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.