Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[Vixen]

You know very well which one it is. It's been linked more than once today.



Straw man. What I said was :—

​

This

​

is a colorable claim to expertise. You then tried to walk it back with this :—

​

You couldn't get past the second sentence of your post without equivocating the claim again. Then you went off on an irrelevant rant which I suspect you intended to distract us from your flip-flopping.

Later you added :—

​

which is certainly also colorable as a claim to expertise. I would expect someone who wrote a dissertation on memory as a post-graduate student to be able to discuss at a knowledgeable level the work of some of the eminent peer-reviewed researchers in the field. Yet you simply dismiss them as frauds with no attempt to engage the content of their work. It takes no special brains to do that. And I would expect someone who elected to study psychology more than most people to take some interest in the peer-reviewed research into the phenomenon of conspiracism—especially when that person is mired in a debate over whether some set of propositions is a conspiracy theory. But again we get nothing more from you than what we can expect a disgruntled lay person to throw out in desperation. You dismiss it as "pop-psychology" without being able to engage the content.

Then we get the cryptic

​

Was your post-graduate study in accounting or psychology? You gave your specialization initially as psychology, and now it seems to have switched to accounting. And when asked to reconcile claims such as this, you respond

​

You really don't have much room to complain about how you're being treated. You're making contradictory claims to expertise and evading questions intended to clarify that. This is especially egregious considering all the past times in which you've misrepresented your education, your experience, or other premises intended to form the foundation for your statements.

The dissertation was part of my B.Sc (Hons) degree. As the dissertation was on memory I probably do know more than someone on the internet claiming to know that the Estonia eye witness' had faulty memories because that s what he once saw someone on an obscure site say about the 9/11 eyewitnesses.

 

[Vixen]

But not normally "a psychology postgraduate". Maybe you meant to say "a psychology graduate"?

postgraduate
/ˌpəʊs(t)ˈɡradʒʊət/
adjective
relating to or denoting a course of study undertaken after completing a first degree.
"a postgraduate degree"
noun
a student engaged in a postgraduate course.


Both a psychology graduate and psychology postgraduate.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So you have a psychology degree?

 

[GlennB]

postgraduate
/ˌpəʊs(t)ˈɡradʒʊət/
adjective
relating to or denoting a course of study undertaken after completing a first degree.
"a postgraduate degree"
noun
a student engaged in a postgraduate course.


Both a psychology graduate and psychology postgraduate.

Do you have an MSc or PhD (or other) in psychology to follow your BSc? Those would be postgraduate qualifications.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have never claimed to be a chartered psychologist. Stop lying.

You did claim to be a psychology postgraduate though.

When asked about it, you claimed that being chartered is the equivalent of a postgrad, which indicates you don't actually have a postgrad degree.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The dissertation was part of my B.Sc (Hons) degree. As the dissertation was on memory I probably do know more than someone on the internet claiming to know that the Estonia eye witness' had faulty memories because that s what he once saw someone on an obscure site say about the 9/11 eyewitnesses.

Well that's another lie about what I actually said.

 

[Vixen]

Psychology is a little relevant when we're discussing how properly to treat witness testimony as evidence. When the body of evidence combines witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, the process of reconciling conflicts in that evidence requires some expertise in psychology and cognitive science. We've pointed to well-regarded, peer-reviewed psychology research to justify where in some cases we've prioritized circumstantial evidence over witness testimony in the MS Estonia question.

But also Mark Corrigan and I have had a tangential discussion on the psychology research into conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. He asked some questions that I was able to answer in part from my experience and in part from my knowledge of the relevant scientific literature. That doesn't directly relate to the MS Estonia incident or investigations, but it does seem marginally on-topic.

The issue of 'false memory' arises from what is known of traumatic events, or even non-traumatic events. As an example, a popular aide memoire for learning lists is to have a numerical system, such as 'one is a bun; two is a shoe; etc' Firstly, the rhyme fixes the number; i.e., 'one = bun'; Next, say you need butter and sugar (you can go all the way up to eight is a gate and ten is a hen); you simply visualize the butter with the bun, and the sugar being poured into the shoe, say. So, when you go to the shop and you can't remember what it is you came for, you think, one=bun - visualization appears of your original image. This is one way of retrieving memory, and it may even be a false memory if it is pure guesswork.

Likewise, say you suffered childhood abuse or something catastrophic happened to you in the last couple of days. It is very common to have a complete memory blank of the accident itself or of what happened to you as a child. So what the human mind does, it is theorized, is 'fill in the gaps'. But the human mind may not realise it is a false memory, because our recollection of events tends to be a linear process and filling in the blanks as to what happened provides logic to what we experienced. I was in a collision with another car recently and both cars were written off. I can clearly remember approaching the junction and I can sharply recall the realization I was in a dangerous situation and can vividly remember the smashing of glass, etc. But what I can't recall is actually turning into the main road or how I came to be in that situation. It is possible that years from now my mind will 'fill in the gaps' and provide a logical albeit false memory.

However, one piece of theory cannot be extrapolated to claim that ALL eyewitnesses involved in terrifying events have a false memory. The other problem is abuse of the theory when perpetrators of serious crimes use this theory (and it is only an academical theory) to argue their victims had 'false memory'. It doesn't follow ipso facto that eyewitness memory is false. Most people involved in traumatic incidents will simply say they cannot remember a particular bit.

 

[Vixen]

Are you a chartered psychologist?

No.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The issue of 'false memory' arises from what is known of traumatic events, or even non-traumatic events. As an example, a popular aide memoire for learning lists is to have a numerical system, such as 'one is a bun; two is a shoe; etc' Firstly, the rhyme fixes the number; i.e., 'one = bun'; Next, say you need butter and sugar (you can go all the way up to eight is a gate and ten is a hen); you simply visualize the butter with the bun, and the sugar being poured into the shoe, say. So, when you go to the shop and you can't remember what it is you came for, you think, one=bun - visualization appears of your original image. This is one way of retrieving memory, and it may even be a false memory if it is pure guesswork.

Likewise, say you suffered childhood abuse or something catastrophic happened to you in the last couple of days. It is very common to have a complete memory blank of the accident itself or of what happened to you as a child. So what the human mind does, it is theorized, is 'fill in the gaps'. But the human mind may not realise it is a false memory, because our recollection of events tends to be a linear process and filling in the blanks as to what happened provides logic to what we experienced. I was in a collision with another car recently and both cars were written off. I can clearly remember approaching the junction and I can sharply recall the realization I was in a dangerous situation and can vividly remember the smashing of glass, etc. But what I can't recall is actually turning into the main road or how I came to be in that situation. It is possible that years from now my mind will 'fill in the gaps' and provide a logical albeit false memory.

However, one piece of theory cannot be extrapolated to claim that ALL eyewitnesses involved in terrifying events have a false memory. The other problem is abuse of the theory when perpetrators of serious crimes use this theory (and it is only an academical theory) to argue their victims had 'false memory'. It doesn't follow ipso facto that eyewitness memory is false. Most people involved in traumatic incidents will simply say they cannot remember a particular bit.

False Memory is only part of the issue with eyewitness testimony.

Again though, you're claiming that we dismiss the claims of the eyewitnesses based solely on our own say so. That's not what we are doing at all. We are stating that if the eyewitness (or earwitness really) claims they heard an explosion, but that there is no physical evidence for an explosion then the earwitness is mistaken in their assessment of the cause of the noise they heard.

We aren't stating these people are wrong just because, we're claiming they are mistaken as to the cause of the noise they heard because it does not match the physical evidence, which must always take precedence over eye (or ear) witness testimony.

We aren't claiming they heard nothing, or are lying. We're claiming that they heard a noise, and are mistaken as to the cause of that noise.

 

[Vixen]

If the witness testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence, the only role psychology is going to have is to try to explain why the witnesses were mistaken.

Where does it say the Estonia survivors are contradicted? Their testimony is pretty consistent with each other, although obviously, they will describe it according to their own use of vocabulary. For example, some might call it a bang another a shudder. Some people are auditory and describe things in terms of noise, others are more visual and describe things in terms of what they saw. Yet others have a visceral response and have to find metaphors or similes to help in recounting it. Some people are very eloquent others maybe just a few words.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Where does it say the Estonia survivors are contradicted? Their testimony is pretty consistent with each other, although obviously, they will describe it according to their own use of vocabulary. For example, some might call it a bang another a shudder. Some people are auditory and describe things in terms of noise, others are more visual and describe things in terms of what they saw. Yet others have a visceral response and have to find metaphors or similes to help in recounting it. Some people are very eloquent others maybe just a few words.

By the total lack of any evidence of explosives or an explosion of any kind.

 

[Vixen]

So you have a psychology degree?

Yes.

 

[Vixen]

Do you have an MSc or PhD (or other) in psychology to follow your BSc? Those would be postgraduate qualifications.

My BSc(Hons) in Psychology was deemed sufficiently directly related to my chosen field for my professional accountancy body to exempt me from the entire certificate level of the professional qualification... The chartered accountancy course includes modules in leadership skills, motivation, change management, crisis management, reputation management, marketing, conflict resolution, negotiation, probability theory and decision trees, together with a strong element of statistics, plus economics.

 

[JayUtah]

The issue of 'false memory' arises from what is known of traumatic events, or even non-traumatic events.

Yes, this is Loftus and Palmer's most recent work, what you'd find if you hastily Googled for it. Their work involving witness testimony dates much earlier, and does not comport with your attempt here to refute it.

We did this same exercise the last time you tried to refute Loftus et al. You simply aren't familiar with the appropriate literature.

However, one piece of theory cannot be extrapolated to claim that ALL eyewitnesses involved in terrifying events have a false memory.

No. You're trying to conflate two different things.

 

[JayUtah]

My BSc(Hons) in Psychology...

You claimed you were a "psychology postgraduate." What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[zooterkin]

You were claiming to have postgraduate expertise in psychology, not accountancy.

I have never claimed to be a chartered psychologist. Stop lying.

You do know we can read the post you're replying to, don't you?

No-one is claiming you said you were a chartered psychologist. Stop lying.

What you said was

Please stop with the rationalizing and the pop-psychology. You are talking down to a psychology postgraduate here.

The strong implication being that your postgrad study was in the field of psychology. Now you're saying that was not the case? Why refer to postgraduate if your psychology training was only to degree level?

 

[Vixen]

You did claim to be a psychology postgraduate though.

When asked about it, you claimed that being chartered is the equivalent of a postgrad, which indicates you don't actually have a postgrad degree.

I have two chartered accountancy designations. I looked them up on the website and I can confirm that both have official masters degree* status internationally for educational purposes. I am also a Fellow of yet another accountancy body, which gives me 360 points should I want to emigrate to Australia (that was some time ago, though).

*Comparisons are odious. I would however say that IMV qualifying in chartered accountancy is infinitely harder than a comfy one or two year masters degree course. Up to six years of numerous exams including three year's recorded vocational training. Even after the last exam has been passed you still need nominees to nominate you, together with also having to write up a fifteen page application + a detailed CV of relevant experience of why they should accept you.

 

[JayUtah]

I have two chartered accountancy designations.

You claimed to be a "psychology postgraduate." This does not support that claim. What exactly did you mean when you claimed to be a "psychology postgraduate?"

 

[Vixen]

By the total lack of any evidence of explosives or an explosion of any kind.

Braidwood & Fellows; Ida Westermann rules out ordinary friction, the metallurgists contracted by Jutta Rabe. That is not to say there was an explosion but it has never been looked into because the whole aim of the JAIC was to prove it was a few strong waves that knocked the bow visor off.

 

[Vixen]

You claimed you were a "psychology postgraduate." What exactly do you mean by that?

Because I have two chartered accountancy designations, both classified as masters degrees.

So I am a postgraduate whichever way you look at it.