If my memory is correct much of the information you have stated is
tentatively supported by the research. The problem is when those in power
take seriously and then apply tentative findings in a massive way against
others.
It seems to me the orientation is different. We are interested in
understanding behavior. We control behavior in order to understand. People
in power use our current understanding in order to control behavior in the
direction of the "correct behavior". I would argue that what is politically
correct behavior is unknown and changing.
By the way Correlational Opponent Processing can be used effectively to
defend some of the ideas of Freud. I am not a Freudian, but my model has
forced me to reexamine Freudian theory. The insights are worthy of saving.
Ron Blue
http://turn.to/ai
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TIPS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:13 AM
Subject: Brain fingerprinting: not another neuroscam!
> The US TV investigative journalism programme _60 Minutes_ tonight
> did a report on a technique called "Brain fingerprinting" which
> purports to identify criminals by analyzing their brain waves.
> It sounded like classic neuroquackery to me, especially when they
> claimed that the brain records everything and that they've
> developed a method for detecting information that it contains.
>
> I kept waiting for 60 Minutes to expose this fraud for what it
> was, but it never came. They used the word "scientific" about
> every 30 seconds together with phoney-looking graphs and the kind
> of neurobabble that you'd expect. They also claimed major support
> by the CIA and FBI (now there's proof), and that they'd been
> able to use their method to tell FBI agents from non-agents.
> More ominously, they claimed that they'd examined the contents of
> the brain of a convicted killer, and declared that he was
> innocent, a claim that apparently is being taken seriously.
>
> I discovered their website without too much trouble
> (http://brainwavescience.com/), and it had all the usual signs of
> quackery: grandiose claims, association with Harvard University,
> commercial interest. Out of the hundreds of validating studies I
> believe they claimed during the programme, I found _one_ on their
> web site, which they said will be published shortly in the
> _Journal of Forensic Science_. It's a long meandering article,
> apparently of six subjects correctly identified as having special
> information using their method. But if you read far enough, it
> turns out they mean only 3 subjects, who were paired with three
> controls.
>
> I couldn't figure out from all the nattering whether their
> experiment had any face validity or not. However, I didn't notice
> the word "blind" in there (as in "analysis of the brain wave data
> was carried out without knowledge of which subject it came
> from"), which is definitely not a good sign.
>
> What is particularly worrisome is that a respected programme
> like 60 Minutes and the legal profession (judging from their web
> site) seems to be taking their claims seriously.
>
> -Stephen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
> Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
> Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lennoxville, QC
> J1M 1Z7
> Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
> Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
> http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
