4 ms·

I like this because I like to flatter myself that I have a good intuition about people after seeing them, and this shows that I’m completely wrong about that—ba

I like this because I like to flatter myself that I have a good intuition about people after seeing them, and this shows that I’m completely wrong about that—barely better than random.

Macha 3y ago
It turns out with the trappings of how serial killers are presented in media (bad black and white photos from odd angles), everyone looks like a serial killer.
- jeffparsons 3y ago
  There's a security camera monitor displayed prominently in one store near where I live that makes everyone look dodgy — something about the frame rate and fuzzy image just looks like shoplifting footage you'd see on the news. I see myself on the screen as I enter and think "yeah, that guy's going to hold up the shop or something".
  - RugnirViking 3y ago
    surely in this case the very fact that it looks like a security camera feed is why? wouldn't most security cameras do that right? :) its an interesting thought, that the only place most people see stuff like that is recordings of incidents
    - jeffparsons 3y ago
      I think it's because it looks like an _ancient_ security camera feed, which reminds me of watching security footage on television news as a child. Most modern systems I see don't have that kind of noisy distorted "bad analogue" look so I think they just don't trigger the same reaction in me.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  Plus the whole website primes you to think that you're about to be presented serial killers. You could do a 'serial killer or ...' about anyone whose prime was between 1950 and 1970-some and has a lot of mostly B&W photos.
eru 3y ago
I was way worse than random. Make of that what you will.
- eterm 3y ago
  Unless you scored 0 or 1, then you might not be "way worse than random", or at least, there is a lack evidence that you are "way worse than random": 2/10 has a p-value of p = .057. Or put another way, the 95% confidence interval of scoring 2 out of 10 covers 0.5.
  - eru 3y ago
    Well, I would say I scored 1/9, because I don't count Guido van Rossum whom I recognised.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  In a binary result you almost can’t be worse than random. If you’re worse, then invert your result and you’re good again. Or as in Seinfeld, when George just decides to do the opposite thing he would normally do and things start going well for him.
  - eru 3y ago
    Well, what you are suggesting is good strategic advice for a machine. But as a human I can be worse than random.
sn41 3y ago
Probably you are still right. Seeing a photograph is different from seeing a person in real animated life. I guess there are micro expressions, the way people laugh, and the exact point at which people laugh and such that some people are really good at reading, but it is hard to articulate what exactly the process of interpretation is.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  I think you're right, if someone is laughing while chopping up a corpse there's a good chance they're a serial killer.
- muzani 3y ago
  Like Chris Watts was investigated and arrested for behaving a little off about his family's disappearance.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Serial killers. By definition have aptitude to get away with murder for some period of time. Probably good at concealing their madness.
hutzlibu 3y ago
Well, I think so, too. But only after seeing them in real and not just on some blurry, distorted picture. But I also think, most people have the potential to become serial killers. Hunting and killing is deep in our genes after all and society can mess up people pretty bad, so some turn their animal instinct against society, while maintaining the facade on the outside.
- tux3 3y ago
  I don't think that's right. In psychiatry, you reach the coveted status of Antisocial Personality Disorder (the remorseless manipulative sociopath with a charming personality, but no compassion) by starting out with Conduct Disorder (the kids that hurt animals, lie, cheat, and steal) and not snapping out of it by adulthood Humans are social animals. If your animal instinct is hunting and killing, and you feel like you're just maintaining a facade... good! You don't choose the instincts you're born with, but please keep maintening the facade thank you! :)
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Modern civilized society tries hard to negate and channel all violent impulses from early on and only unleash it in ritualistic scenarios like sports. (Or after a 180 degree turn - for real in the military.) And this is mostly successful, but push someone hard enough and violence will be the result. Otherwise there would not be so many murders and violent crimes. Most people will just explode violently (and then regret) and the path of the silent serial killer is (luckily) rare. But if you look at other (savage) societys where violence is still baked in, there simply are no pacifists there, so pacifism is not something we were born with, but a learned trait. And one that makes sense, to keep society stable, but I don't think it makes sense to fool ourself about what humans are capable of. Just look at Ukraine to see what ordinary civilized people are capable of, if put in a different environment.
    - tux3 3y ago
      That's fair, but I think there's a huge gap between that and being a serial killer. We can point to war or to the Stanford prison experiment. People in unusual stressful situations have the potential to be abusive, or to follow abusive orders. But there's a large gap between that and the kind of trouble that results in serial killers. Soldiers in a war are under terrible living conditions, and commit atrocities in the name of taking it out on the enemy. But even the soldier does not stoop as low as torturing animals. The enemy, maybe, but not the innocent. Serial killers are completely indifferent to the pain of the innocent. Soldiers only hurt the outgroup, the enemy. And I think you're being unfair to people living in more primitive societies. There's crime in every society, but you will not make friends anywhere by being antisocial. A small village doesn't survive by people turning against each other. It would simply cease to exist. My claim is that most people do not have the violent impulses, and don't need to channel them. Some people do. And they benefit from channeling them, because bad outcomes happen much more often to those who don't. Nature will beat the violence out of people, over generations. You simply survive less in aggregate with a harmful set of instincts. Most people have no need for hard to control violent impulses, and indeed tend to be born without them.

I like this because I like to flatter myself that I have a good intuition about people after seeing them, and this shows that I’m completely wrong about that—barely better than random.

Macha 3y ago

It turns out with the trappings of how serial killers are presented in media (bad black and white photos from odd angles), everyone looks like a serial killer.

jeffparsons 3y ago
There's a security camera monitor displayed prominently in one store near where I live that makes everyone look dodgy — something about the frame rate and fuzzy image just looks like shoplifting footage you'd see on the news. I see myself on the screen as I enter and think "yeah, that guy's going to hold up the shop or something".
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  surely in this case the very fact that it looks like a security camera feed is why? wouldn't most security cameras do that right? :) its an interesting thought, that the only place most people see stuff like that is recordings of incidents
  - jeffparsons 3y ago
    I think it's because it looks like an _ancient_ security camera feed, which reminds me of watching security footage on television news as a child. Most modern systems I see don't have that kind of noisy distorted "bad analogue" look so I think they just don't trigger the same reaction in me.
NikkiA 3y ago
Plus the whole website primes you to think that you're about to be presented serial killers. You could do a 'serial killer or ...' about anyone whose prime was between 1950 and 1970-some and has a lot of mostly B&W photos.

eru 3y ago

I was way worse than random. Make of that what you will.

eterm 3y ago
Unless you scored 0 or 1, then you might not be "way worse than random", or at least, there is a lack evidence that you are "way worse than random": 2/10 has a p-value of p = .057. Or put another way, the 95% confidence interval of scoring 2 out of 10 covers 0.5.
- eru 3y ago
  Well, I would say I scored 1/9, because I don't count Guido van Rossum whom I recognised.
dclowd9901 3y ago
In a binary result you almost can’t be worse than random. If you’re worse, then invert your result and you’re good again. Or as in Seinfeld, when George just decides to do the opposite thing he would normally do and things start going well for him.
- eru 3y ago
  Well, what you are suggesting is good strategic advice for a machine. But as a human I can be worse than random.

sn41 3y ago

Probably you are still right. Seeing a photograph is different from seeing a person in real animated life. I guess there are micro expressions, the way people laugh, and the exact point at which people laugh and such that some people are really good at reading, but it is hard to articulate what exactly the process of interpretation is.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
I think you're right, if someone is laughing while chopping up a corpse there's a good chance they're a serial killer.
muzani 3y ago
Like Chris Watts was investigated and arrested for behaving a little off about his family's disappearance.

quickthrower2 3y ago

Serial killers. By definition have aptitude to get away with murder for some period of time. Probably good at concealing their madness.

hutzlibu 3y ago

Well, I think so, too. But only after seeing them in real and not just on some blurry, distorted picture. But I also think, most people have the potential to become serial killers. Hunting and killing is deep in our genes after all and society can mess up people pretty bad, so some turn their animal instinct against society, while maintaining the facade on the outside.

tux3 3y ago
I don't think that's right. In psychiatry, you reach the coveted status of Antisocial Personality Disorder (the remorseless manipulative sociopath with a charming personality, but no compassion) by starting out with Conduct Disorder (the kids that hurt animals, lie, cheat, and steal) and not snapping out of it by adulthood Humans are social animals. If your animal instinct is hunting and killing, and you feel like you're just maintaining a facade... good! You don't choose the instincts you're born with, but please keep maintening the facade thank you! :)
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Modern civilized society tries hard to negate and channel all violent impulses from early on and only unleash it in ritualistic scenarios like sports. (Or after a 180 degree turn - for real in the military.) And this is mostly successful, but push someone hard enough and violence will be the result. Otherwise there would not be so many murders and violent crimes. Most people will just explode violently (and then regret) and the path of the silent serial killer is (luckily) rare. But if you look at other (savage) societys where violence is still baked in, there simply are no pacifists there, so pacifism is not something we were born with, but a learned trait. And one that makes sense, to keep society stable, but I don't think it makes sense to fool ourself about what humans are capable of. Just look at Ukraine to see what ordinary civilized people are capable of, if put in a different environment.
  - tux3 3y ago
    That's fair, but I think there's a huge gap between that and being a serial killer. We can point to war or to the Stanford prison experiment. People in unusual stressful situations have the potential to be abusive, or to follow abusive orders. But there's a large gap between that and the kind of trouble that results in serial killers. Soldiers in a war are under terrible living conditions, and commit atrocities in the name of taking it out on the enemy. But even the soldier does not stoop as low as torturing animals. The enemy, maybe, but not the innocent. Serial killers are completely indifferent to the pain of the innocent. Soldiers only hurt the outgroup, the enemy. And I think you're being unfair to people living in more primitive societies. There's crime in every society, but you will not make friends anywhere by being antisocial. A small village doesn't survive by people turning against each other. It would simply cease to exist. My claim is that most people do not have the violent impulses, and don't need to channel them. Some people do. And they benefit from channeling them, because bad outcomes happen much more often to those who don't. Nature will beat the violence out of people, over generations. You simply survive less in aggregate with a harmful set of instincts. Most people have no need for hard to control violent impulses, and indeed tend to be born without them.