This is a critical problem of our time in my opinion. Persons are approached as static unchangeable objects, as if their trajectories are deterministic and what

This is a critical problem of our time in my opinion. Persons are approached as static unchangeable objects, as if their trajectories are deterministic and what you're doing with these models are resolving the trajectories like a telescope or microscope. Measuring the substance of the person so you can extract from them. The other schema is one where you're modeling manipulation effectiveness, to probe and predict how you can best (most effectively with the least resources) achieve some change in the trajectory. Engineering a person. It seems like we really only think of interventions as trying to return someone to some baseline condition, rather than to try to improve people beyond the baseline, to invest in them. The paper has a bit at the end about using it for personalized interventions but it feels performative, like lip service. I know one of the authors professionally in a distant sense so I think they're probably genuine about it, but I can't help but wonder how the paper might be different if intervention was actually their focus. Wouldn't they be modeling changes in trajectories, the deviations or something?