The new breakthrough in what appears to be the totally untrustworthy science of neuroscience is interesting, mainly, and to some extent unfairly in this case, for all the wrong reasons. Coming as it does amid the deluge of disinformation, propaganda and lies online and in mainstream media, it’s not a great look for the science.
I don’t want to regurgitate, or mislead, regarding the nature of these tests or the results. Read Brown’s article in full to get the complete implications of this research.
This is the basic timeline:
The earlier phase of this study originally focused on training people in responses to color and patterns:
“…to associate the perception of color with the context of a pattern so strongly that volunteers saw the color when cued by the pattern, even if the color wasn’t really there.”
The next stage was to use MRI feedback and decoding cortical responses to measure and try to influence how people reacted to faces. The new study, using a reward system and secondary testing, reworking previous testing, delivered measurable changes. It works. It can affect how you perceive faces.
See any possible problems with this line of research?
There is one minor problem in this research, in that it relates to “increased brain activity” as a measure. Increased brain activity is pretty common in rethinking or focusing on a problem, particularly in a test environment.
That said, the natural increase in activity is also measurable, and becomes more so with additional testing. These results may be quite accurate, with appropriate compensation for those factors.
Which leaves us with a problem: what are the potentials for misuse of this technology?
To explain:
Facial recognition is a critical social reflex. It’s crucial to human associations and how people interact. So is the processing of recognition. It’s a value and risk assessment.
If that process is manipulated, the result may not be reliable. If you have a positive reaction to a face where previously you had a negative, you may have had a rethink. You may also have had your values changed by manipulation to an inaccurate assessment.
You may trust someone who you wouldn’t otherwise trust. You may be manipulated in to having an opinion based on nothing but an induced sense of trust.
This is dangerous, by any risk management or survival theory. Some people aren’t trustworthy. Some can be serious risks. “Managing” personal judgment takes away a valuable survival tool. If your judgment using this technique is different from your usual judgment, who can you trust? Not yourself, obviously. Whatever your response, if it’s manipulated, it’s not really your response.
Therapy? Or blindfolding?
One of the big problems I have with this whole line of research is that it’s intended for therapeutic use. The idea is to use it to help people manage anxiety, for example.
Fine in theory, and it’s a serious global problem, but:
• Anxiety is also a survival response. It’s triggered by real anxieties.
• There are a lot of reasons for anxiety in this world which anyone would call good reasons.
• What if you blank out the natural, correct reactions to dangerous situations?
• Anxiety as a mental condition is nothing less than hellish. It’s a crippling, seriously debilitating, state of mind.
Therapy is needed, but can you guarantee a mix of good judgment and reduced anxiety by directly accessing brain processes? Not easy. A blindfold is not a cure for anything.
Managing triggers for bad memories is another, theoretically laudable, goal. Bad memories can be excruciating, and no longer relevant to a person’s situation. Fair enough.
However, memory is also a learning function. What if you ‘un-learn’ as a result of therapy? What if you have to learn that lesson again, the hard way, when your bad memories would have told you to steer clear of situations like that?
The problem is that at some point the high emotional and intellectual pressures exerted by those experiences to avoid risk may be reduced. Can they be reduced to the point that the memories are less functional, or dysfunctional, as risk evasion tools? Not a pleasant question.
Please note – this technique doesn’t repress or eliminate memory. Quite the opposite; the researchers are well aware of the “brainwashing” risks of the idea of managing perceptions. The idea is to nuance memories to less unpleasant, bearable, experiences. That’s a nice change from the sciences mindlessly giving potential weapons against humanity to the nutcases, I do hope it catches on.
So, great science, groundbreaking, and useful, but with some issues. Now let’s just hope that the lunatics with the money don’t try to duplicate it and use it. There are more than enough fools in this world with “over managed” thinking already.
