Neuropsychologie ist momentan sehr modern. Das sehe ich ja ein.
Aber warum muss die Berichterstattung eigentlich immer so furchtbar
schlecht sein? Warum können Journalisten die wikipaedia-Artikel, die
sie verlinken nicht lesen und zumindest die Untersuchungsverfahren
korrekt benennen? Warum verstehen viele anscheinend nicht, was
"signifikant" bedeutet? Andere TP-Artikel sind doch meist richtig
gut.
Um mal den Originalartikel zu zitieren:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524901.700
> If there is one technology that researchers agree could be a reliable
> lie detector, it is functional magnetic resonance imaging. An fMRI
> study last November showed that people use different parts of the
> brain when they lie than they do when telling the truth. The scans
> also showed activity in more areas of the brain when people were
> being deceptive. Even sceptics like Feinberg say this is the most
> promising technique. "On our committee there were people who
> thought if you're going to find deception, you certainly would hope
> to find it in the brain," he says. So did they? "If what we know from
> other fMRI studies is correct, there are individual differences. And
> if you can't calibrate against them, this is not going to be useful for
> this purpose."
Aber warum muss die Berichterstattung eigentlich immer so furchtbar
schlecht sein? Warum können Journalisten die wikipaedia-Artikel, die
sie verlinken nicht lesen und zumindest die Untersuchungsverfahren
korrekt benennen? Warum verstehen viele anscheinend nicht, was
"signifikant" bedeutet? Andere TP-Artikel sind doch meist richtig
gut.
Um mal den Originalartikel zu zitieren:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524901.700
> If there is one technology that researchers agree could be a reliable
> lie detector, it is functional magnetic resonance imaging. An fMRI
> study last November showed that people use different parts of the
> brain when they lie than they do when telling the truth. The scans
> also showed activity in more areas of the brain when people were
> being deceptive. Even sceptics like Feinberg say this is the most
> promising technique. "On our committee there were people who
> thought if you're going to find deception, you certainly would hope
> to find it in the brain," he says. So did they? "If what we know from
> other fMRI studies is correct, there are individual differences. And
> if you can't calibrate against them, this is not going to be useful for
> this purpose."