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.