New cognitive science tool to shed light on mental health(darpa.mil)
darpa.mil
New cognitive science tool to shed light on mental health
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-03-02
42 comments
You and I seem to have different definitions of "warning signs." From the medpagetoday story you linked:
- 239/657 suicides were people under psychiatric care (please note they used present tense, more of them might have had a history of care)
- 187/657 had a previous attempt (!!!)
- "About 22% of the deaths were accompanied by no known inciting event or identified life stressor" Phrased differently, 78% of suicides accompanied a life event or stressor.
Contrary to popular belief, risk prediction isn't usually rocket science. Suicide correlates are extremely well studied, and any experienced mental health professional can point high risk individuals out to you if they ever cross paths with one.
The most challenging problem often is: what do you do about it? Can you get them the help they need? Can you navigate them through a big bureaucracy like the VA? Do you have grounds to forcibly keep them in in-patient psychiatry? Etc, etc.
Source: Relative is a psychologist @ the VA.
- 239/657 suicides were people under psychiatric care (please note they used present tense, more of them might have had a history of care)
- 187/657 had a previous attempt (!!!)
- "About 22% of the deaths were accompanied by no known inciting event or identified life stressor" Phrased differently, 78% of suicides accompanied a life event or stressor.
Contrary to popular belief, risk prediction isn't usually rocket science. Suicide correlates are extremely well studied, and any experienced mental health professional can point high risk individuals out to you if they ever cross paths with one.
The most challenging problem often is: what do you do about it? Can you get them the help they need? Can you navigate them through a big bureaucracy like the VA? Do you have grounds to forcibly keep them in in-patient psychiatry? Etc, etc.
Source: Relative is a psychologist @ the VA.
I think you are overstating the predictive power. You can find strong correlations looking backwards, but that doesn't mean that they are good or strong predictors looking forward.
To take just one of your data points as an example, 78% of suicides were preceded by a stressor. If you flip it to make a prediction, what percentage of Life stressors lead to suicide? The number of people who experience major life stressors must be enormous. If tens or hundreds of millions people have major stressors a year, that doesn't help you very much in targeting limited services .
The same holds true for psychiatric care. Prior suicide attempt is probably the exception there, but even that int ~30% predictive power looking foward.
To take just one of your data points as an example, 78% of suicides were preceded by a stressor. If you flip it to make a prediction, what percentage of Life stressors lead to suicide? The number of people who experience major life stressors must be enormous. If tens or hundreds of millions people have major stressors a year, that doesn't help you very much in targeting limited services .
The same holds true for psychiatric care. Prior suicide attempt is probably the exception there, but even that int ~30% predictive power looking foward.
You're missing that the models (including mental models) that professionals use to predict suicidality are not univariate.
When a manic depressive with substance abuse issues and prior suicide attempts walks into a clinic nobody needs a "new cognitive science tool" to tell them if they're high suicide risk, and these cases are a larger proportion of suicides than most people think.
Also that sort of missed the point of my comment, which is perhaps my fault for not being clear enough. Preventing suicide is a two step process:
1) find high risk people
2) prevent their suicide attempts
My comment was simply relaying the POV of someone who does this professionally: as a society we are better than most people think at #1 and worse than most people think at #2.
When a manic depressive with substance abuse issues and prior suicide attempts walks into a clinic nobody needs a "new cognitive science tool" to tell them if they're high suicide risk, and these cases are a larger proportion of suicides than most people think.
Also that sort of missed the point of my comment, which is perhaps my fault for not being clear enough. Preventing suicide is a two step process:
1) find high risk people
2) prevent their suicide attempts
My comment was simply relaying the POV of someone who does this professionally: as a society we are better than most people think at #1 and worse than most people think at #2.
I think we still might be talking past each other. My assumption would be that we do a pretty terrible job at both #1 and #2 on your list, and we should look at how we can do both better. I don't think it is a competition.
I have no doubt that professionals can predict suicide for some people with actually high confidence, e.g. >50%. Sometimes it is just obvious to anyone with eyes. My point is that despite this, it doesn't mean that they are good at finding suicidal people in general.
If 45k Americans kill themselves per year, how many of those were previously identified as "high risk". How many total are identified as high risk?
Most of the things we consider as "risk factors" are terrible predictors. Take depression or anxiety, which are considered major factors. They only increase the relative risk of suicide between 2 and 5x. That is crap. When your baseline suicide rate is 13/100,000 and your major depressive is 5X more likely, you are still at 65/100,000.
This is just a long winded way of saying that if you want to claim we are good at predicting suicides, we have to take into account all of the false positives, and all of the false negatives.
If someone gave top professionals the job of predicting which 13 people out of 100k would kill themselves, how many do you think they would get right and how many would they miss?
I have no doubt that professionals can predict suicide for some people with actually high confidence, e.g. >50%. Sometimes it is just obvious to anyone with eyes. My point is that despite this, it doesn't mean that they are good at finding suicidal people in general.
If 45k Americans kill themselves per year, how many of those were previously identified as "high risk". How many total are identified as high risk?
Most of the things we consider as "risk factors" are terrible predictors. Take depression or anxiety, which are considered major factors. They only increase the relative risk of suicide between 2 and 5x. That is crap. When your baseline suicide rate is 13/100,000 and your major depressive is 5X more likely, you are still at 65/100,000.
This is just a long winded way of saying that if you want to claim we are good at predicting suicides, we have to take into account all of the false positives, and all of the false negatives.
If someone gave top professionals the job of predicting which 13 people out of 100k would kill themselves, how many do you think they would get right and how many would they miss?
I meant more immediate warning signs, like giving away personal possessions or sudden happiness.
When my friend killed himself, it both was and wasn’t a surprise. On one hand, he had a whole host of risk factors that everyone knew about. In the other hand, he’d gotten therapy and meds and seemed to be doing much better. His texts seemed normal. I’d even taken a training called “mental health first aid” - I knew that if I saw any signs I should ask him directly if he was thinking of suicide.
If there had been a magical way to know that he was in a period of high risk, there are a million things that could have been done besides in-patient. As one example, he had many friends who would have been by his side 24/7 (as had been done when we knew he wasn’t doing well).
I’m extremely skeptical that a technology like this could have worked and detected what was going on with him. I’m even more skeptical that the military would use it in an appropriate way. But still, I do see a glimmer of hope in it.
Of course, the obvious solution and the one that should be higher on everyone’s priority list is to simply stop sending soldiers into wars, stop letting parents get away with beating the shit out of their kids, and stop covering up rape. Unfortunately the mind reading machine is probably more likely to actually get done.
Just to add, I hear what you’re saying about how the hard part is preventing suicide more so than identifying risk. That lines up with what I’ve seen. I don’t think that negates the need to work on both problems.
When my friend killed himself, it both was and wasn’t a surprise. On one hand, he had a whole host of risk factors that everyone knew about. In the other hand, he’d gotten therapy and meds and seemed to be doing much better. His texts seemed normal. I’d even taken a training called “mental health first aid” - I knew that if I saw any signs I should ask him directly if he was thinking of suicide.
If there had been a magical way to know that he was in a period of high risk, there are a million things that could have been done besides in-patient. As one example, he had many friends who would have been by his side 24/7 (as had been done when we knew he wasn’t doing well).
I’m extremely skeptical that a technology like this could have worked and detected what was going on with him. I’m even more skeptical that the military would use it in an appropriate way. But still, I do see a glimmer of hope in it.
Of course, the obvious solution and the one that should be higher on everyone’s priority list is to simply stop sending soldiers into wars, stop letting parents get away with beating the shit out of their kids, and stop covering up rape. Unfortunately the mind reading machine is probably more likely to actually get done.
Just to add, I hear what you’re saying about how the hard part is preventing suicide more so than identifying risk. That lines up with what I’ve seen. I don’t think that negates the need to work on both problems.
My impression (I do research in this area broadly speaking) is that this sort of tool is not really very strongly related to the reasons why they present no warning signs, etc.
Implicit measures tend, on replication and rigorous scrutiny, to kind of be very broad brush and not very specific. There is a literature on implicit measurement and suicide, and it seems they hold up, but they don't dramatically add to anything, and there's also tricky issues about the meaning of "preconscious" assessment. So, lots of false positives etc, and also maybe even bigger questions about the meaning of implicit processing relative to conscious opportunities for "revision".
I think the problem is, what good does it do if someone has some predilection toward suicide but isn't aware of it? If they were going to be resistant to addressing it without this tool, why would they be less resistant to it with it?
The problem with suicide prediction has never really been in predicting suicidal attitudes or cognitions, it's been predicting the actual follow-through with an attempt or success. That depends on a lot of stuff that exists outside of attitudinal space, for lack of a better way of putting it. Someone can basically feel disturbed by the idea until they don't, and then change rapidly in their feelings about it, or vice-versa.
I can't say I think this research line is a bad idea; I think the more information the better. But I'm really skeptical about how well it will work up when really skeptically evaluated, with lots of data, especially when you put it to practice. There's a lot more hurdles than people think.
Implicit measures tend, on replication and rigorous scrutiny, to kind of be very broad brush and not very specific. There is a literature on implicit measurement and suicide, and it seems they hold up, but they don't dramatically add to anything, and there's also tricky issues about the meaning of "preconscious" assessment. So, lots of false positives etc, and also maybe even bigger questions about the meaning of implicit processing relative to conscious opportunities for "revision".
I think the problem is, what good does it do if someone has some predilection toward suicide but isn't aware of it? If they were going to be resistant to addressing it without this tool, why would they be less resistant to it with it?
The problem with suicide prediction has never really been in predicting suicidal attitudes or cognitions, it's been predicting the actual follow-through with an attempt or success. That depends on a lot of stuff that exists outside of attitudinal space, for lack of a better way of putting it. Someone can basically feel disturbed by the idea until they don't, and then change rapidly in their feelings about it, or vice-versa.
I can't say I think this research line is a bad idea; I think the more information the better. But I'm really skeptical about how well it will work up when really skeptically evaluated, with lots of data, especially when you put it to practice. There's a lot more hurdles than people think.
> I think the problem is, what good does it do if someone has some predilection toward suicide but isn't aware of it? If they were going to be resistant to addressing it without this tool, why would they be less resistant to it with it?
(Not a researcher in this area, but someone who's dealt with depression) this is a big concern of mine, and it doesn't seem different from the issues with a standard lie detector. A depressed person can feel fine one day and not the next. If we think of things like anhedonia, grief, guilt, etc they aren't constant day to day. A lot of suicides are preventable simply by getting a person through a day or two. This is the number one reason I'd argue for waiting periods on pistols (most gun deaths are suicides btw). Would such an event even show up on this device? Timing becomes an extremely important factor here. My understanding too is that we still don't even know how these diseases function from a chemical level in the brain (norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin). Categorically there can be: too much, not enough, broken uptake mechanism; and our main treatments are with reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs or SSNRIs) and these tools are really limited in those categories (which are very high level fwiw and need to be broken down substantially more to target good drug delivery).
I am also very concerned about how this technology can be abused. While I agree that there can be a lot of uses to it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned with how it can be abused.
(Not a researcher in this area, but someone who's dealt with depression) this is a big concern of mine, and it doesn't seem different from the issues with a standard lie detector. A depressed person can feel fine one day and not the next. If we think of things like anhedonia, grief, guilt, etc they aren't constant day to day. A lot of suicides are preventable simply by getting a person through a day or two. This is the number one reason I'd argue for waiting periods on pistols (most gun deaths are suicides btw). Would such an event even show up on this device? Timing becomes an extremely important factor here. My understanding too is that we still don't even know how these diseases function from a chemical level in the brain (norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin). Categorically there can be: too much, not enough, broken uptake mechanism; and our main treatments are with reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs or SSNRIs) and these tools are really limited in those categories (which are very high level fwiw and need to be broken down substantially more to target good drug delivery).
I am also very concerned about how this technology can be abused. While I agree that there can be a lot of uses to it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned with how it can be abused.
Even if it turns out not to be the perfect solution, it might turn out that this kind of measurement might be useful for things like estimating the effectiveness of medication and other medical interventions, or even lifestyle changes. Imagine if this kind of thing could be turned into a medical device. Many people who end up committing suicide have had previous suicidal episodes. Being able to have a technology that people with known suicidal tendencies can use to help keep tabs on their own mental health could potentially be as useful to them as blood sugar monitoring is to diabetics.
The road to hell [...] good intentions.
I see other people in the comments saying that this might be used to limit people's rights. I don't view that as a good reason to not pursue this research.
We have existing legal frameworks for ensuring people's rights are protected. Doctors can't just kidnap someone, courts are involved. In many cases those rights and protections should be strengthened.
The fact that those protections and frameworks aren't perfect shouldn't stop doctors and medical researchers from doing their job, which is to treat patients.
We have existing legal frameworks for ensuring people's rights are protected. Doctors can't just kidnap someone, courts are involved. In many cases those rights and protections should be strengthened.
The fact that those protections and frameworks aren't perfect shouldn't stop doctors and medical researchers from doing their job, which is to treat patients.
I'd be fine with this being developed in a civilian clinical setting.
I am not fine with the military developing this and then considering it's use on service members.
Particularly troubling are the lines "since patients will often tell their clinicians what they think the clinician wants to hear rather than how they are truly feeling" and "on aggregating preconscious brain signals to determine what someone believes to be true."
They see an issue with a voluntary clinical process and they want to remove the voluntary aspect of it. To me, it seems they are interfering with a process failure they haven't categorized correctly and are attempting to remove the patient from their own process of care.
If the intention is to use this on service members without their explicit request, this presents one of the slipperiest slopes I've ever seen.
I am not fine with the military developing this and then considering it's use on service members.
Particularly troubling are the lines "since patients will often tell their clinicians what they think the clinician wants to hear rather than how they are truly feeling" and "on aggregating preconscious brain signals to determine what someone believes to be true."
They see an issue with a voluntary clinical process and they want to remove the voluntary aspect of it. To me, it seems they are interfering with a process failure they haven't categorized correctly and are attempting to remove the patient from their own process of care.
If the intention is to use this on service members without their explicit request, this presents one of the slipperiest slopes I've ever seen.
"I am not fine with the military developing this and then considering it's use on service members."
This. The rights and protections you have in the military, as well as the military judicial system, are vastly different from the civilian world. I have very little confidence in even the civilian side (so many abuses and so much incompetence).
This. The rights and protections you have in the military, as well as the military judicial system, are vastly different from the civilian world. I have very little confidence in even the civilian side (so many abuses and so much incompetence).
That's an extremely good point. It's easy for me to forget that DARPA is primarily in the business of war.
I hope there is a version of this that's used to help people, but I have changed my mind and now agree that it's inappropriate for a military to be developing a technology like this.
I hope there is a version of this that's used to help people, but I have changed my mind and now agree that it's inappropriate for a military to be developing a technology like this.
How can they train a dataset knowing that their training participants were also telling clinicians what they want to hear rather than how they were truly feeling? In any event the truth is unknowable, so it is wrong to assert it with authority.
It doesn't matter how many legal frameworks there are. Neither courts nor doctors can read people's minds so they are basically kidnapping people based on something that is barely more than a guess. There are thousands of stories of people getting sectioned for something stupid like having a dark humour and telling an off-colour joke. There are also thousands of stories of people who had been plotting their suicide for months, reached out to the hospital for one last attempt for help, got turned away for supposed attention-seeking, and then killed themselves.
Anything that can elevate institutionalization to more than mass guessing has to be a plus. Though we also do need to solve the problem that these institutions are so often nightmares to be in, so that suicidal people are getting what they need instead of just being imprisoned.
Anything that can elevate institutionalization to more than mass guessing has to be a plus. Though we also do need to solve the problem that these institutions are so often nightmares to be in, so that suicidal people are getting what they need instead of just being imprisoned.
there is no framework whatsoever for neural monitoring. This is willfully dishonest, and more than a bit worrying to see trotted out as a defense of one of the most invasive technologies currently in development.
That's not true at all, at least in a civilian context. As others have pointed out, the fact that this is being developed by DARPA means that those legal restraints may not actually apply, which I agree is very disturbing.
First of all, it would be health data protected under HIPAA.
It could also be relevant to involuntary hospitalization, where the current standard is "clear and present danger." In general, you can't be involuntarily hospitalized for saying something like "I'm having thoughts of suicide," but could be involuntarily hospitalized for talking about a specific plan for suicide or actually attempting suicide. The idea that this technology could legally demonstrate that someone is a clear and present danger to themselves is far fetched. I'm not saying the legal system is perfect or even good, but it's not 100% stupid. Judges can and do distinguish between statistical and non-statistical evidence.
Red flag laws/ERPOs use a less stringent standard from what I understand, so it is somewhat more likely (although still unlikely overall, I'd argue) to be applicable in that case.
First of all, it would be health data protected under HIPAA.
It could also be relevant to involuntary hospitalization, where the current standard is "clear and present danger." In general, you can't be involuntarily hospitalized for saying something like "I'm having thoughts of suicide," but could be involuntarily hospitalized for talking about a specific plan for suicide or actually attempting suicide. The idea that this technology could legally demonstrate that someone is a clear and present danger to themselves is far fetched. I'm not saying the legal system is perfect or even good, but it's not 100% stupid. Judges can and do distinguish between statistical and non-statistical evidence.
Red flag laws/ERPOs use a less stringent standard from what I understand, so it is somewhat more likely (although still unlikely overall, I'd argue) to be applicable in that case.
In Sweden they can certainly do so, if a person is a danger to themselves or others (as declared by two doctors) they can be put into closed mental care with police escort and drugged to the extent that they can't speak for themselves without any right to legal protection. The protection of their life is considered to be more important. I don't know about US law, but probably other countries has similar laws.
[deleted]
How about we fix the existing support systems. Popular media constantly exalts things like the suicide hotline/chat, or mental health services. But those services often don't even work when people need them, they are either unavailable (where people are put on hold indefinitely) or the applications and websites have bugs that make them totally unusable.
Also the way healthcare is tied to employment in the US is a huge health risk for anyone changing jobs or at risk of termination.
Also the way healthcare is tied to employment in the US is a huge health risk for anyone changing jobs or at risk of termination.
[deleted]
> How about we fix the existing support systems.
From the article
> Using the preconscious will hopefully enable us to detect signs of depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation earlier and more reliably than ever before. If successful, NEAT will not only significantly augment behavioral health screening, but it could also serve as a new way to assess ultimate treatment efficacy, since patients will often tell their clinicians what they think the clinician wants to hear rather than how they are truly feeling.
Wouldn't this count as an attempt to fix the existing support system by helping identify those in need which is always the first step?
From the article
> Using the preconscious will hopefully enable us to detect signs of depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation earlier and more reliably than ever before. If successful, NEAT will not only significantly augment behavioral health screening, but it could also serve as a new way to assess ultimate treatment efficacy, since patients will often tell their clinicians what they think the clinician wants to hear rather than how they are truly feeling.
Wouldn't this count as an attempt to fix the existing support system by helping identify those in need which is always the first step?
[deleted]
This will most certainly be used to limit US citizens access to their second amendment. The unseen use cases for this will be equally horrifying. DARPA creating a precrime detection tool is about as dystopic as is gets.
That one take on it. The other is that it could potentially save literally tens of thousands of lives. Immediately classifying a potentially life-saving medical technology is a threat to the second amendment might not be the best look for 2A advocates.
People make assumptions about new policy based on their experience or knowledge on previous policy.
This tool could be lifesaving. This tool could also be for oppression. It's valid to question the potentially harmful uses of any medical tool and the policy that surrounds them (see opioids as an example).
This tool could be lifesaving. This tool could also be for oppression. It's valid to question the potentially harmful uses of any medical tool and the policy that surrounds them (see opioids as an example).
[deleted]
We could use a little more restriction on access to weapons in this country tbh
What is the precrime tool you're talking about?
As "cool" as this is, providing actual healthcare for the veterans would be a much better step than creating a tool to flag people with mental health issues.
Why do you believe they don't already have access to healthcare?
So, they created what they think is a better lie detector. Even if they claim otherwise, it will get used for this purpose. And it will get used against people as much as possible.
The temptation is just too high. We're see this happen with polygraph tests. To the point where it was being used in job interviews.
The only hope I see here is US courts treating it as a polygraph device and effectively banning it from common use.
The temptation is just too high. We're see this happen with polygraph tests. To the point where it was being used in job interviews.
The only hope I see here is US courts treating it as a polygraph device and effectively banning it from common use.
> NEAT is not focused on lie detection, truth detection, or assessing someone’s credibility but, rather, on aggregating preconscious brain signals to determine what someone believes to be true.
How is this NOT a lie detector?
This would definitely be useful when interrogating someone right?
How is this NOT a lie detector?
This would definitely be useful when interrogating someone right?
Yes. It's a "mind reader" and it would be granted blind trust/authority by whoever relies on it like all other technology ("but NEAT says you want to kill yourself, Jerry."). I view this as a weapon, not a benevolent tool for helping veterans.
Wonder how long it will take until people are being put on mental health holds based on this data.
This is really worrying, hopeful it doesn't work and this research fails
If the research actually works, they'll pretend it failed and it'll vanish.
This is so obviously how things should be done in psychiatry. These types of disease most certainly have some signals that can be collected and interpreted by an AI to offer a diagnosis. No idea why it is taking so long.
If you think this is a good idea, [I think] you need to understand the discipline of psychiatry better.
My impression is that anything about you that is non-functional to you as a rational, self-interested agent in the world is a disorder, example [1].
Read about how they characterize delusions [2]. Essentially, if you don't preface everything you say with the words "I think", you are deluded.
It's an interesting field, but [I think] it's dangerous to put too much power in the hands of this field. [I think] it blunts a lot of normal humanity.
[I think] having suicidal thoughts is a normal part of an open-minded human life. [I think] going through a very bad near suicidal crises should be able to happen without the state labeling you in a fashion that can absolutely ruin your life should you decide to return to it. [I think] allowing people the privacy of their own minds is an essential human freedom, that we abandon at our peril.
In addition [I think] forcing people to state "I think" at the beginning of every sentence they say is a way to limit their persuasive power. Which is an interesting norm, but [I think] it needs to be universally applied as otherwise [I think] it can be used as a way to detooth opposition to authority.
That said, I wish all people tormented by their own minds the best possible future. I think therapy can help, as can reaching out to people who love you, if you have any in your life. But I think if you don't want to tell your therapist about your suicidal tendancies because you're worried about how a nervous bureaucracy will respond, I think that's your right.
Involuntary psychiatric care is no picnic. Having your freedoms taken away from you because of things you said, and finding you can't find the right sequence of magic words to leave is about as frustrating a position as a person can be in. What you might view as a serious bump in the road is viewed from the outside as a whole new social trajectory for you.
The people I met in there told me everything would get better once I just accepted I would never leave. That this was my life now. To stay calm, I did have to imagine a life where I never left, and figure out a way to be okay with that. It's a very hard mental exercise if you've ever wanted good things for your own life, and it doesn't surprise me not everyone can manage it without acting out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3016695/
My impression is that anything about you that is non-functional to you as a rational, self-interested agent in the world is a disorder, example [1].
Read about how they characterize delusions [2]. Essentially, if you don't preface everything you say with the words "I think", you are deluded.
It's an interesting field, but [I think] it's dangerous to put too much power in the hands of this field. [I think] it blunts a lot of normal humanity.
[I think] having suicidal thoughts is a normal part of an open-minded human life. [I think] going through a very bad near suicidal crises should be able to happen without the state labeling you in a fashion that can absolutely ruin your life should you decide to return to it. [I think] allowing people the privacy of their own minds is an essential human freedom, that we abandon at our peril.
In addition [I think] forcing people to state "I think" at the beginning of every sentence they say is a way to limit their persuasive power. Which is an interesting norm, but [I think] it needs to be universally applied as otherwise [I think] it can be used as a way to detooth opposition to authority.
That said, I wish all people tormented by their own minds the best possible future. I think therapy can help, as can reaching out to people who love you, if you have any in your life. But I think if you don't want to tell your therapist about your suicidal tendancies because you're worried about how a nervous bureaucracy will respond, I think that's your right.
Involuntary psychiatric care is no picnic. Having your freedoms taken away from you because of things you said, and finding you can't find the right sequence of magic words to leave is about as frustrating a position as a person can be in. What you might view as a serious bump in the road is viewed from the outside as a whole new social trajectory for you.
The people I met in there told me everything would get better once I just accepted I would never leave. That this was my life now. To stay calm, I did have to imagine a life where I never left, and figure out a way to be okay with that. It's a very hard mental exercise if you've ever wanted good things for your own life, and it doesn't surprise me not everyone can manage it without acting out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3016695/
What about one that uses the preconscious to detect criminal intent before it happens?
Could file it into a sort of very small report
Could file it into a sort of very small report
This is a tool that could be extremely helpful for addressing a large portion of suicides.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777349/
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/suicide-often-not-preced...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/cap/82375