4 ms·

the slow motion would actually help the jury come to the correct conclusion. For the wrong reason. The whole point of the article is that it helps them come

the slow motion would actually help the jury come to the correct conclusion. For the wrong reason. The whole point of the article is that it helps them come to the wrong conclusion in a number of cases and your argument is that they must be wrong, because they came to the 'correct', in your opinion, solution in this specific case. That kind of reasoning is awful and immoral.

chrisseaton 10y ago
> come to the wrong conclusion How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? You can say that slow motion makes people convict more, or convict less, or whatever, but unless you have an oracle to tell you which was the correct verdict in each case, and we don't, this data tells us nothing. Maybe people are systematically underestimating violence when they don't get to see it in slow motion, and the acquittals when they don't have slow motion are the wrong conclusion. Or maybe people are systematically overestimating violence when they do have the slow motion and the convictions are the wrong conclusion. Who knows? But it doesn't really give us anything to go on does it?
- abraae 10y ago
  Good point. But in sports, slow motion is often enlightening. After a tackle, we see a soccer player collapse to the ground, writhing in agony, clutching their shin. But then slow mo shows that the other player never even made contact with them, its a classic "dive". In that case, there's no doubt that the slow mo version is more informative.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    You need a replay for that, but you rarely need slow motion for that.
- Confusion 10y ago
  How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? For the same reason that other things that have unconscious influences are expressly forbidden. A verdict should be based on the facts of the case, not on emotions incited in the jurors. That's why we forbid irrelevant anecdotes that demonstrate what a bad person an accused is. It would lead to the wrong verdict. After it's been pointed out, the point of the article is entirely obvious: if we see someone take a minute before committing murder, then we will think them of having had sufficient time to think. If it takes 5 seconds, he obviously didn't have time to consider. So if we stretch 5 seconds into a minute, a jury will conclude there was rational deliberation where there was only instinctive response. What is entirely non-obvious is supposing that brain of the average juror could 'just' compensate for his impressions based on the knowledge that it was shown in slow motion. We know they aren't capable of that with many, many other cognitive weaknesses. Sources: Influence, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational, ...

chrisseaton 10y ago

> come to the wrong conclusion How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? You can say that slow motion makes people convict more, or convict less, or whatever, but unless you have an oracle to tell you which was the correct verdict in each case, and we don't, this data tells us nothing. Maybe people are systematically underestimating violence when they don't get to see it in slow motion, and the acquittals when they don't have slow motion are the wrong conclusion. Or maybe people are systematically overestimating violence when they do have the slow motion and the convictions are the wrong conclusion. Who knows? But it doesn't really give us anything to go on does it?

abraae 10y ago
Good point. But in sports, slow motion is often enlightening. After a tackle, we see a soccer player collapse to the ground, writhing in agony, clutching their shin. But then slow mo shows that the other player never even made contact with them, its a classic "dive". In that case, there's no doubt that the slow mo version is more informative.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  You need a replay for that, but you rarely need slow motion for that.
Confusion 10y ago
How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? For the same reason that other things that have unconscious influences are expressly forbidden. A verdict should be based on the facts of the case, not on emotions incited in the jurors. That's why we forbid irrelevant anecdotes that demonstrate what a bad person an accused is. It would lead to the wrong verdict. After it's been pointed out, the point of the article is entirely obvious: if we see someone take a minute before committing murder, then we will think them of having had sufficient time to think. If it takes 5 seconds, he obviously didn't have time to consider. So if we stretch 5 seconds into a minute, a jury will conclude there was rational deliberation where there was only instinctive response. What is entirely non-obvious is supposing that brain of the average juror could 'just' compensate for his impressions based on the knowledge that it was shown in slow motion. We know they aren't capable of that with many, many other cognitive weaknesses. Sources: Influence, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational, ...