, we need to discuss that when we are actually able to start addressing violent crime in a meaningful way, criminal inertia means there it will always take time before effective measures start to make a difference.

Also, do not forget about firearms, because although firearm availability does not correlate with the increase of violent crimes, firearm availability and economic disadvantage does correlate with the increase of violent crimes, and firearm availability correlates with the increase of violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm and national homicide rates. Again, violent crime, a complex issue.

Do not forget, if we actually read the available research, we can start to see many ways to start to begin to address violent crime.

While it is not always easy to articulate how to specifically address violent crime, we can look to current and ongoing research to paint an overall picture. Essentially, democracies with decent political rights and civil liberties tend to have lower rates of violent crime. Transitional democracies, transitioning from a strong autocracy without forming a strong democracy, have the highest violent crime rates of any governmental system. While it is too early to determine that the trend for authoritarian politicians and state governments to transition the U.S.A. towards fascism and authoritarianism will incentivize violent crime in the same way, we should still bring it up and have that conversation.

It is high time that we start to recognize how we form, organize, and regulate our governmental authorities have the greatest impacts towards addressing inequality, ethnocentrism, gender disparities, lack of basic needs, accessible education, accessible justice, accessible healthcare, socioeconomic development, and sustainability. It is almost like if we incentivize people to be self-interested (economic theory), then a significant number of the population (the status quo) sacrifice all else (become destroyers) to attain their self interests. If however, we incentivize the socioeconomic health of all, than the majority of people will temper the excesses of the self interested, without depriving them the right to pursue their self-interest. Violent crime in a society is not about what we do, but who we are.

It is not only by how we form our societies that can make a difference, and as an example, if we look at the study “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy” by ROBERT J. SAMPSON, STEPHEN W. RAUDENBUSH, AND FELTON EARLS, the authors hypothesize that “Associations of concentrated disadvantage and residential instability with violence are largely mediated by collective efficacy.”

“A concentrated disadvantage is a sociological term for neighborhoods with high percentages of residents of low socioeconomic status.” - Wikipedia
“Collective efficacy refers to the ability of members of a community to control the behavior of individuals and groups in the community.” - Wikipedia

It is almost as if we give agency to our nation’s citizens, and incentivize them to prioritize the socioeconomic health of all, we create better, more equitable societies. We, as societies, also really need to have a serious discussion about the importance of how we form, organize, and regulate our societies. If we do not do that, then in addition to having to overcome social inertia AND the status quo, we also have to get people to turn against their socioeconomic interests. Imagine telling someone “Ok, do not worry about your job, ability to put a roof over your head (including utilities), or whether you can clothe, feed, and care for you and your loved ones, I need you to help me overcome our society’s resistance to change (social inertia) and overthrow the status quo.”

My final thought. I suppose it is possible that you are “dumbing it down” for your audience, and if so, I think you are doing your audience a great disservice. I might not be correct about everything I discussed, as I only took a few hours to research what I wanted to say, but I definately think you can do better that what I did in a couple hours. As such, I feel you cannot swing around the qualifier “progressive” if you are not willing to get at the meat and potatoes of the issues you decide to cover.

[enduser]

I think the thrust of your argument is well received from my point of view. I really appreciate the well balanced form of the arguments.

I will address it micro sense and work outward.

The first problem is ancillary but worth mentioning. It is a basic overhead problem. I have been very close to the news a couple times. I will say each time there were massive inaccuracies in the articles produced.

They were generated from two channels of error. Dunning Kruger, the reporter was well read and knew related disciplines, but didn’t have practical knowledge. The lack of practical knowledge wasn’t accounted for in the research therefore they published without proper due diligence.
The other errors were generated due to the fact they missed information that would change framing of the article. This was likely not on purpose in the case I reference, however I am sure there are bad actors.

This point is summed up by saying news companies have to deploy resources against the current news meta. They then triage due diligence. So they will always miss stuff, and be incorrect.

So the issue your addressing is the a discourse issue. In the past the community would discuss, come to conclusions, or consensus collectively. That network has been ripped apart in the current political meta post Trump.

The problem everyone seems to not parse is at its root in the Stanford prison experiment. Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia
The colloquialism is absolute power corrupts absolutely. So can laws work if that is true? So it would appear they attempt to account for this. In essence the laws don’t really matter so much as the interpretation of the law. This then leads us to was based in something called a judicial philosophy, this in part includes conclusions one will draw from the history of decisions by courts. This is impossible due to the fact that the law allows for framing arguments in historical context. This means all arguments devolve in to framing at there roots.

This may sound like a departure but I think the best analog is actually found in game theory. This in game theory is known as NP hard (NP-hardness - Wikipedia). Which is to say that at a point in a game or rule set you create an envelope of operability. This polynomial solution and problem will consist of complex arguments that related to each other. Put in a simple terms the envelope will have the capacity for the solution and the problem to coexist, not to say the are the same thing. I think this is a simple explanation in math of a meta.

With that said so what? While the law doesn’t create a perfect envelope, the fact that it endlessly builds itself. This means it creates pockets of envelopes think bubbles in water. These pockets create a network of exploitations that allows the tendrils of society to actuate them. This then in turn allows for gaming by all parties. In fact I would submit lawyers are professional gamers of sorts. If you please the establishment enough, you are likely to become a judge. More criminal attorneys become judges than people would likely believe. Cenk mentions it, withholding exculpatory evidence is a common mode this takes. To save many the search that means evidence that supports innocence by a prosecutor.

What underlies this are the absolute power arguments. Thus the relevance of Stanford prison experiment.

This is the evolution of the idea of suing. To the ancient Greeks and in the ethos of the law today legal council are supposed to support each others arguments. Meaning the adversarialism is met with the constant dyadic idea of togetherness and common good. This is why most don’t understand Plato’s Republics those dialogs were often during a wrestling bouts. This was to show the unity in purpose and not escalation of aggression. A certain dyadic with triangulation was supported here. It wasn’t MMA title fight more like a sparing match. This is also when you read The Apology by Plato, it is so damming of us as a society.

I am sour over this spilled milk.

This is to say what we need is a system that is built as a bulwark to these problems but not through law. Rather through systematic resonance or a field of rational actors. To be clear this system will fail, and that failure should be accounted for as much as possible. The control should be systemic, more of a balance of judgment rather then enforcement of laws.

Evolution of opinions are ways to observe the form of law.

Can we be balanced or more complex with our heuristics while directly pairing with a wider philosophy, proper? I think so, through a antifragile philosophy in both wisdom, framing, and engineering.

In short the same problem in sciences is pervasive in the law. The game always revolves around reputational integrity and not the arguments themselves. This was the thrust of Plato’s works or Socratic logic. In my experience philosophy is the most disrespected discipline. It would seem we have a lot in common with ancient Greece. If you don’t take the time to understand it you must be castigated. This projection of greed around power is the heart of the absolute power arguments.

This is the major thrust of many posts now. They are the same or in a dyadic relationship. So if that is then given lets talk problem and solution of society.

Problem:

Video Games: Politicians took credit for a big reduction of crime in the 90’s. This was clearly due in part to video games and gaming systems. Young men must be engaged. They have huge amounts of energy, lack philosophy, and are highly competitive. If we don’t harness them, as well as help them to be better people. We collectively share fault for allowing them to be easily misguided.

Poverty: Obviously these corelate to some degree but what is less talked about is, lack of imagination. We also don’t talk about contagious thoughts.

Two mindsets that come from capitalisms as a philosophy, one is scarcity mania the other is the abundance fixation.

The rich see opportunity everywhere because it is. Really when you have access to the economy there are many things you could do. They fixate on the opportunity and then chastise others for not taking it.

The other would be scarcity mania which is to say when you think you need something you don’t really need. I am not sure this needs explanation.

Communities: We used to have things called rotary clubs and halls. These acted as a social forum to consensus build for men. Feminine centric personalities naturally consensus build, and masculine centric personalities don’t. We now have confused our identity with the set of data we believe. So everything becomes political even down to the devices you buy. In fact we are at war with Appleistas!

We need consensus building 2.0 which I think will be my next post.

Justice system: The problem is huge and I think we must resolve this by a complete overhaul, system replacement. I don’t think we ditch everything, but it cannot be moved to work in my opinion. I think we should be focused on prevention and not cure. Does this sound familiar? If you instill a philosophy in young people they will be less destructive as a whole. The other piece is fulfillment, like you stated there is recognition that your in a trap. Maybe a gilded cage of sorts? Fulfillment comes from a path your intuition seeks, if your in a cage there is no path.

Economy: Wealth hording, lack of upward mobility, and banking ethics are treated like toilet paper. Another problem entirely is the lack of understanding of the average poverty globally. Do you want to cry? I suggest you look up Indigo Traveler on YouTube his recent travels to Haiti, or in fact really any of them. If you are not screaming at US government over Haiti you’re ignorant or you have no soul.

Critical path: This is my attempt at a start. I must say no much help really but I just started it: I propose a Dragon Pact to help our Dragon Daddy - #3 by enduser

The next step and the step that needs to happen for a political run from Cenk, is a command and control layer. With group decision making and resource allocation. That seems to be MVS (minimum viable system).

We need a HUD of sorts, this in its most basic form isn’t actually that so much as at its heart it is a wheel or ram pump, and it may mature into a embryo. I purpose a way of team lobbying like a forum but with a form for project lobbying. I have details I will post here maybe tonight or tomorrow.

This is so much information, I think I need to parcel it out

[Galphar]

What you are describing is more of a “Deep Dive” on the issue than they usually have time to do on the shows. Every Wednesday Ana does dive a little deeper into some stories and give more nuanced takes on them. Something like what you are asking for would take the ENTIRE 2 hr show and maybe the Bonus Episode to do.