Progress In Brain-Based Lie Detection 84
A Cognitive Neuroscientist writes "A new study, led by Harvard Psychologist Joshua Greene and forthcoming in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may represent progress on the front of using brain imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, to detect lies. According to Harvard's press release, Greene's is 'the first study to examine brain activity of people telling actual lies,' as opposed to prior studies in which subjects were merely instructed to lie. The results suggest that one key step in distinguishing honest from dishonest individuals may involve focusing on a small set of brain regions that are responsible for executive control and attention. However, given that the actual paper is yet to be published, it's unclear whether the study is prone to some of the methodological and interpretive complications that have recently plagued similar brain imaging studies."
New non-trusive lie detection method flawed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New non-trusive lie detection method flawed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back to savage beatings and waterboarding, I guess.
I don't see why having a working non-intrusive lie detection method would mean those things have to stop!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see why having a working non-intrusive lie detection method would mean those things have to stop!
Pretty much.
If the victim's... Err... bad guy's MRI shows that he is lying when you finally got the confession out of him just to make you stop the torture means you need to keep beating him until he fully believes it himself.
Now how many light bulbs do you see?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's an attempt to give Karma, which Funny doesn't. Because I so give a shit about karma.
Re: (Score:2)
The inquisition wasn't bad because they falsely accused people (although sometimes that happened too), but because the laws were so ridiculously strict, and
Re: (Score:2)
Torture isn't effective in simple lie detection as its more for information gathering, so i agree, they will continue.
Why all the skepticism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why all the skepticism? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we'd know for sure if they were lying about the study!
Yeah, except... people have been killed before on the mere suspicion that they were lying about certain things. Adding some scientific air of validity to it will only ensure the body count rises, irrespective of whether it works or not. Plus, we're making guesses about whether a person is really lying based on our miniscule knowledge of the brain -- in truth, we're just playing a statistics game, albeit with potentially fatal results for those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm.
Re:Why all the skepticism? (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but unfortunately a lot of things in society are set up to kill off those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm. We just keep looking for excuses to make ourselves feel good about the fact that we are doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but unfortunately a lot of things in society are set up to kill off those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm. We just keep looking for excuses to make ourselves feel good about the fact that we are doing it.
Which is strange, because if not for the people who are outside the norm, everything would suck. If only there was a way to ensure that only people outside the norm benefited from their work, this behavior might cease.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but unfortunately a lot of things in society are set up to kill off those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm. We just keep looking for excuses to make ourselves feel good about the fact that we are doing it.
Yes, that's why we tend to keep doorways under seven feet high. The less giants in our society, the better. There, I said it.
Skepticism because MRI doesn't work that way (Score:2, Interesting)
MRI cannot be used as the sole means of evidence for this kind of study, and papers that rely solely on MRI are seen as untrustworthy or "merely-interesting" at best.
Re: (Score:2)
This is poor characterization of how fMRI works. fMRI is not a "composite of increasing spatial resolution over a times span of minutes". Rather, an entire image of t
Indivual differences (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I understand that it takes significant testing to confirm that the machines are working correctly for each individual. I would bet that many individuals - such as psychopaths - could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up' phase.
Actually, you don't need to by a psychopath to beat it. Being a Mythbuster's host is sufficient [wired.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see an arms race. Assuming Greene (whose papers in the past, like his dissertation, I haven't been impressed with) really was able to ethically create a circumstance where people truly lying and he knows it:
All that means is that he found a correlate of lying. The method used in his lie detector would exploit that correlation. But once this becomes common knowledge, people can figure out what kind of thinking would trip the lie detector, eventually rendering it useless, even assuming everything they cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up' phase.
Also, this doesn't catch people who actually believe the lie either because someone else told them or they duped themselves into believing in it.
If you asked someone if there was a god, the only answer you can take away from that is whether or not they believe that one exists and doesn't prove one way or another if it really is true.
Re: (Score:2)
> Also, this doesn't catch people who actually believe the lie either because someone else
> told them or they duped themselves into believing in it.
Most people define a lie as a statement the speaker knows to be false.
> If you asked someone if there was a god, the only answer you can take away from that is
> whether or not they believe that one exists and doesn't prove one way or another if it
> really is true.
So what?
Re: (Score:2)
Most people define a lie as a statement the speaker knows to be false.
I'm curious how well this technique stands up to method acting - IE temporarily remolding your thoughts to be those of the character you're playing. If you know a statement is false, but then get in the mindset of someone who believes the statement is true for long enough to be tested, will that look any different to this machine? I suppose the answer would reveal at least a little bit about how our brains work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people define a lie as a statement the speaker knows to be false.
The problem is that if someone makes presents a statement as evidence in which a lie detector shows they are telling the truth then the court/jury believes may give the statement more credence simply because it passed the test.
Even if the testifier is speaking in good faith and believes what they say to be truth, does not always make for justice with the verdict.
You know... Mistaken identity sending a man for life until DNA testing proves
Re: (Score:2)
Liar, liar. (Score:2)
I wonder how well this method would work if tested on the researchers regarding the validity of their results...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I can use this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would have saved everyone a lot of time if the base was on Alderan.
But Toff can detect lies using her feet (Score:1, Flamebait)
Let's Pretent (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's pretend we had a non-invasive, 100% reliable method of detecting lies. Assume that it is proven to the point where no one argues that it has failures.
Would it be ethical to use them to prove innocence or guilt in a court of law?
Re: (Score:1)
You can never prove it works 100% of the time.
Well, you can't prove that anything works 100% of the time, so how does that change anything?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a violation of the 5th amendment.
Re:Let's Pretend (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Brain based? Great! (Score:3, Funny)
I hear it works much better than the old rectal lie detectors from the 1970s, and light years beyond the foot based scanners from the 50s. At least they are moving in the right direction, although Wonder Woman's magic rope is still the standard to beat.
Maybe the guys who make Brain Age for the Nintendo DS can write the software interface.
Re:Brain based? Great! (Score:4, Funny)
although Wonder Woman's magic rope is still the standard to beat.
Is it? I was never really sure how well her rope worked. Sure the villain would admit that he was behind it all and tell her what his evil plans regarding the missile base were, but I don't recall any ever admitting that being tied up by Wonder Woman had him more turned on than ever in his life, or telling her what his evil plans regarding the Wonder Woman body pillow in his closet were.
If it misses out on the little, obvious truths, how can I trust the big ones?
Assuming it works, legal implications (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that wouldn't be subject to abuse, just like the current legal system isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Mythbusted... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I'd use Grant Imahara as the "lowest common denominator" as you do... He's an MIT graduate, after all... Besides, Tori and Kari failed to beat it...
Post Busted.
Truth and Lies ... acceptance and denial (Score:4, Insightful)
Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial. Our perceptions of right and wrong are merely an assimilation of experiences in life. What is a lie for some is truth for others. Some people have mastered the notion of changing lies into truth and truth into lies in public, in private and even in their own hearts and minds.
Defeating such testing may well be as trivial as defeating traditional polygraph tests as they both rely on the same principle -- metabolic and other reactions in the body to the conflicts that reside in the brain when the logical loops result from the mix of truth and lie. I know that lawyers are especially skilful at transforming or even abandoning their own personal beliefs and convictions in order to serve the needs and interests of their clients. This is an art that can be learned by anyone with the patience to learn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't the same. The problem with a polygraph isn't just that some poeple can 'beat it', it's also subjective.
Also, people who aren't lying can look like they are lying do to stress, or a generally guilty conscience.
fMRI, at this point, looks very promising;However, that's all. it LOOKS promising. No one has turned in a good study showing any practicle lie detection ability.
And I am not exactly enamored with this fellow or his study.
Re: (Score:1)
No they aren't the same. The problem with a polygraph isn't just that some poeple can 'beat it', it's also subjective.
Hit that nail right on the head! Yep. We use the term "lie detector" because polygraph examiners use the term to mean 'polygraph.' But the term implies that it can answer a question with a binary answer: Is A lying about X? But what polygraph machines show us is anything but binary. The only way we can tell if someone is lying or not is by the opinion of the polygraph examiner! Who, BTW, can stack the results anyway he likes.
Forget about it. There is not now and there will never be any way to accura
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree with your closing statement. Polygraph examiners with a good deal of experience have shown that they can judge when someone is lying and are very hard to fool by non-psychopaths.
Granted that skill is useless for the pursuit of justice if the person being tested is not questioned in great detail to ensure that the lies are pinpointed. That would throw out any kind of subjective question except to possibly find a direction to dig.
This method may not be a good way to do it as illustrated by
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that their machines can't duplicate the feat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The machine is as ever only as good as the person utilizing it.
My point exactly.
Of course, the thing is that despite your statement, non-psychopaths can defeat a lie detector with a great deal of practice. Not only that, but polygraph examiners that are very good can make a person who is not lying appear to be lying. That is why polygraphs are not (usually) admissable in court unless all parties have agreed beforehand on their admissability. Some jurisdictions have an outright ban on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, If asked "have you ever cheated on your wife?" most people would think full intercourse, others may think that a slightly more than friendly relationship was cheating some may even believe to them selves that an imaginary fantasy was cheating. So when asked the question and you justify in your mind that they were meaning full intercourse, but you believe that the fantasy you had was cheating then when you say 'No' you will be detected as lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial.
I don't believe it.
- Skeptopotamus
better but... (Score:2)
Its not like "lieing" is a single category. There are many types of lies a person can tell, and many ways to lie.
I always thought there was something inherently flawed about asking people to lie. If I ask you to lie, you really can't. If I say "lie about your age", you can't, I never asked you to tell your age, I asked you to tell a fake age.
Thats far different from "did you kill her?" "Describe the event of finding her body and what you did next". In that case, well you really have something to hide, you h
Re: (Score:2)
"If I say "lie about your age", you can't, I never asked you to tell your age, I asked you to tell a fake age."
What you can do is get a room of people, lets say 10. Random select 5 of them to lie about there age when asked about their age.
Yhen each person goes of into a different rom and takes the test.
Then you can look at the results and say these are the ones that lied.
Then you compare those results to who actually did lie.
The person administering the random test and the person monitoring the test can be
Re: (Score:1)
Reprimanded? I am all about making the police do their job right, and I think the question in question was bullshit, but.... he was absolutely right. In the end, my friend was let go. Mostly because, he had the wherewithall to realize that any admission of guilt in any way is a confession.
of course, police are allowed to lie to get you to say what they want, but you are not supposed to lie to them.... isn't that nice.
-Steve
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
Now we have a way of telling apart people who were told to give a false age and those who were told to give an accurate one (and may have lied or felt uncomfortable about telling it).
This very likely has something to do with telling the truth or lying, but it's not the same thing. In order to establish that it worked the same, we'd have to do trials with people who are telling the truth and people who are actually lying, and figure out which is which.
Lie detection isn't going to be scientific a
Re: (Score:2)
Its not like "lieing" is a single category.
I have long felt, mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing.
"I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye, but when you say Z, you look away"
If your spelling checker told you that was correct, it was lying. ;)
(BTW, stop training dogs to "lay down". The correct command is "lie down".)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't train dogs to do anything but stay away from me. I am allergic you insensitive clod!
-Steve
Don't Expect Better Soon (Score:2)
The problems that have been noted have not just "recently plagued similar brain imaging studies", they have been around since the 'boxcar' stimulus method and SPM analysis technique were applied to MRI research.
There are enough that know better now that fMRI can be rightly questioned. But here you run into the problem of science vs. scientists. There are so many of the latter that have attached their name to previously accepted research that they'd refuse to accept any reports of problems. For example, ther
The Doghouse! Forever! (Score:2)
Now your wife won't just suspect what you've been thinking about her younger sister. She'll know it for sure.
i would like to disprove it. (Score:1)
It takes WORK to lie. (Score:2)
The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is. This makes sense because obtaining the truth is just a matter of data retrieval and access.
The lie also involves data retrieval and access--only lots more of it, because the liar has to anticipate different narratives (I'm reading Anathem, so sorry.). The lie also involves a lot more plain processing.
The truth display process can also be readily completed. The liar can never be sure if his lie is adequately developed, so its resolution
Re:It takes WORK to lie. (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is.
Memories are easier for a person to relate than is made up stuff. That's part of the problem with eyewitnesses. After an event, their brain fills in the blanks of their memory, making a coherent narrative.
There was a long term study done where they asked people right after the challenger explosion, where they were. Then, years later, they asked about the same thing and compared results. Some people had completely different stories, or the details wrong, but they swore they knew what they had been doing.
If a defendant can convince himself that a story is true, no lie detector will be able to tell. There are drugs that are used in the treatment of PTSD that keep traumatic memories from being fixed in the brain. I could see someone taking one of these, doing a crime, then rehearsing over and over the alternate history. After the drugs wore off, the alternate history could become the truth in the defendant's brain.
fingerprinting not scientifically proven (Score:2)
Dubious truths? (Score:2)
If I doubt the truth of something I say (such as repeating a dubious factoid from another source), but am not lying -- how would that show up on such a test??
Science Research (Score:2)
Sometimes, 'because we can' isn't a good reason without seriously considering the long term ramifications.
good post (Score:1)
dizi izle [sanaldizi.net] film izle [filmturka.net]