To me what this article describes sounds suspiciously like the outlier points on a fairly standard statistical distribution of maturation vs chronological age… the good old bell curve strikes again. A bit of algebra, a bit of arithmetic, a splash of census data and you’d think the shrinks, working the tool they created, would be able to toss a fairly accurate guess as to the actual population of potential shooters.
Sadly, I didn’t see much in the article along such lines… no such factoid offered to the public. Just “machine intelligence” (a non human thing and therefore safely insulated from words like ethics or social integrity) assigned to the task of pre-emptive identification of risk.
Considering the source (several ranking shrinks out of Academia), and considering the fact that THAT demographic is and has been used to justify the fauxLiberal’s attack on any and every form of personal freedom based on personal responsibility, the subtle and slanted illusions within the article to a population subjected to psycho-tyranny by algorithm becomes just a preamble attack leveraging a tragedy on the smaller scale to promote a travesty on the larger scale.
Raise the legal age to 21 and shift the curve? Certainly. Move high capacity semi automatic rifles into the same category as high capacity semi-automatic pistols? Common sense (leaving legitimate low capacity hunting weapons and personal defense single action handguns alone) quite acceptable in my book.
But use the acute minority (a whopping .03% of the population who might maybe be those dangerous outlier points on one side of a bell curve) as a justification grant the shrinks formal permission to operate in competition with the social media? Have the shrinks once again misuse the public schools to assemble a totally saleable and dead sure to be political psych profile data base on everyone? Not at all acceptable. In point of fact, lock and load unacceptable. Tyranny is tyranny, and such a scenario as that (which is what this article is actually proposing… the one and only proactive element embedded in all the other quite accurate psychobabble) is fauxLiberal Orwellian tyranny to the max.
June 5, 2022 @ 11:56 am
To me what this article describes sounds suspiciously like the outlier points on a fairly standard statistical distribution of maturation vs chronological age… the good old bell curve strikes again. A bit of algebra, a bit of arithmetic, a splash of census data and you’d think the shrinks, working the tool they created, would be able to toss a fairly accurate guess as to the actual population of potential shooters.
Sadly, I didn’t see much in the article along such lines… no such factoid offered to the public. Just “machine intelligence” (a non human thing and therefore safely insulated from words like ethics or social integrity) assigned to the task of pre-emptive identification of risk.
Considering the source (several ranking shrinks out of Academia), and considering the fact that THAT demographic is and has been used to justify the fauxLiberal’s attack on any and every form of personal freedom based on personal responsibility, the subtle and slanted illusions within the article to a population subjected to psycho-tyranny by algorithm becomes just a preamble attack leveraging a tragedy on the smaller scale to promote a travesty on the larger scale.
Raise the legal age to 21 and shift the curve? Certainly. Move high capacity semi automatic rifles into the same category as high capacity semi-automatic pistols? Common sense (leaving legitimate low capacity hunting weapons and personal defense single action handguns alone) quite acceptable in my book.
But use the acute minority (a whopping .03% of the population who might maybe be those dangerous outlier points on one side of a bell curve) as a justification grant the shrinks formal permission to operate in competition with the social media? Have the shrinks once again misuse the public schools to assemble a totally saleable and dead sure to be political psych profile data base on everyone? Not at all acceptable. In point of fact, lock and load unacceptable. Tyranny is tyranny, and such a scenario as that (which is what this article is actually proposing… the one and only proactive element embedded in all the other quite accurate psychobabble) is fauxLiberal Orwellian tyranny to the max.
Nice try guys, no banana points.