Slashdot Mirror
Lying Makes The Brain Work Harder
Ant writes "This Wired News article says it seems to take more brain effort to tell a lie than to tell the truth according to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans. Lying caused activity in the frontal part of the brain -- the medial inferior and pre-central areas, as well as the hippocampus and middle temporal regions and the limbic areas. Some of these are involved in emotional responses. During a truthful response, the fMRI showed activation of parts of the brain's frontal lobe, temporal lobe and cingulate gyrus."
"No honey I'm not lying to you, just practicing for my MENSA exam tomorrow"
http://www.commaecho.com
That would be correct, I have done several studies on this, since I am a doctor and all. Definatly more brain activity occurs when you lie. For that groudbreaking information I ask a mere $25 from each and everyone of you via Paypal... since I am a doctor and all...
Now I know why sometimes I feel like the hardest working man on the planet.
You can't handle the truth.
BINGO!!!!
And where the problems will arise are with those people who can lie. After all a lie is only a lie if the person telling the lie thinks it is. When the person thinks they are telling the truth then the lie is not a lie anymore. Its all relative!
Where I see serious problems with this is when people use it to test for terrorists. They will only catch those people who cannot lie. Those that can lie will pass through with flying colors and bomb everything. Great, I can see the excuses now, "But he was telling the truth..."
I wish there would be a little less technology and more reliance on common sense!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
It could be quite pertinent to find out if this were ever to be used seriously as a truth detection mechanism, as it could trip up in some situations, such as for instance a man who's just killed his wife, sitting in his car thinking to himself all the things he did today not killing his wife, essentially fabricating a story or lying to himself. When brought in for a lie detector test you really wouldn't want it showing that a murderer could indeed lie about comitting such an act without any sign showing that he was indeed lying. Of course, this method would be quite useless for questions which the subject hasn't had ample time to manufacture the truth for.
Six of them were asked to shoot a toy gun and then lie and say they didn't do it. Three others who watched told the truth about what happened.
This experiment isn't symmetric - the conditions for each group are entirely different. A proper experiment would consist of:
1. a group who committed the act and lies
2. a group who committed the act and tells the truth
3. a group who witnesses and lies
4. a group who witnesses and tells the truth
Also, they should probably have a control group of people who didn't witness anything.
PimpMyMazda.com - Crazy mods to a 2002 Mazda Protege DX.
I think you are incorrect here. Intelligent liars are not people who just lie. Intelligent liars create stories around their situation. To an intelligent liar the lie is the truth, and hence they are not lying. This means if an unexpected question arises then the question will be unexpected like a person who is not lying. There will be no difference in reaction.
It is not possible to catch intelligent liars using machine detection. This is the crux of my problem with the use of technology to catch criminals.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
You've never worked with sales people, have you?
Keep your lies consistent too.
I thought this reminded me of something, along with a quick Google search here it is:
(Bashir tells the story of the boy who cried "Wolf")
Bashir: If you lie all the time, no one is going to believe you, even when you're telling the truth.
Garak: Are you sure that's the point, Doctor?
Bashir: Of course. What else would it be?
Garak: That you should never tell the same lie twice.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Something that did happen leaves a more realistic image in the mind.
No. This is emphatically not true. Psychological research over the last has shown that memories can be equally realistic whether or not the events "remembered" actually happened. An event does not have to have occurred for you to remember it in exactly as if it had; the brain makes no distinction.
Furthermore researchers have demonstrated that it's remarkably easy to train people to remember events that didn't actually happen. You start with a plausible nugget, and then flesh in through repetition a few specific (but fake) details. These details are the key. The brain of the typical research subject fills in the rest every time he/she reminisces on the (phony) memory with the researcher.
For example, "what color were the tiles in your grandparent's house?" When your grandparents didn't have tiles in their house. The build on that to invent a story about some event that happened at your grandparents house...etc. It doesn't take very long to develop very complex, very vivid memories of very "important" events that never actually happened.
This is a major ethical issue for the likes of psychiatrists and criminal investigators, as prompting or leading someone can produce traumatic childhood "recovered" memories or eyewitness accounts that are entirely false.
It doesn't take a lot to say "I am lying"
Keep in mind that when you lie, your brain will be more active, weighing the impact the deception might/would have regarding other memories and any possible future situations involved with those memories.
I'm going to go out on a limb and attempt some sort of comparison...
when you tell the truth, it's almost like the answer is cached, no thought is really required other than recalling that direct memory which holds the data.
when you attempt to deceive, the answer is no longer cached; the brain must actively retrieve the data and then worry about dependencies, children, etc.
It's no surprise that to lie or deceive requires more brain power than simply reciting truth.
Duh.
All that can be true when you tell the truth too. For instance, imagine your wife asking "Are you cheating on me?"
You're starting with the assumption that the truth can't hurt, and that assumption seems quite obviously false.
I always tell the truth. I'm too lazy to lie
Says the guy who went by a pseudonym.
Bad karma for correcting people I always say.