[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

Even though I used words like "downright stupid" (which I shouldn't have), my point isn't one of plausibility: it's how much it contributes to the story.

In other words: what does involving human brains in the Sybil system change, and how does the story reflect that? Here, I find that the system has been mostly played for effect. "If we show that footage, the system is history." It also serves as the plot set-up: In terms of free-will: We control you, and if we can't controll you, we absorb you so we can better control others.

Well here is something interesting I found about this whole scenario. And you may not have been one of these individuals, but I remember a lot of people who were talking about Sibyl before the brain reveal were questioning the fact that no human judgement was involved in ascertaining whether someone was a criminal. They thought that the system was flawed because it lacked human judgement, but now we find out that it actually does have human judgement involved.

But anyways as to the rest of your comments.

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

Enter free will. If you yourself are not in control, someone or something else is. If it were a simple AI (one based on algorhythms like, say, the thing that plays games for you), what controls you is a machine. An autonomous AI would be more person like. But if you're using the brains of psychopaths, then - in some manner - you're ruled by psychopaths. Not really, since the collective has effects you can't quite predict. But PP doesn't exploit that difference. By focussing on Makishima, what we get is a suggestion of: "people like this rule you". It's not quite that simple, because Makishima refuses to be part of it, etc. But antagonist-wise that's what it's played for. A machine would be bad, but psychopaths are worse.

It's possible that's not the intention, but it's such an obvious and expected reaction that I expect a writer who doesn't want this would counter it. All the characters we see have a viewer-friendly, averse reaction to the brain-in-a-char. We have no idea how the system came into practise, either. Yet the system is fairly young. Who is its architect? Still alive? (It's possibly been mentioned, I don't know, but it's not really a feature of the show.)

I personally would have preferred if the system was presented as a collective of brains, but not all of which were criminally asymptomatic "sociopaths" like the series implied. Maybe Gen is just implying that anyone who seeks to rule and control others is a sociopath, and modern day psychology research has linked the behaviors of those in power with the behavior of sociopaths so it is not far from the truth. But I digress, even though I think the presentation here lacks the nuance one would hope for, I do not think the end result is changed all that much.

I think in the end, Gen wasn't looking for a whole lot of nuance in his portrayal of Sibyl. The philosophical ideas here were simple, and not supposed to be misinterpreted. If we had a society that always abides by these Psycho-Pass ratings... Our governance would reflect a lack of empathy, an inability to see other people's points of view, and just an all around neglecting of basis human principles. That's why this society can happily lock away those who get marked by Sibyl and not blink an eye. The core idea here is that a society that chooses to use something like Sibyl, which removes free will, is sociopathic. It makes sense then that the brains are "sociopaths." Our instant, adverse reaction to Sibyl is fully intentional.

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

Imagine for example, a test run (say, as a profiling tool). Imagine a young, idealistic scientist who can solve crimes with this machine, but can't actually do anything, since the experiements are illegal. Imagine an underdog fight to get this accepted. We'd have to get his/her side of the story. Better if he's likable and the antagonists are beaurocrats who just protect the status-quo. Because narratively directed sympathies clash with cliché morality, that sort of set-up would force anyone to think through issues.

I'm not saying that PP should go this route; but they're not mining the potential of the set-up for anything but (a) shock value, and (b) a fairly simplistic philosophical premise, namely that an outside perspective is better at solving inside problems (because they're more objective).

It's true that it "works" in the show (with minor hickups), but the way the show presents the evidence is also not very convincing: uniform crowd behaviour (which comes in extremes of naivity, frustration, range and fear). There's so little nuance, that I have trouble buying the evidence. I find it hard to believe in the "reality" of the life I'm seeing, but the philosophy is not compelling enough to suspend my disbelief for it.

My favourite episode of the final arc was the one with the bad art and animation, where all they do is talk. The show is at its strongest when they pit characters against each other, and unlike many others I actually liked how they ended Akane's character arc. It's just that in the end it doesn't amount to much, because the world feels shallow.

Well I think this is where Psycho-Pass majorly differs itself from a show like SSY because Psycho-Pass features a more conventional form of entertainment overall than SSY. That being that this is a crime detective story most of all, and all the philosophical questions about Sibyl are merely a backdrop to the ongoing events.

I do think though that you don't give enough credit to the philosophical questions presented in Psycho-Pass. While Gen certainly is not very subtle in his portrayal of Sibyl, he does present us with an interesting question about it in the end. If Sibyl really is providing more peace and security for its citizens, then is it right to get rid of it? Gen placed a premium on free will in this show, but when push comes to shove, Akane placed law and order over it. I think this is the very nuance one would wish for from this show. If it really lacked nuance, we would have seen a cliche ending in which Sibyl gets destroyed, the end.

Now as for your point about uniform crowd behavior... I'm not sure what you were expecting exactly. Could you explain?

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

SSY is not without flaws, but it does provide a much more interesting setting. I agree with what you said in your last post:

Precisely. Importantly, we know, roughly, how it came to be. That helps us understand what happened, and it also provide goggles with which to view the show. For example, that the bakenezumi tried to eliminate the humans can be seen in the light of the shows history: if non-cantus users wouldn't have threatened cantus users back then, they might not have been turned into bakenezumi in the first place.

With PP, we don't know how it came to be, which is especially hard to swallow since the system is so extremely young. We also don't know why. Better efficiency in crime-fighting, which is hard to quantify in the first place, seems to be the only thing it has going for it. Also, I'm pretty certain that the sort of experiments needed to develop this sort of system is currently illegal in Japan. So how did this happen? PP does a terrible job making me see how such a system could come into place.

In SSY, the system in place is terrible. But it's not, on the whole, run by terrible people. In addition, we understand why it's there in the first place. The effect of all of this is that it's hard to find villains, or even scapegoats.

In PP, we have no idea how the system comes to be. Thus we know little about its justifications (beyond being more efficient at the sort of stuff we're already doing). And the system is an easy target, because it's got a quasi-personality. If it talks to you in the form of that woman, it's literally a psychopath. Scrutiny at SSY-level would kill PP. (Or not, if you do a good job with it; but there's little of it in the show, as far as I can see.)

Actually, I do think the people who run the system in SSY are mostly terrible people. They are downright sociopathic themselves. Being able to systematically kill children who might present troubles is kind of exactly the same thing we see in Psycho Pass. Eliminating potential dangers to ensure the safety of the group.

But like I said before, I think PP's society doesn't require much stretch of the imagination to see how and why it came about. The justification is clearly its results, and we have to believe that crime rates are drastically lower under it than otherwise. Less hassle, more peace and prosperity... It makes perfect sense to me. The reasons why Sibyl is bad are not quite as tangible as these things, so why human beings became complacent with it is easy to understand as well.

Maybe that doesn't work for you, but I think it feels sufficient.