Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

psychologicalscience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 221 posts

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#141

Post by isaacremuant »

mbg721 wrote: post #136
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Reid technique has been used by law enforcement to convince criminals of confessions. Many confessions were found to be false. This is one reason among many why it is a serious question to ask whether a confession increases or actually rather decreases the likelihood that the culprit commited the crime.

That only matters if the truth is a major consideration. Some theories of justice don't care, as long as social order is maintained.

Which theories of justice? What countries are practicing this supposed theory?

Because this greater good thing sounds earily similar like the end justifies the means, which could argue for decimating a whole village to catch criminals as long as "overall social order of a larger group is contained".

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#142

Post by tsimionescu »

Timon3 wrote: post #63
canjobear wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this whole experimental paradigm is inherently unfixable.

So we just stop studying psychology completely?

Not all of psychology, but this type of problem, yes. We just don't have the neurological knowledge required to get such information meaningfully yet. It would be like people in the 1700s trying to study nuclear forces - it's not an absurd endeavor, but they just didn't have the means yet.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#143

Post by getpost »

Nowado wrote: post #98

Anyone interested should just Google 'Elizabeth Loftus'. She convinced people of a bunch of things that never happened, some of them very quickly. Standard example is getting people to tell stories about meeting Bugs Bunny in Disneyland, but there was also some crime stuff, I think past trauma as well. Law enforcement has their quotas and they'll use any garbage they can to fill it, but it's kind of hilarious that pe…

Argh! The fact that false memories can be induced does not mean that all memories are false.

Commentary: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/05/how-elizabeth-...

Rebuttal: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/04/25/the-new-yorkers-hi...

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#144

Post by madsbuch »

mbg721 wrote: post #136
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Reid technique has been used by law enforcement to convince criminals of confessions. Many confessions were found to be false. This is one reason among many why it is a serious question to ask whether a confession increases or actually rather decreases the likelihood that the culprit commited the crime.

That only matters if the truth is a major consideration. Some theories of justice don't care, as long as social order is maintained.

> as long as social order is maintained

That would rely on the participants believing that truth is the major consideration, right?

If I knew that I would have to prove my innocence, that would lead to a lot of overhead for self surveillance and documentation.

Ie. If the custom of just accepting false confessions becomes a widely accepted practice it could potentially lead to reduction of social order.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#145

Post by mbg721 »

isaacremuant wrote: post #141
mbg721 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only matters if the truth is a major consideration. Some theories of justice don't care, as long as social order is maintained.

Which theories of justice? What countries are practicing this supposed theory? Because this greater good thing sounds earily similar like the end justifies the means, which could argue for decimating a whole village to catch criminals as long as "overall social order of a larger group is contained".

I think most countries practice some form of "order is better than truth", including the US. There are famous examples of US courts rejecting arguments on the basis that "just because you have proof that you were wrongly convicted doesn't give you standing to appeal".

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#146

Post by Timon3 »

lelanthran wrote: post #140
Timon3 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not the only option. Why is it the only one you can think of? It's not the only one I can think of, but no other options have been presented to me. I have been asking for solutions, but nobody has provided any that can't be dismissed on the same grounds. > I mean, where are you going with "Our only options are to draw the wrong conclusions, or to stop studying it altogether"? Where did I write anything close…

> It's not the only one I can think of, but no other options have been presented to me. Well, then, with all due respect, if you already know of other options, why are you asking? > I'm asking how we could measure your idea Who cares? Even if you cannot "measure" (whatever that means) the alternatives, the fact still remains that people are drawing conclusions from incorrect and invalid data. That's the point, really…

> Well, then, with all due respect, if you already know of other options, why are you asking?

If someone engages in a conversation with me and presents a thought, I would like them to present it fully. If there are obvious flaws or implications, I try to reflect them, both so I can be sure I correctly understood the other party, and to give them a chance to fill in those holes. I do not wish to just inject my own ideas everywhere, I want to understand people as they express themselves. Seems like a pretty normal way to talk to other humans to me.

> Who cares? Even if you cannot "measure" (whatever that means) the alternatives, the fact still remains that people are drawing conclusions from incorrect and invalid data.

And because you are declaring the data incorrect and invalid that means it is so? You will either have to share your research credentials which allow you to judge it as such, or you'll have to answer the obvious questions that come after such a statement (e.g. "how can you prove that?"). It's pretty normal in science that instead of people just blurting out thoughts which are taken as truths, we reflect on ideas and ask questions that help us get to a better understanding divided from our subjective point of view. If the best you can come up with is "well, it's obviously true, duh" then your thought isn't as good as you think.

> It's enough to point out that a thing is wrong

You are wrong. There, I said that you are wrong - does that make you wrong? If not, is there maybe some system by which we can determine whether you're right or wrong? Your response to this question is "no need, I am right".

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#147

Post by analog31 »

I'm reminded of a famous case in Chicago in which a juvenile confessed to murdering his mother, and even offered many details that could only have been known to the person who committed the crime. There were calls for trying the kid as an adult, reviving the death penalty, etc.

Then it was discovered that the police had gotten their files mixed up, and the kid had actually confessed to the wrong crime.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#148

Post by [deleted] »

j16sdiz wrote: post #60
Clubber wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It obviously wouldn't work with the modern police, because they would overpower you Never go into a police interrogation without a lawyer regardless of innocence or guilt. That's our only counter today.

Only if you can get a lawyer. In many parts of the world, you can't.

[deleted]

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#149

Post by sin7 »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #103
sin7 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse, a good portion of the population believes that a good portion now believes that ... whatever you just said. And this good portion is annoying. Bring up nonsense like this in conversations where it does not fit, in the middle of dinner, in the middle of pumping gas. Like damn, I'm watching out for one of those kids with a gun just waiting to exhibit his mental health and you want me to worry about the guy…

[flagged]

Yeah. So?

Make no mistake about it, there is no argument. We are not negotiating. I'm not recognizing anything that was said. Like hearing my nephew cracking up over saying poop, it was cute the first time. It's time for new material yungin'.

Re: People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015)

#150

Post by lancebeet »

This article reminds me of an episode of Derren Brown's TV show, called "The Heist"[0], where he supposedly manipulates a group of ordinary people to commit an armed robbery. Apparently, in a more recent episode called "The Guilt Trip"[1], he convinces people they have committed murder, which seems even more similar to what's described in this article. It would be interesting to read a skeptic's analysis of the phenomenon, since you're left wondering how much is caused by people acting to please the observer (the cameras in Brown's case, the experimenter in the article's case) and how much is actual planted false memories.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDtMMsFoHuY

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AzTLw0Xwok

Post reply on HN