You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

shminux comments on Open Thread, October 13 - 19, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Coscott 14 October 2013 01:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (247)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 17 October 2013 06:10:39PM *  3 points [-]

I agree that it is a PC thing to say now in the US liberal circles that torture doesn't work. The original context was different, however: torture is not necessarily more effective than other interrogation techniques, and is often worse and less reliable, so, given its high ethical cost to the interrogator, it should not be a first-line interrogation technique. This eventually morphed into the (mostly liberal) meme "torture is always bad, regardless of the situation". This is not very surprising, lots of delicate issues end up in a silly or simplistic Schelling point, like no-spanking, zero-tolerance of drugs, no physical contact between students in school, age restrictions on sex, drinking, etc.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 18 October 2013 05:33:34AM 1 point [-]

and is often worse and less reliable

Could you provide evidence for this claim?

Comment author: shminux 18 October 2013 04:28:41PM *  0 points [-]

Going by the links on Wikipedia. A quote:

FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, the United States Army field manual, explains that torture "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."[4] Not only is torture ineffective at gathering reliable information, but it also increases the difficulty of gathering information from a source in the future.