Applied Freakonomics
August 9th, 2007 | by Craig |Over at Missoulapolis, Carol is hacked off at Steven Leavitt’s blog entry at the NYT, entitled, “If You Were A Terrorist, How Would You Attack?
Carol is not alone, the comments in the entry are full of people who feel the same way. I’ve read and heard other commentators who are in high dudgeon, as well.
I’ve read Freakonomics twice now, and I’m fairly certain that Leavitt’s tone in this piece is anything but flippant. He’s a serious student of human behavior, and very good at sifting through mounds of data.
I doubt that there is anyone who will disagree that a large part of the failure behind 9/11 is the famous “failure of imagination.” Or, you could argue that perhaps the terrorists were inspired by Tom Clancy’s “Debt of Honor.” If we can think of it, they can think of it. If they know we’re thinking about it, maybe they’ll be less inclined to try it out.
Personally, I can’t bring myself to get too wound up about this. If we’re thinking and talking about potential attack vectors, then we’ll also be talking about how to prevent (or, at worst, mitigate) any future attacks. Forewarned is forearmed as someone much wiser than I has pointed out.
I mean, do you think you’ll find this type of frank discussion at ready.gov?
6 Responses to “Applied Freakonomics”
By carol on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
First, why now? It’s been 6 years since 9/11 and now he indulges in this intellectual exercise publicly? Did he just now come out from his personal fallout shelter? It’s rather weird timing. Not that the threat has gone away.
Second, who hasn’t thought about this privately, what thing would truly be scary. Yeah pick out a small town then everyone would realize no place was really safe. Because no place really is. We could drive ourselves crazy thinking about all the things they could do.
Third, I’m not one of those who think terrorists are all-seeing, all-knowing, have already thought of everything there is to think of. I think terrorists, AQ franchisees and wannabes are always open to suggestion. There’s always the chance one will think, hey I never thought of that.
Fourth, so much of this speculation has gone on in news stories already - like gee, how come they don’t come through in containers with dirty bombs - hey what’s the hangup here? That sort of media idea-mongering has been going on forever.
Fifth, although all the above may seem silly, altogether it just seems to be in bad taste. Those were real people jumping off those buildings. I can remember how it was. I can remember when even liberals were suggesting torture to prevent it from happening again.
Sixth, I’m not that hacked off. I just think he’s a twit, like a commenter said.
Somewhere above there must be a good rationale! Heh.
By McGehee on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
My reply, which certainly will not be posted, went:
“I’d start by publishing sensitive national security information.”
By McGehee on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
…it being the New York Times, after all…
By Craig on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
Heh. But when the NYT does it, it’s principled journalism, yeah?
By Wulfgar on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
For what it’s worth from a DFHippie like me, Craig, I think you’re right on the money. The biggest, hugest, most arrogant mistake we’ve made in the last 6 years is thinking that “we knew more”. Somehow, we’re all that and a bag of chips smarter than people who are really seriously plotting our demise.
I mean really, they’re smart enough to manipulate our PR (oh wait, that’s the MSM that loves them so, and Democrats obviously) but they can’t figure out the holes in our defenses? Our enemy is not stupid, and they’ve been handed every reason to think that we are. The White house notwithstanding, I don’t think we are stupid. So why not show that every once in a while?
After the VTech horror, I took some flack because I suggested that the only thing a mass-murderer has that a defender doesn’t is initiative. (How can you say That!?! If every person on the campus had been armed only one or two would have died! Whoops…) It’s the same with terrorists. They have the initiative … unless we take it away by positing what they will do, and preparing for it.
By Craig on Aug 9, 2007 | Reply
OK, one by one:
1.) Why *not* now? The threat hasn’t gone away, and I suspect that the government agencies are as inept now as they were 6 years ago.
2.) Sure, you can drive yourself nuts thinking about various scenarios, but some are going to be far more plausible than others.
3.) Then we should probably stop publishing novels about terrorist acts as well.
4.) Yes, but not by Levitt. I’ll bet he follows up with something pretty dang interesting.
5.) I remember it vividly as well, and I think that any means at our disposal to prevent its recurrence is worth taking up.
6.) I disagree. I think he’s one of the more innovative thinkers around today. His follow-up should be interesting reading.