An article in today’s WSJ reminded me that academicians can’t wait to get their mitts on data. They want personal data about the most personal habits of millions of Americans, and in this example, their ostensible goal is to “help” people who in their opinion are “at risk” of becoming addicted to gambling:
Similar to the way geneticists have invented tests to predict cancer risk, a group of addiction scientists and industry consultants say they can use casino customer-tracking information to create computerized models that can spot and warn people with high risk profiles. The new research essentially turns the industry’s own data, often used in connection with loyalty cards to identify and pamper the best customers, on its head.
Early forms of the systems already have been employed by some government-run casinos outside the U.S. and by some online-betting firms. The models vary, but in general they look for risky betting patterns such as intensive play over long periods, significant shifts in behavior, or chasing losses—betting more heavily in an attempt to recoup prior losses. Depending on the system, flagged gamblers may be given education tools or a detailed analysis of their behavior, or in rare cases be barred from playing.
Casino executives so far have generally resisted the science, which raises a host of fresh moral, political and legal issues at a time when the opportunity to gamble, through online betting and new casinos, is only growing. They argue no one can predict a gambling addiction, and that they can’t be held liable for such behavior in any case.
“I think it’s a terrible idea,” says Gary Loveman, chief executive at Caesars Entertainment Corp. and a former Harvard Business School professor, who pioneered casino data mining for marketing purposes. “Is it McDonald’s obligation to decide you have a problem because you have a tendency to eat high-calorie lunches? You could take this to ridiculous extremes.”
Could?
Please.
Not only could they, but they already are chomping at the bit to do precisely that.
Worst of all, they now have “the law” behind them.
Behavioral health anyone?
Behavioral health is a general term now commonly used in place of the older term mental health.
Like similar terms such as mental health and physical health, behavioral health is a basic English term which derives its meaning from the simple association between noun and adjective. Normal variations in the definition of such terms may be expected, given common variations seen in the component words “behavioral” and “health”. When the term is employed in the scientific or clinical sense, variations in the focus, if not the meaning of the term, have been observed.
And when the term is employed in the statutory sense, it means absolutely anything the interpreters of Obamacare might want it to mean.
Comments
5 responses to “Enablement of biased academic research at taxpayers’ expense”
And this is news? Socialized healthcare enables, nay, requires total behavioral control. No smokey, no drinkey, it raises the average insurance premium, and is therefore a federal crime.
Fifty bucks says these assholes are all Democrats.
If “science” were always correct, this would be a non-issue. The more tools available to knowledgeable people to help us live better lives, the better off we’d all be.
The problem is that proper science is a process, and “science” is rarely correct. It is vital to have leeway for individuals to experiment with things that “science” says are bad, but that may be scientific nonetheless.
Unfortunately, that sort of variability is precisely what appalls the totalitarian mind, and what any institution ( including “science”) will, in the end, be used to suppress.
It’s not bad behavioral health that gives me bad behavior, it’s bad mental health. If my mental health were good, I’d have better control over my behavior.
In response to JC: Socialized anything is always a failure. Why are we always doomed to repeating past mistakes as human beings?
We’ve seen what has happened all around the world with Socialized Medicine; they fly to the U.S. to get treatment! Or they DIE.
Why don’t people understand that this isn’t going to work?