New at Reason
Ronald Bailey sets out to find the ultimate lie detector.
Comments to "New at Reason":
I'm not sure of the specific brain regions involve, but women on average also use more parts of their brain when they speak. The results of the No Lie MRI studies might not hold up for all brains.
crimethink | February 23, 2007, 8:30am | #
I note that Ron didn't include a disclosure statement. Is it possible he's making money from the mind-reading industry?SugarFree | February 23, 2007, 8:36am | #
One science fiction take on this technology is The Truth Machine by James Halperin (1997), but his conclusions are horrifying from a libertarian standpoint.Because "nuclear terrorism" is a possibility within the book's future, everyone is submitted to the machine whenever they change jobs, apply for any sort of license, or testify in court. Privacy ceases to exist in the face of terrorism. And the book and the author are just fine with that.
Warren | February 23, 2007, 9:21am | #
Even it the technology worked perfectly, it's utility would be limited. What we need isn't a lie detector, it's a truth detector.What we want to know is "did the victim reach inside his jacket before the defendant fired?" But it is well documented that witnesses recollections are notoriously unreliable, no matter how honest or well intentioned. Detecting a lie, only detects what someone believes.
Ron Bailey | February 23, 2007, 9:39am | #
jtuf: The link worked for me. Hmmmm. Sugarfree, would you be interested in my take on Halperin? He suggests that a society with a truth machine would have to agree not to ask each other certain questions.SugarFree | February 23, 2007, 10:47am | #
Ron,I would hate to think my privacy relied on politeness.
Your article was an interesting re-read (I dimly remember reading it at the time), but in it, Halperin is either naive or willfully blind to our culture. Truth is a commodity of a rare sort. If citizens are tolerated areas of their life in which they may "lie" (i.e. not be tested on a Truth Machine), then opting not to be tested when giving answers in those areas will be suspect.
I think another aspect of the novel, people who eventually voluntarily wear Truth Machines all the time, will only reinforce this tendency. A natural reaction of an employer or a government agency will be to prefer the "honest" person over the person who still has the ability to "lie."
Utopian fiction always terrifies me on some level. One man's utopia is always everyone else's dystopia, because they are trapped living in it.
DenkerDichter | February 23, 2007, 11:10am | #
I wonder if the solution to the problem of the existence of Truth Machines (which, incidentally, are impossible: Warren expressed the tip of the iceberg) would be to require everyone to wear one all the time.Were this possible, I'd be willing to bet that, within two generations, we would forget how to lie.
SugarFree | February 23, 2007, 11:21am | #
Denker, how many people are you entirely honest with all the time about everything? Umm... zero. And the rest of us wouldn't have it any other way.Politeness and civility is based entirely on lies. Marriage would collapse as a institution without the ability to lie. In fact, all relationships are a consensual, crumbling tower of lies that both people are afraid to tip over.
Inside us all is a squat, feral, shitting beast that we only keep quiet with lies.
James | February 23, 2007, 12:33pm | #
I think Warren has the right of it. Lying is actually pretty predictable behavior. People lie when they have self-interest involved and a history of lying. What's more difficult is people who think they're telling the truth but aren't. People are often suggestible, especially under thumbscrews, but also under pressure from authority, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If told a certain thing happened, and they believe it, they begin to "remember" it that way.Thus, people say things that aren't true all the time, even though they aren't lying. They want them to be true or think them to be true and mold their recollections of personal experience to make them "true." The "lie detector" cannot detect delusion, and every person is delusional at least part of the time.
jtuf | February 23, 2007, 12:38pm | #
The link works for me now. It might have been down for maintainance or something.The research proposes, "In producing a deceptive response, a person must inhibit or conceal the truth, which activates parts of the brain that are not required for truth-telling. Thus, fewer areas of the brain are active when telling the truth." But there are other reasons someone might be surpressing a portion of his speach. Maybe PC speach doesn't come naturally to him, and he is watching his words for the first time now that they're being recorded. For that matter, anyone raised with a minority dialect might activate the same brain regions when he switches to the majority dialect.
The ancients taught their children to be good liars. Isn't it interesting that that skill is no longer valued so honestly?
Larry A | February 23, 2007, 1:05pm | #
Were this possible, I'd be willing to bet that, within two generations, we would forget how to lie.I'd be willing to bet there wouldn't be a second generation.
George Costanza | February 25, 2007, 9:24am | #
Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.William Jefferson Clinton | February 25, 2007, 9:41am | #
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.