61–70 of 117 posts
Where does that statistic come from? I've definitely read that polygraphs have over 90% success as long as you account for obvious "counter measures". Basically, the person administering the test can clearly see if you are pulling tricks to defeat it.
Read a book on this and this seems to corroborate much of what I read. One of the most interesting and simple techniques discussed was the order in which people recounted their stories. The example given is an employee who is consistently late for work. If you ask them to recount why they are late one day, a liar will tell you the story linearly: "I woke up, ate breakfast, hopped in the car, was on my way, minding my…
> This is easily ascribed to the fact that the liar is either making the story up as they go or are repeating a rehearsed lie. A truthful person can jump around easily because they are recounting distinct memories. Alternatively, the liar's experienced, good at his craft, and more capable of jumping around.
"Bags are subject to search" means "We will search your bags". "A shooting involving Tacoma County Police left two suspects dead" means "Tacoma County Police shot two suspects."
"The polygraph, for example, which measures physiological changes such as blood pressure, respiration and skin conductivity, only achieves an accuracy level of around 50%..." Where does that statistic come from? I've definitely read that polygraphs have over 90% success as long as you account for obvious "counter measures". Basically, the person administering the test can clearly see if you are pulling tricks to defe…
In the real world, you don't know if you're being lied to. That's the entire point! You don't have any normalized data that says this is the number of words a person uses when they're telling the truth and when not, so the detection technique will be as inaccurate as this missing calibration info. And since there are wide variances between individuals in both general memory, recall, and "talkativeness" you have to develop a sample corpus per person. Also you need to interview the person on multiple days and randomize when you ask the questions so as not to introduce bias and to protect from ordering.
It's easy to conduct a study like this and proclaim an obvious conclusion, but this means almost nothing for real-world application of the technique.
Read a book on this and this seems to corroborate much of what I read. One of the most interesting and simple techniques discussed was the order in which people recounted their stories. The example given is an employee who is consistently late for work. If you ask them to recount why they are late one day, a liar will tell you the story linearly: "I woke up, ate breakfast, hopped in the car, was on my way, minding my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if they are aware of this technique and purposefully and skillfully prepare to defeat it. That turns out to be harder than you'd expect for methods like this. The methods used by Israeli security agents to profile travelers at airports have been well known for decades, but even so are still very effective.
How do you measure it it has been effective when the successful liar passes the test and is not defined as such?
Read a book on this and this seems to corroborate much of what I read. One of the most interesting and simple techniques discussed was the order in which people recounted their stories. The example given is an employee who is consistently late for work. If you ask them to recount why they are late one day, a liar will tell you the story linearly: "I woke up, ate breakfast, hopped in the car, was on my way, minding my…
What was the book?
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/liespotting-pamela-meyer/110...
http://www.amazon.com/Liespotting-Proven-Techniques-Detect-D...
I won't oversell it and tell you that the book turns you into a human polygraph. It simply surveys what is known about deception and human behavior and how you can apply that to your interactions with others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you measure it it has been effective when the successful liar passes the test and is not defined as such?
If you catch X people trying to blow up a plane and no planes get blown up, that's fairly good evidence that your method of catching people trying to blow up planes has been 100% successful. So far.
This method sort of reminds me of one of the opening scenes from Das Leben der Anderen (which is a great movie): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkRxvEjprBM