I have a theory about confessions people make. I don't know that it applies to all confessions though. If it did then our judicial system has adopted a shortcut which unintentionally has made the natural back-and-forth process of the mind into a sword for the accused to fall on. Exploiting how our minds work without being 100% sure we understand them is the part that's backwards.
Let's explore the potential problem with a simple scenario:
A Seeker of Truth has been assigned to question a Source of Answers about possible wrong doing. The Seeker may ask questions however they want but let's narrow that down a bit. The Seeker may ask questions the following ways:
- By an in-person audible voice:
- The Seeker's voice.
- Another individual's voice who Is Not Named.
- By a not-in-person audible voice:
- Someone other than the Seeker and who Is Not Named.
- By recording the Source of Answers audible voice.
- By recording the Source of Answers below audible voice.
- By recording every conceivable physical detail of the Source.
Sounds ok so far? Maybe? Do you have a slightly nervous feeling over how it's narrowed down?
Let's resolve that.
A Seeker may also ask questions:
- By an in-person subliminal voice:
- The Seeker's voice.
- Another individual's voice who Is Not Named.
- By a not-in-person subliminal voice:
- Someone other than the Seeker and who Is Not Named.
A Seeker should never use any answer from a Source unless it's the audible voice answer. That's the only one allowed. But a Seeker is aware of all the questions and how they're asked. So there's nothing to prevent a Seeker from forming questions based on the unconscious answers he or she can see.
The Seeker them says to the Source: You just answered a question.
The Source says: No, I didn't.
The Seeker says: Yes, you did. How else could we know about ______?
The Source says: No, I didn't.
The Seeker leaves the room to speak with an Oracle. One says to the Oracle "is it going to work". The Oracle predicts "just watch".
For the Source of Truth, they've just been lied to - or not been lied to. To resolve the information provided by a potential compulsive liar, a certain back-and-forth is required:
The Source:. I said what?
The Source: I said that?
The Source: I said that?
The Source: I said that.
The Source: I said that?
Suddenly there exists something that can be perceived as a confession - if only briefly
The next post (and I hate to do an "on the next episode" thing like the TV show soap used too...). You'll learn why some idiot with no formal training or education or experience in things relationship or psychological will soon be claiming that the first type of crime with convictions that need to be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY stricken from the books is:
Any conviction that was based on a confession.
No comments:
Post a Comment