71–80 of 117 posts
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.
If you're in the poker world, you know that physical tells _are_ a thing but only to reaffirm your read and should not be the entire basis of whether you bet/call/fold (ala Casino Royale).
Because it's so hard to place your entire reasoning because, "he's covering his mouth, so he's bluffing" and "he's shaking his hands, he must have a good hand" sometimes those are true tells, but sometimes maybe the room is just really cold and the player is trying to warm himself up. Or maybe he's throwing a reverse tell.
I remember Phil Hellmuth shilled a book about physical tells from a former FBI agent, not sure if there was any substance to that book.
"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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You raise an interesting conundrum, but you can tell of a certain success rate by the number of liars who eventually confess to lying or are found to have been lying.
They could be lying about whether they were lying in the past.
These kinds of analytical methods (i.e. word counting) work well in controlled experiments when you know you're going to be lied to by a subject, and also told the truth so you have a point of reference. 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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could be lying about whether they were lying in the past.
We're talking about legal contexts here. Almost no one, unless coerced/brutalized by police/DAs, admits to crimes they did not commit. And the you have the thing where you can verify their admission of guilt with corroborating details.
"unless coerced/brutalized by police/DAs" is not really exceptional, once in a decade, type case, sadly it is rather routine.
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?
You raise an interesting conundrum, but you can tell of a certain success rate by the number of liars who eventually confess to lying or are found to have been lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about legal contexts here. Almost no one, unless coerced/brutalized by police/DAs, admits to crimes they did not commit. And the you have the thing where you can verify their admission of guilt with corroborating details.
There have many many many cases of individuals getting behind bars because they have been coerced to plead guilty and confess to crimes that they never committed. "unless coerced/brutalized by police/DAs" is not really exceptional, once in a decade, type case, sadly it is rather routine.
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.
That's a nice write-up but I think that experienced and well prepared liars would be able to beat that. The best way I've found to detect lies is that truth is 'internally consistent' and lies never are, all you need to do is to focus on any inconsistencies not matter how small and then to apply pressure on them, they'll fracture the story much like a crystal with a flaw in it.