How to detect lies with a storytelling technique • Hacker News Board

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#111

Post by subliminalzen » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 12:40 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #92

iamsohungry wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best liars use the exhonerative voice to avoid telling a story about themselves at all: "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."

Huh? I'm not disputing that institutions carefully use the passive voice to clean their prose of negative connotations...but the two examples you mention are not "lies" 1. I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at the airport when the search is differentiated from the usual scan. So that phrase is definitely…

By using the exonerative voice, a liar avoids committing to a particular narrative. They can easily back away from a statement by saying "I only said baggage is subject to being searched. I didn't say they were searched."

That said, I don't think the exonerated voice is a particularly skillful one. A careful listener can easily pick up on that.

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#112

Post by at-fates-hands » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:11 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #16

at-fates-hands wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes. I used to be a bouncer in my college town and you'd be surprised at what lengths kids will go to pass off their fake ID's as real. they'll memorize everything on the ID, including where the city is located - "So Flagstaff, is that North or South of Phoenix? I can never remember?" I would ask for all the information on the ID if I thought they looked young. Then once the person was confident they had passed…

That's a pretty good idea! But doesn't this rather depend on you knowing the area code yourself?

We didn't have to. We had a slick way to find out without tipping off the ID holder.

It went something like this:

As I'm asking the kid the details on his ID, I make a hand gesture to the waitress that works the rear bar near the door. She would then have the manager call the phone at the front desk where we were. As I was talking to the kid, I would show Bouncer #2 the city and as I was talking to the kid, Bouncer #2 would ask the manager the area code over the phone in a simple coded manner.

The bouncer would give the city and state initials to the manager. So if it was Phoneix, AZ. He would say, "Yeah, its a PH, AZ." The manager would then confirm he had the right city and then relate the area code. After a few months, I had memorized a lot of the shorthand we had for cities so that it only took a few seconds to confirm. Considering most fakes come from the same states and cities, it wasn't a long list to learn.

By the time I got down stalling, the other bouncer would then ask him the question, already knowing the answer.

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#113

Post by learc83 » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

mankyd wrote: post #38

learc83 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with this technique. The false positive rate is likely pretty high, and without knowing the prior probability that the person is lying, the technique could be worse than useless.

You would never convict someone of deceit based on any liar-detection methodology. They're simply tools used to warrant further investigation. There will be truth-tellers who fail this test, but you find nothing conviction worthy. They'll be fine. There will be liars who pass this test. Hopefully you catch them later by other means, just as you would have otherwise. And of course, there will be those who pass who are…

>This tool does not make that any worse.

If the false positive rate is too high and the prior probability a given person being interviewed actually lied, then the test is actively harmful.

I.e., if a positive result is more likely a false positive, then you end up wasting investigation resources. In this case you'd have been better off just flipping a coin to decide if someone warranted more investigation.

>There will be truth-tellers who fail this test, but you find nothing conviction worthy. They'll be fine.

Tell that to all the people who lost jobs, or spent months of their life under investigation because of failed polygraph tests.

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#114

Post by iamsohungry » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 5:11 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #92

iamsohungry wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best liars use the exhonerative voice to avoid telling a story about themselves at all: "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."

Huh? I'm not disputing that institutions carefully use the passive voice to clean their prose of negative connotations...but the two examples you mention are not "lies" 1. I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at the airport when the search is differentiated from the usual scan. So that phrase is definitely…

> I'm not disputing that institutions carefully use the passive voice to clean their prose of negative connotations...but the two examples you mention are not "lies"

Clippy says: "Hey, it looks like you're trying to start a semantic argument! Can I help with that?"

> I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at the airport when the search is differentiated from the usual scan. So that phrase is definitely not a cover-up for "We will"

Congratulations on being middle class and white.

> There are many cases where there is a shootout involving police and the cause of the suspect's death is ultimately determined as suicide. So the "A shooting involving..." phrase is perfectly acceptable in a breaking news update when no determination has yet been made.

There are many cases where this isn't the case, too.

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#115

Post by rokhayakebe » Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

dbbolton wrote: post #109

rokhayakebe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But just like every other form of torture its efficacy is highly questionable This one truly baffles me. Man, as soon as I find myself tied on a chair, I would spill the whole bag of beans and more. Heaven forbids they pull out the pliers.

It shouldn't be baffling if you looked at the examples or study I posted, because the point definitely wasn't "torture doesn't get people to talk".

I did not look into the links. I wasn't dis/agreeing, though, just saying something related to your comment.

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#116

Post by danso » Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 1:42 AM UTC

iamsohungry wrote: post #114

danso wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I'm not disputing that institutions carefully use the passive voice to clean their prose of negative connotations...but the two examples you mention are not "lies" 1. I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at the airport when the search is differentiated from the usual scan. So that phrase is definitely…

> I'm not disputing that institutions carefully use the passive voice to clean their prose of negative connotations...but the two examples you mention are not "lies" Clippy says: "Hey, it looks like you're trying to start a semantic argument! Can I help with that?" > I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at…

Actually, I'm Asian, FWIW.

Re: How to detect lies with a storytelling technique

#117

Post by mankyd » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #113

mankyd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would never convict someone of deceit based on any liar-detection methodology. They're simply tools used to warrant further investigation. There will be truth-tellers who fail this test, but you find nothing conviction worthy. They'll be fine. There will be liars who pass this test. Hopefully you catch them later by other means, just as you would have otherwise. And of course, there will be those who pass who are…

>This tool does not make that any worse. If the false positive rate is too high and the prior probability a given person being interviewed actually lied, then the test is actively harmful. I.e., if a positive result is more likely a false positive, then you end up wasting investigation resources. In this case you'd have been better off just flipping a coin to decide if someone warranted more investigation. >There wil…

I actually failed my poly - several times :)

I should of course mention that not everyone uses these tools correctly. I suppose that could be harmful. But then again, if an investigator is simply looking for a reason to find someone guilty, then the accused is eff'ed either way.