Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
New technology is being introduced to mankind almost every second in this world, and now, the latest techonology is a computer program called the Facial Action Coding System which can identify a person's emotions. The question is whether this technology is actually valuable and for what it could be used for. Experts suggest this technology could be used in a classroom to identify the state of mind of a student to adjust the lesson they are trying to comprehend. But, even though this technology may be helpful to teachers trying to keep students active and engrossed in their lessons, the question arises of whether this techonlogy is actually worth the recources or whether what experts think is a great idea is actually an invasion of privacy.

This technology does sound helpful in the fact that it could gauge the state of mind of a student and help a teacher adjust their teaching methods to accomodate and keep their students students on track. The article did state that the techonology could identify when a student is "confused or bored" and then "modify the lesson" to keep a student engaged. In this way, the technology is useful in the fact that it adapts to the needs of the student. But what can this program do that a teacher's survey could not? By the way the article talks about how a "home PC can't handle the complex algorithms" and about how complex the system is, it makes people wonder just how much this system would cost and how complicated it would be to enstate said system into a classroom. Compared to a quick survey done by a teacher who asks their students how they feel about their methods of teaching, it is seen how the system would be a waste of recourses and money. Therefore, although this system is useful in the fact that it can gauge the emotions of the students, it is not much more useful than a teacher who can do the same thing by questioning their students on their preferences and ideas.

Also, although technology is very much improved in these years, it is still not always accurate and infallible, and therefore may not be suitable for a classroom. The article states that the technology associates each emotion with "characteristic movements of the facial muscles" and then uses those movements to calculate the spectrum of emotions based on their facial display. But some people show emotions in various ways, and the technology most likely cannot accomodate for the many different ways people express the same emotion. For example, if a student has a resting face that seems generally happy, the system might confuse this dazed face as a satisfied face and think that the student is happy with their lessons when they are actually confused or not paying attention. In the same way, if a student has a resting face that looks naturally sad, the system may think they are unhappy with their lessons, even if the student feels they are learning a lot. A lot of students also try to hide their emotions, like frusteration or sadness, with a happier look on their face, and even though the article states that the system can detect a "false smile", it cannot always be accurate as a person may be good at hiding their emotions and displaying a genuine smile. Therefore, since technology is not always accurate and because human beings are so various in the way they behave, the technology would not be useful in a classroom where it may misread a student's state of mind and lead them in the wrong path of education.

Lastly, if the physical problems of the technology have not already been offputting, then maybe the moral problem of this technology will sway opinions against using it in a classroom. If this technology really can "indicate the difference between a genuine smile and a forced one", then this means it can invade people's privacy and indicate an emotion which a person is trying to hide. If a student is feeling sad or feeling stressed about home problems which they are trying to conceal, then the technology detects this and displays it for the teacher and the electronic lesson to see. This is an invasion of privacy, as the teacher does not need to know about a student's homelife or about their feelings outside the classroom. A teachers job should be to monitor how their students are feeling about their lessons, not about how their students are feeling about their life outside of school, and since this technology could pick up on digressing feelings, it should not be used in a classroom where a student's internal feelings are revealed to a teacher. Therefore, using Facial Action Coding could end up being an invasion of privacy that should not be introduced to the classroom.

The Facial Action Coding System is a bad idea for the classroom, as it could incorrectly read a student's emotions and give a misleading output that puts a student off track in their education, and also because it could invade a student's privacy of their inner mind. Therefore, installing this system in schools would be a waste of money and recourses, especially when teachers can gauge how their students are learning by simply asking their students in an anonymous survey how they feel about their teaching methods. In this society, technology is used to fix almost everything, but in this case, scientists should quit trying to force technology on behavioral issues and just let humans interact so they can benefit themselves with communication, no computerized middleman needed.

Score: 6