He honored the survivors who had the courage to speak up and take action, and exhorted all of us to follow their example of courage. Inaction is a form of cowardice. Yell or holler. Do whatever it takes to distract and stop. But you got to step up. You got to step in. You got to speak out. The Vice President also spoke of the legal and moral responsibility of colleges and universities to protect student victims, enforce legal protections, and prevent sexual violence in the first place. One of the salient themes that emerged from the Not Alone listening sessions is that most men want to contribute to anti-violence efforts, but do not know how to become engaged.
Contemporary English Version Don't make a mistake by turning to the right or the left. Good News Translation Avoid evil and walk straight ahead. Don't go one step off the right way. Holman Christian Standard Bible Don't turn to the right or to the left; keep your feet away from evil. International Standard Version Do not turn to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil.
NET Bible Do not turn to the right or to the left; turn yourself away from evil. New Heart English Bible Do not turn to the right hand nor to the left. Remove your foot from evil. Aramaic Bible in Plain English Do not turn aside to the right or to the left, but remove your foot from evil. Walk away from evil. New American Standard Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil.
Jubilee Bible Turn not to the right hand nor to the left; remove thy foot from evil. King James Bible Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove your foot from evil. American King James Version Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove your foot from evil. American Standard Version Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: Remove thy foot from evil. And for those times, Ekman said, his system of lie detection can be taught to anyone, with an accuracy rate of more than 95 percent.
- Look left, look right.
- Want to look good? Put your left face forward › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science).
- The Complete Works Of Alexander Pope [Annotated]!
- 2. People read in F-patterns.
- Your Answer.
- Au service de lhomme (French Edition)!
His holistic perspective is almost the polar opposite of brain mappers like Langleben's and Vendemia's: instead of focusing on the liar's neurons, Ekman takes a long, hard look at the liar's face. Basic emotions lead to characteristic facial expressions, which only a handful of really good liars manage to conceal. Part of lying is putting on a false face that's consistent with the lie. But even practiced liars, according to Ekman, may not always be able to control the "leakage" of their true feelings, which flit across the face in microexpressions that last less than half a second. These microexpressions indicate an incongruity between the liar's words and his emotions.
Ekman teaches police investigators, embassy officials and others how to spot liars, including how to read these microexpressions. He begins by showing photos of faces in apparently neutral poses. In each face, a microexpression appears for 40 milliseconds, and the trainee has to press a button to indicate which emotion was in that microexpression: fear, anger, surprise, happiness, sadness, contempt or disgust.
When I took the pretest to measure my innate lie-detecting capabilities, I could see the microexpressions in about 70 percent of the examples. But after about 15 minutes of training, I improved. The training session let me stop the action if I missed a question, since Ekman's idea is that if you know what you're looking for -- and the microexpressions, when frozen, are vivid and easy to name -- you can spot them even when they flash by in an instant.
In the post-training test, I scored an 86 percent. In addition to microexpressions, Ekman said, certain aspects of a person's demeanor can indicate whether he is lying. Voice, hand movements, posture, speech patterns: when these vary from how the person usually speaks or gesticulates, or when they don't fit the situation, that's another hot spot to explore. Word choices often change with lying, too, with the speaker using "distancing language," like fewer first-person pronouns and more in the third person. Also common are what Ekman calls "verbal hedges," which liars might use to buy time as they figure out what they want to say.
To illustrate a verbal hedge, Ekman pointed to one of the many cartoons he uses in his workshops: a shark standing in a courtroom, looking up at the judge and saying, "Define 'frenzy. Ekman enjoys using these insights to unmask the lies of public figures though he has a rule that prohibits him from commenting on any elected official currently in office, no matter how tempting a target.
At his home in the Oakland Hills, he has a videotape library of some of the most notable lies of recent history, and he showed me how to watch one when I visited last fall. It was from a presidential news conference in early , during the first days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Ekman smiled as he watched it; he knows this clip well. There it was: the president's "distancing language," calling Lewinsky "that woman," and an almost imperceptible softening of his voice at the end of the sentence.
When this news conference was originally broadcast, Ekman said, "everyone I had ever trained from all over the country called me and said: 'Did you see the president? He's lying. View all New York Times newsletters. The First, Flawed Machine. The quest for such a machine has roots in the early 20th century, when the first modern lie detector, a rudimentary polygraph, was introduced.
The man often cited as its inventor, William Moulton Marston, was a Harvard-trained psychologist who went on to make his mark as the creator of the comic-book character Wonder Woman. Not coincidentally, one of Wonder Woman's most potent weapons was her Magic Lasso, which made it impossible for anyone in its grip to tell a lie. Marston spent 20 years trying to get his machine used by the military, in courts and even in advertising. After the success of Wonder Woman, however, he used it mostly for entertainment.
His comic-book editor, Sheldon Mayer, recalled being hooked up to a polygraph during a party at Marston's home. After a few warm-up questions, Marston tossed him a zinger, "Do you think you're the greatest cartoonist in the world? As Mayer wrote in his memoir, "I felt I was being quite truthful when I said no, and it turned out I was lying!
Because how prescient, really, to joke that the machine must have been right, that the machine knew more about Mayer than he did himself. It's the power of a simple mechanical device to make you doubt your own concept of truth and lie -- "It turned out I was lying" -- that made the polygraph so alluring, and so disturbing. And it's that power, combined with the idea that the machines are peering directly into the brain, that makes the polygraph's modern counterparts even more so.
Today, the polygraph is the subject of much controversy, with organizations devoted to publicizing "countermeasures" -- ways to subvert the results -- to prove how unreliable it is. But the American Polygraph Association says it has "great probative value," and police departments still use it to help focus their criminal investigations and to try to extract confessions. The polygraph is also used to screen potential and current federal employees in law enforcement and for security clearances, although private employers are prohibited from using it as a pre-employment screen.
Polygraphists are also routinely brought in to investigate such matters as insurance fraud, corporate theft and contested divorce. But there is little scientific evidence to back up the accuracy of the polygraph. Polygraph research has been "managed and supported by national security and law enforcement agencies that do not operate in a culture of science," the council said, suggesting that these are not the best settings for an objective assessment of any device's pros and cons. The polygraph has many cons. It requires a suspect who is cooperative, feels guilty or anxious about lying and hasn't been educated to the various countermeasures that can thwart the results.
Polygraph results can be more reliable in investigations in which the questioners already know what they're looking for. This allows investigators to develop a line of questioning that leads to something like the Guilty Knowledge Test. This is a multiple-choice test in which the answer is something only a guilty person would know -- and only a guilty person's polygraph readings would indicate arousal upon hearing it.
The history of polygraphs is a cautionary tale, an example of how not to introduce the next generation of credibility-assessment devices. Thermal Scanners, Eye Trackers and Pupillometers. History is in some danger of repeating itself at the site of the government's most focused effort to look for the next generation of lie detectors, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
This is where the brain mapping of the academic investigators is turned into practical machinery. Scientists at Dodpi pronounced DOD-pie are an inventive bunch, investigating instruments that measure the body's emission of heat, light, vibration or any other physiological properties that might change when someone tells a lie. Among the new machines being studied is a thermal scanner, in which a computer image of a person's face is color-coded according to how much heat it emits.
The region of interest, just inside each eye, grows hotter when a person lies. It also grows hotter during many other cognitive tasks, however, so a more specific signature for deception might be required to keep the thermal scanner from falling prey to the same problems of imprecision as the polygraph. Another machine is the eye tracker, which follows a person's gaze -- its fixation, duration, rapid eye movements and scanning path -- to determine if he's looking at something he has seen before.
It can be thought of as a mute version of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Other high-tech deception detectors -- many of them capable of remote operation, so they could theoretically be used without a suspect's knowledge -- are being developed at laboratories across the country, with financing from agencies like Dodpi, the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The detectors look for increases in physiological processes that are associated with lying: a sniffer test that measures levels of stress hormones on the breath, for instance, a pupillometer that measures pupil dilation and a near-infrared-light beam that measures blood flow to the cerebral cortex. With this push for an automated lie detector, some observers worry that we'll see a replay of the polygraph experience: the marketing of a halfway technology not quite capable of separating lying from other cognitive or emotional tasks.
The polygraph was a machine in search of an application, and it became entrenched in criminal justice more out of habit than out of proved efficacy. This could easily happen again, as credibility assessment is being lauded as a crucial counterterrorism tool.
Independent news email
Zeffiro said that one of his workshop suggestions is to establish a neutral testing laboratory to keep such products from being used commercially before there is at least some minimum amount of evidence that they work. Big Brother concerns hover in the background, too, with some of these instruments, especially the smallest ones. It is sobering to think that we might be moving toward a society in which hidden sensors are trying, in one way or another, to read our minds. At Dodpi, however, scientists don't seem to fret much about such things. Once that science is developed, how it's used is up to other people.
The Smudge of Ordinary Lies. Each day we walk a fine line between deception and discretion.
Share your thoughts and debate the big issues
First there are the lies of omission. You go out to dinner with your sister and her handsome new boyfriend, and you find him obnoxious. When you and your sister discuss the evening later, isn't it a lie for you to talk about the restaurant and not about the boyfriend? What if you talk about his good looks and not about his offensive personality?
- 2. The Effect of Video on Search Results;
- Critical Muslim 07: Muslim Archipelago.
- Navigation menu.
- Código del Guerrero Ancestral (Spanish Edition)!
- Lose Weight Fast: The Fat Burner Diet Plan...Eat Your Way To a Slimmer You.
- Tactical Reload.
Then there are the lies of commission, many of which are harmless, the lies that allow us to get along with one another. When you receive a gift you can't use, or are invited to lunch with a co-worker you dislike, you're likely to say, "Thank you, it's perfect" or "I wish I could, but I have a dentist's appointment," rather than speak the harsher truth.
These are the lies we teach our children to tell; we call them manners. Even our automatic response of "Fine" to a neighbor's equally automatic "How are you? More serious lies can have a range of motives and implications.
They can be malicious, like lying about a rival's behavior in order to get him fired, or merely strategic, like not telling your wife about your mistress. Not every one of them is a lie that needs to be uncovered. Learning to lie is an important part of maturation. What makes a child able to start telling lies, usually at about age 3 or 4, is that he has begun developing a theory of mind, the idea that what goes on in his head is different from what goes on in other people's heads. With his first lie to his mother, the power balance shifts imperceptibly: he now knows something she doesn't know.
With each new lie, he gains a bit more power over the person who believes him. After a while, the ability to lie becomes just another part of his emotional landscape. In the 's, DePaulo asked people to keep a diary of their social interactions for one week and to note "any time you intentionally try to mislead someone," either verbally or nonverbally. At the end of the week, the subjects had lied, on average, 1. People didn't feel guilty about these lies, by and large, but lying still left them with what DePaulo called a "smudge," a sort of smarmy feeling after lying. Her subjects reported feeling less positive about their interactions with people to whom they had lied than to people to whom they had not lied.
10 Useful Findings About How People View Websites
Still, DePaulo said that her research led her to believe that not all lying is bad, that it often serves a perfectly respectable purpose; in fact, it is sometimes a nobler, or at least kinder, option than telling the truth. A kindhearted lie is when a genetic counselor says nothing when she happens to find out, during a straightforward test for birth defects, that a man could not possibly have fathered his wife's new baby. It's when a neighbor lies about hiding a Jewish family in Nazi-occupied Poland. It's when a doctor tells a terminally ill patient that the new chemotherapy might work.
And it's when a mother tells her daughter that nothing bad will ever happen to her. I think they just value their friends' feelings more than they value the truth. If the search for an all-purpose lie detector were successful, and these everyday lies were uncovered along with the threatening or malicious ones, we might, paradoxically, end up feeling a little less safe than we felt before.