implied doesnt mean required. you can think what you want but nothing in that statement means one of them will be a worm farmer. and no I didnt miss any details. you just think an implication means fact. which it doesnt. i suspect you’re often mislead by people exploiting this bias you have.
in order for you to be correct they would have had to state the selection mechanism for the group being considered. since they didnt, its ambiguous and you cannot infer anything from the statement.
You assumed wrong, when they provided all the information you needed.
It could be what you’re saying, but you would need to intentionally ignore the context of “which one”.
It’s funny you speak of bias, when you’re the one being biased and assuming based of everything being “randomly selected”. I read what the person said and parsed it, you didn’t.
It’s like having a police lineup where one person is a crook, it’s not some survey lmfao.
again you’re making assumptions about what information is actually in the text. im moving on I dont really give a shit that your reading comprehension is lacking. =)
No, I’m reading the words that they said and parsed them, without any previous knowledge, why would the assumption be random? That’s adding details that aren’t even there lol.
You realize that resulting to insults you mind as well just wave a flag saying you’re wrong.
A lineup (like a police lineup) is exactly that. One is the suspect and the rest are there to ensure that you can accurately identify the actual suspect to be used later in court.
You realize that a police line is literally random selection (including the perp) right? thats kind of the point. There is no guarentee that the ‘perp’ is the actual criminal despite the officers or the witnesses opinions on the matter.
You’re right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You’re wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
they (and people like yourself) believe they do, but errors in information/how they interpret information that led to the selection of any given individual makes even the perp brought in by the police potentially random.
the ‘intent’ of the police is immaterial to the facts of how the process actually unfolds. when your high confidence witness’ produce a 12.5% error rate on a line up between 6-8 people. you are literally in the realm of a coin toss. in that study the %ages for when the witness selected a filler were worse than random.
now agreeably the police are often essentially running a drakes equation for selecting the perp. but thats still entirely reliant on the quality of the information they are using for their identification. and often the line up is run early in the investigation. where they may only have eye witness information.
and since none of that information was provided by the OP you dont get to assume anything about it.
you realize that the ‘perp’ is also essentially randomly selected right? or do you believe cops always find their guy immediately on the first attempt without ever making mistakes?
jesus you people are guillible idiots if you believe the line up selection is anything but random. ‘they had a wide long nose’ police proceed to round up people they think have wide long noses. Randomly grabbing people with long noses is still randomly grabbing people.
witness memory is notoriously bad. between the witness’ memory faults (and inaccurately describing what they saw) and the police doing what you twits are doing and ‘inferring’ (potentially) incorrect information from whats stated the ‘perp’ round up or playing other games with line up manipulation to force a choice: lines ups are essentially no better than random. oh look we only put one person with defining feature on the line cause they’re definitely our guy. jfc.
Results showed that the accuracy of the witnesses’ identifications depended on the instructions the researchers gave them. The differences between the two sets of instructions were subtle: One set implied that the witness had to choose among the suspects in the lineup, while the other set implied that the witness did not have to make a choice. The researchers then included the real “criminal” in the lineup only half the time.
You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don’t want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you’ve been terribly wrong this whole time. I can’t wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren’t real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you’re right.
No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.
The suspect, along with several “fillers” or “foils”—people of similar height, build, and complexion who may be prisoners, actors, police officers, or volunteers—stand side-by-side, both facing and in profile. There is crucial information that should be conveyed to the eyewitness prior to viewing the lineup. It is necessary to inform the eyewitness that it is possible the perpetrator is not present in the lineup.[1]
I was assuming it wasn’t a setup.
and it wouldnt be. the chances of 1 of 10 randomly picked individuals running a worm farm is very low.
They never said random.
I was assuming that most scenarios where you’re asked to spot the worm farmer are bogus.
That’s just what Big Worm wants you to think.
they never said a preselected group either. ah the ambiguities of the english language =)
They did, it’s implied, heavily.
Asking “which one” means one is.
It’s not ambiguous, you just missed important detials.
implied doesnt mean required. you can think what you want but nothing in that statement means one of them will be a worm farmer. and no I didnt miss any details. you just think an implication means fact. which it doesnt. i suspect you’re often mislead by people exploiting this bias you have.
in order for you to be correct they would have had to state the selection mechanism for the group being considered. since they didnt, its ambiguous and you cannot infer anything from the statement.
It’s okay to admit you were wrong.
You assumed wrong, when they provided all the information you needed.
It could be what you’re saying, but you would need to intentionally ignore the context of “which one”.
It’s funny you speak of bias, when you’re the one being biased and assuming based of everything being “randomly selected”. I read what the person said and parsed it, you didn’t.
It’s like having a police lineup where one person is a crook, it’s not some survey lmfao.
again you’re making assumptions about what information is actually in the text. im moving on I dont really give a shit that your reading comprehension is lacking. =)
No, I’m reading the words that they said and parsed them, without any previous knowledge, why would the assumption be random? That’s adding details that aren’t even there lol.
You realize that resulting to insults you mind as well just wave a flag saying you’re wrong.
A lineup (like a police lineup) is exactly that. One is the suspect and the rest are there to ensure that you can accurately identify the actual suspect to be used later in court.
You realize that a police line is literally random selection (including the perp) right? thats kind of the point. There is no guarentee that the ‘perp’ is the actual criminal despite the officers or the witnesses opinions on the matter.
You’re right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You’re wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
they (and people like yourself) believe they do, but errors in information/how they interpret information that led to the selection of any given individual makes even the perp brought in by the police potentially random.
the ‘intent’ of the police is immaterial to the facts of how the process actually unfolds. when your high confidence witness’ produce a 12.5% error rate on a line up between 6-8 people. you are literally in the realm of a coin toss. in that study the %ages for when the witness selected a filler were worse than random.
now agreeably the police are often essentially running a drakes equation for selecting the perp. but thats still entirely reliant on the quality of the information they are using for their identification. and often the line up is run early in the investigation. where they may only have eye witness information.
and since none of that information was provided by the OP you dont get to assume anything about it.
That person still isn’t randomly selected, they are selected because they look similar to the suspected perp.
This person is thinking they’ll just grab anyone walking in front of the police station, that’s just wrong on every level.
“Literally a random selection except for the person not randomly selected”
Lol you have to be joking, right?
you realize that the ‘perp’ is also essentially randomly selected right? or do you believe cops always find their guy immediately on the first attempt without ever making mistakes?
jesus you people are guillible idiots if you believe the line up selection is anything but random. ‘they had a wide long nose’ police proceed to round up people they think have wide long noses. Randomly grabbing people with long noses is still randomly grabbing people.
witness memory is notoriously bad. between the witness’ memory faults (and inaccurately describing what they saw) and the police doing what you twits are doing and ‘inferring’ (potentially) incorrect information from whats stated the ‘perp’ round up or playing other games with line up manipulation to force a choice: lines ups are essentially no better than random. oh look we only put one person with defining feature on the line cause they’re definitely our guy. jfc.
Here you go: some light reading on police line ups (hilariously there is a paragraph in this article that exactly matches this post and how it influences choice) https://www.apa.org/topics/forensics-law-public-safety/eyewitness-accuracy-police-lineups
you fucking morons.
😂
You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don’t want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you’ve been terribly wrong this whole time. I can’t wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren’t real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you’re right.
No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.
You just aren’t all there are you?