> I'm not sure that type of analysis is even possible. The more factors you want to take into account, the larger the sample size you need. But there are so many factors here that you could need a sample size which is larger than the entire US population, which is obviously not available.

Mostly agree. It certainly couldn't be done with perfection, as there are essentially an infinite number of discreet variables in existence, many of which we do not even know the existence of, most that we do not have measurements on (or even a way to measure them), and all these variables have inter-relations that we don't understand (or even know of), resulting in randomness of outcome making predictions even harder.

But what do we do instead? The majority of the time we look at, say, 1 to 3 variables, and then form highly confident conclusions based on this trivially and obviously (if you actually think abstractly about it) simplified perspective, all under the guise that we are discussing reality. In these discussions, we (and this also includes the bright minds here on HN) are not actually discussing reality, but rather a comically simplistic version of reality. And then on top of it, many here mock others for their "simple-minded" beliefs, when the reality is that typically a big part of the reason behind the difference is that different people have different working sets of variables, and different weighting on those variables due to holding different values. The irony is rich.

And most of this occurs in the subconscious (so they say), so even if one makes a valiant effort to think more properly, much of the truth (on how different people think differently) is hidden from not just the observer, but the person who holds the thoughts in the first place.

> It seems to me the better solution is to just solve the problems. Stop spending all day arguing about whether the criminal justice system is racist and instead do something about the fact that the US has the world's largest prison population. Do something about housing costs. Do something about barriers to starting a small business.

Mostly agree. But again, this entire process suffers from this same phenomenon (roughly, we do not know, or care, what is true), and democracies are particularly vulnerable to the problems that derive from it. I suspect this gives China a major leg up over Western powers in the coming decades - if they can stumble upon an operating model that works better (accommodates the real variables, regardless of whether they see and understand the system better than us or not), they can enforce compliance far more easily than democratic nations.

In my opinion, step 1 in improving this state of affairs is gaining an understanding of what the situation actually is (aka: doing an "appropriate" system analysis) - but even the geniuses here on HN not only cannot do that, but often become angry with anyone who even dares suggest it (as it implies that their wild-guess of a theory may not be correct - the horror).

Is the absolute root of the problem not the human mind? Outside of natural events/disasters that are not caused by man, do most all other things (beliefs, practices, culture, initiatives, resource allocation, governance decisions, you name it) not derive from the mind (or collection of minds)? And yet, how much attention do we pay to this, in any venue? Here again, I would say the advantage goes to countries that do not adhere to a scientific-materialist religion [1] like most Western peoples.

> These problems may disproportionately affect black people, but they still affect everybody and solving them is a net benefit either way. Conditioning a solution to a problem on the existence of racism when the problem exists regardless is just drawing useless tribalist lines that get people fighting each other instead of solving things.

100% agree, based on the above.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion