Why Have Elections When You Have Neuroscience?

Brian Doherty | December 11, 2007

Over at Slate, fun takedowns of some recent excesses of pop-neuroscientific imperialism from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, in which the papers' op-ed pages sing the advantages of brain scans for swing voters and candidates themselves, respectively.

My own July reason feature on how much, and how little, the current capabilities of neuroscience can guide legal thinking about the insanity defense.

Comments

|12.11.07 @ 10:29AM|#

the papers' op-ed pages sing the advantages of brain scans for swing voters

I imagine they will be recommending lobotomy for those whose brain scan shows more activity than "wow, Rudy has a nice tie LOL!"

I mean, really, if candidates wanted to know what voters are thinking, they could try the old fashioned way. You know, listening to them.

But I guess that's no longer in the purview of a politician, huh?

MattXIV|12.11.07 @ 10:51AM|#

I slagged the Amen article at my blog.

Abdul|12.11.07 @ 11:00AM|#

Brain scans will never replace a thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed horoscope.

|12.11.07 @ 1:42PM|#

"imperialism" or "empiricalism"?

Mad Max|12.12.07 @ 1:56AM|#

A link from one of the articles, lauding the virtues of snake oil:

http://tinyurl.com/ysm769