I just find this interesting where a biodegradable coffin made out of recycled newspaper.Would that help with the environment?
If you're interested to learn more about it, copy and paste the link below:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/27/green.coffins.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Absolute Hot
I really enjoyed reading this article about absolute hot, the opposite of absolute zero:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Pentium FDIV Bug
Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Intel Pentium FDIV bug that we discussed in class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
From the article:
Professor Thomas Nicely, then a professor of mathematics at Lynchburg College, had written code to enumerate primes, twin primes, prime triplets, and prime quadruplets. Nicely noticed some inconsistencies in the calculations on June 13, 1994 shortly after adding a Pentium system to his group of computers, but was unable to eliminate other factors (such as programming errors, motherboard chipsets, etc.) until October 19, 1994. On October 24, 1994 he reported the issue to Intel. According to Nicely, his contact person at Intel would later admit that Intel had been aware of the problem since May 1994, when the flaw had been discovered when testing the FPU for its new Intel P6 core, first used in the Pentium Pro."
***
For users of business software, encountering the bug is highly unlikely, and it is even less likely that the bug would have a significant impact.
However, there are some scientific applications (like Nicely's) that require A LOT of floating point math. In these cases, not only is the probability of running into the bug higher, but calculations that don't adhere to the IEEE standard could taint the scientific results.
It makes sense that a mathematician caught the bug, because mathematicians are generally the only people who check this kind of thing. Most scientists would just enter the data and expect the computer to work. For example, a physicist running a weather simulation has no idea what the "answer" is before the simulation is complete. If the computer fails somewhere along the line, but the results seem reasonable, how would he know that they are actually incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
From the article:
"The Pentium FDIV bug was a bug in Intel's original Pentium floating point unit. Certain floating point division operations performed with these processors would produce incorrect results. According to Intel, there were a few missing entries in the lookup table used by the divide operation algorithm.[1]
The flaw was publicly disclosed by Professor Thomas Nicely, then at Lynchburg College, in 1994[2].
Although encountering the flaw was extremely rare in practice (Byte magazine estimated that 1 in 9 billion floating point divides with random parameters would produce inaccurate results),[3]
both the flaw and Intel's handling of the matter were heavily criticized. Intel ultimately recalled the defective processors.
Professor Thomas Nicely, then a professor of mathematics at Lynchburg College, had written code to enumerate primes, twin primes, prime triplets, and prime quadruplets. Nicely noticed some inconsistencies in the calculations on June 13, 1994 shortly after adding a Pentium system to his group of computers, but was unable to eliminate other factors (such as programming errors, motherboard chipsets, etc.) until October 19, 1994. On October 24, 1994 he reported the issue to Intel. According to Nicely, his contact person at Intel would later admit that Intel had been aware of the problem since May 1994, when the flaw had been discovered when testing the FPU for its new Intel P6 core, first used in the Pentium Pro."
***
For users of business software, encountering the bug is highly unlikely, and it is even less likely that the bug would have a significant impact.
However, there are some scientific applications (like Nicely's) that require A LOT of floating point math. In these cases, not only is the probability of running into the bug higher, but calculations that don't adhere to the IEEE standard could taint the scientific results.
It makes sense that a mathematician caught the bug, because mathematicians are generally the only people who check this kind of thing. Most scientists would just enter the data and expect the computer to work. For example, a physicist running a weather simulation has no idea what the "answer" is before the simulation is complete. If the computer fails somewhere along the line, but the results seem reasonable, how would he know that they are actually incorrect?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
previous post reposted
from jooliyah, originally presented as a comment on another post, re-presented here for easier reading and commenting:
-What are the audience's interests in the topic?
The author used the title, “Looking for the Lies,” caught my attention as well as it may catch the audience’s attention if they’re interested to know what the title means. I didn’t expect the author to mention about devices to detect the lies. It was interesting to learn how each equipment such as MRI, ECG, polygraph, etc function to detect the lies. However they’re not 100% reliable. As I was reading this article, I think to myself, would I want to trust any of those devices. Probably not, because it’s like a robot is detecting your lies and it makes me feel uncomfortable if I have to go through that. What if you are telling the truth, but the “robot” detects that you’re lying. How can you defense toward to that? Especially in the court, the judge would probably listen to the “robot.” That means it gives you more work to prove the judge that you’re telling the truth. So I just find this as hassle. People are researching many different things trying to find how to detect a lie. That didn’t really get me interested that much because I’m not a technology person. However, the audience may be interested in learning different equipment on how to detect a lie. It just depends on the reader’s interest.
Nevertheless, why do people lie got my attention. It makes me wonder why do people lie. Is it because they’re afraid that some people might get mad at them for telling the truth. Telling a lie is easier than telling the truth, however it’s hard to keep track of the lies that you’ve been telling to. People tell lies for reasons such as not wanting to hurt their friends’ feelings, not their business to know, and/or not wanting to cause problems, etc. Telling lies constant may hurt friendship. Moreover, other questions such as how often do people lie? To whom do they tell their lies? Can people tell when others are lying?
On page 54, I seem to agree with Paul Ekman’s perspective on lying. He mentioned, “lying is a matter of privacy,” for instance “if his wife or two grown children want to lie to him, that’s their business: they haven’t given me the right to call them on their lies.” It’s true that it’s their business to lie. They must have a reason why they do that. I even lied to my parents for own reasons because sometime I don’t want them to know or something like that. It’s okay to tell lies once in a while, but not everyday which that’d consider you as a pathological liar.
This is a bit off point from this article, I was surfing on the Internet about lying and I found an article related to lying. In the article, Almost Everyone Lies, Often Seeing It as a Kindness by Shankar Vedantam, “Experiments have found that ordinary people tell about two lies every 10 minutes, with some people getting in as many as a dozen falsehoods in that period. More interestingly -- and Libby might see this as the silver lining if he is found guilty -- Feldman also found that liars tend to be more popular than honest people.” I agree with Feldman about liars being more popular than honest people. People who tell honest all the time make them look like nerds. I don’t know why this is like that. For example, my mom is an honest person, she always tells me that she was always the odd one in the group and didn’t have many friends.
-What does the article hope to accomplish with its audience?
It’s interesting to learn that some kind of equipment that can read oxygen levels in the brain or see the white part in the brain to detect the lies. It’s interesting when Professor Mazzolini brought up about DNA testing in the future, it’ll be interesting to research about that to see if DNA could detect the lies. Would it be more accuracy than any kinds of devices?
-What political, scientific or humanistic concerns does the article speak to that the audience might have (or form) opinions about?
On Feb. 19, 2006 Pat Costa of Gaston, Ore. wrote in the New Yorker Magazine: I can envision, a decade or so from now, the next iPod-like gadget: a pair of glasses with a built-in lie detector that flashes ''He's lying!'' as a floating subtitle just below the person you are watching. This science-imitating-art device would be quite useful when talking with a suitor (''I like you'' He's lying; ''I love you'' He's really lying). Such a device would also be handy when talking with a car salesperson (''It gets 40 m.p.g. on the highway'' Sure, maybe downhill, with a tailwind), stockbrokers (''Everybody I have talked to is buying this stock'' You're the only person he talked to) and real-estate agents (''This is the hottest market in the state'' Did I hear a bubble burst?).
-What are the audience's interests in the topic?
The author used the title, “Looking for the Lies,” caught my attention as well as it may catch the audience’s attention if they’re interested to know what the title means. I didn’t expect the author to mention about devices to detect the lies. It was interesting to learn how each equipment such as MRI, ECG, polygraph, etc function to detect the lies. However they’re not 100% reliable. As I was reading this article, I think to myself, would I want to trust any of those devices. Probably not, because it’s like a robot is detecting your lies and it makes me feel uncomfortable if I have to go through that. What if you are telling the truth, but the “robot” detects that you’re lying. How can you defense toward to that? Especially in the court, the judge would probably listen to the “robot.” That means it gives you more work to prove the judge that you’re telling the truth. So I just find this as hassle. People are researching many different things trying to find how to detect a lie. That didn’t really get me interested that much because I’m not a technology person. However, the audience may be interested in learning different equipment on how to detect a lie. It just depends on the reader’s interest.
Nevertheless, why do people lie got my attention. It makes me wonder why do people lie. Is it because they’re afraid that some people might get mad at them for telling the truth. Telling a lie is easier than telling the truth, however it’s hard to keep track of the lies that you’ve been telling to. People tell lies for reasons such as not wanting to hurt their friends’ feelings, not their business to know, and/or not wanting to cause problems, etc. Telling lies constant may hurt friendship. Moreover, other questions such as how often do people lie? To whom do they tell their lies? Can people tell when others are lying?
On page 54, I seem to agree with Paul Ekman’s perspective on lying. He mentioned, “lying is a matter of privacy,” for instance “if his wife or two grown children want to lie to him, that’s their business: they haven’t given me the right to call them on their lies.” It’s true that it’s their business to lie. They must have a reason why they do that. I even lied to my parents for own reasons because sometime I don’t want them to know or something like that. It’s okay to tell lies once in a while, but not everyday which that’d consider you as a pathological liar.
This is a bit off point from this article, I was surfing on the Internet about lying and I found an article related to lying. In the article, Almost Everyone Lies, Often Seeing It as a Kindness by Shankar Vedantam, “Experiments have found that ordinary people tell about two lies every 10 minutes, with some people getting in as many as a dozen falsehoods in that period. More interestingly -- and Libby might see this as the silver lining if he is found guilty -- Feldman also found that liars tend to be more popular than honest people.” I agree with Feldman about liars being more popular than honest people. People who tell honest all the time make them look like nerds. I don’t know why this is like that. For example, my mom is an honest person, she always tells me that she was always the odd one in the group and didn’t have many friends.
-What does the article hope to accomplish with its audience?
It’s interesting to learn that some kind of equipment that can read oxygen levels in the brain or see the white part in the brain to detect the lies. It’s interesting when Professor Mazzolini brought up about DNA testing in the future, it’ll be interesting to research about that to see if DNA could detect the lies. Would it be more accuracy than any kinds of devices?
-What political, scientific or humanistic concerns does the article speak to that the audience might have (or form) opinions about?
On Feb. 19, 2006 Pat Costa of Gaston, Ore. wrote in the New Yorker Magazine: I can envision, a decade or so from now, the next iPod-like gadget: a pair of glasses with a built-in lie detector that flashes ''He's lying!'' as a floating subtitle just below the person you are watching. This science-imitating-art device would be quite useful when talking with a suitor (''I like you'' He's lying; ''I love you'' He's really lying). Such a device would also be handy when talking with a car salesperson (''It gets 40 m.p.g. on the highway'' Sure, maybe downhill, with a tailwind), stockbrokers (''Everybody I have talked to is buying this stock'' You're the only person he talked to) and real-estate agents (''This is the hottest market in the state'' Did I hear a bubble burst?).
Friday, December 14, 2007
How the Color Blind See the World
This is a cool blog post that demonstrates how some color blind people might see the world.
http://critiquewall.com/2007/12/10/blindness?printable
We actually study this stuff and write programs to produce these kinds of images here at RIT, at the Munsell Color Science center.
*I should add that this blog is related to digital imagery (my area), but it is more on the design side than the science side. That's still cool, because the two go hand in hand. I just liked this particular post.
http://critiquewall.com/2007/12/10/blindness?printable
We actually study this stuff and write programs to produce these kinds of images here at RIT, at the Munsell Color Science center.
*I should add that this blog is related to digital imagery (my area), but it is more on the design side than the science side. That's still cool, because the two go hand in hand. I just liked this particular post.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Evolution of Psychopaths
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/12/the_evolution_of_psychopaths.php
Moral of the story: Never date somebody who enjoys Saw movies.
Moral of the story: Never date somebody who enjoys Saw movies.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Awesome Aurora Borealis Briefing
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
An article on NASA's science blog about new findings on the Northern Lights - good stuff!
Sorry this post was so late, hope it's alright!
An article on NASA's science blog about new findings on the Northern Lights - good stuff!
Sorry this post was so late, hope it's alright!
Meaningful Data Presentation in Science Writing
In class today, we discussed the use of imagery such as "a milligram of aspirin in an Olympic-sized swimming pool." My objection to the use of this kind of imagery is that it tricks the reader into thinking that he has a sense of magnitude of something, even though he is provided with no real information.
The aspirin quote was originally a way for the developers of the contaminant detector to describe the precision of their device in layman's terms. I don't think the original statement was meant to have any particular connotation.
When the article quoted the scientists, it was implying that the Department of Homeland Security is wasting our tax dollars by building unnecessarily precise detectors. The problem with this argument is that without a reference, there is no way of knowing whether explosives are dangerous at a concentration of one aspirin per swimming pool. The level of precision of the detector may or may not be required to keep us safe. The article doesn't really say; it's like an impossible dimensional analysis problem from high school chemistry:
If I have 10 Klein bottles full of nitrogen-based explosive at a concentration of 3 milligrams of aspirin per Olympic-sized swimming pool, and I can fill the swimming pool with Klein bottles in 0.7 fortnights at a rate of 1/3 Klein bottle per half minute, how many trains can I blow up? Please truncate number of trains to nearest integer.
Wow, I hope that made you cringe.
When I was reading one of my hippie blogs today (yes, I am vegetarian, do yoga, drive a hybrid car, grow my own hydroponic herbs AND use CFL lights), I found a slightly more reasonable use of this kind of comparison. I consider this article pretty awesome because it suggests eating your Chia Pet. Here's the link:
http://www.meatfreeblog.com/news/eat-your-chia-pet-it-might-save-your-life/
"The study found that the seed used in Chia Pets...is basically a “Super Grain,” with multiple potential health benefits...Findings included...reduced blood pressure by an average of six points . Dr. Amir Hanna, a diabetes specialist who reviewed the study, noted that, “That’s a very important reduction in blood pressure. Actually, some pills don’t lower blood pressure that much.”
I like how the data is presented here because it's both factual and meaningful. If the author had just said, "it lowers blood pressure 6 points and contains such-and-such number of milligrams of omega-3's," that would really mean nothing to me. I'm not a doctor, and I don't even pretend to play one on TV. I do have a good sense for how much calcium is in a cup of milk, however. Even better, I have enough information to find the actual amount of calcium in 3.5 oz of Salba.
I also like the way Dr. Amir Hanna said that the grain lowered blood pressure more than some pills. I can infer that "some pills" refers to blood-pressure lowering medications (maybe not top of the line ones) that are either currently prescribed or were prescribed in the recent past. I don't need to know the scientific name for the pills to be able to use them as a metric for gauging the effectiveness of Salba at lowering blood pressure.
The aspirin quote was originally a way for the developers of the contaminant detector to describe the precision of their device in layman's terms. I don't think the original statement was meant to have any particular connotation.
When the article quoted the scientists, it was implying that the Department of Homeland Security is wasting our tax dollars by building unnecessarily precise detectors. The problem with this argument is that without a reference, there is no way of knowing whether explosives are dangerous at a concentration of one aspirin per swimming pool. The level of precision of the detector may or may not be required to keep us safe. The article doesn't really say; it's like an impossible dimensional analysis problem from high school chemistry:
If I have 10 Klein bottles full of nitrogen-based explosive at a concentration of 3 milligrams of aspirin per Olympic-sized swimming pool, and I can fill the swimming pool with Klein bottles in 0.7 fortnights at a rate of 1/3 Klein bottle per half minute, how many trains can I blow up? Please truncate number of trains to nearest integer.
Wow, I hope that made you cringe.
When I was reading one of my hippie blogs today (yes, I am vegetarian, do yoga, drive a hybrid car, grow my own hydroponic herbs AND use CFL lights), I found a slightly more reasonable use of this kind of comparison. I consider this article pretty awesome because it suggests eating your Chia Pet. Here's the link:
http://www.meatfreeblog.com/news/eat-your-chia-pet-it-might-save-your-life/
"The study found that the seed used in Chia Pets...is basically a “Super Grain,” with multiple potential health benefits...Findings included...reduced blood pressure by an average of six points . Dr. Amir Hanna, a diabetes specialist who reviewed the study, noted that, “That’s a very important reduction in blood pressure. Actually, some pills don’t lower blood pressure that much.”
The research team calculates that 3.5oz of Salba [Chia Pet grain] contain:
· the same amount of omega-3’s as 28 ounces of salmon
· as much calcium as 3 cups of milk
· as much iron as five cups of raw spinach"I like how the data is presented here because it's both factual and meaningful. If the author had just said, "it lowers blood pressure 6 points and contains such-and-such number of milligrams of omega-3's," that would really mean nothing to me. I'm not a doctor, and I don't even pretend to play one on TV. I do have a good sense for how much calcium is in a cup of milk, however. Even better, I have enough information to find the actual amount of calcium in 3.5 oz of Salba.
I also like the way Dr. Amir Hanna said that the grain lowered blood pressure more than some pills. I can infer that "some pills" refers to blood-pressure lowering medications (maybe not top of the line ones) that are either currently prescribed or were prescribed in the recent past. I don't need to know the scientific name for the pills to be able to use them as a metric for gauging the effectiveness of Salba at lowering blood pressure.
Blog from Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Hi all- check this blog from Carnegie Mellon out. The school is noted for
its robotics research.
http://www.boxxet.com/Carnegie_Mellon_University/
its robotics research.
http://www.boxxet.com/Carnegie_Mellon_University/
We're being watched!
From Popular Science, regarding our national security:
http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/10/are-we-being-wa.html
From Science Times, regarding homosexuality:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/turning-homosexuality-on-and-off/
http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/10/are-we-being-wa.html
From Science Times, regarding homosexuality:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/turning-homosexuality-on-and-off/
The Scientific Activist
I have long thought that politics begins to police the scientific arena, we need people with real scientific knowledge involved in the debates for laws.
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/
blog
Zeroth Order Approximation
http://zerothorderapprox.blogspot.com/
suicide bots is interesting too b/c its fun
http://www.suicidebots.com/
http://zerothorderapprox.blogspot.com/
suicide bots is interesting too b/c its fun
http://www.suicidebots.com/
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
clarification
hey all--
Good blog finds so far, but just to be clear: you'll need to find one blog and one article (related to "Looking for the Lie," and that you will analyze for this first assignment). Two different and unrelated tasks.
Good blog finds so far, but just to be clear: you'll need to find one blog and one article (related to "Looking for the Lie," and that you will analyze for this first assignment). Two different and unrelated tasks.
Science links
http://www.mindhacks.com/
Interesting blog that carries neat neuroscience and psychology articles.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/boyden/
A brand new blog that focuses on research in neuroengineering.
Interesting blog that carries neat neuroscience and psychology articles.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/boyden/
A brand new blog that focuses on research in neuroengineering.
A burning question addressed: Is there a connection between country music and suicide?
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/12/country_music_and_suicide.php
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/12/country_music_and_suicide.php
Blog Link: Angel's Trumpet
Check this out: http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/12/man_severs_own_penis.php
he must be insane for cutting his tongue and penis off... and they couldnt be reattached.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract This case report draws attention to the dramatic consequences of the consumption of Angel’s Trumpet. Angel’s Trumpet contains alkaloids (especially scopolamine, as well as hyoscyamine, atropine and other alkaloids) in a relatively high concentration. When intoxicated with Angel’s Trumpet, patients can suffer hallucinations, motoric restlessness, overtalkativeness, convulsive sobbing and sexual excitement, as well as aggressive and autoaggressive behaviour. Somatic symptoms are tachycardia, mydriasis, hypertonia, respiratory disturbances and vomiting, as well as a potentially life-threatening anticholinerg syndrome. In this paper, we report on a young man who amputated his penis and his tongue after having consumed Angel’s Trumpet tea, illustrating that consuming this beautiful flower with the name of an angel and the poison of the devil can be very dangerous.
for more info... go to http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0503872q1543426/
he must be insane for cutting his tongue and penis off... and they couldnt be reattached.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract This case report draws attention to the dramatic consequences of the consumption of Angel’s Trumpet. Angel’s Trumpet contains alkaloids (especially scopolamine, as well as hyoscyamine, atropine and other alkaloids) in a relatively high concentration. When intoxicated with Angel’s Trumpet, patients can suffer hallucinations, motoric restlessness, overtalkativeness, convulsive sobbing and sexual excitement, as well as aggressive and autoaggressive behaviour. Somatic symptoms are tachycardia, mydriasis, hypertonia, respiratory disturbances and vomiting, as well as a potentially life-threatening anticholinerg syndrome. In this paper, we report on a young man who amputated his penis and his tongue after having consumed Angel’s Trumpet tea, illustrating that consuming this beautiful flower with the name of an angel and the poison of the devil can be very dangerous.
for more info... go to http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0503872q1543426/
Cautions To Look For
I am not sure if anyone actually knows about this matter. I can vividly remember that the news released a possible cancer risk. It is noted that having multiple shifts for work is more skeptical for cancer. I found it interesting since life in America greatly depends on the job force and how much we work.
Blog : http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/11/shift_work_labeled_as_a_probab.php
Article: http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-shiftwork1130.artnov30,0,2418173.story
So many unknown things that puts us in potential harm, how much do we really know about the human body?
Blog : http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/11/shift_work_labeled_as_a_probab.php
Article: http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-shiftwork1130.artnov30,0,2418173.story
So many unknown things that puts us in potential harm, how much do we really know about the human body?
Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones
You are more bacteria than you are you
The infestation begins at birth: Babies ingest mouthfuls of bacteria during birthing and pick up plenty more from their mother's skin and milk—during breast-feeding, the mammary glands become colonized with bacteria. "Our interaction with our mother is the biggest burst of microbes that we get," says Gary Huffnagle, a microbiologist and internist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones&sc=WR_20071204
The infestation begins at birth: Babies ingest mouthfuls of bacteria during birthing and pick up plenty more from their mother's skin and milk—during breast-feeding, the mammary glands become colonized with bacteria. "Our interaction with our mother is the biggest burst of microbes that we get," says Gary Huffnagle, a microbiologist and internist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones&sc=WR_20071204
Green Technologies Blogs
If you are interested in reducing the likelihood of the next Hurricane Katrina, avoiding war with Iran, or opposing the destruction of rainforests and coral reefs...or even you just like nifty gadgets...check out these blogs about green technologies:
http://www.ecogeek.org/
http://www.greengeek.ca/
http://www.ecogeek.org/
http://www.greengeek.ca/
Monday, December 10, 2007
Looking for the Lie
The NY times Magazine is tailored to an adult audience both educated and informed. They want to feel included in the happenings of the world. The NY times magazine contains articles that focus on politics, current events, and various topics of interest. The article, "Looking for the Lie," by Robin Marantz Henig, would fall under a interest topic related to a current event.
The author raises two important views on the subject of lie detection. First, the major component of the article is the supposed need for a more accurate, nearing fool proof lie detection device. The audience would agree that a fool proof lie detection device will help to solve some the problems in our society, such as a more effective, although far from full proof, defense against terrorism. The second issue the author introduces is the potential problems with a full proof lie detector. The article describes an environment in which no one can lie, and everything you say is either truthful or known to be a lie. As a reader, this scares me in a way that media is supposed to scare it's audience. I, like most of the group of people targeted by this article, rather enjoy my secrets, and my ability to keep things from other people. Such things make me feel safe. The article points out an analogy to the Manhattan Project that applies perfectly. A technology that is developed for potential good, for potential protection, that in the hands of certain people could become a very destructive force. For the Manhattan Project, it was the atomic bomb, which could (and did), very directly, cause a huge impact. For this article, it is the removal of deception, which could lead to a breakdown in society.
The article was written to inform an educated, and influential audience about the pros and cons of lie detection. The author does a decent job in showing the two sides of the situation and how they are being reached. The author allows for the audience to pick their own side to support and influence. I think that the author is pushing more toward convincing the audience that the lie detection technology has a great many negative effects, and few positive. The author points out the applications of absolute lie detection, and how it is currently being developed, but then straying from facts provides a speculative future in which society crumbles around the truth.
The author raises two important views on the subject of lie detection. First, the major component of the article is the supposed need for a more accurate, nearing fool proof lie detection device. The audience would agree that a fool proof lie detection device will help to solve some the problems in our society, such as a more effective, although far from full proof, defense against terrorism. The second issue the author introduces is the potential problems with a full proof lie detector. The article describes an environment in which no one can lie, and everything you say is either truthful or known to be a lie. As a reader, this scares me in a way that media is supposed to scare it's audience. I, like most of the group of people targeted by this article, rather enjoy my secrets, and my ability to keep things from other people. Such things make me feel safe. The article points out an analogy to the Manhattan Project that applies perfectly. A technology that is developed for potential good, for potential protection, that in the hands of certain people could become a very destructive force. For the Manhattan Project, it was the atomic bomb, which could (and did), very directly, cause a huge impact. For this article, it is the removal of deception, which could lead to a breakdown in society.
The article was written to inform an educated, and influential audience about the pros and cons of lie detection. The author does a decent job in showing the two sides of the situation and how they are being reached. The author allows for the audience to pick their own side to support and influence. I think that the author is pushing more toward convincing the audience that the lie detection technology has a great many negative effects, and few positive. The author points out the applications of absolute lie detection, and how it is currently being developed, but then straying from facts provides a speculative future in which society crumbles around the truth.
Liar Liar Pants on Fire - Commentary on "Looking for the Lie"
The NYT audience is a very literate, educated, and professional demographic that is aware of national and global affairs. This article can serve as an introduction to those people who are relatively naive about lie detection. After reading this article it is quite evident that the reader will have a better understanding of how lie detection works right now and what is being done to research and/or improve upon it. In addition, I feel the typical NYT reader would be a well informed individual, who would find ways to discuss or make use of any bit of knowledge he/she obtains. This article would only help to add to that person's repetoire.
A particular concern that readers have, and that this article draws on, would be that of national security in the post-9/11 age. Ever since 9/11 we live in a world that is lead by fear of global terror. Gone are the days when we were told by our president that "...all we have to fear is fear itself.", instead we are told of the iminent danger that lingers on the horizon; as if it were never there in the first place. Readers of this article would gain a deeper understanding of how research and science in this particular area is paving the way for a more secure United States. In addition this article does describe the various discrpencies and protests that arise when polygraphs are used in court rooms and government employment screening. Stress and anxiety are two of the most common reasons that a person could fail a polygraph. The article does mention how one bad day could label an innocent person as liar. This in itself draws on many ethical and moral issues that go way beyond the spectrum of this discussion.
I believe this article is meant to shine some light on a rarely discussed method of interrogation and government screening. Most people know what a polygraph is, few know how inconsistent and unreliable those readings are deemed by many professionals, and even fewer know what the government and other organizations are researching to find a end-all be-all lie detector. After reading the article I feel the author is trying to shine light on the many facets of lie detection. With equal exposure to the various subtopics I feel the author encompasses the past, present, future of lie detection its moral and ethical issues, and lastly what it means for our global society.
A particular concern that readers have, and that this article draws on, would be that of national security in the post-9/11 age. Ever since 9/11 we live in a world that is lead by fear of global terror. Gone are the days when we were told by our president that "...all we have to fear is fear itself.", instead we are told of the iminent danger that lingers on the horizon; as if it were never there in the first place. Readers of this article would gain a deeper understanding of how research and science in this particular area is paving the way for a more secure United States. In addition this article does describe the various discrpencies and protests that arise when polygraphs are used in court rooms and government employment screening. Stress and anxiety are two of the most common reasons that a person could fail a polygraph. The article does mention how one bad day could label an innocent person as liar. This in itself draws on many ethical and moral issues that go way beyond the spectrum of this discussion.
I believe this article is meant to shine some light on a rarely discussed method of interrogation and government screening. Most people know what a polygraph is, few know how inconsistent and unreliable those readings are deemed by many professionals, and even fewer know what the government and other organizations are researching to find a end-all be-all lie detector. After reading the article I feel the author is trying to shine light on the many facets of lie detection. With equal exposure to the various subtopics I feel the author encompasses the past, present, future of lie detection its moral and ethical issues, and lastly what it means for our global society.
Response to “Looking for the Lie” by Robin Marantz Henig
This article focuses on innovation in lie detection technology which is of particular interest to the audience not because of the scientific research, but the social implications. A world where there is no uncertainty in human interaction borders on science fiction and I believe is interesting to the reader more for its entertainment value than its practicality. As the article progresses, it is clear that the current research being conducted has weak, if any scientific footing. Researchers have difficulty defining a lie in biological terms let alone detecting one. Perhaps the researchers, like the audience are too caught up in the romantic notion of an honest society to ask the right questions before they pursue an answer. The author points out applications in criminal justice but fails to address the fact that, at least in the research he reported, tests were not conducted on criminals. I am far from a sociologist or psychiatrist but it seems to me that a criminal mind may be much different than that of the average tax paying citizen. I am aware that otherwise good people commit crimes of passion, necessity, or desperation everyday but in terms of serious criminal charges like murder or even terrorism I fail to see the connection between average Joe and murdering Moe. This may be the underlying reality that concerns the audience. Imprisonment or execution based on science that most people don’t understand is a weighty notion. The author goes on to discuss what researchers believe to be biological signatures of the intention to lie. This concept is even heavier. Could we prosecute or even execute someone before they even commit a crime? Will scientists reach the conclusion that humans do not possess free will and are slaves to their chemical impulses? These are the fundamental questions provoked by the ultimate goal of research in deception detection and are understandably worrisome to the audience. Other concerns related to lie detection are questions of right to privacy. As the author points out, one’s mind is often their last refuge. If one can’t find sanctuary in one’s own mind what kind of chaos will result? If we aren’t entitled to the privacy of our own thoughts then what are we entitled to? Nothing. Similar issues of privacy dominate the national discourse related to the Patriot Act. Americans especially are reluctant and in many cases resistant to sacrifice their own rights to privacy for what is advertised as a greater national good. Even after 200 years they have not lost sight of one of the foundations of out nation and it seems to me will resist any technology that threatens their right to privacy, no matter how many criminals are promised to be punished. This article updates the reader on interesting research and outlines the related applications and implications but does so in a cautionary tone. The author related the scientists in search of lie detection technology with those that developed the atomic bomb. These scientists were so engulfed with their quest to find an answer they failed to look ahead and realize that scientific progress isn’t always social progress.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Looking for the Lie by Robin Marantz Henig
This article was written for the New York Times Magazine and because of this it deals with cutting edge technologies and the issues surrounding them. Looking for the Lie dealt with the lie detector both old and research on new ones. The issues related to the invention of a better, fool proof lie detector would greatly affect society. The author writes to the audience to inform them of these issues that perhaps might be over looked when first thinking of the topic. What the audience has at stake is learning about the new technology and to allow them to decide in their own minds whether or not this technology is a good idea. However, the article also allows the reader to gather enough information to have a general conversation on the topic. This particular topic seems to be one of great interest, perhaps not something one would think about throughout the day. But given the chance to read something on the topic a reader would be propelled to read it by curiosity. Adults with children would be curious to learn more on the topic as their children may lie to them or they may just be curious if they lie to them. The audience's curiosity also might only be triggered with what the issues might be. Such issues include the invasion of privacy into "your" private world, or being force to tell the truth all the time. Curiosity is also aroused by the new technology itself such as the EEG with 128 sensors or the functional MRI. People are interested in the human body and how it works so brain mapping would be of great interest to them. Either way, lying is an issue that many think about, whether it be to lie themselves or if others are lying to them, that they can't do much about except perhaps not lie themselves, a task that may prove extremely daunting. On the other hand why should they stop lying if others won't and besides manners are considered a form of lying.
Looking for the Lie
"Looking for the Lie", by Robin Marantz Henig, was originally published in The New York Times Magazine, a weekly distrobution of news that is very highly regarded in the journalism community. Historically it has published articles contributed by very well known writers, and is generally very sophisticated. Its topics range anywhere from politics to sports, science to arts, and travel to business. This being the case, the New York Times Magazine's readers usually tend to be well educated and interested in actively pursuing knowledge on a range of subjects, not all of which relates to them in any way. Stereotypically speaking, this means that most of its readers are middle class with respectable incomes, though this is most certainly not always the case.
This particular article fits squarely into the science category, but maintains The New York Times Magazine's rounded perspective. It is scientific enough to not be targeted at everyone who reads The New York Times, however it is still general enough that it has some relevance to the world that we live in. It is part of the oddly in-depth and intensely intellectual schmorgasboard of information that is The New York Times Magazine. This means that it is targeted at the same audience that the magazine in general is targeted at: middle-aged, employed, intellecual whites who are interested in putting time and energy into learning, even if the subject of the information only has vague relevance to them personally.
This is the really interesting thing about the target audience of this article, and of The New York Times Magazine - the audience really doesn't have much in the way of connection to the content of the article. The majority of the audience of the magazine will never take part in a lie detector test, on either side of the polygraph's metaphorical lens, with the exception of a few who will at some point be arrested for fraud or something similar. The article relies largely on the interest of its readers in learning things about the world around them, in a purely intellectual manner. The world of academe strikes again.
The article has one hook, which is essentially its only non-technical aspect - the second half spends a lot of time discussing the morality of lie detectors. This is something which is also relatively unrelated to the lives of most of the article's audience, however it is still compelling in an intellectual sort of way. The eventuality of lie detectors taking over the world and reading everyone's minds is certainly a frightening one, however the likelihood of this actually happening is so low that its hard to make it seem like even a rational concern. However, it taps into the neverending moral debate on personal liberties, and thus draws people in.
This hook, however, also serves some purpose. The article does a wonderful job of educating its readers as to the reliability of lie detectors, and dispelling the myth that they are always correct, as well as dispelling the myth that they are completely unreliable. The reader should come away from the article with a much better understanding of the current progress of research on the topic of lie detectors. This is the real reason readers read magazines such as this one, especially the science section - to have a better understanding of the world around them, and thus expand their knowledge of life and current events. "Looking for the Lie" should leave the average member of the educated American majority with a feeling of knowledge and worth, along with a renewal of their subscription to the New York Times.
This particular article fits squarely into the science category, but maintains The New York Times Magazine's rounded perspective. It is scientific enough to not be targeted at everyone who reads The New York Times, however it is still general enough that it has some relevance to the world that we live in. It is part of the oddly in-depth and intensely intellectual schmorgasboard of information that is The New York Times Magazine. This means that it is targeted at the same audience that the magazine in general is targeted at: middle-aged, employed, intellecual whites who are interested in putting time and energy into learning, even if the subject of the information only has vague relevance to them personally.
This is the really interesting thing about the target audience of this article, and of The New York Times Magazine - the audience really doesn't have much in the way of connection to the content of the article. The majority of the audience of the magazine will never take part in a lie detector test, on either side of the polygraph's metaphorical lens, with the exception of a few who will at some point be arrested for fraud or something similar. The article relies largely on the interest of its readers in learning things about the world around them, in a purely intellectual manner. The world of academe strikes again.
The article has one hook, which is essentially its only non-technical aspect - the second half spends a lot of time discussing the morality of lie detectors. This is something which is also relatively unrelated to the lives of most of the article's audience, however it is still compelling in an intellectual sort of way. The eventuality of lie detectors taking over the world and reading everyone's minds is certainly a frightening one, however the likelihood of this actually happening is so low that its hard to make it seem like even a rational concern. However, it taps into the neverending moral debate on personal liberties, and thus draws people in.
This hook, however, also serves some purpose. The article does a wonderful job of educating its readers as to the reliability of lie detectors, and dispelling the myth that they are always correct, as well as dispelling the myth that they are completely unreliable. The reader should come away from the article with a much better understanding of the current progress of research on the topic of lie detectors. This is the real reason readers read magazines such as this one, especially the science section - to have a better understanding of the world around them, and thus expand their knowledge of life and current events. "Looking for the Lie" should leave the average member of the educated American majority with a feeling of knowledge and worth, along with a renewal of their subscription to the New York Times.
Looking for the Lie
A typical reader of the New York Times Magazine, especially one that is reading a scientific article like this one, is going to be expecting information on multiple examples (potentially of different viewpoints) including what experiments were done, what the results were, and what the results mean in the bigger picture, bonus points if the bigger picture affects their daily lives. There are two major parts of this article: the different types of methods for detecting lies, and the morality aspect of creating such tests.
Some of the experiments do not have much real world applications. People had to be strapped down and rendered motionless inside huge expensive machines in order to determine brain activity. Another experiment hooked people up to a helmet with 120+ sensors that had to be kept moist at all times. Some experiments were more realistic such as noticing people’s facial features to detect involuntary movements. In a twist of irony though, it was stated that this more realistic version could not be officially used unless some kind of efficient machine was used. This article does a very nice job explaining the contrast of experiment techniques and the different types of brain activities measured as well as the types of 100% flawless results that the government is looking for to the audience of this article and thus is able to keep our interest.
The other key point to this article is the implications and ramifications that can occur if a fool proof and easily applicable method of finding out lies is ever found. The article explains that different kinds of lies such as omission and half-truths are very common among human speech in order to keep some things private and avoid hurting other people’s feelings. It reminded me of an episode of the show “Kino’s Journey” in which the townspeople gained the ability to read each others’ thoughts but became so afraid of each other that as a result families and marriages split, babies stopped being born, and people lived by themselves in houses separated out of the range of each others’ powers. The same arguments were made in this article in that if people knew when others were speaking half-truths and withholding information that people would either become hurt or become unable to trust each other. This is a very powerful scenario to a reader of this article as the reader’s own life could become very impacted if the experiments in this article were to succeed. The author has done a great job in explaining why the science of the article could affect the reader, and thus the article has a greater chance of remaining with the reader long after it has been read.
Looking for the Lie
From the New York Times magazine
Written by: Robin Marantz Henig
Henig writes an interesting article, where he takes time explaining how we can catch liars and findings related to lying. Even though, there are many techniques to try to determine if someone is lying. Sometimes we miss out dangerous liars. Lie detectors are very old modern technology, so they would need to be upgraded, where they can even detect the dangerous liars too.
This article helps the audience to understand better about the topic of lying. For instance, they think they always can spot liars. That’s not true. Basically, this article helps educating the audience in some areas where the audience often misunderstands. This article also eager the audience since it delivers interesting scientific facts and information.
The audience’s interests in this topic may be the Langleben’s experiment findings – his question (“can the difference in brain activity between lie and truth be detected by functional M.R.I?) got me thinking. I actually think that’s possible, because of the brain mapping and the differential activities shown.
I learned the new interesting information about the connection made between lie, brain changes, and the sweat response. It’s based on guilt, anxiety, fear or the excess positive emotion.
I am wondering if there is another alternative lie detector that can be used to detect liars. Sometimes we need liars in our society in order to protect our loved ones from knowing the truth. To cover truth may be the best policy for some situations. For example, soldiers are highly trained liars to hide truth from the enemies.
My concern may be the audience gains more knowledge about lie that also change their perspectives. What I mean is the audience may start losing trust in others. But this article may help the audience realizing tell lies can be dangerous or harm others.
I am trying to understand why liars have to lie when we are the ones who always tell the truth. Some think lying is harmless, some don’t think lying is addiction, and some think lying is a better way to avoid things.
I also am wondering what liars will say after they read this article, will they be in denial?
From the New York Times magazine
Written by: Robin Marantz Henig
Henig writes an interesting article, where he takes time explaining how we can catch liars and findings related to lying. Even though, there are many techniques to try to determine if someone is lying. Sometimes we miss out dangerous liars. Lie detectors are very old modern technology, so they would need to be upgraded, where they can even detect the dangerous liars too.
This article helps the audience to understand better about the topic of lying. For instance, they think they always can spot liars. That’s not true. Basically, this article helps educating the audience in some areas where the audience often misunderstands. This article also eager the audience since it delivers interesting scientific facts and information.
The audience’s interests in this topic may be the Langleben’s experiment findings – his question (“can the difference in brain activity between lie and truth be detected by functional M.R.I?) got me thinking. I actually think that’s possible, because of the brain mapping and the differential activities shown.
I learned the new interesting information about the connection made between lie, brain changes, and the sweat response. It’s based on guilt, anxiety, fear or the excess positive emotion.
I am wondering if there is another alternative lie detector that can be used to detect liars. Sometimes we need liars in our society in order to protect our loved ones from knowing the truth. To cover truth may be the best policy for some situations. For example, soldiers are highly trained liars to hide truth from the enemies.
My concern may be the audience gains more knowledge about lie that also change their perspectives. What I mean is the audience may start losing trust in others. But this article may help the audience realizing tell lies can be dangerous or harm others.
I am trying to understand why liars have to lie when we are the ones who always tell the truth. Some think lying is harmless, some don’t think lying is addiction, and some think lying is a better way to avoid things.
I also am wondering what liars will say after they read this article, will they be in denial?
Looking for the Lie
When considering the type of audience associated with The New York Times Magazine, it is fairly safe to compare it to the audience of The New York Times daily news paper; a wide range of readers across most of the spectrum of age, class, and political association. The important distinction that must be made is that of the difference between the reader’s interests when reading either source. Newspaper articles function to sum up current news events succinctly so as to keep step with daily reporting requirements, acting under narrower limits in page space and reader attention span to inform rather than convince or provoke more abstract ideas. Magazines print far more infrequently and tend to devote more time to persuasion, and generally limit themselves to a handful of longer works on topics with a far broader relevance than the day-to-day topics presented in most news articles. As a consequence, the same reader of The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine will have different interests and expectations depending on which he is reading.
With an article like “Looking for the Lie,” the mere format of the medium changes drastically how the readers will follow it; they will expect a piece not focusing on a single specific event but an overall concept or idea which encompasses several. As for interest, the format once again influences readers significantly: where newspaper readers will tend to scan only for articles of interest (front page, business, sports), an article in a magazine is expected to have a level of relevance simply because it has been presented in such a medium and so may be read at least partially on this merit alone. Magazines feature a limited number of articles and so any of those chosen to be included are typically well written and sufficiently interesting to justify the longer read. Scanning still occurs, but articles on a far wider range of topics will be read by the same sample of readers. Consequently, these readers will often be far less informed and will need a large portion of the article to be devoted to explaining details such as topic history, which is typically excluded from news articles which supply only immediately relevant details and expect a greater amount of prior knowledge on the part of the reader. The lack of this prior knowledge does more than require magazine articles to include more information, it also makes the readers far more receptive to the arguments presented by the writer. Most readers of “Looking for the Lie” know of the existence of polygraph tests, and a smaller percentage of these individuals would know anything about the controversy surrounding them in terms of accuracy. Of the total reader base a marginal number would have any prior understanding of the details of modern attempts at replacing or enhancing the polygraph.
So what is at stake for the reader? Whatever the author suggests. The author presents not just the story as newspapers do but the context in which it is read; she is responsible for starting with readers in possession of little more than misconceptions of “lie detectors” and creating authorities with a grasp of and an opinion on the intricacies of the polygraph’s history, place within the judicial system, and the implications for its use in relation to some of our more prominent political issues like the war on terror. Next she presents the issue: modern attempts at improving or replacing the polygraph. She explains the need for these improvements and the means with which they are being sought, the different schools of though as to how this should be accomplished, and then shows the readers some of the more recent devices developed to do so. Finally, she reveals some concerns held by the authorities on the topic, such as those who compare the search for the perfect lie detector to the
The potential dangers of this set up do not stem from the writer but from the reader; as with readers of Esquire articles concerning string theory it is far too easy for an audience to simply embody all points and arguments made by a single author and consider themselves informed. For the most part this is harmless, as with groups debating their topic of interest in supermarket lines or barber shops, but in some cases this becomes dangerous. An obvious example of this can be seen in the political arena with outlets such as The Daily Show or The Weekly Standard magazine; as informed and convincing as the writers of the respective outlets are, they represent very narrow pieces of the wide range of valid opinions on the topics being presented, and in many cases these narrow opinions represent extremes. The solution for this problem is simple: expand the reader’s sources. Understanding topics as presented by multiple viewpoints allows readers to come to see the topic more neutrally, and by learning a greater number of facts the reader can ultimately form their own informed decision on the issue. While this ideal is certainly limited by the will of the reader to go this extra mile, magazine articles such as “Looking for the Lie” still stand as excellent starting points for any individuals with the drive to seek information. For everyone else, they’re a good place to find neat facts, but are deceptively dangerous.
Looking for the Lie
In "Looking for the Lie" Ms. Heinz discusses the anatomy of a lie, it's origins, ramifications, and the efforts of people and governments to discern the truth from a lie. The article was first printed in the New York Times, a newspaper with an extremely large and diverse audience. The author appeals to their desire for privacy. Several times she presents the thought experiment where all lies can be easily identified as if sirens will go off and claims that all of society would break down. I do not believe this could even be achieved fast enough that society would not find a way to adapt. I have also never really been a fan of this Michael Moore style sensationalism, however as with the aforementioned producer, deep down there is usually a valid point. Unfortunately modern American society often demands this type of pseudo-entertainment for news, otherwise they don't care. This is the only method to accomplish their goal of shining the spotlight of public attention onto their particular topic.
The main interest for the audience is their sense of privacy. I found it interesting that lies have been noted to be a milestone for the social development of a society, and that it is accompanied with the development of a child individualism.
The author discusses the use of the polygraph machine throughout history. The concerning part is that the lairs most easily missed are habitual, have nothing to lose, or have been trained to lie, and these are the dangerous lairs. The device is intended to measure the side effects of anxiety, assuming that telling a lie is stressful in some way. Newer technologies use mapping of brain activity to more accurately determine honesty from deception. A key issue is raised at this point, that the motivation for and development of a lie can be very different depending on the situation. This means that different brain activities can be associated with lying, and a certain amount of human interpretation will still be required. The brain mapping technology as a pure science could have great benefits to mankind, however this is one of the possible negative side-effects. An additional concern not raised by the author is that currently Functional MRI systems weigh 10-tons, only take a reading every 2 seconds and require the user to be strapped down, however I have already heard of people developing the technologies to make Functional MRI's that can be used at a distance, so a subject can be scanned while being interviewed without their knowledge or permission.
Other modern techniques use facial expressions to determine if people are lying. Both claim that initial responses of a reaction can be detected up to 200 ms after stimuli is applied, well before a decision is made. The author suggests that this could take away someone's free will, which can be very scary in a Minority Report kind of way. Even if one knows the future, it can be misinterpreted.
The statement that worried me the most was made by Andrew Ryan, the head of research at the Dodpi (Department of Defense Polygraph Institute). He stated that the development of science is his only concern, there is no regard for it's application, or "operational use." I believe that all scientists, and really everyone is responsible for what they create. Ask the scientists from the Manhattan project if they feel no responsibility.
The main interest for the audience is their sense of privacy. I found it interesting that lies have been noted to be a milestone for the social development of a society, and that it is accompanied with the development of a child individualism.
The author discusses the use of the polygraph machine throughout history. The concerning part is that the lairs most easily missed are habitual, have nothing to lose, or have been trained to lie, and these are the dangerous lairs. The device is intended to measure the side effects of anxiety, assuming that telling a lie is stressful in some way. Newer technologies use mapping of brain activity to more accurately determine honesty from deception. A key issue is raised at this point, that the motivation for and development of a lie can be very different depending on the situation. This means that different brain activities can be associated with lying, and a certain amount of human interpretation will still be required. The brain mapping technology as a pure science could have great benefits to mankind, however this is one of the possible negative side-effects. An additional concern not raised by the author is that currently Functional MRI systems weigh 10-tons, only take a reading every 2 seconds and require the user to be strapped down, however I have already heard of people developing the technologies to make Functional MRI's that can be used at a distance, so a subject can be scanned while being interviewed without their knowledge or permission.
Other modern techniques use facial expressions to determine if people are lying. Both claim that initial responses of a reaction can be detected up to 200 ms after stimuli is applied, well before a decision is made. The author suggests that this could take away someone's free will, which can be very scary in a Minority Report kind of way. Even if one knows the future, it can be misinterpreted.
The statement that worried me the most was made by Andrew Ryan, the head of research at the Dodpi (Department of Defense Polygraph Institute). He stated that the development of science is his only concern, there is no regard for it's application, or "operational use." I believe that all scientists, and really everyone is responsible for what they create. Ask the scientists from the Manhattan project if they feel no responsibility.
Looking for the Lie
"Looking for the Lie," written by Robin Marantz Henig for the New York Times Magazine, takes us into why people lie and how you can tell, and if it would be a good thing if we always knew who is lying. Reading this article was quite interesting.
The resource, the New York Times Magazine and I had no clue what the article would be about. The details in the article were depth of research was expected and helped the paper become a strong source of news. Yet, the New York Times has developed a point of view; one would expect to see a good example of this in an article that discusses things as that the government was able to identify lies. However, in the article come into view in a neutral position. As the concerns were involved, they are afraid to be part of media. The article point is to find many different concerns discussion of a lie and non-lie people.
The author claims that the polygraph has no scientific basis, and it might turn out to be all impossible to tell which tracings are signatures of truthfully dangerous lies and which are the images of lies that are safe and gentle, or self-serving without being dangerous. On the other hand, we can find ourselves with instruments that can identify lying, but not only as an antiterrorism device. For instance, we can find them in job interviews, tax audits, classrooms and boardrooms. The polygraph machines are dangerous in the history from the government’s most focused effort to look for the next generation of lie detectors. This is where the brain mapping of the investigators is turned into practical machinery.
The author wants the reader to understand that we can be caught if we tell a lie. However I think that the article did not explain an important point. Since it discusses how many different ways lies can be noticed without explaining the effect of processes in the brain. I think it is the best way for us to learn by understanding what is this person thinking? Why did this person want to tell a lie in the first place? It also did not discus about researching of the brain. I believe that if we can understand why person tells a lie then it would help us understanding better in the future.
The resource, the New York Times Magazine and I had no clue what the article would be about. The details in the article were depth of research was expected and helped the paper become a strong source of news. Yet, the New York Times has developed a point of view; one would expect to see a good example of this in an article that discusses things as that the government was able to identify lies. However, in the article come into view in a neutral position. As the concerns were involved, they are afraid to be part of media. The article point is to find many different concerns discussion of a lie and non-lie people.
The author claims that the polygraph has no scientific basis, and it might turn out to be all impossible to tell which tracings are signatures of truthfully dangerous lies and which are the images of lies that are safe and gentle, or self-serving without being dangerous. On the other hand, we can find ourselves with instruments that can identify lying, but not only as an antiterrorism device. For instance, we can find them in job interviews, tax audits, classrooms and boardrooms. The polygraph machines are dangerous in the history from the government’s most focused effort to look for the next generation of lie detectors. This is where the brain mapping of the investigators is turned into practical machinery.
The author wants the reader to understand that we can be caught if we tell a lie. However I think that the article did not explain an important point. Since it discusses how many different ways lies can be noticed without explaining the effect of processes in the brain. I think it is the best way for us to learn by understanding what is this person thinking? Why did this person want to tell a lie in the first place? It also did not discus about researching of the brain. I believe that if we can understand why person tells a lie then it would help us understanding better in the future.
Looking For The Lie
This article by Robin Marantz Henig seemed interesting to me since I have an adequate and informative background regarding instrumentation and there sole purpose in our world today. The interest relied entirely on how people lie, how is it possible to cheat a lie, how to and not get caught as well as how we can somewhat catch a lie by our instincts and thelier's facial expression. It is very amusing how the perspective in this article show how to lie and how we can detect a lie by brain activity.
I am not much of a fan of magazines, but from New York Times Magazine, I cannot speculate exactly what the reader's may be looking into by reading this article but I could somewhat understand that the readers may be interested on the amount of information displayed. I think as well for the safety measures, the readers would probably be concerned about ways to prevent simply how to lie. The polygraph test may not be the only solution but as we see, other forms of technology is very dependent in order tostrenghthen the detection of a lie.
If i was to place myself as a reader who has no knowledge at all about lies, lie detection and how the possibility of a lie may hinder the brain activity, I would greatly be interested in this matter on how beating a lie may be possible, and how lie detector tests may not be the solution to this problem. With what we see in our world today, the technology we have today may not be a solution to detect a lie, or perhaps produce results that can be outside our range of detection. How can we really, but honestly know innocence and guilt with not fully trusting our modalities.
The change in brain activity, or perhaps like it was noted that it would be a breakthrough to tell a lie from DNA can evidently be another solution to the problem. Not only does this article try to convey the meaning of a lie, but how a lie can also be "kind" and harmful, or how it can be peaceful or disastrous. The technologies we have from and MRI scan, to a polygraph or to other technologies show the reader's that there is a chance that detecting a lie is simply not an easy task. The understanding in which brain areas become aroused is still significantly under study. With the development of new detectors, there is a need to educate the audience as it may pose more feelings of security that detecting a lie is becoming to be more understanding and perhaps may be an easy task sometime in the future. Knowledge is power as well know, and understanding these remarkable breakthroughs is a good interest to the audience as it has drawn my keen interest in the magnificence of brain activity and lie detection.
I am not much of a fan of magazines, but from New York Times Magazine, I cannot speculate exactly what the reader's may be looking into by reading this article but I could somewhat understand that the readers may be interested on the amount of information displayed. I think as well for the safety measures, the readers would probably be concerned about ways to prevent simply how to lie. The polygraph test may not be the only solution but as we see, other forms of technology is very dependent in order tostrenghthen the detection of a lie.
If i was to place myself as a reader who has no knowledge at all about lies, lie detection and how the possibility of a lie may hinder the brain activity, I would greatly be interested in this matter on how beating a lie may be possible, and how lie detector tests may not be the solution to this problem. With what we see in our world today, the technology we have today may not be a solution to detect a lie, or perhaps produce results that can be outside our range of detection. How can we really, but honestly know innocence and guilt with not fully trusting our modalities.
The change in brain activity, or perhaps like it was noted that it would be a breakthrough to tell a lie from DNA can evidently be another solution to the problem. Not only does this article try to convey the meaning of a lie, but how a lie can also be "kind" and harmful, or how it can be peaceful or disastrous. The technologies we have from and MRI scan, to a polygraph or to other technologies show the reader's that there is a chance that detecting a lie is simply not an easy task. The understanding in which brain areas become aroused is still significantly under study. With the development of new detectors, there is a need to educate the audience as it may pose more feelings of security that detecting a lie is becoming to be more understanding and perhaps may be an easy task sometime in the future. Knowledge is power as well know, and understanding these remarkable breakthroughs is a good interest to the audience as it has drawn my keen interest in the magnificence of brain activity and lie detection.
Looking for the Lie
This polygraph debate reminds me of one closer to my area of academic expertise: computer vision. One of the current goals in computer vision is to develop a system where a computer recognizes, identifies, and tracks the individuals captured by a security camera. Ideally, the system should be able to identify every man, woman, and child in the
The human brain, the most amazing computer ever constructed, would still be able to recognize the researcher. But the video tracking system would be stumped. Therefore, although the video tracking system might be a useful tool in some situations, it would be foolish to trust it when national security is at stake. This is what we are doing with polygraph machines—machines with less underlying scientific support than the video tracking systems.
After the industrial revolution, our society couldn’t trust a result if it didn’t come from a machine. In the information age, we can’t trust anything that isn’t processed by a computer. Machines with a high degree of accuracy, especially those that have been around for awhile, are the most insidious. Humans don’t trust humans, and it is easy to put our blind faith in these machines. However, computers and machines are only as good as their weakest designers and operators. They results may depend on the environment or situation. Algorithms can introduce artifacts. As another poster mentioned, people have been wrongfully convicted on the basis of polygraph results.
The construction and use of lie-detection machines has important implications politically (the War on Terror), legally (Gitmo, false imprisonment), socially (how to tell if someone is lying), and in “adult” pop culture (Big Brother, Minority Report). These are all important issues to the reader of the NYT magazine. The reader also wants to be informed about the current state of scientific progress, especially on hot topics, like fMRI. They may want a few more scientific details than the “Esquire” readers, but not too many. They also treat issues more contemplatively than the Esquire readers.
I doubt the NYT Magazine readers are too concerned about mind-detectors being unleashed on the public, stealing our free will. Not yet, anyway (cross your fingers). I think this is just a bit of media sensationalism used to spice up the article. The author truly hopes to show that the polygraph has no scientific basis, and it is in use more out of habit than anything else. However, making a “real” lie-detecting machine is a complex, unsolved problem. We know almost nothing about the brain, and building things without this basic research is like “trying to get to the moon by climbing a tree.” Maybe in 500 years, people will laugh at our clumsy polygraph machines and primitive video-trackers as abominations of science, and the fact that they were actually used for security purposes as abominations of justice.
Looking for the Lie
This article by Robin Marantz Henig was of particular interest to me, as I am also an avid Mythbusters viewer and their most recent show had dealt with ways to beat the polygraph and the MRI test. This article was a nice counterpart to that show, as this article deals not with how to beat the lie detectors, but rather how they attempt to determine the plausibility of a subject's statement. I don't know how many readers of the New York Times Magazine are also viewers of the Mythbusters, but my impression is that said readers are interested in the pursuit of knowledge, just like said viewers.
With that in mind, it's logical to assume the audience would read this article to obtain the full spectrum of knowledge about lie detectors. They may not be the type to need info on how to beat the detectors, but they would still like to know about it. In addition to that, they would probably be interested in new technologies that they may be faced with in the near future, especially technologies which could be used to find their guilt or innocence. The article touches on the typical Joe Schmoe's fear of new technology that could possibly malfunction and cause harm to him or people he knows with false positives (or negatives, depending on the circumstances). With the rising level of security in response to the War on Terror, the average person has already been greatly inconvenienced by new rules and regulations, and a technology that could identify him or her as a wanted criminal without them even knowing about the crime could be rather frightening.
I believe that this article is trying to inform the public about these new technologies in order to make them seem less intimidating, and perhaps to help them get involved with the implementation of these new detectors. If they feel the detectors are not a good idea, they will have the knowledge of how these devices work to better make their case.
With that in mind, it's logical to assume the audience would read this article to obtain the full spectrum of knowledge about lie detectors. They may not be the type to need info on how to beat the detectors, but they would still like to know about it. In addition to that, they would probably be interested in new technologies that they may be faced with in the near future, especially technologies which could be used to find their guilt or innocence. The article touches on the typical Joe Schmoe's fear of new technology that could possibly malfunction and cause harm to him or people he knows with false positives (or negatives, depending on the circumstances). With the rising level of security in response to the War on Terror, the average person has already been greatly inconvenienced by new rules and regulations, and a technology that could identify him or her as a wanted criminal without them even knowing about the crime could be rather frightening.
I believe that this article is trying to inform the public about these new technologies in order to make them seem less intimidating, and perhaps to help them get involved with the implementation of these new detectors. If they feel the detectors are not a good idea, they will have the knowledge of how these devices work to better make their case.
Reading this article “Looking for a lie” was an interesting experience. Given the source, the NYT, I had a certain expectation of what the article would be about. Given its age (founded in 1851) the detail and depth of research is to be expected and has helped the paper become a robust source of news. However the NYT has developed (and its readers seem support) a more liberal point of view. This POV skewing has become a somewhat accepted part of journalism in the last 5-10 years and one would expect to see a fairly good example of this in an article that discusses such things as the government being able to remotely detect lies. However, the article appears to have been dealt with in a fairly neutral tone. While the concerns are discussed, they are not portrayed using the fear mongering that is often a part of media today. The NYT magazine deals with this politically volatile topic in a somewhat demure manner, partially because this technology is obviously far from mature. In the hands of the government this technology, as do most, would show both positives and negatives. The article to some extent glosses over these concerns for a more interesting discussion of a lie between people.
Rather than the hot topic of government intrusion, “Looking for a lie” seems to be more interested in the philosophical/psychological applications of such technologies. It would seem to be an expected fact that everyone lies, I would in fact challenge that anyone who says they don’t lie is in fact lying. This idea is probably the most direct concern of most of the audience. While the thought of the government scanning our brains is rather uncomforting, the idea that our friend would know that in fact they did get an awful haircut is much much worse. This idea really exposes the human being as a social creature. We thrive on our relationships, and these relationships thrive on communication. We constantly weigh the harm of a white lie versus the harm the truth can cause. Within this discussion, the understated philosophy of what is the truth comes into play. Interestingly, we are discussing this in a forum that allows for some level of anonymity. I post this name under a name I have chosen, however it is not the name by which I am known. Which is true? Are they both? This is the idea that this article has at its core, although for portions it is implied as opposed to being directly discussed.
Interestingly though, the article is able to effectively mix the science with the philosophical. However I think the article misses an important point. It discusses the different ways lies can be detected without discussing the wider idea of tracking processes in the brain. A lie presents the opportunity to study a wider set of processes within the brain. The science of detection is presented solely as that. It does not discuss the wider aspects of researching and modeling the processes of the brain. The wider question should be not is this person lying, but instead, what is this person thinking? And if we are to understand how a person lies, what is preventing us from understanding the entireity of what they are thinking.
Commentary on "Looking for the Lie"
"Looking for the Lie", an article published in the weekly New York Times Magazine, explores the social and political ramifications of contemporary research in the neuroscience of lying, and tries to motivate debate in the public sphere.
Robin Marantz Henig, the author, is writing for the readers of the New York Times(I know the NYT and the NYT magazine are not the same, but I'm assuming that there will be significant overlap in readership.), a newspaper with a reputation for quality reporting. The typical Times reader is an educated professional and an active citizen. They have an interest in the major trends and implications of: science, the arts, politics, and world affairs.
Henig starts the article by describing how academic research and the government has found the traditional human screeners and polygraphs unreliable for detecting lies, and because of the post-9/11 security concerns, the government is pushing for development of a machine that can efficiently separate the liars from the truth tellers. After this brief introduction, she states her premise that the machines or techniques developed need to be reliable and are appropriately restricted to prevent abuse and the destruction of individual freedoms.
Henig's article directly addresses the current debate over the methods of national security. She expresses concern over the government's course of action to try and find a “blunt instrument, a way to pick out black and white from among the duplicitous grays”(p. 46), and tries to convince her readers that oversight is now necessary. She notes that several products have been rushed to market already without independent testing, and compares these machines to the controversial use of the polygraph. She also raises the specter of Orwellian monitoring by the government and hints at the implications of being able to detect a person's intentions before they actually act. However, she leaves it to the reader to realize that without the concept of free will, the foundation upon which the Constitution rests, the supposition that all humans are free, rational actors, collapses. These ideas tap into the current fear that changes made in the name of national security will erode the fundamental rights and freedoms of US citizens, turning America into a nightmarish police state. She highlights the importance of this junction by quoting a scientist who compares the government's push for a more effective lie detector to the Manhattan Project in terms of both morality and world changing consequences. This parallel brings the reminder that things done for national security don't always make us safer.
Henig also directly addresses another debate, the value of lying. Citing both scientific research and common situations, she demonstrates why enforced total honesty would be bad for society. The research of Bella DePaulo, a psychologist who studied lying in social interactions, indicates that lying is a daily occurrence and that a significant portion is what DePaulo terms “kindhearted” lies. Henig also discusses the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, the idea that intelligence arose from social manipulation, and relates it to what researcher Paul Ekman told her about good liars. She also talks about hypothetical situations where lying helps maintain social stability. Lying is also good for personal stability, because “Without lies, there can be no such sanctuary, no interior life that is completely and inviolably ours.”(p. 54) This idea of lying being a beneficial force in society is surprising, because it contrary to the commonly voiced idea of lying being sinful and honesty being the best policy.
There is also an undertone of the conflict between man and machine, a fear that a machine would not be constrained by the morality or appreciate the nuances that another human being would pick up on. Or, perhaps more cynically, it is a fear that the liar would have no chance of fooling the machine. Early on, she introduces this conflict with the line, “Two strands of scientific work are currently involved in this effort: brain mapping, which uses the 21st century's most sophisticated techniques for visualizing patterns of brain metabolism and electrical activity; and face reading, which uses tools that are positively prehistoric, the same two eyes used by our primate ancestors to spot a liar.”(p. 46) This little interplay is further highlighted by the quotes that she obtains from scientists working on both technologies. Ekman, a researcher who invented a classification system for face reading, says “'I don't use my ability to spot lies in my personal life,' . . . 'They[his family] haven't given me the right to call them on their lies.'”(p.54) Whereas the head of research at a DOD facility developing lie-detectors invokes the Werner von Braun defense. “'The operational use of what we develop is not something we think about,' . . . 'Our job is to develop the science. Once that science is developed, how it's used is up to other people.'”(p. 60) This conflict is most apparent when Ekman relates being told by a government official, “I can't support anything unless it ends in a machine doing it.”(p. 57) It is clear from the article that Henig prefers Ekman to any of the machines for lie detection, and tries to engender similar preferences from the reader. Though, she seems to miss the irony in taking this position. We have to trust Ekman not to abuse his position.
"Looking for the Lie"
“Looking for the Lie” by Robin Marantz Henig was published in The New York Times Magazine, which is a magazine read by many American adults. In general, it addresses current news, relating to any number of topics: entertainment, politics, food, sports, science, crime, technology, business, health, travel, economics, etc. The audience is people who want to keep up-to-date with any kind of national news or developments. However, the New York Time Magazine offers not only information, but it also often incorporates opinion. It has to. People look to the magazine as a source of important and interesting news, and thus, the magazine editors and writers have to rate and determine what qualifies as important and interesting news. It rates music or technology or accomplishments or companies and services. Often the articles are written to present the author’s opinion, as he or she presents the information. The audience of this magazine probably believes in being well informed and having opinions about what is happening. “Looking for the Lie” is an article that informs readers about current developments in the field of “credibility assessment.” However, the author does not conceal her viewpoint about this issue.
This idea of scientifically detecting when someone is lying easily is applicable to the readers’ lives, and that makes this an article that could easily appeal to anyone perusing The New York Times Magazine. First of all, lying is a part of everyone’s everyday life; most of us tell lies, and people lie to us. Before lie detection technology would ever affect us as average citizens in everyday life, it also applies to examining criminals and determining guilt. The author specifically mentions the increase in the importance of “credibility assessment” following the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (page 60). She also ties the subject to invasion of privacy on a personal level for every individual in America. Both terrorism and invasion of privacy are presently intimidating issues for Americans, and the author uses this to her advantage to arouse the concern and fears of the audience. The article easily involves the reader.
Credibility assessment can be a scary concept, and the author’s opinion focuses on this fact. The way the information is presented raises fears, and this article clearly is not designed to rally support for credibility assessment research, which is not portrayed in a very good light or with much enthusiasm for positive results. The author focuses on the failures and shortcomings of the polygraph. She arouses fears that lie detecting would come to impact everyone in everyday life, when I feel that this is a stretch and not applicable to the near future. I don’t think that the present research is hoping to expose lies about “Do you like this sweater?” However, because invasion of privacy is such an important and arousing issue, it is scary that eventually this technology could impact your ability to successfully tell the white lie “That sweater looks great on you.” Henig references “Big Brother” (page 60) and compares credibility assessment research to the Manhattan Project (page 65). She is definitely raising fears in the minds of the readers, and not much is offered to comfort or assuage those fears. This article leaves the reader with much evidence of the possible negative outcomes of pursuing credibility assessment.
This idea of scientifically detecting when someone is lying easily is applicable to the readers’ lives, and that makes this an article that could easily appeal to anyone perusing The New York Times Magazine. First of all, lying is a part of everyone’s everyday life; most of us tell lies, and people lie to us. Before lie detection technology would ever affect us as average citizens in everyday life, it also applies to examining criminals and determining guilt. The author specifically mentions the increase in the importance of “credibility assessment” following the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (page 60). She also ties the subject to invasion of privacy on a personal level for every individual in America. Both terrorism and invasion of privacy are presently intimidating issues for Americans, and the author uses this to her advantage to arouse the concern and fears of the audience. The article easily involves the reader.
Credibility assessment can be a scary concept, and the author’s opinion focuses on this fact. The way the information is presented raises fears, and this article clearly is not designed to rally support for credibility assessment research, which is not portrayed in a very good light or with much enthusiasm for positive results. The author focuses on the failures and shortcomings of the polygraph. She arouses fears that lie detecting would come to impact everyone in everyday life, when I feel that this is a stretch and not applicable to the near future. I don’t think that the present research is hoping to expose lies about “Do you like this sweater?” However, because invasion of privacy is such an important and arousing issue, it is scary that eventually this technology could impact your ability to successfully tell the white lie “That sweater looks great on you.” Henig references “Big Brother” (page 60) and compares credibility assessment research to the Manhattan Project (page 65). She is definitely raising fears in the minds of the readers, and not much is offered to comfort or assuage those fears. This article leaves the reader with much evidence of the possible negative outcomes of pursuing credibility assessment.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Looking for the Lie
Comments on “Looking for the Lie” by Robin Marantz Henig (New York Times Magazine, Feb. 5, 2006)
-What are the audience's interests in the topic?
(From: http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/pages/m_ed_highlight.html)
“Today’s most influential and entertaining writers, including regular contributors Lynn Hirschberg, …write the in-depth narratives, trend stories, and opinionated essays that are the heart of The New York Times Magazine. The Magazine’s general interest focus gives it the freedom to cover the world and appeal to its readers’ restless imaginations.”
This Sunday magazine prints political, social and cultural issues of interest to the nation. If anything good comes from this format of writing, it, in my mind, comes from the reader being introduced to experts in the field and not from any new ideas that they might directly use to better the world. In other words, here are the people you should look up if you have this problem. Not, here is the research front. Now go and extend it.
-What concerns would the audience have that the article speaks to or draws out?
People are afraid of being caught in a lie.
What ongoing national discourses does the article tap into, either explicitly (stated) or implicitly (implied)?
(1) The polygraph is not perfect. People have been wrongly convicted by its use.
(2) These new methods can only be applied after an event has taken place, meaning something
in our brain has changed as a result of our wanting to deceive someone.
(3) We can now help or punish people for their thoughts.
(4) The testing by the machines assumes people are guilty, until proven innocent.
(5) If successful, who will judge our thoughts? Will anyone need a conscience anymore?
(6) What new rules will be developed by our Congress to better regulate our lives?
(7) Who will we exempt from this testing?
(8) Will these machines reveal who our friends are (who we lie to protect), our enemies (who
we lie to hurt) or will they only show that we think most highly of ourselves?
(9) Should we punish people for their premeditated but unacted upon behaviors?
-What does the article hope to accomplish with its audience?
This article hopes convey that although the polygraph was an important tool in identifying wrongdoing in the past, new techniques are coming online that potentially have much greater accuracy in reading our stress levels, by monitoring oxygen levels in the brain. It suggests (to me) that in the future there will be DNA testing, for understanding a person’s physical composition, and functional MRI testing to tell when we know we’re transgressing some public norm.
-What political, scientific or humanistic concerns does the article speak to that the audience might have (or form) opinions about?
On Feb. 19, 2006 Tony Stiker of Brooklyn wrote in the New Yorker Magazine wrote(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2DC133EF93AA25751C0A9609C8B63):
“In Robin Marantz Henig's fascinating article about lying (Feb. 5), she describes our ''private territory'' and writes, ''Without lies, there can be no such sanctuary, no interior life that is completely and inviolably ours.'' In writing this, she assumes that our choices are limited to either lying or telling the truth. Instead, there is a third, bold choice. That choice is to say, in a way that feels appropriate, I choose not to share or discuss this topic with you. Thus we can maintain our ''private territory'' without being dishonest. “
Like most of us, he wants to be good.
-What are the audience's interests in the topic?
(From: http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/pages/m_ed_highlight.html)
“Today’s most influential and entertaining writers, including regular contributors Lynn Hirschberg, …write the in-depth narratives, trend stories, and opinionated essays that are the heart of The New York Times Magazine. The Magazine’s general interest focus gives it the freedom to cover the world and appeal to its readers’ restless imaginations.”
This Sunday magazine prints political, social and cultural issues of interest to the nation. If anything good comes from this format of writing, it, in my mind, comes from the reader being introduced to experts in the field and not from any new ideas that they might directly use to better the world. In other words, here are the people you should look up if you have this problem. Not, here is the research front. Now go and extend it.
-What concerns would the audience have that the article speaks to or draws out?
People are afraid of being caught in a lie.
What ongoing national discourses does the article tap into, either explicitly (stated) or implicitly (implied)?
(1) The polygraph is not perfect. People have been wrongly convicted by its use.
(2) These new methods can only be applied after an event has taken place, meaning something
in our brain has changed as a result of our wanting to deceive someone.
(3) We can now help or punish people for their thoughts.
(4) The testing by the machines assumes people are guilty, until proven innocent.
(5) If successful, who will judge our thoughts? Will anyone need a conscience anymore?
(6) What new rules will be developed by our Congress to better regulate our lives?
(7) Who will we exempt from this testing?
(8) Will these machines reveal who our friends are (who we lie to protect), our enemies (who
we lie to hurt) or will they only show that we think most highly of ourselves?
(9) Should we punish people for their premeditated but unacted upon behaviors?
-What does the article hope to accomplish with its audience?
This article hopes convey that although the polygraph was an important tool in identifying wrongdoing in the past, new techniques are coming online that potentially have much greater accuracy in reading our stress levels, by monitoring oxygen levels in the brain. It suggests (to me) that in the future there will be DNA testing, for understanding a person’s physical composition, and functional MRI testing to tell when we know we’re transgressing some public norm.
-What political, scientific or humanistic concerns does the article speak to that the audience might have (or form) opinions about?
On Feb. 19, 2006 Tony Stiker of Brooklyn wrote in the New Yorker Magazine wrote(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2DC133EF93AA25751C0A9609C8B63):
“In Robin Marantz Henig's fascinating article about lying (Feb. 5), she describes our ''private territory'' and writes, ''Without lies, there can be no such sanctuary, no interior life that is completely and inviolably ours.'' In writing this, she assumes that our choices are limited to either lying or telling the truth. Instead, there is a third, bold choice. That choice is to say, in a way that feels appropriate, I choose not to share or discuss this topic with you. Thus we can maintain our ''private territory'' without being dishonest. “
Like most of us, he wants to be good.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
weekend blog post assignment
For this first blog post, please write about the stakes in the article "Looking for the Lie," from the Best American Science Writing 2007. As you compose your entry, here are some questions to consider: What are the audience's interests in the topic? What concerns would the audience have that the article speaks to or draws out? What ongoing national discourses does the article tap into, either explicitly (stated) or implicitly (implied)? What does the article hope to accomplish with its audience? What political, scientific or humanistic concerns does the article speak to that the audience might have (or form) opinions about?
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Welcome
Welcome to RIT's Science Writing class, Winter 2007-2008. This is the blog where we will post thoughts and responses to our readings and class discussion. You will need to be invited as a contributor; I will do that the first week of class.
Here's to a great quarter!
Prof. Mazzolini
Here's to a great quarter!
Prof. Mazzolini
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)