junk science - Lie to Me (2009) Discussion

[–] suky 13 years ago

Hmm, I think I detect a lie. ;) Where's your proof? In my experience, not all laypeople are equally good at recognizing lies. Some are better than others. I'm generally an honest person, but I've told lies before and been believed and also been accused of lying when telling the truth. Also, some people are simply more observant than others, while some are gullible or maybe not perceptive enough to recognize an outright lie. (On the other side of the coin, there are people like actors and con men who lie for a living. Only the experts are successful at it.)

On the show, Torres didn't have any "expert" training. Lightman spotted her working as an airport screener and hired her because she was a "natural." And in a similar vain, you've got people like the Mentalist--originally a con man who now uses his powers for good--who make their living by reading people. They do what they do because, for whatever reason, by training and/or by nature, they notice things that other people don't.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of course it is happening inside your head ... but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

reply

[–] MidKnightLT 13 years ago

I mean, the science in the show OBVIOUSLY exaggerated just like any other show on TV, ever.
That's kind of the point

reply

[–] fredragon 13 years ago

The difference is that there is NO science re: the ability to detect a liar. These so-called 'experts' are no better than you or me -- the only difference is that they are more confident in their assessments.

reply

[–] MidKnightLT 13 years ago

I'm not an expert on the field, but people do show specific body language depending on how they feel, which obviously differs from person to person.You can't just identify if they're lying that fast, but if you can find patterns, it is true to some extent.

reply

[–] JeffAtlanta2004 13 years ago

Not really - a good liar or one that doesn't feel guilty is going to totally own someone like Lightman.

The same goes for people who are naturally nervous - he's going flag them as "hiding something".

While there are certainly "tells" that some people exhibit, pretty much anyone can pick up on those.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

nope the science on this show has been debunked micro expressions are no better at telling if a person is lieing then flipping a coin

reply

[–] Kunovega 13 years ago

You are completely wrong.

Lightman's character is based on that of clinical psychologist Dr. Paul Ekman. The Oakland-based scientist--whose books include Telling Lies, Emotions Revealed and Unmasking the Face--is an expert lie detector who's advised everyone from the Secret Service and the Department of Defense to Pixar on the science of reading facial expressions. Ekman's research indicates that our facial expressions for emotion are innate, universal and nearly impossible to conceal. From the U.S. to Japan, Africa and New Guinea, happiness, anger, surprise and despair trigger the same facial muscles. It's an idea that Darwin hypothesized but had been largely dismissed by scientists who, before Ekman's research, believed that facial expressions are culturally determined.

When we're lying about emotion--pretending to be happy when we're sad, for example--micro expressions can flash across our faces before we can get hold of them. And if most people aren't great at lying about their emotions perfectly, then it's also true that most people can't detect those little facial lies. That's where Ekman's consultancy comes in--his programs help train FBI and TSA agents to tell when someone is lying.

Read more here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4300722

---

If you honestly believe that "you" are as good as an expert at reading people, I won't argue with you, it is possible that you are a natural. But not be so ignorant as to assume that "everyone" is that good.

I've had some lie deception training (though not nearly enough to be an expert at it). But I've had enough to know that greater than 90% of the population is completely clueless on how to read micro expressions.

Most average people are only able to react to performance emotions. If this were not true than con men would not exist, no one would ever be able to go undercover and you would be getting caught on every white lie or stretch of the truth you tell.

It takes training or rare natural talent to spot micro expressions.

---

Now, can anyone be trained to do this? To some degree yes, everyone can learn the basics and with practice most people could at least become OK at it. But without the training (and how many people bother to learn?) no, most of the population is not capable of performing anywhere near this level.

reply

[–] james_oblivion 13 years ago

The science certainly isn't as "foolproof" in real life as it is on TV (what is?), but the science definitely exists.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

Dr. Paul Ekman's science has actually been debunked as junk science. it has been proven that his science is no better at telling a person is lieing then flipping a coin

reply

[–] tgneeder09 13 years ago

Go read "Healing and the Mind" by Bill Moyers. Educate yourself about how Des Carte divorced the 'mind' from the 'brain/body' about 500 years ago. Much psychology doesn't quite hold up the the same experimentation that other sciences do because it's not exactly a 'science'. Then again Medicine isn't exactly a science, but it does use science to further it's goal.

The show isn't an accurate portrayal of behavioral analysis. But if it was, it would just be the cast sitting and chatting about the experiments there running at their university and papers they're publishing.

reply

[–] rinserofwinds 12 years ago

First part:

What nonsense, just argueing, that descartes views have any value in todays sience is disqualifying your statement.
expecially in psychology you have to learn much more about designing experiments and understanding their results, than in every "materialistic" science.

Second part:

haha, quite true...

reply

[–] c_demon0 12 years ago

@rinserofwinds

descartes was wrong about a lot, (the second half of meditations was a load of sell out pap) but most of what he said still holds true.
If you first study philosophy, _then_ psychology you will see the callosal flaws in the design of experiments of that so called "science". Psychology today has as little to do with the scientific method as does voodoo.

"I've seen your light. It burns bright forever. No more blue tomorrows... you on high now."

reply

[–] Jennsouthwest 12 years ago

When the public believed Susan Smith, the lie detectors said she was lying. I happen to be a natural at telling whether people are lying. I never know why I know... I don't know the signs or anything, it's just something I feel. But most people I know don't have that ability. There are plenty of things I'm not good at too :) Just saying, different people are good at different things. I'm sure I'd be even better at it if I were trained to read expressions.

http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanat ion-of-the-end/

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

The problem is that micro expressions have been debunked as junk science

reply

[–] sunbug1 13 years ago

Actually, the science behind this is real and the entire concept is based on Paul Ekman's research into microexpressions. Granted, like most television shows, LTM exaggerates the science, but it is, at its cores, based on legitimate research.

reply

[–] patbuddha 13 years ago

I guess a distinction needs to be made however. While this may be a legitimate scientific inquiry the conclusions upon which this show is relying are far from settled. At best it's a hypothesis rather than well established theory. The fact that a scientist has looked into it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patbuddha

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

its actually not based on legitimate research the science has been debunked and proven that you can have all the training in the world and still not tell if a person is lieing

reply

[–] spongejeg 10 years ago

The fact of the matter is to be good at detecting people when they lie you need to be a good liar!

reply

[–] tub51461 9 years ago

That's true. In many other shows, Dr. Ekman's research comes up, specifically, with ones where covert intelligence is the focus and the CIA are the investigators. On several political & crime shows, they talk micro-expressions a lot. It's as if Lie to Me got the world more interested in this subject than we were before 2009.

reply

[–] PJabberwocky 12 years ago

Way to make an unsubstantiated claim, random internet guy!

reply

[–] Emerald-Blues 12 years ago

HA HA. maybe in text but micro expressions are real, and they are really hard to fake, most of the micro expressions in this show are fake so they are technically just regular expressions although some of them the director tells the actor/actress to perform their act immediatly after a question they will ask. then the will ask a question that is likely to trigger an emotion response as they recall their lines so they can potentially trigger real expressions. I'm not sure if they do this in the show, but that's how I think would be a good way to do it especially since the camera angle changes after each expression.

these people are not experts but they are definatly more capable that anyone who doesn't know anything about the science. Also they are acting which takes some understanding in this so they are probably a little better than the average from actually having to use it.

You still have to understand Human History, Psychology and Psychophysics to be a real expert detective in this

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

Anyone who really thinks there's a scientific way to catch liars is full of himself.

Don't take my word for it, just google and you'll find countless cases of spies, double agents and serial killers who easily beat polygraphs, interrogators, you name it.

And here's the tip: NEITHER had to resource to drugs nor specific training, only to be relaxed (and realize nobody could read their minds).

I saw on the Discovery channel that indeed the ONLY group of people actually good at telling liars were the Secret Service guys (65% rate), everyone else (police, FBI, so called psychologists, machines, etc) were as acurate as a coin toss.

The ONLY thing about the show being real (the rest is just theory and assumptions passing for fact) is that SOME (empaths maybe) people are indeed very perceptive (to either body language or speech tone, or even both) and thus CAN indeed tell when someone is being deceitful. But such hability cannot be trained nor gained, you're born with it or you're not.

That and people suffering from brain injuries (people who either can't understand spoken languare or can't tell non verbal language), since they can understand the other language only too well (like an autistic savant), they can tell a liar right away. Doctor Sacks told a story on his book (The Man who mistook his wife for a hat) how these patients laughed out loud during a Ronald Reagan speech, all indicating how literally EVERYTHING he was saying was 100% cowdung, each group telling from Reagan's voice tone/cadence or body language.

The ONLY way to be able to tell when somebody is lying is to KNOW that specific individual, and thus knowing how that specific person normally reacts to lies and truth. And that takes TIME, sometimes a lot.

So good luck telling a liar in just a couple interrogations if said person is not afraid of you.

NOBODY, and I say again, NOBODY, reacts the exact same way as another, thus machines, programs and "microexpression" BS will usually flag a truthteller simply because he's nervious, and will miss a liar who KNOWS it's all a show.

Want easy ways to beat any of these idiots and machines?
1.- Believe your own lie (it's easy, just look in the eyes of any preacher or politician), thus NOTHING will give you away since your body will be reacting to what YOU consider truth.
2.- Disregard the interviewer (the second you get a notion of the question, stop listening and think of something else).
3.- Substitute the question in your head and answer to that (doesn't take long to know the response to a question before it's completed thus giving you enough time to substitue in your head without taking too long to respond).
4.- State upfront that you're aware of their junk science and respective countermeassures, they then will most likely not bother (they won't trust the results anyway and you can always claim they already made up thir minds about you).

There's a reason why they ALWAYS conduct a small preliminary interview before the actual interrogation, so that you, being scared, reveal info and thus damn yourself. It's all about intimidation, stops working the second you stop fearing.

reply

[–] Emerald-Blues 12 years ago

I'm gonna help you understand something.
1: You can make a decent cover up when you "believe your own Lie" But truth is you know your altering the truth so for a brief moment that is very likely to be missed you'll reveal the truth and that is what Lightman looks for. Also Lightman bends the rules a professional would have to abide by, as far as dirty interrogations they usually beat the suspect to the point where they say anything and believe anything just to quit out of being beat up (not to mention they just aren't as intelligent and experience it lie detection but just "beating it out of them."

2: you can't ignore that easily, it could mean you get sent to jail, or killed or in the effort you accidently hear what they are saying and spit out the truth in your millisecond expression.

3: Like the show says it's just too quick to hide your mind has to comprehend it to alter it to a believable Lie thus your face shows it briefly and very subtly.

4 Haven't you paid any attention? they almost always know he's a Lie detection expert and what your describing is a DEFLECTION. plus Lightman uses sensitive issues to strike expressions and HAS GOTTEN them wrong before but always figures it out in the end.

5: THEY ARE ACTORS, They just aren't as natural as the real deal. They have to act all this so they are doing what your describing to make it seem as real as they can, in real life its much more difficult to figure out all the angles to know what their expression is expressing. These are already written and known so it's just the audience discovering it, not the actual characters. It's also much more difficult to Lie because the reactions are even more natural.

Poly graphs, people fake them by acting nervous, but the questioner usually isn't in their face harrasing them because that would make messy results.

just look at some of the celebrtiys they use to back it up... Bill clinton he was lying and the micro expressions proved it so well, he's the president so he'd have top notch guidance on deflecting the truth of the situation. You could see him trying to think of something else when he said "I. Did. Not. Have. sexual. relations. with. that. women. " his expression made it obvious not his words. Same with Richard Nixon he was defensive and disgusted at the accusation which made him seem guilty... because he was.

Or Obama, he has shown MUCH GUILT.
These are people protected by agents, and CIA and they couldn't even get away with lying even though their words may have got them free for a short time. people still knew, and those peoples are people that lightman represents.

In my opinion Your full of yourself because you think YOU can get away with lying.

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

Regarding this as a tv show:

You're 100% correct.

Regarding this applied to the real world by Lightman's real life counterpart:

1.- "But truth is you know your altering the truth so for a brief moment that is very likely to be missed you'll reveal the truth and that is what Lightman looks for."
Since it's only his opinion, you (or your lawyer) can always produce your own "expert" to say the opposite. Defendants regularly take polygraph tests set up by their own lawyers to release the results to the press.

"Also Lightman bends the rules a professional would have to abide by"
Then NOBODY will take him seriously since you just admitted he's not behaving professionally, or at least any lawyer can get him discredited, they do this every day with countless police officers (cough, Mark Fuhrman, cough).

2.- "you can't ignore that easily, it could mean you get sent to jail, or killed or in the effort "
Where in real life does your life/freedom depend on such tests (people like Saddam didn't rely on polygraphs nor "experts" to tell traitors)? At best a shot at a government job.

3.- "thus your face shows it briefly and very subtly."
If it's indeed that subtle and and brief then it's inconclusive and subject to imterpretation. Thus you can get your own expert to say different.

4.- "plus Lightman uses sensitive issues to strike expressions and HAS GOTTEN them wrong before but always figures it out in the end."
If he gets them wrong often enough, his credibility would be shaky at best.

"Poly graphs, people fake them by acting nervous"

Wrong. You can fake results in many different ways. Acting nervious all the time will be interpreted as being deceitful.

"just look at some of the celebrtiys they use to back it up... Bill clinton he was lying and the micro expressions proved it so well, he's the president so he'd have top notch guidance on deflecting the truth of the situation"

Maybe because he's got a cammera in his face and the whole nation is viewing? Pretty different from engaging a few or a single person in a closed room. Plus why is it such "experts" are never called in front of impeachment hearings then?

"In my opinion Your full of yourself because you think YOU can get away with lying. "

I know I can (I'm married, so I have plety of practice dealing with a human lie detector on a daily basis who knows my giveaways better than anyone else), unless the "expert" is an actual gifted person (you know, a "natural"). Then I know I'm most likely doomed.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

most of your points are fine, but irrelevant.

you seem hung up on experts and court testimony & whether somebody could win at trial against lightman's "evidence".

when the cops arrest a guy in the middle of a field of shallow graves of his murder victims, i don't think lightman's testimony will matter much one way or the other.

how often in the show was lightman in court, anyways? that's right - never.

and since he's never shown to be wrong, his credibility is perfect - that's why he keeps getting clients.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

"you seem hung up on experts and court testimony & whether somebody could win at trial against lightman's "evidence". "

Well, where else would his expertise be useful in real life? Remember that this thread is about how this fares to real life, not the show itself.

"when the cops arrest a guy in the middle of a field of shallow graves of his murder victims, i don't think lightman's testimony will matter much one way or the other."

And how often is that the case? Name the last serial killer/mob hitman caught red handed or with his pants down.

It's a great show, I only state that the "science" this is based on is peudoscience at best, no more accurate than psychiatry.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

of course this thread is about the show. the most recent exchange is about lightman's behavior and/or testimony. lightman is a character in a tv program, not a real person. transposing lightman's rude and sometimes unprofessional (though i would differ there) behavior into a real courtroom makes zero sense.

how often does a suspect go straight from arrest to trial where the real culprit admits to the crime in open court? never. but it happened every night on perry mason.

"no more accurate than psychiatry"? what's that supposed to mean?

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

"happened every night on perry mason"

Perry Mason never boasted about being accurate (or based on accuracy).

""no more accurate than psychiatry"? what's that supposed to mean? "

Meaning a psychiatric opinion is that, an OPINION, and thus you can awlays find anotehr doctor who will state the opposite. Or do you consider psychiatry an actual science ("vagina dentada" included)?

It's not like say forensic medicine where the medical findings are really not open to interpretation (when done properly).

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

perry mason didn't have to boast about accuracy. marketing for law firms wasn't done back in those days. and besides, everybody knew that he was always right - why do you think they went to him when they were innocent (which his clients always were)?

if you think vagina dentada is a psychiatric condition then you're seriously confused.

"psychiatry" isn't a science, and never was. psychology is a science. in most medical/biological fields there are competing theories as to why things are the way they are - which isn't all that different from physics or most other highly complex fields. saying psychiatry/psychology isn't a science because there are varied opinions is like saying nutrition is "junk science" because nutritionists can't make up their mind whether salt is bad for you or not.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

"if you think vagina dentada is a psychiatric condition "

I sure believe anyone who thinks a vagina has teeth (literally or otherwise) is in serious need of drugs.

"psychology is a science"

BS, just as bogus as psychology, the only difference is that one field tries to cure you with drugs, and the other with listening to your endless navel gazing.

" in most medical/biological fields there are competing theories as to why things are the way they are - which isn't all that different from physics or most other highly complex fields"

Really? I must've missed that day where they mentioned the competing theory of geocentrism/Flat Earth in Physics class and the competing theory of Spontaneous generation in Biology class.

There comes a time when theories in REAL science become LAWS, unlike in psychiatry/psychology where theories can never become laws because they can never be actually proven/veified/falsified. Heck, they don't even deserve to be called theories (scientific theories), they're only hypothesis and conjectures.

The anti psychiatry movement for example, is real, credible and somewhat respected. Let me know when the Flat Earth society is also.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

your ignorance about the field of psychology (and other sciences too, apparently), is pretty comical. psychological theories can't be tested? just...wow. ever hear of bf skinner? no, i thought not....

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

"psychological theories can't be tested? just...wow. ever hear of bf skinner? no, i thought not.... "

After you're done answering your own questions, read mine:

Actually yes I know of him, and his work, which is based actually on ANIMALS, not humans per se. Talk about being ignorant...

BTW, ever heard of Noam Chomsky? Here's his opinion of Skinner:
"Among Chomsky's criticisms were that Skinner's laboratory work could not be extended to humans, that when it was extended to humans it represented 'scientistic' behavior attempting to emulate science but which was not scientific, that Skinner was not a scientist because he rejected the hypothetico-deductive model of theory testing, and that Skinner had no science of behavior.[54] The fields of Relational Frame Theory and ACT Therapy are currently attempting to analyze most of these suggestions".

You may dismiss my opinion outright, but try dismissing Chomsky's opinion like that and pretend to still be credible.

Pitty. You really should've gone for say the Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment of 1971 or the Stanley Milgram's Milgram experiment of 1961. That's about as close as psychology will ever get to real science.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

so...humans aren't animals. gotcha!

chomsky is a very bright guy, sure. that he has problems with skinner's dabbling into languages isn't too shocking. language is more complex than pigeons trying to get food, and probably isn't a good fit for operant conditioning.

nice cut'n'paste from wikipedia, btw. next time you're there you might want to just go right to the entry for "psychology" and learn something about the subject.

zimbardo & milgram's experiments were both never repeated due to ethical concerns, so to call them "scientific" is a stretch. there are plenty of other psychological experiments out there which are more scientific than those.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

"...humans aren't animals"

Humans are RATIONAL animals. So still correct.

Don't like Wikipedia? Your loss, about as acurate as encyclopedia britannica regarding non cultural/politized articles (meaning neutral science oriented material).

"there are plenty of other psychological experiments out there which are more scientific than those"

Then you should have no problem naming them. I bet even Wikipedia must have something on them if they indeed are plenty...

Funny how you have left out psychiatry completely, which is what I originally mentioned...

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

human's are "rational" animals? sometimes yes, oftentimes no. whether they're rational or not doesn't mean they can't be trained/conditioned or that they act in unpredictable ways.

read daniel kahneman's book "thinking, fast and slow" if you're interested in psychology experiments - it's chock full of examples.

wikipedia is a great resource, but i don't try to pass off wikipedia quotes as my own without citation.

i already talked about psychiatry a few posts back. not that psychiatry has any relevance to "lie to me" other than your pulling it in out of the blue.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] al666940-3 12 years ago

"sometimes yes, oftentimes no. whether they're rational or not doesn't mean they can't be trained/conditioned or that they act in unpredictable ways"

You're confusing the hability to behave rationally (some choose not to yet that doesn't negate they can if they want to) and the capacity to be rational at all (no animal can "choose" to be rational, ever).

Plus humans CAN be unpredictable in ways an animal can never be. Let me know when a dog starts honking or a shark starts howling no matter how much you torture/stress them. I can definitely even run into people who will howl, roar and even talk to God on any give day in pretty much any inner city street, never mind what I could get them to do if I were to torture them...

"but i don't try to pass off wikipedia quotes as my own without citation."

Reaching much? I used quotation marks "" clearly, and even said that was Chomsky's opinion. So unless you're stating I'm passing myself for the real Chomsky, you're wrong.

"not that psychiatry has any relevance to "lie to me" other than your pulling it in out of the blue."

It was my example of another "art" based on opinion and speculations being passed off as science. So yes it's relevant enough in that context. It sure was for you're still replying...

reply

[–] ruby95764 11 years ago

Are you unaware that Psychiatrists are actual doctors with MDs? It's just a different specialty like a surgeon or pediatrician that requires medical school and not an art class. They fall under the category of doctor not outside of it.

It's also contradictory to say humans have the choice to be rational but no animal can choose to be. Humans are a type of animal. We are a different species of animal. The planet isn't made up of animal, rock, vegetable AND humans.

You are posting so much inaccurate and misinformed information that there is just too many things to point out all over this whole thread. It's understandable though since you think wikipedia is essentially as accurate an encyclopedia. I like wikipedia but anyone can update any entry so no it's not the same.

"I saw on the Discovery channel that indeed the ONLY group of people actually good at telling liars were the Secret Service guys (65% rate), everyone else (police, FBI, so called psychologists, machines, etc) were as acurate as a coin toss. "

Just one more thing I will point out. The Doctor that Cal Lightman is based on has specifically trained Secret Service agents among others. There are also certain fields that get specialized training on how to pass lie detector and other tests, like the CIA which is why they can beat them.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

Are you unaware that Psychiatrists are actual doctors with MDs? It's just a different specialty like a surgeon or pediatrician that requires medical school and not an art class. They fall under the category of doctor not outside of it. '

that does not make them doctors even normal doctors view psychiatrists as practitioners of junk science

"You are posting so much inaccurate and misinformed information that there is just too many things to point out all over this whole thread. It's understandable though since you think wikipedia is essentially as accurate an encyclopedia. I like wikipedia but anyone can update any entry so no it's not the same. "

your correct that anyone can update it but Wikipedia actually researches the information them self and if it is found inaccurate they fix it. thats a fact also it is a verified fact that wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopedia Britannica

"Just one more thing I will point out. The Doctor that Cal Lightman is based on has specifically trained Secret Service agents among others. There are also certain fields that get specialized training on how to pass lie detector and other tests, like the CIA which is why they can beat them. "

that may be so but it does not change the fact that micro expressions are not accurate and never have been its well established by the majority of the scientific community that it is junk science

reply

[–] c_demon0 12 years ago

"your ignorance about the field of psychology (and other sciences too, apparently), is pretty comical. psychological theories can't be tested? just...wow. ever hear of bf skinner? no, i thought not...."

then i challenge you to present to me a flawless psychological experiment that i (a humble uneducated idiot who confesses to knowing nothing) cannot completely pick apart and point out at least 3 basic _assumptions_ made by the tester. I could do five, but there is no need for me to add insult to injury.

psychology is not science. it's voodoo.

"I've seen your light. It burns bright forever. No more blue tomorrows... you on high now."

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

all tests in any field have assumptions. almost all tests in all fields are also not "flawless".

tell ya what, why don't you give a couple examples of tests that are flawless and have no assumptions so i'll know what sort of standard you're looking for.

it's nice that you acknowledge that you're an uneducated idiot at the beginning of the process though, that'll save us a step later on.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] c_demon0 12 years ago

"all tests in any field have assumptions. almost all tests in all fields are also not flawless"

that is of course precisely my point. and no i don't believe that any degree of assumption is acceptable whatever in any feild of science or logical thought. Just because all the others are doing it doesn't make it right: its completely laughable that you accept this as normal, and it makes any subsequent claims you make dubious and difficult to swallow. if you're willing to accept assumption as a base then who the hell knows what nonsense your willing to believe. well, we know one set of nonsense and that's the feild of psychology.

"tell ya what, why don't you give a couple examples of tests that are flawless and have no assumptions so i'll know what sort of standard you're looking for."

of course i can't. are you being deliberately dense? you're behaving like a petulant child: the very reason i believe that psychology is voodoo is because my standards are so high, presumably much higher than yours. I reject the notion of the test as - because i am not a child - i realise its limitations. you appear to not understand this or perhaps you don't care. Assumptions mean that any logical argument made subsequently is a load of old rubbish.

"it's nice that you acknowledge that you're an uneducated idiot at the beginning of the process though, that'll save us a step later on."

I behave courteously towards you and purely discuss the ideas like an adult. you make a personal attack and snipe at me like a secondary school child. i am an idiot and uneducated but will always remain a step ahead of you: an idiot who wrongly believes they are smart.

"I've seen your light. It burns bright forever. No more blue tomorrows... you on high now."

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

i didn't limit your possible examples of acceptable tests to psychology. pick a field, any field, and any test.

since your standards appear to be that all tests, in all fields have assumptions and flaws, then all fields must be voodoo, not just psychology.

why do you believe that human behavior is impossible to study?

want to learn about some good psychology tests? read the book "thinking, fast and slow" by daniel kahneman. educate yourself instead of choosing to be ignorant.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] c_demon0 12 years ago

"i didn't limit your possible examples of acceptable tests to psychology. pick a field, any field, and any test."

no i'm perfectly aware of that.

"since your standards appear to be that all tests, in all fields have assumptions and flaws, then all fields must be voodoo, not just psychology."

i believe psychology - especialy the field of so called neuroscience - is especially guilty of this, religion masquerading as science. but i don't think ALL fields are voodoo, only those which confuse fact and theory, knowledge with poppycock.

"why do you believe that human behavior is impossible to study?"

Now why would you say I think that? i think its very interesting to find out many things about human behavior. I find the tests very interesting indeed, but do i think they are scientific? do they provide any objective data about anything at all? no. they always communicate more about the tester than the testee; i might be a fool but i'm not that kind of fool.

"want to learn about some good psychology tests? read the book "thinking, fast and slow" by daniel kahneman. educate yourself instead of choosing to be ignorant."

you misunderstand me when i say i'm uneducated and an idiot. don't think i haven't read or am not acedemically clever just because my spelling's bad. I could list books I've read or degrees i possess, but really only fools would consider they gave weight to any argument. I don't call myself a fool because i've learnt less than you, i call myself a fool because i know more. to me the most ignorant person is someone who defends a school of thought as science then admits that it is based on assumption. It seems more ignorant for a christian to claim that christianity is in some way more rational because islam and buddhism also consist of complete unjustifyable nonsense, than for a person to admit they believe what they believe just on faith with no basis in fact whatsoever. It is even less ignorant, of course, for a person to believe in nothing but evidence.

now stop talking about me personally and talk about the ideas.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

what can i say - i referred you to a book that debunks your "psychology is voodoo" position far better than i can here.

you can (and will) believe whatever you choose to believe (i think that's covered in chapter 2).

if you're a fool it's because you choose to be - you have the opportunity to learn something and refuse to take it. this isn't about degrees or academic cleverness, it's your unwillingness to examine easily acquired information while simultaneously claiming that information doesn't exist.

talking about ideas when your mind is a closed shop is pointless.

talking about ideas when you've got a 1984-like "ignorance is strength" mindset is pointless.

and talking about ideas when you refuse to explain yourself in concrete, understandable ways, is pointless. you complain that psychology is untestable, yet can't give an example of a single test in any subject that meets your impossible standards. by your criteria physics, chemistry, biology (especially biology) are all voodoo too as you agree they're all based on assumptions.

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] c_demon0 12 years ago

"if you're a fool it's because you choose to be - you have the opportunity to learn something and refuse to take it. this isn't about degrees or academic cleverness, it's your unwillingness to examine easily acquired information while simultaneously claiming that information doesn't exist."

you are so blinded by labels you see nothing at all. its about your unwillingness to understand that i have already examined the information but have just come to a different conclusion to the one you have. i say fool as i know nothing. you also know nothing but you don't know you know nothing: so who is the bigger fool?

"talking about ideas when your mind is a closed shop is pointless."

coming from a person who has their ignore list in their signiture as a matter of pride.

"talking about ideas when you've got a 1984-like "ignorance is strength" mindset is pointless."

i have the opposite mindset. knowing you're a fool is the opposite of ignorance. it is ignorance to accept assumption as fact even when you KNOW its assumption, this really is 1984 style doublethink. use your critical brain and don't accept everything you have been taught.

"and talking about ideas when you refuse to explain yourself in concrete, understandable ways, is pointless."

if i have not explained myself in a concrete way i appologise. perhaps if i use labels and references that you appear to love so much you will understand it better. what i am proposing is that the only scientific method that is assumption free - and therefore genuinely scientific - is starting from a position of perfect doubt as proposed by descartes in his book "meditations" furthermore you should go on to read Charles Forts critisisms of "scientific" method in all of his books. I am a cartesian solipsist; I analise the evidence but believe in nothing; make no conclusions. if you do anything else you are of course as scientific as the average magic user or religious nut, you have just started with a base of different (but equally unjustifyable) assumptions.

"you complain that psychology is untestable, yet can't give an example of a single test in any subject that meets your impossible standards."

yes, you are right, i don't. i don't deliberately and with the good reason that so far no test has ever met my "impossible" standards.

"by your criteria physics, chemistry, biology (especially biology) are all voodoo too as you agree they're all based on assumptions."

You are right. They are.

"I've seen your light. It burns bright forever. No more blue tomorrows... you on high now."

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

all this circles back around to the original point - since you consider everything to be voodoo, what's the point of anything? why single out psychology? having degrees of voodooness doesn't make sense.

if you're such a solipsist (one of those deplorable labels), why bother to post on imdb since it's all in your head anyways? analyzing evidence without making any conclusions strikes me as a singularly profound waste of time. what's more, i don't think it's even possible - you may deny that you make conclusions, but you do it all the same.

(my ignore list isn't there as a sense of pride, it's to explain why i never answer some very prolific posters)

(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

science DOES NOT use assumptions. science that uses an assumption is not science.
someone who uses the scientific method comes up with a theory first and then tests it if they are unbiased on the theory they will only find the truth not assumption

reply

[–] Rosebud_in_Flames 12 years ago

Do you consider physics, astronomy, and climatology to be sciences? Because there are controversies and disagreements in these fields of study, just as there are in psychology.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

he is in fact 100% correct psychology is only a field of study that involves some scientific study but not much most of it is junk science and is regarded as such by the majority of individuals in the scientific community

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors
key work involves the scientific study
that means Psychology is not a science but an academic field that involves scientific study

also Psychology is not like in movies where they do all these experiments most of it is actually just sitting there listening to a person talk and nodding there head in agreement

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

nice pull from wikipedia, but you didn't interpret it very well. go back and get the full context.

your knowledge of the field of psychology is about 50 years out of date, i think you've been watching too many of those movies where they just sit and talk and nod.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

"no more accurate than psychiatry"? what's that supposed to mean? "
its simple the science of micro expressions is not accurate never has been and never will be because it is junk science that is no more accurate then flipping a coin

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

since you're such a fan of wikipedia (and hey, who's not?) maybe you should read the entry on micro-expressions before you make wild, unsubstantiated claims here.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

yes, the op is a troll but at least the thread has been fairly interesting, as these things go.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

the science of this show has been debunked as junk science(doesnt mean the show is not good)

and you can not beat a polygraph by acting nervous you can however beat a polygraph by staying calm and having a good nights sleep the night before

reply

[–] woodruff10 12 years ago

Actually, let's forget for one second that the character of Dr. Lightman isn't based on a real doctor who has reseaarched and proven his theory on microexpressions. Any kind of law enforcement that has to interogate someone is specially trained to spot certain red flags on someone who is lying. There was an article on the F.B.I.'s website explaining some of these things that during an interview or interogation would let law enforcement know that they were dealing with someone who was being deceptive. When interviewing someone an officer would be trained to look for certain things like body language, certain word useage, and facial expressions that would set off a red flag and say, hey this person is not being honest. As for a polygraph test, the reason these are not admissable in court is because of how inaccurate they can be. And if you are dealing with say a sociopath, someone who does not feel empathy or have a concience, a polygraph probably will not help.

reply

[–] al666940-3 11 years ago

"based on a real doctor who has researched and proven his theory on microexpressions."

Said doctor has published papers but no psychological theory can ever be proven.

You may be wanting to say ACCEPTED in the mainstream field. Not even Loambardo's conclusions are 100% accepted, and that's as solid as a behavior experiment can get.

"When interviewing someone an officer would be trained to look for certain things like body language, certain word useage, and facial expressions that would set off a red flag and say, hey this person is not being honest."

Law enforcement railroads innocents and misses guilty people often enough. All those "tells" and "giveaways" are generalities and most are about STRESS, not actual deception. And law enforcement typically WRONGLY assumes if you're nervous/afraid, you're guilty.

What they do well (when they bother) is to pick apart suspect's and witnesses' stories to find inconsistencies by having them tell them over and over again. unfortunately this can also easily produce a false confession from a scared individual (after hours of interrogation and retelling anyone can slip up if pressured enough). It depends how the interrogators conduct the interrogation.

Heck, Meet The Parents, as goofy as it is, shows this quite clearly. De Niro catches Stiller every time he lies not because he's a mind reader nor because he analyses microexpressions, he does it because he LISTENS to what Stiller says and notes/points out any and all inconsistencies, causing Stiller to come up with even worse lies until he can't help himself anymore.

The inconsistencies is what reveals worthless/fabricated testimonies, not generic giveaways.

"And if you are dealing with say a sociopath"

If you're in the Wall Street or CEO's circle or politics, you deal with sociopaths on a daily basis.

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

your statement is wrong. micro expressions have been debunked as junk science and no more accurate then flipping a coin

reply

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

it has been proven that micro expressions are not universal. and that you could flip a coin and just be as successful as someone like lightman at detecting lies

reply

[–] HypnoticPoison7 10 years ago

It's absolutely not junk science. Based on findings by Darwin, it's actually quite educational. The show by itself teaches you many things you wouldn't think to look for, even as a 'natural'. It's amazing, I've used what I've learned on my husband and family, and my skill is pretty incredible after just 2 seasons of the show, and a little side research. It's not junk if it helps, and it IS something that can and should be taught. Fact.

reply