Quote from: apocryphal on August 19, 2007, 05:57:09 PMJohn Edwards has a problem -- the feelings of uncertainty that he emanates by way of his mannerisms and delivery, as if he is begging you to agree with him instead of just telling you what he thinks, which makes him appear less confident. People get the feeling like he is "holding something back" so they don't trust him. It's his vibes that create that feeling. [...]Oh please, do you think Hillary is better? I mean, take a look at her face when she talks -- you can easily tell when what she's saying is something she's does not really believe in simply by observing her facial expressions. She's not that good at body language lying. The one public person that has absolute mastery over her body language is Oprah -- she'll just not let out anything she doesn't want to get out.'
John Edwards has a problem -- the feelings of uncertainty that he emanates by way of his mannerisms and delivery, as if he is begging you to agree with him instead of just telling you what he thinks, which makes him appear less confident. People get the feeling like he is "holding something back" so they don't trust him. It's his vibes that create that feeling. [...]
I guess no one. I mean, this "body language" thing is complete bulls h i t - I know that it's being relied on a lot, by a hell of a lot of LE pros, but they KNOW deep down themselves that that's just not true (that they can actually tell if one's lying using the "behavioral cues" they elicit in their suspects). I am sure this may not the right time for class, but I have to tell you this: there are simply no verbal or non-verbal cues unique to lying. In fact, there are very small differences between those who tell the truth and liars. A truth-teller might appear nervous and thus judged to be lying, as it also possible that a liar might just be very good at it (lying). Not to mention that oftentimes lies are embedded in truths. LE people will tell you that they "know what they are doing" and that their years of experience have taught them things - stuff that they can't even explain logically (rationally) to other people, that 'vibe' kind of thing - that enable 'em to detect lying (deceit). They will mock, for instance, psychologists' work on the subject showing the absence of any credible "cues to deception" and they will boast they have learned such "cues" by spotting liars in real-life situations, not in "experimental studies." Psychologists, then, had LE personnel as study participants, asking them to detect deception by actually interviewing in the manner of their choice a mock suspect. The police officers were no better than plain folk study participants - they were able to say whether someone was lying or not with an accuracy of just 57% (remember that you have an 50% chance of telling such just by guessing!) Finally, LE people will tell you that they need a "method" when going for this kind of thing, and that "something" is better than "nothing." They start with a certain "version" of the story (the so-called "evidence") and slowly get the suspect to "validate" such story, with a written statement at the end of the process, signed by him and witnessed by 2 other people. The most critical part of this process is at the beginning, when the LE people will try to rationalize to themselves that the person they have in front of them may have actually committed the crime, and that they have, more likely than not, accurately classified him as either a truth-teller or a liar. So, in a certain sense, it does involve a certain degree of self-brainwashing on the part of the investigators themselves. I mean, think about it - if you consider the actual method/technique you are using completely 'crap', you just won't be able to carry it on for hours and hours on end, every day of your life! Now, do they come to truly believe at the end of the day that the confession they got by means of their manipulative/coercive tactics and strategies was true (the one they'll use in the courtroom to have the defendant found guilty). Probably Yes. Probably No. In fact, the majority of them tend to think of all this as part of their of work, one which due to its nature, makes necessary not to place much importance on dichotomies such as true/false.
Quote from: SadderbutWiser on March 20, 2006, 08:47:54 PMDon't worry. My husband, who is the most prudish, innocent kind of man had been accused of all manner of sexual perversion, or some such nonsense, and came home in tears. I believe they did something to brainwash him, as I remember that day he kept muttering things about being "a bad man" and "a bad person." And my hubby is the sort of fellow who's absolutely embarrassed to the point of mortification if some sleazy ad pops up on the internet -- definitely not a "bad man." They're pervs there, and I was happy my hubby didn't get the job back then. A group of students here: We've been laughing with this since yesterday when we read it! I mean, we feel sorry for the poor guy having gone thru the ordeal, but on the other hand it's so entertaining to see someone take seriously the CIA bull ... I mean, come on, everyone knows what sick dogs CIA people are!
Don't worry. My husband, who is the most prudish, innocent kind of man had been accused of all manner of sexual perversion, or some such nonsense, and came home in tears. I believe they did something to brainwash him, as I remember that day he kept muttering things about being "a bad man" and "a bad person." And my hubby is the sort of fellow who's absolutely embarrassed to the point of mortification if some sleazy ad pops up on the internet -- definitely not a "bad man." They're pervs there, and I was happy my hubby didn't get the job back then.
Conditioning Killers in the Military. On the training bases of the major armies of the world nations struggle to turn teenagers into killers. The "struggle" for the mind of the soldier is a loopsided one: armies have had thousands of years to develop their craft, and their subjects have had fewer than two decades of life experience. It is a basically honest, age-old, reciprocal process, especially in today's all-volunteer U.S. army. The soldier intuitively understands what he or she is getting into and generally tries to cooperate by "playing the game" and constraining his or her own individuality and adolescent enthusiasm, and the army systematically wields the resources and technology of a nation to empower and equip the soldier to kill and survive on the battlefield. Operant conditioning is a higher form of learning than classical conditioning. It was pioneered by B.F. Skinner and is usually associated with learning experiments on pigeons and rats. The traditional image of a rat in a Skinner box, learning to press a bar in order to get food pallets, comes from Skinner's research in this field. Skinner rejected the Freudian and humanist theories of personality development and held that all behavior is a result of past rewards and punishments. To him the child is a tabula rasa, a "blank slate," who can be turned into anything provided sufficient control of the child's environment is instituted at an early enough age. Instead of firing at a bull's-eye target, the modern soldier fires at man-shaped silhouettes that pop up for brief periods of time inside a designated firing lane. The soldiers learn that have only a brief second to engage the target, and if they do it properly their behavior is immediately reinforced when the target falls down. If he knocks downs enough targets, the soldier gets a marksmanship badge and usually a three-day pass. After training on rifle ranges in this manner, an automatic conditioned response called automaticity sets in, and the soldier then becomes conditioned to respond to the appropriate stimulus in the desired manner. This process may seem simple, basic, and obvious, but there is evidence to indicate that it is one of key ingredients in a methodology that has raised the firing rate from 15-20% in World War II to 90-95% in Vietnam. On the other hand, you have arcade video games. A game with a western motif is that in which you stand before a huge video screen and fire a pistol at actual film footage of "outlaws" as they appear on the screen. This is identical to the shoot-no shoot training program designed by the FBI and used by police agencies around the nation to train and enable police officers in firing their weapons. Social Learning and Role Models. There is a third level of learning that pretty much only primates and humans are capable of, and that is what is called social learning. This third level of learning, in its most powerful form, revolves primarily around the observation and imitation of a role model. Vicarious Reinforcement: you see the role model being reinforced in a manner that you can experience vicariously. Similarity to the Learner: you perceive that the role model has a key trait that makes him or her similar to you. Social Power: the role model has the power to reward (but does not necessarily do so). Status Envy: you envy the role model's receipt of rewards from others. The drill sergeant is a role model, the ultimate role model.
figurati - don't get me started with all the * & ^ % they call "science," and that they claim that it "works." Take a look at this other post - it talks about "conditioning," role models" and the like that they use in the military to train soldiers to kill in battle. Now, anyone with a brain can figure it out that those young, naive guys who enlist in the military know what they will be asked to do, and that they would do it, were these "techniques" used on them, or not!