Another taboo subject to study?

Saw this in one of the comments on Charlie Stross blog:

Quote:

Evidence-based psycho-social change/policy is where I think we're heading and need to sort out. Basically admit that the individuals in the human race come in all sorts of different types, get good estimates of what each type is likely to need/want and contribute and then do your economic, educational, infrastructure, etc. planning. If 1%-2% of the human race are sociopaths - just the luck of the draw/random genetics - and 2%-3% are saints, while another 2% are explorers/adventurers, plan accordingly. For example, the sociopaths may bilk the [guaranteed income] system. OTOH, the saints may also inadvertently bilk/tip over the system because they'll be doing their utmost to undo any harm done by the 'bad guys'. The adventurers/explorers will likely cost much more than homebodies ... but they'll contribute with new knowledge, so should be supported, etc. Sometimes I wish "Brave New World" was never written because it's constantly being used/cited as an argument against learning more about what makes humans tick and how to develop policy so that people can thrive. Get over it!

As far as I can tell, "evidence-based policy" (whether evidence is psychological or otherwise) rarely occurs simply because people in power tend to be wedded to their pet ideologies and unwilling to admit when they are wrong. Not because there is strong opposition to gathering evidence in the first place. Or is there?

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1kRZ9i8