John Oliver discusses torture

[Ziggurat]

Well, it's based in reality, which we've seen has a strong anti-torture slant.

The point is, torture works. We may not have any evidence of it ever working

That's flat-out delusion. There are countless examples throughout history of torture working.

and every study ever done to see if it works has come back negative

How many studies actually use torture in that study? And do you honestly think scientists are actually impartial about the question? Think for a minute about what incentives are in place for any scientist who chooses to study the question.

 

[sunmaster14]

Really?

​

Scientific American? Totally biased, amirite?

It's an opinion piece. By one random person, not peer-reviewed, and ending in this sentence: The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, really. Name them. Name the studies they've done which prove what you claim.

Torturing the brain: On the folk psychology and folk neurobiology motivating ‘enhanced and coercive interrogation techniques’.

Solid scientific evidence of how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests that these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or ‘enhanced’ interrogation.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How many studies actually use torture in that study? And do you honestly think scientists are actually impartial about the question? Think for a minute about what incentives are in place for any scientist who chooses to study the question.

Since you've such strong opinions on torture study methodologies, would you mind designing a test protocol for us?

Set ethical issues aside for a moment. What tests would you need to see in order to falsify your claim that torture works? How would you define "work?" "Torture?" How would you compare torture's efficacy toward your chosen definition to that of a suitable null hypothesis, like standard interrogation?

 

[Upchurch]

How many studies actually use torture in that study?

How many studies directly observe the Big Bang in their experiments? Does that mean we can't study the Big Bang?

 

[Ziggurat]

Torturing the brain: On the folk psychology and folk neurobiology motivating ‘enhanced and coercive interrogation techniques’.

​

Can't access the body of the paper. But I'm not impressed. First, whether or not the CIA's motivations or justifications were flawed is actually irrelevant to my claim. Second, the abstract's claims are vague. Stress and pain have negative effects, but from the abstract we don't know what kind of stress and pain (how closely does it resemble torture?), we don't know the extent of these negative effects, and we don't know how they compare to the rather obvious and massive problem of a subject's unwillingness to give answers. If their capacity to recall is slightly diminished but they become totally willing to answer, is that worse than their recall being perfect but remaining unwilling to answer? I doubt your source can address that, and the abstract gives no indication that it does.

As I said above, what do you think the incentives for these scientists are?

 

[theprestige]

John Oliver is an idiot.

The purpose of "torture" as an interrogation technique is not to hurt someone until they say anything at all to make it stop. The purpose is to condition someone to consistently tell the truth.

If you start with questions you already know the answer to, then move to questions where the answers are easy to verify, then move to questions where the answers are progessively more difficult to verify, you can progress your conditioning program accordingly. By the time you get to the really important questions where the answers are really difficult to verify right away, your subject should be fairly well conditioned. If not, you're doing it wrong.

Whether "torture" is an effective method of conditioning is a separate question.

And the use of conditioning (including torture) to induce confessions--false or otherwise--is an entirely different application, where "hurt them until they say what you want to hear, whether it's true or not" is a feature, not a bug. It shouldn't be confused with "torture" as a conditioning method in intelligence-gathering.

I think John Oliver is the apotheosis of the Truthy Comedian evolution of journalism, pioneered by John Stewart and Steven Colbert.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Does anyone here know the difference between an interview and an interrogation?
If not, then it doesn't sound like you have a very firm understanding of the subject matter, whichever side you fall on.

 

[Spindrift]

I've read this thread. I'm ready to tell you whatever you want to hear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since you've such strong opinions on torture study methodologies, would you mind designing a test protocol for us?

Set ethical issues aside for a moment. What tests would you need to see in order to falsify your claim that torture works? How would you define "work?" "Torture?" How would you compare torture's efficacy toward your chosen definition to that of a suitable null hypothesis, like standard interrogation?

You would need a group of people all of whom knew the same (or equivalent) set of target information, all of whom had the same strong reason to conceal that information. You then use torture on some subset of them, and a non-torture technique on another subset of them.

But ethics aside (which you can't and shouldn't do for real), the logistics are also prohibitive. The normal psych experiment method of taking random people won't work, because most people don't have sensitive information they need to protect, and even though you can create information to protect artificially, it's hard to create a strong motive to do so. And it's not low cost to get your hands on people who already have sensitive information and a strong motive to protect it.

We can't do controlled experiments on torture.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I've read this thread. I'm ready to tell you whatever you want to hear.

That's too fast; you're lying. You've got another five pages coming up, mister, and then we'll think about listening to you.

You would need a group of people all of whom knew the same (or equivalent) set of target information, all of whom had the same strong reason to conceal that information. You then use torture on some subset of them, and a non-torture technique on another subset of them.

But ethics aside (which you can't and shouldn't do for real), the logistics are also prohibitive. The normal psych experiment method of taking random people won't work, because most people don't have sensitive information they need to protect, and even though you can create information to protect artificially, it's hard to create a strong motive to do so. And it's not low cost to get your hands on people who already have sensitive information and a strong motive to protect it.

We can't do controlled experiments on torture.

It may be prohibitive to do it, but not to discuss it. If you don't even think it's worth talking about how to set up a proper test, why bother asking for one instead of just saying "my claim is not intended to be testable, feel free to disregard anything I say because even I have no way of knowing whether or not I am completely wrong about everything?"

 

[Upchurch]

The purpose of "torture" as an interrogation technique is not to hurt someone until they say anything at all to make it stop. The purpose is to condition someone to consistently tell the truth.

Then they're doing it wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

As I said above, what do you think the incentives for these scientists are?

Increased knowledge, usually.

But I'm not impressed.

And when you get to the point of accusing the scientific process of having a liberal agenda, I lose interest.

 

[NoahFence]

Torture is indefensible.

 

[Ziggurat]

How many studies directly observe the Big Bang in their experiments? Does that mean we can't study the Big Bang?

These are not comparable problems. If I need to explain to you why, then you don't understand cosmology or psychology.

 

[Upchurch]

These are not comparable problems. If I need to explain to you why, then you don't understand cosmology or psychology.

Yes, one restriction is physical while the other is ethical, but indirect observation and study is still a valid means of collecting information and studying a phenomenon.

 

[Ziggurat]

Increased knowledge, usually.

No, Upchurch. That is not the incentive. The incentive is to publish papers and get grants.

And when you get to the point of accusing the scientific process of having a liberal agenda, I lose interest.

Except that's not really what I'm suggesting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, one restriction is physical while the other is ethical, but indirect observation and study is still a valid means of collecting information and studying a phenomenon.

And when does that work well? When can it prove inadequate?

Why does the medical field use double-blind studies, if indirect observation suffices?

 

[kookbreaker]

That's flat-out delusion. There are countless examples throughout history of torture working.

Like all those 'heretics' the Inquisition found, right?

 

[Brainster]

Well, if a British comedian says it doesn't work....