"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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
My friend had to take polygraph test for a federal job. He said he was scared when he took it. The reason why he was scared is because the interviewers look very serious and asked him very specific questions. He felt he had to make sure he gave them accuracy answers without giving a "white lie." It's easy to tell "white lie." I said to myself, does all federal jobs have to go through polygraph test, I'd assume so.
I don't know if polygraph should be used for job interview since it's not 100% accuracy. And it makes people nervous while taking it. I'd rather if the polygraph is 100% accuracy. However, I'm pretty sure they don't just depend only on polygraph, they'd probably investigate more detail to make sure everything matches and all.
No not all federal jobs due. It is often part of a larger security clearance investigation. The security clearance investigations are specifically designed to be so complete and comprehensive and redundant that even white lies show up because of the simply staggering amount of paperwork involved. The government would rather give a security clearance to someone who admitted smoking pot in high school than it would to somebody who told a 'white lie' about it.
great point, starburst, about the social motivations for lying--they're just as important as the physiological ones.
Post a Comment