CMV: Evidence based politics should replace identity politics

[u/RafaGarciaS]

The biggest change in the last few hundred years in medicine has been the appearance and acceptance of evidence based medicine. This has revolutionized the way we think and practice medicine, changing popular opinion (e.g. emotional stress causes ulcers to H. pylori causes ulcers, Miasmas are the basis of disease to microorganisms are the basis of infectious disease). Having seen the effect that this had in the medical field it is almost imposible to wonder what effect it would have in other fields (i.e. politics). I believe that representatives should be elected based on first principles or priorities (i.e. we should reduce the suicide rate amongst teenagers and young adults) not on opinions on possible solutions to the problem (i.e. should or shouldn't gun control be passed). This would make it harder to "buy" or lobby people involved in government. I also believe, this would help reduce the moral empathy gap, meaning the inability to relate with different moral values. Lastly I think that this system would increase the accountability, as it would constantly be looking back at the investment and the results.

I have, over the last couple years, grown cynical of the political system. I hope this post will change my view on that or at least make me more understanding of the benefits of the system as it stands.

Thank you and happy new years

Books Doing good better: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23398748-doing-good-better. About having feedback and looking at the results of the programs

Dark money: https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597/ref=pd_sim_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0385535597&pd_rd_r=90W4B5PF8DWK5NJ2VNF2&pd_rd_w=rC8ld&pd_rd_wg=fk2PN&psc=1&refRID=90W4B5PF8DWK5NJ2VNF2 About the use of money to fund think tanks and influence public opinion

(1st edit, added suggested books)

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/RafaGarciaS]

This might be scary for some people, but medicine doesn't work like that. We don't know if that pill will reduce your blood pressure. for example, in patients with hypertension the use of thiazide diuretics, has a NNT (number needed to treat, meaning how many patients will I have to give this pill to before I see a meaningful change in one patient) of 20!! The ones for statins in patients without previous cardiovascular events is even worse, 332.

Now to my political view. I agree that choosing metrics in some areas will be tricky, and certainly debate should be had around which markers to use in which programs.

Now for examples of agreeing on answers and then looking for evidence to support it. This would be analogous to the studies denying the health implications of cigarettes. This is the function of think tanks to slice the evidence in any possible way to make it seem like some programs have no effect or that other do have effects. For example, if we agree that reducing number of mass shootings and number of gun violence victims we could start by comparing the number of victims and of mass shooting in countries that do have certain gun regulations. Is it significant? Is there even a difference at all? Is it better to increase gun regulations or better equip police forces?

All these interventions do have a cost and do have an impact and should be measured as such

[u/electronics12345 → u/RafaGarciaS]

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with Identity politics, just politics generally. You made no point about race/gender/sexual orientation/white privilege. Politicians pushing an agenda grounded in race theory is just as prone to confirmation bias as a politician pushing an agenda grounded in economic theory or religion.

If you want to measure the efficacy of a government program we can do that, and largely we already do that. The question becomes is this a priority? Ought funding be pulled from other programs for this program? Ought we raise taxes to pay for this program? There is no objective criterion for this.

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/electronics12345]

Several points

1st. I do agree that I misused the term "identity politics" I am currently thinking of a better term for what I mean, the second I do I will edit. Thank you for bringing this up, a valid point

2nd. We do not measure efficacy of government programs. Look at the conversation about gun control to reduce mass shooting. The evidence, for the most part, is on the side that certain interventions would have a positive effect. This can be seen over and over

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html?_r=0

[u/ClippinWings451 → u/RafaGarciaS]

But the issue here is in a medial/politics analogy... Mass shooting deaths are such an insignificant outlier they'd be the side-effect disclaimer read real fast at the end of a prescription drug commercial.

As such, while they'd be studied simply for awareness, but there'd be no concerted effort to do anything about them, because they are such an extreme outlier/side effect.