Thread: Lie to Me

This is a made for TV series with a very interesting plots that uses experts at deception detection and analysis to solve problems and crimes.

I know that all the CSI programs are based on real forensic scientists doing their jobs and was wondering if the same can be said about the science of deception detection and analysis? Is it really advanced enough to solve crimes as depicted in this series?

Of course, any television show is going to stretch the validity of the underlying science a bit to make it more entertaining and accessible to the non-expert audience. The work in this field of deception detection is quite robust... micro twitches in facial muscles, overall blood flow patterns and muscle tension in the face, shoulders, and hands, changes in pupil dilation, sweat and scent changes, overall galvonic skin response can even be detected a bit by trained experts, and even to some extent by any of us due to our practice growing up in an environment where nonverbal communication plays such a critical role in our interactions with others.

The show is very much based on real science. However, Cal Lightman brings the ability to weave all of those threads of information together like a jedi, and that's the part I think strains credulity a bit. Those threads of information are certainly there, but the ability to craft the story so consistently and quickly based on them is where I think it becomes less realistic.

I quite like the show. I think it's entertaining, but from an objective standpoint, it's a bit over the top and somewhat hokey in some ways. They base it on real stuff, and that educates people about a science about which they might not otherwise give a crap, but most stories they show are IMO somewhat unrealistic... Always sort of a perfect storm which allows the characters to make the impossible conclusions and bust the bad guys... It's good television, though. 8)

Originally Posted by inow

Of course, any television show is going to stretch the validity of the underlying science a bit to make it more entertaining and accessible to the non-expert audience. The work in this field of deception detection is quite robust... micro twitches in facial muscles, overall blood flow patterns and muscle tension in the face, shoulders, and hands, changes in pupil dilation, sweat and scent changes, overall galvonic skin response can even be detected a bit by trained experts, and even to some extent by any of us due to our practice growing up in an environment where nonverbal communication plays such a critical role in our interactions with others.

The show is very much based on real science. However, Cal Lightman brings the ability to weave all of those threads of information together like a jedi, and that's the part I think strains credulity a bit. Those threads of information are certainly there, but the ability to craft the story so consistently and quickly based on them is where I think it becomes less realistic.

I quite like the show. I think it's entertaining, but from an objective standpoint, it's a bit over the top and somewhat hokey in some ways. They base it on real stuff, and that educates people about a science about which they might not otherwise give a crap, but most stories they show are IMO somewhat unrealistic... Always sort of a perfect storm which allows the characters to make the impossible conclusions and bust the bad guys... It's good television, though. 8)

Glad I'm not the only one that likes that program and I think your analysis about what's going on in the series is probably right on the mark. I would like to add that as computers become better at facial recognition, all the various expressions that represent the emotions all humans have in common along with various other body language indicators such as mussel twitches, respiration, heart rate, body temperature, sweat,,,etc. Could make lie detection convincing enough for the courts.

I do know there are many ways to beet the current lie detectors and that's why the courts won't allow the results. However the police still make use of it as a deception tool, as most people don't know how to beet it.

My question here is how close are they to having a court accepted deception tool?

Interesting question. I'm not too familiar with the tech we have available nowadays.

Deception and the science that seeks to detect it is an item of high interest to me. I have to believe that eventually science will come up with a full proof method of detecting the lie. When that happens how will that affect society? As far as I know everybody lies from time to time for one reason or another. It's true not all lies are for the purpose evil or bad deeds. But suppose every community had a deception center where you could go and for about $20 find out if someone was being truthful with you? What if you could legally be compelled to take a deception test at any time and be convicted and jailed by the results of that test? Suppose politicians were made to use the device when answering public questions and anytime they lied a big red light would come on? <Smile>

That worries me on a personal level. There have been too many times when a woman has asked me if she was the most important part of my life, or if her jeans made her ass look big. Or... After I return home from business travel when I'm asked if I missed her... Or if I'd rather watch her chick flick instead of ultimate fighting... Seriously... Sometimes a comment which is less than truthful is the best approach for all involved, and if she could compel me to go in front of the deception detector, I'd be missing out on whole metric assload of sex and fallating.

Originally Posted by inow

That worries me on a personal level. There have been too many times when a woman has asked me if she was the most important part of my life, or if her jeans made her ass look big. Or... After I return home from business travel when I'm asked if I missed her... Or if I'd rather watch her chick flick instead of ultimate fighting... Seriously... Sometimes a comment which is less than truthful is the best approach for all involved, and if she could compel me to go in front of the deception detector, I'd be missing out on whole metric assload of sex and fallating.

Yes that's a big worry for a lot of us. I'm sure the price would be more than $20 per session, so being dragged before the inquisitor of truth might not be the problem we can imagine. Also, all questions that will be asked should be agreed upon before hookup. But let's face it, if your a cheater and you say no, you will be caught. I'm pretty sure the size of your woman's ass won't be one of the questions on the machine.

Having said that, I can see many people having a problem with being threatened to verify the truth of their statements. However I for one would have saved myself a lot of money and personal well being had I been able to verify the truthfulness of a woman I hooked up with. So I'm not very sympathetic to your worries.

Fair enough.

So, I presume you want to create a device of this nature so you can avoid personal heartache visited upon you by members of the opposite sex?

That's how we learn, btw... Please also note that I don't have to lie to get fellated, but it sure helps to be able to know when to say something and when not to, or when to exaggerate a comment or camouflage it.

Originally Posted by inow

Fair enough.

So, I presume you want to create a device of this nature so you can avoid personal heartache visited upon you by members of the opposite sex?

That's how we learn, btw... Please also note that I don't have to lie to get fellated, but it sure helps to be able to know when to say something and when not to, or when to exaggerate a comment or camouflage it.

Hey, females can be criminals and they lie as much or more than a man. But I'd be very satisfied just knowing all the criminals would be convicted and no innocent people would be convicted for something they didn't do.

Also I did know I was being lied to, I just didn't want to believe it. However that kind of thinking would not be possible in the light of an infallible deception tool.

PS- or could it?

What if person telling false statement sincerely believes it to be the truth? Common enough situation, more so than fellatio in Prince's sad life, sniff- LOL!

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

What if person telling false statement sincerely believes it to be the truth? Common enough situation, more so than fellatio in Prince's sad life, sniff- LOL!

Well I suppose the liar could be a sociopath, but a little background checking should be able to bring this fact to the attention of the deception detection experts. In any event the science of deception detection is still fairly new and is only going to get a lot better over time.

Actually, Lie to Me has it very far stretched. I read an article about it in a science megasine where they pointed out that, though plausible, the information they get by using any lie detection tecknicke is not relyable because we are still very individualistic. A expression of fear might be the same for everyone (still not proven the be the exact same for everyone) but the motivation for that fear is different. A man might get caught and show fear and remorse but still pleads innocent. Who are we that we can tell that his fear is for being caught and unfairly charged with something he did not do and his remorse because he feels he should have done something different. Or maybe a guilty criminal is believing his own innocent lie. (which is completely possible, even for non sociopaths. Memories can artificially made by a third party without any bigger problem.) Anyway, there are very good reasons why this is not used in court, the tekniekes are just not reliable. (atleast not in Sweden as I'm aware)