Tweaking Behavior

Tweaking BehaviorNews hit the last week, talking about a certain squad-in-the-making in the U.S. that will aim to “nudge” people’s behavior towards the direction that President Barack Obama wants. With the success of a similar project from the United Kingdom, everyone is apt to think that this system is indeed effective. But is it right to manipulate people’s behavior? Will it have a more desirable outcome for the country?

‘More responsible’

For sure, opinions will erupt left and right about this issue. Some will be optimistic about this project, thinking that within a few years, we will have less violence, more responsible taxpayers, less irresponsible parents, and more model families. Of course, some will negate this notion, thinking that it will be futile and that it is not right to manually tweak people’s behavior just so a “better” country will be realized.


‘Manipulated’

Not to be polarizing here, but maybe we DO need a little tweaking in our behavior. What will all the outrageous behavior and rampage going around, not to mention all the unexplained violence and uncontrolled liberty that our young people are exhibiting. If the present generation of parents cannot control their own children, or rather, cannot guid the next generation towards the right path, then the government stepping in to do the job might just be the help that we need right now.

On the other hand, there’s all the other issues to consider about this project. Will this result in an “artificial” environment wherein everybody will seem to be somebody else and a person’s natural personality is restrained? And how will the people themselves feel about this? Will they feel like a pawn being manipulated in a chessboard, or will they feel happy that finally somebody is providing legitimate guidance?

Which side are you going to be on? Do you think tweaking people’s behavior is a good thing?

Image: Stay at Stove Dad

James Holmes’ Psychiatrist Contacted Authorities Weeks Prior To Movie Theater Rampage

The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient’s behavior several weeks before Holmes’ alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.

The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.

Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.


ABC news and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver first reported Wednesday that Fenton had contacted other members of the university’s threat-assessment team about her concerns. The university-wide, threat-assessment team reportedly never met to discuss Holmes after he announced his intent to withdraw from the University nearly six weeks before the July 20 shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured.

University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery declined to comment on what, if anything, the university police officer might have done with information provided by Fenton, citing a court-issued gag order preventing her from confirming or denying any information related to Fenton or the investigation.

Had the university made a significant move after receiving Dr. Lynne Fenton’s report about James Holmes’ alarming behavior, could they have prevented the movie rampage from happening? Feel free to express your points of view in the comment box below!

Source: Yahoo News

Image: Top News Today