Embellishments of memory: the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony
- Thread starter SkinWalker
- Start date
SkinWalker,
You do miss that it is an Established fact that people sometimes see things that they attempt to justify through what they know (This is how the suggested Personification of the movements of the sun and moon were created through man's identification with what he knew)
It's quite possible that people see an occurance and arrive at a conclusion, however they never second guess that perhaps their conclusion was what they were suppose to arrive at. Namely what they see might be a clever "Con" which is then self perpetuated by how people perceived it.
You do miss that it is an Established fact that people sometimes see things that they attempt to justify through what they know (This is how the suggested Personification of the movements of the sun and moon were created through man's identification with what he knew)
It's quite possible that people see an occurance and arrive at a conclusion, however they never second guess that perhaps their conclusion was what they were suppose to arrive at. Namely what they see might be a clever "Con" which is then self perpetuated by how people perceived it.
2inquisitive said:
I thought you might find this link interesting (it was forwarded to me through another forum).
Investigation Thirteen: Which nearby stars host terrestrial planets that might be suitable for life?
Stryder said:
Wouldn't this be just another way of saying "confirmation bias?"
duendy said:
I'm not asking for peoples' extraordinary experiences. I'm asking for data that counters the hypothesis that ordinary people will tend to embellish extraordinary events when they recount their observations. Whether the embellishment is a result of confirmation bias, stress, excitment, poor observational skills, lack of a control event with which to base observations, etc.
I'm not merely being snide, I really want to hear the other side of the argument for eyewitness reliability. I would like to see the empirical evidence that suggests that eyewitnesses can be reliable given whatever conditions. I've been able to find plenty of research that bears out the hypothesis, but none that refutes it. The research I've cited so far has been from a legal perspective as well as a paranormal/belief perspective.
Heh, now that's funny. Probably the funniest explanation for a "hoax" yet, lol.
What's so extraordinary about the claim?
Someone sees a UFO. That's simple. Plain and simple. Nothing more.
A person sees a UFO, it lands and kidnaps the person. They have passionate wild alien sex and birth a couple kids that grow up to be leaders in the senate. That's extraordinary that'll require some, heh, extraordinary claims.
Most claims are pretty simple so there's not much evidence needed. If I see a rare bird flying around, is that extraordinary? I didn't have a camera on hand so what proof do I have that I saw it? Not much. Heck, and if I did have one, a picture is simple proof for a simple claim. Am I going to have to shoot and kill that bird to show someone that I merely saw a rare bird? What kind of proof does one need for a simple sighting? It doesn't mean I'm making it up because of some complicated Occam's Razor (so sick and tired of that lame excuse) scenario because it's not complicated to begin with. Most times people apply Occam's Razor to scenarios that have nothing to do with it.
I really don't see what's so extraordinary about seeing a UFO, even if alien in nature. But hey, I guess that's just me.
- N
EXACTly....and that's reminded me to remind SkinWalker what i mean by suggesting he is being 'irrational'......
Well i can see it, and i am sure others can to. so i am not being mean or name calling.
Look, i can completey see what you mean about people being duped by mentalist-magicians. And the fact that people can easily be gullible. Agreed, and i have seen that myself, and suffered it too.
BUT, where you go into the realms of irrationality is when you seem to run round in circles denying ALL reported UFO and contact phenomena........! ALL. And this makes me wonder, why? Because to me it is an irrational show of defense against something that might realy disturb you if you were to open a bit to it
For example, if i were to describe my personal attitude in regard to that subject, i'd propabaly say 'i DON'T know'.....whereas you seem to say, 'I KNOW'--ie., that it is all probably false. And to prove this to yourself you then go onto to distrust even people's skills in observation, EVEN when people are telling you that this just isn't so. That we DO remember events, especially extra-ordinary events. But this goes in one of your ears and out the other, which to me seems IRrational. that you aren't being reason-able. so there must be another agenda you're on which is a fierce denial, as it may affect your entrenched worldview.
It is so that when people's worldviews are threatened that this threat can cause irrational behaviours.
Study the absurdities of the Christian Inquisition when their dogma was theatened, of the History of Ideas when entranched views were threatened. We see utter irrationality.
Well i can see it, and i am sure others can to. so i am not being mean or name calling.
Look, i can completey see what you mean about people being duped by mentalist-magicians. And the fact that people can easily be gullible. Agreed, and i have seen that myself, and suffered it too.
BUT, where you go into the realms of irrationality is when you seem to run round in circles denying ALL reported UFO and contact phenomena........! ALL. And this makes me wonder, why? Because to me it is an irrational show of defense against something that might realy disturb you if you were to open a bit to it
For example, if i were to describe my personal attitude in regard to that subject, i'd propabaly say 'i DON'T know'.....whereas you seem to say, 'I KNOW'--ie., that it is all probably false. And to prove this to yourself you then go onto to distrust even people's skills in observation, EVEN when people are telling you that this just isn't so. That we DO remember events, especially extra-ordinary events. But this goes in one of your ears and out the other, which to me seems IRrational. that you aren't being reason-able. so there must be another agenda you're on which is a fierce denial, as it may affect your entrenched worldview.
It is so that when people's worldviews are threatened that this threat can cause irrational behaviours.
Study the absurdities of the Christian Inquisition when their dogma was theatened, of the History of Ideas when entranched views were threatened. We see utter irrationality.
Ahh! Now you're on to something Duendy.
That's exactly what I've been equating the ETI-UFO movement to for well over a year now: religion.
As to my motivations and agenda, I'm simply examining two particular facets of that phenomenon. The first is this thread's title -the reliability of eyewitness account. The second is the lengths to which the ETI-UFO believer will go to defend his faith.
You are speaking of my "irrationality," but I've stated that I'm more than willing to accept any data that are empirical and show differently. Indeed, I invite it because I want to add it to my collection of citations. I haven't been able to find it.
I'm also willing to accept that UFOs are ETI driven/flown should sufficient evidence demonstrate that fact.
I'm willing to accept that some people see things they cannot explain due to a lack of data and they recount their observations as best they can.
I've even stated that I would love for UFOs to be ETI and even noted my reasons.
I point all that out, because we're dealing with irrationality here and if it exists, it has to be either with me or one or more other posters in the thread. I think my statements in this thread are quite rational. I believe that blindly accepting eyewitness testimony because it supports or advances a pre-conceived belief is definitely irrational. Moreover, it's religious in nature.
The ETI-UFO movement has all the hallmarks of religion:
**fanatical belief in spite of a lack of empiricism
**ritualistic devotion to "investigating" sightings and collecting "data"
**a tendency to see only that "data" which is supportive
**cult centers like "Roswell"
**mythical lore (Roswell, Area 51, Phoenix Lights, etc.)
**central figures of "prophecy," priesthood, and reverence (Friedman, Greer, Lazar, Hynek, et al)
**faith in supernatural deities (aliens: Greys, Reticulans, "Nordic", etc.)
**message to humanity (often the "evils" of humanity are tied into the individual groups of ETI-UFO believers: global warming, atomic energy/war, pollution, etc.)
**the tendency to label those skeptical of the faith as "heretics," and use all manner of counter-debunkery in attempt to discredit the "skeptical cause." We've even see the tendency of ETI-UFO believers to label skeptics of their beliefs as alien beings themselves, on a mission to infiltrate the "Terran communication networks to disseminate disinformation!"
Yes. It's all fascinating stuff to a fledgling anthropologist like me
That's exactly what I've been equating the ETI-UFO movement to for well over a year now: religion.
As to my motivations and agenda, I'm simply examining two particular facets of that phenomenon. The first is this thread's title -the reliability of eyewitness account. The second is the lengths to which the ETI-UFO believer will go to defend his faith.
You are speaking of my "irrationality," but I've stated that I'm more than willing to accept any data that are empirical and show differently. Indeed, I invite it because I want to add it to my collection of citations. I haven't been able to find it.
I'm also willing to accept that UFOs are ETI driven/flown should sufficient evidence demonstrate that fact.
I'm willing to accept that some people see things they cannot explain due to a lack of data and they recount their observations as best they can.
I've even stated that I would love for UFOs to be ETI and even noted my reasons.
I point all that out, because we're dealing with irrationality here and if it exists, it has to be either with me or one or more other posters in the thread. I think my statements in this thread are quite rational. I believe that blindly accepting eyewitness testimony because it supports or advances a pre-conceived belief is definitely irrational. Moreover, it's religious in nature.
The ETI-UFO movement has all the hallmarks of religion:
**fanatical belief in spite of a lack of empiricism
**ritualistic devotion to "investigating" sightings and collecting "data"
**a tendency to see only that "data" which is supportive
**cult centers like "Roswell"
**mythical lore (Roswell, Area 51, Phoenix Lights, etc.)
**central figures of "prophecy," priesthood, and reverence (Friedman, Greer, Lazar, Hynek, et al)
**faith in supernatural deities (aliens: Greys, Reticulans, "Nordic", etc.)
**message to humanity (often the "evils" of humanity are tied into the individual groups of ETI-UFO believers: global warming, atomic energy/war, pollution, etc.)
**the tendency to label those skeptical of the faith as "heretics," and use all manner of counter-debunkery in attempt to discredit the "skeptical cause." We've even see the tendency of ETI-UFO believers to label skeptics of their beliefs as alien beings themselves, on a mission to infiltrate the "Terran communication networks to disseminate disinformation!"
Yes. It's all fascinating stuff to a fledgling anthropologist like me
You guys have completely missed the point.
Consider this: A helicopter is making night runs over fields looking for Meth labs in fields in Iowa. Man A is living out in the middle of Iowa and he see's a light over his field in the middle of the night. He thinks nothing of it and goes back to bed. The next day he goes to town and tell's his recollection to other people. These other people embellish the story and pass it on, until what was a light is now moving in strange ways that are not possible, or it's leaving strange burn marks, etc. As the story groes, Man A has all embellished it to get more attention, because now it's not a helicopter anymore, it's a UFO, and even when the story comes out about how the DEA was flying helicopters in the area that night, the UFO fanatics claim it's a government coverup.
Soon the story has changed from "some light" to "some kinda ship" that abducted his dog and raped him with cold metal probes.
Science works by disproving a negative. Right now that negative is "all UFO's are not of alien origin" and are probably black projects or just natural happenings that are not fully understood by the viewer, and it requires evidence to overturn that negative, not just the story of a friend of a friend.
Consider this: A helicopter is making night runs over fields looking for Meth labs in fields in Iowa. Man A is living out in the middle of Iowa and he see's a light over his field in the middle of the night. He thinks nothing of it and goes back to bed. The next day he goes to town and tell's his recollection to other people. These other people embellish the story and pass it on, until what was a light is now moving in strange ways that are not possible, or it's leaving strange burn marks, etc. As the story groes, Man A has all embellished it to get more attention, because now it's not a helicopter anymore, it's a UFO, and even when the story comes out about how the DEA was flying helicopters in the area that night, the UFO fanatics claim it's a government coverup.
Soon the story has changed from "some light" to "some kinda ship" that abducted his dog and raped him with cold metal probes.
Science works by disproving a negative. Right now that negative is "all UFO's are not of alien origin" and are probably black projects or just natural happenings that are not fully understood by the viewer, and it requires evidence to overturn that negative, not just the story of a friend of a friend.
Ahh.. yes. I almost forgot MJ-12 and the other secret documents as well as the gospels of Stephen Greer and the Disclosure Testiment.
Which can be yours for only $25 + Shipping/Handling
Which can be yours for only $25 + Shipping/Handling
will have to shoot off in a mo, so cant go into too much depth....But regarding your 'man in a field' analogy.... hmmmmmm. that i MIGHT believe if i was 10 and had never seen actual film footage, heard testimonies, read shit, correlated it with other stuff....etc. ie., there is much more in this for me than an old man in a field explain-away milarchy
And you are substantiating what I've been saying all along. You might believe that sort of thing had you not already established a belief system.
Embellishments of this sort happen. But they threaten the established beliefs of ETI-UFO believers, and are therefore dismissed out-of-hand without citing data that suggests the contrary.
Embellishments of this sort happen. But they threaten the established beliefs of ETI-UFO believers, and are therefore dismissed out-of-hand without citing data that suggests the contrary.
I found an interesting website that deals with Eyewitness Testimony from the perspective of defending against accussation: http://www.criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.html
I'll summarize some of it here, but go to the link to see the full page:
-------------------------------------------------
FACTORS INVOLVED IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION
(1.) Perception
Here's the first principle of perception. Nothing sticks in the mind except that which is peceived! Here's the second principle of perception. The capacity of the human sensory organs to perceive is limited in scope! Our perception is molded by expectation, sometimes known as "mind set" or "set." This means simply that we perceive what we expect to perceive and what we think is expected of us. [...] the greater one's emotional involvement, the greater the potential distortion in both perception, memory and recollection.
(2.) Memory
Psychologists and behavioral science researchers have found that memory is also subject to influence by the observer's conditioning. The machinery of the mind may decline to store a perception because of the mind's condition. If the perception is unwanted, the mind may drive it out. Memories repose in the mind.
(3) Communication
Communication in the verbal sense could be described as the ability of an eyewitness to describe an event or person he has seen in a manner that converts his memory's image into lanuage that is converted into an image in the receptor's mind. There can be an honest distortion at this stage of the eyewitness identification process, depending on the ability of the eyewitness to articulate descritpive facts.
(4) Candor.
Eyewitness identification depends on witness candor. Most faulty identification evidence is the result of honest mistake , rather than deliberate misidentfication. The danger in such good faith mistaken identification evidence is that it is sincere.
Even trained observers, e.g., law enforcement officers, can make erroneous identifications in exigencies of the moment.
-----------------------------------
The majority of the site is organized to give resources to defense counsel in organizing defenses against eyewitness testimony of the prosecution, but the underlying principles were interesting.
I'll summarize some of it here, but go to the link to see the full page:
-------------------------------------------------
FACTORS INVOLVED IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION
(1.) Perception
Here's the first principle of perception. Nothing sticks in the mind except that which is peceived! Here's the second principle of perception. The capacity of the human sensory organs to perceive is limited in scope! Our perception is molded by expectation, sometimes known as "mind set" or "set." This means simply that we perceive what we expect to perceive and what we think is expected of us. [...] the greater one's emotional involvement, the greater the potential distortion in both perception, memory and recollection.
(2.) Memory
Psychologists and behavioral science researchers have found that memory is also subject to influence by the observer's conditioning. The machinery of the mind may decline to store a perception because of the mind's condition. If the perception is unwanted, the mind may drive it out. Memories repose in the mind.
(3) Communication
Communication in the verbal sense could be described as the ability of an eyewitness to describe an event or person he has seen in a manner that converts his memory's image into lanuage that is converted into an image in the receptor's mind. There can be an honest distortion at this stage of the eyewitness identification process, depending on the ability of the eyewitness to articulate descritpive facts.
(4) Candor.
Eyewitness identification depends on witness candor. Most faulty identification evidence is the result of honest mistake , rather than deliberate misidentfication. The danger in such good faith mistaken identification evidence is that it is sincere.
Even trained observers, e.g., law enforcement officers, can make erroneous identifications in exigencies of the moment.
-----------------------------------
The majority of the site is organized to give resources to defense counsel in organizing defenses against eyewitness testimony of the prosecution, but the underlying principles were interesting.
ohhhhhh....it is all psychobabble--founded on pseudoscience, from a long line or patriarchal influence that seeks to disenfranchize the individual. to make them dis-trust their feelings, observational capacities...etc. as your dodgy analyses show
before this mechanistic-materialistic paradigm the disenfranchizment was coming from the church-states's representaives who would oppressively mould their believers, etc to what was sanctioned by them
NOw it is 'science'-State's represenatatives telling us only THEy know how we observe, and only THEy know what is correct observation...bal bla bla. i see right through your game
i KNOW when i know, and see when i see. i am not behoven to you and yours to tell me
of my integrity. you can shove all that elitist presumption where the sun dont shine.
The arrogance of 'sience' is propbabaly even more pervasive and insidious than the church's was, and that's saying something.
i can appreciate your warning against gullibility, but you tend to become fascist about it, even denying people eyes, ears, sense, touch and smell
your mindset objecties all you survey--without including your OWN bias (convenient)...you do it to the animals--considering them machines you can experiment with, and now humans too are mere biochemical machines you are finding ways to manipulate for your Faustian ideals
haha...this isn't really an attack on you Skin....but on what your give allegiance too. the dogma of scientism
before this mechanistic-materialistic paradigm the disenfranchizment was coming from the church-states's representaives who would oppressively mould their believers, etc to what was sanctioned by them
NOw it is 'science'-State's represenatatives telling us only THEy know how we observe, and only THEy know what is correct observation...bal bla bla. i see right through your game
i KNOW when i know, and see when i see. i am not behoven to you and yours to tell me
of my integrity. you can shove all that elitist presumption where the sun dont shine.
The arrogance of 'sience' is propbabaly even more pervasive and insidious than the church's was, and that's saying something.
i can appreciate your warning against gullibility, but you tend to become fascist about it, even denying people eyes, ears, sense, touch and smell
your mindset objecties all you survey--without including your OWN bias (convenient)...you do it to the animals--considering them machines you can experiment with, and now humans too are mere biochemical machines you are finding ways to manipulate for your Faustian ideals
haha...this isn't really an attack on you Skin....but on what your give allegiance too. the dogma of scientism
What I find interesting is how emotional debunkers are. It's as if they need an even stronger general consensus than the compromised media and lying govt. provide, to prop up their curious ideas about reality. Imagine spending so much time on message boards trying to convert people to your particular religion? It's just so sad. They're a lot like Jehovah's witnesses, with govt. authority figures playing the role of biblical leaders, in their minds. They'd like us to create a paradise on earth by reading their version of the Watchtower.
They can knock at the door all they want. I'm not answering it anymore, and I suggest others do the same. Just ignore them and they'll go away.
They can knock at the door all they want. I'm not answering it anymore, and I suggest others do the same. Just ignore them and they'll go away.