CDR: Re: censorship rears its head

[David Marshall]

Sampo A Syreeni <ssyreeni at cc.helsinki.fi> writes:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, David Marshall wrote:
> 
[My comments concerning blood flows not corresponding directly with
increased neural activity, followed by Mr. Syreeni's response to the
contrary.] 

> Actually bloodflow has been found more accurate a predictor of neural
> activity in some studies than the use of radioactive markers - for some
> reason, the metabolic activity of human cells does not always get reflected
> in their oxygen/glucose consumption in any straight forward way.

Point taken. I stand corrected.

> >   D) Why would you use an MRI in this case _at all_?
> 
> I think the fastest MRI equipment can go upto tens (or even
> hundreds? anybody?) of images per second. Tracking bloodflow at such a high
> temporal resolution actually gives a lot more information about the local
> activity of the brain than those relatively static PET shots. (Remember, PET
> requires considerable repetition, consentration and conditioning before
> sharp images of brain activity are acquired.)

You're right. Tens at the very least. 

> >     A) The researchers were purposefully trying to obscure data.
> 
> Not likely. Few people with MRI access are stupid enough to do this. Of
> course, we might find that the researchers have a concurring viewpoint on
> the subject matter...

I figured I'd present it anyway. Nobody who is in a position to have
access to the equipment, to get grant money, etc., is stupid enough to
obscure data. Other researchers would make their name mud in very
short order. If nothing else, it's a professional-self-preservation
thing. 

> >    * The public school system in the area: The shooter most likely
> >      had a history of behavoral problems, yet they put him in the
> >      general population.
> 
> General population? Phew...

Hey, it's a prison camp with a government re-education emphasis. No
sense mincing words. :)

> >7) Why can't we place the blame where it belongs: On the shooter?
> 
> 'Cause that would mean children aren't innocent?

And because it would mean that the government doofuses can't sue the
people with the deepest pockets, and can't use it to bolster policy
positions, and it's political suicide to start attacking the primary
sources of problems. It's easier to call everyone a victim and lose no
votes and appear compassionate, than it is to place blame where it
belongs, lose some votes, and get attacked as "mean-spirited" by the
opposition. 

Censorship and gun control sound like risky schemes to me.