|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 27, 2017 22:36:32 GMT -5
Sorry for the clickbaity title, but bear with me. First of all, watch this short video (roughly a minute long): How did you do on it?  If you're nerdy like me, then you might enjoy this next bit too. BBC aired a documentary a while back on the psychology of decision-making (which is part of my area of research, so I'm genetically obligated to like it). I think the entire thing is interesting, and they get most of it right and don't seem to misrepresent any of the science (good job, BBC!). One topic covered in it deals with how our brains can cause us to NOT see something that's basically right in front of us. Specifically, they discuss a case where a cop was chasing a suspect on foot and ran past officers beating another man (who wound up being an undercover officer). The chasing officer said he didn't see the incident, even though he ran past it. He was charged and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying when he claimed he didn't see it.The thinking of many at the time was, "how could anyone NOT see something that obvious?" Well, because our brains often don't work that way. Two psychologists conducted a study about 6 years ago demonstrating something called "inattentional blindness," strongly suggesting that the cop was telling the truth. The entire docu is worth the watch, but I'll link the vid below to start at the segment discussing the cop study. Full vid is about an hour but the relevant segment below is only about 5 to 10 minutes long. Anyway, just thought some of you might find it interesting: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 23:02:23 GMT -5
Ha! well, I counted the passes correctly...
I'm exhausted (been a bad week), but I'll watch the longer video tomorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 23:13:45 GMT -5
I'll also be back to discuss the topic. But just to note, before I go to bed -- this phenomenon is yet another reason why eye-witness testimony tends to be pretty unreliable. People miss stuff that's right in front of them. They convince themselves things happened that didn't/couldn't have happened. Doesn't mean they're lying -- but also doesn't mean that what they swore they saw or swore didn't happen is necessarily accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 27, 2017 23:25:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 28, 2017 19:52:33 GMT -5
I counted 11. I blame the moon-walking bear.  I watched the video this morning and I agree, it was excellent. I love this subject/these subjects, and I absolutely adore that Nobel-prize winning man whose name I can't recall. I could listen to him for hours. Re: loss aversion, a personal anecdote: In my profession, sometimes I find I have to explain to clients that, in order to get a tax deduction, they actually have to spend more money--e.g., give a $100 charitable contribution to save e.g. $25 in tax, assuming a 25% tax rate. So, by "saving" $25 in taxes (the "loss") they have spent $100 (a greater loss). If they had not spent the $100, they'd still have $75. This seems apparent, but so many people want to "save taxes" that they are willing to spend money they would not have actually spent otherwise. If you want to spend the $100, giving to charity or whatever else, then fine, get the tax deduction. But it's gobsmacking how many people look for ways to spend money so they can "save on taxes." It's the same with sales... buy one get one free... Okay, fine,but did you really want the "one" in the first place? If not, buy none. It's a better deal. Random observation #1: picking the ball with the number (10, or 65) and then how much they'd pay for the bottle of champagne.... I was yelling at them all: WHAT KIND OF CHAMPAGNE IS IT? WHAT IS IT WORTH? ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU FOOLS. Personal nitpick, but I think in general, if you know the value of something, you're not going to be swayed by picking up a random ball with a number on it. Random observation #2: the rhesus monkey who selected the 'vendor' who offered 1 grape, then added another after payment (totaling 2) versus the 'vendor' who offered 3 grapes, then took away another after payment (totaling 2): Is it not possible that the monkey recognized the ultimate sales were equal, but simply refused to do business with the second vendor on the principle that he was a jerk? Mostly but not entirely kidding. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 29, 2017 1:29:58 GMT -5
Monkeys are not only loss averse, they also hate unequal pay:
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 29, 2017 8:47:38 GMT -5
That was hilarious!
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 29, 2017 10:00:51 GMT -5
Re: loss aversion, a personal anecdote: In my profession, sometimes I find I have to explain to clients that, in order to get a tax deduction, they actually have to spend more money--e.g., give a $100 charitable contribution to save e.g. $25 in tax, assuming a 25% tax rate. So, by "saving" $25 in taxes (the "loss") they have spent $100 (a greater loss). If they had not spent the $100, they'd still have $75. This seems apparent, but so many people want to "save taxes" that they are willing to spend money they would not have actually spent otherwise. If you want to spend the $100, giving to charity or whatever else, then fine, get the tax deduction. But it's gobsmacking how many people look for ways to spend money so they can "save on taxes." Yeah, that is right up there with the people who don't understand marginal tax rates and so think that it's possible to lose money by increasing your income enough to go into a higher tax bracket. As for the video, I admit that I already knew about this one, so I was looking for the moonwalking bear and still almost missed it while I was trying to count passes at the same time. As for the faultiness of perception and eyewitness accounts, I remember reading about a case where a woman falsely identified her rapist. She was absolutely dead certain that she knew her rapist's face, and how could anyone doubt her? As she put it, that face would obviously be seared into her mind. And yet DNA evidence later proved that the man she identified absolutely could not be her rapist. And she remained convinced that he was. I can't blame her for not being willing/able to let go of her certainty, even if objective reality said she had to be wrong. But if you really think about the implications, it's pretty scary, since eyewitness testimony is considered so important in criminal trials. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:12:45 GMT -5
As I think I've mentioned, my client was in prison for seven years after witnesses incorrectly identified him as the perpetrator. But they were genuinely sure he was the guy.
Unfortunately, the more emotions involved (fear, anger, whatever), the more likely the witness's memory will be clouded. Plus there is the very human wish to nail the person responsible, to blame it on someone, and/or to make an incident fit their own preconceptions.
Having several witnesses doesn't necessarily help. They start "remembering" tings the others said. Their "that kind of looks like it could have been the guy, maybe" hardens into absolute certainty it was the guy. (This is what happened with me client. Alas, he wasn't the guy.)
I take eye-witness testimony with a grain of salt for that reason, unless there is some other evidence corroborating it. And if physical evidence contradicts ten eye witnesses -- yeah, I still tend to believe the physical evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 29, 2017 15:24:44 GMT -5
Re: loss aversion, a personal anecdote: In my profession, sometimes I find I have to explain to clients that, in order to get a tax deduction, they actually have to spend more money--e.g., give a $100 charitable contribution to save e.g. $25 in tax, assuming a 25% tax rate. So, by "saving" $25 in taxes (the "loss") they have spent $100 (a greater loss). If they had not spent the $100, they'd still have $75. This seems apparent, but so many people want to "save taxes" that they are willing to spend money they would not have actually spent otherwise. If you want to spend the $100, giving to charity or whatever else, then fine, get the tax deduction. But it's gobsmacking how many people look for ways to spend money so they can "save on taxes." Yeah, that is right up there with the people who don't understand marginal tax rates and so think that it's possible to lose money by increasing your income enough to go into a higher tax bracket. As for the video, I admit that I already knew about this one, so I was looking for the moonwalking bear and still almost missed it while I was trying to count passes at the same time. As for the faultiness of perception and eyewitness accounts, I remember reading about a case where a woman falsely identified her rapist. She was absolutely dead certain that she knew her rapist's face, and how could anyone doubt her? As she put it, that face would obviously be seared into her mind. And yet DNA evidence later proved that the man she identified absolutely could not be her rapist. And she remained convinced that he was. I can't blame her for not being willing/able to let go of her certainty, even if objective reality said she had to be wrong. But if you really think about the implications, it's pretty scary, since eyewitness testimony is considered so important in criminal trials. That might have been a case of " unconscious transference," which happens when a person incorrectly identifies someone as the perpetrator of a crime simply because they saw that person at some point that same day (usually). It's thought to be a significant influence on eyewitnesses misidentifying the wrong person in a line up. One of my former grad school professors has done a lot of research on it. psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1995-15701-001.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 29, 2017 15:28:48 GMT -5
As I think I've mentioned, my client was in prison for seven years after witnesses incorrectly identified him as the perpetrator. But they were genuinely sure he was the guy. Unfortunately, the more emotions involved (fear, anger, whatever), the more likely the witness's memory will be clouded. Plus there is the very human wish to nail the person responsible, to blame it on someone, and/or to make an incident fit their own preconceptions. Having several witnesses doesn't necessarily help. They start "remembering" tings the others said. Their "that kind of looks like it could have been the guy, maybe" hardens into absolute certainty it was the guy. (This is what happened with me client. Alas, he wasn't the guy.) I take eye-witness testimony with a grain of salt for that reason, unless there is some other evidence corroborating it. And if physical evidence contradicts ten eye witnesses -- yeah, I still tend to believe the physical evidence. My former professor (mentioned above) works with a legal group to get wrongly convicted people's sentences overturned. He's gotten several people out of jail and I think one or two off of death row (don't quote me on that, though). And, yeah, eyewitness testimony is often shit. Elizabeth Loftus proved this years ago and has continued to demonstrate just how horrible our memories are. That's another reason I look back on my religious days and laugh at all the times I was told in church that the Gospel stories of Jesus are true because eyewitness accounts are so reliable. Um...no. They're the exact opposite of that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 15:53:52 GMT -5
On the unconscious transference thing -- I think this is probably exactly what happened to my client. And now I gotta tell this part of the story.
Years before, my client had lived across the street from two of the victims. He hadn't seen them in a long time, and the time that intervened were the years between adolescence and adulthood. (When you change a bit, as a rule.)
Notably, when the victims (5 adults; it was a violent home invasion committed by two perps) first talked to police, they did NOT say, "hey, we think we might know one of the perps." (And under the circumstances, by the way, they would not have had much time to observe him.) Instead, a couple weeks later, one of the sisters told police one of the perps looked their old neighbor. The other sister said "yeah, it could have been him." Shown a recent photograph of my client, both sisters said "yeah, that's totally the guy who used to live across the street! Yeah, I think it was him!" Then the other victims looked at the photo and said, "yeah, that could be the guy! yeah, it IS the guy! We're sure!" At trial, they all swore he was definitely the guy.
What I think happened is that one of the perps looked a bit like my client. Later, this resemblance struck one of the sisters, and she started to wonder. After she and her sister talked it through, they convinced each other it must be him. The photo was indeed the guy who used to live across the street from them, so their certainty became set in stone. Their certainty that the man in the photo was their former neighbor became their certainty he was the perp. And they were so sure, the other victims became sure, too. My client must be the guy.
The thing is, my client couldn't possibly have committed the crime, as a decent lawyer (my client's was not so hot), could have easily proven. He was on an airplane at the time, on his way to another state. Seriously.
But years later, when the detectives reinterviewed the victims after I took on the case, the victims were still dead sure their former neighbor committed the crime. Nothing could have convinced them otherwise.
|
|
