Live data from Hacker News

Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

nature.com

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#121
post #39
post #7

About 4 years ago I went to a talk given by the author of the book, the subject was along the same lines as the book: how torture is ineffective because it damages the subject's ability to recall information. Afterwards someone asked a question that a lot of us had been thinking: that in a lot of situations where torture might be used, the information being asked for is very well known to the subject, so unless serio…

I would argue your audience is failing to understand what torture is. Most people are deathly afraid of any pain. But they're also not agents/operatives/soldiers for their government. They're not at war with an enemy they think worth fighting and killing. So they don't have a particular strong desire to conceal information from anyone who threatens them. This means, in an actual scenario of torture interrogation, you…

This is not how torture works in real life. At least, not the one made by security forces.

Both of my parents were tortured, both faced it several times. My father was in prison twice and my mother was never in prison but took directly to military places. But not only they were tortured, several people from the circle of family friends were tortured too. One of them now works in a state program trying to help the people who were tortured to continue with their lifes, even if they were tortured in 1974-1980.

While the 1973 was made with support of US and brazilian governments, there was no support when the firsts arrests came. Most of people faced strong pain under different methods, including electricity, beating to almost dead, removing nails, etc... but it was only after the US experts arrived that torture became effective.

Torture is about removing will. A common practice after that was not only rape by military, but they put dogs to rape woman. They took their fingers off and put them in cells full of shit so they had to avoid the infections. Put them in really small spaces until they were lost.

This were process made by days, they didn't get into shock status, they were destroyed as human beings. When they go out, torturers didn't ask them: "hey, how do i find this person"... they just took a bunch of pictures and check the reactions. Or they put them in a car and go around the city and let them see somebody they knew.

By the way, when you reach this point you don't care about torture anymore like to try to avoiding it letting the torturer hear anything they want to hear. You are broke, you don't have will, the only thing you can wish is to be dead. You don't resist anymore.

Torture was so effective that political organizations who were fighting the dictatorship adopted the policy of when somebody is arrested, all their known people had to run and disappear in 24 hours.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#122
post #83
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue your audience is failing to understand what torture is. Most people are deathly afraid of any pain. But they're also not agents/operatives/soldiers for their government. They're not at war with an enemy they think worth fighting and killing. It almost sounds as if you are trying to define away torture for a fringe case where it's guaranteed to be useless. This is a legalistic approach not anymore conv…

We make cost-benefit analyses all the time. With any military operation the collateral damage has to be weighed against the target. The fact that we freak out over torture yet kill innocent people in collateral damage is completely irrational. On the scale of harm, torture that leaves no physical harm is behind cutting off people's limbs, and that is far behind killing people. Now, torturing innocent people is worse…

Given that one of the most commonly discussed and unpleasant torture methods involves simulating the experience of drowning, I've often wondered why so few people consider inflicting that exact same experience on many enemy sailors by means of missile or torpedo to be even remotely bending the rules of engagement. Granted, the person that fires the fatal shot probably isn't an incorrigible sadist and may even be at imminent risk of a similar fate themselves, but they're still inflicting that suffering with a similar level of intentionality and certainty to a CIA operative with a bucket...

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#123
post #110
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are saying that collateral damage is not justified under any circumstance? Otherwise your witty response does nothing to adress the point that I made. We already do not condone murder nor rape.

War is a barbarism at industrial scale, which humanity, unfortunately, haven't managed to eradicate. There are however certain undertakings to reduce human suffering: bans of certain particularly inhumane or indiscriminating weapons, prohibitions of deliberate targeting of civilians, and yes, elimination of torture. If you make an effort to reduce suffering it comes as a complete package: people quick to torture are…

That is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that compared to collateral damage the discussion about torture is completely out of proportion. Of course the concept of innocence comes into play. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about drone strikes against terrorists which also kill their wives and children vs torturing a terrorist. The drone strikes are an almost unimaginably greater evil, and yet time and time again you have people taking a hard line stance against torture yet are willing to make a cost-benefit analysis in the case of drone strikes or special forces operations.

Note that I am not taking any pro or contra torture position. I'm merely pointing out the moral inconsistency.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#124
post #7

About 4 years ago I went to a talk given by the author of the book, the subject was along the same lines as the book: how torture is ineffective because it damages the subject's ability to recall information. Afterwards someone asked a question that a lot of us had been thinking: that in a lot of situations where torture might be used, the information being asked for is very well known to the subject, so unless serio…

All information is hard to remember when you are in serios distress. Even your name after few nights of sleep deprivation doesn't sound obvious at all.

You will trash subject ability to be sure about anything well before you make him cooperaive.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#125
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing fringe ideas to dominate discussions so centrally is also exactly the opposite of living in a democracy.

I agree, but who determines what is a fringe idea? I don't agree with torture, quite the contrary, but the same discussion could have been constructed in the opposite way and the fringe idea could have been that torture doesn't work (which I'm sure happened in a lot of situations)

> but the same discussion could have been constructed in the opposite way and the fringe idea could have been that torture doesn't work (which I'm sure happened in a lot of situations)

Could be, but not in this case. This is about torture. I would say living in a civilized society, a society where torture is a despicable criminal act (that is why my original comparison with rape) is more important than living in a democracy.

Doing stuff in the name of an ideology (democracy) is a also a problem. There were a lot atrocities and murders and other horrible things also committed in the names ideologies. That is, claiming things like "it's ok to engage in these things, because we live in a democracy and that is what we do in democracy". I would rather not live in a democracy but live in a country where torture is not a debatable topic to discuss for sane people.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#126
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so unless serious brain damage occurred, the subject wasn't going to forget after torture. Really? You have data on this? I'd love to see it. However, there are multiple problems with your scenario. The biggest being: what happens if the individual DOESN'T KNOW ? He's going to tell you anything he can to get you to stop, and, if you could verify the crucial piece of information, you wouldn't be torturing him in the…

>>if you could verify the crucial piece of information, you wouldn't be torturing him in the first place. This is not true. There are many things easy to verify but difficult to discover. For example a place the money is kept in a big house.

Yeah, I always hoped HN was the last place where you actually had to convince people that NP-complete problems exist...

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#127
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. My skepticism about a claim is proportional to how much the person arguing it wants it to be true.

Quite often, the person doesn't realize he wants it to be true, so this raises the question: don't you have similar motives unbeknownst to you, and are you skeptical about them too?

Yes I am skeptical about my ideas, often excessively and to my detriment! But I don't believe I or anyone else can completely remove this bias, and I think that beyond a certain point it's not healthy or productive to do so. Taken too far, you can find yourself unable to think any thought without arguing against it with twice as many counter-thoughts. It can lead to paralysis where you aren't able to do or think anything for long enough to actually accomplish something.

I think we have to accept that sometimes we are, at least temporarily, operating according to ideas we can't fully justify. We have to be willing to be temporarily wrong or misguided.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#128
post #36

Even if it is working, would that make it ok? What about rape? Should it be criminalized? Is that worth a scientific study from nature? Why is torture in a civilized society not considered like rape. Anyone who suggests, does it, debates about its merrits, should be considered a crazy idiot, ostracized and laughed at. But notice how we as a a society are debating its merits. We have already lost so speak. We lost fir…

>>Even if it is working, would that make it ok? What about rape? Should it be criminalized? Is that worth a scientific study from nature? If raping someone could potentially be used to save a lot of lives then we would have that debate. It doesn't though so. Everyone agrees that torture is bad in itself, the problem arise when not applying it would lead to even worse things happening. If torture works it's immoral to…

> could potentially be used to save a lot of lives then we would have that debate

One can conduct various hypothetical experiments of course. Rape is used in uncivilized societies or parts of societies as punishment (by village elders), it is used by brutal violent and primitives countries as a condoned acceptable spoil of war that commanders would turn their eyes away from, or just build a comfortable quarters for it and supply a steady stream of victims (like Japanese did during WWII in China), it increases fear and makes it easier to control people (just like torture) and so on.

What would you think of a society that does it and then also starts discussion the merits of that in a scientific journal.

Instead of treating like a topic for lunatics and crazy people we are treating it like we are discussing the results of a chemical reaction, that is what I am talking about, sane people finding excuses and studying torture as a valid topic.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#129
post #83
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue your audience is failing to understand what torture is. Most people are deathly afraid of any pain. But they're also not agents/operatives/soldiers for their government. They're not at war with an enemy they think worth fighting and killing. It almost sounds as if you are trying to define away torture for a fringe case where it's guaranteed to be useless. This is a legalistic approach not anymore conv…

We make cost-benefit analyses all the time. With any military operation the collateral damage has to be weighed against the target. The fact that we freak out over torture yet kill innocent people in collateral damage is completely irrational. On the scale of harm, torture that leaves no physical harm is behind cutting off people's limbs, and that is far behind killing people. Now, torturing innocent people is worse…

Torture is harming with intent. Collateral damage is hurting by neglect. People pay attention to intent when judging.

Re: Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

#130
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that something is not debatable is exactly the opposite of living in a democracy Excluding hate speech, surely But since you were very fast to call anyone a "crazy idiot" I can see how worried about you are about a "civilised society" instead of your personal opinions

Allowing fringe ideas to dominate discussions so centrally is also exactly the opposite of living in a democracy.

Exactly. To put it another way, I would rather live in a civilized society that doesn't torture or considers it a valid topic for debate, than in a democracy.
Post reply on HN