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

171–180 of 221 posts

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

#171

Post by joebob42 »

Timon3 wrote: post #139
bee_rider wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it is reasonable to expect for a person on in a sort of informal online conversation like this to be able to define a bulletproof experiment for the topic. Let’s apply a similar logic to something that is clearly possible to design an experiment around. How about detecting neutrinos? If we were commenting on an article about detecting neutrinos by dropping a piece of paper and seeing if it bounced aroun…

> I don’t think it is reasonable to expect for a person on in a sort of informal online conversation like this to be able to define a bulletproof experiment for the topic. I am allowed to ask, right? It doesn't seem crazy to me that when someone criticizes a study, someone else will ask "how could you solve the problem you describe?". I would like to know if someone has any idea on how to falsify it, because if someo…

I don't think you're asking an unfair question. Its now been answered, by many people, to the effect of "this study isn't convincing, but we don't see a simple way to design a convincing one".

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

#172

Post by anonymouskimmer »

mbg721 wrote: post #167
UncleMeat wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's a good article about it. Scalia's claim was in the dissent, so this isn't established legal doctrine in the US, and the Supreme Court has in fact ruled in favor of the convicted on more than one occasion, but as the article shows it has actually happened as practiced legal doctrine in at least one case.

https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/justice-antonin-scalias-rebuke-of-...

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

#174

Post by anonymouskimmer »

Timon3 wrote: post #44
yosito wrote: post #28

> The fact that the students appeared to internalize the false events to the extent that they did highlights the fundamental malleability of memory This seems like a bit of a leap to assume that this is about malleability rather than just lying to researchers and saying what they feel is expected. I could very easily imagine myself playing along with someone trying to convince me of false memories just because I don'…

How would you propose we differentiate between students "playing along" and students really having false memories? Couldn't I discard any psychological study by saying "well, the participants could have faked it", since it's by definition not falsifiable (any test could also be faked)?

> How would you propose we differentiate between students "playing along" and students really having false memories?

Remove the incentive for the student to fabulate.

Have another, supposedly (to the students) 'independent' researcher ask them questions about it days or weeks later. A potential way of doing this would be to have a member of the Institutional Review Board (or supposed member of said board) following up with the students as a matter of 'quality control' and verification that the study followed IRB guidelines. Phrase the reason for the questioning as looking for non-punitive, but developmental, feedback for the researcher.

For ethical reasons this would probably require blinding the original researcher to the identities of the students, but this could be done by having people other than the PI actually ask the questions.

For a particular study on whether or not the student did something criminal, have the questioner truthfully assert to the student binding confidentiality as to their identity by dint of being a psychologist or someone like that who has the legal duty to not divulge.

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

#175

Post by ant6n »

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".

Cardassians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Sp...

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

#176

Post by Timon3 »

joebob42 wrote: post #171
Timon3 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think it is reasonable to expect for a person on in a sort of informal online conversation like this to be able to define a bulletproof experiment for the topic. I am allowed to ask, right? It doesn't seem crazy to me that when someone criticizes a study, someone else will ask "how could you solve the problem you describe?". I would like to know if someone has any idea on how to falsify it, because if someo…

I don't think you're asking an unfair question. Its now been answered, by many people, to the effect of "this study isn't convincing, but we don't see a simple way to design a convincing one".

I suppose it has. The answer is (hopefully understandably) disappointing, since it can be used to discard any scientific efforts involving subjects, but it's what I expected.

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

#177

Post by anonymouskimmer »

emodendroket wrote: post #122
splendor_spoon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ooof. Well that is rather uncalled for. https://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/whats_the_ma... Moving on… The GP quoted the article and found interesting anecdotes of said quote in history and brought them into the discussion with background information backing up the anecdotes. That’s interesting and additive to the discussion! Your comment did none of that except to slander another side of the world. This…

I'm familiar with the connotations of the term "Orient," but that was kind of the point of using it in this instance -- I think having Maoist struggle sessions be the first thing that comes to mind is the same kind of thinking about how something is exotic and foreign when it isn't. Maybe you would have gotten my point better if I put the term in scare quotes. I think the attacks on me as "not a decent member of soci…

The problem with whataboutism is when it's used by an abusive party to try to get the other abusive party to jointly agree that each party's abuse is okay.

Other than that, yes, it's good to expose abuses (as long as over-exposure isn't being used to swamp out public awareness or caring of other abuses).

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

#178

Post by anonymouskimmer »

tacocataco wrote: post #113
emodendroket wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t downvote your replies (I’m pretty sure in general you can’t downvote any replies to yourself on HN) so you’ll have to take that complaint up with someone else. Anyway, what, I’m “more than welcome” to add these points but in some other, unspecified way than I did that you would have preferred? I’m not really sure what your issue is. I think it’s encouraging complacency to say these things happened in the Orie…

Downvoting has a high positive karma requirement IIRC.

It's 500. You'll get there eventually. If you click on emodendroket's name you'll see that they have over 20 thousand.

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

#179

Post by anonymouskimmer »

lisasays wrote: post #97
zealtrace wrote: post #87

This study was immediately critiqued for distorted results due to the way the researchers interpreted the data. "We used three different approaches to recode their data. Using Shaw and Porter's approach, we replicated their 70%. Using alternative approaches that distinguish between false beliefs and memories, we found 26-30% of subjects met the criteria for false memories. Moreover, we showed that laypeople’s underst…

Ok, so -- half full or half empty? Or are you saying it's all BS?

Not quite as bad as expected. This means that a bit more than half of those with false beliefs probably wouldn't testify to the absolute truth of their belief in court.

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

#180

Post by Timon3 »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #174
Timon3 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you propose we differentiate between students "playing along" and students really having false memories? Couldn't I discard any psychological study by saying "well, the participants could have faked it", since it's by definition not falsifiable (any test could also be faked)?

> How would you propose we differentiate between students "playing along" and students really having false memories? Remove the incentive for the student to fabulate. Have another, supposedly (to the students) 'independent' researcher ask them questions about it days or weeks later. A potential way of doing this would be to have a member of the Institutional Review Board (or supposed member of said board) following u…

Thank you for an actual proposal! It makes a lot of sense to me, but there is one reason it probably wouldn't be allowed: the study "implanted" false memories (in the sense that participants stated they believed false memories). I don't think the study would pass ethical review if you were only to follow up days or weeks later (after the supposed end of the study), since that would also be the earliest point you would be able to clear up the lie.
Post reply on HN