This must be a documented phenomenon...
...but all I can think of is the Light Grenade. I've taken to reading Daylight Atheism (the blog of Andrew Marczyk, as read on Ebon Musings), and it's good stuff. Today's post talks about torture, and links to this Straight Dope thread where a guy provides a firsthand account of waterboarding himselfI didn't really know what waterboarding was
( Read more... )
Basically, your using the "don't knock it, till you try it" argument. The argument goes something like this "You can't judge experience X, unless you have undergone experience X." I find this reasoning asinine. Generally, this indicates a failure of imagination more than anything else.
There are numerous things that you and I and lots of other people have never done but can say that it would be a bad idea to try. Shoot yourself in the foot? Go to war? Douse your hair in gasoline and set it one fire? I mean the list is really endless.
As for waterboarding, that torture technique has been used for over 400 years. The fricking inquistion used it, so did the Khmer Rouge. The reason these regimes used waterboarding was that 1. it was extraordinarily effect in eliciting confessions and 2. it left no discernible physical evidence, as if nothing had happened.
I can understand how someone would have trouble understanding why this would be torture if they didn't understand what waterboarding is. I am mystified why anyone would have that problem after they researched it.
Reply
Fries in a Frosty, airplane rides, roller coasters, drugs, and sex are all experiences that don't quite add up from their constituent parts. You can guess, sure, but until you actually try it, your guess is a guess and nothing more.
Reply
I find your reasoning to be asinine here. "Don't knock it 'til you try it," in my experience, actually holds water for experiences in which all concerned parties consent to whatever activity we're talking about - what food you eat, what drugs you take, how you have sex, and so on. Also, it only works (and only should be used) when people don't know what they're talking about. Propositionally, I do know what I'm talking about here, now that I've looked it up - and I accept that, barring some wide and far-reaching conspiracy, this definitely shouldn't be forced upon anyone. But in a very important respect, I don't know what I'm talking about, because what I'm imagining is not matching up with what I'm reading. Before I experienced alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, and sex, I had radically different opinions of those things. I thought I was able to imagine what they were like, but the effects were in at least some way different than anything I'd experienced up to that point. Your examples are not what I'm talking about, not even in the same ballpark. I thought I knew what I was talking about, but in fact did not (kids who think sex is gross and nobody would willingly engage in it, despite their wonderful imaginations, are in the same ballpark here). I know what pain is like, and I know what it feels like to be struck with a projectile, or to have something unexpectedly pierce my flesh, so I can imagine what it's like - by extension - to be shot. Not exactly, of course, but I've got a damn good idea that it's extremely unpleasant. I've been in fights, I know how adrenaline and physical conflict feel, and though I've never been in a war, I can imagine some analogues that more or less stack up with firsthand accounts I've read of war, so I think my imagination's doing a good job there. I know what it's like to be burned, so I can imagine what it's like to have a fire on my scalp. Incidentally, I have had flaming plastic drip on my skin and remain burning for some time, so I know what it's like to have a sustained flame on my skin - and it is quite different from a contact burn, which I had previously thought would closely characterize the experience. We can keep going, if you like. If you list something I can imagine, I'll tell you how and why I'm able to do so. If it's something I can't, I'll do my best to account for why not. This would be tedious, though, as my point is simply that our imaginations sometimes steer us wrong.
Reply
Joe, can you imagine what it's like to be a fly? A fly is orders of magnitude your lesser, both in size and cognitive capacity, yet possesses senses and reflexes which are orders of magnitude greater than yours. I'm not asking you to imagine "Joe's mind in a fly's body," I'm asking you to imagine what it's like to be a fly. Compound eyes, six legs, wings, the coordination to use all of those in harmony, and whatever cognitive capacities - the list goes on. I'll bet you'll imagine something, if you bother to try, but that thing you'd be imagining is not what it's like to be a fly. Maybe you'd even get close, but you still wouldn't know, and I want to know. To go back to the hair-on-fire scenario, you literally don't know what it's like until it happens - how fast your hair would burn, how your bubbling scalp would feel, what it would be like for the temperature of your brain to rise (if it would, which I don't even know), et cetera. I mean, fucking duh, it's a bad idea. But I guessed at what waterboarding was like, and I was wrong, to hear these people tell it. I want to correct that error. All your other stuff completely sidesteps the point. I mean, it's not even relevant. I'm not saying it's good, or shouldn't be "knocked," I'm saying that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how the activities described result in the experiences described. I don't get it. That's all.
The issue I'm running into with waterboarding is that I know what it's like to nearly drown, to suffer at the hands of a tormentor, and to be in a life-threatening situation that's out of your control (in my case, spinning across a highway at seventy miles per hour). The elements that comprise the situation do have reference in my experience (and that's how you imagine things you haven't experienced - by piecing together things you have and then guessing). What I imagine, by piecing these bits together, simply does not stack up with what I've read. I believe (as in "trust") them, propositionally speaking, make no mistake about that - but I don't believe (as in "understand") them at the visceral level. I want to be able to do that. As I said in the post, I've got all the propositional knowledge one could need, but I'm clearly lacking procedural knowledge that would let me read the accounts and say, "Yeah, that seems about right," or even, "Yeah, I can see how someone would describe it like that." There's something different here, something I haven't experienced, and it's giving me a burning curiosity. My response is not the "Oh, my!" of bamboo under the fingernails (which I have not tried and don't want to), but the "Oh, really?" of opium (which I have tried and was totally wrong in my guess).
This is not simply some escalating intensity of a certain quality of pain, which is something I think I actually could imagine quite well; this is crippling fear we're talking about here - psychological torment, not physical. The things they're talking about seem, to me, to be sufficiently unlike anything I've ever experienced (or remember experiencing, anyway) that a first-hand investigation is warranted.
Reply
That's merely begging the question of why its necessary to have this experience. Its not as if you are arguing that waterboarding isn't torture, or that the United States should use waterboarding as an interrogation technique. So the only purpose the experience serves is to broaden your understanding.
What do you gain from this understanding, how does it benefit you? I suppose you could argue that enhancing your experiences is its own reward, but you can make that argument about anything. I am assuming, though I don't know for sure, that there are many, many things that you do not possess a visceral understanding of but that you would never try.
You would not try those things because even without a visceral understanding of those experiences (eg lighting your hair on fire), you know the negative consequences outweigh the value of the knowledge you'd gain.
Now I do believe that there's a balance to be maintained. In a general way, you are correct that experiential knowledge is an invaluable way to learn about the world--one of the most effective in fact. Furthermore, human beings, particularly Americans, are extremely biased against trying new things and learning about the world simply because its different. So on net I think its a good idea to broaden your horizons with new experiences.
However, that doesn't you throw out all evaluative judgment in order to experience something for the sake of understanding something. You need to weigh the costs and benefits.
So what are you talking about in this particular experience? You are talking about undergoing torture. In the case of waterboarding, the torture is so bad that most individuals are broken in less than 2 minutes. The trauma of torture is so severe that torture victims are psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives. And this is the experience you think is worth having?
Frankly, setting your hair on fire, or smashing your hand with a hammer, would be less foolish than undergoing torture. In the former cases, you are merely undergoing physical pain, in the later case you seriously risk damaging your psyche for the rest of your life.
Reply
Torture harms people permanently when they undergo it for extended periods of time. I won't be doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that "simulated" almost drowning is going to be more harmful to me than actually almost drowning? In that case, you should never ever go swimming, because you might almost drown. Besides, this guy doesn't look like he was tortured, he looks like he went on a jog. Mostly because he's wet, breathing heavily, and focused more on maintaining his composure than speaking eloquently.
Look, back to serious (at least for a bit). I have no doubts that this will be unpleasant, but you're using torture as a buzz-word - most likely because you've got a serious yuck factor about it. I mean, there are other reasons you'd do so, but they pretty much cluster around you deliberately trying to sway me with an emotional appeal, which - I mean - just - why would you even try that? It's not enough to simply assert that something is correctly labeled when what I don't get is why it deserves that label. Asserting the exact thing I wish to verify won't get you any argumentative ground - like the Light Grenade, I just have to pick it up and look for myself. The curiosity is so intense that I'd rather undergo the things they describe than live wondering what it's actually like. And, hey, if I turns out that this scars me for life, you can - what was it? - "pontificate on your awesome rightness" all you want. I promise, I'll sit and take it. Look, the point is, some people go skydiving, some people hook up electrodes to their genitals. It's clearly not for you, but I don't see why you're so worked up over the fact that someone who's aware of the risks wants to try it.
But if I win am un-traumatized by the experience, you totally have to put your right hand on a biology textbook and say, "Richard Dawkins is my hero and I want to have his babies." You can cross your fingers, say "not" or "psych" at the end, I don't care, just pronounce the syllables.
Reply
My purpose is polemical-I like challenging and debunking stupid ideas. For me this is no more or less than the enjoyment of a debate.
As for using torture as a buzz word and the rejoinder that I am merely begging the question by asserting a label applies when you don’t get why, I’ll say this:
I can only do so much with your conceptual limitations. Think about arguing with a young earth creationist. You can marshal all sorts of scientific evidence and empirical evidence for your case, but they still don’t get why evolutionary theory is scientific while their theory is not. Is that your shortcoming or theirs?
In the same way, the evidence that water boarding is torture is enormous. We have a historical record that goes back well over 400 years and a massive body of psychological research that proves this. Its been banned by international and US law as torture, and there are plenty of practical examples--torture regimes frequently use this technique to inflict intense pain in order to coerce confessions from their victims, which is the dictionary definition of torture.
You don’t accept the evidence because on a gut level it doesn’t make sense to you, and I’d imagine young earth creationist would say the same.
Oh my god, you didn’t cite your sources. You are engaging in argument by assertion.
Oh my gosh, that’s right. I didn’t actually cite my sources. Do you need me to type “waterboarding” in google and send you the link? I think you are capable of doing that but if not let me know.
In any case, I do want to clarify something less there be a misunderstanding and by extension also concede a point: what you intend to undergo is not water boarding. You are considering being strapped to a board and have someone make you feel like you are drowning.
That is an element of water boarding but it is not water boarding. Water boarding is using the technique in conjunction with a psychological tactic - convincing the victim that they are going to drown unless they give you what you want. There is a fundamental psychological terrorism involved that you could never implement even if you tried.
That being the case, since you aren’t undergoing torture you probably won’t suffer any lasting harm. Is it possible that undergoing that physical experience would bring you closer to understanding? Yes, its possible so are a lot of things. But is it necessary? I think not.
I amend my argument in the following way: the information you need to understand that torture is the appropriate label for water boarding is available to you now and thus makes experiencing water boarding unnecessary. Your desire to do so reminds me of the young earth creationist who intends to get a BS in biology to prove that his or her views are valid.
PS Are you arguing that electrocuting your genitals isn’t a stupid idea?
Reply
Also, I don't recall (and can't find) asking for cited sources. At any rate, part of this is also, admittedly, me wanting to know how I personally would react to such torture. Also, the thing about the psychological tactic doesn't hold water because the CIA interrogators - who use the technique and know how it's done - caved in an average of 14 seconds, and the way the guy described it in my link on the OP suggests that doing it to yourself and knowing the effects in no way diminishes the experience. That's also something I wanted to verify firsthand.
I freely acknowledge that this is adrenaline-jockeying at its finest, what I was basically working from was that even though not everyone would want to do this, I'm not rushing into it blindly: I understand the technique, I'm aware of the risks, and I'll be taking appropriate safeguards. I'm not doing it in a stupid fashion, in other words, which makes it not a stupid decision. No more than skydiving, anyway. Or hooking up your bobbly bits to a battery. For the record, I don't think that's a stupid idea in and of itself, so long as: 1) the participant is aware of the risks, 2) safeguards are in place, and 3) the participant genuinely either wants to try it, or has tried it and enjoys it. Like I said, it's not for everyone, but apparently some people get a kick out of it. What's wrong with that? To my mind, nothing - at least, nothing that couldn't be leveraged with equal weight against activities such as smoking, drinking, sports, or any other activity that risks one's welfare for a "worth it" amount of fun. (And daredevilry is definitely in my "fun" category - doing things that other people wouldn't even think of for the thrill and bragging rights.)
Reply
Leave a comment