5 ms·
Well, that's not how its really used per say. They aren't looking for behavioral features, they are looking for pattern matches not unlike a fingerprint. The ad
by asdff 4y ago
Well, that's not how its really used per say. They aren't looking for behavioral features, they are looking for pattern matches not unlike a fingerprint. The advantage of this versus a fingerprint is the heritability aspect. You share half your DNA with either parent and you can proportionally estimate degree of shared dna for relatives in a geneology. That means they don't have to make sure the killer is in the finger print database, a distant relative and some math can in practice expand your database.
- criddell 4y ago> They aren’t looking for behavioral features. I might be on board if you could make the stronger claim that they can’t look for behavioral features nor will they be able to in the future. A good hash provides that guarantee.
- asdff 4y agoThe argument is that they aren't considering phenotype information when they are solving crimes. How would that information even be used? A lawyer would have a stronger argument arguing a predisposition to criminality on environmental factors: a broken home, being raised when leaded gas was used, etc, versus arguing in terms of genetic association. These studies are not very robust connecting behavior and genetics because environment is a huge factor that explains the observed variances in these phenotypes. That being said, these data are being used for actually legally actionable things: first order pattern recognition using the same legal frameworks as fingerprints. Not second order "what do these patterns actually do in the body" or third order "what do these functions in the body do for the individual", each of which would probably take a PhD project to work out.