It has begun

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

No one's making that argument.

Uh... are you saying I'm no one? I'm making that argument. You may not want to acknowledge the nefarious reasons the government wants to use behavioral science to manipulate its citizens into doing as some political elite decides is right, doesn't mean others don't want to discuss it.

The argument being made is that you should always inspect what powers the government appropriates because it may be used for nefarious reasons by people in government, who are as likely to be venal as the next guy but with considerably more power. That's it, just a request to look closely and determine how it can be used badly and set up defenses or at least watchdogs to look after that.

Really? That's your argument? To be honest, your argument has not come across very clearly, previous to this post. Is this the argument you are going with?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Uh... are you saying I'm no one? I'm making that argument. You may not want to acknowledge the nefarious reasons the government wants to use behavioral science to manipulate its citizens into doing as some political elite decides is right, doesn't mean others don't want to discuss it.

Ah, I misunderstood your intent at making that argument in good faith for a rhetorical flourish meant to mock others. I see my mistake and apologize.

Really? That's your argument? To be honest, your argument has not come across very clearly, previous to this post. Is this the argument you are going with?

Everything I've said in this thread matches closely to that premise, so, yes, that has been my argument all along. What argument did you think I was making?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Ah, I misunderstood your intent at making that argument in good faith for a rhetorical flourish meant to mock others. I see my mistake and apologize.

Apology semi-accepted.

Everything I've said in this thread matches closely to that premise, so, yes, that has been my argument all along. What argument did you think I was making?

Matching closely isn't actually matching. That may have been the argument you wanted to make, but it wasn't the argument you made. It appeared as if you were suggesting that the government shouldn't use behavioral science techniques because they would you use it for nefarious reasons. The whole part about being watchful because they might might abuse it is not clear. This time you clearly stated your argument.

Now I have another question: do you believe that this executive order has been given without any failsafes to prevent government abuse? Would you assume that behavioral scientist would just go along an conduct these experiments and implement behavioral interventions without regard to the people they will be affecting? We have ethic guidelines and rules that guide our research. We could lose our license for breaking those rules. Aside from that, we try to help others, not just just change behavior to change behavior. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't any behavioral scientist that wouldn't disregard these rules, but I'd like to think that those people are in the minority... as in a very tiny minority.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Apology semi-accepted.

Matching closely isn't actually matching. That may have been the argument you wanted to make, but it wasn't the argument you made. It appeared as if you were suggesting that the government shouldn't use behavioral science techniques because they would you use it for nefarious reasons. The whole part about being watchful because they might might abuse it is not clear. This time you clearly stated your argument.

My second post in the thread (the first being a half-serious joke involving Rush Limbaugh):

He doesn't have the police power of the government behind it. If you're fine with the government being able to influence people via open propaganda and subtle marketing to follow it's goals, then you must be fine with those goals and tools being defined by your worst political enemy. If that makes you concerned, you should be concerned about the policy.

Policies and laws are tools. They are not goods in and of themselves. The use they are put to is determined by the power currently behind them. This is why policies should be narrowly tailored to not give broad and unspecified powers or should be entirely transparent so it's use can be fairly judged.

This policy is neither of those. It grants a overly broad justification for the use of behavior research and it's fruits to manipulate the public into being more accommodating of government goals. It doesn't define the limits of the research or its uses, it doesn't define what goals, and it doesn't provide for any transparency so that the public can see and understand how the government is acting. It's a bad policy.

The goal of the policy may be noble, and I don't have any basic disagreement with the concept, but the execution is handing another powerful tool to the government while cloaking it's use in shadow. We have enough of that already, thanks.

That last paragraph is the same argument I make above. It derailed into specifics about how it might be abused, but that was after I made my broad position statement and started chasing rabbits. Nothing I've said in this thread contravenes my premise. If you didn't see it, perhaps that's my fault for not making it clear (although I do so in my second post and never contradict it) and I can take that, but it also appears that you took some assumptions into the discussion yourself.

Now I have another question: do you believe that this executive order has been given without any failsafes to prevent government abuse?

Not effective ones. I have worked in government before, and that kind of direction is nearly useless for actual oversight. As someone that does routinely come up with test plans and metrics for projects, and who has had actual, effective, and specific control, I can spot the difference. That order permits programs to define their own tests and metrics without guidelines, and that's a recipe for potential abuse merely through incompetence.

Would you assume that behavioral scientist would just go along an conduct these experiments and implement behavioral interventions without regard to the people they will be affecting?

Are behavioral scientists not people? Are the inherently more honest, forthright, incorruptible, or competent than other people? I'll answer my own rhetorical questions: No, and no. I don't hold the field of behavioral scientists in any higher moral or ethical esteem than I would a random sampling of lawyers.

We have ethic guidelines and rules that guide our research. We could lose our license for breaking those rules. Aside from that, we try to help others, not just just change behavior to change behavior. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't any behavioral scientist that wouldn't disregard these rules, but I'd like to think that those people are in the minority... as in a very tiny minority.

I would like to agree with you (I don't know any behavioral scientists, so actually agreeing with you would be pointless -- I'm not qualified at all to say), but that's a bit wishful to rest policies that affect millions on. All I'm saying is that a lot of light and some limitations wouldn't be amiss, and I don't see how that reflects poorly on behavioral scientists.

But, that aside, there doesn't have to be willful unethical behavior for abuse to occur. Merely ideological agreement with the ends that colors perceptions and introduces bias in research and testing. This is a problem associated with being human and caring about things, not with being a bad person.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

My second post in the thread (the first being a half-serious joke involving Rush Limbaugh):


That last paragraph is the same argument I make above. It derailed into specifics about how it might be abused, but that was after I made my broad position statement and started chasing rabbits. Nothing I've said in this thread contravenes my premise. If you didn't see it, perhaps that's my fault for not making it clear (although I do so in my second post and never contradict it) and I can take that, but it also appears that you took some assumptions into the discussion yourself.

Right, let's compare those two post and see how they match up.
[sblock=First post]

He doesn't have the police power of the government behind it. If you're fine with the government being able to influence people via open propaganda and subtle marketing to follow it's goals, then you must be fine with those goals and tools being defined by your worst political enemy. If that makes you concerned, you should be concerned about the policy.

Policies and laws are tools. They are not goods in and of themselves. The use they are put to is determined by the power currently behind them. This is why policies should be narrowly tailored to not give broad and unspecified powers or should be entirely transparent so it's use can be fairly judged.

This policy is neither of those. It grants a overly broad justification for the use of behavior research and it's fruits to manipulate the public into being more accommodating of government goals. It doesn't define the limits of the research or its uses, it doesn't define what goals, and it doesn't provide for any transparency so that the public can see and understand how the government is acting. It's a bad policy.

The goal of the policy may be noble, and I don't have any basic disagreement with the concept, but the execution is handing another powerful tool to the government while cloaking it's use in shadow. We have enough of that already, thanks.

[/sblock]

[sblock=Second post]

No one's making that argument. The argument being made is that you should always inspect what powers the government appropriates because it may be used for nefarious reasons by people in government, who are as likely to be venal as the next guy but with considerably more power. That's it, just a request to look closely and determine how it can be used badly and set up defenses or at least watchdogs to look after that.

I agree that this order is likely to bring useful and good outcomes, but it's also very open to abuse and so should either have better restrictions and controls in place or be entirely open (all research, results, and implementations shared) or both.

[/sblock] As i said, matching closely is not matching. Your second post makes it clear that you want to look how it can be used badly and set up a defense or at least watchdogs to look after that. You may have had hints regarding that position in your first post, but they are scattered about, and the jokes get in the way of making a clear statement. There is a cost to jokes. So again, the second quote clearly states your argument. Your previous posts were not as clear. You may have thought they were.

Not effective ones. I have worked in government before, and that kind of direction is nearly useless for actual oversight. As someone that does routinely come up with test plans and metrics for projects, and who has had actual, effective, and specific control, I can spot the difference. That order permits programs to define their own tests and metrics without guidelines, and that's a recipe for potential abuse merely through incompetence.

Could you explain why how this executive order is not effective in limiting abuse?

Are behavioral scientists not people? Are the inherently more honest, forthright, incorruptible, or competent than other people? I'll answer my own rhetorical questions: No, and no. I don't hold the field of behavioral scientists in any higher moral or ethical esteem than I would a random sampling of lawyers.

So you have an inherent distrust of people? Or is it just an inherent distrust of people that belong to certain groups?

I would like to agree with you (I don't know any behavioral scientists, so actually agreeing with you would be pointless -- I'm not qualified at all to say), but that's a bit wishful to rest policies that affect millions on.

So you aren't qualified to decide on how ethical behavior scientist are, but you are qualified to comment on how unethical behavior scientist can be?

All I'm saying is that a lot of light and some limitations wouldn't be amiss, and I don't see how that reflects poorly on behavioral scientists.

Do you not believe that behavioral scientist would limit themselves?

But, that aside, there doesn't have to be willful unethical behavior for abuse to occur. Merely ideological agreement with the ends that colors perceptions and introduces bias in research and testing. This is a problem associated with being human and caring about things, not with being a bad person.

I disagree.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, let's compare those two post and see how they match up.
[sblock=First post]

[/sblock]

[sblock=Second post]
[/sblock] As i said, matching closely is not matching. Your second post makes it clear that you want to look how it can be used badly and set up a defense or at least watchdogs to look after that. You may have had hints regarding that position in your first post, but they are scattered about, and the jokes get in the way of making a clear statement. There is a cost to jokes. So again, the second quote clearly states your argument. Your previous posts were not as clear. You may have thought they were.

What's your point? That I wasn't clear enough for you the first time? I conceded that. What's left with this argument (I want to make sure I'm appreciating your intent, given the work that went into that response).

Could you explain why how this executive order is not effective in limiting abuse?

I thought I did in the paragraph you quoted, namely that there are no uniform controls in place. Testing and compliance is left up to the individual programs (they must test, but what isn't specified, nor the how, nor the standards). So a report on testing isn't very useful oversight because you don't know what they're reporting against.

So you have an inherent distrust of people? Or is it just an inherent distrust of people that belong to certain groups?

See, you accuse me of not being clear, but you're bringing in a number of assumptions to your questioning here. People are people. Some aren't trustworthy, most are. You don't know who's who, and there's nothing about behavioral scientists that would convince me they're significantly different from the usual distribution. Lawyers aren't -- most are decent, some are bad -- and they have about the same level of ethical restrictions on them. If you'd like to take that as me being a misanthrope, okay, but I just think people are people.

So you aren't qualified to decide on how ethical behavior scientist are, but you are qualified to comment on how unethical behavior scientist can be?

Huh? I don't follow. I said behavioral scientists are people, and people can be unethical. Is there something controversial about that? I'm an electrical engineer. We have lots of ethical guidelines as well. Especially if you're a PE. However, since I follow the trade, I know that there are loads of unethical jack---es out there doing unethical things and getting caught. If you told me that electrical engineers were just like regular people -- some are prone to misbehave -- I'd not be offended in the least because it's true. Unless you know every behavioral scientist and can vouch for them, I'm confused as to why this would bother you and/or be something controversial. Surely you don't think that all behavioral scientists are perfect.

Do you not believe that behavioral scientist would limit themselves?

I again ask you what is special about being a behavioral scientist that sets them apart from people in general. Do you think that *random person* would limit themselves?

For the record, I would hope that they would, but would not trust that to be true. I'd prefer oversight.

I disagree.

Okay. Could I ask if you ever have to get IRB approval for research, and, if so, why you think that might be?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

What's your point? That I wasn't clear enough for you the first time? I conceded that.

Great, so why did you quote your second post?

What's left with this argument (I want to make sure I'm appreciating your intent, given the work that went into that response).

The work that went into who's response? Your's or mine?

I thought I did in the paragraph you quoted, namely that there are no uniform controls in place. Testing and compliance is left up to the individual programs (they must test, but what isn't specified, nor the how, nor the standards). So a report on testing isn't very useful oversight because you don't know what they're reporting against.

Really? Sections 2 & 3 seems to suggest otherwise.

See, you accuse me of not being clear, but you're bringing in a number of assumptions to your questioning here. People are people. Some aren't trustworthy, most are. You don't know who's who, and there's nothing about behavioral scientists that would convince me they're significantly different from the usual distribution. Lawyers aren't -- most are decent, some are bad -- and they have about the same level of ethical restrictions on them. If you'd like to take that as me being a misanthrope, okay, but I just think people are people.

Right, but this was a comment about your lack of qualifications to judge how ethical behavior scientists are, and your qualifications to judge behavioral scientists to be unethical. I'm curious as to why you believe you aren't qualified to make a judgement on the first but you are qualified to judge the second?

Huh? I don't follow. I said behavioral scientists are people, and people can be unethical. Is there something controversial about that? I'm an electrical engineer. We have lots of ethical guidelines as well. Especially if you're a PE. However, since I follow the trade, I know that there are loads of unethical jack---es out there doing unethical things and getting caught. If you told me that electrical engineers were just like regular people -- some are prone to misbehave -- I'd not be offended in the least because it's true. Unless you know every behavioral scientist and can vouch for them, I'm confused as to why this would bother you and/or be something controversial. Surely you don't think that all behavioral scientists are perfect.

It seems you're arguing possibility rather than probability. Is it possible that a behavior scientist is unethical? Yes, of course. I haven't argued otherwise. Do you believe that it is more probable than not that the behavior scientist that will be working with the government on these projects will be unethical?

I again ask you what is special about being a behavioral scientist that sets them apart from people in general.

Well, most people don't have ethics boards that can take away their licenses. A lawyer violates the ethics rules set forth by their board, and they risk losing their ability to practice law. Would you agree that most people don't have the restrictions lawyers have?

Do you think that *random person* would limit themselves?

For the record, I would hope that they would, but would not trust that to be true. I'd prefer oversight.

Of course, why not? I don't believe most people want to harm others. Granted, I may believe that libertarians are more likely to ignore or not care about how their actions affect others, so they can benefit, but luckily most people are not libertarians. But that's neither here nor there.

Okay. Could I ask if you ever have to get IRB approval for research, and, if so, why you think that might be?

Actually, yes, I have. I've had to do it several times, and I'll be doing it in the future as well. It's to make sure that you aren't harming participants, using some intervention that is aversive (though you could still get IRB approval for aversive interventions, it's just far more difficult), keeping the subject relatively safe, and keeping with the laws that govern privacy for research participants, among other reasons, but I assume those would be the most pertinent reasons to your question.

So let me ask you this, have you had to get IRB approval? If you have, do you, being people, only restrict yourself because you require IRB approval? Or is there another reason why you restrict yourself?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Great, so why did you quote your second post?

In the thread? I'm not following you.

The work that went into who's response? Your's or mine?

Yours. I obviously have no need to decipher the intent of the work I put into my posts.

Really? Sections 2 & 3 seems to suggest otherwise.
It doesn't establish oversight (and nothing in the charters of those organizations mentioned grants oversight), it establishes advice. The SBST has, so far in it's one year, done good work. I expect that to continue, but the order doesn't establish oversight.

Right, but this was a comment about your lack of qualifications to judge how ethical behavior scientists are, and your qualifications to judge behavioral scientists to be unethical. I'm curious as to why you believe you aren't qualified to make a judgement on the first but you are qualified to judge the second?

You're asking why I don't feel qualified to judge how ethical behavioral scientists are, but I feel qualified to judge when an behavioral scientist is being unethical? In the same way that I don't feel qualified to tell what color your shirt is because I've never seen it, but if I did see it, I feel qualified to tell you what color it is. I do not know any behavioral scientists, therefore I cannot make any statements about individual scientists ethical tendencies. However, I can define what would be unethical, and, if I was introduced to a behavioral scientist and a record of his behavior, I could make a judgement on the ethics of that behavior.

Does that answer your question? If it doesn't, it's because I'm not understanding you well.

It seems you're arguing possibility rather than probability. Is it possible that a behavior scientist is unethical? Yes, of course. I haven't argued otherwise. Do you believe that it is more probable than not that the behavior scientist that will be working with the government on these projects will be unethical?

I think it's just as probable that a behavioral scientist will be unethical as it would be for any other professional to be unethical. If you feel that there is no need for any profession to have ethical oversight when directing government actions, then we've reached an impasse -- we disagree. If, instead, you feel that i'm being unfair to behavioral scientist in particular by holding them to the same standards I would hold any other profession, then please elucidate what you feel makes behavioral scientists more trustworthy than other professions.

Well, most people don't have ethics boards that can take away their licenses. A lawyer violates the ethics rules set forth by their board, and they risk losing their ability to practice law. Would you agree that most people don't have the restrictions lawyers have?

Yes, actually, most professions have ethics boards that can take away their licenses. Engineers do. Doctors do. Scientists do (they're not licensed, but an ethics violation severely limits their career options). As noted, lawyers do. Plumbers, even, are licensed and bonded in most states. Ethical review boards are often associated with professional work.

Of course, why not? I don't believe most people want to harm others. Granted, I may believe that libertarians are more likely to ignore or not care about how their actions affect others, so they can benefit, but luckily most people are not libertarians. But that's neither here nor there.

I do hope you realize the irony in this statement. You start with the statement that you believe that most people do not want to harm others, and then you, for no apparent reason, decide to insult a group of people that aren't even a part of this discussion with a gross stereotype. Hey, though, I appreciate that you want to assist my arguments like that.

Actually, yes, I have. I've had to do it several times, and I'll be doing it in the future as well. It's to make sure that you aren't harming participants, using some intervention that is aversive (though you could still get IRB approval for aversive interventions, it's just far more difficult), keeping the subject relatively safe, and keeping with the laws that govern privacy for research participants, among other reasons, but I assume those would be the most pertinent reasons to your question.

So you feel it's entirely routine and reasonable to provide hard oversight of behavioral science work. Great! I'm glad that we are in full agreement here. I apologize if I wasn't entirely clear when I phrased my argument in favor of good oversight of government behavioral researchers, but we got to agreement in the end.

So let me ask you this, have you had to get IRB approval? If you have, do you, being people, only restrict yourself because you require IRB approval? Or is there another reason why you restrict yourself?

Nope, don't do University research. I'm going to assume that you actually meant the followup questions to apply regardless of the answer to the first even though they're phrasing doesn't allow for that, so... no, I restrict myself according to other ethical standards that are reviewed. Would I follow them if they weren't enforced? Yes, I would follow them. I have, however, worked next to people that didn't. They weren't evil, or trying to hurt people, but did it because it was more expedient to cut the corners. I've also known of cases in my office, but not in my group, where someone violated ethical guidelines for personal profit. So, no, I don't have much faith that people will not violate ethical standards as a whole. Most won't, and most that do will do so out of a motive that isn't venal or evil. Some will do so for personal gain, or out of a lack of empathy, though. And I do not hold that scientists, of any ilk, are anything more than people. I work with engineers, on things that could kill people if things are done shoddily, and it happens in that field. Engineers who have as much ethical overhead as research scientists (we engineers tend to go to jail for ethical violations though). So unless you can show me where there's something special about scientists, or behavioral scientists in specific, I'm not ever going to agree that they're so pure that they need no oversight, especially when their research is being used by the government and gains that level of power over people.

There used to be a time, not to distant, where suspicion of government was a strongly liberal trait. Most of the rhetoric coming out these days is about distrust of power systems -- patriarchy, racism, etc. -- but there seems to be immediate acceptance of the only clearly enshrined power system there is -- government. I'm not a minarchist libertarian, I think government needs to exist, that it's required for modern society to function. I disagree with how it's currently structured in some regards, but for the most part I don't have a problem with it. I don't, and won't ever, trust it though. It must be watched, at all times, so that it doesn't assume the powers of tyranny. I know the response to this will be mocking that it's no where near tyranny, and I agree, it's not. But that's absolutely no reason to not watch it. So I want new powers and power structures being organized without government, like this SBST and the behavioral research, to have strict controls and be transparent to all. That's the extent of my argument.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

In the thread? I'm not following you.

You agree that you weren't clear enough, yet quote a post you made to show that you were clear enough. If you agree that you weren't clear enough originally, why quote the second post you made in the thread to show you were clear? What was the purpose of doing that?

Yours. I obviously have no need to decipher the intent of the work I put into my posts.

I don't think you're qualified to determine how much effort I put into a response. It wasn't much, to be honest. You also shouldn't worry about how much effort I put into responses. I mean, would it really make a difference to you if I put a lot of effort in my response? Would you suddenly change your position because of the effort I put into it?

Really? Sections 2 & 3 seems to suggest otherwise.
It doesn't establish oversight (and nothing in the charters of those organizations mentioned grants oversight), it establishes advice. The SBST has, so far in it's one year, done good work. I expect that to continue, but the order doesn't establish oversight.

It may not establish new oversight, but it does it need to? Do you believe that there is no oversight previously established by The Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) or the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)?

You're asking why I don't feel qualified to judge how ethical behavioral scientists are, but I feel qualified to judge when an behavioral scientist is being unethical?

No, but maybe I should ask that. You're an engineer, right? Would you accept my judgement on whether or not you are being ethical in your profession? Why or why not?

In the same way that I don't feel qualified to tell what color your shirt is because I've never seen it, but if I did see it, I feel qualified to tell you what color it is. I do not know any behavioral scientists, therefore I cannot make any statements about individual scientists ethical tendencies. However, I can define what would be unethical, and, if I was introduced to a behavioral scientist and a record of his behavior, I could make a judgement on the ethics of that behavior.

Does that answer your question? If it doesn't, it's because I'm not understanding you well.

So let's see if we can clear this up. You can't judge the color of my shirt because you haven't seen it, correct? If you did see it, however, you would be perfectly able and qualified to judge the color. You've previously stated that you don't know any behavioral scientists. I'll assume you also haven't seen the ethics rules that behavior scientist have to follow. So, not knowing any behavior scientist or the ethics rules they have to follow, how are you able to judge how likely they are to violate their ethics or if/when they violate their ethics?

It appears that you have a pre-conceived notion about behavior scientist, and all people, actually. It's a bias you have, which affects the way you interpret the communist manifesto that this executive order is.

I think it's just as probable that a behavioral scientist will be unethical as it would be for any other professional to be unethical.

Okay, let's compare. You have a high school teacher and Martin Shkreli. Who is more likely to be unethical?

If you feel that there is no need for any profession to have ethical oversight when directing government actions, then we've reached an impasse -- we disagree.

I'm not even sure where you're getting that from.

If, instead, you feel that i'm being unfair to behavioral scientist in particular by holding them to the same standards I would hold any other profession, then please elucidate what you feel makes behavioral scientists more trustworthy than other professions.

Not sure where you're getting that from, either. It just appears that you're on the edge of going over to the government conspiracist's side believing that this is meant to be used for nefarious reasons. The argument doesn't come off as it can be used for nefarious purposes, but that it will be used for nefarious purposes. You might be arguing the former, but you're coming off as the latter.

Yes, actually, most professions have ethics boards that can take away their licenses. Engineers do. Doctors do. Scientists do (they're not licensed, but an ethics violation severely limits their career options). As noted, lawyers do. Plumbers, even, are licensed and bonded in most states. Ethical review boards are often associated with professional work.

Do you believe all professions have the same level of ethics? That is to say, would the ethical guidelines for lawyers be the same as for a truck driver or a painter? Would they all be equally as strict? Would he repercussions for violating a rule be the same for all three?

I do hope you realize the irony in this statement. You start with the statement that you believe that most people do not want to harm others, and then you, for no apparent reason, decide to insult a group of people that aren't even a part of this discussion with a gross stereotype. Hey, though, I appreciate that you want to assist my arguments like that.

What irony? I said luckily most people are not libertarians. I've never said that there are no people that want to harm others. Of course there are. Most people aren't looking to be jerks. Most people aren't libertarians. In fact, I know some people that say they're libertarians, but they don't really know what a libertarian is.

So you feel it's entirely routine and reasonable to provide hard oversight of behavioral science work. Great! I'm glad that we are in full agreement here. I apologize if I wasn't entirely clear when I phrased my argument in favor of good oversight of government behavioral researchers, but we got to agreement in the end.

Sure, however, it appears that you believe that this oversight isn't going on, or it's not going on strictly enough, and I would disagree with you.

Nope, don't do University research.

So you have no experience with IRBs?

I'm going to assume that you actually meant the followup questions to apply regardless of the answer to the first even though they're phrasing doesn't allow for that, so... no, I restrict myself according to other ethical standards that are reviewed.

So if there were no ethical standards, you wouldn't restrict yourself?

Would I follow them if they weren't enforced? Yes, I would follow them. I have, however, worked next to people that didn't. They weren't evil, or trying to hurt people, but did it because it was more expedient to cut the corners. I've also known of cases in my office, but not in my group, where someone violated ethical guidelines for personal profit. So, no, I don't have much faith that people will not violate ethical standards as a whole. Most won't, and most that do will do so out of a motive that isn't venal or evil. Some will do so for personal gain, or out of a lack of empathy, though. And I do not hold that scientists, of any ilk, are anything more than people. I work with engineers, on things that could kill people if things are done shoddily, and it happens in that field. Engineers who have as much ethical overhead as research scientists (we engineers tend to go to jail for ethical violations though).

The bolded parts seems to contradict each other.

So unless you can show me where there's something special about scientists, or behavioral scientists in specific, I'm not ever going to agree that they're so pure that they need no oversight, especially when their research is being used by the government and gains that level of power over people.

That's the part that makes you appear as some anti-government conspiracy theorist.

There used to be a time, not to distant, where suspicion of government was a strongly liberal trait. Most of the rhetoric coming out these days is about distrust of power systems -- patriarchy, racism, etc. -- but there seems to be immediate acceptance of the only clearly enshrined power system there is -- government.

Why would I care what liberals used to think or what they think now? How is that pertinent to our discussion?

I'm not a minarchist libertarian, I think government needs to exist, that it's required for modern society to function. I disagree with how it's currently structured in some regards, but for the most part I don't have a problem with it. I don't, and won't ever, trust it though. It must be watched, at all times, so that it doesn't assume the powers of tyranny. I know the response to this will be mocking that it's no where near tyranny, and I agree, it's not. But that's absolutely no reason to not watch it.

It seems that your distrust goes far beyond government. I'd say you distrust everyone. This bias that you have affects the manner in which you view the executive manifesto order.

So I want new powers and power structures being organized without government, like this SBST and the behavioral research, to have strict controls and be transparent to all. That's the extent of my argument.

Well, now we're going to have to o into what you consider strict controls and transparent to all So, what would fit your requirement to be a satisfactory strict enough control? I mean, you've stated that you don't, and won't ever trust government, so how could you trust that they are meeting your transparency and strict controls requirements?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The government using behavioral science for evil.