Regarding snb's statement "My response was that we really can't read people's minds, and that there are a lot of hidden factors that probably go into their motivation and that it isn't worth it to try and figure them out. His response was that we can glean motives based on behavior."

I was on a jury for a criminal case once, for part of the verdict, we had to determine the "intent" (motive) of the person committing the crime. The instructions to the Jury included a discussion on valid and invalid ways of using behavior to determine "intent". The question was if the defendant was guilty of a premeditated racially motivated hate crime. All we had to look at was behavior as presented in court. Had the charge been "racially motivated hate crime", we would have convicted, his behavior clearly showed a hate for the race, a lack of need to inflict the injury, a statement that the injured deserved because of his race, etc.. Even in the courtroom, the defendant showed a hate for the race of the person that he had injured. The problem was, the behavior of the defendant prior to the crime indicated that he could not have known that a person of that race would have been at the crime scene. Since he could not have known there would have been a person of that race at the crime scene, it was difficult to say that he went to that spot motivated by the idea of harming someone of that race, and the location was chosen for other reasons, ease of robbing. So, the behavior of the person indicated that his motive for this charge was indeed a racially motivated hate crime, but his behavior did not indicate any thing that would indicate premeditation, indeed, the motive for the rest of the crimes was clearly to get money for highly addictive drugs (again, a conclusion based on the behavior of the defendant).

That is a long winded explanation of how I came to learn that the USA legal system certainly believes that one can determine motive by looking at behavior, since we were instructed to use the person's behavior to determine just that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2011 09:57PM by MJ.

It can be difficult to guess motivations on the board, because we cannot see people, but there is plenty of obvious trollish behavior by certain posters. Sometimes guessing motivations is not particularly relevant, because actions speak for themselves.

snb has admitted to trolling. People who troll like to think they are above the simpletons, and that they have outsmarted everyone. To me, adamant statements that no one can tell, or that no one really knows what anyone is up to, shows arrogance.

it shows the behavior of someone being secretive and disengenuous.(excuse the spelling)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2011 10:16PM by wine country girl.

First, mistaking anger for laughing is misjudging emotional state.

And I think you are right about the the thinking of trolls.

BTW, could you email me at 1mj{at}mail.com?

If me, why? Just wondering, because I have very good reasons for not socializing off the board. The exmo world can be too small of a place, and I just went through a lot of PTSD in the last day or so related to something that is constantly bothering me.

I am not perfect at spotting manipulators, but I have seen too many in my life, sometimes not until it was too late. Trolls are definitely manipulators. I never had to deal with them until I came to this board.

"posters probably thought I was angry when I was laughing."

Got my comment, "mistaking anger for laughing is misjudging emotional state." and I hope you can see how that relates even thought I reversed what was mistaken for what. Anger and laughing being signs of emotional states and all. Just because someone is angry does not qualify the anger as a motive.

Your statement "It can be difficult to guess motivations on the board, because..." was what sparked "Yes, it can be difficult" from me.

And your statements "People who troll like to think they are above the simpletons, and that they have outsmarted everyone. To me, adamant statements that no one can tell, or that no one really knows what anyone is up to, shows arrogance." Was the reason for my "And I think you are right about the the thinking of trolls." statement.

Hope that clears things up.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2011 10:42PM by MJ.

It has to do with some frustrations you have been voicing lately. The first time I asked you to Email was in a thread that got deleted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2011 10:52PM by MJ.

You have written some very mean and nasty things to people. I don't believe you were laughing when you did that, and I don't care if you were angry. Don't try and justify those things by pretending that you were doing it in jest or were doing it with a light heart.

I'm not a troll, and you are taking my comment of admitting to trolling well out of context. If you think I am a troll, please report me and allow the admins to deal with me. Even if you do that you need to know that I won't stop calling you to task when you are being nasty. That will not happen whether you ask me to or not.

Obviously you don't like me, and obviously I don't care. My suggestion is to get over it. It really isn't a big deal. You don't have to like me, but you really shouldn't hijack people's threads to talk about it.

You point out the difficulty in determining the motive for one act when you had a criminal trial where the both sides had subpoena power and a judge and bailiff to force testimony and another side to cross-examine.

If it's difficult to determine motive in that situation it's downright impossible in the average situation.

Behavior is behavior. If you can determine motive by behavior described in the courtroom, you can determine motive by behavior seen in real life.

The courtroom is not magic, it does not change what we can learn from watching behavior.

If we can learn motives from behavior in the court room, we can learn motives from that behavior outside the court room. That is why they use behavior to ferret out motive, because behavior is often indicative of motive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2011 12:33AM by MJ.

That seems a bit circular. We know the motive from the behavior. How do you know the motive from the behavior? Well we assume a certain motive goes with a certain behavior. And how do you test whether or not you are correct? Well we notice the behavior and from that can see the motive.

I think that most people are not aware of their own motives, much less the motives of someone else. In a court room you have to decide minimal motive. Did the person INTEND to take the money? Whereas in reality there is a broad spectrum to be applied to motive. Did they intend to take the money to pay for Uncle Tanuse's operation? Did they intend to take the money to buy a fancy car so they could feel good driving by Becky Thatcher's house? Did they intend to take the money to donate it to BYU and further God's cause? Did they intend to take the money in order to get caught and put in prison where they could avoid problems in the real world that they felt were crushing? etc.

If I say "A" is true in a courtroom and "A" is true outside a court room, how is that circular? Oh, and your logic in that first paragraph is so flawed I will be snickering about it for a week.


How can I judge motive from behavior? If, after a big fight with his boss, I see the person leave work then come back in 1/2 hour with a shot gun, he walks right into the bosses office and kills the boss, I would say it safe to say that the motive for returning to work with the shotgun was to kill the boss. And I would say that there is enough information to say that the motive was premeditated murder. The motive for killing the boss likely involved the fight. Yes, walking into a place with a shotgun, walking up to a particular person and killing them is "a certain motive goes with a certain behavior" The motive for why he had the gun was a "certain motive" for killing the person, "a certain behavior".

The motive for returning to work with a gun was determined by direct observation WITHOUT a judge telling a witness to tell the truth, without subpoena power, without any power of the court.

A likely motive for the murder was also determined just by OBSERVING BEHAVIOR, NO COURT WAS NEEDED.

I was in the store the other day, I saw someone walk in, use the bank ATM to get cash. I can determine that the motive for coming into the store was to use the ATM and get cash. Same thing, getting cash was the certain motive for the certain behavior of going into the store and using the ATM.

In that same store, I saw a woman with a full cart of groceries push the cart into line and pay for those groceries. From that I can determine that one of her motives for going into that store was to stock up on some groceries. There may have been other motives, but I can determine that she did indeed intend to by groceries when she walked into the store. Again, a certain motive goes with the certain behavior of going into the store to buy groceries.

I am frankly stunned at the number of people that say they can not determine motives by watching behavior.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 09:34AM by MJ.

Glad to be able to give you a laugh.

However, all your examples are of the shallowest aspect of motive. Got cash from the ATM machine because they wanted to get cash from the ATM machine. Motive for stocking up on groceries at the store was to stock up on groceries at the store. You seem to be in a circular loop. You restate the behavior and then say the motive was to perform the behavior. He shot the boss because he wanted to shoot the boss.

This seems to skip over the whole point of the concept of "motive."

Now with your little "shallow" remark you are trying to say that we should only be speaking about a form of motive that suites YOUR stance and not the full meaning of the word motive.

And dude, reread what I wrote I never claimed "Got cash from the ATM machine because they wanted to get cash from the ATM machine. Motive for stocking up on groceries at the store was to stock up on groceries at the store."

I said the motive for USING the ATM was getting cash. That is a valid statement of motive, but one has to wonder WHY you seemingly PURPOSIVELY had to misrepresent what I said, WHY? WHY DID YOU MISREPRESENT WHAT I SAID? Is your case that weak that you can not address what I ACTUALLY said in a FAIR way???

Do you even KNOW what the word motive means?

if you could place your argument within the board context. A hypothetical issue or topic perhaps? An instance where motive is "easy" to determine or otherwise "obvious"?

I think sometimes motive is quite easy to ascertain. Other times, not so much. But it would help me see your point if you could create a board-related example of what you mean.

It would not matter what context I would use, I would still get the same auto negation crap.

Sorry for not responding, I've been out of town for the last week or so.

I think that is a really interesting experience. My only question would be whether or not the USA justice system could compare to posters on the board. When you sit on a jury, you take serious time and examine serious evidence of a crime that was committed. Not only that, but you are face to face.

My take is that your opinions are significantly more informed in that setting than what you can find on this board. Do you see an equivalence that I am not seeing?

Because examining motives to determine motive WORKS.

Determine motive by observing behavior does not MAGICALLY start working when it is in a court room them MAGICALLY STOP working when one leaves the court room.

If you take the time to examine the behavior, then it works if the time and the examination are done in a jury box, or it is done on this board. This, of course does require that enough behavior is observable to make the determination.

But the simple fact is if you do the examination, it works inside and OUTSIDE the court room. I seriously do not get why folks seem to thin a method of determine motive works ONLY in a courtroom and STOPS working when you leave the court room. Often outside in real life you get MORE information from actually observing the person DO the behavior. In the court room you often never get to see the actual behavior. You know, it is sort of like a picture is worth a thousand words? A person's description is never going to be as good as actually seeing it.

Oh, and if you have ever been in an American court room, you would know that, though the defendant is in the courtroom you can see very little of their behavior. They are just sitting there and they will likely never testify, so it is likely that you will never even speak much less exhibit any behavior of his OWN to base your opinion on. So, despite the fact that you are as you say "face to face" it does not do any good as far as determining intent in regards to a crime, I'm surprised that you even tried to make that association. What you get are descriptions of behavior from eye witnesses. Oh, and those descriptions from eye witnesses may be the ONLY "serious evidence" of the crime. When I was on a jury the only "serious evidence" we got was testimony of eye witnesses DESCRIBING the behavior. I do not think that the court room experience is as cut and dry or as MAGICAL as you seem to make it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 05:06AM by MJ.

"I'm surprised that you even tried to make that association."

No need to be surprised, I'm just trying to get you to explain a bit more what you are trying to convey.

"I do not think that the court room experience is as cut and dry or as MAGICAL as you seem to make it."

I'm not trying to make the court room seem magical. Did I say something about court rooms that made you think that?

By no means am I trying to be contrary, but I don't see how posting on this board is anything similar to your experience as a juror. They seem to me to be very different, though I have never been a juror so I don't have any experience with which to judge.

"I seriously do not get why folks seem to thin a method of determine motive works ONLY in a courtroom and STOPS working when you leave the court room."

I'm with you, I wouldn't understand it if someone felt that way either. I certainly don't feel this way. I am skeptical of a jury's ability to judge motive and am sure that juries and court systems have gotten things wrong plenty of times.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I'm not trying to make the court room seem
> magical. Did I say something about court rooms
> that made you think that?
>

Your question "My only question would be whether or not the USA justice system could compare to posters on the board." Followed by a list of statements about the American court room that that can be done both inside and outside the court room. Being face to face is actually way more affective OUTSIDE the courtroom than in. Indeed posting behavior could be more affective outside the court room than face to face in the courtroom because you actually get to interact with the person and TEST them. Since what you stated can go on both inside and outside the court room, indeed can even be MORE AFFECTIVE outside the courtroom, I had to assume that there was some magic that rendered those tools useless outside the courtroom or on this board. That claim, the claim about magic, to me, is far less insulting than the alternative theory I had for your claim, that you were just making claims out of shear ignorance.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 07:10AM by MJ.

Outside the court room we can't ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question. Outside the courtroom we don't have subpoena power. Outside the courtroom we don't have witnesses sworn to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. Outside the court room we usually don't have a expert witnesses who have done a psychological evaluation. Outside the courtroom we don't have forensic examination of a scene.

And still I maintain that although the U.S. Justice system does try to determine motive, it can't claim to be infallible. In fact after every trial where the motive was the main point (was it first-degree murder or was it manslaughter?) the losing side claims that the jury got it wrong. Often in such trials if the verdict is overturned on appeal a subsequent jury can find differently than the first. Case in point: Andrea Yates in Texas.

Deducing motive from behavior is VERY difficult and fraught with pitfalls.

Nothing you have said changes anything. Judge instructing someone to answer a question only changes what information is available. It DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN NOT LEARN FROM BEHAVIOR. Your point is MOOT.

Same with subpoena power, Subpoena power only changes what information is available. It DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN NOT LEARN FROM BEHAVIOR. Your point is MOOT.

"Outside the courtroom we don't have witnesses sworn to tell the truth under penalty " If I personally see a particular behavior, then I do not need a "witness" regardless of if they are telling the truth or not. Again this affects how information is gained and what is available, It DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN NOT LEARN FROM BEHAVIOR. Your point is MOOT.

Yes, expert witnesses are ANOTHER WAY of learning about something, but the fact that expert witnesses are used in court DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN NOT LEARN FROM BEHAVIOR. Your point is MOOT.

Not ONE of your points addressed the issue I RAISED about being able to judge motives by observing behavior. Oh, and every one of those was fallible as well. NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS PERFECT there is NO way to judge motivative that is 100% accurate. So if you want to invalidate methods of judging based on the fact that it isn't 100% accurate you would have to invalidate EVERY WAY OF JUDGING ANYTHING.

Nice try and using red herrings and irrelevant claims to try to baffle with BS, though.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 09:35AM by MJ.

My point, is that inside a courtroom we have means to access information that we don't have outside the court room. Yet still the question of determining motive is difficult and nuanced. That point is not moot.

You'd better edit one more time.

And you have dodged the issue of how cyber reality is different from daily life. (Since they're both outside a courtroom, then they are the same, with the same detection skills working for each?) Answer snb's objection--this is what you always tell other posters: to address your specific point.

Got a valid point to make or you going to just pick at mistakes and make claims that don't really amount to anything?

Oh, and just to be clear, I can tell the motive of a lot of people that post to this page is to discuss issues regarding their recovery from Mormonism and to discuss other issues in regards to Mormonism.

That is pretty easy to tell just by reading what they have typed, which is essentially watching their behavior, since communicating via a message board IS BEHAVIOR.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 09:22AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and just to be clear, I can tell the motive of
> a lot of people that post to this page is to
> discuss issues regarding their recovery from
> Mormonism and to discuss other issues in regards
> to Mormonism.

And the motive of people who march in a Gay Pride parade is ...to support gay rights. Right?

> ... communicating via a message
> board IS BEHAVIOR.

But mistaking words while communicating is NOT part of that behavior?

Let me try to address what I THINK you are trying to say. Forgive me if I get it wrong but what you say makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

"And the motive of people who march in a Gay Pride parade is ...to support gay rights. Right?"

If the contingent they are marching in is a contingent that is working to support gay rights, then yes, that would be the motive for marching in the parade. I think the misguided assumption that you are operating under is that gay pride parades ONLY promote gay rights. That would be a false assumption. Since there are many things promoted pride parades (notice they are not called gay civil rights parades) Bars, politicians, social groups, sports groups, medical causes, etc., it would be a major mistake to compare marching in a multi purpose gay pride parade to posting to a single purpose board like RfM. And, of course I did mention that I actually read what they were trying to communicate to determine the REASON (another word for MOTIVE) for posting.

"But mistaking words while communicating is NOT part of that behavior?" I am not sure what point you are trying to make with that statement, but no method of determine motive is 100% accurate, if you are trying to say that my method should not be used because it is not 100% accurate then that same reasoning would disqualify EVERY method.

"That claim, the claim about magic, to me, is far less insulting than the alternative theory I had for your claim, that you were just making claims out of shear ignorance."

Ahh, so the real purpose of this entire exercise is brought out. You just wanted to insult me.

Well MJ, I'm here to have an actual conversation, so I'll ignore it.

"Being face to face is actually way more affective OUTSIDE the courtroom than in."

Interesting, I'm glad you told me. Like I said, I've never had the opportunity to be a juror.

"I had to assume that there was some magic that rendered those tools useless outside the courtroom or on this board."

Did you really make that assumption? I think you are being disingenuous.

Look, you can't say I didn't try to understand what you were saying. Despite your claims that I think courtrooms are magical and that I am ignorant, I plowed through the insults and gave your thoughts a fair chance.

I'm still skeptical of the idea that you, or I, or anybody else can determine motive most of the time on a message board. I'm also skeptical of the idea that a jury could determine motive correctly a significant amount of the time.

Perhaps you are convinced that you can determine motive. I don't believe that ability exists here on this message board, but if it did, I wish I had it :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2011 11:28AM by snb.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "That claim, the claim about magic, to me, is far
> less insulting than the alternative theory I had
> for your claim, that you were just making claims
> out of shear ignorance."
>
> Ahh, so the real purpose of this entire exercise
> is brought out. You just wanted to insult me.
>


Get real, I saw two possible MOTIVES for your statements, both of them could be considered insulting, I used the LEAST insulting choice because I did NOT want to insult you.

Gezzz, if you do not want people having no other way to describe your behavior than in insulting terms, you should NOT use such stupid arguments. And I was calling your arguments stupid not you.


Go play your Mormon victim role on someone that will buy into it. Quote frankly your arguments were so bad they were a constant insult to my intelligence. That you seemed to think I was so stupid as to actually accept your arguments as reasonable was a constant insult to me.

The two motives that you think I might have had were dead wrong. If you want to know my motive, you should just ask. The fact is, I enjoy debates and I love it when my thoughts are challenged. That was my motive for responding to your thread.

In retrospect, I think that you probably just wanted to pick a fight. This entire thread turned into an MJ rage dump and I feel bad now for responding in the first place.