The comedy of the pre-crime is that it is already here, just not evenly distributed nor is it accurate, but it is amusing to see how supposed attempts against no-evidence still justifies the need for it.
See Mr. Kirkegaard and his venture towards the muscularized psyche. It is often that ones who are either dull (low IQ correlation to crime as means to survival) or pathologically instable (p-factor and verbal tilt theory, correlation between windbags and predatory behaviors) who do most of the bad deeds. The former can be sheltered from crime, but the latter is socially maladapt in the most quantifiable sense. https://kirkegaard.substack.com/
But to look closely, it is the equivalent of spotting bad omens from ancient times. The only person who slams psychometrics are the same people who denies omens, as to not sew skepticism of their false innocence. The guilty also blame the most innocent for wrongdoings. Any attempts of surveillance or even confession, if it has loopholes, it simply has to fall back on partial logic, heuristics, and intuition. If one insists on pure chains of logic for some dubious "innocence until absolutely proven guilty", isn't it a suspect for possible guilt?
Have you watched Minority Report? A great movie on pre-crime ( evidence/no-evidence)
I have seen that movie. Saw parts of it recently again.
The comedy of the pre-crime is that it is already here, just not evenly distributed nor is it accurate, but it is amusing to see how supposed attempts against no-evidence still justifies the need for it.
See Mr. Kirkegaard and his venture towards the muscularized psyche. It is often that ones who are either dull (low IQ correlation to crime as means to survival) or pathologically instable (p-factor and verbal tilt theory, correlation between windbags and predatory behaviors) who do most of the bad deeds. The former can be sheltered from crime, but the latter is socially maladapt in the most quantifiable sense. https://kirkegaard.substack.com/
But to look closely, it is the equivalent of spotting bad omens from ancient times. The only person who slams psychometrics are the same people who denies omens, as to not sew skepticism of their false innocence. The guilty also blame the most innocent for wrongdoings. Any attempts of surveillance or even confession, if it has loopholes, it simply has to fall back on partial logic, heuristics, and intuition. If one insists on pure chains of logic for some dubious "innocence until absolutely proven guilty", isn't it a suspect for possible guilt?