= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Non-standard politics - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (231)
That test is quite easy to corrupt by telling the 20 people to make it easy for them of the people who get interviewed.
More importantly you test for a very specific skill that's likely trainable. The best people at the skill will be people trained by specific coaches in telling lies in that artificial setting. Those coaches might be payed for by lobbyists.
In real life telling whether people lie when things are at stake for them is a much more useful skill than telling whether someone is lying for whom nothing is at stake.
In most real world contexts where telling whether someone lies is important you analyse the persons motivations and the emotions that body language reveals. That's highly different from telling whether someone whom you give a random card from a deck of cards lies when he says: "This is the Queen of Hearts"
You could make there be something at stake by having everyone telling lies also be part of the group taking the test.
Unfortunately(?), this would mean that people would train at telling convincing lies as well training at detecting lies.
I second the question mark.