Pat Flannery wrote:
Me wrote:

BAM! Lookitthat, suckas! I am DA TOP MAN on kook-bat's paranoia
****list! Numero Uno! In your FACE, posers! You be OWNED!


I didn't even rank apparently...how far I have dropped from my former
days of grandeur as an incest-cloned Borg. :-(

Pat

Yes, I've replaced you because I've taken the trouble to read Brad's
**** and tell him where his ideas diverge from reality in detail. I'll
be quiet for a while and see how the frequency drops - that tells a lot
about deep psychological processes.

Hah... my ex-wife did her PhD thesis on response latency. That's the
time it takes between being presented with a question and giving an
answer. Detailed analysis of response latency, some say analysis of
the silences in a conversation, can give you very interesting clues as
to how data is structured in a person's head.

For example, you might ask a person if a bird has feathers. they might
say 'yes' and it might take 0.1 seconds for them to respond. Then, you
might ask if a bird has a beak, and they might say 'yes' and take 0.11
seconds to respond. Then, you might ask of a bird has skin. They
might say 'yes' and it might take 0.2 seconds to respond.

What's up with that?

Well, there may be an intermediate thought process that connects skin
and bird. For example, a bird is an animal an animals have skin...

The interesting thing is that a detailed analysis of 100 questions -
shades of Ridley Scott's Voigt Kampff test in Blade Runner (do androids
dream of electric sheep!) - but instead of involuntary dialation of the
iris, or other biometric factors, this particular test looks at
silences - the response latency of response. And from that we can
build the distances between articles of knowledge.

The cool thing is that you can find out things you don't ask directly
about. For example, you can find out about a thing called animals, but
you never asked about animals diretly - you only asked about skin!

Another cool thing is that response latency relates to the structure of
knowledge even if someone is lying. So, if the answers were 'no'
above, the response latency structure would be preserved, perhaps with
a little distortion.

What this means is that you can analyze the recording of two people
talking to one another - and both of them are lying through their teeth
- nevertheless, a careful analysis of what they're saying - looking at
the response latency - you can find out about something that neither of
these liars ever even mentioned!!!!

Talk about a powerful technique! Its almost as good as ESP. In fact,
when we are able to build mental models, or models of the brain
accurately, expect 'mind reading' computer programs to be developed
that examines all the silent signs of knowledge and is able to
efficiently analyze them to garner a great wealth of knowledge...
hahaha