[ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing

[Lee Corbin]

Mike writes

> Lee wrote
> 
>> Do you consider your act [of not discriminating judicially
>> against sociopaths] to be in all fairness to the future victims
>> of this known sociopath?
> 
> Yes.  'future victims'?   Can you show with high confidence over a
> statistically large sample the exact metric that determines what score
> on the sociopath test indicates not just a tendency or a likelihood,
> but a near certainty that said sociopath will victimize others?

No, certainly *I* cannot. I doubt whether the knowledge even
exists right now. The key question for *right now* is, should
we begin collecting such evidence and doing such studies?

By the way, please forgive me if I've unintentionally inserted 
clarifying parentheticals that do not conform to your views;
I'm really aiming only for clarity, hardly to set up straw dogs!
Just go ahead and re-correct me, thanks.

> Does this study account for the increased surveillance
> the state will have after labeling someone a sociopath?

What study?  Well, almost surely, the answer is no, because
studies of sociopathy and its links to crime don't necessarily
connect to increased surveillance (which is a policy issue,
not a fact issue).

To be concrete here is what I hope happens. Tell me where
y'all disagree:

  * we begin conducting massive tests using the new
     equipment so long as we're making progress and
     our findings do not evaporate as so often is the case
  * provided the previous step has been completed, we
     pay people (i.e. the government) some nominal
     amount to take the test
  * (and this is what was correctly worrying you) after
     that last step, we eventually require all children to
     undergo the test in exactly the same manner as we
     now require them to be tested for tuberculosis
  * (and this is what was correctly REALLY worrying you)
     then, again just as for teachers and others who come 
     into contact with children are by law in many states
     routinely screened for TB, we begin screening all adults
     who come into contact with children, police officers,
     hospital and elderly caretakers, soldiers, and convicted
     criminals---and it's compulsory!
  * we make the tests freely available to anyone, so that a
     bride may demand that her future husband undergo
     screening or face rejection, and future spouses afraid
     that if they've not already obtained a non-sociopath
     certificate, their future spouses, their families, and 
     their potential employers may want to know why.
     (Employers currently have the temerity to inquire
     whether future employees smoke! And why not---
     it's their job they're offering.)

> Maybe after this kind of evidence can be produced then I
> would agree.

Yes, but agree how far?

>> But my question clearly relates to a sociopath who has not successfully
>> internalized good behavior.
> 
> So you mean our policy will be changed to "innocent until preemptively
> tested for guilt"?

Absolutely not, because *being* a sociopath is no crime. As I
took pains to point out, there can indeed be very "conscientious
sociopaths", (though literally that's an oxymoron) who are 
scared to death of committing crimes or of being brutal to others
simply out of fear of the repercussions.

To be clear, if person X is identified at a young age of being
a sociopath to some degree or other, that information *will*
be used by a sentencing judge should the defendant be found
guilty of committing a crime, so say I.

What's wrong with that?

>  Sorry, I understood your testing scenario to be a requirement for
> entering the public education system - you know, for the safety of the
> children and the community in general.

Oh, no, Mike  :-)    You were right.  That was exactly where I
was headed.

> And once you have them in for testing, let's test for the likelihood
> of committing insurance fraud or the tendency to drink too much
> or violate any of the best practices prescribed by the Ministry.

Why not? Knowledge isn't bad:  it's the way that knowledge
is *used* that may be bad. Indeed, if we can anticipate that
this knowledge would be used by a too-powerful state to take
away liberties, then naturally I'd have to be against it. Have you
read Brin's "The Transparent Society", by the way?

Lee