People can be convinced they committed a crime that never happened (2015) • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by kbrkbr » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #18

kbrkbr wrote: post #16

- 2x30 participants - Not chosen at random - No double blinding - Plenty of leeway for influence by conductors of experiment I'm not convinced these results can be generalized into more than: some researchers could trick 60 handpicked students into seemingly believing a false memory for a short period of time. Let's wait if this is reproducible.

I don’t understand your argument. “People Can Be Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened” The test subject were people, they got convinced. They are not claiming that everyone under every circumstance can be convinced they commited any crime. Even if it can only happen sometimes to some people under some circumstances that would be of great importance to the process of justice.

You are right. I indeed thought only probabilities would matter here, when it is possibilities.

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

#162

Post by terribleperson » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

getpost wrote: post #143

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...

It does however mean that if you're trying to manipulate someone to reveal or recall something, you need to be careful that you're not just making them fabricate it.

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

#163

Post by qup » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #147

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.

Can you re-word this? It's hard to understand what you mean.

Are you saying his mother was murdered, he confessed, but they mixed up the "unknowable details" from another crime, prompted the boy into knowing those, and then he confessed the unknowable details from another murder?

It seems weird to say "he confessed to the wrong crime" given the circumstances, so I can't figure it out any other way.

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

#164

Post by getpost » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 5:52 PM UTC

terribleperson wrote: post #162

getpost wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It does however mean that if you're trying to manipulate someone to reveal or recall something, you need to be careful that you're not just making them fabricate it.

Agreed; there should be no manipulation, but evidently that's too high a bar for most people most of the time.

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

#165

Post by UncleMeat » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

madsbuch wrote: post #144

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.

> 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.

In the US, a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence is not sufficient to reopen a death penalty conviction, so long as the court case was performed fairly.

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

#166

Post by pests » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 6:14 PM UTC

qup wrote: post #163

analog31 wrote: post #147

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.

Can you re-word this? It's hard to understand what you mean. Are you saying his mother was murdered, he confessed, but they mixed up the "unknowable details" from another crime, prompted the boy into knowing those, and then he confessed the unknowable details from another murder? It seems weird to say "he confessed to the wrong crime" given the circumstances, so I can't figure it out any other way.

To me it sounds like he was in custody for an unrelated case and was questioned on the murdered mother case and admitted to all those details.

Who knows though until the original poster decides to come back.

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

#167

Post by mbg721 » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #165

madsbuch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the US, a claim of actual innocence based on new evidence is not sufficient to reopen a death penalty conviction, so long as the court case was performed fairly.

The argument for this, as ugly as it is, is that admitting arguments of innocence at that point would clog up the court system and impede justice.

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

#168

Post by Timon3 » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #155

Timon3 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ide…

> You will either have to share your research credentials which allow you to judge it as such I was a research scientist[1] for 7 years of my 25 years of working experience. What are your credentials? > You are wrong. There, I said that you are wrong - does that make you wrong? That's just your opinion. The lack of replicable results in psychology is not an opinion . We are not debating whether or not the research ca…

> I was a research scientist[1] for 7 years of my 25 years of working experience.

In what field? Is it close to psychology?

> That's just your opinion. The lack of replicable results in psychology is not an opinion.

I did not claim that psychology doesn't have a lack of replicable results.

> We are not debating whether or not the research can be replicated, are we?

No, we are not. We are debating whether we can dismiss this study without defining a way to falsify our claim.

> I mean, are you seriously claiming that psychology is filled with replicable studies?

Again, I am not claiming this, nor have I claimed it previously.

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

#169

Post by somenameforme » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #128

somenameforme wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having participated in plenty of these (as it was required for class credit, and they also paid reasonably well for an in-between classes hour type thing to go do), the 'researchers' can also be completely obnoxious. One study I was involved in had me listen to some rant about how women do better on a math exam I was about to take, being left in a room for about 10 minutes alone, and then being given the exam - on pi…

That just sounds like bad research. In general if you know their angle that clearly then they’ve failed at how to do a research study of this type — obnoxious or not. It sounds like they don’t know how to do this type of research.

I'm not sure that was the problem. Journals don't tend to publish negative results, and social science journals seem to have 0 issues with publishing studies that are overtly designed to confirm a hypothesis, rather than challenge it. Add in a bit of publish or perish, and this behavior is ubiquitous. What would you say is an example of good research in social psychology?

As an example of bad science, you look to what's likely the single most well known experiment in social psychology - the Stanford Prisoner Experiment. It's not only failed to replicate, but was mostly entirely fabricated. [1] The famous clip of the guy screaming out 'I can’t stand another night! I just can’t take it anymore!' came from a guy who was intentionally faking a meltdown, because he needed to go study and they weren't allowing him access to his books, the guards were actively trained to be cruel, and more. Incidentally Zimbardo (the experimenter), far from being shunned, has received countless accolades for this experiment, some as recent as 2012.

[1] - https://gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62

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

#170

Post by bena » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 6:36 PM UTC

qup wrote: post #163

analog31 wrote: post #147

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.

Can you re-word this? It's hard to understand what you mean. Are you saying his mother was murdered, he confessed, but they mixed up the "unknowable details" from another crime, prompted the boy into knowing those, and then he confessed the unknowable details from another murder? It seems weird to say "he confessed to the wrong crime" given the circumstances, so I can't figure it out any other way.

"Chicago" and "false confession" turns up way more hits than it should. I couldn't find a story that matched those particular details. I've found others, like one where a kid was put in prison for confessing to fatally stabbing a woman. A woman, who was choked and beaten to death, not stabbed. Not even once.

And the same cold reading techniques that allow psychics to know intimate details of your life can be done in reverse to get people to admit to details they shouldn't know. If the victim wore a red shirt. You don't ask what color shirt they were wearing, you ask if they were wearing a red shirt. If they say "I don't know", you tell them that's not good enough. They need to answer "yes" or "no". You got a 50/50 chance for them to admit it was red. And if it was pink, when they say, "I don't know", you can then say, "Would you say it was more of a pink than a red?".

Regardless, you badger, intimidate, and coerce into getting them to come to the same conclusion you did before you walked into the room. That they did it.