Live data from Hacker News

Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation

nature.com

151–159 of 159 posts

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

#151
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse. For you and me yes. For people who believe targets are "bad people" worth killing it's noble intent.

Well, lets talk about people who are not like that, but people who think drone strikes are might be okay in certain circumstances. My point is that those are the same people who say that torture is not okay under any circumstance. That is the inconsistency I'm pointing out.

I think in case of drone strikes those people can claim that people (other than target that should in their opinion be killed) are killed by accident.

In case of torture you can't claim that individual you torture is somehow accidentally hurt. Probsbly those people would be fine with torture if they thought hurting the tortured individual is desired outcome.

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

#152
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, lets talk about people who are not like that, but people who think drone strikes are might be okay in certain circumstances. My point is that those are the same people who say that torture is not okay under any circumstance. That is the inconsistency I'm pointing out.

I think in case of drone strikes those people can claim that people (other than target that should in their opinion be killed) are killed by accident. In case of torture you can't claim that individual you torture is somehow accidentally hurt. Probsbly those people would be fine with torture if they thought hurting the tortured individual is desired outcome.

It's not really an accident though if it's a likely outcome. The point is simply this: on the one hand people accept a substantial probability of killing innocent people and intentionally killing guilty people if the upsides are good enough, but these same people are unwilling to accept mere torture of guilty people no matter the upsides.

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

#153
post #81
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, torture does not work for "getting the combination to a safe or finding where a merchant keeps their money stashed". It is still used because it is a very effective way to frighten the opposition. Torture is often shown on TV, where the good guys force the bad ones to tell the truth. It is completely unrealistic.

> It is completely unrealistic. Back in the 1990s in former USSR bugrlary-torture-murders were daily occurrences. It sure as hell worked, for purposes far more simple than "frightening the opposition". Stuff much too savage for TV shows typically, like soldering iron up one's anus.

Ah, "racketeer" (written as "PAKETEP" in Cyrillics, iirc -- a borrowed word from English, but used to mean an individual extorting someone vs. organized extortion of a business) with a soldering iron or a clothes iron... the reason my parents for the longest time told me 1) never tell others we have a home computer 2) the model of our home computer was a "Sinclair" (it was actually a 386, but they were afraid I'd blab about having a computer in the first place... of course I blabbed about having a Sinclair, to someone who first volunteered information about having an actual Sinclair, leaving him confused as to why our Sinclair ran MS DOS and why I programmed it in Turbo Pascal...).

The general big fear was being burgled and tortured for money you were presumed to have had but actually didn't. I suspect this was the intent of the burglars: most any rational person would prefer to give up their money rather than being tortured with a soldering iron -- and these were heavy soldering irons used for repairing 220v home circuits (culture shock coming to the US: people didn't fix simple things like an outlet/switch failing to work, but I digress...) -- but the stories of those who didn't have money but were tortured and murdered anyway, made those who had the money (and might decide to volunteer only a portion of it) realize that the threats weren't kidding.

However, that's not the full story. I really do wonder how much the soldering iron added over simply barging into a home, demanding the money. I suspect there is also huge element of, as Orwell said in 1984, torture for the sake of torture itself (sadistic personalities amongst the criminals, rather than pure rational calculation as means to making money).

Re, TV: the soldering iron thing _did_ make it into some Russian/late Soviet movie I watched back in the 90s, not in a graphical scene, but the threat: the militisia agent -- it was stilled called that back then -- was refusing to take the reported threat seriously and was simply cracking jokes about it.... A graphical scene (albeit comedic) with a clothes iron did make into one the more famous movies of that era, ironically as something that happens in US (ah, projection!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Is_Good_on_Deribasovsk... )

That said, growing up in former USSR (Belarus, specifically), I was also surrounded by plenty of stories of partisans (anti-Nazi resistance fighters) saying nothing when questioned by the Gestapo, as well as tactics the partisans used: assume anyone can be captured or be a traitor, make any one piece of information useless by itself, and so forth. This couldn't be propaganda, as the French resistance stories I was exposed to in the US were also quite similar. I suspect resistance to giving useful information under torture when 1) one has a lot more at stake than money 2) the organization one is a part of has a choice about how to distribute the information.

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

#154
post #96
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is completely unrealistic. Back in the 1990s in former USSR bugrlary-torture-murders were daily occurrences. It sure as hell worked, for purposes far more simple than "frightening the opposition". Stuff much too savage for TV shows typically, like soldering iron up one's anus.

Such barbaric methods makes almost no difference for the victims who will probably die. The difference is the effect on population. If the purpose was to get information, I think there are more effective ways: chemistry or hypnosis for example.

The purpose of information, however, is money. Which adds more data to this: if you're in early 1990s former USSR and you want to steal a great deal of money, there were far less brutal ways to do so... Here's how one fellow made $10bn (no home invasions and soldering irons required...): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company)

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

#155
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in case of drone strikes those people can claim that people (other than target that should in their opinion be killed) are killed by accident. In case of torture you can't claim that individual you torture is somehow accidentally hurt. Probsbly those people would be fine with torture if they thought hurting the tortured individual is desired outcome.

It's not really an accident though if it's a likely outcome. The point is simply this: on the one hand people accept a substantial probability of killing innocent people and intentionally killing guilty people if the upsides are good enough, but these same people are unwilling to accept mere torture of guilty people no matter the upsides.

Maybe it's something about drones being remote. Torture was shown so many times on tv that it's closer to home. Not many pictures of people blown to bits by invisible thing in the sky.

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

#156
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 don't at the moment have time to read the article, but I will note that you do NOT need to have brain damage from the torture in order for it to interfere with recall.

Memory is state dependent. You recall things best when in a similar state to when you usually access that information. Placing someone in an extreme altered state can interfere with memory access of "normal" memories, without brain damage needing to occur.

The degree to which memory is state dependent was really brought home to me when I had a serious medical crisis some years back. The birth of my first child was very difficult and I usually have trouble remembering the details. During my medical crisis, I was in constant extreme pain for 3.5 years. During that time, I was able to remember the birth of that child with tremendous clarity after years of remembering it foggily.

You do not need to cause brain damage to interfere with mental processes like recall.

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

#157
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really an accident though if it's a likely outcome. The point is simply this: on the one hand people accept a substantial probability of killing innocent people and intentionally killing guilty people if the upsides are good enough, but these same people are unwilling to accept mere torture of guilty people no matter the upsides.

Maybe it's something about drones being remote. Torture was shown so many times on tv that it's closer to home. Not many pictures of people blown to bits by invisible thing in the sky.

The question why people are so bad at intuitively weighing harm is a different but interesting question. There have been some studies that suggest that there is an inverse relationship. When asked how much money they would give to save 2 lives people offer less than they do when asked to how much they would give to save 1 life. Not less per life, less total. As the number of lives goes up, what they offer goes down. This may have something to do with abstracting the harm. With torture it's easy to understand what's happening. With a single death it's harder to fathom how much is lost. The thousands that die in traffic each year hardly register.

The incompetence of humans to intuitively make moral judgements is precisely why we should think rationally about morality rather than emotionally.

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

#158
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…

There isn't much evidence for torture being used except as a form of punishment. Even the famous medieval torture was intended as a part of the punishment and to deter crime, rather than finding valuable information. Torture was only used on people convicted by other means, because it was technically illegal to punish anybody who didn't plea guilty.

There's plenty of evidence, if you are not specifically determined to look the other way. Waterboarding was used not to deter crime or to punish.

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

#159
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going for utilitarian points then yes, in the story to torture and save the child causes less overall damage. The problem is (as always with utilitarian scenarios like these) that you can only know when to torture or not if you're omniscient. What happens if the guy is innocent? Or what happens if the kid is already dead or the car is too remote to reach in time no matter what you do to the criminal? (In bo…

In this case, the police were all but certain they had the right man. There was video footage of him stealing the car. He had valuables from the car in his pockets. Likewise, the police were pretty sure the baby was still alive. It had only been 20 minutes since the car had been stolen. Based on these likelihoods, they thought beating information out of this man was worthwhile. I can't fault their judgement. We deal…

That's true. There's also the tricky business of picking what the formula for good is. In the US, false positives are heavily weighted and false negatives aren't as much. Something like Blackstone's Principle:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Post reply on HN