www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/full/465412a.html

I was just scanning through this article and thought 'Damn! They can do that??' lol
I like to think, and i think most people do, that i can read other people well but i know how deceiving that is. Or rather, i see it more a way of reassuring myself in states of nervous anxiety and uncertainty. But as i read on it started getting funny - almost like the ID Card system (in the UK) was/is supposed to somehow improve our lives by making tracking easier usually bolstered by the argument that 'If you've got nothing to hide then why be scared'. Does a double-negative really make a positive? Beats me!

Then, i remember reading something about testing your own methodology when claiming that you have a successfully replicable process which in this case looks dubious.

Okay, here's my question. Do you think you can read other people's intentions with 70-100% (and can 'invisible' intentions that sometimes manifest in physical expression be discerned with such clarity)?

Great thread title Fox!

Do you think you can read other people's intentions with 70-100% (and can 'invisible' intentions that sometimes manifest in physical expression be discerned with such clarity)?

I think sometimes... yes, and most times... no. Establishing a percentage that is supposed to represent the future liklihood of any given person's acting out in an aggressive fashion against a government based upon current airport behavior would seem to be necessarily dubious.

While I think that an argument can be made that our ability to detect dangerous intention from witnessing certain specific behaviors is a part of evolution(survival advantage of avoiding danger), it seems to be more like a necessary consequence of one's having an accurate correlational understanding of certain behaviors through direct experience with a specific person or persons who displayed those in the past. I question it's application to a complete stranger because one has no knowledge of their individual personality, especially one who is not displaying obvious signs of aggression. It seems like an overgeneralization is nearly unavoidable.

It takes quite a bit of irrefutable and demonstrable evidence to establish grounds for claiming to know what anothers intent is or was. I do not think that a two hour(or less) display of behavior in an airport would be sufficient grounds to warrant that conclusion.





If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.


While that is necessarily true, a secret is not necessarily malicious in nature.

[quote]Great thread title Fox![quote]

Hey, thanks!

Do you think you can read other people's intentions with 70-100% (and can 'invisible' intentions that sometimes manifest in physical expression be discerned with such clarity)?

I think sometimes... yes, and most times... no. Establishing a percentage that is supposed to represent the future liklihood of any given person's acting out in an aggressive fashion against a government based upon current airport behavior would seem to be necessarily dubious.

But then we enter another complexity - forms of resistence might not entail 'agressiveness' but could be much more effective in passive complicity. For example could you extend JRachels distinction between Killing and Letting die to antagonistic agents who may or may not have a negative impact on a defined group. It seems very narrow to confine it to potentially threatening behaviour.

While I think that an argument can be made that our ability to detect dangerous intention from witnessing certain specific behaviors is a part of evolution(survival advantage of avoiding danger), it seems to be more like a necessary consequence of one's having an accurate correlational understanding of certain behaviors through direct experience with a specific person or persons who displayed those in the past.

That's quite true but in a world where boundaries exist at different echelons; e.g., national-legislative, geo-politically or whatever those distinctions are continually changing and trasnformaing depending on what time-scale you use so could (depending on your views) consign this kind of processing as assertions/expressions of 'authority' and the claim to rights thereof? (Shrouded in that kind action/reaction scenario).

I question it's application to a complete stranger because one has no knowledge of their individual personality, especially one who is not displaying obvious signs of aggression. It seems like an overgeneralization is nearly unavoidable.

I got stopped once in Tokyo airport (can't remember which one) with just a bag, passport and flight ticket. Was kept for questioning for about 4 hours and the only way i got out was a little scrap of paper that had my girlfriends mothers phone number on it from the country i just arrived from. I think they were a little surprised i had no idea where i was going and just planning 'to get off at the next stop' kind of thing . My point is that i can understand their 'concerns' because for all they know i could have been up to just about anything and i can look a bit otherworldy quite often but aside from that i think there's this odd myth that because planes offer the most efficient and regular mode of global transport (for people) that land/sea borders (which are harder to monitor) are probably the most easily and most abused ways into a country. Thus it seems to be that perhaps the whole airport thing functions as a form of propaganda in that it gets much more media exposure and this is a sense reaffirms that sense of anxiety and doubt about potentially uncontrolled endogamy.

It takes quite a bit of irrefutable and demonstrable evidence to establish grounds for claiming to know what anothers intent is or was. I do not think that a two hour(or less) display of behavior in an airport would be sufficient grounds to warrant that conclusion.

I don't know much about criminology other than they are concerned with 'intention' - or 'criminal intent'. If that's the case do they try to correlate behaviour with intention. And there's another consideration which i think you have touched on which is good is that duration, consideration, possibility, does that still equate to warranted action? I'm not so sure. A database on that individuals history would be required and that perhaps would need to correlated with 'other' sources of information on that perhaps just to ensure there's not too great a discrepancy between virtual activity and actual activity.



If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

That seems like a tautology. The space for ambiguity between having nothing to hide and hiding nothing, aside from being used in different ways; i.e., 'if you having nothing to hide' = suggestive; whereas, 'you hide nothing' = statement. Together it sounds to me like 'blah blah blah' (in a bouncing slight crecendo), and, 'blah blah blah' (flat and almost monotone). Yet together i think its an iambic pentameter so it could pass in the poetry world?


While that is necessarily true, a secret is not necessarily malicious in nature.

True, but malice isn't the only destructive or maligned state of beingness out on the prowl.

creative:

If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

Fox:

That seems like a tautology.

What is an axiom?

The space for ambiguity between having nothing to hide and hiding nothing, aside from being used in different ways; i.e., 'if you having nothing to hide' = suggestive; whereas, 'you hide nothing' = statement. Together it sounds to me like 'blah blah blah' (in a bouncing slight crecendo), and, 'blah blah blah' (flat and almost monotone). Yet together i think its an iambic pentameter so it could pass in the poetry world?

The space should have been filled with 'when asked' as in...

If you have nothing to hide, when asked, you hide nothing.

That is the justification behind accepting the measures being taken at the airport, despite those possibly infringing upon one's privacy in addition to being insufficient. The problem is that if one has a secret then they necessarily hide something. That does not make malicious intent, which is required for deliberately causing harm regardless of the means. So, if there exists specific behavior(s) which necessarily indicates hiding something, it does not necessarily mean that one is up to no good. Yet that is what is being looked for. If, as in the case being discussed, one intends to do harm to a country and enters into the country through an airport security checkpoint, then they must necessarily hide their true intentions in order to fulfill them, and an observant officer may pick up on that kind of marked behavior. However, my point is that any specific behavior which indicates secrecy does not denote intent to do harm yet attracts the attention of those looking for such a thing. Establishing one's intent to do harm requires empirical evidence other than displayed behavior, unless intent is being displayed through obviously aggressive behavior. Thus, the further questioning and searching which leads to our addressing possible civil rights violations is a necessary step in the process being implemented.

Lets say you're walking and walking nonchalantly... and suddenly, ahead, there's a HIGH-security checking post. Well.. you're OK if you have nothing to hide, but are your really being true to yourself!?? or did you have 'something' you should hide??? -this worries will cause you to think, and as you check your mind, you'll subconsciously reveal mishap in your motion, such as looking at something or a slight pause in your steps, which rouse suspicion.

Also, even if you've premeditated your action, maybe you'll still reveal yourself by getting worried, such as; you may worry if your plan won't get you thru the security or such. So in this case, the machine can detect your anxiety. Maybe the machine is placed far before people do get on board, such that, most fear and thrill or anxiety is caused by the security check itself, not the plane.

Fox:

But then we enter another complexity - forms of resistence might not entail 'agressiveness' but could be much more effective in passive complicity. For example could you extend JRachels distinction between Killing and Letting die to antagonistic agents who may or may not have a negative impact on a defined group. It seems very narrow to confine it to potentially threatening behaviour.

To broaden the scope...

The distinction Rachels makes involves the responsibility of the practitioner for their choosing non-action, if I understand it correctly. The ethical implications involve personal responsibility for non-action in light of relevent knowledge. How can that distinction be applied to an opposition unless it has a negative impact? The distinction is, in and of itself, a justification for such a thing. I suppose this kind of non-action could be intentionally employed in order to reach a more far-reaching end. Such could be the case with allowing a disease to wipe out a population by not acting upon relevent knowledge, and thus letting them die.

Is this the kind of thing your talking about? It seems like a conflation of sorts.