Maybe Someday...

[mcnoone]

As toward the topic.
There will be no need for brain scans in the future for seeking the skill assessment sets.
DNA editing will essentially make the brain scanning techniques obsolete for anything but medical reasons.
Oh boy...go any further with that and we'll be heading toward hpc again.

[Hink]

As toward the topic.
There will be no need for brain scans in the future for seeking the skill assessment sets.
DNA editing will essentially make the brain scanning techniques obsolete for anything but medical reasons.

I'm not sure if it still holds true now, but when I was a kid parents nor kids (at least in my town) were not made aware of the child's IQ. We studied this in school as well so I assume (college psychology) this was a universal concept. I think that perhaps you're right that dna is far more telling than a brainscan, I wonder if a similar approach would be taken.

[fmr]

You mean DNA manipulation? I hope that will NEVER be allowed. That will push us into the real "terror sci-fi" territory.

[BertKoor]

Thank you, Hink, for standing up for me. Friday I saw the discussion, did not take it personal at all and decided not to react. This weekend I was rather busy with other things, no time to type lengthy messages and editing quotes on a clumsy phone. Anyway...

[...] neurons [...]

[...] We only need to understand how one works to understand how they all do.

Q: How does the human brain work?
A: Very fine, thank you!

I do trust science. Maybe one day they will crack this enigma. I do understand how one single transistor works, but I can't figure out complex schematics like a TV. That's the current state: we're figuring out some parts of the puzzle. But I think it takes a larger intelligence than ours to truely understand it all. Not that that matters now.

I guess some people don't think such brain scans will become reality. And some don't want it to become reality? Why not?

Suppose you get this outcome:

Mr HarryUpBabble, here is the outcome of the test you were subjected to lately.
Your aptitudities are categorised as type R5X. This category makes you suitable for a career as a lawyer. If you fail to perform above norm in law school, you are still suited to become a carsalesman.
The number 5 is within safe limits. Were that 8 or above, then you were diagnosed as a liability to our New Society.
Also note that all types ending with an X are qualified as unfit for raising your own children. The New Society needs your specific character traits to propagate, but will not allow exposure to children.

HPC anyone??

[BertKoor]

Now imagine someday the kids in the ghettos and trailer parks becoming aware of "brain scans can now tell you what your brain is best suited for"

... and then the disappointment because their parents can't pay for further education?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27 ... y_of_needs
The lowest levels need to be built in order to build a higher level.

What does help is proper education. Free for everybody. With a good salary for the teachers. Good teachers know their children better than their own mothers, and should give them guidance into what they can achieve.

But then I think, if everybody does what they're good at, then who will wait my table and flip my burger? A subject for HPC again...

[harryupbabble]

"This category makes you suitable for a career as a lawyer. If you fail to perform above norm in law school, you are still suited to become a carsalesman."

I would want this knowledge compared to no knowledge at all. If I fail at what my brain is suited for, it would be my fault. But I am sure I would have extra drive and belief to try harder compared to if I didn't have the knowledge as to what exactly what my brain is suited for. It would make me focus on the right things and I would stop being delusional about having dreams and aspirations that doesn't suit my capabilities. If the test says I can't be a physicist I would abandon that pursuit and face reality and just be the best lawyer or car salesman that I can be.

"you were diagnosed as a liability to our New Society".

There is a guy a few years back that was found out via brain scan to be a sociopath. His family and friends suspected for years that yes he is a sociopath but the guy was surprised to find out that the brain scan confirms it. I don't know what the guy is doing now with that knowledge but isn't it best for society to know who the sociopaths are? Society can use other science to maybe help those people if they want help. If they don't want help then that is their choice but there would be a choice now compared to before where there was none? It's like pedophiles. What does society do now? They say pedophiles are not fixable but that is maybe because science is not too focused on fixing them? Society of the future might not be like the one you mentioned. I think the democratic type of society will/should persevere. People do still tend to want to immigrate to countries that are democratic?

"and then the disappointment because their parents can't pay for further education?"

One can then go do things like fundraising or ask for government support. If one has the proof that one can be super-useful to society then why would society not help if it would strengthen society. Doesn't society want more brainy people? Brainy people would speed up the space program, for example. Wouldn't society want 10 Einsteins instead of none?

"if everybody does what they're good at, then who will wait my table and flip my burger?"

Hopefully not the wrong people. Wasted potentials seem tragic to me. But I am almost sure such problems as "who will flip my burger" is solvable. Problems might be more solvable if brainy people are not wasted, and if brain scans can identify the brilliant people it seems beneficial to society.

[Gamma-UT]

If I fail at what my brain is suited for, it would be my fault.

You're falling for the idea of genetic determinism. Based on the evidence so far, brains don't really work like that. The brain is highly plastic and, basically, reacts to whatever you stick into it - drugs included. Yes, there are difference in reaction and processing times that probably reflect individual differences in brain chemistry but I doubt there is anything that will provide a meaningful analysis of brain behaviour at birth other than "I found a brain" and "given a normal diet and environment, capacity will probably be X decilitres"

[harryupbabble]

In terms of the brain being changeable (plasticity), brain scan would just "diagnose" your brain state at the time of brain scan. If at that time your brain is, for example, deemed to be good at chess or whatever related science fields or just whatever, then you can shape your brain even farther in that direction? Or you can wait till much later only to find out that your brain didn't really "veered off" that much from what it was when you were much younger? I don't know if the "brain cannot become total opposite of what it was" idea is fact. I'm just guessing.

It's like if you are predisposed to have cancer wouldn't you want to know in advance so that you can do something about it? My German Shepherd dog died of cancer. I later found out that that breed of dog get cancer all the time. Had I known that beforehand then I might have had more options and not pick that breed. Is that "dogism" or is that just using knowledge to avoid needless sadness? If the brain scan deem your brain is not suited for anything great then maybe you can turn to other type of science for assistance or maybe do nothing and just live your life? No one has to disclose their brain scan results just like no one now has to disclose their IQ.

But it's like what's the point of having a dream that is beyond your capabilities? You try and try and then you get old and never succeed at your dream because it was just beyond your capabilities no matter how much hard work you put in it? Isn't that just as tragic as finding out early via brain scan that your capabilities do not fit your chosen dream? Oh wait that's doesn't seem to be quite right... it might actually be better to find out early even if the facts are saddening rather than finding out late in life that you used your time wrongly?

Hopefully, accurate aptitude brain scan would be much superior to IQ tests. IQ tests seems flawed. Let's say one of the questions in an IQ test has the word "apex" in it... chances are you would not get the answer right if you don't know what an apex is or if English is not your native tongue. A truly accurate aptitude brain scan would/should be less flawed and more conclusive compared to an IQ test. Besides, once you take an IQ test you would know what the questions are like and you could study like hell and retake the test over and over and elevate your IQ? Aren't there Mensa members that have higher IQs than Bobby Fischer or Einstein? And yet I doubt if any Mensa member could have ever beat Bobby Fischer at chess. I doubt if Einstein could have ever beat Bobby Fischer at chess. Reasonable doubt?

True, brain scans might be primitive now, but everything was primitive once. DNA science is different because it deals with "before" and brain scans deal with "after".

[harryupbabble]

DNA science is different because it deals with "before". Oh wait that's not really true. Oooops.

[fmr]

But it's like what's the point of having a dream that is beyond your capabilities? You try and try and then you get old and never succeed at your dream because it was just beyond your capabilities no matter how much hard work you put in it? Isn't that just as tragic as finding out early via brain scan that your capabilities do not fit your chosen dream? Oh wait that's doesn't seem to be quite right... it might actually be better to find out early even if the facts are saddening rather than finding out late in life that you used your time wrongly?

This is BOLLOCKS. No matter what you try to come up with, and what "science" or pseudo-science" you invoke. Here, read this, and do some research:
"Judit Polgár was born on 23 July 1976 in Budapest, to a Hungarian Jewish family. Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klára educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject." Wikipedia: Judit Polgár (the youngest chess international grandmaster EVER, ex-number eight worldwide in ELO classification)
Now, are you telling me that he was so fortunate that he got three geniuses in a row, three out of three, or that he and his wife had some kind of "fortunate" DNA combination? Have you ever heard that "children of fish are born swimming" (or something like that - don't know if there is some english counterpart to this)

[harryupbabble]

What about the Bach family? Most were musicians and yet only Bach was really brilliant? What about dog breeds? You would need a long time of breeding and "training" to get the herding skills of a border collie. A German Shepherd could probably do it but a husky probably can't, not in their dog lifetime. So if you are a husky and your dream is to be a border collie, aren't you wasting your time? Apply that to humans.

Your example of the three chess players might just be that, a freaky genetic "triplets" similarity? Maybe that whole family was born to play great chess. But in Bach's family, with close relatives (cousins, etc) and siblings, it didn't seem to turn out that way?

[harryupbabble]

Are you saying that Mozart's father could have turned any child into Wolfgang?

[fmr]

Are you saying that Mozart's father could have turned any child into Wolfgang?

Yep, pretty much. Actually, probably Nannerl would have been a second Mozart, if she wasn't a woman. Not exactly Wolfgang, as Judit sisters didn't achieve the exact same level, but achieving a high level of excellence, definitely. Actually, she achieved it, at least in her youg age, when she was touring with her brother.

BTW - All Bach sons were excelent musicians and composers. Not at the same level as Johan Sebastian (in nowadays standards), but the eldest, Wilhelm Friedemann, which was the most trained by his father, was as good as that he was capable of imitating his father's writing. So well that several pieces (like the Inventions, the Sinfonias and Well Tempered Clavier) seem to have been written in partnership, as part of his composition training. And Carl Philip Emmanuel was highly regarded in his time, as well as Johann Christian. And these were not so intensely trained by their father, who, because of his duties, couldn't train all of them equally, of course.

After all, he was not trying to prove anything, just give them regular musicianship training. J S Bach himself is a prove that a genius is made, not born. He is the well known example of a musician that achieved a high degree of excelence mostly due to hard work, and the one that said: Music is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

[harryupbabble]

Okay Fernando, thanks for the thoughtful input and for not going ballistic.

But, I guess, although it may not seem it now, this thread is most likely eventually going to HPC. I just wish threads don't get purged at HPC. I put time and thought (as best as my ability permits me) into my topics and my replies. And so do some people with their replies in this thread. All that effort. Like tears in the rain. Hahaha, sorry, I love that movie. Okay bye for now, I am in about 5 minutes going to noodle around and try to make more possibly fecal songs. Lots of doubt there. Still.

[Numanoid]

What is the link between lateral thinking and U2 ?