Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Lie Detectors

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 8:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?

They start by asking you questions they already know the answer to account for any nervousness and adjust for it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 8:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 8:36:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?

They start by asking you questions they already know the answer to account for any nervousness and adjust for it.

pretty much, I've had a couple done, and they first ask you a couple basic questions like,

"what is your name?"
"what is your birthday"

things they essentially know the true answer for, and then they tell you to lie about something, like for instance,

"I am not caucasian"

or something along those lines, to be able to tell a reaction when you lie.

Then they start asking you questions they don't know whether or not you are lying about
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?

The method certainly has its flaws, but once a baseline is created by asking obvious questions a result can be learned from the subjects reaction to being asked other questions.
Debate.org Moderator
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imo, the justice department should invest billions in developing an extremely reliable and difficult to beat lie detector test to be used in conjunction with (not replace or substitute for) the current methods. This in addition to replacing the present jury system with a panel of judges would be very effective, I think, at improving the validity of decisions made by the courts.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:09:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 8:36:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?

They start by asking you questions they already know the answer to account for any nervousness and adjust for it.

I still think I'd become unusually nervous when they ask the question of interest, even if I was telling the truth.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 9:07:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Imo, the justice department should invest billions in developing an extremely reliable and difficult to beat lie detector test to be used in conjunction with (not replace or substitute for) the current methods. This in addition to replacing the present jury system with a panel of judges would be very effective, I think, at improving the validity of decisions made by the courts.

nah. I think lie detectors that have been proven extremely reliable should be admitted as evidence, but the decision should still be left to a jury. The jury's duty isn't just to determine the truths of the event, but to inject the opinion and representation of the common people in jurisprudence. A machine can't fill that purpose.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?

It isn't. Many academies and scientists consider the test to be unreliable.
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 9:14:28 PM, Cobo wrote:
At 8/6/2013 8:33:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would probably fail every lie detector test because I get nervous by virtue of being questioned, even if I'm telling the truth. The pressure to be calm would adversely make me anxious. So how in the world is this even considered a valid type of test?

It isn't. Many academies and scientists consider the test to be unreliable.

Indeed. The test is just a tool to show the results of that test, for whatever it's worth, and sometimes it does have some value given the circumstances. But I wouldn't agree that it should be used as evidence of anything. A deranged person (thus someone more likely to be on trial) who can lie without having involuntary reactions at all (because they may believe it isn't) could be likely to pass the test.

"Lie detectors" at this point are useful but aren't going to replace common methods of evidence gathering and jurisprudence any time soon.
Debate.org Moderator
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Penn and Teller did a Bullsh1t! show about lie detectors. Very interesting.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/6/2013 9:13:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/6/2013 9:07:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Imo, the justice department should invest billions in developing an extremely reliable and difficult to beat lie detector test to be used in conjunction with (not replace or substitute for) the current methods. This in addition to replacing the present jury system with a panel of judges would be very effective, I think, at improving the validity of decisions made by the courts.

nah. I think lie detectors that have been proven extremely reliable should be admitted as evidence, but the decision should still be left to a jury.

Is the "nah" in reference to the panel of judges?

The jury's duty isn't just to determine the truths of the event, but to inject the opinion and representation of the common people in jurisprudence.

In a lot of cases, a jury's verdict is based purely on whether or not they think X happened.

A machine can't fill that purpose.

I'm not advocating for the current justice system to be replaced with a machine. But rather, I'm advocating for the development and practice of a machine that could, with great accuracy, indicate if someone is lying or telling the truth. It could provide telling evidence for a jury (or a panel of judges) to interpret and make more accurate verdicts with when little evidence is present (or work to weaken or strengthen a case made against someone).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2013 9:44:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What sucks is that the current lie detector test has a much harder time detecting lying in sociopaths. Like, how fukkin inconvenient is that....