SUCKERS!

Why do I need to be a prosecutor to read a scientific study on eyewitness testimony and understand that the conclusion it reaches is that eyewitness testimony is flawed and subject to psychological factors among other things?

By asking which testimony is the most reliable, you're illustrating your own lack of knowledge on the subject. Ironic, being that you accused me of the same thing. Testimony is only one form of evidence. A better question would have been, 'which form of evidence is the most credible'. Eyewitness testimony is simply not reliable. We don't even actually see the world around us as our brain tells us we do. The light our eye gathers is translated into data the brain can understand. From that data, our brain begins the process of rebuilding the image. In doing this, it can play tricks on us.

Try this out.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20391...every-day.html Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're making a broad statement based on some cheesy ass article, lol. You're a goof.


Jim

Widespread welfare fraud is a myth of the right wing nutjobs. Produce some evidence of this. If it's rampant, it shouldn't be hard to find. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Dipshit, I am typing this slowly, so you can keep up.

And I am going to use small words, so you can understand.

I never wrote anything about "fraud".

I am saying that entitlement benefits, even in the absence of fraud, are out of control. See the difference mope?

Even if we cut the defense budget in half, we still won't be able to cover our nut. After 6 years of the slowest, worst recovery ever, we are still borrowing money.

You can't borrow money for retirement, which is more or less what we are doing as a nation.

And, on the specific point of fraud, ALL government programs - including welfare - suffer from massive amounts of fraud. Even when the government catches up, it takes years and the damage is done.

Here is a report on just ONE doctor who got 45 years for Medicare fraud:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/mic...ced/index.html

The degenerate was giving chemo treatments to people who didn't have cancer. The article beggars belief.

And having kids to get the benefits is a scam that has been going on for years.

Anecdotal. Nothing more. Eyewitness testimony is the least credible testimony there is. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Dipshit, that's not what the saying means.

It is true that in some instances eyewitness testimony is unreliable. But those instance are related to stressful situations (witnessing a shooting) or one-time situations that occur quickly.

What you called "anecdotal" evidence - the stuff that he said he sees every day - does not fall into that category.

Everyday, more and more, I am seeing people paying for $2.85 coffees at Starbucks with their iPhones, instead of cash. It drives me nuts.

Or am I really seeing that?

Are you telling me that isn't happening? My mind is playing tricks on me? People are using cash as much as ever?

We have a RECORD number of people getting food stamps. That is why he sees people using those swipe cards every day now.

It IS happening. Stop denying the obvious with bullshit, out-of-context quotations about eyewitness testimony.

Dipshit, that's not what the saying means.

It is true that in some instances eyewitness testimony is unreliable. But those instance are related to stressful situations (witnessing a shooting) or one-time situations that occur quickly.

What you called "anecdotal" evidence - the stuff that he said he sees every day - does not fall into that category.

Everyday, more and more, I am seeing people paying for $2.85 coffees at Starbucks with their iPhones, instead of cash. It drives me nuts.

Or am I really seeing that?

Are you telling me that isn't happening? My mind is playing tricks on me? People are using cash as much as ever?

We have a RECORD number of people getting food stamps. That is why he sees people using those swipe cards every day now.

It IS happening. Stop denying the obvious with bullshit, out-of-context quotations about eyewitness testimony. Originally Posted by ExNYer

So I should just go along with your point of view, because you see something happening more often at Starbucks? Yeah...I pay for coffee at starbucks with my phone, because that's where my starbucks card is, in my apple wallet. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything or why you hate it.

as for anecdotal evidence, it simply means a judgement that is in doubt or can be called into question, which of course applies in just about any instance.

A shitload of people use the Starbucks app to pay. Are they all on welfare. What the fuck is your point?

http://www.eater.com/2015/1/26/79070...e-transactions

5 dollar coffee that tastes like crap = douche bag... oh yeaaa

So I should just go along with your point of view, because you see something happening more often at Starbucks? Yeah...I pay for coffee at starbucks with my phone, because that's where my starbucks card is, in my apple wallet. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything or why you hate it. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Are you SURE you have been paying with your iPhone? That's just your "eyewitness testimony" and we all know how unreliable that is, right?

See how that works?

as for anecdotal evidence, it simply means a judgement that is in doubt or can be called into question, which of course applies in just about any instance. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Uh, no, that's not what anecdotal evidence means.

"Anecdotal evidence" refers literally, to evidence based on anecdotes (a tale related to some event or person). Anecdotes are often regarded as unreliable. If you have only a small number of anecdotes about a person or event, there is a significant chance that the anecdotes are unreliable or not representative samples of typical cases.

On the other hand, repeated observations of an occurrence are not anecdotal.

If a previously ignored abandoned house across the street from you suddenly has vagrants and dirtbags streaming in and out of it day in and day out, that's not an anecdote.

You might guess that it is being used as a drug house. But you might be wrong - they may be using it as a toilet.

But saying that a lot of people are going into it now - when there was none before - is not anecdotal.

5 dollar coffee that tastes like crap = douche bag... oh yeaaa Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

It's not $5 coffee, shitstain. Unless you get one of them fancy, faggified ones, which I guess we now know you do, since you bitch about the price.

Says Starbucks tastes like crap equals hipster shitface. Oh yeah....

Are you SURE you have been paying with your iPhone? That's just your "eyewitness testimony" and we all know how unreliable that is, right?

See how that works?


Uh, no, that's not what anecdotal evidence means.

"Anecdotal evidence" refers literally, to evidence based on anecdotes (a tale related to some event or person). Anecdotes are often regarded as unreliable. If you have only a small number of anecdotes about a person or event, there is a significant chance that the anecdotes are unreliable or not representative samples of typical cases.

On the other hand, repeated observations of an occurrence are not anecdotal.

If a previously ignored abandoned house across the street from you suddenly has vagrants and dirtbags streaming in and out of it day in and day out, that's not an anecdote.

You might guess that it is being used as a drug house. But you might be wrong - they may be using it as a toilet.

But saying that a lot of people are going into it now - when there was none before - is not anecdotal. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, they are. You have not taken cognitive bias into account. It still requires data. Just because you notice something is happening more or you know someone who told you something, doesn't mean shit.

"Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence."

I provided a link demonstrating how more people are paying with their phone.

BTW, that is what anecdotal evidence is. A judgement based on 'casual observations' or 'information' you heard from a friend, etc. That is EXACTLY what it is.

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[9]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"[

A shitload of people use the Starbucks app to pay. Are they all on welfare. What the fuck is your point?

http://www.eater.com/2015/1/26/79070...e-transactions Originally Posted by WombRaider

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I said nothing about welfare and Starbucks, mope.

I making the point that repeated observations of the same phenomenon isn't the same as "eyewitness testimony", which refers, in the law, to observations of a single instance.

So, when IFFY wrote that he sees a lot more people paying for groceries with some kind of public assistance, your attempt to discredit that as unreliable eyewitness testimony was, ONCE AGAIN, wrong.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I said nothing about welfare and Starbucks, mope.

I making the point that repeated observations of the same phenomenon isn't the same as "eyewitness testimony", which refers, in the law, to observations of a single instance.

So, when the guy wrote that he sees a lot more people paying for groceries with some kind of public assistance, your attempt to discredit that as unreliable eyewitness testimony was, ONCE AGAIN, wrong. Originally Posted by ExNYer

When one guy says he sees a lot more people paying for groceries with some kind of public assistance, it doesn't mean a goddamn thing. That is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. Casual observation. It's not worth a shit.

Repeated observations of the same phenomenon also doesn't mean shit without data. And if you're mistaken about one occasion, why couldn't you be mistaken about them all?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I said nothing about welfare and Starbucks, mope.

I making the point that repeated observations of the same phenomenon isn't the same as "eyewitness testimony", which refers, in the law, to observations of a single instance.

So, when the guy wrote that he sees a lot more people paying for groceries with some kind of public assistance, your attempt to discredit that as unreliable eyewitness testimony was, ONCE AGAIN, wrong. Originally Posted by ExNYer

that wasn't aimed at you. Nice effort though, stepping the line of fire to play victim.

Yes, they are. You have not taken cognitive bias into account. It still requires data. Just because you notice something is happening more or you know someone who told you something, doesn't mean shit.

"Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence."

I provided a link demonstrating how more people are paying with their phone.

BTW, that is what anecdotal evidence is. A judgement based on 'casual observations' or 'information' you heard from a friend, etc. That is EXACTLY what it is.

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[9]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"[ Originally Posted by WombRaider

Dumb shit, if the house was abandoned and no one was going into it, and then suddenly lots of people are going into it, there is no cognitive bias that needs to be accounted for.

The bias referred to regarding anecdotes, once again, pertains to a small number of instances or even single instances.

If an eyewitness says he saw a black teen running from a store at night, you might make the case that the bias of the eyewitness might make him think that the person running was black.

If the same eyewitness said that a black couple eats lunch at his diner nearly everyday, how would that be cognitive bias? Are they not really black?

Repeated observations of the same phenomenon also doesn't mean shit without data. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Repeated observations IS data, putz.

And if you're mistaken about one occasion, why couldn't you be mistaken about them all? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Seriously, did you really just write that?

When one guy says he sees a lot more people paying for groceries with some kind of public assistance, it doesn't mean a goddamn thing. That is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. Casual observation. It's not worth a shit. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Actually, if you are deliberately paying attention to something, it is no longer "casual observation". Pretty much by definition.

If IFFY watches to see how people are paying for groceries or I watch to see how people are paying at Starbucks, it is not casual observation.

And apparently, my statements about what I see at Starbucks are correct according to your own link. Or is it still anecdotal?