SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-check-if-they-are-horizontal dept.
PsychCentral has a decent summary of a recent software-based effort from University of Michigan to discover who's lying and who's not.
By carefully observing people telling lies during high-stakes court cases, researchers at the University of Michigan are developing unique lie-detecting software based on real-world data.
Their lie-detecting model considers both the person's words and gestures, and unlike a polygraph, it doesn't need to touch the speaker in order to work.
In experiments, the prototype was up to 75 percent accurate in identifying who was telling a lie (as defined by trial outcomes), compared with humans' scores of just above 50 percent. The tool might be helpful one day for security agents, juries, and even mental health professionals.
To develop the software, the researchers used machine-learning techniques to train it on a set of 120 video clips from media coverage of actual trials. Some of the clips they used were from the website of The Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted.
[More after the break.]
Researchers found that the people who were lying had a number of distinctive tells. They moved their hands more, scowled or grimaced, said "um" more frequently, and attempted to create a sense of distance between themselves and their alleged crime or civil misbehavior by using words like "he" or "she" rather than "I" or "we." Even more interesting, liars tended to make a greater effort at sounding sure of themselves — not only would they feign confidence, but they would also look the questioner in the eye, perhaps attempting to establish believability.
"In laboratory experiments, it's difficult to create a setting that motivates people to truly lie. The stakes are not high enough,...We can offer a reward if people can lie well — pay them to convince another person that something false is true. But in the real world there is true motivation to deceive. People are poor lie detectors. This isn't the kind of task we're naturally good at. There are clues that humans give naturally when they are being deceptive, but we're not paying close enough attention to pick them up."
"It was 75 percent accurate in identifying who was lying. That's much better than humans, who did just better than a coin-flip."
"The system might one day be a helpful tool for security agents, juries and even mental health professionals."
I have to imagine this is a child's game compared to what Three Letter Agencies have developed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 14 2015, @01:29AM
Perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with the law. As I have already stated, government relies on polygraphs for it's own purposes. Government can and will admit a polygraph test if it suits government's purpose to do so. And, government will bar a polygraph result from evidence if and when it suits government to do so.
The common government saying is, " are not "generally accepted" by the scientific evidence. " That statement is not precisely the same as "inadmissable".
Read the link below, and you will find that there is no federal law, applicable at federal, state, and local level barring a polygraph exam. Polygraphs are still very much in play in our government and court system today. I find it interesting that it was a military court that first challenged the admissibility of polygraphs.
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-262-polygraphs-introduction-trial [justice.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @08:58AM
> As I have already stated, government relies on polygraphs for it's own purposes.
Repeating yourself doesn't make the new location of the goalposts any less new.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 14 2015, @09:38AM
Your statement, taken at face value, is true enough. But, repeating your own claims without reading the article doesn't leave you any better informed.