Non-Verbal Analysis of statements by Mark and Adam (MtGox)

[psyborgue]

The METT is a standard test, I don't throw numbers because I like them.
It seems that you really need to check your biases.
I am tired of uninformed wikipedia-based critics-du-jour.

Wow. Looks Legit.

"METT Original-Online
This license allows you train with METT original and take the pre and post tests to see how much you have improved

Most people complete METT original training in under one hour. There is no certificate with this training

$20.00"

Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove it actually works.  Show me a peer reviewed study under real world conditions showing Eckman's "science" works.  Until peers can confirm Eckman's "science", your "analysis" is worth about as one lone self declared "expert" says it is, which given the number of self declared experts out there, isn't a whole lot.

You mentioned the METT.  As I understand it, the METT basically shows you flashes of random expressions.  You identify correctly and you get a higher score.  This supposedly will allow to to read and identify microexpressions IRL, allowing you to be a better lie detector...  But what if it's BS?  What if all you're doing is learning to take a test better?  What if all you're doing is inflating your ego?  Whoo... it's a standardized test.. i'm "better".

All this would be fine if you were just deluding yourself but people believe this stuff (thanks in part to Lie To Me). You have accused Mt. Gox publicly of lying and that causes real harm.  It's irresponsible to present "evidence" such as yours when it hasn't been scientifically verified. (at least without some sort of very clear disclaimer).

[TiagoTiago]

Interesting read, thanx

[bitsalame]

The METT is a standard test, I don't throw numbers because I like them.
It seems that you really need to check your biases.
I am tired of uninformed wikipedia-based critics-du-jour.

Wow. Looks Legit.

"METT Original-Online
This license allows you train with METT original and take the pre and post tests to see how much you have improved

Most people complete METT original training in under one hour. There is no certificate with this training

$20.00"

Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove it actually works.  Show me a peer reviewed study under real world conditions showing Eckman's "science" works.  Until peers can confirm Eckman's "science", your "analysis" is worth about as one lone self declared "expert" says it is, which given the number of self declared experts out there, isn't a whole lot.

You mentioned the METT.  As I understand it, the METT basically shows you flashes of random expressions.  You identify correctly and you get a higher score.  This supposedly will allow to to read and identify microexpressions IRL, allowing you to be a better lie detector...  But what if it's BS?  What if all you're doing is learning to take a test better?  What if all you're doing is inflating your ego?  Whoo... it's a standardized test.. i'm "better".

All this would be fine but people believe this stuff. You have accused Mt. Gox publicly of lying and that causes real harm.  It's irresponsible to present "evidence" such as yours when it hasn't been scientifically verified.

You are an uneducated troll. I never said that I only used microexpressions to evaluate deceit.
It is a waste of time to spend it with you.

I actually study researches, not Wikipedia.
http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Paul+Ekman%22&gw=jtx&prq=Paul+Ekman&Search=Search&hp=25&wc=on

And Paul Ekman is a legend in the world of psychology and anthropology.
Stop embarrasing yourself.

[psyborgue]

I actually study researches, not Wikipedia.
http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?

No results.  Still waiting for that evidence of real world results with eckman's "Science".

[bitsalame]

I actually study researches, not Wikipedia.
http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?

No results.  Still waiting for that evidence of real world results with eckman's "Science".

Hahaha, I am done with you.
You are seriously a joke, good luck in life. I'll be tough for you.

[psyborgue]

Fact I can't find much of anything written by Eckman on jstor.  Way to "research" there, Mr. 100%.  I'm done with you.  It's past my bedtime.

[mouse]

Im personally on the 'fence' but I can confirm that Ekman is featured in psychINFO. If you don't know what this is, you shouldn't be commenting.

If anyone is interested looking up the research, as I am (i must be bored), from what I can see, Ekmans most cited contributions are:
(289 citations) Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, Vol 46(9), Sep, 1991. pp. 913-920.
(131 citations) A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, Vol 10(3), May, 1999. pp. 263-266.
(117 citations) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 72(6), Jun, 1997. pp. 1429-1439.

There may be others, but these papers seem like the big tickets. Haven't looked up METT though.

Of course, I have also come across published criticism's. Anyhoo, whatever you do, please don't argue a point (for or against) based on wikipedia!

Have fun!

ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong

[bitsalame]

Fact I can't find much of anything written by Eckman on jstor.  Way to "research" there, Mr. 100%.  I'm done with you.  It's past my bedtime.

Of course not, because you are a certified idiot.
You keep misspelling his last name, and you seem to even have difficulties on click on my link ("No Results"?, WTF?)

Seriously, life will be tough for you.

[Capitan]

Interesting post. I've never heard of this field of study so I'm not sure what to think of your analysis, but I appreciate that you put in the effort to do it and post your results here.

I also came to a similar conclusion about Gox yesterday (posted in one of the many posts I replied to yesterday), where I said that I don't necessarily believe that they are directly responsible for the hack or that they are trying to steal everyone's money/btc, but I did get the sense that they were trying to hide something. I haven't watched the video you studied in your OP, but through their posts, what they choose to talk about and what they choose not to talk about, I definitely get the sense that they are trying to cover something up. I just don't know what that is.

[bitsalame]

Im personally on the 'fence' but I can confirm that Ekman is featured in psychINFO. If you don't know what this is, you shouldn't be commenting.

If anyone is interested looking up the research, as I am (i must be bored), from what I can see, Ekmans most cited contributions are:
(289 citations) Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, Vol 46(9), Sep, 1991. pp. 913-920.
(131 citations) A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, Vol 10(3), May, 1999. pp. 263-266.
(117 citations) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 72(6), Jun, 1997. pp. 1429-1439.

There may be others, but these papers seem like the big tickets. Haven't looked up METT though.

Of course, I have also come across published criticism's. Anyhoo, whatever you do, please don't argue a point (for or against) based on wikipedia!

Have fun!

ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong

Also remember: criticisms are what makes Science great.
Cheers,

[beeph]

I dont know any of that science but yeah that was my gut reactoin.. especially on the satoshi question and the interviewer's mmmmhrmmm = *cough* bullshit *cough*

When u got millions of $$ of other people's money and u seem to be hiding something.. .. it ... doesnt... sit .... well..

And to the 18-22 year old computer guys on here who dont know how to read people... this guy is 100% right... u dont need science to confirm that analysis at all.

that TV interview was the equivalent of a hedge fund manager uttering the phrase 'accounting irregularity'

GET.. THE ... F... OUT.. IF YOU STILL CAN.

to be honest.. we dont know what they're hiding.. it could be something weird ilke his ex-gf got into his computer and that was the cause of it all.. lol.. or they're working in a sting operation to try to trap the hackers, whatever.. something weird.

[psyborgue]

ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong

You're right.  That was my bad.  But my point still stands.  He shouldn't be making accusations like he did about Mt. Gox with a "science" that is hardly universally accepted coming from a Scientist who doesn't publish his research for public review out of some "national security" concern.  Smells mighty fishy to me, as does the fact that nobody else seems to be able to replicate his results (except thru their own confirmation bias).

night all.

[bitsalame]

ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong

You're right.  That was my bad.  But my point still stands.  He shouldn't be making accusations like he did about Mt. Gox with a "science" that is hardly universally accepted coming from a Scientist who doesn't publish his research for public review out of some "national security" concern.  Smells mighty fishy to me, as does the fact that nobody else seems to be able to replicate his results (except thru their own confirmation bias).

night all.

Doesn't stand shit

You are the best example of what an academic shouldn't do:
1) Confirmation Bias
2) Hasty Generalization
3) Denial
4) And being plain ignorant, giving opinions out of their area of expertise (which is none in your case)

Based on your reasoning, how you research and what you ignore: you aren't even in college yet.
You don't even know how to identify primary sources, don't know how to interpret information, and not even know how to deduce properly without formal fallacies (lets not even talk about the informal ones). And you are absolutely oblivious about your cognitive biases.

Stop being such a pain in the ass and grow up. I see you have potential, you are inquisitive and skeptical, that is good. But you lack knowledge (lots of it) and experience (lots of it).

I am telling you for the last time: Paul Ekman is well-known, renowned, respected and even legendary in Academia (FYI that is not a MMORPG, it means the scientific community)
He is not someone obscure who opened a blog and suddenly claims to be Sai Baba.
Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.

Last advise: never spit upwards.

[KedP]

bitsalame - I'm a psychology nerd too, and I've found that it's almost impossible to discuss even basic psychology with most people on the internet. Especially internet forums.

My hypothesis is that internet forums are a social ghetto for neurotic people, and almost any kind of psychology discussion that deals in facts is threatening to someone reading.

It hits home, it makes them think of possibilities they hadn't considered, and is generally just dangerous to their idealized self-images. Half the people in these internet forums think they are automatically informed on any topic because they know how to google, or because they read a crappy news article once.

Their self-esteem defence mechanism (among other things) is always a poorly cobbled together recitation of logical fallacies (which they mis-apply) and shallow wikipedia scans which they misinterpret.

Follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[mouse]

Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.

Wow just browsing through some of his published journal articles seems he is FAR more known for his work on universals than for lying in general.
Just two examples:
(422 citations) Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, Vol 48(4), Apr, 1993. pp. 384-392.
(393) Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 17(2), Feb, 1971. pp. 124-129.
etc etc etc

interesting

[bitsalame]

bitsalame - I'm a psychology nerd too, and I've found that it's almost impossible to discuss even basic psychology with most people on the internet. Especially internet forums.

My hypothesis is that internet forums are a social ghetto for neurotic people, and almost any kind of psychology discussion that deals in facts is threatening to someone reading.

It hits home, it makes them think of possibilities they hadn't considered, and is generally just dangerous to their idealized self-images. Half the people in these internet forums think they are automatically informed on any topic because they know how to google, or because they read a crappy news article once.

Their self-esteem defence mechanism is always a poorly cobbled together recitation of logical fallacies (which they mis-apply) and shallow wikipedia scans which they misinterpret.

Follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Yeah, I know.
I am also fascinated with the "troll" phenomena in Internet... but I am against labeling them as "idiots" (although I call them idiots in their faces, lol), most of them are inexperienced young guys (and I emphasize males).
You can tell that they are still adolescents by the way they ask questions and the way they reason: they are purely theoretical, mainly because they haven't experienced life enough (ie. getting a job, washing their clothes, living alone, making their own food, researching in academia, etc...)
Older people have the "empirical" experience of life so they don't make "stupid questions".

The best sign is when they suggest us to learn "logic" (especially when we provide empirical or correlational evidence), they love debating semantics (as a fallacious rhetoric recourse), they have difficulties recognizing formal and informal fallacies (unfortunately there are adults who never learn), they wonder about what is real and what is not (it might hint some psychosis if they are adults), and my favorite: they try to define technical terms with a dictionary or find "proofs" with Wikipedia (that one is cute).
Profiling them is a piece of cake, if all of above is true: the range of their age are usually around 17 to 20.
Also the internet makes us more neurotic (troll) than in real life fueled by the anonymity because we have no real accountability for bad behavior on the net. The same effect has in mobs in real life, the more diluted our identity, the crazier things we do.

Anyhow, I better be going, I am glad to have found another "psychology nerd", KedP

[psyborgue]

Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.

Wow just browsing through some of his published journal articles seems he is FAR more known for his work on universals than for lying in general.

As far as I understand, that work is legit.  His lie detection, however doesn't seem to be.

[bitsalame]

Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.

Wow just browsing through some of his published journal articles seems he is FAR more known for his work on universals than for lying in general.

As far as I understand, that work is legit.  His lie detection, however doesn't seem to be.  GAO called BS on it a while back..

It is not really that far your understanding, you gotta admit that.
One thing we can borrow from the world of cryptography is that weak implementation doesn't mean weak algorithm.
The government is not really exemplary in implementing anything.

Lie detection is both an art and a science, and one must have both talent and dedication.
The TSA and law enforcement are mediocre and they select mediocres only (Since you like to google, I invite you to search about how the law enforcement selects only candidates with low IQ)

[psyborgue]

The government is not really exemplary in implementing anything.

I'll agree with you there.

[imperi]

The government put a man on the moon back when computers were fancy typewriters.