Infrastructure and Data: Applied

I am afraid I have to warn readers about the tangential nature of this and all of my discussions. When this discursive-ish method is applied - which is to say in the "real" world - it appears even more disjointed. My commonsense method of matching this non-linear style with what I believe to be non-linear learning natures will be painfully apparent here. This is also true of my tentative approach to data and statistics - which is to say my distrust of them. Commonsense thinkers want you to get out in the world and to bring back your experiences as they intertwine with others.

The problem here is how to fix American urban infrastructure and what potential there is for it. How do we see potential for this improvement without addressing on a deeper level violent crime? Any theory about urban transformation requires either lowering crime rates or concentrating on urban areas that already have lower rates. The latter seems to defeat the purpose and rely on geography rather than true improvement and it also puts effort in an area that will, eventually, be effected by the problem areas.

If you think there has been progress fixing violent crime and theft in the new century then you will probably not believe much of what I say. This is where, as is often the case, I have to discuss and critique the business and science of statistics. Statistics, like science itself, is a tool used by humans that may or may not be actually thinking. In this essay we are discussing crime, but what if we discuss the statistics regarding people's ability to do statistics?

If you think there has been progress getting people to think in "process" ways about learning and thinking then you will not believe much of what I say. To learn the difference between rote and process strategies of learning and knowledge look primarily at those previous essays. (https://www.commonsensephilosophy.com/post/another-stab-at-it)

Do I need to prove that data-proof is not reliable? Do I need to prove it with more data? The truth is that I can go out in the world and tell you that people don't have "process" thinking tools, that urban centers are falling apart, and that residential American life has devolved into nothing less than a health crisis (internally and externally). If you want data and statistics about this walk outside instead. Drive in a car. Go to an upscale shopping center in a ritzy part of LA and ask people if they feel safe to shop. Take an outside look at real estate prices in most city centers and how, even after the boom, they have again declined from their high points.

In addition to this, incompetence from rote thinkers is everywhere. FBI statistics for urban crime has of late relied on self-reporting by police departments in some cities but not others. This has been stitched together to paint a nationwide picture when in fact it is not representative of the nation. This is just one example.

The commonsense approach to learning is to go to the cities and talk with people. What you learn is that things are worse. It is not merely the types and extent of crime it is the mentality of the people that commit them. If you don't believe me, play basketball with random people (you will learn how hard it is to play a sport with random people, especially young ones). At one point in my experience in an upscale neighborhood playing indoor basketball we had to suspend play because pre-teen boys were threatening to shoot the adults if they did not vacate the main full-court. This experience to me is more telling and more social than reading about how car theft has increased in urban areas post-covid but mugging has declined.

Talking to my friend about the mob "grabs" in upscale shopping centers in LA and how little law enforcement has done (they are still going on) is more revealing to me than reading about murder rates decreasing in Chicago. I would suggest based on this that, as a highlight, the irrational adherence to Trump politics is driven, in no small way, by a fear of this evolving social trend - urban decline precipitated by the recent clash between attempted revitalization and new and increasing forms of violence.

What does this say about multi-faceted revitalization? It says that surface attempts that don't address core issues and in particular psychology will fail. One cannot cover over intellectual decline with new green spaces and parks. In fact, building parks will increase the number of dark urban spaces for crime. Encouraging people to go outside, to exercise or socialize will require the possibility of safety for these things.

It means that idealism about fixing American cities relies, as I have said over and over, on a deeper psychological repair. What I mean by psychology here is the natural human ability to "process" knowledge. This is missing from top to bottom in the American social infrastructure (from families, from mentors, from politicians, and from academics). Again, if you don't believe me, improve your own psychology and then walk outside. If you don't improve it, by definition, you won't be able to tell. The foundational question about why more and more young people here believe that short-cutting simple ethical principles is a superior way to live (and get rich) is a question that clearly stumps even academic psychologists. Again, if you want evidence, take a psychology class, speak with a professor, or review the available junk literature.

I will suggest that these solutions can only be started by a new species of thinker - the social philosopher.

(end of part one)