|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting
#2475778 - 03/26/04 03:09 AM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Results of a single Discovery Channel test of detecting lies:
1. Voice Analysis: 21 of 25 questions correct
(Three way tie)
3. Retinal scan: 17 of 25
4. Seasoned FBI investigator: 17 of 25
5. Professional poker player: 17 of 25
6. Professional polygrapher: 16 of 25
7. Reknowned astrologer: 10 of 25
Footnote: The astrologer whined about difficult conditions saying that he would do much better in his own clinic. (Far away from objective eyes, where it is much easier to fool gullible clients - Swami added). Yup, this guy did worse than chance and then made the expected excuses. Who wudda thunk it?
Swami Pre-emptive strike: a single test like this is NOT conclusive, but does give some indication of technology vs. psychology and is worthy of further study.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
bert
bodhi
Registered: 10/14/02
Posts: 2,819
Loc: state
|
Re: Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting [Re: Swami]
#2475790 - 03/26/04 03:16 AM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Were the liars pre-recorded and controlled for each test? It's amazing that voice analyisis yielded such a high rate. Another frightening aspect of technology. Maybe one day they'll reach nearly perfect lie detection, at which point only truely delusional people will be able to shield their true motivations.
-------------------- Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting [Re: Swami]
#2475792 - 03/26/04 03:18 AM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
That's it--I'm getting my horoscope done by a professional poker player.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting [Re: bert]
#2475795 - 03/26/04 03:25 AM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I didn't watch the entire show; mostly the conclusion. So if my data is wrong, I am not attempting to lie.
One of the research team was chosen as "the liar". He had no special ability to disguise himself. Each "expert" got to witness the liar telling both truth and lies first so that they would have a baseline.
I believe that all of the experts had to ask 22 identical questions, then three of their choice (perhaps from a larger list of pre-recorded questions.)
Naturally, none of the experts got to watch the others in action during the test.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
bert
bodhi
Registered: 10/14/02
Posts: 2,819
Loc: state
|
Re: Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting [Re: Swami]
#2475802 - 03/26/04 03:32 AM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Hmm, I still think it would be better to have a pre-videotaped liar so it's even all across. Do you know if the liars were blind to the experts so as to avoid tester bias? Interesting nonetheless.
-------------------- Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting [Re: bert]
#2475809 - 03/26/04 03:39 AM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Do you know if the liars were blind to the experts so as to avoid tester bias? Interesting nonetheless.
Human interaction is a huge part of the human expert's bag of tricks. In fact that is all the poker player and FBI investiagtor had going for them. A polygraph does not give a definitive result. It us up to the polygrapher to interpret.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Man vs. Machine Lie Detecting [Re: Swami]
#2476824 - 03/26/04 12:13 PM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Damn... I wish my cable wasn't out... I might've caught that show. Sounds neat.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|