news 
The Baffling Rebirth of a Dubious Science
In the early 19th century, phrenology was a pseudoscientific practice that claimed to map human intelligence and character by analyzing the shape and size of one’s skull. Despite being widely discredited, AI-powered phrenology has made an unexpected comeback in recent years.
This resurgence is nothing short of astonishing, given the well-documented flaws of its predecessor. Phrenology was a product of 19th-century racism and sexism, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about different groups of people based on their physical characteristics. The science’s inherent bias led to egregious errors, such as linking certain skull shapes to criminal tendencies or mental disability.
Fast-forward to the present day, where AI is being used to revive this discredited practice in a new guise. Researchers are using machine learning algorithms to analyze brain scans and create detailed maps of human cognition and personality traits. While it’s tempting to see AI-powered phrenology as an improvement over its 19th-century counterpart, this technology is merely perpetuating the same flawed assumptions.
The most egregious issue is that AI-powered phrenology relies on outdated notions of a fixed, essential self. The notion that one’s brain structure determines their personality or intelligence is not only inaccurate but also ignores the vast complexities of human experience. This reductionist approach neglects the profound impact of environmental factors, societal pressures, and individual choices on shaping who we are.
Moreover, AI-powered phrenology is often used to justify existing power structures, reinforcing harmful stereotypes about marginalized communities. By labeling certain groups as inherently more intelligent or capable, this technology perpetuates systemic inequality and discrimination.
It’s crucial for the scientific community to recognize the limitations of AI and re-examine its role in shaping our understanding of human nature. AI should be a tool to augment our understanding, not a replacement for critical thinking and nuanced analysis.
Source: gizmodo.com
