Waterboarding is next.
2 hours?
If you want a TLDW:
-Mark Bowden doesn't think Hans cheated in this particular game, although has cheated over the board before (not sure why he specifically thinks it was "over the board", he didn't furnish details).
-Chase Hughes says that Hans Niemann didn't deny cheating in the game against Magnus (I don't think anyone is flogging that dead horse any more). He is still suspicious and says "something happened at that game" and maybe Niemann is "concealing the truth" by mentally excusing the lie by thinking he "didn't listen to the AI the entire time" for example.
-Greg Hartley thinks that Niemann avoiding answering the question, and says "you should answer the damn question to avoid people having suspicion of you". FYI the question GM Ramirez asked was,"Hans, we've got to talk about the elephant in the room, you've asked if you could have some words."
-Scott Rouse thinks Hans Niemann is lying about cheating in the Magnus game, and he is the most sure of the lot. He's interrupted before he can say precisely what he would bet on, but shortly afterwards puts 2 thumbs up when first asked if he thinks Niemann cheated in the Magnus game.
Which segways neatly into the funniest part of the "analysis". At 1:58:20, Greg Hartley proposes that they all then decide on a thumbs up or down as to whether Niemann was cheating in the Magnus game. He has just said that you must "answer the question to avoid suspicion, so you'll be surprised that they all hold their thumbs sideways. It reminded me of Peter Sellers in The Party swapping the telephone with the 2 glasses, and I highly recommend that you watch at least this part of the video.
With some disagreement, they seem to huddle around the statement that they "can't tell if he's lying or not, but he's hiding something"
-Mark Bowden doesn't think Hans cheated in this particular game, although has cheated over the board before (not sure why he specifically thinks it was "over the board", he didn't furnish details).
-Chase Hughes says that Hans Niemann didn't deny cheating in the game against Magnus (I don't think anyone is flogging that dead horse any more). He is still suspicious and says "something happened at that game" and maybe Niemann is "concealing the truth" by mentally excusing the lie by thinking he "didn't listen to the AI the entire time" for example.
-Greg Hartley thinks that Niemann avoiding answering the question, and says "you should answer the damn question to avoid people having suspicion of you". FYI the question GM Ramirez asked was,"Hans, we've got to talk about the elephant in the room, you've asked if you could have some words."
-Scott Rouse thinks Hans Niemann is lying about cheating in the Magnus game, and he is the most sure of the lot. He's interrupted before he can say precisely what he would bet on, but shortly afterwards puts 2 thumbs up when first asked if he thinks Niemann cheated in the Magnus game.
Which segways neatly into the funniest part of the "analysis". At 1:58:20, Greg Hartley proposes that they all then decide on a thumbs up or down as to whether Niemann was cheating in the Magnus game. He has just said that you must "answer the question to avoid suspicion, so you'll be surprised that they all hold their thumbs sideways. It reminded me of Peter Sellers in The Party swapping the telephone with the 2 glasses, and I highly recommend that you watch at least this part of the video.
With some disagreement, they seem to huddle around the statement that they "can't tell if he's lying or not, but he's hiding something"
he's definitely lying. in the first clip, alejandro asks about ...c5 and hans goes off about Bb3.
It's as if he has studied the line with Bb3, so he had things to say about it, but ....c5 was a move he got from the comp so he didn't know what to say about it.
Also he says that the bishop on a7 stops d4, but it doesn't, so alejandro is looking at hans like he's an idiot.
It's as if he has studied the line with Bb3, so he had things to say about it, but ....c5 was a move he got from the comp so he didn't know what to say about it.
Also he says that the bishop on a7 stops d4, but it doesn't, so alejandro is looking at hans like he's an idiot.
Objective Systems Analysis my profession.
If: The psychology of the profession Psychology is not Narcissism at minimum by own rules out of the box, will give claimant $1,000 USD USA.
To understand the Observations of Psychology, you must understand the Psychology of Psychology.
To understand the psychology of Psychology, you examine Psychology's beginning/childhood, and use Psychology's own rules against.
To understand how someone thinks or not, examine the Rule System.
To judge character/integrity, hold words/actions against their Own Rule System.
Have made challenge to the profession.
No claims so far.
If: The psychology of the profession Psychology is not Narcissism at minimum by own rules out of the box, will give claimant $1,000 USD USA.
To understand the Observations of Psychology, you must understand the Psychology of Psychology.
To understand the psychology of Psychology, you examine Psychology's beginning/childhood, and use Psychology's own rules against.
To understand how someone thinks or not, examine the Rule System.
To judge character/integrity, hold words/actions against their Own Rule System.
Have made challenge to the profession.
No claims so far.
Well, now that Hans has had time to go over the game, it would be interesting to see what he says now. Then ask, "Did you ever think of Bb3?" and see if he rejects it.
Forensic Psychologists is an oxymoron. It has been repetitively proven that people these types of people are no better than the average person at detecting liars. I have a masters in psychology myself. The whole occupation is so lawyers have a paid "expert" that can call the other party as being dishonest without actual evidence. They can fall back on the "I'm an expert in the field with X amount of years of experience". Lawyer gets their $250/hr, paid and witness pockets like $1000 for 30 mins to an hour of testimony for basically calling the other party dishonest. This has nothing to do with whether Hans is guilty or not and is way more akin to a smear campaign.
If you are going to make your opinion about Hans or in crime documentaries, just remember the Forensic Psychologists are just paid witnesses that just say whatever the lawyer that hires them asks. They are the frauds of the psychology field and make me disgusted that my degree shares any of the same words.
If you are going to make your opinion about Hans or in crime documentaries, just remember the Forensic Psychologists are just paid witnesses that just say whatever the lawyer that hires them asks. They are the frauds of the psychology field and make me disgusted that my degree shares any of the same words.
agree 1,000,000 %. psychology is bunk. it causes more harm than good.
Before getting rid of lawyers, we should get rid of the psychologists.
Before getting rid of lawyers, we should get rid of the psychologists.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.