lie-detection

About Reading People

I read people, I see through them. From the carefree, comfortable actions to their restricted, uncomfortable movements, seeing through it all. 

I absolutely don’t read minds. I, however, read them through their faces and their actions. Every movement speaks of something, it may show to just relax or to shield from something threatening, it all has a meaning. 

Caveats

It may all be a good skill to learn, a gift or a blessing, but it can also be burden, a curse. Being able to know someone even before introducing themselves, stops me from being all too sociable. It’s easy to confuse it with being judgmental, but if you’re in my place, being equipped with the Psychological knowledge in the biases and heuristics that governs an individual’s thinking which even backs up my people reading skills, then you’d understand. 

People reading may be attractive and a fancy skill to have, but you also have to weigh the consequences of learning it. There is a tendency of paranoia if not balanced with the right thoughts and mindset. The pain of disappointment from being served well dressed lies right in your face. It hampers relationships and will surely impede relationship building, that is why you must have a deep understanding, tolerance, and patience in dealing with people.

Why am I pursuing this?

Because I want to see through the mind games that people play, the psychological warfare that’s happening all around us. We’re never free of it. It’s easy to ignore its existence because it’s not concrete, but if it were to be, it’s as good as Tsar Bomba exploding, bombarding your psyche and peace of mind.

I want to see through it all, even just with the power of reading people through their nonverbal leaks. I’d make the most out of it. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore (Freud, 1899).

Why I don’t trust people who think they can tell when you’re lying.

I’ve watched a lot of videos and stuff, including TED talks, by people who think they can tell when people are lying.  They often have a list of things people do when they’re lying.  And I do believe that in many instances, those things really happen when someone is lying.

The problem is that those same things?  They’re what a person looks like when they are desperately trying to look as if they are telling the truth, but are afraid they won’t be believed.  That’s the underlying thing people are seeing.  Not lying specifically, but a whole range of scenarios, of which lying is only one possibility.

I have a friend who has a problem, and I’m not able to explain it to hir because sie would take it badly.  But basically, whenever sie wants to sound sincere, sie writes in the most purple prose imaginable.  It looks completely fake and insincere and exaggerated, even though sie is telling the truth.

Similarly, when I want to make sure that people know I am telling the truth, I add in a lot of detail.  I put in as much detail as I can possibly remember.  Because I assume that people will realize that a lie would have trouble being that detailed. But it turns out that these ‘human lie detector’ people say that giving a lot of details is a sign you’re lying.  No, it’s a sign you’re trying to sound truthful.   It happens when you’re lying, but it also happens when you want people to believe you but aren’t sure they will.

And that’s what it seems like 90% of these “how to tell when someone’s lying” attributes are:  They’re either what happens when you’re trying really hard to sound like you’re telling the truth when you don’t think people are likely to believe you.  Or else they’re signs of nervousness about whether people can tell you’re telling the truth or not.  Or they’re some combination of the two.

And those combinations, yes, they happen when you’re lying.  But they also happen for a lot of other reasons.  Like if you’re the sort of person who isn’t used to being believed.  Or if you aren’t usually believed about a particular topic.  Or if a particular topic makes you emotional and nervous in certain ways.  Or if you’ve been told that you’re a liar so often you almost believe it.  Or… there’s so many possibilities.

So I think these human lie detector people need to be more honest, themselves:  Instead of saying “I can tell when someone is lying,” they should be saying, “I can tell when someone is anything from anxious to desperate to be seen as if they are telling the truth, and for many possible reasons believes they will not be seen that way.”

And they also need to get real about body language.  Being autistic or otherwise neurodivergent can completely mess up normal body language.  Sometimes to our favor with these people – they say steady eye contact can be as much a sign of lying as anything else.  Sometimes to our disfavor – they say that an obvious display of certain emotions means someone is likely telling the truth… and many neurodivergent people know all about how our emotions get misread time and time again.(1)

TL;DR:  People who think they are experts on lying and can tell when other people are lying, frequently are picking up on something.   But at best, they’re picking up on people who don’t expect others to believe them, and are trying to look, act, or sound believable.  Which is a good description of someone who’s lying, but it’s also a good description of a number of people who are telling the truth but don’t expect to be believed.  And at worst, they’re picking up on things like neurodivergence, which can cause people’s words and emotional reactions to be more unpredictable than these “experts” seem to be able to handle.  So I worry for all the people who will be wrongly judged, whenever I see anyone talking about how to “spot liars easily” or some such nonsense.


(1) I laughed when my hamster died, not because I was happy or amused, but because I was horrified at this animal turning cold in my hands and blood coming out her nose.  My (also autistic) brother and I started referring to this sort of thing as the dead hamster laugh.(2) And while autistic people and some other neurodivergent people (schizophrenic people are the best known for it but it happens to others) are more likely to laugh or smile in “inappropriate” situations. 

It’s long been known, for instance, that even neurotypical people laugh in situations causing extreme stress.  People have been known to collapse into hysterical laughter at funerals.  When nothing about the funeral is funny, they’ve just lost a loved one, and they feel terrible.  If they don’t know about the dead hamster laugh, they then feel even more terrible, like something is wrong with them for laughing when they “should be” crying.  

In reality, there is very little “should” when it comes to grief.  The stages of grief don’t even apply to most people, or people do go through them but in the “wrong” order, or mixing them up and mixing in other things.  In fact, the stages of grief were never meant to be the stages the living went through after someone died, they were meant to be about the stages the dying go through as they are trying to come to terms with their own mortality.  But even then, people get it wrong.

At any rate, people often laugh when they lose a loved one.  Or smile uncontrollably, which really should be termed a grimace.  And neurodivergent people are even more likely to have “inappropriate” displays of emotion.  It’s considered inappropriate if it’s not what a neurotypical person would be expected to do under the circumstances.  (Sometimes it is something neurotypicals would do, but they’re just presumed not to do it.)  

It can be considered inappropriate due to the degree of emotion we show – ”too little” or “too much” compared to some arbitrary cultural standard.  For instance, I helped my therapist pick out a fish, and I started dancing around the pet store flapping my hands with excitement and exclaiming “A fish!” over and over.  When we got back to the facility I was living at, he gave me a long lecture on why this display of emotion was “socially inappropriate to the circumstances” or something like that.    

Or it can also be considered inappropriate due to the kind of emotion we show – smiling or laughing because we are highly upset or disturbed by something, for instance.  I’ve already mentioned the dead hamster laugh many times, because it’s a good example, and the situation is famous, or infamous, with certain types of neurodivergent people.

And either of these types of “inappropriate” emotions can be used against us.  Even my writing about the dead hamster laugh, explicitly saying that it happened because I’m upset and not because I’m happy, has caused some people to say I’m a sociopath who enjoys the suffering and death of other people.  

And there are a million ways that these human lie detectors think they can tell when someone is lying by what emotion they are displaying.  For instance, one woman said that a person who is telling the truth and accused of lying will be visibly outraged.  But this isn’t true.  Not everyone’s outrage is visible in any typical sense – some people simply don’t show anger in a visible way, and other people show it in ways that don’t look like anger.  Jane Meyerding, an autistic woman, describes looking angry when frustrated and crying when angry.  The crying when angry is frequently misinterpreted, much to her frustration.  And other people just don’t get angry in that situation, especially people who have been made to feel their experience of the world is not valid – which goes for a large amount of neurodivergent people, other oppressed people, as well as people who have been subject to abuse for a long time.  You get the idea.

(2) Yes, that’s a link to an entire post I made about the dead hamster laugh.  It was written a long time ago but it’s still worth a look.  Just please understand, especially now that I had to add that introduction: I am writing about laughing because something is horribly upsetting to me.  I am not writing about laughing because I secretly enjoy watching horrible things happen to people.  If I enjoyed watching horrible things happen to people, I sure as hell wouldn’t write a post drawing attention to ‘evidence’ of that fact.  But then making sense was never these people’s strong suit, they just fling shit to see if it will stick.

In this case, I recommend watching shows with all sorts of people with all sorts of emotional ranges. Perfect examples include shows about interventions, life in prison, toddler pageants, home decorating, etc. Once you feel you can clearly identify the seven “main” human emotions, and maybe discern deeper feelings (such as anxiousness), switch to reality television featuring deceitful people. My personal picks are those shows that go on about paternity tests… 

Briefly, reality television can teach you a lot about detecting deception if used as a training tool.

MH

Lie Detection

Bear with me, guys. This is going to be a rather long post- and even with its length, I still won’t be able to cover the whole concept of detecting lies.

To become a human lie detector, you have to incorporate a lot of things. Eye movements and body language are the biggest factors in determining whether or not a person is trying to deceive you. You have to be really observant, so it’s no wonder that only 1 out of 300 people naturally possess the incredible ability to sniff out lies.

So, let’s start with body language. Before you can tell the difference between a person being honest and a person being deceitful, you have to get to know the person.  Watch out of your peripheral vision as the person is talking. You may notice a few quirks, things that people do when they’re nervous or excited. For example, someone might bite his nails when he is about to tell a lie. Someone might get sweaty and jittery as she is thinking about running away from the situation. Figure out if the person is open to talking to you, or if they are closed off and cold.

“Open” body language includes moving closer, leaning forward, and relaxing their arms at their sides. If someone is being open towards you talking to them, they “feel” open. On the other hand, “closed” body language includes crossing their arms, keeping their distance, and fiddling with keys or a loose thread on their clothes. If people could put up actual shields when they didn’t want to talk to someone, they would. Since we can’t do that, however, our instincts compensate by telling us to shield ourselves with our arms and keep a safe distance away from threats.

Stressed body language also indicates that a person isn’t comfortable talking to you. Stressed body language includes irregular breathing, a wrinkled forehead, twitchiness, and flushing.  Blood pressure increases when we lie. Pulse rate quickens. If you can find a reasonable explanation for holding someone’s wrist, you could check their pulse. If not, blushing is a result of elevated blood pressure and therefore makes a good replacement for awkward pulse-checking. Body temperature changes (both too hot and too cold) are signs of deception, so if someone needs a glass of water, asks if the air conditioning is on, or needs to put on their jacket, you know something is up.

People also tend to “hunch in” when they’re lying because they want to blend in with the crowd. If someone is trying to make themselves look smaller and less obvious, trying to fit in with the background, that’s a sign they’ve got something to hide.

Right, then. Eye movements. Everyone’s heard the “If they can’t look you in the eyes, they’re lying” rule of thumb before. Yeah, that one’s pretty much a myth. Since everyone’s heard it, dishonest people will purposely look directly into your eyes so that they seem more honest. In my experience, honest people are more likely to glance away and let their eyes wander a bit. That’s probably because they’re not too worried about being assessed for lies, so they’re allowing themselves to be curious and carefree.

When people lie, they get excited. This leads to rapid eye movements such as frequent blinking. Squinting is also a form of deception. When faced with an interrogator, some people feel as if staring directly into their eyes will open up the window to their soul and therefore allow the interrogator access to their deepest secrets. To counteract that, they squint, thinking it’ll close off the “window.”

Now, this next part is simply a generalized guideline. It is by no means the rulebook for every liar. Use this only as a basis to start with, and tailor what you know to the individual for the best results. Let’s say you asked someone a question. “What did you see that day?” The man looks to his left (your right, if you’re facing him) and then answers, “I didn’t see much. Just barely caught a glance of the girl.” Looking to his left is an indication of lying- generally. This means that the man really did see something important, but he doesn’t want to tell you. Looking to his left means he was trying to create a false image in his mind. Looking to his right, on the other hand, would have meant he was accessing a real memory, something he really saw that day. This method also applies to things the man could’ve heard and things the man could’ve felt.

Remember what I just said about tailoring to the individual. Before you jump straight into the questions, establish the baseline. Ask the questions you know the true answers to. “What date were you born?” “How old are you?” “What is your mother’s maiden name?” “Which high school did you attend?” Since you know the answers, watch their eye movements as they answer. When they answered honestly, where did their eyes look? To the left, or to the right? If they lied at all, which way did they look?

Now, for the difference between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. Looking up indicates visual. Looking to the middle indicates auditory. Looking down indicates kinesthetic. If a woman looks down and to her left, she could be trying to remember how she felt when an event happened. Or, if her baseline works the other way, she could be trying to construct how she SHOULD have felt when the event occurred.  The same goes for auditory. If a woman looks to the middle left, she could be trying to remember what she heard last week, or she could be thinking of what she wants to tell the interrogator she heard last week. One side indicates an honest memory; the other side indicates a constructed memory. Make sure to ask the right questions so you can establish a good baseline. It wouldn’t do for you to think someone’s lying just because you got middle left mixed up with upward right or something like that.

I leave you all with this: Combine all the tips here into one package. Don’t work using only eye movements or only body language. That way leads to disaster.

Understanding the face and for what to look

When a human “feels” an emotion, it appears, to them, to come from within. Fear turns the stomach, makes the heart race, the skin perspire, and the mouth dry. Happiness provides a warmth of comfort, and sadness causes shakes. These are all very primal and visceral experiences any animal develops for survival, and we rely on our emotions to live our everyday lives.

The truth is, these experiences are subjective, and while the body reacts impulsively and reflexively to these “feelings,” they are only of the mind. When a human “feels” an emotion, the truth is they’re feeling certain muscles tense up in very specific ways. The face doesn’t express an emotion after it’s felt, no, it expresses it as the emotion is experienced. Think about a gunshot - the sound itself startles the body into instinctively reacting a certain way (for survival), and as the experience happens “to” us, we make sense of it as an emotion, “surprise/fear.”

This theory is prime for understanding how the face works. If you think about a sensitive topic, you’ll express how you feel about that topic as you think on it. When you notice the feeling in your face, you either choose to manipulate it or express it honestly. If you say it aloud, the people who then themselves think on it will express how they feel about it the moment the thought enters their minds. Why they feel that way is generally because of past experiences, or projected future expectations.

If we were pure honest beings, we’d spend all day making very binary expressions; we’d drop our jaws every time we were surprised, we’d run in fear every time something intimidated us. The fact of the matter is we spend an enormous amount of effort keeping these feelings in check, and that process requires a person to reflect rationally on their feelings directly after experiencing them. This process is the process of manipulating the way we use our faces, and it happens in only three ways:

  • Modulation
  • Qualification and
  • Falsification.

Modulation is the act of showing an emotion at a strength it’s not truly felt, be it stronger or weaker. We’ve all modulated up happiness when we compliment our friends, even though at some (lesser) level we really do feel what we’re saying, and we’ve all modulated down sadness at some point, especially at times of major disappointment.

Qualification is a very specific type of emotional manipulation, it’s when an emotion is felt as a direct result of a different emotional experience. When we say something we don’t mean (or something we mean not to say), sometimes we change our minds and feel something different, typically on behalf of someone else. This is not a false feeling, but it’s a feeling that “qualifies” the original honest response, like an embarrassed smile after jumping in fear during a horror movie.

Falsification happens most often when we manipulate our faces, and it is the act of expressing an emotion that is not honestly felt. This particular type of facial deceit is what we will be most concerned with, as being able to see the truth while a face is falsifying is difficult but still possible with rigorous study. We falsify with three different strategies:

  • Simulation
  • Neutralization and
  • Masking.

Simulation is fairly simple to understand, it’s the act of expressing any amount of emotion when no emotion is felt. Most people are only practiced in simulating happiness, anger, surprise and disgust, and most people leave out crucial signs of any emotion which are easy to spot (we’ve all heard to look out for wrinkles around the eyes when someone smiles, more on that to come).

Neutralization is also fairly straight forward, and most of us refer to good neutralizers as “having great poker faces.” 

Masking is one of the most difficult forms of manipulation both to perform well and to see though - masking is when a person expresses an emotion that is not felt in order to conceal the emotion that is truly felt. Understanding when a mask is being put on is a hugely helpful skill that we’ll touch on later.

Now I know that seems like a lot of different types of lies we tell with our faces, and I haven’t even gotten to micro-expressions, which isn’t a type of facial manipulation at all - it’s the exact opposite, a momentary instance of pure emotion that flashes across the face in less than 1/15 of a second, and sometimes only happens in a very small area of the face. Noticing the occurrences of these twitches is the first step to identifying leaking emotion, so pay close attention to rapid movements. 

Lastly, there are three main areas of the face, the eyebrows, the eyes, and the mouth/nose area. Most of us look to the eyes as being the “window to the soul,” but the truth is all areas of the face work together during an honest expression, and they work against each other when they’re being manipulated. We have an incredibly difficult time controlling the entire face when we’re falsifying, and knowing when and where to expect an action in these areas is vital to your assessment when lie detecting. 

The entries on each honest emotion’s role in the face starts with happiness, found here. <-

- I Cannot Tell a Lie by Adrienne Anifant in John Jay’s JusticeMatters, Fall 2012 …which just arrived in the mail a few days ago. (I’ve said it a hundred times, amazing faculty [srsly, none better] but the admin could use a trailer load of help.)

Fascinating article about Professor Maria Hartwig’s work towards the effectiveness of interrogation techniques based on “embodied cognition” and new approaches for detecting deception which seek to, “…reduce false accusations, wrongful convictions, lengthy appeals and the concomitant stress and anxiety to the accused and their families.” Her recent work is funded by the FBI/High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Clearly, I’d love to meet her. So maybe I WILL. Operation cold email awesome people in effect. Boom. 

psychologytoday.com
9 Ways to Tell Who's Lying to You

Psychology seems like it should be a good place to start trying to figure out how to sift the truth from the lies. If you don’t have access to a polygraph, there may be some behavioral clues that can tip you off. Although the science isn’t completely there yet, a recently-published test seems to have potential. University of Texas at Tyler psychologist Jacqueline Evans and her colleagues (2013) developed the Psychologically Based Credibility Assessment Tool (PBCAT), an 11-item rating scale you can readily adapt for your own purposes. {Read more}

With this background, here are the 9 basic rating scales from the PBCAT that will allow you to detect when you’re being told a lie:

  1. Leaves out sensory details. A liar skips many of the little flourishes that embellish stories told by honest people. These are harder to keep straight later, so he or she just leaves them out. Someone telling the truth might mention what music was playing in the background or what color the flowers on the table were. A liar will try to be as incomplete as possible on details, including time, because these are difficult to construct and then keep consistent to in later renditions of the story.
  2. Admits frequently to faulty memory. People telling the truth don’t have that much trouble remembering a true event, situation, or occurrence. They lived it, so it comes pretty easily to them. Liars, however, will give themselves the “excuse” of having a poor memory when, in reality, it’s only the lies they’re having trouble recalling.
  3. Makes spontaneous corrections. Because liars have to backtrack so much, they will edit heavily their stories: “Her name was Lily, no it was Lisa, wait, maybe it was Linda.” You don’t have to keep an exact count of how many of these occur in a person’s speech, but if they happen often enough for you to notice, the individual is probably covering something up.

{Read the rest}

The Othello Error

Othello error occurs when a suspicious observer discounts cues of truthfulness. Essentially the Othello error occurs, Paul Ekman states, “when the lie catcher fails to consider that a truthful person who is under stress may appear to be lying" their non-verbal signals expressing their worry at the possibility of being disbelieved. A lie-detector may be deceived in the same way, by misinterpreting nervous signals from a truthful person.”

More. 

dailymotion

Using fMRI to see if you are lying

This is such a hotly debated issue right now, and to the best of my knowledge the technology just is not up to the challenge yet. Even though some researchers claim they got results that were 90% accurate (i.e. they could tell whether the participant was lying or not correctly 90% of the time) their studies are carried out in a lab setting. This technology isn’t ready to be wheeled out to courtrooms yet, although companies have set up their businesses anyway. 

“A new wave of lie-detection technology relies on fMRI imaging technology and claims to be able to see inside your mind to tell if you are lying. 

Wired Senior Editor Adam Rogers subjects himself to this new technology and sees whether or not he’s even thinking of a lie." 

Read the full story

The signs as super powers
  • Aries: super strength, fire manipulation
  • Taurus: impenetrability/invulnerability, time travel
  • Gemini: telepathy/mind reading (communicating through and hearing thoughts), telekinesis (controlling objects with the mind)
  • Cancer: empathic perception/manipulation (sensing and controlling feelings), healing (both self and others)
  • Leo: flying, midas touch
  • Virgo: mind control (mental aspect, not physical, which would be telekinesis), electricity manipulation
  • Libra: shape shifting/transformation, mimicry
  • Scorpio: poisonous touch/kiss, necromancy
  • Sagittarius: lie detection, teleportation
  • Capricorn: super speed, ice manipulation
  • Aquarius: water manipulation, invisibility
  • Pisces: regeneration, clairvoyance
Five Steps To The Truth: The BASIC Interview Method: Ask Open-Ended Questions

Step #2: Ask Open-Ended Questions

If observing the baseline wasn’t enough and to even get this far, it’s because you have a hunch that someone you’re talking may be acting dishonestly, and you need to know more. When you’re baselining, you’re not digging for information about a specific incident; you’re just getting a feel for how someone looks and sounds on a regular basis under relaxed, normal circumstances. Your questions don’t have to have any particular structure, they just need to be sincere and to elicit a genuine, natural response. The second BASIC step, however, requires a little more strategy.

Obviously, simply asking, “You aren’t really interested in me, are you? You just want access to what I have” may not get you a truthful answer. If your friend is in fact practicing some kind of subterfuge, he will simply answer “No.” This will cut off further communication and limit your opportunity to liespot. So you need to prepare open-ended questions that encourage discussion and information sharing.

What Exactly Is an Open-Ended Question?

Let’s start by looking at a closed question. A closed question is one that can be answered with a brief “yes” or “no.” It doesn’t encourage the person with whom you’re speaking to offer any more information than you’ve demanded. If that person is leaning toward dishonesty, a closed question slams the door on your chances of learning more. Here are examples of closed questions:

“Have you been visiting some hot springs?”
“Did you take the exam?”
“Are you sure you’re done with your assignments?”

Imagine what a different you might get if, instead, you asked:

“How was the experience of hot springs in Tagaytay?”
“What subjects did you have an exam on?”
“What assignments were you able to finish?”

You can ask open or closed questions when you’re baselining; it doesn’t matter. When your suspicion is aroused, though, the kind of question you ask matters quiet a bit. Open-Ended questions encourage people to give you an expanded reply and they also allow you to keep what you know to yourself.

There are four goals to keep in mind when you ask open-ended questions

1. Establish what you know and what you want to know.
2. Develop rapport.
3. Elicit a response.
4. Tell the right story.

Establish What You Know, and What You Want to Know. Before you start asking any questions, you should line up as many facts about the specific incident you’re investigating as possible. You should determine clearly what information you want to find out now, and what you can wait to learn later. Make a list of the evidence you need for the particular event you want to investigate. Think through what is relevant, fact-based evidence and what might be hearsay.

Develop Rapport. It is not secret that the less threatening, judgmental, and suspicious you are, the more likely someone will be to open up to you. As you begin your interview, you can build rapport through standard “active listening.” Active listening doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with your companion, but it demonstrates your investment in and understanding of what’s being communicated. 

Elicit an Observable Response. Approach your subject casually as possible in comfortable, private, and calm environment that’s free from distraction. Whether he’s guilty or innocent, he won’t want to feel like a bug under a microscope. The less intimidating you are, the faster you’ll get the information you want. 

Tell the Right Story. Every liar has a rationalization—a story he tells himself so that he can live with his lie. Rationalizing helps liars explain why they shouldn’t be judged harshly for stealing, lying to their friends, or even cheating to their partners. 

Be sure to take into consideration the subject’s “blame pattern"—the ways he typically places blame for wrongful actions. Understanding blame patters is critical to the process of fine-tuning your story preparation. Does he tend to blame himself or others? Is he likely to blame a victim ("She was asking for it”) or does he see himself as the victim (“I was set up”)? How a subject absorbs or rejects a blame will shape the way you try to help him tell his story.

Propose Stories. Trained investigators will gently suggest story after story, for as long as twenty or thirty minutes, until they hit on the right one. Truthful subjects will reject every story, no matter how plausible you make each suggestion sound. If you are nonjudgmental and compassionate, however, many guilty people will jump at the chance to commiserate with someone who understands what drove them to do something they probably never thought themselves capable of doing. Remember that most liars want to tell you the truth. Make it as easy as possible for them.

nytimes.com
Lie-Detection Software Is a Research Quest

SHE looks as innocuous as Miss Marple, Agatha Christie’s famous detective.

But also like Miss Marple, Julia Hirschberg, a professor of computer science at Columbia University, may spell trouble for a lot of liars.

That’s because Dr. Hirschberg is teaching computers how to spot deception — programming them to parse people’s speech for patterns that gauge whether they are being honest.

For this sort of lie detection, there’s no need to strap anyone into a machine. The person’s speech provides all the cues — loudness, changes in pitch, pauses between words, ums and ahs, nervous laughs and dozens of other tiny signs that can suggest a lie.

» via The New York Times (Subscription may be required for some content)

*Sips tea aggressively* Where is the lie? Because…

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

Revelation 1:15 - And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Burned Brass

& These pictures of White Jesus sure are pretty

Isiaih 53:2 …he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (or be attracted to him)

papers.ssrn.com
"Cross-Cultural Variation and fMRI Lie-Detection"

Welcome to a paper I’ll be referencing IRL. I was actually fighting with myself last night about populations to use for my fMRI study (I don’t want to use college students, since my study isn’t about college students), which Bruni brings up in the abstract:

On several basic features of perception and cognition, Western university students turn out to be outliers relative to the general human population, so that data based on them should be interpreted with caution.

So, I'm really glad I have this paper to base my request of special population off of now…since I’m not sure how easy it will be getting access to the population I need

So big up to Tommaso Bruni, former ‘guest list neighbor’ at the Neuroethics and Law Blog!  From Bruni’s conclusion:

The long and the short of this paper is that cross-cultural experiments on fMRI lie-detection should be performed before this technique enters courts, because the lab experiments with US citizens risk having an unacceptably low external validity. As a matter of fact, I suggest the technique cannot live up to the Daubert standards without such checks, because no error rate calculated in the lab can be projected onto real life without them. I do not take any position about the ethical acceptability of fMRI lie-detection, but argue that more neuroscientific research is needed (not only in the cross-cultural field) in order to assess its full potential both legally and morally. I therefore encourage and endorse more funding for fMRI lie-detection research. Only sound and carefully conducted empirical research can lead to new forensic technologies that can be useful to ascertain the truth and to justly determine legal proceedings. (via)

I ABSOLUTELY agree with him on why (technically) lie detection isn’t ready for courts.

Hey look internet, I agree with someone!

when Josh plans a prank to murder/scare his friends yet he’s the one that ends up dying