With a simple scan of your brain at rest, scientists can now guess whether — on average — you are naughty or nice.
"We have now begun to see really strong evidence of a connection between measures of brain function, connectivity and many aspects of people's lives and personality," says lead author Dr. Stephen Smith, a biomedical engineer at the University of Oxford.
The surprisingly strong correlations, published last week in Nature Neuroscience, are the first to emerge from the ambitious Human Connectome Project (HCP), a global effort that seeks to map all the pathways between the brain's hundreds of regions and millions of neurons, and then to relate those connectivity patterns to personality and behavior.
Personal brain scan result: bad to the bone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:16PM
Yes, I'm sure they can do a simple brain scan to discover how subjectively "naughty" or "nice" you are. That seems very scientific.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:26PM
So here's what they actually did:
They data mined a whole bunch of brain scans. Everyone who took those brain scans took several currently-considered-valid personality indices: Big Five, Dark Tetrad, etc.
They then found strong correlations for some of those personality traits with connective tissue layouts in the brain.
Given what I know of the project, I'm guessing this pop-science article is talking about the correlations, which we don't yet understand as a causative function(!), to Dark Tetrad, which themselves are highly correlated with criminal and unethical behaviors.
There. That's what they actually know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:08PM
They had to remove 320/478 original variables such as sex, age, employment status, and race before finding this correlation.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:16PM
Other way around. Removing variables statistically like that is to limit the confounding effect that those variables have.
Let's say women are more likely to have high conscientiousness(technically true), and they're also more likely to have connections between certain regions of the brain(probably also true). Those two things could be unrelated but create a spurious correlation. So they isolate populations by excluding those factors when data mining to get less confused correlations.
This is relatively basic stuff you'd get in any sort of serious college stats class.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:43PM
I don't follow. Say the "causative" factor is sex for both. So women have both high conscientiousness and stronger connections between certain areas. By removing the sex variable you are left with the correlation between conscientiousness and connectivity. Both could be unrelated (ie the connectivity does not influence the conscientiousness or vice versa), but you would still see the correlation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:58PM
What about this:
I interpret that as one of the factors they found to be most correlated with connectivity must have been spurious, since removing it did not affect the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:33PM
Same AC. I am pretty confident this is an issue. The individual correlations may remain, but the list may not sort cleanly by "positive" to "negative" if the others were included. That is what they want to report. Also, disproportionately many on the negative side have something to do with smoking (cigs per weekend, cigs per week, THC, etc). These are all likely highly correlated so letting them fill the list like that is wrong when they removed other features for correlating with each other.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:43PM
The test results are back: you are classified as 'Naughty'. Don't worry, a small corrective surgery and a month of political re-education will put you right back in line with accepted opinions.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:12PM
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:27PM
The test results are back: you are classified as 'Naughty'. Congratulations, you qualified for a career in management.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:40PM
The test results are back: you are classified as 'Psychopath'. Congratulations, you qualified for a career as CEO. Please pick up your golden parachute and seal-club on the way out.
FTFY :)
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 13 2015, @06:43PM
Bring on the Naughty/Nice Quotient! Could be just as good as reducing intelligence to a single number and calling it IQ.
Zero can be neither, negative values can be naughty, and positive values can be nice. So The Donald scores, what? About negative 200?
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 13 2015, @10:47PM
Trump causes an integer underflow. In 32 bits.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by GlennC on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:23PM
I know I'm not the only one thinking this....
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by arulatas on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:30PM
Which is why we should start selling protective tinfoil headgear to children so they can be protected from Santa's brain scans.
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:29PM
Still with all the quantum computing and tech we cant find the soul but yet a simple mantra makes it show up quickly ;)
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:45PM
I'm not sure I can even remember how many times I've been arrested.
Even so if I can come up with four dollars - not four dollars to spare, just four dollars - I will use it to buy a slice of hot pizza for a homeless person.
Smash The State.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday October 13 2015, @06:26PM
I'm not sure I can even remember how many times I've been arrested.
Even so if I can come up with four dollars - not four dollars to spare, just four dollars - I will use it to buy a slice of hot pizza for a homeless person.
Go figure the chaotic-neutral half-troll lunatic fringe doesn't fit neatly into naughty or nice categories. ;)
(Although in all seriousness, I do not think there is any good that is going to come of this sort of research long term. It will just be a new way to discriminate against people. Or perhaps worse, they'll find a 'cure' and then they'll fix us all to be perfectly normalized clones; with a monthly brain scan to make sure we aren't deviating from our programming.)
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday October 13 2015, @10:39PM
I saw that movie! [imdb.com]
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 13 2015, @10:49PM
I don't think he's especially chaotic, and not neutral either. I'd say somewhere between Neutral Good and True Neutral, with a shitload of unfortunate negative status ailments.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:51PM
So now we look forward to day when everyone gets scanned and all the filthy doubleplus ungood crimethinkers get instantly identified and liquidated. Joy! And the earlier they can be identified and eliminated the less their bad thoughts get a chance to contaminate the Utopta. Better still! For the greatest good!
Hope! Progress!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:10PM
And... what if we understand it well enough to treat potential murderers and thieves before they act?
Would you want to treat "likely murderer" as a mental health issue, if it were curable?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:45PM
Ah yes, next we will hear "If it saves one life." and if that fails "if it saves one child."
No. Some things are simply too dangerous to be permitted to exist. Such a machine would be far more dangerous than even AI. It would certainly be far more dangerous than allowing a few murderers to exist. How many times do we need to read the Sci-Fi warnings before anyone will listen? Sci-Fi has a pretty good record of seeing the near future and throwing up warning flags. How much progress comes from borderline folks who walk on the edge of the dark side? A perfectly docile population of mild mannered halfwits where nothing ever happens might be some people's idea of Utopia but it ain't mine. My future is a rough and tumble world where real men and real women conquer the Stars. One where there is actual diversity, not just in skin pigment and sexual habits but in thoughts, deeds, desires, cultures. And some of those people and ideas will always be deemed dangerous by "all right thinking people." But we live in a dangerous universe so some of those equally dangerous people and ideas will probably be what sees Humanity through and to the stars.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:25PM
Damn, if that slope gets much slipperier you're likely to end up in orbit!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:33PM
We live in a world where "Microaggressions" are a real thing. Not a theory, not some loonie teabagger's ravings, a stark reality that will end your career in one tweet. Don't pretend we live in a sane world where any sort of limits on such a dangerous tech could possibly exist.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:27PM
Hey, how about we make a Yelp but for People!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday October 14 2015, @02:07AM
We already have three:
TransUnion
Equifax
Experian
And more that are specialized to certain things like doctor visits, driving records, or insurance claims than I can count.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:30PM
All true, I was just making a joke about the recent horrifying new web idea https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/30/everyone-you-know-will-be-able-to-rate-you-on-the-terrifying-yelp-for-people-whether-you-want-them-to-or-not/ [washingtonpost.com]
At least the "various" systems in the US are somewhat separated... Though I am sure they are tied together in at least ONE database, and probably going to be rolled out like the Chinese system in the not too distant future.
The only piece I can kind of get on board with is the credit score, otherwise someone can just keep stealing money from creditors. However, the current system is broken/stupid. Perhaps anyone who defaults on a loan can have legal action taken against them and THAT is what a potential creditor could check on.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:43PM
I'd say history is a pretty good indication that any such thing will be horribly abused. Sometimes slippery slopes are real.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:44PM
The slippery slope argument is not automatically a fallacy -- and by dismissing Morris without an actual argument you're guilty of the fallacy fallacy. Am I guilty of the fallacy fallacy fallacy? I'll let you decide.
More on-topic, however:
It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises.
While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society?
The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually.
Ted was right.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:43PM
I'm quite concerned about edge cases, too. Someone may be perfectly well-behaved, but amuse themselves by imagining how they could possibly screw with the people they come in contact with every day. Pure thought-crime detection, or the discovery of how to read a guilty conscience? What if you're simply Catholic, with a reinforced guilt complex?
Wait. How many lawyers would pass this thing? Or politicians? Let's roll it out immediately. Everyone who fails is ineligible to vote, or hold public office. Think of the humanity!*
*Note: this sentence was intended as a dangerously-plausible example of a well-intentioned idea taken to extremes, and is meant for humorous effect only. Politicians would never let such a thing take effect if they were themselves subject to screening, after all.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:34PM
OK, so riddle me this: Should we treat Ted Kaczynski as a "brilliant man with ideas deemed dangerous by all right-thinking people", or as a "lone nut who is killing innocent people with mail bombs"? Both assessments are factually true. Now, if the part about him killing innocent people with mail bombs wasn't true, I'd be perfectly fine with leaving him on his own in his cabin in Montana. But the bombings happened, and that meant that 25 other people (including some very bright scientists) were killed or injured that wouldn't have been had Kaczynski not been around.
Ok, how about Charles Manson? He definitely had some ideas that were seen as dangerous by a lot of people. And it turned out that they were right. Ditto for David Koresh, and Jim Jones.
You seem to be working from a mental model that really downplays the costs of having these sorts of people around. Sure, scanning everybody's brains and drugging people who is dangerous would certainly be infringing on their freedom. But killing somebody is a greater infringement on their freedom than drugging somebody against their will (the drugged person can do whatever the drugs allow while the dead person can do nothing at all), so if we have a situation where we can save 1 life for every 1 person drugged I am perfectly OK with at least considering finding and treating these folks before they kill somebody.
Another major flaw in your thinking is that you seem to believe that the smartest people are smart because they're a little nuts. But there's no evidence of that: For example, John Nash has had to cope with schizophrenia, but Andrew Wiles has not, and there's no indication that Nash's contributions to mathematics are more important than Wiles'.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:10PM
You seem to be working from a mental model that really downplays the costs of having these sorts of people around. Sure, scanning everybody's brains and drugging people who is dangerous would certainly be infringing on their freedom. But killing somebody is a greater infringement on their freedom than drugging somebody against their will (the drugged person can do whatever the drugs allow while the dead person can do nothing at all), so if we have a situation where we can save 1 life for every 1 person drugged I am perfectly OK with at least considering finding and treating these folks before they kill somebody.
You're a fool. It's far worse for a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people to violate someone's rights than it is for some mere criminal to violate someone's rights. It corrupts what is supposed to be a noble organization that works for the people and turns it against the people, and that is very dangerous for something as powerful as a government. I don't expect much from some individual criminal, but I have high expectations for the government.
You're like one of the people who tries to justify mass surveillance by saying it increases safety. Even if that was true, the ends do not justify the means. I'll gladly accept less safety if I get to keep my freedoms.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:35PM
I'm gonna have to agree with AP here. You mention the deaths of innocents to justify your position, and I understand where you are coming from. However, you are being a fool if you haven't considered the innocents that will be hurt by a mass scanning/reeducation system. Since power corrupts, undoubtedly some would get a "pass" based on money/influence and we'd have the worst of the worst running things in no time. Or innocents would have their brains scrambled around and stuck in therapy, possibly because they were a journalist that got something they "shouldn't" have. System failed. Freedom really is the way to go about things, and consequences are brought AFTER the crime (some extenuating circumstances occur where plots are thwarted obviously).
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @11:13PM
deemed dangerous by all right-thinking people
Both assessments are factually true
A value judgement is factually true? Thanks for pointing out exactly why this technology is dangerous. If you disagree with me, why, you're not a 'right-thinking person'! You must be out of your mind to disagree with my opinion, which is the objective truth! To the gulags with you, you mental patient!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:14PM
Plenty of soldiers/mobsters/terrorists intentionally kill other people, many just because their leaders say it is right to do so.
Is there a big enough difference for you to draw the line?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:40PM
I don't believe in thought crime. What you're suggesting is that we essentially punish (or force people to be 'treated') before they have even done anything wrong. That isn't an option in any free society.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:49PM
We deny people rights for other mental illnesses. Why not serious anti-social personality disorders.
Draw a distinction between between schizophrenia and a provable brain connectivity problem that results in a lack of human empathy for me. We can discuss the idea from that distinction onward.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:13PM
We deny people rights for other mental illnesses.
Such as? When do we deny someone rights merely for having a certain mental state before they have done anything? I want to know what specific situations you're thinking of.
Regardless, I am against any such thing. I value freedom more than I value security gained by violating people's rights for thought crime. The ends do not even come close to justifying the means.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:47PM
Sufficiently crippling mental illness often cause people to lose their rights to self-determination, such as by being committed to a mental hospital.
They often lose their right to vote, under various state constitutions.
Many are considered not legally competent to consent to sex.
Many are considered not legally competent to consent to a contract.
There's a lot of rights you can lose through some diagnoses.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:24PM
Reminds me of the story about the researcher looking for brain patterns of psychopathy (not checking) and found out he had the pattern. Some go out of control and hurt others, some do great research and make discoveries... Pre-crime is one of the worst since you WILL be condemning innocent people. Think about the freedom of speech debate and how the ACLU defends the KKK. Now extend that to freedom from incarceration / treatment.
Hey! Maybe we can solve the homosexuality crisis while we're at it! /s
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:23PM
I read a sci-fi short story once, in one of those Reader's Digest-style monthlies, wherein a future totalitarian society tasked scientists in an orbital laboratory with devising a mind-reading killbot that would test everyone's loyalty to the Party. The Party sent a political officer, a true-believer, to the laboratory to oversee the work. After the political officer killed the head scientist's lover she uploaded a mind scan of the political officer to the army of killbots on the surface as the test condition for execution. 24 hours later, no more Party.
Mind-scanning technology is not the good idea some might think.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:27PM
The problem would arise when brain scanning becomes cheap, and people start doing it to their rulers, with likely result logs:
Naughty or Nice rel. git-20280402
(c) Microsoft corp. now a subsidiary of Apple inc.
Subject: His Holiness Dr. Satan McNaught PhD
Occupation: CEO
20281004-13:44:23 Begin scan
[[4th directive enforced]]
Scan took 0.00s
Scan results (0-naughty to 10-saint): 10
Scan details:
Warning: soul not found
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:00PM
But this is what we've always wanted: a way to sift out the bad people.
Don't we lock up the bad people in jail? Don't we try to stop the bad people from crossing the border? Don't we try very hard to make sure we never hire the bad people? Isn't a firewall / spam filter / anti-virus nothing more than a futile attempt to keep the bad people off our nice tidy network?
Joe is a felon. Bob is a sexual offender. Forever. You can't change what you are. Once damned, always damned.
How quickly can we get this deployed at all the airports? Make it part of the driver's license exam? Include it in the screening for any bank account or credit?
Go ahead and open your computer to the NSA's newest monitoring software. Because if you're not a bad person you have nothing to hide!
Because a bad person is always and forever bad and the rest of us of course are purely good. Or at least we could be if we didn't have to be worrying about those bad people all the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:51PM
If it beeps, we'll also let you in, but a loss prevention associate will assist you while you shop.
http://www.catalyst-direct.com/product_RF-Mono-Pedestal_73.html [catalyst-direct.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:27PM
And Phrenology is back! Only this time instead of using a craniometer (another name for calipers) we'll use an MRI.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Tuesday October 13 2015, @06:23PM
can eugenics be far behind ? ? ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:55PM
Phrenology was junk science, I'm sure you wouldn't doubt an MRI if they were looking for a tumour? This is good news; Psychopaths be gone or at least easier to identify and have locked away for their pathetic bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:15PM
Locking people away who have committed no crime whatsoever simply because they may do so at some unspecified point in the future is something more fitting for police states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @10:06PM
Having a psychopath locked away on mental health grounds is not pre-crime. Abusive personalities are abusive - always.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 13 2015, @11:31PM
Having a psychopath locked away on mental health grounds is not pre-crime.
It is if they haven't committed any actual crimes.
Abusive personalities are abusive - always.
You're making shit up. And abuse isn't always criminal, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:19PM
Except we already do this when individuals are a danger to themselves and others.
Depends on the jurisdiction and the problem is in proving it. Confirmation from an MRI scan that an individual has the pathology of an anti-social shit would help in these cases and then... off they fuck! [legislation.gov.uk]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:48PM
Except we already do this when individuals are a danger to themselves and others.
If they haven't committed any crimes, it is unjust.
Depends on the jurisdiction and the problem is in proving it. Confirmation from an MRI scan that an individual has the pathology of an anti-social shit would help in these cases and then... off they fuck!
Well, you're clearly a hardcore authoritarian who has absolutely zero respect for the liberties so many people fought hard to obtain. Why not just move to North Korea if you want a thought crime police state so badly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:19PM
How is sectioning somebody experiencing a severe manic or depressive episode "unjust"? Is arresting a public drunk "unjust"? Put it in context as we interpret that crime. Most of us have been drunk in public yet only a few have elevated it to anti-social or criminal levels.
LOL. It's not authoritarian to penalise individuals for anti-social behaviour. Is it authoritarian when a school teacher punishes somebody for bullying? Is bullying somebody to the point of suicide a liberty you think your forefathers fought for?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 14 2015, @07:44PM
How is sectioning somebody experiencing a severe manic or depressive episode "unjust"?
Did this somebody take actions that truly harmed anyone, or did they try to harm anyone? If not, then it is unjust.
Is arresting a public drunk "unjust"?
Did this public drunk take actions that truly harmed anyone, or did they try to harm anyone? If not, then it is unjust.
LOL. It's not authoritarian to penalise individuals for anti-social behaviour.
The entire concept of thought crime is authoritarian to the core. And so is the idea of punishing people merely for having a state of mind that you don't like.
Is bullying somebody to the point of suicide a liberty you think your forefathers fought for?
You're changing the topic, which is about punishing people merely for having a certain state of mind, even when they have not yet done anything.
I have a truly revolutionary idea that is entirely compatible with a free society: Punish people when they take actions that actually break the law, not when they merely could potentially break the law at some unspecified point in the future because they have certain mental disorders or other such things. Of course, don't create laws that violate people's fundamental liberties, either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:15AM
I wouldn't doubt a set of calipers if it was measuring the thickness of sheet metal, either. Your point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:57PM
Of course not. Nor would I doubt a caliper on accurately measuring the form of my skull.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 14 2015, @07:12AM
I miss phrenology! It was so much fun to feel the lumps on people's heads, adding some where needed! And if you did not like the particular subject, you could just say that his/her skull shows they are a future criminal. Problem solved! So much easier than proving that they are actually a witch.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday October 13 2015, @09:05PM
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:08AM
Everybody always looks at this as something that will be forced on us from the top down, and of course it is quite right to be fearful of this potentially extremely slippery slope. But let's take a look at this in reverse for a moment. People like the infamous Ted Bundy are usually quite well aware that there is something seriously wrong with them, and many of them don't want to be the way they are. They just don't know what to do about it, or how to control their urges to do evil to others. Bundy talked about knowing when his urges were resurfacing and he would distance himself from his live-in girlfriend (fiancé?) so that he wouldn't do anything to hurt her. You can choose to believe that this was entirely to reduce his risk of being caught, but I believe it was at least partially attributable to the fact that he really had genuine affection for her and didn't want to be around her during his dark periods.
What if the potential Ted Bundy's in the world, who can feel themselves having extremely dark urges that they find progressively more difficult to control, could simply go to a doctor and get assessed for their potential... well, for evil, to put it succinctly. Then if there is a strong enough correlation, the doctor can say, "Based on your scans I feel it will be medically responsible to accede to your voluntary request for the necessary surgery and/or other medical treatment to mitigate or control your potential for committing violent crimes." You get treated, the horrible urges are stopped or mitigated, and you live like a fairly normal person. Would that really be so terrible?
Of course the key is that this sort of thing must be done ethically and completely voluntarily and confidentially, with no coercion of any sort. That's a difficult task indeed, and there will be many instances where technology like this will absolutely be abused by many levels of authorities and criminal elements. We have to fight against that as hard as we can, but that shouldn't stop us from at least trying to use this kind of technology responsibly where it makes sense to do so. All technology is a double-edged sword. That has always been true and always will be. What matters is how we choose to use it.
One thing is for damn sure, if we can really establish solid correlations between brain scans and anti-social behavior, it's going to get very entertaining watching the politicians and other social elites go through extensive logical contortions to try to explain to the public why they shouldn't be subjected to scans so we can be sure we aren't being led by a bunch of amoral sociopaths. If anyone should have to be involuntarily scanned it's the people who exhibit the desire to be in charge of the rest of us. And then of course the question arises, will we really be better off if we make sure we aren't being led by a bunch of amoral sociopaths, or would getting rid of same cause a collapse of that society? Multiple cultures somewhere on this planet will try to answer that question during the coming century. Some societies will choose to put only certified sociopaths in charge, others will reject all sociopaths in positions of authority. This is the kind of thing that would cause a dedicated anthropologist to decide to go into cold sleep for 500 years in order to have a chance of witnessing the future results first hand.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2, Funny) by hedleyroos on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:33AM
Ok, we've cracked know alignment but when can I throw a fireball?