Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Shodan]

Could you answer the question, please?

Regards,
Shodan

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Honesty

I don't know who Paul Ekman is. That's your strawman which you've built up and heroically knocked over. Congratulations. I'm referring to studies on deceit and lie detection using fMRI. You can find studies on it here, here, here, here, here and the list goes on and on and on. Will this convince you? Of course not! It has (increasingly) become part and parcel of SDMB tha no cite is good enough and becomes a game of goal posting.

Have you read Blink? The chapter on detecting deception is a profile of Paul Ekman, the pioneer of microexpressions. I don't know how you could be familiar with microexpressions but not Paul Ekman. He's correct that microexpressions exist, but incorrect that anyone can reliably interpret them to detect deception.

As for your cites...

The first studied the reaction of the brain, via fMRI, when the subject viewed videos, based on whether the subject thought they were being deceived or not.

The second user fMRI to study the reaction in the brain when the subject was telling lies.

The third is the same study as your first cite.

The fourth has nothing to do with deception, it studied the ability to mentalize, and the role of gender in that.

The fifth studied the reaction in the brain when the subject was telling lies.

The sixth studied whether people who lie frequently are better at it. It direct contradicts your claim:

Deception detection has been studied extensively, and the finding that typical individuals fare little better than chance in detecting deception is one of the more robust in the behavioral sciences.

The seventh, which was co-authored by Paul Ekman, studied whether adults were better at detecting lies from children or from adults.

The eighth studied using fMRIs to detect deception.

No, those don't convince me, because none of them have anything to do with your claim that a) it is possible to reliably detect deception via a videotaped statement, and b) this ability is stronger in the less advantaged.

Originally Posted by Honesty

If you think I'm dancing for your approval, then you're going to be disappointed. <shrug> I provided a link to the book, provided a host of cites, and if that's still not good enough, then it ain't going to be good enough, but I'm not playing the same old, tired game of goal-posting that's become part and parcel of this message board.

As far as I know, Zimmerman hasn't been placed in an fMRI and questioned about his account of the shooting. Thus, none of your cites have anything to do with your claim, or this case.

No goal posts have been moved. You claimed that white people, on average, were worse at detecting deception than black people, on average. You've produced no evidence for this claim whatsoever.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Honesty

If you think I'm dancing for your approval, then you're going to be disappointed. <shrug> I provided a link to the book, provided a host of cites, and if that's still not good enough, then it ain't going to be good enough, but I'm not playing the same old, tired game of goal-posting that's become part and parcel of this message board.

You posted links to things that were unrelated to the point you were trying to make. I called you out on it. I'm not the one in the wrong here.

Steophan, have you missed the memo? I'm the only racist person here. The rest of you are surrounded in a nimbus of holy white light, bless your hearts.

None of us are perfect, and I expect all of us have, at some points, some racist thoughts. Because we're human, and all humans have them. The difference is, some people here are attempting to focus only on the evidence, and some on their prejudices and unsupported suppositions.

When someone says "black males only fail themselves, deal with it" it's racist to me. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Now, I know you will refuse to grasp that and that's 100% fine, but know that I don't look at Saraya's posts in a vacuum but rather as a growing collage of his previous body of "work" that, when you step away, looks remarkably like a hangman's noose.

When someone says "white people can't smell bullshit", that's racist to me. You don't get a pass on your racism because someone else has also posted racist material. You are the one who seems obsessed with race and racism, despite the fact that there's no actual reason to think it has anything to do with the case. You also seem to think that, because someone has posted racist statements in the past, anything they post in the future is invalid. That's also false, their statements should be judged on their own merits, not discounted because you dislike the person.

<shrug> I call it like I see it. My point was to illustrate, once again, that Magiver has tunnel vision. As for whites and autism, well, damnit, it's kind of true, There's what's been referred to as a "autism cluster" sitting right on top of Santa Clara County and it's not correlated to exposure to environmental carcinogens or vaccines, it's correlated with parental income which is a proxy for socioeconomic status. White and Asian children make up over 50% of the children in Santa Clara County. African-Americans in Santa Clara County? Only 2%. What's more, when the CDC conducted an autism study in Atlanta, they found autism clusters in the metropolitan area but very few in the city. If anyone is familiar with metro Atlanta, most of the whites live there. Lastly, blacks and latinos are less likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders.


- Honesty

Blacks and Latinos in many parts of the US are less likely to be diagnosed with a vast range of mental issues, despite the fact that they suffer from them in similar amounts to other races - there is, of course, no significant difference in brain structure between races.

The reasons are firstly economic, in that it usually costs a great deal of money to be treated for mental health issues in the US, and secondly the demonisation of people with these problems in the community - something you did upthread, when you claimed that evidence of Zimmerman's mental problems was evidence of his guilt. Thirdly, there is a tendency to overdiagnose certain issues in certain communities, again for economic reasons, when doing so can allow somewhat unethical medical providers to either sell drugs or therapy, or to keep a patient on board when they say they'll go elsewhere if they don't get the diagnosis they want.

You see, unlike the "white man" that's a figment of your twisted imagination, I can smell bullshit, and I do know what I'm talking about. You are posting stuff that you (should) know to be false, if you're capable of understanding the cites you post, and the majority of the crap in this thread is coming from you.

[Terr]

This delusion that blacks somehow can "smell bullshit" better than whites...

Just take a look at this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/10/us/ken...html?hpt=hp_t2

A black student suffocates in a rolled-up gym mat. The police find no evidence of foul play. No marks on the body, nothing that came out from interviews with more than 100 people, no evidence whatsoever. Nevertheless the family and the people that came out to protest are convinced that there was no "justice" - because of the photo of the dead student's bloated face. What else they expect from someone dying from being suspended upside down for hours, I don't know. Honesty is not alone in his delusions.

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Have you read Blink? The chapter on detecting deception is a profile of Paul Ekman, the pioneer of microexpressions.

No goal posts have been moved. You claimed that white people, on average, were worse at detecting deception than black people, on average. You've produced no evidence for this claim whatsoever.

I don't have a copy of the book on my nightstand, so the name escaped me, but I knew it was from the wrong. If you had so from the beginning, I wouldn't have blown you off. I apologize, my bad. So now that we have that out the way, what's fraudulent about Paul Ekman? I'm looking at his vita, and it's quite impressive - University of Chicago, New York University, Adelphi University, and a host of NIH grants and over 100 publications on Pubmed. So what's pseudoscience about Paul Ekman. In comparison, could you also offer your own credentials in this field as well.

Thanks.

- Honesty

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by Steophan

When someone says "white people can't smell bullshit", that's racist to me. You don't get a pass on your racism because someone else has also posted racist material. You are the one who seems obsessed with race and racism, despite the fact that there's no actual reason to think it has anything to do with the case.

It's a quite a shame you think that way because I don't consider it racist at all, I consider it an honest appraisal of my experience with no malice or ill-will intended. I supposed this a snake devouring its tail moment where it clear that we will never understand each other on this issue.

There are times where I've pretended to be racist, one example was in the Chris Dorner thread or the thread about white child molesters. That was fun, but I think it was evident from the context of my posts, that I wasn't serious and was trying to make a broader point about inequality. Now, on the other hand, I don't get that lack of seriousness from Saraya et al. posts', in fact, I think he and others are as serious as heart attack.

Finally, I'd like to point out that when I did write about the whites and autism. I said it was racist a few posts after and apologized. The difference between you and me is that I have the confidence and honesty in my viewpoint that I can say I made a mistake or admit I messed up. Hell, just see my previous post about Blink to Human Action regarding Paul Ekman. Or ask Bricker about the email I sent to him. You guys, on the other hand, cannot. You cling to always being right, never wrong, and surely, never, ever racist. Your shit doesn't stink, so yes, when I said "white people can't bullshit", it was poorly phrased, but from my perspective and even in this thread, the adage has become almost proverbial.

Originally Posted by Steophan

You also seem to think that, because someone has posted racist statements in the past, anything they post in the future is invalid.

Exactly so, Steophan. Although I initially look at posts all individually, every statement we put on this message board builds on the next, almost like pages in book that make up the "gestalt" of our persona on the message board, for better or for worse. So, if someone said "black people get what they deserve" in isolation, it's OK, but if it's a pattern of anti-black statement, how can one not step back and see the big picture and only focus on the individual statement in isolation? It's likely purposely burying one's hand in the sand.

Originally Posted by Steophan

.... their statements should be judged on their own merits, not discounted because you dislike the person.

The stars must be alignment today because we are in agreement. The only thing I would add is statements should also be judged, in part, by one's previous statements.


- Honesty

[Saraya]

Originally Posted by Honesty

Now, on the other hand, I don't get that lack of seriousness from Saraya et al. posts', in fact, I think he and others are as serious as heart attack.

Often others feel the need to use additional context to express the tone of their words. That's on them, it's their bad habit to cover up an inability to properly express themselves; or they fear that others will misunderstand.
I do not suffer either problem.
If you however are unable to treat comments with a grain of salt, then that is on you.

And I don't have a penis, so you'll need to come at me with a different racial stereotype - but thanks for making our case about your unchecked race baiting.

You've still yet to connect the dots on how gullible white people are more likely to see Zimmerman is guilty, and yet clued in black people are privy to the truth.

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by Saraya

And I don't have a penis, so you'll need to come at me with a different racial stereotype

My apologies. I've read your posts and because I've never heard a female publically espousing such views, I mistakenly thought you were male.

Originally Posted by Saraya

but thanks for making our case about your unchecked race baiting.

You must be kidding. This message board is an entire race-bait. Every month there's a thread on how we're stupid, how we're violent, how biologically inferior black people are. You, the peanut gallery, and even the moderators on this forum don't even bat an eyelash. It's no different than those teachers that stand by and let kids get bullied. I post because I'm sick and tired of coming to the message board and seeing my people cast in a bad light. When I see ignorance against blacks on this message board, I will fight it, believe that, because it's has become excruciatingly evident that no one else here will.

Originally Posted by Saraya

You've still yet to connect the dots on how gullible white people are more likely to see Zimmerman is guilty, and yet clued in black people are privy to the truth.

- Honesty

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Honesty

If you think I'm dancing for your approval, then you're going to be disappointed. <shrug> I provided a link to the book, provided a host of cites, and if that's still not good enough, then it ain't going to be good enough, but I'm not playing the same old, tired game of goal-posting that's become part and parcel of this message board.

You haven't provided any cite that backs up what you said. You just listed cites without commentary. You have yet to provide any argument as to how your gut feeling trumps evidence.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Honesty

It's a quite a shame you think that way because I don't consider it racist at all, I consider it an honest appraisal of my experience with no malice or ill-will intended. I supposed this a snake devouring its tail moment where it clear that we will never understand each other on this issue.

You don't consider a statement that makes a negative generalisation based on skin colour to be racist? Whether it's honest, or offered in a non-malicious way, is irrelevant. If I honestly felt that black people committed too much crime because they were unable to control themselves, and so white people should chain them up for their own good, would that not be racist in your eyes?

Finally, I'd like to point out that when I did write about the whites and autism. I said it was racist a few posts after and apologized. The difference between you and me is that I have the confidence and honesty in my viewpoint that I can say I made a mistake or admit I messed up. Hell, just see my previous post about Blink to Human Action regarding Paul Ekman. Or ask Bricker about the email I sent to him. You guys, on the other hand, cannot. You cling to always being right, never wrong, and surely, never, ever racist. Your shit doesn't stink, so yes, when I said "white people can't bullshit", it was poorly phrased, but from my perspective and even in this thread, the adage has become almost proverbial.

You clearly haven't read my posts if you think I won't admit it when I'm wrong. Just a few days ago, you called me out for using an incorrect definition of "criminal record", so I checked and found I was indeed wrong, and posted to say so.

More relevant to this thread, me and at least one other poster - Magiver - changed our minds on Zimmerman's guilt. I assumed he was guilty, probably of manslaughter, based on the initial news reports and my (flawed, as it turned out) understanding of the relevant laws. As I did learn about Florida law, and as the evidence in the case was revealed, my view changed significantly.

Contrarily, I've not seen you modify your view, or for that matter show the evidence it's based on. Saying it's your experience is fine, as far as it goes, but it's negated the moment someone has different experience. Posting a multitude of cites that appear to have nothing to do with the topic, and refusing to answer questions about how those cites relate to the topic, is not fine.

[hmarvin]

http://i.imgur.com/y8dDQoP.png

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by hmarvin

http://i.imgur.com/y8dDQoP.png

as a general rule you should provide a snippet of what you're citing and then comment on it so people know what they're clicking on and why.

[Shodan]

I concur, but it appears to be the results of another voice analysis concluding that Martin was not the one screaming. But without the ability to read the whole document, it is hard to decide how much weight to give it.

Regards,
Shodan

[hmarvin]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I concur, but it appears to be the results of another voice analysis concluding that Martin was not the one screaming. But without the ability to read the whole document, it is hard to decide how much weight to give it.

Regards,
Shodan

The point I should have started is that they now have Trayvon's voice samples for comparison, not necessarily the conclusions expressed, since expert opinions will vary.

[hmarvin]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141280397/...dice-Avoidance

This one could be really bizarre, if the rumor turns out to be true the person referred to is DD, the one time star witness.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by hmarvin

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141280397/...dice-Avoidance

This one could be really bizarre, if the rumor turns out to be true the person referred to is DD, the one time star witness.

the Prosecution just said their case went south and the Defense can't point it out. As long as the witnesses in question can be sworn in that is not a problem.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Honesty

I don't have a copy of the book on my nightstand, so the name escaped me, but I knew it was from the wrong. If you had so from the beginning, I wouldn't have blown you off. I apologize, my bad. So now that we have that out the way, what's fraudulent about Paul Ekman? I'm looking at his vita, and it's quite impressive - University of Chicago, New York University, Adelphi University, and a host of NIH grants and over 100 publications on Pubmed. So what's pseudoscience about Paul Ekman. In comparison, could you also offer your own credentials in this field as well.

Thanks.

- Honesty

That's understandable, I should have been more thorough and mentioned that Ekman was from Blink.

I had some extra time on my hands, so I fetched my copy of Blink. The below is what I suspect you must have been thinking of, because it's the only thing close to "white people, on average, can't smell bullshit", and as you'll see, it isn't close at all. This is from page 239 of the paperback:

Paul Ekman has developed a number of simple tests of people's mind-reading abilities; in one, he plays a short clip of a dozen or so people claiming to have done something that they either have or haven't actually done, and the test taker's task is to figure out who is lying. The tests are surprisingly difficult. Most people come out right at the level of chance. But who does well? People who have practiced. Stroke victims who have lost the ability to speak, for example, are virtuosos, because their infirmity has forced them to become far more sensitive to the information written on people's faces. People who have had highly abusive childhoods also do well; like stroke victims, they've had to practice the difficult art of reading minds, in their care the minds of alcoholic or violent parents. Ekman actually runs seminars for law-enforcement agencies in which he teaches people how to improve their mind-reading skills. With even half an hour of practice, he says, people can become adept at picking up microexpressions. "I have a training tape, and people love it," Ekman says. "They start it, and they can't see any of these expressions. Thirty-five minutes later, they can see them all. What that says is that this is an accessible skill."

Bolding mine.

As mentioned above, Ekman claims to be able to teach others to detect lies, which he does for a profit. His incentives are rather obvious. Can he actually do so? This point is controversial. This Nature article covers it well, including Ekman's contribution to the TSA's SPOT program.

Yet a growing number of researchers are dubious — not just about the projects themselves, but about the science on which they are based. "Simply put, people (including professional lie-catchers with extensive experience of assessing veracity) would achieve similar hit rates if they flipped a coin," noted a 2007 report1 from a committee of credibility-assessment experts who reviewed research on portal screening.

"No scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behaviour, including intent," declares a 2008 report prepared by the JASON defence advisory group. And the TSA had no business deploying SPOT across the nation's airports "without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment", stated a two-year review of the programme released on 20 May by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the US Congress.

Most credibility-assessment researchers agree that humans are demonstrably poor at face-to-face lie detection. SPOT traces its intellectual roots to the small group of researchers who disagree — perhaps the most notable being Paul Ekman, now an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. In the 1970s, Ekman co-developed the 'facial action coding system' for analysing human facial expressions, and has since turned it into a methodology for teaching people how to link those expressions to a variety of hidden emotions, including an intent to deceive. He puts particular emphasis on 'microfacial' expressions such as a tensing of the lips or the raising of the brow — movements that might last just a fraction of a second, but which might represent attempts to hide a subject's true feelings. Ekman claims that a properly trained observer using these facial cues alone can detect deception with 70% accuracy — and can raise that figure to almost 100% accuracy by also taking into account gestures and body movements. Ekman says he has taught about one thousand TSA screeners and continues to consult on the programme.

Ekman's work has brought him cultural acclaim, ranging from a profile in bestselling book Blink — by Malcolm Gladwell, a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine — to a fictionalized TV show based on his work, called Lie to Me. But scientists have generally given him a chillier reception. His critics argue that most of his peer-reviewed studies on microexpressions were published decades ago, and much of his more recent writing on the subject has not been peer reviewed. Ekman maintains that this publishing strategy is deliberate — that he no longer publishes all of the details of his work in the peer-reviewed literature because, he says, those papers are closely followed by scientists in countries such as Syria, Iran and China, which the United States views as a potential threat.

The data that Ekman has made available have not persuaded Charles Honts, a psychologist at Boise State University in Idaho who is an expert in the polygraph or 'lie detector'. Although he was trained on Ekman's coding system in the 1980s, Honts says, he has been unable to replicate Ekman's results on facial coding. David Raskin, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, says he has had similar problems replicating Ekman's findings. "I have yet to see a comprehensive evaluation" of Ekman's work, he says.

Ekman counters that a big part of the replication problem is that polygraph experts, such as Honts and Raskin, don't follow the right protocol. "One of the things I teach is never ask a question that can be answered yes or no," Ekman says. "In a polygraph, that's the way you must ask questions." Raskin and Honts disagree with Ekman's criticism, saying that Ekman himself provided the materials and training in the facial-coding technique.

So, where does this leave us? Ekman never said that socioeconomic status, let alone race, made on better at detecting exception, if he is correct that detecting deception is a skill that can be acquired, which is far from clear.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by hmarvin

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141280397/...dice-Avoidance

This one could be really bizarre, if the rumor turns out to be true the person referred to is DD, the one time star witness.

I read the document a couple of times. IANAL. Is it saying that the prosecution does not want the defense to point out that the prosecution could have called Dee Dee as a witness, but didn't? Is that the rumor you mean?

The point I should have started is that they now have Trayvon's voice samples for comparison, not necessarily the conclusions expressed, since expert opinions will vary.

Thanks for the explanation. ISTM that the voice evidence is a wash, unless someone can establish with some reasonable degree of certainty who was screaming. Unless and until we get more than "Dueling Experts", I will consider that it was Zimmerman screaming, based on his own testimony, that of others who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the indications of Zimmerman's injuries that Martin threw the first punch and was winning the fight.

Regards,
Shodan