201–210 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are welcome to add those points to the discussion but right now all we have a statement of, ‘but… but… they do it too!’. I appreciate the downvote though.
Somehow your call for them to add more points to the discussion adds even less to the discussion. Maybe that's the cause of your down votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this peppering of whataboutism add to the conversation?
Mentioning the USSR in a thread about Western researchers researching phenomenon that happens in the West while in the West: not whataboutism. Pointing out the thing Western researchers were researching about in the West on Western subjects might happen in the West: extreme, egrecious, purely churlish whataboutism!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you google Paris and you get an ad for a hotel, that isn't brainwashing. It's fun to be radical but let's stay grounded here.
Ah, but if you Google Paris in the first place, that is an outcome of marketing - which is for all intents and purposes brainwashing. Bernays, who invented modern advertising, said as much himself in “Propaganda”. So: Why google Paris? Why even Paris as an example? Hell - why Paris, period? Examine your answer carefully, and you’ll see the non-sequiturs in our reality that we usually happily ignore.
Interesting that the entire article had nothing to mention about the Reid technique [1]. The Reid technique has been used by law enforcement to convince criminals of confessions. Many confessions were found to be false. In the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson [2], they cover false confessions in depth with a few court cases, as well as police techniques to invoke cognitive dissonance in the accused. Callout to…
If you're being interrogated by the police, you've already lost. The only word you should say is "lawyer." Here's what the ideal interrogation looks like: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6RoKvC1qcEY
Interesting that the entire article had nothing to mention about the Reid technique [1]. The Reid technique has been used by law enforcement to convince criminals of confessions. Many confessions were found to be false. In the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson [2], they cover false confessions in depth with a few court cases, as well as police techniques to invoke cognitive dissonance in the accused. Callout to…
Pretty illuminating that the origin story of the technique is it eliciting what was later revealed as a false confession that sentenced an innocent man to life in prison.
> 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'…
It is impossible to discuss Psychology on HN. I think STEM type personalities are incapable of fathoming that the mind can be studied. I tend to think that the STEM personality has a lower than average ability for self-reflection, and thus they still think the mind is a mysterious phenomena that is beyond science. They aren't able to observe their own minds, and thus think it is impossible for anybody else to either.
Interesting that the entire article had nothing to mention about the Reid technique [1]. The Reid technique has been used by law enforcement to convince criminals of confessions. Many confessions were found to be false. In the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson [2], they cover false confessions in depth with a few court cases, as well as police techniques to invoke cognitive dissonance in the accused. Callout to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Lots of societies have required accused criminals to be tortured until they confess. Presumably they would generally only torture people they believed were guilty, but there was no reason to be more confident the person was guilty after confession than before. The confession was purely of ritual significance.
> Presumably they would generally only torture people they believed were guilty, so in their system of belief, they are truthfully guilty. the question I am asking is whether you can divorce truth from confession. if the society cannot believe that a confessing person is indeed guilty, then it will not uphold societal order.
You'd be surprised how little people care about innocence and justice. They care more about the entertainment value and reddit drama of discussing the convictions than actual justice or truth.
People want to hear that bad things are being done to "bad people", and won't interrogate that label too deeply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It being extremely difficult or impossible to design a convincing study doesn't make the other ones convincing.
I am not saying that any study is or is not convincing. I am literally just asking: how could you define a test for this? I am not stating that any individual study is good or bad or anything in between. I want to know: if I design a study, how do I design it in a way that makes it a good study in regards to this question?
They'd need to be in a situation where they believe that the statement of their true beliefs is critical.
This isn't impossible (many studies do use primary sources which were not created for the purposes of a study, and where there was some incentive based on real-world circumstances for them to be truthful), but it is much more difficult and leaves gaps where insufficient primary sources materials addressing the questions of the study are available.
Psychologists are well aware that the current model for many psychology studies, which consists of either asking an extremely small sample of participants to sit in a computer lab at a university for 20 minutes answering questions, or sending out very loosely-targeted emails soliciting participation, are both very inefficient.
But they gotta get published, cause that's how you put food on the table.