5 ms·

That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture metho

That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xenadu02 9y ago
All the scientific evidence disagrees with you and so do many former employees and directors of intelligence agencies, so I'd like to see some citations. You don't even have to go into physical torture: recent history is filled with cases where people confessed to crimes under police interrogation, only to have iron-clad evidence show up that they couldn't possibly be responsible. The most effective technique is befriending the suspect, doing nice things for them, then allowing the natural human tendency to reciprocate (and a desire for positive social interactions) work for you. It takes time but gets you much more reliable information - and much more extensive information.
mcguire 9y ago
"...probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured." I, actually, have nothing I can say to that. Are you listening to yourself?
- xkcd-sucks 9y ago
  I mean, the APA does promote good research and also supported torture up until recently when it started attracting attention and became politically untenable. To the extent that it is possible to optimize torture, it has probably been optimized by some pretty competent people.
- matte_black 9y ago
  I do not doubt that there is some mathematics behind modern torture, we've come a long way from the days of gruesome medieval torture which was mostly punitive. Given the data we have on what has worked in the past, and cross-referencing it with a person's time under torture, we can reduce or even eliminate the intensity of torture after a certain confidence threshold has been crossed. Let's be clear, torture is an unpleasant technique and should only be an absolute last resort when everything else has failed, but it's far better to be tortured by people who know what they're doing and are only trying to get information out of you, than by people whose goal is simply to hurt you (often for no reason and with no stopping point).
  - adanto6840 9y ago
    For how long is that OK? Is it OK to torture someone until you've been able to achieve, let's say, six nines -- 99.9999% probability that they have no information for you? Is it OK to go for 10+ nines, as long as our goal isn't to inflict pain -- and despite the fact that we are indeed inflicting pain, mentally and/or physically? Just for the sake of argument, let's say that 99.99% can be accomplished in 24 hours of pain infliction (torture) -- and let's say you'll get to 6 nines in 168 hours (7 days). Oh come on, who am I kidding -- as much as I appreciate the discourse, I can't even fathom or given consideration to it actually being something that can be realistically reasoned about in this way. =\
- samfriedman 9y ago
  Your honor, as our neural networks are the ones designing these torture programs, ethical considerations do not apply.
mikestew 9y ago
That’s a myth What's a myth, that torture doesn't work? Imma need a citation on that one, because I've got stacks of 'em to the contrary.
- mcbits 9y ago
  Most people will hand over their wallet, phone, car keys, passwords, and spill their darkest secrets if you just point a toy gun at them and raise your voice. Some won't, but saying "torture doesn't work" as a blanket statement implies that they all have infinite pain tolerance.
  - drdrey 9y ago
    People will also confess to anything and say whatever they think you want to hear under torture.
    - mcbits 9y ago
      Sure, it doesn't always work. Some people will also withstand torture and take their secrets to the grave. But "torture doesn't always work" is a far cry from "torture doesn't work." A more believable amoral/utilitarian argument against torture is that there will always be a more effective method than torture available. That's probably also wrong, but at least it's not so obviously wrong on its face. The problem with the argument is that if a would-be torturer finds evidence that torture is the most effective method in some circumstance, they will feel vindicated in using it. I think a better argument is "regardless of effectiveness, anyone crossing this line is a dangerous and despicable person, and shall be prosecuted."
  - Gatsky 9y ago
    Most people are carrying a wallet, phone, car keys. How many people that get tortured actually know anything?
tw04 9y ago
>, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. If you're getting "verifiable" facts, you didn't need to torture him/her in the first place... you were just being lazy in your reconnaissance.
stordoff 9y ago
> you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured That almost seems worse - torturing someone to make sure they don't know anything is akin to punishing someone to make sure they are innocent.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xenadu02 9y ago

All the scientific evidence disagrees with you and so do many former employees and directors of intelligence agencies, so I'd like to see some citations. You don't even have to go into physical torture: recent history is filled with cases where people confessed to crimes under police interrogation, only to have iron-clad evidence show up that they couldn't possibly be responsible. The most effective technique is befriending the suspect, doing nice things for them, then allowing the natural human tendency to reciprocate (and a desire for positive social interactions) work for you. It takes time but gets you much more reliable information - and much more extensive information.

mcguire 9y ago

"...probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured." I, actually, have nothing I can say to that. Are you listening to yourself?

xkcd-sucks 9y ago
I mean, the APA does promote good research and also supported torture up until recently when it started attracting attention and became politically untenable. To the extent that it is possible to optimize torture, it has probably been optimized by some pretty competent people.
matte_black 9y ago
I do not doubt that there is some mathematics behind modern torture, we've come a long way from the days of gruesome medieval torture which was mostly punitive. Given the data we have on what has worked in the past, and cross-referencing it with a person's time under torture, we can reduce or even eliminate the intensity of torture after a certain confidence threshold has been crossed. Let's be clear, torture is an unpleasant technique and should only be an absolute last resort when everything else has failed, but it's far better to be tortured by people who know what they're doing and are only trying to get information out of you, than by people whose goal is simply to hurt you (often for no reason and with no stopping point).
- adanto6840 9y ago
  For how long is that OK? Is it OK to torture someone until you've been able to achieve, let's say, six nines -- 99.9999% probability that they have no information for you? Is it OK to go for 10+ nines, as long as our goal isn't to inflict pain -- and despite the fact that we are indeed inflicting pain, mentally and/or physically? Just for the sake of argument, let's say that 99.99% can be accomplished in 24 hours of pain infliction (torture) -- and let's say you'll get to 6 nines in 168 hours (7 days). Oh come on, who am I kidding -- as much as I appreciate the discourse, I can't even fathom or given consideration to it actually being something that can be realistically reasoned about in this way. =\
samfriedman 9y ago
Your honor, as our neural networks are the ones designing these torture programs, ethical considerations do not apply.

mikestew 9y ago

That’s a myth What's a myth, that torture doesn't work? Imma need a citation on that one, because I've got stacks of 'em to the contrary.

mcbits 9y ago
Most people will hand over their wallet, phone, car keys, passwords, and spill their darkest secrets if you just point a toy gun at them and raise your voice. Some won't, but saying "torture doesn't work" as a blanket statement implies that they all have infinite pain tolerance.
- drdrey 9y ago
  People will also confess to anything and say whatever they think you want to hear under torture.
  - mcbits 9y ago
    Sure, it doesn't always work. Some people will also withstand torture and take their secrets to the grave. But "torture doesn't always work" is a far cry from "torture doesn't work." A more believable amoral/utilitarian argument against torture is that there will always be a more effective method than torture available. That's probably also wrong, but at least it's not so obviously wrong on its face. The problem with the argument is that if a would-be torturer finds evidence that torture is the most effective method in some circumstance, they will feel vindicated in using it. I think a better argument is "regardless of effectiveness, anyone crossing this line is a dangerous and despicable person, and shall be prosecuted."
- Gatsky 9y ago
  Most people are carrying a wallet, phone, car keys. How many people that get tortured actually know anything?

tw04 9y ago

>, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. If you're getting "verifiable" facts, you didn't need to torture him/her in the first place... you were just being lazy in your reconnaissance.

stordoff 9y ago

> you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured That almost seems worse - torturing someone to make sure they don't know anything is akin to punishing someone to make sure they are innocent.