<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_151231</id>
	<title>Progress In Brain-Based Lie Detection</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247844540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A Cognitive Neuroscientist writes <i>"A new study, led by Harvard Psychologist <a href="http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/">Joshua Greene</a> and forthcoming in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may represent progress on the front of using brain imaging techniques, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional\_magnetic\_resonance\_imaging">functional magnetic resonance imaging</a>, to <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5512022">detect lies</a>. According to <a href="http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/neuroimaging-suggests-truthfulness-requires-no-act-will-honest-people">Harvard's press release</a>, Greene's is 'the first study to examine brain activity of people telling actual lies,' as opposed to prior studies in which subjects were merely instructed to lie. The results suggest that one key step in distinguishing honest from dishonest individuals may involve focusing on a small set of brain regions that are responsible for executive control and attention. However, given that the actual paper is yet to be published, it's unclear whether the study is prone to some of the <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/08/1526230&amp;tid=210">methodological and interpretive complications</a> that have recently plagued similar brain imaging studies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Cognitive Neuroscientist writes " A new study , led by Harvard Psychologist Joshua Greene and forthcoming in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , may represent progress on the front of using brain imaging techniques , such as functional magnetic resonance imaging , to detect lies .
According to Harvard 's press release , Greene 's is 'the first study to examine brain activity of people telling actual lies, ' as opposed to prior studies in which subjects were merely instructed to lie .
The results suggest that one key step in distinguishing honest from dishonest individuals may involve focusing on a small set of brain regions that are responsible for executive control and attention .
However , given that the actual paper is yet to be published , it 's unclear whether the study is prone to some of the methodological and interpretive complications that have recently plagued similar brain imaging studies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Cognitive Neuroscientist writes "A new study, led by Harvard Psychologist Joshua Greene and forthcoming in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may represent progress on the front of using brain imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, to detect lies.
According to Harvard's press release, Greene's is 'the first study to examine brain activity of people telling actual lies,' as opposed to prior studies in which subjects were merely instructed to lie.
The results suggest that one key step in distinguishing honest from dishonest individuals may involve focusing on a small set of brain regions that are responsible for executive control and attention.
However, given that the actual paper is yet to be published, it's unclear whether the study is prone to some of the methodological and interpretive complications that have recently plagued similar brain imaging studies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731765</id>
	<title>Re:Indivual differences</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1247853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up' phase.</i></p><p>Also, this doesn't catch people who actually believe the lie either because someone else told them or they duped themselves into believing in it.</p><p>If you asked someone if there was a god, the only answer you can take away from that is whether or not they believe that one exists and doesn't prove one way or another if it really is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up ' phase.Also , this does n't catch people who actually believe the lie either because someone else told them or they duped themselves into believing in it.If you asked someone if there was a god , the only answer you can take away from that is whether or not they believe that one exists and does n't prove one way or another if it really is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up' phase.Also, this doesn't catch people who actually believe the lie either because someone else told them or they duped themselves into believing in it.If you asked someone if there was a god, the only answer you can take away from that is whether or not they believe that one exists and doesn't prove one way or another if it really is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730665</id>
	<title>But Toff can detect lies using her feet</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1247848980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, Ok, Once in a while she comes across someone like Princess Azula who could lie without setting off tremors, but still I would rather Ang depend on Toff than on some mechanism that requires the test subjects strapped to gurney and wheeled in. I mean, I know Appa is big and powerful and carry lots of load but lugging around an MRI machine? Come on gimme a break.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , Ok , Once in a while she comes across someone like Princess Azula who could lie without setting off tremors , but still I would rather Ang depend on Toff than on some mechanism that requires the test subjects strapped to gurney and wheeled in .
I mean , I know Appa is big and powerful and carry lots of load but lugging around an MRI machine ?
Come on gim me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, Ok, Once in a while she comes across someone like Princess Azula who could lie without setting off tremors, but still I would rather Ang depend on Toff than on some mechanism that requires the test subjects strapped to gurney and wheeled in.
I mean, I know Appa is big and powerful and carry lots of load but lugging around an MRI machine?
Come on gimme a break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730749</id>
	<title>cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>apparently, they tested it on Tucker Max while he was telling one of his "totally true" stories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>apparently , they tested it on Tucker Max while he was telling one of his " totally true " stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apparently, they tested it on Tucker Max while he was telling one of his "totally true" stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28735969</id>
	<title>Re:Indivual differences</title>
	<author>venicebeach</author>
	<datestamp>1247831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fMRI is not a viable procedure to be performed involuntarily.  It's very susceptible to movement artifacts, all you'd have to do is wobble your head and you screw everything up.  The only way you could really force someone to comply would be to sedate them, in which case they aren't going to be answering questions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fMRI is not a viable procedure to be performed involuntarily .
It 's very susceptible to movement artifacts , all you 'd have to do is wobble your head and you screw everything up .
The only way you could really force someone to comply would be to sedate them , in which case they are n't going to be answering questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fMRI is not a viable procedure to be performed involuntarily.
It's very susceptible to movement artifacts, all you'd have to do is wobble your head and you screw everything up.
The only way you could really force someone to comply would be to sedate them, in which case they aren't going to be answering questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731467</id>
	<title>Re:Let's Pretent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no amendments when the Gestap^H^H^H^H^H^H Homeland Security thinks you're a terrorist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no amendments when the Gestap ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H Homeland Security thinks you 're a terrorist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no amendments when the Gestap^H^H^H^H^H^H Homeland Security thinks you're a terrorist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911</id>
	<title>Truth and Lies ... acceptance and denial</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial.  Our perceptions of right and wrong are merely an assimilation of experiences in life.  What is a lie for some is truth for others.  Some people have mastered the notion of changing lies into truth and truth into lies in public, in private and even in their own hearts and minds.</p><p>Defeating such testing may well be as trivial as defeating traditional polygraph tests as they both rely on the same principle -- metabolic and other reactions in the body to the conflicts that reside in the brain when the logical loops result from the mix of truth and lie.  I know that lawyers are especially skilful at transforming or even abandoning their own personal beliefs and convictions in order to serve the needs and interests of their clients.  This is an art that can be learned by anyone with the patience to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial .
Our perceptions of right and wrong are merely an assimilation of experiences in life .
What is a lie for some is truth for others .
Some people have mastered the notion of changing lies into truth and truth into lies in public , in private and even in their own hearts and minds.Defeating such testing may well be as trivial as defeating traditional polygraph tests as they both rely on the same principle -- metabolic and other reactions in the body to the conflicts that reside in the brain when the logical loops result from the mix of truth and lie .
I know that lawyers are especially skilful at transforming or even abandoning their own personal beliefs and convictions in order to serve the needs and interests of their clients .
This is an art that can be learned by anyone with the patience to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial.
Our perceptions of right and wrong are merely an assimilation of experiences in life.
What is a lie for some is truth for others.
Some people have mastered the notion of changing lies into truth and truth into lies in public, in private and even in their own hearts and minds.Defeating such testing may well be as trivial as defeating traditional polygraph tests as they both rely on the same principle -- metabolic and other reactions in the body to the conflicts that reside in the brain when the logical loops result from the mix of truth and lie.
I know that lawyers are especially skilful at transforming or even abandoning their own personal beliefs and convictions in order to serve the needs and interests of their clients.
This is an art that can be learned by anyone with the patience to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730673</id>
	<title>Re:Why all the skepticism?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we'd know for sure if they were lying about the study!</p></div><p>Yeah, except... people have been killed before on the mere suspicion that they were lying about certain things. Adding some scientific air of validity to it will only ensure the body count rises, irrespective of whether it works or not. Plus, we're making guesses about whether a person is really lying based on our miniscule knowledge of the brain -- in truth, we're just playing a statistics game, albeit with potentially fatal results for those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we 'd know for sure if they were lying about the study ! Yeah , except... people have been killed before on the mere suspicion that they were lying about certain things .
Adding some scientific air of validity to it will only ensure the body count rises , irrespective of whether it works or not .
Plus , we 're making guesses about whether a person is really lying based on our miniscule knowledge of the brain -- in truth , we 're just playing a statistics game , albeit with potentially fatal results for those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we'd know for sure if they were lying about the study!Yeah, except... people have been killed before on the mere suspicion that they were lying about certain things.
Adding some scientific air of validity to it will only ensure the body count rises, irrespective of whether it works or not.
Plus, we're making guesses about whether a person is really lying based on our miniscule knowledge of the brain -- in truth, we're just playing a statistics game, albeit with potentially fatal results for those who fall more than 3 sigma outside the norm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731531</id>
	<title>It takes WORK to lie.</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1247852700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is.  This makes sense because obtaining the truth is just a matter of data retrieval and access.</p><p>The lie also involves data retrieval and access--only lots more of it, because the liar has to anticipate different narratives (I'm reading Anathem, so sorry.).  The lie also involves a lot more plain processing.</p><p>The truth display process can also be readily completed.  The liar can never be sure if his lie is adequately developed, so its resolution is a more open-ended procedure.</p><p>All this extra stuff takes work (in the sense of energy).  That excessive energy use ought to be detectable, if one knows how and where to look.</p><p>Psychopaths still have to do all the work to lie, it's just that lying to them is like ordinary conversation to non-psychopaths.  All the extra processing ought to be detectable--if you do the MRI in addition to the standard lie detector, the psychopath ought to stand out as a mountain of absurdity--his brain is processing like mad but all his other systems are flat normal.</p><p>This, of course, is speculation.</p><p>On the other hand, this shit really sucks because lying is the only real defense against totalitarian oppression.  No doubt US companies will be selling these devices to China and North Korea like crazy.</p><p>In the U.S., such procedures will probably only get employed by consent, or with a warrant.<br>If the general scientific community comes to the conclusion that this kind of stuff is reliable, then it gets admitted into court.  The lie detector can't pass this evidentiary test so it doesn't get admitted into court unless everybody agrees. There will be big battles over this kind of evidence because it is potentially a game-changer.</p><p>Wait till you can project images out of people's minds!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is .
This makes sense because obtaining the truth is just a matter of data retrieval and access.The lie also involves data retrieval and access--only lots more of it , because the liar has to anticipate different narratives ( I 'm reading Anathem , so sorry. ) .
The lie also involves a lot more plain processing.The truth display process can also be readily completed .
The liar can never be sure if his lie is adequately developed , so its resolution is a more open-ended procedure.All this extra stuff takes work ( in the sense of energy ) .
That excessive energy use ought to be detectable , if one knows how and where to look.Psychopaths still have to do all the work to lie , it 's just that lying to them is like ordinary conversation to non-psychopaths .
All the extra processing ought to be detectable--if you do the MRI in addition to the standard lie detector , the psychopath ought to stand out as a mountain of absurdity--his brain is processing like mad but all his other systems are flat normal.This , of course , is speculation.On the other hand , this shit really sucks because lying is the only real defense against totalitarian oppression .
No doubt US companies will be selling these devices to China and North Korea like crazy.In the U.S. , such procedures will probably only get employed by consent , or with a warrant.If the general scientific community comes to the conclusion that this kind of stuff is reliable , then it gets admitted into court .
The lie detector ca n't pass this evidentiary test so it does n't get admitted into court unless everybody agrees .
There will be big battles over this kind of evidence because it is potentially a game-changer.Wait till you can project images out of people 's minds ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is apparently easier for a person to relate than a lie is.
This makes sense because obtaining the truth is just a matter of data retrieval and access.The lie also involves data retrieval and access--only lots more of it, because the liar has to anticipate different narratives (I'm reading Anathem, so sorry.).
The lie also involves a lot more plain processing.The truth display process can also be readily completed.
The liar can never be sure if his lie is adequately developed, so its resolution is a more open-ended procedure.All this extra stuff takes work (in the sense of energy).
That excessive energy use ought to be detectable, if one knows how and where to look.Psychopaths still have to do all the work to lie, it's just that lying to them is like ordinary conversation to non-psychopaths.
All the extra processing ought to be detectable--if you do the MRI in addition to the standard lie detector, the psychopath ought to stand out as a mountain of absurdity--his brain is processing like mad but all his other systems are flat normal.This, of course, is speculation.On the other hand, this shit really sucks because lying is the only real defense against totalitarian oppression.
No doubt US companies will be selling these devices to China and North Korea like crazy.In the U.S., such procedures will probably only get employed by consent, or with a warrant.If the general scientific community comes to the conclusion that this kind of stuff is reliable, then it gets admitted into court.
The lie detector can't pass this evidentiary test so it doesn't get admitted into court unless everybody agrees.
There will be big battles over this kind of evidence because it is potentially a game-changer.Wait till you can project images out of people's minds!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28735591</id>
	<title>Science Research</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247828760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes, 'because we can' isn't a good reason without seriously considering the long term ramifications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , 'because we can ' is n't a good reason without seriously considering the long term ramifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, 'because we can' isn't a good reason without seriously considering the long term ramifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730817</id>
	<title>Skepticism because MRI doesn't work that way</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1247849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The results of an MRI scan are composite images of increasing spatial resolution taken over a time span of minutes to tens of minutes.  If a person's "liar region" of the brain lit up during a scan, that only means that region was active at some point during the scan, which could have occurred for any number of reasons during that time span. <br> <br> MRI cannot be used as the sole means of evidence for this kind of study, and papers that rely solely on MRI are seen as untrustworthy or "merely-interesting" at best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The results of an MRI scan are composite images of increasing spatial resolution taken over a time span of minutes to tens of minutes .
If a person 's " liar region " of the brain lit up during a scan , that only means that region was active at some point during the scan , which could have occurred for any number of reasons during that time span .
MRI can not be used as the sole means of evidence for this kind of study , and papers that rely solely on MRI are seen as untrustworthy or " merely-interesting " at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results of an MRI scan are composite images of increasing spatial resolution taken over a time span of minutes to tens of minutes.
If a person's "liar region" of the brain lit up during a scan, that only means that region was active at some point during the scan, which could have occurred for any number of reasons during that time span.
MRI cannot be used as the sole means of evidence for this kind of study, and papers that rely solely on MRI are seen as untrustworthy or "merely-interesting" at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730857</id>
	<title>Mythbusted...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247849760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Mythbusters team can beat it (as Grant did in Episode 93) then who can't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Mythbusters team can beat it ( as Grant did in Episode 93 ) then who ca n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Mythbusters team can beat it (as Grant did in Episode 93) then who can't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541</id>
	<title>Why all the skepticism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we'd know for sure if they were lying about the study!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we 'd know for sure if they were lying about the study !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the contributor of this story is so skeptical of it...it seems all we would need to do is hook the scientists up to an fMRI and we'd know for sure if they were lying about the study!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731127</id>
	<title>Don't Expect Better Soon</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1247850900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problems that have been noted have not just "recently plagued similar brain imaging studies", they have been around since the 'boxcar' stimulus method and SPM analysis technique were applied to MRI research.</p><p>There are enough that know better now that fMRI can be rightly questioned. But here you run into the problem of science vs. scientists. There are so many of the latter that have attached their name to previously accepted research that they'd refuse to accept any reports of problems. For example, there was recently an fMRI article published by PNAS. That means there are enough highly placed reviewers and associates of theirs in the National Academy that didn't know there was a problem and so aren't likely to come forward and admit their previous ignorance. Any trying to do so unilaterally would face opposition more strenuous than merely scientific. Hell, I learned the technique as well as the underlying theories from a student of the guy who invented them, and I still have my theory based objections countered with mention of how many publications use the technique vs. how many publications cover these "problems".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems that have been noted have not just " recently plagued similar brain imaging studies " , they have been around since the 'boxcar ' stimulus method and SPM analysis technique were applied to MRI research.There are enough that know better now that fMRI can be rightly questioned .
But here you run into the problem of science vs. scientists. There are so many of the latter that have attached their name to previously accepted research that they 'd refuse to accept any reports of problems .
For example , there was recently an fMRI article published by PNAS .
That means there are enough highly placed reviewers and associates of theirs in the National Academy that did n't know there was a problem and so are n't likely to come forward and admit their previous ignorance .
Any trying to do so unilaterally would face opposition more strenuous than merely scientific .
Hell , I learned the technique as well as the underlying theories from a student of the guy who invented them , and I still have my theory based objections countered with mention of how many publications use the technique vs. how many publications cover these " problems " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems that have been noted have not just "recently plagued similar brain imaging studies", they have been around since the 'boxcar' stimulus method and SPM analysis technique were applied to MRI research.There are enough that know better now that fMRI can be rightly questioned.
But here you run into the problem of science vs. scientists. There are so many of the latter that have attached their name to previously accepted research that they'd refuse to accept any reports of problems.
For example, there was recently an fMRI article published by PNAS.
That means there are enough highly placed reviewers and associates of theirs in the National Academy that didn't know there was a problem and so aren't likely to come forward and admit their previous ignorance.
Any trying to do so unilaterally would face opposition more strenuous than merely scientific.
Hell, I learned the technique as well as the underlying theories from a student of the guy who invented them, and I still have my theory based objections countered with mention of how many publications use the technique vs. how many publications cover these "problems".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730695</id>
	<title>Brain based? Great!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1247849160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear it works much better than the old rectal lie detectors from the 1970s, and light years beyond the foot based scanners from the 50s. At least they are moving in the right direction, although Wonder Woman's magic rope is still the standard to beat.</p><p>Maybe the guys who make Brain Age for the Nintendo DS can write the software interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear it works much better than the old rectal lie detectors from the 1970s , and light years beyond the foot based scanners from the 50s .
At least they are moving in the right direction , although Wonder Woman 's magic rope is still the standard to beat.Maybe the guys who make Brain Age for the Nintendo DS can write the software interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear it works much better than the old rectal lie detectors from the 1970s, and light years beyond the foot based scanners from the 50s.
At least they are moving in the right direction, although Wonder Woman's magic rope is still the standard to beat.Maybe the guys who make Brain Age for the Nintendo DS can write the software interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732845</id>
	<title>Re:Why all the skepticism?</title>
	<author>chickenarise</author>
	<datestamp>1247858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, isn't there a difference between a lie (i.e. a factually false statement) and what someone <em>thinks</em> is a lie? Wouldn't this device only reveal the latter case? How much more valuable is this than what we already have?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , is n't there a difference between a lie ( i.e .
a factually false statement ) and what someone thinks is a lie ?
Would n't this device only reveal the latter case ?
How much more valuable is this than what we already have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, isn't there a difference between a lie (i.e.
a factually false statement) and what someone thinks is a lie?
Wouldn't this device only reveal the latter case?
How much more valuable is this than what we already have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731991</id>
	<title>fingerprinting not scientifically proven</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1247854560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until recently computerized, fingerprinting did not have rigorous scientific studies we demand of newer methods like DNA and brain patterns. When a fingerprint expert witness got up said there "9 points of mathcing" or twenty or whatever, there wasnt the research and analysis to say that really meant anything.  It wasnt until computerized matching was implemented on a large scale that some rigor was introduced.  This more on a ad-hoc basis rather scientifically proven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until recently computerized , fingerprinting did not have rigorous scientific studies we demand of newer methods like DNA and brain patterns .
When a fingerprint expert witness got up said there " 9 points of mathcing " or twenty or whatever , there wasnt the research and analysis to say that really meant anything .
It wasnt until computerized matching was implemented on a large scale that some rigor was introduced .
This more on a ad-hoc basis rather scientifically proven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until recently computerized, fingerprinting did not have rigorous scientific studies we demand of newer methods like DNA and brain patterns.
When a fingerprint expert witness got up said there "9 points of mathcing" or twenty or whatever, there wasnt the research and analysis to say that really meant anything.
It wasnt until computerized matching was implemented on a large scale that some rigor was introduced.
This more on a ad-hoc basis rather scientifically proven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732289</id>
	<title>Re:Truth and Lies ... acceptance and denial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247855880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right and wrong are certainly subjective but a lie versus true or fact versus fiction isn't.  Maybe some lines can be blurred a bit but something happened or it didn't.</p><p>I'm no brain surgon nor did i RTFA but i would imagine you actually could detect the difference in the brain when dealing with something from recall/memory versus something that is being made up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right and wrong are certainly subjective but a lie versus true or fact versus fiction is n't .
Maybe some lines can be blurred a bit but something happened or it did n't.I 'm no brain surgon nor did i RTFA but i would imagine you actually could detect the difference in the brain when dealing with something from recall/memory versus something that is being made up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right and wrong are certainly subjective but a lie versus true or fact versus fiction isn't.
Maybe some lines can be blurred a bit but something happened or it didn't.I'm no brain surgon nor did i RTFA but i would imagine you actually could detect the difference in the brain when dealing with something from recall/memory versus something that is being made up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731023</id>
	<title>better but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not like "lieing" is a single category. There are many types of lies a person can tell, and many ways to lie.</p><p>I always thought there was something inherently flawed about asking people to lie. If I ask you to lie, you really can't. If I say "lie about your age", you can't, I never asked you to tell your age, I asked you to tell a fake age.</p><p>Thats far different from "did you kill her?" "Describe the event of finding her body and what you did next". In that case, well you really have something to hide, you have good reason to remember things, and good reason to not tell what you remembered.</p><p>You might have gone over it, looked for plausible changes to make to the story, things that can fit in but maybe can't be proven one way or another etc. Its more complicated and, I doubt that everyone does it the same way. I have long felt, mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing.</p><p>There are so many levels here. People making things up on the spot, I would imagine, do it very differently from someome who is deliberate and has had time to think, time to go over his new version of events. I have played with this myself in a few situations (usually things that are just personal details that I don't want to reveal or talk about, or can't due to a promised confidence).</p><p>Drawing on a friend of mines recent experience of being told by a police officer "I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye, but when you say Z, you look away", which isn't far off from skills useful in poker really.</p><p>Essentially, if you can teach yourself a story thats very close to reality but with a few tweaks, and learn it well enough that you can recall the story as a story and not as a lie where you have to improvise, its not too hard to do it looking someone right in the eye, and be easily believed.</p><p>Thats very different from nervous, on the fly lies.</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not like " lieing " is a single category .
There are many types of lies a person can tell , and many ways to lie.I always thought there was something inherently flawed about asking people to lie .
If I ask you to lie , you really ca n't .
If I say " lie about your age " , you ca n't , I never asked you to tell your age , I asked you to tell a fake age.Thats far different from " did you kill her ?
" " Describe the event of finding her body and what you did next " .
In that case , well you really have something to hide , you have good reason to remember things , and good reason to not tell what you remembered.You might have gone over it , looked for plausible changes to make to the story , things that can fit in but maybe ca n't be proven one way or another etc .
Its more complicated and , I doubt that everyone does it the same way .
I have long felt , mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing.There are so many levels here .
People making things up on the spot , I would imagine , do it very differently from someome who is deliberate and has had time to think , time to go over his new version of events .
I have played with this myself in a few situations ( usually things that are just personal details that I do n't want to reveal or talk about , or ca n't due to a promised confidence ) .Drawing on a friend of mines recent experience of being told by a police officer " I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye , but when you say Z , you look away " , which is n't far off from skills useful in poker really.Essentially , if you can teach yourself a story thats very close to reality but with a few tweaks , and learn it well enough that you can recall the story as a story and not as a lie where you have to improvise , its not too hard to do it looking someone right in the eye , and be easily believed.Thats very different from nervous , on the fly lies.-Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not like "lieing" is a single category.
There are many types of lies a person can tell, and many ways to lie.I always thought there was something inherently flawed about asking people to lie.
If I ask you to lie, you really can't.
If I say "lie about your age", you can't, I never asked you to tell your age, I asked you to tell a fake age.Thats far different from "did you kill her?
" "Describe the event of finding her body and what you did next".
In that case, well you really have something to hide, you have good reason to remember things, and good reason to not tell what you remembered.You might have gone over it, looked for plausible changes to make to the story, things that can fit in but maybe can't be proven one way or another etc.
Its more complicated and, I doubt that everyone does it the same way.
I have long felt, mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing.There are so many levels here.
People making things up on the spot, I would imagine, do it very differently from someome who is deliberate and has had time to think, time to go over his new version of events.
I have played with this myself in a few situations (usually things that are just personal details that I don't want to reveal or talk about, or can't due to a promised confidence).Drawing on a friend of mines recent experience of being told by a police officer "I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye, but when you say Z, you look away", which isn't far off from skills useful in poker really.Essentially, if you can teach yourself a story thats very close to reality but with a few tweaks, and learn it well enough that you can recall the story as a story and not as a lie where you have to improvise, its not too hard to do it looking someone right in the eye, and be easily believed.Thats very different from nervous, on the fly lies.-Steve</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591</id>
	<title>Indivual differences</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247848620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand that it takes significant testing to confirm that the machines are working correctly for each individual.  I would bet that many individuals - such as psychopaths - could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up' phase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that it takes significant testing to confirm that the machines are working correctly for each individual .
I would bet that many individuals - such as psychopaths - could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up ' phase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that it takes significant testing to confirm that the machines are working correctly for each individual.
I would bet that many individuals - such as psychopaths - could easily beat the machine if they refused to cooperate/pretened to cooperate with the 'set-up' phase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28738435</id>
	<title>Re:Truth and Lies ... acceptance and denial</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247854500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial.</i></p><p>I don't believe it.</p><p>- Skeptopotamus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial.I do n't believe it.- Skeptopotamus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth and lies are simply a matter of acceptance and denial.I don't believe it.- Skeptopotamus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28736083</id>
	<title>Re:Truth and Lies ... acceptance and denial</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, If asked "have you ever cheated on your wife?" most people would think full intercourse, others may think that a slightly more than friendly relationship was cheating some may even believe to them selves that an imaginary fantasy was cheating.  So when asked the question and you justify in your mind that they were meaning full intercourse, but you believe that the fantasy you had was cheating then when you say 'No' you will be detected as lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , If asked " have you ever cheated on your wife ?
" most people would think full intercourse , others may think that a slightly more than friendly relationship was cheating some may even believe to them selves that an imaginary fantasy was cheating .
So when asked the question and you justify in your mind that they were meaning full intercourse , but you believe that the fantasy you had was cheating then when you say 'No ' you will be detected as lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, If asked "have you ever cheated on your wife?
" most people would think full intercourse, others may think that a slightly more than friendly relationship was cheating some may even believe to them selves that an imaginary fantasy was cheating.
So when asked the question and you justify in your mind that they were meaning full intercourse, but you believe that the fantasy you had was cheating then when you say 'No' you will be detected as lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731197</id>
	<title>The Doghouse! Forever!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now your wife won't just suspect what you've been thinking about her younger sister. She'll know it for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now your wife wo n't just suspect what you 've been thinking about her younger sister .
She 'll know it for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now your wife won't just suspect what you've been thinking about her younger sister.
She'll know it for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731075</id>
	<title>Re:Let's Pretent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's a violation of the 5th amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's a violation of the 5th amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's a violation of the 5th amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730959</id>
	<title>First Post!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I lied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I lied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I lied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730625</id>
	<title>Maybe I can use this...</title>
	<author>A. B3ttik</author>
	<datestamp>1247848800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to find out the location of the Hidden Rebel Base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to find out the location of the Hidden Rebel Base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to find out the location of the Hidden Rebel Base.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730739</id>
	<title>Re:Indivual differences</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1247849340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see an arms race.  Assuming Greene (whose papers in the past, like his dissertation, I haven't been impressed with) really was able to ethically create a circumstance where people truly lying and he knows it:</p><p>All that means is that he found a correlate of lying.  The method used in his lie detector would exploit that correlation.  But once this becomes common knowledge, people can figure out what kind of thinking would trip the lie detector, eventually rendering it useless, even assuming everything they claim is right.</p><p>Furthermore, the study would tell people how talk in a way that trips the lie detector, making it look like every statement is a lie, even the truthful statement of their own name.  With that many false positives, it would no longer be reliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see an arms race .
Assuming Greene ( whose papers in the past , like his dissertation , I have n't been impressed with ) really was able to ethically create a circumstance where people truly lying and he knows it : All that means is that he found a correlate of lying .
The method used in his lie detector would exploit that correlation .
But once this becomes common knowledge , people can figure out what kind of thinking would trip the lie detector , eventually rendering it useless , even assuming everything they claim is right.Furthermore , the study would tell people how talk in a way that trips the lie detector , making it look like every statement is a lie , even the truthful statement of their own name .
With that many false positives , it would no longer be reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see an arms race.
Assuming Greene (whose papers in the past, like his dissertation, I haven't been impressed with) really was able to ethically create a circumstance where people truly lying and he knows it:All that means is that he found a correlate of lying.
The method used in his lie detector would exploit that correlation.
But once this becomes common knowledge, people can figure out what kind of thinking would trip the lie detector, eventually rendering it useless, even assuming everything they claim is right.Furthermore, the study would tell people how talk in a way that trips the lie detector, making it look like every statement is a lie, even the truthful statement of their own name.
With that many false positives, it would no longer be reliable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732503</id>
	<title>Dubious truths?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1247856840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I doubt the truth of something I say (such as repeating a dubious factoid from another source), but am not lying -- how would that show up on such a test??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I doubt the truth of something I say ( such as repeating a dubious factoid from another source ) , but am not lying -- how would that show up on such a test ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I doubt the truth of something I say (such as repeating a dubious factoid from another source), but am not lying -- how would that show up on such a test?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731891</id>
	<title>Some advice to pass the test...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247854260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Remember: it's not a lie... if you believe in it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Remember : it 's not a lie... if you believe in it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Remember: it's not a lie... if you believe in it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731935</id>
	<title>Re:Let's Pretend</title>
	<author>Froze</author>
	<datestamp>1247854380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. The body of law was constructed under the knowledge that it is not possible to verify your actions to 100\% certainty. Think punitive deterrents etc. When the laws were written there was an implicit expectation of leeway guaranteed by the uncertainty of events. Not to mention that people are entirely capable of creating delusional fantasies that have replaced reality to the point that even if they thought they were lying( or telling the truth) that is still insufficient to prove that events occurred as reported.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The body of law was constructed under the knowledge that it is not possible to verify your actions to 100 \ % certainty .
Think punitive deterrents etc .
When the laws were written there was an implicit expectation of leeway guaranteed by the uncertainty of events .
Not to mention that people are entirely capable of creating delusional fantasies that have replaced reality to the point that even if they thought they were lying ( or telling the truth ) that is still insufficient to prove that events occurred as reported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The body of law was constructed under the knowledge that it is not possible to verify your actions to 100\% certainty.
Think punitive deterrents etc.
When the laws were written there was an implicit expectation of leeway guaranteed by the uncertainty of events.
Not to mention that people are entirely capable of creating delusional fantasies that have replaced reality to the point that even if they thought they were lying( or telling the truth) that is still insufficient to prove that events occurred as reported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730525</id>
	<title>New non-trusive lie detection method flawed?</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back to savage beatings and waterboarding, I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to savage beatings and waterboarding , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to savage beatings and waterboarding, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731343</id>
	<title>i would like to disprove it.</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1247851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i would like to disprove it.
i once had great fun with an american police officer demonstrating a lie detector to European police, who said a lie detector could not be manipulated.

i proved him wrong, all the lies i told were registered as the truth.
i would have killed 1million people, and I've slept with 5000 women, and i visited mars once or twice.
i had great fun shattering someone's believe, and so did everyone surrounding it.
i think i could even fool this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>i would like to disprove it .
i once had great fun with an american police officer demonstrating a lie detector to European police , who said a lie detector could not be manipulated .
i proved him wrong , all the lies i told were registered as the truth .
i would have killed 1million people , and I 've slept with 5000 women , and i visited mars once or twice .
i had great fun shattering someone 's believe , and so did everyone surrounding it .
i think i could even fool this : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i would like to disprove it.
i once had great fun with an american police officer demonstrating a lie detector to European police, who said a lie detector could not be manipulated.
i proved him wrong, all the lies i told were registered as the truth.
i would have killed 1million people, and I've slept with 5000 women, and i visited mars once or twice.
i had great fun shattering someone's believe, and so did everyone surrounding it.
i think i could even fool this :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28740311</id>
	<title>good post</title>
	<author>diziizle</author>
	<datestamp>1247928120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was supposed to be a joke...I'm not sure what the moderators are smoking.

<div><p>
<a href="http://www.sanaldizi.net/" title="sanaldizi.net" rel="nofollow">dizi izle</a> [sanaldizi.net]
<a href="http://www.filmturka.net/" title="filmturka.net" rel="nofollow">film izle</a> [filmturka.net]</p>
</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was supposed to be a joke...I 'm not sure what the moderators are smoking .
dizi izle [ sanaldizi.net ] film izle [ filmturka.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was supposed to be a joke...I'm not sure what the moderators are smoking.
dizi izle [sanaldizi.net]
film izle [filmturka.net]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28733089</id>
	<title>Inadmissible?</title>
	<author>sjfoland</author>
	<datestamp>1247859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if this were proved to be accurate, would it be legally admissible? If you unlawfully took evidence from someone's residence, it would cause a mistrial... How could you justify taking information from inside someone's head without their consent to use against them in court?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if this were proved to be accurate , would it be legally admissible ?
If you unlawfully took evidence from someone 's residence , it would cause a mistrial... How could you justify taking information from inside someone 's head without their consent to use against them in court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if this were proved to be accurate, would it be legally admissible?
If you unlawfully took evidence from someone's residence, it would cause a mistrial... How could you justify taking information from inside someone's head without their consent to use against them in court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730623</id>
	<title>Liar, liar.</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247848800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how well this method would work if tested on the researchers regarding the validity of their results...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how well this method would work if tested on the researchers regarding the validity of their results.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how well this method would work if tested on the researchers regarding the validity of their results...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681</id>
	<title>Let's Pretent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's pretend we had a non-invasive, 100\% reliable method of detecting lies. Assume that it is proven to the point where no one argues that it has failures.</p><p>Would it be ethical to use them to prove innocence or guilt in a court of law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's pretend we had a non-invasive , 100 \ % reliable method of detecting lies .
Assume that it is proven to the point where no one argues that it has failures.Would it be ethical to use them to prove innocence or guilt in a court of law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's pretend we had a non-invasive, 100\% reliable method of detecting lies.
Assume that it is proven to the point where no one argues that it has failures.Would it be ethical to use them to prove innocence or guilt in a court of law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731175</id>
	<title>Re:Truth and Lies ... acceptance and denial</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247851020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they aren't the same. The problem with a polygraph isn't just that some poeple can 'beat it', it's also subjective.<br>Also, people who aren't lying can look like they are lying do to stress, or a generally guilty conscience.</p><p>fMRI, at this point, looks very promising;However, that's all. it LOOKS promising. No one has turned in a good study showing any practicle lie detection ability.</p><p>And I am not exactly enamored with this fellow or his study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they are n't the same .
The problem with a polygraph is n't just that some poeple can 'beat it ' , it 's also subjective.Also , people who are n't lying can look like they are lying do to stress , or a generally guilty conscience.fMRI , at this point , looks very promising ; However , that 's all .
it LOOKS promising .
No one has turned in a good study showing any practicle lie detection ability.And I am not exactly enamored with this fellow or his study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they aren't the same.
The problem with a polygraph isn't just that some poeple can 'beat it', it's also subjective.Also, people who aren't lying can look like they are lying do to stress, or a generally guilty conscience.fMRI, at this point, looks very promising;However, that's all.
it LOOKS promising.
No one has turned in a good study showing any practicle lie detection ability.And I am not exactly enamored with this fellow or his study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732851</id>
	<title>Re:better but...</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1247858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its not like "lieing" is a single category.</p><p>I have long felt, mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing.</p><p>"I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye, but when you say Z, you look away"</p></div><p>If your spelling checker told you that was correct, it was <b>lying</b>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>(BTW, stop training dogs to "lay down". The correct command is "lie down".)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not like " lieing " is a single category.I have long felt , mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing .
" I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye , but when you say Z , you look away " If your spelling checker told you that was correct , it was lying .
; ) ( BTW , stop training dogs to " lay down " .
The correct command is " lie down " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not like "lieing" is a single category.I have long felt, mostly from listening to the statements made by people who claim to be able to tell when a person is lieing.
"I know your lieing because when you tell me about X and Y you look me right in the eye, but when you say Z, you look away"If your spelling checker told you that was correct, it was lying.
;)(BTW, stop training dogs to "lay down".
The correct command is "lie down".
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731239</id>
	<title>Re:Let's Pretent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, it's a violation of the 5th amendment.</p></div><p>the constitution is not a code of ethics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's a violation of the 5th amendment.the constitution is not a code of ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's a violation of the 5th amendment.the constitution is not a code of ethics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730737</id>
	<title>Assuming it works, legal implications</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247849280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it works and people know it works, then it will dramaticaly chane the legal situation, even if it is not admissible in court.
Pretty soon, every really innocent person would insist on providing testimony via it to prove their innocence, even if it was just to the police officer investigating.  Then the police (and juries) would begin to shift their beliefs to "If the police charged him, then he must be guilty because if he was innocent he would volunteer for the test and the police would not be trying him."</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it works and people know it works , then it will dramaticaly chane the legal situation , even if it is not admissible in court .
Pretty soon , every really innocent person would insist on providing testimony via it to prove their innocence , even if it was just to the police officer investigating .
Then the police ( and juries ) would begin to shift their beliefs to " If the police charged him , then he must be guilty because if he was innocent he would volunteer for the test and the police would not be trying him .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it works and people know it works, then it will dramaticaly chane the legal situation, even if it is not admissible in court.
Pretty soon, every really innocent person would insist on providing testimony via it to prove their innocence, even if it was just to the police officer investigating.
Then the police (and juries) would begin to shift their beliefs to "If the police charged him, then he must be guilty because if he was innocent he would volunteer for the test and the police would not be trying him.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28738435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28735969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_151231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28736083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28738435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28736083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28732845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28735969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28731935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_151231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_151231.28730857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
