Originally Posted by Bart
C'mon, you're part of the circle-the-wagons crowd. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
So you claim, but you may be surprised yet again regarding the former (and other matters too).
Opposing idiocy does not equate with panic. So what "panicked posts" in this thread are you trying to talk about?
When I'm stubborn, then I am. That's called both having principles and using common sense even in the face of idiocy. Nothing to do with panic.
Originally Posted by Bart
Could be a matter of different perspectives and experiences. All I'll say is that I never visited these countries for pleasure. And you missed my point entirely, perhaps even intentionally: not everyone regards eye-to-eye contact as a sign of honesty. There are cultural factors that must be considered before attempting to interpret any human behavior.
Different perspectives and experiences? Certainly in some regards and then some. And in any event, I would hope so. I've visited places -- sometimes even the same place -- in various capacities, and not all -- or even most -- would qualify as "pleasure" either.
My point -- amongst others -- is that cultural factors don't trump individual or biological factors. That's the first rule of trying to understand human behavior and it "
must be considered before attempting to interpret any human behavior."
Also, given these "behavior" based screenings are looking for "social" exceptions, there's the intrinsic assumption anti-social elements and other sociopaths are obviously identifiable in their doing more routine functions or that they do not understand how "the rest" operate. And there's no guarantee that is the case either -- especially not with terrorists, many of whom may not even be considered anti-social but for in the aftermath of a criminal act.