dalia
New Member
Posts: 28 
|
Post by dalia on May 11, 2016 10:29:43 GMT
In the movie Minority Report, policemen have the ability to predict the future and see when someone will commit a crime before it occurs. Therefore, they stop any crimes from happening. Although this is fictional, we really do have something similar thanks to neuroscience. In the article by moskowitz, and "neuropreriction of future rearest", researchers outline how observing the activity of the amygdala (responsible for emotions) and frontal gyrus can reveal how much risk one has of developing antisocial personality disorder or becoming a psychopath. According to some other studies, there is a big correlation between these diseases and becoming a criminal offender. What is most notable, though, is that in most of the criminals, brain scans could predict that they would offend or become psychopaths since they were only 3 years old! So here's my question to you: is it ethical to subject children to any type of reform or treatment be it medical or behavioral (brain surgery, taking medication or vitamins like omega 3, changes in rewards and punishments...)? Are knowing the risk factors a good enough reason given the possible future benefit/damage? It's often easy to look at a situation and say that we should do this and that... But to really understand something, we need to relate it to ourselves. So as a followup to my question, would your answer change if let's say you were told that your child has a high risk of becoming a psychopath? Or if someone said that to you, or your sister or brother?  I'd love to hear what you guys think! Bonus: Some food for thought : Feel free to answer any or none, whatever you want  - What are the implications of the findings of this study on people who take risks on a daily basis? Is there something wrong with their brains? Like stunt doubles for example. - what could be some implications for law enforcers like the police? Do you think this would be beneficial or detrimental? - The main issue with the kids who became criminals was "a distinct lack of fear conditioning",meaning they don't respond to punishment or heed warnings. However, when treated early, using a system of rewards was found to be effective in preventing future criminal offenses. what does the study tell us about the law system we currently have in place, and its effectiveness? Is a system of punishment more beneficial than a system of rewards? |
|
|
|
Post by patrick on May 11, 2016 18:28:52 GMT
Behavioral treatment is acceptable to me, and drugs like fish oil deserve a try. But I will not try brain surgery or any other physical intervention because of the risk there is. I cannot risk any harms to my families just because some predictions say that they are gonna commit crimes in the future; predictions can be wrong. But benign treatments are acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on May 11, 2016 20:27:22 GMT
Bro this is all GATTACA. Do you change the things you know in your child or not. Do you let your child do things that they are not predisposition-ed to do? It is a truly a Dystopia with a Utopian twist. I agree with patrick because I'm fine with therapy etc. I don't know how far i would go if treatment isn't working, but i would be sure to try to nurture my children as best as i could. I honestly think things would change if the government would directly spell out what "psychopath" means. Will my kid murder? Will my kind go insane? What is insane. I think that would skew my opinion to lean to surgery. I feel like it would benefit law because there would be less crime in the future BUT what does less psychopaths mean to normal individuals. Will this make the step under psychopath be the new psychopaths? what do we do with those people? Does this screw wit balance in general? In response to your law question, i think our law is really flawed in general and it can and has been taken down by liars etc. In terms of laws and criminal, we simply do not have enough money to take care of petty crimes so maybe we should treat the people who would be petty psychopaths. idk. I think punishment is better. Many thoughts. many thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by cliffordzhang on May 11, 2016 20:49:46 GMT
I think it's pretty accepted by society that it's unethical to mess with an individuals body for the good of a community. For example, there were so many kinds of unethical experiments done on humans by the US, Nazis, and Japanese during WW2 to see what traumas and forces our bodies could withstand. Although those experiments provided an immense amount of knowledge towards understanding the human body, nowadays, an experiment of that sort would probably land you in prison for the rest of your life.
Hell, there are people who are against abortion who are so pro-life that they would not end the life of a something that has not been born yet, even when there are tests now to show physical and mental birth defects that would cause suffering to the individual if they were to be born.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on May 11, 2016 21:00:08 GMT
I think its dangerous to use this kind of science as a predictor to criminal activity. Just because someone is slightly antisocial or has slight irregularities in their brain chemistry doesn't mean that they are going to become criminals. I think this goes back to the argument that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than to be actual criminals.
Also, one has to look at who would be administering these tests. People are prone to accidents and mistakes. In this case, one mistake in scanning someone's brain could ruin their entire life. The people conducting these tests would have far too much power as well as their own agendas. The risks these tests pose to normal people are far greater than the possible benefits.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 2:40:12 GMT
patrick I definitely see where you're coming from and I think a lot of people would agree would you! However, regarding these "predictions", there have been many studies done and all show a direct correlation. For example, in one of the articles, it cites a study where kids were observed over a long time period (basically from birth to adulthood) and tested for different things whether brain scans or behavioral tests. Then when looking back at those who committed a crime, they found similarities in the brain scans of those people. Another study also found similar results, mainly all leading to the amygdala and frontal gyrus. Do you think such data is not convincing enough to take action? Or, can the data be questioned/flawed?
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 3:14:45 GMT
vannahyazon That's a great movie! haven't seen it in such a long time haha. I really feel like many dystopian movies have addressed the implications of things we are learning about in the seminar. Thanks for pointing it out  I agree that the government needs to set more concrete definitions; only then would we be able to take any real action. But because everything is relative, I see the problem such a definition would create. I think it all ties back into the idea of things being socially constructed and the whole biology vs setting argument. What does it mean to be a psychopath, anorexic, or have a mental illness... its all debatable Maybe what we need in our definition is some cutoff that only includes those considered truly dangerous to society? Regarding the law question. Do you think treating petty psychopaths can be more beneficial or effective than treating those who commit a major crime? Or are you suggesting that treating them can prevent future petty crimes which we don't have enough money to deal with later on (tackling the problem from its roots basically)?
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 3:38:50 GMT
cliffordzhang Good point regarding abortion. Thanks for bringing that up! Have you considered the other side of the coin, i.e people who are pro-choice? Also, keep in mind that any surgery or experiment will need to be done under a professional setting with prior approval and the person's consent, unlike anything that was done during chaotic wartime.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 3:50:01 GMT
connorthompson You bring up a really interesting point by flipping the way we interpret the results! I didn't think of that, but now that you've brought it up, I definitely see how this can be a double-faced argument. Do you think that enforcing strict regulations regarding the administration of these tests could minimize the costs to an extent where the benefits can exceed them? For example, requiring multiple brain scans by different doctors showing the same results... Being selective in who is chosen to do a surgery/experiment, and monitoring them even after their done to expose any personal agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on May 12, 2016 3:50:29 GMT
vannahyazon That's a great movie! haven't seen it in such a long time haha. I really feel like many dystopian movies have addressed the implications of things we are learning about in the seminar. Thanks for pointing it out I agree that the government needs to set more concrete definitions; only then would we be able to take any real action. But because everything is relative, I see the problem such a definition would create. I think it all ties back into the idea of things being socially constructed and the whole biology vs setting argument. What does it mean to be a psychopath, anorexic, or have a mental illness... its all debatable Maybe what we need in our definition is some cutoff that only includes those considered truly dangerous to society? Regarding the law question. Do you think treating petty psychopaths can be more beneficial or effective than treating those who commit a major crime? Or are you suggesting that treating them can prevent future petty crimes which we don't have enough money to deal with later on (tackling the problem from its roots basically)? I say tackle the petty crimes first because i don't want to waste time or money dealing with them later. Obviously we want to stop and control the major crimes, but I'm thinking like lets deal with the small things first so that we can test the waters and see if our methods work etc. and deal with big things later. Instead of importance more like time and money efficiency. |
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 4:02:00 GMT
vannahyazon That's a great movie! haven't seen it in such a long time haha. I really feel like many dystopian movies have addressed the implications of things we are learning about in the seminar. Thanks for pointing it out I agree that the government needs to set more concrete definitions; only then would we be able to take any real action. But because everything is relative, I see the problem such a definition would create. I think it all ties back into the idea of things being socially constructed and the whole biology vs setting argument. What does it mean to be a psychopath, anorexic, or have a mental illness... its all debatable Maybe what we need in our definition is some cutoff that only includes those considered truly dangerous to society? Regarding the law question. Do you think treating petty psychopaths can be more beneficial or effective than treating those who commit a major crime? Or are you suggesting that treating them can prevent future petty crimes which we don't have enough money to deal with later on (tackling the problem from its roots basically)? I say tackle the petty crimes first because i don't want to waste time or money dealing with them later. Obviously we want to stop and control the major crimes, but I'm thinking like lets deal with the small things first so that we can test the waters and see if our methods work etc. and deal with big things later. Instead of importance more like time and money efficiency. Good thinking! I definitely agree and think its an effective way to test out our methods on a small scale so that we don't cause any big damages if they occur. |
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:38:47 GMT
If a doctor just told me that my child had a smaller amygdala or any other brain abnormality that may lead to antisocial personality disorder, I probably would not do anything from the get go. Although they are positively correlated, one does not necessarily mean the other, so I would probably wait until my child actually does start exhibiting extreme lack of empathy and disregard for other's well-being. Once this were to happen, I would opt for behavioral treatments, and if this is to no avail, I would turn to surgery as a last resort.
|
|
|
|
Post by petekk on May 12, 2016 4:48:09 GMT
The view that whether one will grow up to be a criminal offender can be predicted by brain scans seems dangerously deterministic to me. I doubt that the majority of people who have these abnormalities in their brains grow up to be criminals. Preventative measures can seem logical and harmless at first but I think they should not be taken because taking preventative measures would be equal to accepting this opinion. For older kids, the sole knowledge of the fact that they have a differing brain structure which can lead them to be a criminal offender can change the way they see themselves and shape their future actions. In other words it can create a self fulfilling prophecy. People who think they are prone to crime because of their biology can actually become more likely to commit criminal actions and justify them by pointing at determinism and biology.
|
|
|
|
Post by petekk on May 12, 2016 4:48:31 GMT
The view that whether one will grow up to be a criminal offender can be predicted by brain scans seems dangerously deterministic to me. I doubt that the majority of people who have these abnormalities in their brains grow up to be criminals. Preventative measures can seem logical and harmless at first but I think they should not be taken because taking preventative measures would be equal to accepting this opinion. For older kids, the sole knowledge of the fact that they have a differing brain structure which can lead them to be a criminal offender can change the way they see themselves and shape their future actions. In other words it can create a self fulfilling prophecy. People who think they are prone to crime because of their biology can actually become more likely to commit criminal actions and justify them by pointing at determinism and biology.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 5:31:10 GMT
If a doctor just told me that my child had a smaller amygdala or any other brain abnormality that may lead to antisocial personality disorder, I probably would not do anything from the get go. Although they are positively correlated, one does not necessarily mean the other, so I would probably wait until my child actually does start exhibiting extreme lack of empathy and disregard for other's well-being. Once this were to happen, I would opt for behavioral treatments, and if this is to no avail, I would turn to surgery as a last resort. I agree! I think this is a good rational approach. Usually, the main arguments in matters like this (i.e cancer) is that we need to act urgently before its too late. However, given the malleability and neuronal plasticity of our brains, I think we can afford waiting a bit until real symptoms display themselves. |
|
I'd love to hear what you guys think! 
I agree that the government needs to set more concrete definitions; only then would we be able to take any real action. But because everything is relative, I see the problem such a definition would create. I think it all ties back into the idea of things being socially constructed and the whole biology vs setting argument. What does it mean to be a psychopath, anorexic, or have a mental illness... its all debatable