Terror Threat Levels = Lunacy
I may be a neurologist, but I do know lunacy when I see it. This is not going to be a political statement in favor of, or against the war on terror. What I want to show is why the terror threat system doesn't work, on a basic logical, psychological level.
Here is a rundown on this from our government, if you want details; technically, it's called the "Homeland Security Advisory System." Briefly, we have five levels: Low (Green), Guarded (Blue), Elevated (Yellow), High (Orange), and Severe (Red). So what are the problems?
First of all, we cannot really imagine, for social psychological reasons, that we will ever see Low (Green) or Severe (Red) being used. The only exception might be imagined retrospectively on Sept. 11, 2001, but would we have needed a Red threat level to help us out in some way? And certainly we have to believe that we'll never see Low again -- I guess at that point we can send the TSA home and run willy-nilly around airports again, with pocket knives, lighters, and sundry potential weapons hanging out of our pockets.
So we're left with 3 "usable" threat levels. At the moment of this writing we're in Yellow, and we've seen a lot of Orange. Since there is a whole Department of the government that has this level system as one of its centerpieces, it can't just leave the level the same all the time, or people will get complacent. They also can't be changing it every few hours, or people will get complacent about that.
As I stated above, so far we're down to 3 choices, but we're not too likely to see Guarded (Blue) being used -- it looks too cool, too calm. How can you have Blue when people are blowing themselves up around the world on a regular basis? When do we perceive that's going to stop?
So now, we're down to only two practical choices -- and that's about all we've seen the whole time we've had this system. And even then, do we see anybody doing anything different at an Orange level compared to Yellow? I mean anybody: businesses, the postman, government offices, the military?
So maybe it's time to donate the Homeland Security Advisory System to the Smithsonian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Agreed it's a poor system, but if you get rid of it, what are we left with? Until you have a better system, might as well keep it, otherwise we the public have no information at all, given that much of what is known to law enforcement/intelligence officials must remain secret to avoid compromising their efforts by tipping off the bad guys.
Psychologically, we the public need something to hang onto. It's like going to the doctor with symptoms or receiving suspicious test results. By your suggestion, the doctor would say nothing except "Come back in 2 weeks." Why? What's up? What do you THINK is up?? It's why a doctor has to say, "We have a somewhat abnormal result on this test, and while it may not mean anything, we need to follow up on it. Let's see you again in 2 weeks." Nosier patients say then "What are the possibilities here?" and the conversation continues, but in a nationwide situation like security against terrorists, it's not possible to be that specific without tipping off the baddies.
So the alert system is silly, but we need something, and it's all we've got for now.
But I think your example proves my point -- a doctor shouldn't be able to get away with vague levels of concern about something. People need the whys and wherefores, not just "I'm concerned about this." I don't feel I need to explain my whole knowledge of medicine, but I need to try to bring in down to some kind of real terms that the patient can understand.
Human nature is such that we cannot maintain concern about something at a static level -- it gradually melts into the background anxieties we have in general. Because of that, I think the original intent of the system has lost any value it may have originally had.
Post a Comment