How many of the accounts at MtGox were abandoned? And what happens to the bitcoins that were in those accounts, since they presumably will not be claimed?
Topic: Non-Verbal Analysis of statements by Mark and Adam (MtGox) (Read 7733 times)
FYI - I nod at everything. It's a habit I've picked up here in Japan from teaching english. Nodding at students as they literally piece sentences together shows I understand, and encourages students that would otherwise be shy/nervous when trying to express their thought or opinions. In the last 8 months I've been here I haven't met many english speakers, so 95% of the time I speak english it is with non-native speakers. I've found this mannerism has carried over. I also tend to over express everything with my face (I'm very aware of this) so I don't know how it would reflect in this kind of assessment. (I think it may distort, rather than amplify, judging from what you were able to puzzle together). By prescreening our reactions with information that may or may not be true, your assessment is at the mercy of your own confirmation bias. Its definitely was amusing to read however. 
Honestly the confirmation bias is not possible because before watching the interview I was actually burning you guys in a pillar, but after watching your interview I realized you guys were honest people who fucked up, but honest nevertheless. My opinion about you guys changed drastically.
Regarding to nodding a lot because of the culture, it doesn't really matter. There are several types of expressions, some are universal and others are culture-specific.
The universal ones are primarily based on emotional and physiological responses, the gestures related to the culture are learned and have specific meanings (For example: the A-OK gesture used in the US means literally "ass hole" in Brazil, "zero" or "money" in Japan and Korea, etc...).
If it seems to be complicated enough, this is just the beginning: you must add the context and the baseline: how often and in what situation you repeat certain gestures. If you cross your arms: is it because you are distancing yourself, you feel threatened or is it because it is cold?
If I detect a microexpression (which is involuntary facial expression in about 1/25th of a second, which reveals concealed emotions) I must ask what actually triggered it.
There are several other details that weights up in the final evaluation.
Up to here I talked only about non-verbal signs, there is a whole another world based on verbal analysis that I haven't mentioned.
Each sign might not be significant by themselves (although there are specific signs that are direct tell-tales of deception), but when factored all together, and if they support each other, the probability of being truthful is strengthened.
In emotion based deceits, when your verbal declaration and non-verbal expression contradicts each other, basically shows that you are being deceitful (simple examples: like saying you are confident with your shoulders crouched or saying you are happy with oblique eyebrows or without the contraction of the orbicularis oculi muscle)
Adam, when Mark talks about Mt.Gox's account your face is priceless. Your facial expressions goes haywire, and it is the only time in the whole interview where you actually had microexpressions.
Also, something you might not have realized is that you only nod if you agree with something, and thanks to your love to preciseness it becomes a tell-tale: If you had a "red" car and your student said it's "burgundy" you wouldn't nod, you would tilt your head sideways.
Cheers,
It is called the baseline. For example, when the question about MtGox's account is popped out triggers a series of gestures and microexpressions that aren't repeated ever again in the whole video.
I don't doubt that you are excellent at novelty detection.
It indicates that "something is going on", but we can't be certain the real reasons of that feeling.
Despite that, you seem to make some very direct claims.
Now I am 90% sure that the account was theirs.
When someone says they are 90% sure of something, they tend to be wrong much more than 10% of the time. A subjective percentage estimate tends to be strongly biased by "gut feeling", which tends not to mean shit in science. I would strongly recommend against using numerical estimates outside of hard science where you have actual numerical data to base such an estimate on. You have one single sample of a magic hand gesture. Your interpretation of this one sample is almost surely biased by the fact that you had already made a conclusion before this additional data became available.
Update - Jackpot: I just found a particular gesture that is equivalent to a non-verbal confession (Thanks Adam! ^^ ).
That is hilarious. You have concluded that a particular gesture made by a particular person that you haven't met, that you don't know the mental state of, and that you don't know the motives of, has an exact meaning.
My preliminary veredict: they have definitely something to hide (probably they directly fucked up and did something really stupid/embarrasing) and they don't want us to know, but they have good intentions, they seem to really have put measures to prevent the mistakes and toughen the system, and they are pretty much honest about the business.
The problem here is that, after all that effort analysing it, I could have easily made the same conclusion without watching the video at all. Of course they did something stupid, their fucking database got leaked. Of course they don't want you to know. Of course they're going to be honest about their business.
UPDATE: I found another very supporting sign related to it the MtGox Account, it made it earn a second "+"
Q: Who would keep 100K+ BTC in an online account?
A: Someone who trusts the site and is confident that it is secure.
Q: Who would actually trust Mt Gox, and who is in a position to assess its security?
A: The owner of Mt Gox.
I didn't even watch the video, and I already have a pretty good idea of who owned the account.
Only if it's a very strong light, otherwise the odds are it will get absorbed on the way or back (or the photons will stray from target bouncing in the turbulent atmosphere and never hit the mirror or if they do they will miss the sensor on the way back)
I'm pretty sure the 500,000 bitcoins were theirs. I never had much doubt about that.
One question arises from this, should it be true that MtGox has 500,000 BTC (or whatever the amount) in their own exchange.
Is one actually allowed to trade on the exchange you own? If so, the person trading should not have access to anything than public info, otherwise, it is insider trading.
The government put a man on the moon back when computers were fancy typewriters.
or did they!??!
'dun dun dun'
There's a mirror on the moon that you can shine light at and it comes back at you.
The government put a man on the moon back when computers were fancy typewriters.
or did they!??!
'dun dun dun'
The government put a man on the moon back when computers were fancy typewriters.
The government is not really exemplary in implementing anything.
I'll agree with you there. Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.
Wow just browsing through some of his published journal articles seems he is FAR more known for his work on universals than for lying in general.
As far as I understand, that work is legit. His lie detection, however doesn't seem to be. GAO called BS on it a while back..
It is not really that far your understanding, you gotta admit that.
One thing we can borrow from the world of cryptography is that weak implementation doesn't mean weak algorithm.
The government is not really exemplary in implementing anything.
Lie detection is both an art and a science, and one must have both talent and dedication.
The TSA and law enforcement are mediocre and they select mediocres only (Since you like to google, I invite you to search about how the law enforcement selects only candidates with low IQ)
Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.
Wow just browsing through some of his published journal articles seems he is FAR more known for his work on universals than for lying in general.
As far as I understand, that work is legit. His lie detection, however doesn't seem to be.
bitsalame - I'm a psychology nerd too, and I've found that it's almost impossible to discuss even basic psychology with most people on the internet. Especially internet forums.
My hypothesis is that internet forums are a social ghetto for neurotic people, and almost any kind of psychology discussion that deals in facts is threatening to someone reading.
It hits home, it makes them think of possibilities they hadn't considered, and is generally just dangerous to their idealized self-images. Half the people in these internet forums think they are automatically informed on any topic because they know how to google, or because they read a crappy news article once.
Their self-esteem defence mechanism is always a poorly cobbled together recitation of logical fallacies (which they mis-apply) and shallow wikipedia scans which they misinterpret.
Follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
My hypothesis is that internet forums are a social ghetto for neurotic people, and almost any kind of psychology discussion that deals in facts is threatening to someone reading.
It hits home, it makes them think of possibilities they hadn't considered, and is generally just dangerous to their idealized self-images. Half the people in these internet forums think they are automatically informed on any topic because they know how to google, or because they read a crappy news article once.
Their self-esteem defence mechanism is always a poorly cobbled together recitation of logical fallacies (which they mis-apply) and shallow wikipedia scans which they misinterpret.
Follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Yeah, I know.
I am also fascinated with the "troll" phenomena in Internet... but I am against labeling them as "idiots" (although I call them idiots in their faces, lol), most of them are inexperienced young guys (and I emphasize males).
You can tell that they are still adolescents by the way they ask questions and the way they reason: they are purely theoretical, mainly because they haven't experienced life enough (ie. getting a job, washing their clothes, living alone, making their own food, researching in academia, etc...)
Older people have the "empirical" experience of life so they don't make "stupid questions".
The best sign is when they suggest us to learn "logic" (especially when we provide empirical or correlational evidence), they love debating semantics (as a fallacious rhetoric recourse), they have difficulties recognizing formal and informal fallacies (unfortunately there are adults who never learn), they wonder about what is real and what is not (it might hint some psychosis if they are adults), and my favorite: they try to define technical terms with a dictionary or find "proofs" with Wikipedia (that one is cute).
Profiling them is a piece of cake, if all of above is true: the range of their age are usually around 17 to 20.
Also the internet makes us more neurotic (troll) than in real life fueled by the anonymity because we have no real accountability for bad behavior on the net. The same effect has in mobs in real life, the more diluted our identity, the crazier things we do.
Anyhow, I better be going, I am glad to have found another "psychology nerd", KedP
Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.
Wow just browsing through some of his published journal articles seems he is FAR more known for his work on universals than for lying in general.
Just two examples:
(422 citations) Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, Vol 48(4), Apr, 1993. pp. 384-392.
(393) Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 17(2), Feb, 1971. pp. 124-129.
etc etc etc
interesting
bitsalame - I'm a psychology nerd too, and I've found that it's almost impossible to discuss even basic psychology with most people on the internet. Especially internet forums.
My hypothesis is that internet forums are a social ghetto for neurotic people, and almost any kind of psychology discussion that deals in facts is threatening to someone reading.
It hits home, it makes them think of possibilities they hadn't considered, and is generally just dangerous to their idealized self-images. Half the people in these internet forums think they are automatically informed on any topic because they know how to google, or because they read a crappy news article once.
Their self-esteem defence mechanism (among other things) is always a poorly cobbled together recitation of logical fallacies (which they mis-apply) and shallow wikipedia scans which they misinterpret.
Follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
My hypothesis is that internet forums are a social ghetto for neurotic people, and almost any kind of psychology discussion that deals in facts is threatening to someone reading.
It hits home, it makes them think of possibilities they hadn't considered, and is generally just dangerous to their idealized self-images. Half the people in these internet forums think they are automatically informed on any topic because they know how to google, or because they read a crappy news article once.
Their self-esteem defence mechanism (among other things) is always a poorly cobbled together recitation of logical fallacies (which they mis-apply) and shallow wikipedia scans which they misinterpret.
Follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong
You're right. That was my bad. But my point still stands. He shouldn't be making accusations like he did about Mt. Gox with a "science" that is hardly universally accepted coming from a Scientist who doesn't publish his research for public review out of some "national security" concern. Smells mighty fishy to me, as does the fact that nobody else seems to be able to replicate his results (except thru their own confirmation bias).night all.
You are the best example of what an academic shouldn't do:
1) Confirmation Bias
2) Hasty Generalization
3) Denial
4) And being plain ignorant, giving opinions out of their area of expertise (which is none in your case)
Based on your reasoning, how you research and what you ignore: you aren't even in college yet.
You don't even know how to identify primary sources, don't know how to interpret information, and not even know how to deduce properly without formal fallacies (lets not even talk about the informal ones). And you are absolutely oblivious about your cognitive biases.
Stop being such a pain in the ass and grow up. I see you have potential, you are inquisitive and skeptical, that is good. But you lack knowledge (lots of it) and experience (lots of it).
I am telling you for the last time: Paul Ekman is well-known, renowned, respected and even legendary in Academia (FYI that is not a MMORPG, it means the scientific community)
He is not someone obscure who opened a blog and suddenly claims to be Sai Baba.
Ekman has a very long trail in the scientific community, and any academic who is worth their salt will know him since he was the responsible in providing empirical evidence that proved the universality of emotions and facial expressions. Before Ekman anthropologists thought that facial expressions were culturally-dependent. Ekman proved that facial expressions are universal.
Last advise: never spit upwards.
ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong
You're right. That was my bad. But my point still stands. He shouldn't be making accusations like he did about Mt. Gox with a "science" that is hardly universally accepted coming from a Scientist who doesn't publish his research for public review out of some "national security" concern. Smells mighty fishy to me, as does the fact that nobody else seems to be able to replicate his results (except thru their own confirmation bias).night all.
I dont know any of that science but yeah that was my gut reactoin.. especially on the satoshi question and the interviewer's mmmmhrmmm = *cough* bullshit *cough*
When u got millions of $$ of other people's money and u seem to be hiding something.. .. it ... doesnt... sit .... well..
And to the 18-22 year old computer guys on here who dont know how to read people... this guy is 100% right... u dont need science to confirm that analysis at all.
that TV interview was the equivalent of a hedge fund manager uttering the phrase 'accounting irregularity'
GET.. THE ... F... OUT.. IF YOU STILL CAN.
to be honest.. we dont know what they're hiding.. it could be something weird ilke his ex-gf got into his computer and that was the cause of it all.. lol.. or they're working in a sting operation to try to trap the hackers, whatever.. something weird.
When u got millions of $$ of other people's money and u seem to be hiding something.. .. it ... doesnt... sit .... well..
And to the 18-22 year old computer guys on here who dont know how to read people... this guy is 100% right... u dont need science to confirm that analysis at all.
that TV interview was the equivalent of a hedge fund manager uttering the phrase 'accounting irregularity'
GET.. THE ... F... OUT.. IF YOU STILL CAN.
to be honest.. we dont know what they're hiding.. it could be something weird ilke his ex-gf got into his computer and that was the cause of it all.. lol.. or they're working in a sting operation to try to trap the hackers, whatever.. something weird.
Im personally on the 'fence' but I can confirm that Ekman is featured in psychINFO. If you don't know what this is, you shouldn't be commenting.
If anyone is interested looking up the research, as I am (i must be bored), from what I can see, Ekmans most cited contributions are:
(289 citations) Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, Vol 46(9), Sep, 1991. pp. 913-920.
(131 citations) A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, Vol 10(3), May, 1999. pp. 263-266.
(117 citations) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 72(6), Jun, 1997. pp. 1429-1439.
There may be others, but these papers seem like the big tickets. Haven't looked up METT though.
Of course, I have also come across published criticism's. Anyhoo, whatever you do, please don't argue a point (for or against) based on wikipedia!
Have fun!
ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong
If anyone is interested looking up the research, as I am (i must be bored), from what I can see, Ekmans most cited contributions are:
(289 citations) Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, Vol 46(9), Sep, 1991. pp. 913-920.
(131 citations) A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, Vol 10(3), May, 1999. pp. 263-266.
(117 citations) The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 72(6), Jun, 1997. pp. 1429-1439.
There may be others, but these papers seem like the big tickets. Haven't looked up METT though.
Of course, I have also come across published criticism's. Anyhoo, whatever you do, please don't argue a point (for or against) based on wikipedia!
Have fun!
ps psyborgue, you probably didnt find anything, cause you spelt his name wrong
Also remember: criticisms are what makes Science great.
Cheers,
Interesting post. I've never heard of this field of study so I'm not sure what to think of your analysis, but I appreciate that you put in the effort to do it and post your results here.
I also came to a similar conclusion about Gox yesterday (posted in one of the many posts I replied to yesterday), where I said that I don't necessarily believe that they are directly responsible for the hack or that they are trying to steal everyone's money/btc, but I did get the sense that they were trying to hide something. I haven't watched the video you studied in your OP, but through their posts, what they choose to talk about and what they choose not to talk about, I definitely get the sense that they are trying to cover something up. I just don't know what that is.
I also came to a similar conclusion about Gox yesterday (posted in one of the many posts I replied to yesterday), where I said that I don't necessarily believe that they are directly responsible for the hack or that they are trying to steal everyone's money/btc, but I did get the sense that they were trying to hide something. I haven't watched the video you studied in your OP, but through their posts, what they choose to talk about and what they choose not to talk about, I definitely get the sense that they are trying to cover something up. I just don't know what that is.
Fact I can't find much of anything written by Eckman on jstor. Way to "research" there, Mr. 100%. I'm done with you. It's past my bedtime.
Of course not, because you are a certified idiot.
You keep misspelling his last name, and you seem to even have difficulties on click on my link ("No Results"?, WTF?)
Seriously, life will be tough for you.
Jump to: