If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   How not to make your face look if you don't want to be busted for lying about that weird porn on your computer   (io9.com) divider line 32
    More: Amusing, Lie To Me, Paul Ekman, psychological research, computers  
•       •       •

6371 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Oct 2013 at 1:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-31 02:00:58 AM  
Well, that's what happens.  Try not to get caught next time.
 
2013-10-31 02:01:03 AM  
Let's see what that guy thinks about this story I know about his grandmother.
 
2013-10-31 02:11:13 AM  
Gee, magic doesn't work? WHAT? Next you're going to tell me that all the money we've spent on body scanners was wasted, too.
 
2013-10-31 02:15:31 AM  
Meanwhile, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

/100 percent original thought
//I guarantee it
///not seen in any magazine renowned for its cartoons.
 
2013-10-31 03:17:55 AM  
Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

Fails for the same reason polygraphs fail... human emotions are weird and defy prediction/interpretation.
 
2013-10-31 03:21:52 AM  
*foot tapping faster*
 
2013-10-31 03:37:58 AM  
All this trouble to measure micro expressions to detect liars seems like a big waste of time, when you can just measure the contours of their skull.
 
2013-10-31 04:15:09 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.


If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.
 
2013-10-31 04:17:45 AM  

sendtodave: All this trouble to measure micro expressions to detect liars seems like a big waste of time, when you can just measure the contours of their skull.


Too much hassle. Just look at their eyebrows. Monobrow? They're lying. Sometimes the scoundrels shave or pluck the middle to hide their guilt.
 
2013-10-31 04:46:39 AM  

phillydrifter: nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.


Or autistic.  Or shy. Or intimidated.  Or..
 
2013-10-31 05:08:02 AM  

phillydrifter: nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.


Or just don't, in general. I carry on about 95% of my conversations without eye contact apart from occasional moments to show that I am in fact listening or interested in their reactions.

It's not because I'm lying, it's just habit and always has been.
 
2013-10-31 05:11:01 AM  

untaken_name: Gee, magic doesn't work? WHAT? Next you're going to tell me that all the money we've spent on body scanners was wasted, too.


Well, if you mean by a former political insider who used to hold a position in the Bush Administration responsible for the new laws & security after 2001 who then formed a security company a little later to make body scanners that in turn sold them to the TSA.......then, yes it was a waste of money. These people have perfected the art of lying.

How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.
 
2013-10-31 05:14:20 AM  

lewismarktwo: phillydrifter: nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.

Or autistic.  Or shy. Or intimidated.  Or..


Yeah but don't forget, if someone does look at you in the eye when responding it's because they know that people who lie look away, so they overcompensate, so they are lying too. So to sum up, if someone doesn't look you in the eye, they're a liar, if they do look you in the eye, they're a liar.

The internet is the worlds last bastion of honesty, because we can't even try looking in peoples eyes.

Or can we?

i.imgur.com

Now you don't know what to believe!! But believe me, because
 
2013-10-31 05:36:37 AM  

awalkingecho: it's just habit and always has been.


Lie!

Burn the falsifier!
 
2013-10-31 05:45:45 AM  

Jayberrysparklesalot: untaken_name: Gee, magic doesn't work? WHAT? Next you're going to tell me that all the money we've spent on body scanners was wasted, too.

Well, if you mean by a former political insider who used to hold a position in the Bush Administration responsible for the new laws & security after 2001 who then formed a security company a little later to make body scanners that in turn sold them to the TSA.......then, yes it was a waste of money. These people have perfected the art of lying.

How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.


I don't believe anything they write, either.
 
2013-10-31 06:28:51 AM  
Pic in the article isn't a guy lying.  He's saying "37?!"
 
2013-10-31 06:30:12 AM  

untaken_name: Jayberrysparklesalot: untaken_name: Gee, magic doesn't work? WHAT? Next you're going to tell me that all the money we've spent on body scanners was wasted, too.

Well, if you mean by a former political insider who used to hold a position in the Bush Administration responsible for the new laws & security after 2001 who then formed a security company a little later to make body scanners that in turn sold them to the TSA.......then, yes it was a waste of money. These people have perfected the art of lying.

How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

I don't believe anything they write, either.



Very few politicians can manage to write anything without moving their lips.
 
2013-10-31 07:04:18 AM  

phillydrifter: If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.


When I don't look my wife in the eye, it's not because I'm lying; it's because I'm staring at her rack.

She knows about my porn collection, anyway.
 
2013-10-31 07:06:48 AM  

phillydrifter: nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.


I have made it a habit of only looking people in the eyes WHEN I lie.  Mwahahaha.
 
2013-10-31 07:12:01 AM  
How do you tense your lower eyelids?
 
2013-10-31 07:16:39 AM  
Ok...my facial expressions have now been adjusted.  What do I do about the pants being down around my ankles?
 
2013-10-31 07:57:30 AM  

phillydrifter: nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.


Actually, never trust anyone who looks you in the eye. They are watching your expression to tell how deep they've set the hook.
 
2013-10-31 08:00:07 AM  
Whether you're lying or not, the best rule is: deny, deny, deny.
 
2013-10-31 08:01:24 AM  

Nuclear Monk: What do I do about the pants being down around my ankles?


There's a hardware solution for that...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-31 08:03:25 AM  

awalkingecho: phillydrifter: nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

If they're unwilling to look you in the eye when they respond to questions -- they're lying.

Or just don't, in general. I carry on about 95% of my conversations without eye contact apart from occasional moments to show that I am in fact listening or interested in their reactions.

It's not because I'm lying, it's just habit and always has been.


I've noticed that I only look people in the eyes during conversations when I am not paying attention to what they are saying and I'm in my own little world or very tired. It's sort of interesting that I only look at people when I am basically ignoring them.
 
2013-10-31 08:05:39 AM  
www.miataturbo.net
 
2013-10-31 08:54:40 AM  
the correct title is 'midget goat porn', not 'goat midget porn', which is totally different. yah. i used your server. kthanx.
 
2013-10-31 09:14:00 AM  
art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-10-31 10:02:25 AM  

MagicBoris: [art.penny-arcade.com image 800x417]


art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-10-31 12:29:35 PM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Oh look, fallacious and comically absurd lie detection methods don't work.

Fails for the same reason polygraphs fail... human emotions are weird and defy prediction/interpretation.


Hey, something had to take the place of phrenology.
 
2013-10-31 11:28:11 PM  
But what about those of us that don't lie about weird porn on our computers?
 
2013-11-01 12:27:31 AM  
I didn't read the original research, but did they do any kind of statistical test for multiple hypotheses?

Basically, your normal stats test gives you at 95% confidence.  In other words, 5% of the time, you're wrong.  It usually works out better than this in published work, because you aren't including other supporting data when you calculate your statistical error.  In this kind of test, your hypothesis is "Some people are wizards at truth-detecting.  This person is one of these wizards."  You test 100 people.  If you find 5, based on a standard stat test, that are wizards, you're within error.  You find even less, like these people did?  You're really really within error.

That doesn't mean wizards don't exist.  It just means that your survey couldn't find them.  Honestly, for this kind of research, I'd expect some more thorough testing.  Round 1 goes like I described.  The 5 wizards then get further testing to confirm their ability.  Funding is a major issue, as well as test subject compliance, so this is hard.  However, if you want to do real science, it's necessary.

TFA even admits this problem--statisticians have issues with their work.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report