TRG Movies & Entertainment

Thanks. :D Likewise!

That was actually done with the supernatural type of studies. All random, all expected statistical results. No mind readers among them.

That happens frequently. If they are not outright throw insults, and if the time allows for it, I might talk to them. Quote postings are just bad style to do that.

For the daily effort to randomly promote a fellow Blueskyer, with less than 5k followers, to give them more reach, today it is:

Senordiaz, US Army Retired

@senordiaz.bsky.social

Please consider a follow. Thank you. :)

Yeah, you can detach the quote (so you don't have to suffer the hijack).

He indeed is. He never makes mistakes. He's always the victim, never the perp.

Indeed. He did it twice! ;D

Yes, I read about that. Hair strains and ostensible similarities observed always seemed like pseudo science. Bite marks fade too quickly, even deep ones.

YouTube video by AdviceFromLouis They Told Us This Would Never Happen

are back and war must be waged upon Iran with American casualties as a possibility.

If this ever was a problem, then he created it. This war happens because of him!

youtu.be/iSjmNSeFFos

Trump ripped up the nuclear deal because he feels emasculated by Obama. He didn't bother to replace it with anything, even though he claimed to make a "better deal with Iran" (always a "better" deal, eh?), then he bombed them 9 years later, claiming the nukes are done. And now he claims the nukes

YouTube video by Rationality Rules How to HUMILIATE a Fascist

On how to humiliate a fascist:

youtu.be/kHWrSLaahXA

And since they can not claim 100% and admit it's not accurate, they think it's okay and just move on.

And that is where I say it's a fraud, because when it's not accurate, you can not claim "Defendant is deceiving". Is this based on 70 or 80%? Maybe 75?

You see where I'm going with this.

actual facts to substantiate this claim. That's also because of the framing of the issue: They don't deny it's problematic, but they do indeed defend it's use (70 to 80% sounds reasonably high, but if you have to decide if someone murdered someone, nothing less than 100% needs to be proven).

Also, those 'experts' don't deny it would be inaccurate. They claim "70 to 80% accuracy". Based on what exactly? That's just another claim they make, because just saying "30 to 40%" would be too small of a percentage. So it is claimed to be higher, but there is no study to show this, or

It's not evidence. It's not admissible in court. Just like polygraph "tests", they are also not admissible in court, because they are, at best, interpretations, but no definitive proof of anything. Those Body Language "experts" are no credible witnesses and the courts know that.

interrogator" or "suspect is deceiving the interrogator because he looks away consistently".

Reading off basic emotions to gauge intention isn't what I mean. I mean those definitive statements with severe consequences if those statements, and how they have been reached, are taken seriously.

Yes, if someone is reaching for something, you can tell he's reaching for something. If someone is visibly annoyed and looks at his watch, he probably intends to end the conversation soon.

What I mean are definitive statements like "suspect lies because he leans too far away from the

something, because you are folding up your arms".

Body language "experts" are very specific on that. They present their observations and interpretations in a very specific way: That it would mean what they say it means. This is not equivalent to actual proof and facts is what I'm saying.

Can you tell if they lie about a specific question? Can you tell if that person is deceiving you about something?

I am not talking about the human connection here. This is real.

I am talking about an interrogator saying "You are lying because you don't look me in the eyes" or "you are hiding

YouTube video by LastWeekTonight Police Interrogations: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Also John Oliver ripped this nonsense as it is being used by the police interrogators. We're not talking about a simple hobby here - lifes have been ruined with this snakeoil nonsense.

youtu.be/obCNQ0xksZ4

YouTube video by münecat I Debunked Every "Body Language Expert" on Youtube

It's an older one, but Münekat actually explained it quite well why it's bunk.

youtu.be/Y0VQyEY-B2I

Also, generally: Please do not quote post in a debate. You can directly reply here on this posting. Quote posts are not visible to most others, and it is not good style trying to reframe the setting by ripping it out of the context. We want to keep that a fair debate. Thanks.

Exactly. Nobody denies that basic emotional states can be read off of someone's behavior (easily to do actually), but intentions like "lying" or "deceiving" are abstracts based in cognitive decisions, and without outside factual proof to be true, this is not "readable" through body movements.

they have a big incentive to sell this snake oil as legit). You won't go to the snake oil salesman to ask him if the snakeoil he sells is a legit medicine, now would you?

Look, you may believe in whatever you want. But if you say body language allows you to "read" intentions, you have to prove it.

deceive, to withold or to mischaracterize. This is not "readable" through body movements. Period. No matter what this "panel" claims (I know them by the way, they are all "body language experts" /interrogators (except for the journalist), which means

But intentions are cognitive decisions (thoughts if you will), and that is not provable through body movements. And I am not talking about someone slowly going for his gun - of course you can read "intention" off of that: He tries to shoot his gun. What I am talking about are intentions to lie, to

Joan, you are making the same mistake: If you think you can read minds through body movements: Proof it.

Otherwise: I say it's as reliable as performing a voodoo dance to make it rain.

What is true is: You can read off basic emotional states, like fear, anger, frustration, surprise, etc.

courts also say it isn't. It's all a desperate attempt in trying to read off some info about some event. But the only reliable way to do that is to talk to the suspects and compare their answers to the known facts.

Also polygraphs... they are also not admissible in court as evidence. They are a tool of pressure for the police interrogators (for those suspects who don't know it's all nonsense). And: No, I don't care how glaringly the FBI and other institutions claim this to be oh so correct. It isn't and the

Or more precisely: You can not read minds. No matter what those "experts" claim. Their observations are merely opinions and should be treated as hearsay (at best). That they claim to be someone with a special sense for something is the fraud.