Brain-Scanning Potential Politicians

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think he made a good point.

It's important to know what can happen so we can avoid it, and prevent it from happening.

But idk... if you're in an authority position and the people are dictating your actions, then that basically makes you a slave. And who would want to rule a people where the people really just rule you, where you're just a slave to a people who make all kinds of outrageous demands that can't be met and you just have to take their abuse for your term.

I don't understand how any of it works.

I did hear that the police force have to pass some kind of psychological screening test, is that true? And what you're proposing isn't much different at all- so that we choose people who won't abuse their power. Then you'd have to create that screening test and convince everyone how it will work and why we should use it. But then if your brain scanning stuff happens, then maybe we'll all just end up being brain scanned into our positions in society, based on what we show in the scan. And then it's like the book Divergent. Or that other sci-fi movie, what's it called? The one where guy fakes his way into being an astronaut but he's really sick and not supposed to be one.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I do love it when you go full blown pretentious.

Your job to explain YOUR OPINION to the masses on what's happening.

I like how you said that you deal in facts, not work.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I do love it when you go full blown pretentious.

Your job to explain YOUR OPINION to the masses on what's happening.

I like how you said that you deal in facts, not work.

Pretending what?

No, I actually know what I'm talking about. My job is to explain THE SCIENCE of the brain and human behavior to lay people.

I'm glad that you like how I deal in facts.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

See now if that were true, you would be doing it. Not telling me that you do. Instead you want to make snide remarks with a condescending attitude.

Tell me, would you set a murderer free based upon this scan?

Deal does not equal work.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I find this to be completely obvious.

I am not the first, nor will I be the last person to suggest this. And if Trump screws things up - as he appears primed to do - it'll only give the public greater impetus. It would, in effect, constitute a "safeguard" against being screwed over by people with aristocratic values.

The inter-hemispheric connections at the lower level (septum pellicidum) are basically very clear about their functional significance i.e. inability to integrate feeling information between hemispheres, and so, to actually experience an affective knowledge of another persons experience.

But if some scientists aren't "ready" for this, neuroscience will continue to accrue evidence indicating the structural-functional differences between sociopaths and non-sociopaths. It'll become more and more refined and specific, to the point that it'll be impossible to deny the utility of this approach to screening out people who do not seek the public good.

a reply to: Astrocyte

It'll become more and more refined and specific, to the point that it'll be impossible to deny the utility of this approach to screening out people who do not seek the public good.

Why stop with politicians?

a reply to: Astrocyte

That is a good question i agree with it. Politicians should be analyzed to see if theyr sane enough to run powerful positions over millions of people. My friends there tell me you have to take urine tests to go work? That is crazy. Why they do that? putting their citizens to the test but the same rules don't apply to themselves. For your sakes i hope your new administrates fix that and change the rules.

a reply to: JinMI

What thought crime? This is a thread about politicians, ministers, and other officials who control the economy - it is nothing but a safeguard against corruption, and so, should be something the people should want.

Just so you know, in case you're afraid that there isn't a sound scientific basis underneath this: if you're not a sociopath, the fMRI scan would probably not show evidence of it. In the same way, a neurologist can usually predict where a brain problem is just by analyzing how a person is functioning i.e. he can locate the specific region by studying the persons functionality. So there is absolutely nothing controversial about the theory of correlation: its the very basis of all the neurosciences.

I've had an fMRI scan and it corresponded very well to my mental experiences. This is not skin-galvanic testing i.e. it is not possible to 'evade detection' when your actual brain-structure is being put under analysis.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Appreciate it.

Sometimes I wonder: who are the people who star my posts?

I receive far more negative feedback than positive feedback. Sometimes its because of something I did; but for the most part, its the educational difference between me and other people; and it's also probably an integrity thing too. I actually care about making a good world where people take care of one another.

a reply to: Astrocyte

This is a thread about politicians, ministers, and other officials who control the economy - it is nothing but a safeguard against corruption, and so, should be something the people should want.

Free people no matter what position they hold. Now if this was a voluntary measure, I wouldn't stand in their way. However you must admit that this opens a door to where it could become mandatory and to more than just those who wish to server the public.

a reply to: JinMI

I am sorry i must ask you, is that photo done with a program it is like shock wow lol. I must know. I like it!

a reply to: geezlouise

It's important to know what can happen so we can avoid it, and prevent it from happening.

Of course, but this is an issue of weighing the pro's and cons. Do you think Donald Trump is a manipulative sociopath as I do? If you do, I'd be elated to see him get a fMRI scan so that neuropsychologists could show how his scans correspond to the scans of other sociopaths.

And who would want to rule a people where the people really just rule you, where you're just a slave to a people who make all kinds of outrageous demands that can't be met and you just have to take their abuse for your term.

Why would you be more concerned with the politician - taking a one-time brain scan to determine whether he is structurally able to perform his duties with integrity - than with the people who are repeatedly exploited by the 1%? This happens because demagoguery happens. And that happens because Human beings want to believe that other people re trustworthy, when quite often they are not.

So while I can understand the concern, I think a one-time brain scan to make sure we aren't placing above ourselves a potential kleptocrat is more important - is a lesser offense - than pretending that the system isn't suffused by Human beings who only pretend to have normal human affective needs.

Then you'd have to create that screening test and convince everyone how it will work and why we should use it.

Of course. Public knowledge is paramount here. In order for it to be trustworthy - and for people to see it as more dependable than the words a person says - they have to learn a little neuroscience - and how could that be bad? Education is the only way out of being manipulate by people who do not have the public well-being i.e. equality, justice, in mind.

I see no reason for why this technology should be applied to anyone but people pursuing positions that accord them lots of power. Thus, its power-related. A teacher, a doctor, or an engineer, is not a position where they control lots and lots of money - thats a government officials job.

I get the slippery slope argument - and I can understand it, but I think the risk of doing nothing in this particular context is greater than doing something.

By doing this, we actually stand a chance of creating a sane and good society.

a reply to: T0rMenT0R

I found it searching for zombie babies, no idea where/what it comes from.

Sorry, lame but true =D

a reply to: JinMI

That is great haha no not lame i like it. It caught me off my guard when i saw it right away i had to ask. these icons so many to choose from!

a reply to: JinMI

Why do you treat science i.e. empiricism, as merely "opinion"? There's a difference between the empirical methods of scientific observation, generating hypotheses, and testing hypotheses, than the completely arbitrary musings of philosophers who do not seek to anchor their views in actual reality.

If correlation between brain structure and mental function can be established beyond any reasonable doubt - as is currently happening in the neurosciences since the 1990s - than its nothing more than not understanding it, being afraid, and instead of asking questions and seeking clarity, you reflexively say this is "an invasion of our rights".

It is. But its an invasion that has a very sound and defensible basis in the neurosciences; and furthermore, its about protecting an even more important right: the right not to be misled and taken advantage of by kleptocrats.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Thank you for acknowledging my point.

We differ on our opinion of why it should be used however. I don't think anyone should have to succumb to a mental intrusion.

its about protecting an even more important right: the right not to be misled and taken advantage of by kleptocrats.

Do you think any of the candidates would have passed this test?

a reply to: JinMI

Do you think any of the candidates would have passed this test?

Trump and all the Republican candidates would fail. Cruz would for sure fail; same with Christie; Carson would probably fail. Do you know what I find to be interesting? I sometimes work as a therapist, which means I have to pay attention to the relationship between affective organization, and the vocal qualities of intonation, inflection, and pace of speaking. It's through these non-verbal qualities in sound, body movement and facial expression that you get an almost psychic sense of the other persons intentionality - what they're feeling, and what they appear to be intending by assuming this form of expression.

If you go through all of the political candidates on the right and the left, you see a lot of extremism on the right - and by extremism, I mean, "hypo" states of low reactivity and "hyper" states of high reactivity. This sort of stuff is very subtle, but its says something important: when someone is low-reactive, this, as Adrian Raines book "the anatomy of violence" - a book on the sociopathic brain - shows, is always associated with psychopathy. The sociopath is low-reactive, which means that it takes a lot to arouse them, and so, as Raine notes, the sociopath 'arouses himself' by pursuing whatever interests they may have.

Cruz, Carson, Bush, all have a very clear low-reactive style of speaking. Indeed, both Clintons seem to have a similar style of speaking.

Trump and Christie are sociopaths on the other end - the ones who rely upon their egotism to persuade others rather than try and comport themselves the way most Republican candidates do i.e. mention Jesus 1001 times, as that nifty political brain diagram showed.

The realest candidate is by Bernie Sanders, and so his brain would likely have shown normal hemispheric myelination - because, as you can tell when he speaks, he sounds very sincere, very animated, and yet - most importantly - in control of his rhetoric. This is what Trump DOESN'T do, and why Trump is clearly a con-man. To be animated - alive - and yet measured and controlled even in the face of crazy opposition - necessarily entails dense inter-hemipheric connectivity.

Have you ever, ever seen Donald Trump in an argument NOT give in to an impulse to insult the other person? I've never seen it - and we don't see it because the man probably doesn't have the functional connectivity to even be that way. Why? Because his father - I imagine - didn't show him the type of love or care or humility that is essential to being a good person. Not having a "good mother" is often times a function of having a misogynist father. This creates the "internal conflict" in young Donalds brain, and so, led to the so-called 'oedipal' complex, i.e. the normal tendency of boys to disavow his feminine qualities because his primary identification figure (his father) is a misogynist who doesn't respect women.

a reply to: JinMI

Because we can justify it with politicians.

I really am trying to be conscious of the types of issues that can arise here, but I think the gain made in protecting us from a self-serving official supersedes any violation of his or her rights.It is, also, a one-time thing. It's not like this is something that needs to be done day after day. Rather, you're brain is already set in its functions by adulthood - unlikely to change or move in a different direction. Thus, one scan would determine what sort of mind this person is.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Trump and all the Republican candidates would fail. Cruz would for sure fail; same with Christie; Carson would probably fail.

The realest candidate is by Bernie Sanders, and so his brain would likely have shown normal hemispheric myelination - because, as you can tell when he speaks, he sounds very sincere, very animated, and yet - most importantly - in control of his rhetoric.

So this is a biased argument based on assumption and perception. Nothing tangible but should the technology be used, it should be used on your political basis. Sorry man, no go. Not a credible argument no matter how much polish you throw on it. I see you didn't even mention Clinton or any other Democrat.

I really am trying to be conscious of the types of issues that can arise here, but I think the gain made in protecting us from a self-serving official supersedes any violation of his or her rights.

If you are being genuine with this statement than the matter is truly simple without a brain scan. Find the ways to make the incentives not worth the work. Public office should not be a highly lucrative endeavor to capitalize on.

It's not like this is something that needs to be done day after day. Rather, you're brain is already set in its functions by adulthood - unlikely to change or move in a different direction.

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this...pun intended. People live life. Each in their own way, subject to their own experiences. Some stay the same and some go through such major metamorphosis that I doubt they would be the same before those experiences.

I've seen your posts and your political leaning is no secret. That's your choice. To subject a free human being to a scan searching for "markers" that you can link to a certain mental disorder has many MANY pitfalls. If you had brought this issue up leaving out the politics, this conversation might have gone a completely different way.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I will just say this:

Neuroscience is the study of the brain as it relates to physical matter, and all the biological, chemical, and physical processes that occur within the brain.

Any interpretation of that measured physical data is an abstract construct which in psychology is referred to as the mind, and is inherently and purely subjective in its nature.

So you ask me point blank something to the effect of

"But do you not think that sociopaths are inferior? Do you not think that sociopaths should be systematically removed from society?"

To which I would reply, and strongly:

That all depends on who interprets whom as a sociopath, and who is doing the removing.

A sociopath is a psychosocial construct, a word, a definition that we use to identify a person observed to be exhibiting signs of behavior as it relates to psychosis.

As it exists, psychosis is purely theoretical, as is the entirety of behavioral psychology. Its definition relies on observer/interpreter methods that are inherently subjective.

There have been many astounding correlations observed in the physical brain as it relates to matter. But the neuroscience stops there. Any attempt to extract that data and formulate it into behavioral theory is an exercise in behavioral psychology, not neuroscience, even if the method is to be formulated as objectively as possible with physical data.

One point that I feel needs to be repeated since this is a conspiracy website, is that the way you phrase the question wreaks of conspiracy in and of itself.

Remember the question?

"But do you not think that sociopaths are inferior?"

Your use of NLP, neurolinguistic programming, is to frame that question in such a way as to automatically imply that a sociopath even exists at all. Some better questions would be:

"Do you think that sociopaths exist independently of any observation of a person's behavior?" and "If a sociopath is real, does a tree fall in the woods?"

You know who else uses NLP to inject psychosocial impressions into one's ability to process cognitive thought?

Scientologists.

Have a look for yourself, here.

So at this point I have to wonder. Are you really that naive to believe that what we think we know as a sociopath can be physically rooted out and systematically removed from society?

Or are you intentionally trying to persuade the public into getting mandatory catscans so that you can collect data on every citizen and weed out the ones you don't like?

Because everyone in human history that had the same idea as you has fallen ill to their own delusions and had succumbed to corruption.

And, dare I make the correlation, resembles much of the ideology of Nazi Germany.

I can sniff you mofos out a mile a way, and stay the hell away from my skull. Dick.