Mark Bartch

CEO, Centro Superior de Inteligencia y Poligrafia (CSIP)

This conversation is closed.

How can we collaborate to develop a deception detection technology that could be considered science?

We have polygraph, but we could incorporate micro-expression, body language, thermal imaging, laser blood flow measurements all in one.

  • thumb

    R H

    • +2
    May 21 2014: Beta-test it on political leaders first.
  • thumb
    May 21 2014: Then when you test it on yourself you will find you are a liar like the rest of us. There is a Tedtalk on how everyone of us use lying everyday every hour.
  • May 20 2014: "A meta-analysis study from DePaulo and Morris found an 'association between lying and increased pupil size, an indicator of tension and concentration.' Additionally, those lying are perceived to appear more nervous than those telling the truth (which may be because the voices of those lying are higher pitched), while they also do not appear to be more fidgety, blink more, or have a less-relaxed posture but 'are more likely than truth-tellers to press their lips together.' However, highly motivated liars (those with higher stakes) 'seem unusually still and make notably less eye contact with listeners.'"

    So, then, one just has to read all the science behind these "detection methods" and PRACTICE! Then you beat them. Sociopaths rejoice! "Objective" and "scientific" methods will give your well-polished lies the imprimis of "objective truth".

    What defeats a lie is legwork and hard data to the contrary. If it all just comes down to someone saying "I didn't do it." in an insufficiently convincing fashion, then it's already a lost cause. Might as well just select someone at random and execute the poor schmuck.
  • Jun 6 2014: Hello there, Mark. It's a known fact that every single one of us has lied, will lie, and continue on lying; whether it's an omission of a lie, delusion, dismissal, white lie, facade, and so on.

    Whilst the aforementioned statement of Bryan Maloney's "highly-motivated liars make notably less eye contact with the listening recipient(s)" is somewhat true, it has to also be associated with other unaddressed factors, such as looking away to draw up a recollection of a prior event post conversation at hand. Whilst generally, 'highly-motivated' liars do make less eye contact, you've to also take into account the possibility of other associated factors, and deeper sub-specifics.
  • Jun 4 2014: Mark, good idea,
    Vetting the politicians by having them wear a cuff-detector during campaigns would help.

    We have here in the USofA some 850,000 federal employees who's jobs are at risk
    should they reveal anything that some other federal employee has deemed to be a
    classified document. All those 850,000 Top Secret Clearances are being used to
    Protect and Defend the USof A. It is a massive job to police or enforce such secrets.
    Indelible Black Felt Marker Pens are usually reserved for Redaction Control when
    Freedom of Information requests are won by determined citizen foes.
    But, I am just kidding of course. lol

    This formula should work.
    Name your collaboration "Deception Detection Technology Science Corporation".
    Then apply for a US grant with the help of some educational association members,
    who hopefully will work for little pay. Emphasize the Science in your application.
    As long as you don't lie, and you won't, things should sail through the halls of
    USofA government. They will give you their answer, yea or nay.

    Contact and make associations with the heads of colleges and universities
    within the USofA, and be open and vocal about what you want to achieve.
    Follow up. Stay on course. Fail, and start over. Never quit.

    People in high positions like to feel good about reaching out to help a fellow
    do good works. But, unless you bridge the gaps, and you take the steps,
    you will not succeed. I know how, and I've just explained it to you.
    Good luck.

    ps: I avoided the subject of private capital. You might also.
  • Jun 4 2014: National Security versus Reality...
    The setting doesn’t matter where it is on the earth.
    The identity of the politicians and media doesn’t matter.

    Historically, politicians have made up unrealistic fears to herd us into a panic
    so that they can make money by selling us national security. That way they
    can tax us to fund the largest military industrial budget in the entire world.

    The Newspapers and other media want sensationalism to sell their News.
    They just do not care about the truth. Truth is bland, and doesn't sell well.

    How can I be so sure.
    Every few years, something drastic occurs. Usually, it happens where it cannot
    be easily verified by you and I.

    Like those boats that were attacked or sunk on the high seas, or inside of foreign ports.
    Remember the Maine 1898? It was an accident, a coal explosion. The Lusitania 1918?
    Ostensibly an ocean liner, was secretly carrying 6 million pounds of shells, ammunition,
    and explosives on behalf of Morgan Banking to help their clients, Britain and France.
    The Destroyer Maddox 1964? Attacked twice, by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, in the Gulf of Tonkin. It never happened.

    Politicians used these lies to declare Revenge Wars.

    But over the years, they noticed that we were wise to their schemes, and they bolstered their lies with real time events. -- Terrorist attacks; here, there, and everywhere,
    On planes, buildings, ships, subways, trains, retailers, and during sporting events.

    Designed to make everlasting Wars of Revenge having made up many more unrealistic fears to herd us into a panic.

    Our goal should be closing the gap between our politician's perception of national security and the reality that there is probably no reason for national security, dba: "Homeland Security", at all.

    For those who enjoy standing in line with your shoes in your hands and having your
    body inspected, before loading into your airline flight, go for it. Not for me.
    The reality doesn't justify such nonsense.
  • thumb
    May 27 2014: There is no such thing as a lie, there never was and there never will be. Most modern thinkers agree with particle physics and the fact that matter can and will exhibit diverse and often-time oppositeand unexpected behavioural characteristics….so why do you believe differently? Yes, I feel certain there is some greater pattern to subatomic particles and how they behave but I am equally certain that particular meta-pattern will continue to elude the best scientific minds for decades to come…so why are you asking us to provide you with that map to build a “logic certainty circuit” to unlock our quantum computers? Any thing that doesnt contain the meta-patern is doomed to fail. A Pointless request I feel.
  • thumb
    May 26 2014: Mark, I can understand why agencies would want to develop such a instrument ... and in ways I concur ... yet in other I would object. I have been involved in law enforcement in one means or another most of my life.

    People spend millions developing the technology and other spend millions to defeating it and the only ones who profit are the lawyers for both sides.

    So here is the first step. Develop undesirable consequences hold not only those who commit the act but those who are responsible for the public trust. When CEOs, board members, presidents, owners, etc ... know that their butts are on the line for the conduct of their company they will place preventative measures to spot and eliminate the actions prior to becoming a major issue. Have them sign waivers allowing extradition ... freezing of personal funds and assets ... etc ... when prooif of a crime has been committed within their scope of operations.

    Once they have knowledge of wrongdoing they have XX time to investigate and report or they are held libal as well.

    Political leaders, governmental elite, CEOs, board members, etc ... are often pardoned, granted a pass of some sort, etc .... with big profits and high positions should also come big consequences.

    As a example ... President of the USA Bill Clinton took advantage of a subordinate and had sex with her in the Oval Office ... any supervisor in the world who conucted themselves in this manner would suffer removal, disgrace, divorce, and banished from any government trust .... in the liberal socialist party he is a hero and a role model ... he was nominated for the father of the year ... allowed to stay in office ... and retired with a fat check for life .... when the leaders in all areas become subject to laws and consequences much of the crap will stop.

    When that occurs the need for your device will become moot.

    Thanks for your time. I wish you well. Bob.
  • May 21 2014: The idea that there are universal clues to tell if someone is lying is ridiculous. The polygraph is not a lie-detector, it is a nervous detector. The assumption that someone who is nervous is in fact lying is a mistake.
    What you need to do is forget about lie-detecting and concentrate on mind-reading.
  • May 20 2014: I've got some ideas on HOW to detect lies, but I'm sorry its not something I think we SHOULD do. If you invent some new method, I for one will be trying to get around it as soon as possible.

    Besides Law (Secure in their persons and property, right against self-incrimination), besides Morality (Thought Police, Loyalty) and even besides Theology (Free Will), there are reasons why such technology should not exist for Humans. I think that corporations such as yours are dangerous to a free society and should not be allowed to do business.

    So good luck (kidding) with your business model. When you develop your 'perfect' detector, what price are YOU going to pay when a psycopath slips through because they don't feel the remorse that causes the .1% increase in pupil diameter? When you convict an innocent man because that beef burrito he ate for lunch caused a 2 degree temperature flux? When everyone who supports 'Cause X' is put to death by believers of 'Cause Y' because 'they don't think the same as we do'? When the Intelligent Machines use your research to control Mankind?

    For the sake of Humanity, close down your company, burn all your notes and research, and go lie on a beach somewhere for the rest of your life.
  • May 20 2014: All of the "detection" methods rely upon someone having an "abnormal" physiological activity of some sort when lying. Okay, so you'll catch the people who are not dangerous. The ones who really HAVE to be caught for the good of society and won't be caught by other means? Forget it--they have no qualms at all about lying, and their lies are well-practiced and automatic, as automatic as truth. They'll beat all the tests and be let off. On the other hand, people who just get extremely nervous at the thought of being accused or examined, no matter how innocent they actually are, will be pegged as "liars" and treated accordingly.
  • May 20 2014: We already know people lie, what we need is an automatic deduction from their pension on every occurrence.
  • May 19 2014: Theres some neat stuff in the "21st century" section of the link below.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection