11–20 of 152 posts
Yet juries in rape trials supposedly do it all the time...or don't they?
So, what's the rate of false positives, given that only 1 in 1000 is a true positive?
So my reading is 2/3 mock passengers identified as true positives, 1/1000 real passengers identified as false positives.
(With some provisos as noted in the paper)
> Study after study has found that attempts – even by trained police officers – to read lies from body language and facial expressions are more often little better than chance. Yet juries in rape trials supposedly do it all the time...or don't they?
> Study after study has found that attempts – even by trained police officers – to read lies from body language and facial expressions are more often little better than chance. Yet juries in rape trials supposedly do it all the time...or don't they?
Why single out rape trials specifically?
> Study after study has found that attempts – even by trained police officers – to read lies from body language and facial expressions are more often little better than chance. Yet juries in rape trials supposedly do it all the time...or don't they?
Why single out rape trials specifically?
What is ironic about that? If I understand how to lie to other humans, why is it anything but expected that I would be able to recognize that skill in other people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why single out rape trials specifically?
Rape is interesting in this regard because it is an especially severe crime that might be very hard to proof. Murder has a body and a weapon, but rape might be indistinguishable from consensual sex, when you just look at hard physical evidence (medical examination, text messages, ...). If you want to give justice to most rape victims, you have to decide who is lying, and who is saying the truth.
It is also possible that both victim and rapist are telling the truth, but it still is an open question if it's a rape. Example: Julian Assange case with the broken condom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why single out rape trials specifically?
Rape is interesting in this regard because it is an especially severe crime that might be very hard to proof. Murder has a body and a weapon, but rape might be indistinguishable from consensual sex, when you just look at hard physical evidence (medical examination, text messages, ...). If you want to give justice to most rape victims, you have to decide who is lying, and who is saying the truth.
After almost a year of arguing with him, he offered to transfer the domain before the end of the "contract". But for "technical reasons" it had to be done after the hosting company had shut down the web site and e-mail, which caused some downtime for us. In retrospect it would have been much easier if I hadn't questioned him in the first time.
> According to one study, just 50 out of 20,000 people managed to make a correct judgement with more than 80% accuracy. Most people might as well just flip a coin. Oh the irony surrounding statistics and how often it is used to lie - case in point: the mode is completely absent and some useless factoid is presented instead. That's not to say that argument is false ("you can't use body language"); merely that because…
After a bit of searching it's probably this study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_Project#Synopsis Granhag, Pär; Strömwall, Leid (2004). The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts.
The actual paper was linked lower down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10180932