There is a huge argument over screening/banning immigrants from Syria or Muslim immigrants. Profiling is basically what actuaries do - but it is called rate setting or something like that.
If you were to look at the data and take the emotion out - who would be charged the highest "violence" premium? If the data shows there is an outlier group - then I think that is where the debate should begin.
Seems like males who are fundamentalist of any religion would be the threat. Of course - you would be making the argument that past history isn't forward looking enough. So how would you predict new threats? Leading indicators? What would those be? Countries we are bombing?
That might suggest that instead of screening for countries we are bombing - maybe we quit bombing other countries? Correlation vs Causation?
If you were to look at the data and take the emotion out - who would be charged the highest "violence" premium? If the data shows there is an outlier group - then I think that is where the debate should begin.
Seems like males who are fundamentalist of any religion would be the threat. Of course - you would be making the argument that past history isn't forward looking enough. So how would you predict new threats? Leading indicators? What would those be? Countries we are bombing?
That might suggest that instead of screening for countries we are bombing - maybe we quit bombing other countries? Correlation vs Causation?
Profiling immigrants