tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post3427370068319549266..comments2024-03-14T23:52:09.893-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: Would I Lie To You Yet Again?The Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-91152994050412247592007-09-04T14:21:00.000-07:002007-09-04T14:21:00.000-07:00James - thanks for your comments, you made many go...James - thanks for your comments, you made many good points.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-87897236944182104672007-09-04T12:56:00.000-07:002007-09-04T12:56:00.000-07:00Yes, Anonymous, I'll agree that I was being overly...Yes, Anonymous, I'll agree that I was being overly critical (gasp!) based on the blurred activation presumably from many subjects -- but maybe not, since the technique is only useful on the single subject level -- and superimposed on one person's brain. And we don't know the comparison conditions for either the lying or the truthful brain. Plus, an ABC news report isn't exactly a manuscript in <I>Science</I> or even <I>Neuroimage</I>.<BR/><BR/>The next question is why only a small activation in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area_10" REL="nofollow">Brodmann area 10</A> of the frontal pole is associated with telling the truth...The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-76193140504482449442007-09-04T12:44:00.000-07:002007-09-04T12:44:00.000-07:00Well if I were the defense expert on a case involv...Well if I were the defense expert on a case involving that technology, I would have some good counterarguments against this. <BR/><BR/>I would challenge the testing process by which the machine was certified, based on the arbitrariness of calling something "true" and something else "false". It's one thing to do this in a laboratory with standardized questions and test subjects who are not in actual fear for their lives or liberty, but quite another to try this on an unwilling subject.<BR/><BR/>The technology relies on an inference that the test subjects are identical to all future field subjects in their brain functions, attitudes about being questioned, and understanding of the questions.<BR/><BR/>It ignores the problem of interpreting the question and polite phrasing of answers. The technology assumes that that the process of lying is always a process of cognizing something, then by an act of will deciding not to say that something, and substituting something else instead. There's another term for this: being polite. And another: being careful to tell the truth.<BR/><BR/>I have testified under oath several times, and the way I answer questions in that situation is far different than how I answer them naturally. That's not because I'm lying, but because I must not be loose in my replies such that the opposing lawyer can infer spurious meanings into my testimony that I did not intend.<BR/><BR/>I think perhaps what this technology is really doing is showing the difference between blurting out an answer and considering an answer before making it. I would point out that no fancy technology is needed to look at a suspect and see if he's hesitating or halting in his replies-- see President Clinton's famous "definition of is" answer.James Marcus Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985950531079499844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-16853396524310355822007-09-04T09:27:00.000-07:002007-09-04T09:27:00.000-07:00The neurocritic writes:> That, and the lovely figu...The neurocritic writes:<BR/>> That, and the lovely figure <BR/>> below. Notice the only activity <BR/>> in the truth-telling brain on <BR/>> the left seems to located mostly <BR/>> outside the cerebral cortex. <BR/>> Great.<BR/><BR/>Whee! Well, I have no idea what the study actually did and every reason to believe that it was done incorrectly, but I think the Neurocritic is making a slightly enthusiastic inference here.<BR/><BR/>You will note that the activations are being plotted on a single subject's anatomy (a no-no, in my book), but they are almost certainly average (and Gaussian-blurred) activations from many subjects. So, although there are no guarantees, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that, on average, there was actually cortex beneath the plotted activation.<BR/><BR/>Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but there you go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com