Originally posted by inimalist
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.
In this particular instance, I do believe there is a much more complicated psychological and neurological phenomenon happening.
It cannot simply be boiled down to measurable cognitive action being consequential to information processing (bias). There are other items you must consider: authority. This perception of authority can happen in the subconscious. Even if the authority happens with the self. It may help them rationalize that their stance on a subject is accurate, but it also may force them to cast aside their preconceptions and genuinely listen.
Why?
Well, take a look at the Casey Anthony case. In my opinion, the evidence stacked up against Casey Anthony is much better than the evidence against Zimmerman. How did she get a not-guilty verdict? Media coverage was still quite rampant. Perhaps the control of our biases, when placed in a position of authority, is not as insurmountable as you think? It is possible that a fair trial will be delivered.
Do you think that the jurors are unable to give the case a fair consideration? I think that is the case with some of them. Others consider it their civil duty to give as much of an objective consideration as possible. Post-trial interviews shows that jurors change their mind, sometimes multiple times, throughout the trials. Does this mean that there are more neurological and psychological actions at play than a simple bias-and-reward game? I think so.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really. Following someone isn't "picking a fight". If I track you down, approach you and show you pictures of me ****ing your Mom, and you swing at me, I'm legally okay'd for defending myself by whooping your ass. Technically, you started the fight.
Yes, correct in your scenario. Considering the context of this specific case, it will be hardER for Zimmerman's side to defend him not starting the fight compared to the prosecution. If the defense can show proof of a fight to begin with.
As it stands with the 911 call and Zimmerman's past, Martin being a Skittles-Crazed-Attacking-Negro will be hard sell.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, correct in your scenario. Considering the context of this specific case, it will be hardER for Zimmerman's side to defend him not starting the fight compared to the prosecution. If the defense can show proof of a fight to begin with.As it stands with the 911 call and Zimmerman's past, Martin being a Skittles-Crazed-Attacking-Negro will be hard sell.
Perhaps they should just show 12 year old pictures of Zimmerman.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It cannot simply be boiled down to measurable cognitive action being consequential to information processing (bias). There are other items you must consider: authority. This perception of authority can happen in the subconscious. Even if the authority happens with the self. It may help them rationalize that their stance on a subject is accurate, but it also may force them to cast aside their preconceptions and genuinely listen.
studies on authority suggest the exact opposite in fact. when given a position of authority, people become much more convinced of previously held biases, etc. For instance, people in a position of authority are almost instantly dismissive of other people's perspectives (I'm not a huge fan of the research, but it is consistent).
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is possible that a fair trial will be delivered.
sure, I never contested this though... In fact, I suggested at least 2 ways that the trial could be made more fair
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you think that the jurors are unable to give the case a fair consideration? I think that is the case with some of them. Others consider it their civil duty to give as much of an objective consideration as possible. Post-trial interviews shows that jurors change their mind, sometimes multiple times, throughout the trials. Does this mean that there are more neurological and psychological actions at play than a simple bias-and-reward game? I think so.
well, sure. You are talking more about social roles and demand characteristics than you are authority (things that cause people to act as they feel they are expected to act), but if all you want me to say is that human behaviour, in all circumstances, is not governed by a single neurological mechanism, sure.
My point was to question f4c's sort of insistence that these biases wont be an issue. Surely you agree it will take some pains to ensure a fair trial for Zimmerman?
Originally posted by RobtardThat's true.
Yes, correct in your scenario. Considering the context of this specific case, it will be hardER for Zimmerman's side to defend him not starting the fight compared to the prosecution. If the defense can show proof of a fight to begin with.As it stands with the 911 call and Zimmerman's past, Martin being a Skittles-Crazed-Attacking-Negro will be hard sell.
I've heard conflicting reports about what injuries Zimmerman had when the cops came for him. Assuming that he really did have a bleeding wound on the back of his head, I think it'd be fairly easy to sell that he was attacked from the back.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really. Following someone isn't "picking a fight". If I track you down, approach you and show you pictures of me ****ing your Mom, and you swing at me, I'm legally okay'd for defending myself by whooping your ass. Technically, you started the fight.
how true and irrelevant. especially if after showing that pic you pulled out a pistol...since we're just pulling scenarios out of thin air.
Originally posted by focus4chumpsOne day, you'll be able to read above a third grade level.
how true and irrelevant. especially if after showing that pic you pulled out a pistol...since we're just pulling scenarios out of thin air.
And then you'll see my scenario wasn't "pulled out of thin air", but rather addressing Robtard's post.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
One day, you'll be able to read above a third grade level.And then you'll see my scenario wasn't "pulled out of thin air", but rather addressing Robtard's post.
sorry i hurt your feelings bro.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also the fact that Zimmerman's claim that it was he screaming in the background of one of the 911 calls before the gunshots has been all but disproven by independent analysts is going to hurt him.
oh yeah that too. man he's a dummy.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also the fact that Zimmerman's claim that it was he screaming in the background of one of the 911 calls before the gunshots has been all but disproven by independent analysts is going to hurt him.
Please provide a link to that. I have not yet heard that a voice analysis has been done.
Originally posted by inimalist
studies on authority suggest the exact opposite in fact. when given a position of authority, people become much more convinced of previously held biases, etc. For instance, people in a position of authority are almost instantly dismissive of other people's perspectives (I'm not a huge fan of the research, but it is consistent).
I thought the (not the same studies you are referring to) studies showed just the opposite: actions and ideas taken and conceived that they would NOT have occurred had they not had this perceived authority. That seems the opposite of the point you are making.
Sure, I agree that a person perceiving authority, when an affront to that authority is perceived, a much stronger response in defense of that authority will occur, but I consider that almost tangential to my actual point. Here's why: the juror is still a juror. We know they change their minds, argue, change each others minds, etc. Something more goes on than just a simple "my authority is being challenged". How does the authority come into play when you are a peer? You have no more authority over a juror than another (foreman aside).
HOWEVER!...and this is where the lines get very gray: in most social situations where a group of people spend time together, an authority figure or persons in authority invariably rise to the surface. Most likely, a hierarchy, based on reasoned/intellectual/social/perceived authority arises. I bet a similar phenomenon occurs in the conference rooms of the jurors. In fact, it far more likely to occur in a tangible/measurable sense than not.
But that is still getting off my point: they perceive an authority on the case and the people who have a vested interest in the case. This is the authority I was referring to. They will consider it, much more unbiasedly, because of an ethical consideration and the social role for which they have been selected. This appears to be the case (pun?) because jurors readily admit to changing their mind on particular gray cases, often. Why would they change their mind (again, sometimes multiple times) if they are experiencing the typical cell-site modulation reward game? The outcome and opinions run counter-intuitively to at least some of what you're proposing.
My suggestion is a more complicated psychological and neurological process (I strongly considered using the word "processes to illustrate how many different seemingly unrelated processes could be involved) is at play with jurors than a simple chemical rewards game.
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, I never contested this though... In fact, I suggested at least 2 ways that the trial could be made more fair
I had not read on in the thread: I still had 2 and a half pages to go through. Cut me some slack, man! 🙁
*weeps*
Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure. You are talking more about social roles and demand characteristics than you are authority (things that cause people to act as they feel they are expected to act), but if all you want me to say is that human behaviour, in all circumstances, is not governed by a single neurological mechanism, sure.
Well, not really. I clarified what I was referring to, above.
But, no definitely not "demand characteristics"*. Definitely social roles, however.
However, yes, your last statement is pretty much what i was talking about: it really cannot be boiled down to a single process or even a handful of interrelated processes.
Originally posted by inimalist
My point was to question f4c's sort of insistence that these biases wont be an issue. Surely you agree it will take some pains to ensre a fair trial for Zimmerman?
Hmmm.
Well, based on the initial conversation you were having with ... focus4chumps ... it appeared you were making a case for why a true fair trial really wasn't possible.
This also happens to be the same perception he got from the initial conversation as well.
In any high profile case, there will pains to get a decent jury. Often, what happens (and what I heard/read happened with Casey Anthony's jury (some of them)) is a jury is selected that is not as up-to-date or hip on current events. It might be old people that are a bit apathetic. It could be young people that don't have time to watch TV/read the news. Could be an idiot that did not pay much attention to the case and only vaguely remembers it. Look at me: I had no idea about this argument until last week...seriously, I was ignorant due to how busy I have been the last month and a half...schoolwork has kept me busy.
Spoiler:
Yeah, I took empirical statistics (stats 2, basically) this semester and I am still not convinced about our earlier argument about p-values. Maybe I received a confirmation bias about stats and the reward centers were modulated by some delicious chemicals? lol. And I DID ask my stats professor about our argument, just like you suggested, and he, like a smartass, said we would figure it out like big boys.
*Funny you should mention that. I was thinking about demand characteristics and the Hawthrone Effect on my way to work, today. The presidential election seems to be a very interesting "case" to study these effects. Another thread...but I find DCs and the HE to be really interesting.