[silk] You're a liar! Draw!

Sarad AV jtrjtrjtr2001 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 8 07:22:36 PDT 2010


what happens if you say that you are not good at drawing and end up drawing
wire-frames of the descriptions asked. it may also be true that the person is
no good at drawing.

you can say 'speak' and with a good probability the person can speak. the same
doesn't hold true when you say 'draw'. people who are bad at drawing doesn't
have much clue as to put visualizations on 2D. I definitely suspect that they
will get distances, angles or ratio's right when they attempt to put it on
2D.

Cheers,
Sarad.

--- On Fri, 10/8/10, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
> Subject: [silk] You're a liar! Draw!
> To: tt at postbiota.org, cypherpunks at al-qaeda.net
> Date: Friday, October 8, 2010, 6:39 PM
> ----- Forwarded message from Udhay
> Shankar N <udhay at pobox.com>
> -----
>
> From: Udhay Shankar N <udhay at pobox.com>
> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:26:27 +0530
> To: Silk List <silklist at lists.hserus.net>
> Subject: [silk] You're a liar! Draw!
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
> rv:1.9.2.9)
>     Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2
> Thunderbird/3.1.4
> Reply-To: silklist at lists.hserus.net
>
> What an awesomely cool idea. Also, like many great hacks,
> an extremely
> simple idea at its core.
>
> Udhay
>
>
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/neuronarrative/201010/if-you-want-catch-l
iar-make-him-draw
>
> If You Want to Catch a Liar, Make Him Draw
> Liars stumble when they can't verbalize their lies
> Published on October 4, 2010
>
> A man accused of a crime is brought into a police
> interrogation room and
> sits down at an empty table. There's no polygraph equipment
> in sight,
> and the typical two-cop questioning team isn't in the room
> either.
> Instead, one officer enters the room with a piece of paper
> and a pencil
> in his hands. He sets them in front of the suspect, steps
> back, and
> calmly says, "draw."
>
> That's a greatly oversimplified description of what could
> happen in
> actual interrogation rooms if the results of a study in the
> journal
> Applied Cognitive Psychology were widely adopted. The study
> is the first
> to investigate whether drawing is an effective lie
> detection technique
> in comparison to verbal methods.
> Related Links
>
> Researchers hypothesized that several tendencies would
> become evident in
> the scribbles and sketches of liars not found in those of
> non-liars. For
> instance, they suspected that liars, when asked to sketch
> out the
> particulars of a location where they hadn't really been to
> meet someone
> they hadn't really met, would provide less detail in their
> drawings.
> They also suspected that the drawing would seem less
> plausible overall,
> and would not include a depiction of the person they
> allegedly met.
>
> They also hypothesized that non-liars would use a
> "shoulder-camera"
> perspective to draw the situation--a direct, line-of-sight
> view that
> previous research suggests is more indicative of truth
> telling. Liars,
> they suspected, would use an "overhead-camera" perspective,
> indicating a
> sense of detachment from the situation.
>
> Subjects were given a "mission" that included going to a
> designated
> location and meeting a person with whom they would exchange
> information.
> In all, four different missions were conducted. The
> particulars of the
> missions were constructed such that about half of the
> participants
> would, when interviewed, be able to tell the truth about
> what happened,
> and half would have to lie (the researchers used a
> fabricated espionage
> theme to work this out--very clever).
>
> During the interview, subjects were asked questions about
> their
> experience, as would happen in a normal interrogation, and
> also asked to
> draw the particulars of their experience. Results of the
> verbal
> responses could then be compared to the drawn responses to
> determine
> which method was more effective in identifying liars.
>
> Here's what happened: No significant differences in level
> of detail were
> found between verbal and drawn statements, but the
> plausibility of
> truthful drawings was somewhat higher than deceptive
> drawings. A similar
> difference in plausibility was not evident between truthful
> and
> deceptive verbal statements.
>
> More interestingly, significantly more truth tellers
> included the
> "agent" (other person in the situation) in their drawings
> than did liars
> (80% vs. 13%). In addition, significantly more truth
> tellers drew from a
> shoulder-camera view than liars, who by and large drew from
> an overhead
> view (53% vs. 19%). In verbal statements, more truth
> tellers also
> mentioned the agent than liars (53% vs. 19%).
>
> Using the "sketching the agent" result alone, it was
> possible to
> identify 80% of the truth tellers and 87% of the
> liars--results superior
> to most traditional interview techniques.
>
> The main reason drawing seems to be effective in
> identifying liars is
> that they have less time to work out the details. Someone
> who is telling
> the truth already has a visual image of where they were and
> what
> happened (even if it's not perfect, which of course it
> never is), but
> liars have to manufacture the details. It's easier to
> concoct something
> verbally than to first visualize and then create it on
> paper.
>
>
>
> Copyright 2010 - David DiSalvo
>
> --
> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com))
> ((www.digeratus.com))
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443
> 8B29 F6BE





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list