Profiling and Science

A problem with profiling is that not only is it intuitive, it is a part of our general lives, from internet advertising to insurance rates. One bad experience in a chain restaurant invalidates them all. In a crucial situation, always pitch a left-handed pitcher to a left-handed batter. In the Spelling Bee, bet the immigrants' kid. A white policeman shoots and unarmed black child; we generalize that this implies bigotry in other policemen.

 

We are always making generalizations and they may not hold up to scientific scrutiny but there is something in us that wants to generalize. This is not simply the xenophobia of the tribe, the fear of "The Other." Our brain seems to want to protect us from making a decision at every moment, to shield us from the assault of information and sensations that bombard us. But that does not invalidate the basic truths: Sometimes the generalities are simply scientifically wrong. More importantly, often the individual will escape the general. Left-hander power pitcher Tony Watson is terrific against left-handers but even better against righties.

 

On the other hand, we are desperate for a neutral world; we want to be taken for what we really are--or aspire to be. Everything must be evenhanded. We are polite to creationists and accepting of the most meaningless art. There was once a conscious social--and scientific--effort to democratize AIDS despite the profound demographic biases. We will soon demand drowning on dry land.

 

Mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases are approximately 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are almost five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as it is among white men. So is vigilance in these subsets regarding these individual diseases profiling and should it be abandoned? And, worse, when significant distinctions in subjects arise, will we suppress the knowledge?
Interestingly, the ACA encourages companies to reward good health practice by lowering health insurance rates for employees who improve their behavior. Those companies that tried have been sued by another government unit for "biased" insurance rates.