And how likely is that, really?
This is the sort of desperate dialectics verging on logical rudeness I find really annoying, trying to rescue a baloney claim by any possibility. If you seriously think that, great - go read the papers and tell me and I will be duly surprised if the human lie-detectors are the best calibrated people in that 20,000 group and hence that factoid might apply to the person we are discussing.
Seems like homework for the person making the claim, I'm just pointing out it exists.
I will be duly surprised if the human lie-detectors are the best calibrated people
Nit-pick, they could be the worst calibrated and what I said would hold, provided the others estimated themselves suitably bad at it.
Recently I summarized Joshua Greene's attempt to 'explain away' deontological ethics by revealing the cognitive algorithms that generate deontological judgments and showing that the causes of our deontological judgments are inconsistent with normative principles we would endorse.
Mark Alfano has recently done the same thing with virtue ethics (which generally requires a fairly robust theory of character trait possession) in his March 2011 article on the topic:
An overview of the 'situationist' attack on character trait possession can be found in Doris' book Lack of Character.