"Torture Doesn't Work"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Torture doesn't work not because the tortured wants to frustrate the torturer, but because a tortured person will say anything to make the pain stop. That includes self-incrimination, incrimination of family, everything the torturer wants to hear. In the end, confirmation bias always gets the best of the torturer, since the tortured will tell two diametrically opposed views if it means it will stop the torture. It cannot produce results because the answer of the tortured is never trustworthy.

Under torture, some European Jews admitted to starting the black plague, which we know they didn't start.

EDIT: your thought experiment is flawed, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of lying.

[Chan Island]

[poiler]There are many arguments against torture and some of them even make a bit of sense. However, one thing I never understood was the assertion:

"Torture doesn't work."

I don't understand how anyone can say it doesn't work/can't produce results. I have heard many liberal-minded people claim this while I was at university... where they would say something along the lines of "why would any government ever use torture? those tortured would just keep making things up to annoy the authorities/frustrate them. Torture could never work." I have always felt that this was a somewhat delusional position and that people would eat their own words under unfortunate situations.

Its one thing to say that torture is a "human rights abuse" or that its not necessarily always the best go-to method for extracting information... but to say it doesn't work? Seems a bit strong.

Fact of the matter is, threats do produce results. When threats are backed up by the definite use of force and pain inducement... I can't see how someone can hold out. Now of course... if you have NOTHING to tell the government because you in fact know nothing, you're kind of in a doomed position. But if you do have something... I don't see how it won't be extracted (just a question of time frame). A person without any kind of anti-torture training would probably yield in minutes...

Not sure what your thoughts on this subject are.

Now let's discuss a little thought experiment:

You are a criminal and you have some information the government wants from you. You don't want to give it to them. After some back-and-forth, the government decides to resort to torture. They say to you:

"Since you refuse to tell us what we need to know... we will keep hurting you until you do tell us."

They start to torture you and it goes on and on and it doesn't stop until you give them what they want (if you pass out from the pain, you get reset and it continues). Assume that they use a method that is in the style of Ramsay Bolton.

The questions I'd like you to ponder, think about, and then explain are as follows:

1. How long would you be able to hold out? A few minutes? 1 hour? Days? Months? Years? Try to estimate.
2. How do you reconcile the phrase "torture doesn't work" with the fact that 99-100 percent of people in the above situation (including yourself probably) would in a pretty short amount of time, tell the government what they need to know to avoid the torture?
3. What do you think in general about the phrase, "Torture Doesn't Work"... is there a way to re-phrase/clarify it so that its a more defensible position?

1. I'll give myself 10 minutes. And I feel that this is being EXTREMELY generous.

2. There is no need to reconcile it because it can't be reconciled. Its a misleading slogan. Torture does work. Anyone who actually has the information is going to give it up. Its just a problematic method in the sense that if the person was wrongly suspected and in fact knows nothing... they will be tortured ad infinitum. But you can be sure that if anyone knows anything, they will divulge. This is why its historically been used throughout history by the police and military forces.

3.

It doesn't work in getting legal convictions. It doesn't work if there isn't any actual information from the person tortured (they can't gain clairvoyance while being tortured if they are innocent). It doesn't work if you want to stay true to human rights.

However, if someone has got something... they are going to tell you pretty soon if you use a sufficiently painful method. Its just a matter of how far you want to go.

In general I understand other objections to torture but a blanket "torture doesn't work" statement just doesn't hold up.[/spoler]

2007 called. It said that even back then torture was utterly inexcusable and completely bankrupt as an idea, and that frankly the fact that we were even seriously discussing torture back then is a damning indictment on the human race.

Let's pick this post apart, piece, by, piece.

There are many arguments against torture and some of them even make a bit of sense. However, one thing I never understood was the assertion:

"Torture doesn't work."

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that some arguments against torture make sense. In fact, I'd wager even these unnamed reasons are entirely logical, rational and compelling reasons not to have torture... but you are going to ignore that because you don't understand the idea of torture not working. This point has been explained to you now dozens of times in this thread, and I'll repeat that later for you...

I don't understand how anyone can say it doesn't work/can't produce results. I have heard many liberal-minded people claim this while I was at university... where they would say something along the lines of "why would any government ever use torture? those tortured would just keep making things up to annoy the authorities/frustrate them. Torture could never work." I have always felt that this was a somewhat delusional position and that people would eat their own words under unfortunate situations.

Its one thing to say that torture is a "human rights abuse" or that its not necessarily always the best go-to method for extracting information... but to say it doesn't work? Seems a bit strong.

Oh torture produces results. As your liberal-minded friends both at university and on NS have pointed out, the tortured will say anything they think the torturer wants to hear to make it stop. It produces a stream of half-truths, lies and lies and lies. Not because the tortured is exercising some iron discipline, but purely because they just want the pain to stop.

Also, the fact that torture is a human rights abuse is by itself an excellent reason not to inflict torture on anyone. And the fact that there are far better ways to go about extracting information makes torture an obsolete cruelty.

Let's drive harder into that point. Many posters on here have discussed at length various other methods of extracting information from captives. These ranged from the questionable to the outright humane. Ironically, the methods involving being nice to people gets you much more reliable information faster. So why would you even need torture? Certainly not because it's effective.

Fact of the matter is, threats do produce results. When threats are backed up by the definite use of force and pain inducement... I can't see how someone can hold out. Now of course... if you have NOTHING to tell the government because you in fact know nothing, you're kind of in a doomed position. But if you do have something... I don't see how it won't be extracted (just a question of time frame). A person without any kind of anti-torture training would probably yield in minutes...

Not sure what your thoughts on this subject are.

Sometimes threats work... assuming of course that we are dealing with a coward. For anybody with a modicum of pride or a martyr complex, the threat will entrench them even further into making them not want to give you any information. Ditto to 11 if it is actually backed by force. You can't see how someone can hold out but if so then you only need to open a history book. It is full of examples of people who held out for days, weeks, months. On rare occasions even years... without ever confessing the truth. Many have even died under torture, which is one hell of a first class ticket to becoming a martyred hero for your cause.

Interesting how you admit that if you know nothing, then you are doomed. Because that is an extremely good reason not to inflict torture. If the suspect genuinely doesn't know anything at all about what you're talking about, then you're just needlessly causing this person pain and suffering, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. So they lie. They lie and lie and lie just to get you to stop. They will say anything that they think the torturer will want to hear.

But you establish that we are dealing with someone who does know something. Of course, the assumption that anyone high up in a terrorist or criminal cell has no anti-torture training is extremely naive by itself. But even without the training, again anyone with a modicum of pride, spite, fear of their own side or martyr complex will lie to you. Anyone who doesn't know everything will lie to you. People with bad memories (and memory is generally terrible) will accidentally lie to you. The slow-witted will lie to you because you don't give them a reasonable chance to collect their thoughts.

My thoughts are outlined above and below, but let me consider another angle.
What happens after the war?

You can't hold people indefinitely (unless neither human rights nor practicality are not on your priority list), so eventually you will release this prisoner. Something tells me that a person who was tortured under captivity will hate you for ever. Especially if they were innocent. This person will dedicate their time, talents and resources towards either avoiding you at all costs or opposing you in every way they can - often both. How many times have you heard this story, IM? "A journalist from Hellholeia is arrested for an anti-government article. Journalist is tortured and released. Journalist escapes abroad, and from there regularly contributes to underground anti-government news, calling for the immediate violent overthrow of the regime". Because that is an extremely common story in our modern world. Just talk to refugees and you find that it is a refrain that surfaces constantly. And, boy, can some of them hold a grudge.

And then there is your torturer. Frankly, very few people can walk to work every day, inflicting unspeakable horror on suspects, unscathed. Barring the occasional psychopath (and honestly, they don't torture because they think it's the right thing to do, likely making your torture even less useful), most agents will break at some point and will need a lot of therapy. Some will even lose faith in your own cause. Which is, I hope you agree, a wonderfully ineffectual state of affairs.

Now let's discuss a little thought experiment:

You are a criminal and you have some information the government wants from you. You don't want to give it to them. After some back-and-forth, the government decides to resort to torture. They say to you:

"Since you refuse to tell us what we need to know... we will keep hurting you until you do tell us."

My capacity for raw, pure spite can be astonishing. The government just saying that to me will make me much less likely to want to give them that information.

They start to torture you and it goes on and on and it doesn't stop until you give them what they want (if you pass out from the pain, you get reset and it continues). Assume that they use a method that is in the style of Ramsay Bolton.

Interesting that you mention Ramsay Bolton. First all, he didn't inflict torture in the story because he wanted information: he tortures Theon because Ramsay is a psychopath who actively enjoys unleashing cruelty on others. He drive Theon to the point of being a completely useless, broken thrall who can barely utter a coherent sentence. How's that useful for extracting information? Even damning, why the f*** would you consider that even a remotely good example to bring up?!?!

But let's talk torture in Game of Thrones. Where should we begin? Perhaps with Danerys in Mareen, where she tortures the great masters in retribution for their methods against her... even, we find out later, the great masters who actively opposed the war. She needlessly burned potential bridges that could have made her control on that city much easier simply by not inflicting torture.

What about Harrenhal? The Lannister soldiers there are engaged in a war against the Brotherhood. To combat this threat they capture many peasants and ask them where the Brotherhood is. Obviously, these peasants don't know anything about the group, and straight up tell the Lannisters that. So they torture them. The peasants, under the immense pain, tell the Lannisters that the Brotherhood went here, here and here. But they are lying. And each time the Lannisters send out their troops to those locations, and every time they find nothing. It's a complete waste of time, men, resources and fortification. Furthermore, it makes Arya Stark hate the Lannisters for ever, even more than she already did. Notice how the first person she asks Jaquen to kill... is the torturer?

By contrast what about the Sparrows? They capture various Martells and simply talk to them. No torture. No cruelty. And what do we find? The Martells not only willingly confess but become fervent converts and allies for the Sparrow cause.

I could go on. Psychological torture on Tyrion backfires. Torturing Varys causes him to make a point of capturing his abuser and subjecting him to decades of torment for pure spite. Theon tortures inhabitants of Winterfell to get... false information that actively hurts his operation. Stannis is seen with revulsion because of his fire happy red god, and causes the inhabitants of King's Landing, arguably the place that was the most pro-Baratheon in the whole continent, to fanatically oppose his army. Ned Stark threatening Littlefinger all but ensures Littlefinger betrays him later.
The list goes on. GoT is not a fantasy you want to bring up in defence of torture being effective. Because George RR Martin is extremely good at writing people, and people do not respond well or rationally or usefully to torture. So why would they in his stories?

The questions I'd like you to ponder, think about, and then explain are as follows:

1. How long would you be able to hold out? A few minutes? 1 hour? Days? Months? Years? Try to estimate.
2. How do you reconcile the phrase "torture doesn't work" with the fact that 99-100 percent of people in the above situation (including yourself probably) would in a pretty short amount of time, tell the government what they need to know to avoid the torture?
3. What do you think in general about the phrase, "Torture Doesn't Work"... is there a way to re-phrase/clarify it so that its a more defensible position?

Oooh, questions!

1. That's one of those questions that you never know about until you are unfortunately in that position... but depending on what frame of mind I am caught in, I can see myself lasting quite a while. I don't respond well to threats at all, and have found myself achieving the impossible just to prove somebody wrong (seriously, I once wrote an entire essay for university, taking a controversial stance, and got a good grade in it, purely because somebody said I couldn't). But I don't know, can't guess. I've slept in some very gruelling conditions though, and have lived with chronic pain for over a decade. My raw spite coupled with deliberate lying, I estimate I could hold out for 2 weeks.

2. They wouldn't. They'd tell the government what they think the torturer wants to hear and then enjoy the reprieve from the pain. It also assumes that people would even know the vital information, which in the real world is not a guarantee.

3. Yes: "Torture is a cruel, damaging, obsolete, expensive, illegal and worst of all ineffectual method of getting information that should be confined to the same dark place we put slavery, witch trials and the divine rights of kings." (and you can sig me with this one).

1. I'll give myself 10 minutes. And I feel that this is being EXTREMELY generous.

2. There is no need to reconcile it because it can't be reconciled. Its a misleading slogan. Torture does work. Anyone who actually has the information is going to give it up. Its just a problematic method in the sense that if the person was wrongly suspected and in fact knows nothing... they will be tortured ad infinitum. But you can be sure that if anyone knows anything, they will divulge. This is why its historically been used throughout history by the police and military forces.

3.

It doesn't work in getting legal convictions. It doesn't work if there isn't any actual information from the person tortured (they can't gain clairvoyance while being tortured if they are innocent). It doesn't work if you want to stay true to human rights.

However, if someone has got something... they are going to tell you pretty soon if you use a sufficiently painful method. Its just a matter of how far you want to go.

1. Can't argue that one.

2. I've pretty comprehensively shown you why it doesn't work. And the only reason police and military forces have used it in the past is because they didn't know better. Now they do, which is why most of them do not use it.

3. Wait, what kind of malarky is this? If the information you are getting, by your own admission, wouldn't hold up in a court of law why would you bother?! Even on important intelligence. You've defeated your own argument with that one sentence. Also, for that last paragraph...

IM. Never. Ever. EVER. Get a job anywhere near power. It's rare that someone on NationStates actively scares me. You've just succeeded with those last 2 sentences. Please consider investing in a conscience.
Is it even Godwin's law when the phrase is literally like something a moustache-twirling stereotypical Nazi villain would say?

Christ those last 2 sentences are horrifying.

I love it when my posts are ignored. Too afraid of this?

I don't know if your mother ever told you this, but I think it's time:

Rosemary's Baby was just a movie.

Also, the suspicious similarity of the confessions extracted in all the witch trials should be a clue that suggestions were implanted under torture.

or that there is a repeating pattern of supernatural occurrences...

Christ on a trike...

No, the supernatural doesn't exist, period. Otherwise it would just be an established part of science. But since 100% of tests on anything 'supernatural' finds results consistent with there being nothing, I think we can safely dismiss it. Let's get out of this rabbit hole though.

[The Free Joy State]

I don't know if your mother ever told you this, but I think it's time:

Rosemary's Baby was just a movie.

Also, the suspicious similarity of the confessions extracted in all the witch trials should be a clue that suggestions were implanted under torture.

or that there is a repeating pattern of supernatural occurrences...

Or the torturer knew what he wanted to hear and didn't stop until he did.

It's basically confirmation bias. The person has a preconceived notion (in the case of the witch trial, that the women were witches) and sets out to find proof. Hence, they ask questions designed to find the "proof" and accept no other answer.

"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."

Cue days, weeks of torture. Stuck with needles, forced to sit on a red-hot stool (so they couldn't sleep with the Devil), denial of sleep, denial of food, and all the while, these constant thoughts implanted in the mind. "You've communed with the Devil. Who is your familiar? Say who is your familiar and we'll stop. Confess and we'll stop. Tell us that you've communed with the Devil."

After constant haranguing, mind shot, body racked with pain, of course the poor cows screamed: "Yes! I have."

Forced false confession is not even slightly unusual. Even sleep deprivation makes people 4.5 times more likely to sign a false confession.

Fuck. After the kind of treatment those women suffered, I'd confess to being a goldfish, an witch or even Donald Trump's girlfriend.

[Des-Bal]

Communication is the key though. You have to let them know what you want from the get go. Its not about saying things that will make the authorities happy, its about the truth. Just say that from the start. Make it clear.

So you think the reason tortured people give inaccurate information is because they don't understand the authorities want accurate information? There is no reason for you to think that. It is literally inexplicable that you are saying these things to me.

[Infected Mushroom]

or that there is a repeating pattern of supernatural occurrences...

Or the torturer knew what he wanted to hear and didn't stop until he did.

It's basically confirmation bias. The person has a preconceived notion (in the case of the witch trial, that the women were witches) and sets out to find proof. Hence, they ask questions designed to find the "proof" and accept no other answer.

"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."

Cue days, weeks of torture. Stuck with needles, forced to sit on a red-hot stool (so they couldn't sleep with the Devil), denial of sleep, denial of food, and all the while, these constant thoughts implanted in the mind. "You've communed with the Devil. Who is your familiar? Say who is your familiar and we'll stop. Confess and we'll stop. Tell us that you've communed with the Devil."

After constant haranguing, mind shot, body racked with pain, of course the poor cows screamed: "Yes! I have."

Forced false confession is not even slightly unusual. Even sleep deprivation makes people 4.5 times more likely to sign a false confession.

Fuck. After the kind of treatment those women suffered, I'd confess to being a goldfish, an witch or even Donald Trump's girlfriend.

Well, I don't deny that there can't be a problem with confirmation bias in some cases.

This is why its important psychologically for the torturer to remain as objective as possible and be open-minded. Confirmation bias is a problem in some cases but not all cases if the personnel are trained appropriately. For instance, there should be no confirmation bias for details such as "where did you hide the bomb"

[Infected Mushroom]

Communication is the key though. You have to let them know what you want from the get go. Its not about saying things that will make the authorities happy, its about the truth. Just say that from the start. Make it clear.

So you think the reason tortured people give inaccurate information is because they don't understand the authorities want accurate information? There is no reason for you to think that. It is literally inexplicable that you are saying these things to me.

its not been emphasised enough

in many instances, the party may be under the mistaken impression that... as you say... the authorities only want to hear a certain thing (whether its true or not). You don't want to come across that way. The terms have to be set and communicated clearly.

[The Free Joy State]

Or the torturer knew what he wanted to hear and didn't stop until he did.

It's basically confirmation bias. The person has a preconceived notion (in the case of the witch trial, that the women were witches) and sets out to find proof. Hence, they ask questions designed to find the "proof" and accept no other answer.

"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."

Cue days, weeks of torture. Stuck with needles, forced to sit on a red-hot stool (so they couldn't sleep with the Devil), denial of sleep, denial of food, and all the while, these constant thoughts implanted in the mind. "You've communed with the Devil. Who is your familiar? Say who is your familiar and we'll stop. Confess and we'll stop. Tell us that you've communed with the Devil."

After constant haranguing, mind shot, body racked with pain, of course the poor cows screamed: "Yes! I have."

Forced false confession is not even slightly unusual. Even sleep deprivation makes people 4.5 times more likely to sign a false confession.

Fuck. After the kind of treatment those women suffered, I'd confess to being a goldfish, an witch or even Donald Trump's girlfriend.

Well, I don't deny that there can't be a problem with confirmation bias in some cases.

This is why its important psychologically for the torturer to remain as objective as possible and be open-minded. Confirmation bias is a problem in some cases but not all cases if the personnel are trained appropriately. For instance, there should be no confirmation bias for details such as "where did you hide the bomb"

That's instantly biased, as it assumes the person hid the bomb or knew where the bomb was hidden.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well, I don't deny that there can't be a problem with confirmation bias in some cases.

This is why its important psychologically for the torturer to remain as objective as possible and be open-minded. Confirmation bias is a problem in some cases but not all cases if the personnel are trained appropriately. For instance, there should be no confirmation bias for details such as "where did you hide the bomb"

That's instantly biased, as it assumes the person hid the bomb or knew where the bomb was hidden.

its only a starting presumption

[Caracasus]

Not a matter of if it gets information, it has never been that throughout this entire thread.

It's about the quality of the information. No-one has argued that torture doesn't get people to talk - obviously if you hurt someone badly enough they will give you information.

So what do we mean by works? On a fundamental level, yes - torture works. You can hurt someone until they tell you what they think you want to hear. No-one has debated that.

However, most reasonable people would assume that by "works" in this context, and by the way you have very strongly inferred links between information and torture, it means that torture yields good quality information that can be used by the torturer.

It doesn't - aside from episodes of 24. It yields information that you can't trust on any real level and often obscures an issue or question more than it leads to answers.

As I've said - torture's main purpose throughout all of human history has been to punish. I cannot imagine how anyone with any knowledge of history of that period would argue otherwise.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think people are regularly capable of resisting torture for weeks and months making up unworkable mountain piles of lies... while I think that in the vast majority of cases, the truth would come out within minutes because PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SUFFER.

And yes, there are historical examples of people holding out, but its not the standard response.

Er... I think you have somehow completely misunderstood what I put there.

Very, very few people are capable of holding out to torture, not given enough time. That has never been the point. What is the point is that any information you get is next to useless as you have no idea if the person you are torturing has that information or not. You will absolutely get a response from someone after you start seriously hurting them, but if you are in the position to know for certain (and it would have to be absolutely certain) that you have the right person then the information you get is worse than useless. If you know for certain then firstly, it's unlikely in the extreme that you'd need to torture them for info and secondly there are far more efficient methods of getting information that can actually be used.

The truth doesn't come out - or rather it is impossible to discern the truth from everything else you've been told. This has been proven and cited so many times in this thread it's become something of a joke.

Now, you have inferred from the start that torture works and a connection to uncovering intelligence. That's been thrown out the window completely to the point it's no longer worth rehashing the argument.

You don't get to move the goalposts and say "well it sort of works sometimes" as everyone has been arguing against your initial inferred argument.

You've also drawn comparisons between a fictional medieval style world - and that too has been disproven on several levels.

1) You have offered absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest that those confessions that were made by suspected witches were legitimately true. This is because no such evidence exists.

2) Historical use of torture has always focused on punishment and extracting confession after the fact than interrogation.

3) Game of Thrones is a piece of fiction with some interesting storytelling but it still remains useless as a foundation for understanding actual societies. You might as well cite Little Red Riding Hood.

[Aellex]

I don't know if your mother ever told you this, but I think it's time:

Rosemary's Baby was just a movie.

Also, the suspicious similarity of the confessions extracted in all the witch trials should be a clue that suggestions were implanted under torture.

That doesn't mean that there weren't people truly guilty of witchcraft among the condemned, the similarity of confession is no more a proof of suggestion than of the widespread nature of the practices they were charged for.

[Des-Bal]

its not been emphasised enough

in many instances, the party may be under the mistaken impression that... as you say... the authorities only want to hear a certain thing (whether its true or not). You don't want to come across that way. The terms have to be set and communicated clearly.

That is completely missing the fucking point. If you ask someone a question and "I don't know" gets them tortured then they won't say that, even if it's the truth.

[Infected Mushroom]

its not been emphasised enough

in many instances, the party may be under the mistaken impression that... as you say... the authorities only want to hear a certain thing (whether its true or not). You don't want to come across that way. The terms have to be set and communicated clearly.

That is completely missing the fucking point. If you ask someone a question and "I don't know" gets them tortured then they won't say that, even if it's the truth.

but telling the truth is their only hope of getting out, so surely they will have to stick to that or go back to that eventually

is it not?

[The Free Joy State]

That's instantly biased, as it assumes the person hid the bomb or knew where the bomb was hidden.

its only a starting presumption

Quote you:

But the Torturer cannot know how much the other person knows. What if they spout out random stuff to end the pain and admit to a whole host of falsehoods?

Do you go, verify the information is false, and torture them more? Even if you have gotten everything out of them?

something along those lines yes

You have already said that if the person has no information to give, it's okay to keep torturing them.

If your "starting presumption" is wrong, and they don't have the foggiest idea where the bloody bomb is -- but try and make the pain stop by giving false information -- you've already said that it's okay to torture people who know nothing.

Let's not try to modify that now. The suggested procedure to date has been -- if proven wrong -- to keep torturing.

When exactly do you admit you're wrong? When do torturers say, "oops, maybe they really did know nothing"?

[The New California Republic]

This is why its important psychologically for the torturer to remain as objective as possible and be open-minded.

ROFL. The torturer that has me tied to a chair taking my fingers off and electrocuting my genitals is going to be objective and open-minded, aren't they(!)

Confirmation bias is a problem in some cases but not all cases if the personnel are trained appropriately.

No matter how much you deny that you are a torture advocate or promoter, the way in which you are putting forward "correct" methods of torture just undermines your protests.

[Alvecia]

That is completely missing the fucking point. If you ask someone a question and "I don't know" gets them tortured then they won't say that, even if it's the truth.

but telling the truth is their only hope of getting out, so surely they will have to stick to that or go back to that eventually

is it not?

If the person being tortured does not know the truth, but the torturer is convinced they do, then no answer will satisfy them and they will be tortured in perpetuity, whilst the torturer remains perpetually unsatistifed in their questioning.

[Des-Bal]

but telling the truth is their only hope of getting out, so surely they will have to stick to that or go back to that eventually

is it not?

1. Well as numerous sources have pointed out as the torture goes on the effects on the brain will make it less likely that they're able to tell a coherent or consistent story.
2. Why would telling the truth stop the torture? You don't know how much information they have. Maybe they only know how big the bomb is but after they tell you that so they start making shit up, at this point you've succeeded in burying useful information in garbage. I mean it sounds like the only thing that stops the torture is a consistent story so regardless of what you know "I don't know" is the correct answer because giving any information just encourages your torturers to look for more.

[Caracasus]

That is completely missing the fucking point. If you ask someone a question and "I don't know" gets them tortured then they won't say that, even if it's the truth.

but telling the truth is their only hope of getting out, so surely they will have to stick to that or go back to that eventually

is it not?

Strangely enough people being tortured aren't exactly in the right frame of mind to think rationally.

Seriously, drop this. You have failed to defend torture on even a hypothetical level here.

[Jebslund]

*Infected Mushroom, an honourable Royal Guard is brought before me*

So, you know the location and numbers of the Royal Guard. I mean, you must, as you were caught wearing the same garbage they use to dress their officers. "On my honour, I won't tell you anything!" IM says, as he decides to keep the location and numbers a secret, despite knowing what comes next.

*the horrific torture of IM begins. Time passes quicker than I would have liked, but nowhere near quick enough for IM's honourable tastes*

As you're approaching your breaking point, the torture stops. I tell you "If you tell me what I wish to know, I swear on my honour and yours, that I will release you." IM, thinking this is a pretty sweet deal all things considered, pillages his mind for the numbers and location. Unfortunately, IM discovers that he seriously can not remember the numbers or location, despite knowing them before meeting me.

"Still stubborn, eh? Oh well, my offer stands." I say, as I prepare for the next round of torture.

As IM breathes his last breath, I yell in frustration "It didn't work!" "What didn't work, sir?" the guard asks. "the torture, obviously. Take his corpse and feed it to the other prisoners. Make sure it's proper maggoty first." "Yes sir."

As the guard proceeds to do as I ask, I take a moment to contemplate. I was honestly going to release him, had he but told me two little things. Why do outdated concepts like honour continue to vex me so? As I ponder this question, one of my scouts enters, telling me the location and numbers of the enemy.

On a more serious note: torture is kind of useless, because you run the risk of the one you torture for specific information forgetting said information.

there is no way I would forget the information; also, any competent torture administrator knows how to keep the person alive

this sounds unrealistic

Unless you have an eidetic memory, you almost certainly would. Pain is not good for keeping one's memories. When you're in severe pain, you lose focus. Remembering things becomes harder. Thinking becomes harder. The pain serves as a distraction, meaning things that require even minimal focus, such as recalling specific information, become much more difficult, possibly even impossible, depending on where the pain is in relation to your level of pain tolerance. You may not permanently forget the information, but the pain could very easily make you temporarily unable to retrieve it.

As to keeping someone alive, you'd have to give them a reprieve to do that. Modern technology has limits, and so does the human body. Do enough damage, and it breaks down, and, especially in your 'indefinite' torture scenarios, that's down to a matter of time. You can't torture someone indefinitely without killing them. At some point, you WILL need to give them the time and medical attention to heal. There's also, in certain methods, a fine line between painful and lethal that differs from person to person. What kills one victim may merely be painful to another. What is one person's hell may barely phase another. And, in some of those cases, there's no readily apparent way to know how much is too much until it's too late.

[Jebslund]

Or the torturer knew what he wanted to hear and didn't stop until he did.

It's basically confirmation bias. The person has a preconceived notion (in the case of the witch trial, that the women were witches) and sets out to find proof. Hence, they ask questions designed to find the "proof" and accept no other answer.

"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons haven't you?"
"No."
"You've communed with demons, haven't you?"
"No."

Cue days, weeks of torture. Stuck with needles, forced to sit on a red-hot stool (so they couldn't sleep with the Devil), denial of sleep, denial of food, and all the while, these constant thoughts implanted in the mind. "You've communed with the Devil. Who is your familiar? Say who is your familiar and we'll stop. Confess and we'll stop. Tell us that you've communed with the Devil."

After constant haranguing, mind shot, body racked with pain, of course the poor cows screamed: "Yes! I have."

Forced false confession is not even slightly unusual. Even sleep deprivation makes people 4.5 times more likely to sign a false confession.

Fuck. After the kind of treatment those women suffered, I'd confess to being a goldfish, an witch or even Donald Trump's girlfriend.

Well, I don't deny that there can't be a problem with confirmation bias in some cases.

This is why its important psychologically for the torturer to remain as objective as possible and be open-minded. Confirmation bias is a problem in some cases but not all cases if the personnel are trained appropriately. For instance, there should be no confirmation bias for details such as "where did you hide the bomb"

"Where did you hide the bomb?" is a prime example of a question open to hidden confirmation bias. The question makes two assumptions: That the victim of the torture knows where the bomb is hidden, and that they are the one who hid said bomb. If the person you're torturing knows neither, any answer they give will be perceived as wrong, or, when they start making up locations to appease their torturer, result in wasted time tracking down false leads. This applies even if the person is affiliated with the people who hid it: The victim may not be high enough in the organization to know, or may be part of an organization which compartmentalises its operatives and gives each only enough information to do their specific task (IE: The person who built the bomb and the person who hid it aren't the same person. There may even be multiple decoys in addition to the one who actually hid it, meaning that, while you may be acting on a lead, it could have been bad intel that lead to a decoy, who would only know where they were told to go, not where the bomb is hidden. This is also an example of why torture is ineffective: If you got the name of this decoy from someone else who claimed this guy hid the bomb, confirmation bias will ensure no response other than the location of the bomb, information he doesn't have, will be satisfactory. Meanwhile, the bomb goes off because you were so focused on one guy who ended up not even having the information that you missed the opportunity to nab the person who *did* hide the bomb, all because this was the name you tortured out of the previous guy.).

[Vistulange]

Are you fucking shitting us, IM?

This thread has been - as of now - eighteen pages of people explaining to you, in very clear ways, how torture doesn't work for the purpose of extracting information. You are literally ignoring every point they make and are repeating the same goddamn sentences over and over again.

It might kill your ego to say "okay, you guys are right", but at least you'll spare us the torture of trying to convince you with logic, reason, and common sense.

[Heloin]

Are you fucking shittng us, IM?

This thread has been - as of now - eighteen pages of people explaining to you, in very clear ways, how torture doesn't work for the purpose of extracting information. You are literally ignoring every point they make and are repeating the same goddamn sentences over and over again.

It might kill your overinflated ego to say "okay, you guys are right", but at least you'll spare us the torture of trying to convince you with logic, reason, and common sense.

I got it. IM's torturing himself by having literally everyone spend eighteen pages telling him that torture doesn't work like it does in movies. If he admits he's wrong, he's right. (to IM at least)

[Dylar]

Are you fucking shittng us, IM?

This thread has been - as of now - eighteen pages of people explaining to you, in very clear ways, how torture doesn't work for the purpose of extracting information. You are literally ignoring every point they make and are repeating the same goddamn sentences over and over again.

It might kill your overinflated ego to say "okay, you guys are right", but at least you'll spare us the torture of trying to convince you with logic, reason, and common sense.

I got it. IM's torturing himself by having literally everyone spend eighteen pages telling him that torture doesn't work like it does in movies. If he admits he's wrong, he's right. (to IM at least)

Or maybe IM is torturing us by constantly telling us that torture works despite our protests?

[Petrasylvania]

Anyone else find it cute when a noted atheist suddenly finds the supernatural plausible?

[Heloin]

I got it. IM's torturing himself by having literally everyone spend eighteen pages telling him that torture doesn't work like it does in movies. If he admits he's wrong, he's right. (to IM at least)

Or maybe IM is torturing us by constantly telling us that torture works despite our protests?

Also plausible.

[The Free Joy State]

Anyone else find it cute when a noted atheist suddenly finds the supernatural plausible?

Oh my... Is IM an atheist?

The same IM insisting that deals with the devil and Satanic breastfeeding mice was not to be discounted in the Salem witch trials (rather than false evidence being extracted under torture).

Or maybe IM is torturing us by constantly telling us that torture works despite our protests?

Also plausible.

Maybe it's designed to be a self-proving thread?

IM knows torture is ineffective, and intends to torture us with these same arguments, wearing away our resistance until we - mentally wearied -- give in on one of our objections, which will conversely prove that torture does nothing except get people to say what you want them to say.