Fact finder must discriminate truthful from deceptive testimony
We are poor at naturally detecting lies from truth
Technology
Episteme: knowledge that lies before us, that is evident
Techne: reveals whatever does not bring itself forth and does not yet lie before us
Trust and Technology
Accepting technology we cant understand
We must trust technology to some extent
Makes us susceptible to technological deceit
Issues
Problem of discrimination: certain features may correlate with lying but also are found in non deceptive states, could pick up heightened physiological responses caused by anxiety, can identify people telling the truth
Reliability: no current technology can reliably reveal a lie, cues to deception are faint and unreliable
1 of 5
Metaphor of Bodily Leakage
Embodiment
Techniques of lie detection always try to embody the life
Body can be seen but the mind cant
Lies will eventually be expelled from the body
Bodily tremours
Raised pulse
Brain murmurs
Trembling voice
Facial and other tics
Non verbal cues to deception
Picked up with help of visual technologies
Linguistic slips
Interpreted prescriptively, now can be identified descriptively through computer software
Empirical studies show little correlation between putative verbal cues to deception and attested acts of lying
Porter and Yuille 1996
18 verbal indicators of deception taken from police training
Liars produced fewer details, were less coherent and less often admitted memory loss
Computational linguistic lie detection: large scale quantitative analysis
2 of 5
Lie Detection Technologies
Layered Voice Analysis
Form of voice analysis which claims to be able to detect lying from the physical properties of speech
Brain Fingerprinting
Can detect deception through brain waves
Scientific Content Analysis
Most popular method of statement analysis in US
Claims to be able to tell from a witnesses written statement to the police whether or not they are lying
Why do agencies buy into these?
Little if any scientific validity
Deceptive rhetoric tools
Bogus Pipeline Effect
Tendency for participants to be more truthful if they believe their responses will be validated by an external source, even if it is bogus
3 of 5
A Rhetoric of Expertise
Rhetorical Strategies
Localisation: lying in body
Identification of deception localised in particular bodily organ or in linguistic product
Voice Stress Analysis, Brain Fingerprinting, SCAN
Dissimilation: distinguish technology from previous
Emphasising dissimilarity between new technique and pre-existing discredited techniques
LVA, Brain Fingerprinting, SCAN
Technicalisation: sounding scientific
To sound expert, the technique is made to sound complex and technical
LVA, Brain Fingerprinting, SCAN
Amplification: of results
Exaggerated claims about the accuracy of the methods
LVA, SCAN, Brain Fingerprinting
Commericial Dissemination: rather than scientific
By focussing on media and commercial dissemination, developers can avoid the awkward obstacle of scientific acceptance
LVA, SCAN, Brain Fingerprinting
4 of 5
A Rhetoric of Expertise 2
Rhetorical Strategies
Concealment: hiding lack of scientific basis
Develoeprs seek to achieve a fine rhetorical balance between sounding scientific and concealing scientific critique
Asking the Right Questions
Experimental Conditions
Most tests based on yes/no answers
Most informants are ordinary people without specific expertise
Actual conditions of lying
Many shades of grey between truth and lying
Many consequential liars will have expertise in lying
Lying matters, as does hiding it
Cognitive processing load
The one well attested correlate of lying
Ask many open questions to increase cognitive load
Shift from revealing truth through technology to testing trust through rhetorical enagement
Comments
No comments have yet been made