1. Deadbeat FaceBook Friends

It seems counterintuitive that lenders and credit companies are judging applicants based on social media status. New companies like LendUP and Neo have been using social media profiles as a way to gather data about incoming applicants. They examine facebook friends or LinkedIn connections to judge whether a person gets a loan. Their reasoning is if a person has stable social relationships and activity then it shows they have a stable life. These judgements are unfair for a few reasons, a lot of people do not choose to prioritize their social media accounts. That choice is completely valid and should not affect a person’s financial life. Unless someone is posting obvious plans to scam a lending company their social media should be left out of the books. This also leaves room for personal biases which can go highly unregulated. There is no way to accurately find people who can separate their values enough to judge social media. The Federal Trade Commission will not comment on the ethics or accuracy of this newfound situation. If we let our ruling bodies ignore these unfair policies we will only be faced with extremely judgemental policies later on. This whole situation will ultimately end with lenders having less customers, which does not seem like a good thing for business. 

2. Men Define Rape

It seems counterintuitive that men have defined rape despite largely being the perpetrators. Throughout the ages they have decided what rape is, each time they have minimized the weight of the issue. Calling it “property theft,”  which completely ignores the effect it has on the woman. Or changes the consequence of the crime based on the woman’s status. Each time men define rape they do it unsuccessfully, because it is in their benefit to minimize it. 

3. How to Armor Planes

It seems counterintuitive that when we were learning how to armor planes we armored the places that received the most fire. During World War II we studied the planes that returned and armored the places with the most bullet holes. But if the planes made it back with those bullet holes how effective is it to armor those areas? It’s not. The planes that didn’t return had to have had damage to these areas. So few planes that returned had damage in these areas. With this information you can deduct that we have to armor planes in the areas with the least amount of bullet holes. This idea was largely disputed because people didn’t want to really digest the data.