Originally posted by focus4chumps
that was actually robtard's statement.
... really?
ok...
you suggested that people have a wonderful ability to learn new things, be unbiased by previous experience and resist the influence of things they are surrounded by every day such that they can make objective decisions unhindered by there previously held beliefs.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i for one do not believe in magic.
semantics
you do have strange beliefs about human cognition
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think people who've heard 2+ months of misinformation (both ways) will magically just forget about it should they be chosen to serve on the jury?Not sure where you got my "blind sweeping cynicism and hopelessness" from, I'm mostly not bothered or interested by/in this case. Game of Thrones is on and Zimmerman's not cute like Casey Anthony.
i was addressing that quote. ^^ thats how "magic" came into play.
would have been easier if you just read back, but thats fine.
Originally posted by Robtard
you do have strange beliefs about human cognition
as do you. only difference is im not getting all mad and suggesting you're an idiot based on your lack of belief in the ability of people to deductively reason when given new accurate and relevant data.
semantics? like contradict the word "deductive" for a half a page?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've rarely met two people who agree on the difference between inductive or deductive.Actually just look at the two examples that wikipedia provides to highlight the level of confusion.
Deduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAll X are Y
Z is X
Z isYInduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoningAll X are Y
Z is X
Z is Y
Whilst I do acknowledge the confusion, to be absolutely fair on wiki their Inductive example does not say 'Z is X'. Assuming you are using the humans/right handed example.
Applying it to Sherlock Holmes is not very relevant though, because in those stories Conan Doyle was creating his own concept of 'The Science of Deduction' that may simply differ from the mathematical or scientific idea of deductive reasoning. It would, therefore, be equally valid to call what Holmes does deduction. Language always has to be in context.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
as do you.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting my points are inaccurate? please identify the ones specifically and I will link you to the relevant psychological and neurological literature.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
only difference is im not getting all mad and suggesting you're an idiot based on your lack of belief in the ability of people to deductively reason when given new accurate and relevant data.
rarely do I respond to such ad homenim nonsense (at least I try not to), but can you point out what I've posted that has lead you to think I'm upset or calling you an idiot? This sounds rather defensive on your part...
I lack belief in people's ability to integrate new evidence into their previously held beliefs because of studies and data that suggest just that; people are incredibly devoted to what they already know and believe, as I said before, to the point that the neurological system that affirms belief is the exact same that rewards a drug addict when they get a fix. Our biological reward/risk system in many ways underlies how and what we believe, as well as the way we approach new information.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
semantics? like dissecting the word "deductive" for a half a page?
I think 3 (4 if you count my reply to OV's post that mentions it) posts on the last page mentioned deductive logic, though, it is 100% relevant to the topic at hand... so 1/4 of the page was devoted to talking about a concept relevant to the topic. boy do I feel sheepish.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whilst I do acknowledge the confusion, to be absolutely fair on wiki their Inductive example does not say 'Z is X'. Assuming you are using the humans/right handed example.
Since the conclusion repeated the 90% from the premises I think my construction still works. One could just phrase it as "All people have a 90% chance of being right handed".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Since the conclusion repeated the 90% from the premises I think my construction still works. One could just phrase it as "All people have a 90% chance of being right handed".
Actually not quite. It would only really be the same if the second premise was "Joe is human and has the average chance of being right handed." (technically two different premises). The point is that the circumstances of the 10% are unknown to us and may not be random. For example, it may be that people born in Bohemia are disproportionate, and 50% of them are left handed, making up many of the global 10%. If Joe is Bohemian, to conclude he has a 90% chance of right handedness would be incorrect- and we cannot rule out Joe being Bohemian. Knowing he is human is not enough, regardless of the premises. To conclude Joe is 90% likely to be right handed is reasonable, but not certain.
Unlike a straight deduction-
1. All humans are right handed
2. Joe is human
3. Joe is right handed
... where knowing 1 and 2 makes 3 an absolute certainty, if your premises are correct.
Literal deduction is not common in day to day affairs because in most things we debate in life, a premise as certain as number 1 is rare.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, are you suggesting my points are inaccurate? please identify the ones specifically and I will link you to the relevant psychological and neurological literature.
i need to study contemporary theories in neuroscience and psychology? ok i'll just go ahead and register for some classes.
feel free to disagree with my whimsical faith in the human ability to process new data and possibly form a new and even contradictory opinion based on such.
Originally posted by inimalist
rarely do I respond to such ad homenim nonsense (at least I try not to), but can you point out what I've posted that has lead you to think I'm upset or calling you an idiot? This sounds rather defensive on your part...
you're right. replace "idiot" with "WRONG WRONG WRONG". apologies.
Originally posted by inimalist
I lack belief in people's ability to integrate new evidence into their previously held beliefs because of studies and data that suggest just that; people are incredibly devoted to what they already know and believe, as I said before, to the point that the neurological system that affirms belief is the [b]exact same that rewards a drug addict when they get a fix. Our biological reward/risk system in many ways underlies how and what we believe, as well as the way we approach new information.[/B]
its not set in stone, however. for instance both you and i will continue to disagree and gleefully accept our routine dosage of "you're totally right, self" happy juice. however we are simply contrasting beliefs, rather than attempting to ignore facts of a case simply to continue our dosage.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think 3 (4 if you count my reply to OV's post that mentions it) posts on the last page mentioned deductive logic, though, it is 100% relevant to the topic at hand... so 1/4 of the page was devoted to talking about a concept relevant to the topic. boy do I feel sheepish.
if you were contradicting my point as opposed to my use of "deductive", perhaps. i think it was 100% quibbling over semantics when the point was clear. no matter though. we're past all that, thankfully.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i need to study contemporary neuroscience psychological theories?
If you want to talk about how people think, yes I think that should be obvious, either that or go independently develop both sciences from the ground up. If you want to talk about the 1730s you need to read modern research about what was going on in the 1730s rather than following your gut feelings.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you want to talk about how people think, yes I think that should be obvious, either that or go independently develop both sciences from the ground up. If you want to talk about the 1730s you need to read modern research about what was going on in the 1730s rather than following your gut feelings.
thats great. so i need to earn a new degree to support my case that a carefully selected jury will likely not ignore facts in a case simply to be rewarded through brain chemistry. or maybe thats just more hot air.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i need to study contemporary theories in neuroscience and psychology? ok i'll just go ahead and register for some classes.
read what I said again
no need for you to expend any effort in being educated, I am willing to provide
Originally posted by focus4chumps
feel free to disagree with my whimsical faith in the human ability to process new data and possibly form a new and even contradictory opinion based on such.
I'll take you one further, I have described experimental evidence that contradicts that point, especially in the context we are discussing.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
its not set in stone, however. for instance both you and i will continue to disagree and gleefully accept our routine dosage of "you're totally right, self" happy juice. however we are simply contrasting beliefs, rather than attempting to ignore facts of a case simply to continue our dosage.
that is the narrative your brain tells you because it is what you believe about how you debate, sure
on a neurological level, it is unlikely that either of us are engaging in the processing that would be required to actually change our opinions on the matter.
you want to mock the idea of taking psych/neuro courses, yet, they may do wonders for you. Especially if you are adamant in your desire to discuss psych/neuro phenomenon.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
if you were contradicting my point as opposed to my use of "deductive", perhaps. i think it was 100% quibbling over semantics when the point was clear. no matter though. we're past all that, thankfully.
I've not said one single thing about your use of the term "deductive". I am challenging your position that people on a jury can just neutrally weigh facts and evidence to ensure someone in a highly publicized trial can get an objective outcome. I am presenting evidence that suggests this is incredibly difficult for humans to do in the first place.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
thats great. so i need to earn a new degree to support my case that a carefully selected jury will likely not ignore facts in a case simply to be rewarded through brain chemistry. or maybe thats just more hot air.
lawyers specifically try to select jurors based on their biases and how likely they think the individual is to agree with their side, not on their ability to objectively analyze facts. This is why, earlier, I suggested a trial-by-judge might have a better outcome in terms of fairness.
A "carefully" selected jury is a good example of what I'm talking about.
again, facts as opposed to an opinion. so lets say for the sake of argument that it turns out that zimmerman was actually attacked with a machete. you would suggest that the jury who initially believed the travon side of the argument would simply deny the fact and proceed based on that denial of fact. and vice versa.
you wish to express that any contradicting of this as just ill informed and irrational "feelings" in play. am i correct in my assessment or do you wish to amend?
Originally posted by inimalist
you want to mock the idea of taking psych/neuro courses, yet, they may do wonders for you. Especially if you are adamant in your desire to discuss psych/neuro phenomenon.
not mocking the theory. questioning the context and severity in which you imply it.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
again, facts as opposed to an opinion.
wut? f-facts? where?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
so lets say for the sake of argument that it turns out that zimmerman was actually attacked with a machete. you would suggest that the jury who initially believed the travon side of the argument would simply deny the fact and proceed based on that denial of fact. and vice versa.you wish to express that any contradicting of this as just ill informed and irrational "feelings" in play. am i correct in my assessment or do you wish to amend?
1) I've implied nothing of the sort... please quote what has given you this impression
2) you can't think of circumstances where people hold personally significant beliefs (of which racial ideals could be) even in the face of extremely contradictory evidence?
The question is, in this context, will Zimmerman get a fair trial. I've expressed several ways in which he may get a fairer trial, however, going by basic psychology, it is more likely that he wont. His lawyers are going to have to be exceptionally careful about who they put on the jury... but even then, they are working to bias the outcome in his favor.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
not mocking the theory. questioning the context and severity in which you imply it.
you should probably read what I'm posting more carefully... though, you are demonstrating the phenomenon I'm discussing very well.
Originally posted by inimalist
wut? f-facts? where?
do i really have to repeat it a 5th time? the theory that humans stick to their opinions as per the mind's system of chemical rewards and risks, etc. again (and again) i suggest that this theory does not extend to people, by default, intentionally ignoring facts just to attain that reward and are thus infinitely unswayable by facts and evidence.
Originally posted by inimalist
1) I've implied nothing of the sort... please quote what has given you this impression
you've been implying it the whole time. here's another example:
Originally posted by inimalist
2) you can't think of circumstances where people hold personally significant beliefs (of which racial ideals could be) even in the face of extremely contradictory evidence?
of course i can. what does that have to do with anything? you are applying the phenomenon across the board to argue that its impossible for a fair trial. wtf man
Originally posted by inimalist
The question is, in this context, will Zimmerman get a fair trial. I've expressed several ways in which he may get a fairer trial, however, going by basic psychology, it is more likely that he wont. His lawyers are going to have to be exceptionally careful about who they put on the jury... but even then, they are working to bias the outcome in his favor.
well thats where the unfairness comes into play, i agree. the worst case scenario being the nation of islam as the jury. fine.
Originally posted by inimalist
you should probably read what I'm posting more carefully... though, you are demonstrating the phenomenon I'm discussing very well.
fair enough. and you should lighten up on the smug condescension and blatant hypocrisy. after all, im sure you felt quite rewarded after typing that.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
here's another example:
if you could?
because I remember saying this:
Originally posted by inimalist
It might be possible if you could find racially neutral people who have little prior exposure to the event, or even realistically, people who haven't followed the media storm may not be as invested in their ideas about the incident, allowing them to entertain things they don't agree with and not experience severe cognitive dissonance. However, even preconceptions about how these things normally work or on race relations in general will entirely colour the way people see this.
and this:
Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, in Canada, when it is a major offense, defendants have the ability to be tried by judge alone or by jury... Does something like that exist in America/Florida? because if so, a trial by judge might give him a "fairer" trial, though, if he thinks he can get a sympathetic jury, that might be an easier win...
which are the exact opposite of what you seem to think I'm saying...
EDIT: or this, I'd love to see where you get this from:
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you are applying the phenomenon across the board to argue that its impossible for a fair trial.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think people who've heard 2+ months of misinformation (both ways) will magically just forget about it should they be chosen to serve on the jury?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
magically forget? no. unless you feel that the ability to process new information and use deductive reasoning is a form of wizardry.
Originally posted by inimalist
you place far too much faith in human reasoningfor instance, when the brain is confronted with information it doesn't agree with, conflict resolution areas become active and the information is dismissed without ever activating higher reasoning areas. When you experience something you agree with, your brain reacts similar to a drug addict getting a fix.
i contradicted robtards sweeping implication and you in turn supported it.
must we continue this? i can see that previous to our little tiff, you expressed difficulty in getting a fair trial, which implies possibility for a fair trial. it just seems you overshot that in an effort to prove...whatever.