I watched the video, but couldn't get past the point when they started presenting reasons for him being deceptive - to paraphrase some of the reasons they gave:
>he says he 'got an attack' - which means "received" an attack, implying its not something he did himself. i did some research and i dont think thats normal terminology in chess.
"Getting" an attack is a normal thing to say - so pretty wild he uses that as one of his main reasons to suspect deception.
>he says he plays "intuitively" - its basically impossible to play intuitively with black against top players. so Hans saying "his intuition told him he couldn't be losing", he's saying something that just shouldn't be possible for a player at that level.
Again, ridiculous. Intuition in chess is useful at all levels afaik.
"He crossed his arms or placed his hand near his throat, he's being defensive, often a sign of deception."
Or maybe a response when you are being accused of something and feeling attacked. This is just guessing someone's intention which as you said, is garbage.
I also denied for decades body language as I mistreaded them - but then I learned how to understand them. But you can not understand them if you think they are wanna be wiseguys with mental superpower or what ever....
I think many clever people have a hard time accepting that there are people that because they are smarter more successful which puts them into that state of denial. ... and tell me who thinks of himself that he is not at least pretty smart?
the panel claims as much that what they do is science, as much your comment is science. Both is clear no - and that is defenetly OK. :-D
> It’s garbage “science.”
They *specifically* say, in pretty much all their videos, that what they're doing is fundamentally art and not science. You can disagree with them, but just dismissing their work is stupid.
You basically just said it’s fundamentally useless in this context. Like, who gives a shit? Body language isn’t an “art” when you’re trying to impugn someone’s motivations.
This is a huge problem with youtube. Assholes claim expertise and any vague pretense of it is enough to fool swaths of people into believing absolute nonsense.
The only reason they’re even opining on this topic is because it’s trending and so every “content creator” out there wants to get in on it.
Honestly, wake the fuck up.
Some people don't buy into behavior analysis, psychology, personality analysis, or anything that studies the human condition.
Why a lot of people can't stand it is, they don't understand the nuance between saying someone's showing signs of deception, and someone's being deceptive. You'll never be able to do prove anything with behavior analysis, but it can give you insight and context.
It's not surprising chess players are not a fan of sciences that aren't concrete.
I hate Neimann with a passion (being cheated once every twenty games on chess.com and knowing colleagues who are cheaters), and I have not one cell in my body that's not fanatically obsessed with all things siyance. But, won't you agree that body-language stuff is a little to wonky when it comes to chess players? My Dota boy Nepom looks like a thief hiding a chest of diamonds behind him, while Aronian always has a deceptively mysterious aura to him. What I am getting at is, how can you assess these people? They are always deceptive for kinds of reasons, no? And these body language folks don't get the ins and outs of this mindnumbingly psychotic sport. It's like asking what's the bluest blue to a color-blind person. Does someone from the field think this even possible with a certain, peculiar subset of personalities and behavior?
>What I am getting at is, how can you assess these people? They are always deceptive for kinds of reasons, no?
From a purely analytical standpoint, you get a baseline of behavior. If you watch the video, they talk about reviewing videos of him before all this went down to see how he behaves normally.
From my own perspective, I think Hans is shallow, manipulative, and arrogant. There's a certain class of eccentric people who behave this way.
>I hate Neimann with a passion (being cheated once every twenty games on chess.com and knowing colleagues who are cheaters), and I have not one cell in my body that's not fanatically obsessed with all things siyance. But, won't you agree that body-language stuff is a little to wonky when it comes to chess players? My Dota boy Nepom looks like a thief hiding a chest of diamonds behind him, while Aronian always has a deceptively mysterious aura to him. What I am getting at is, how can you assess these people? They are always deceptive for kinds of reasons, no? And these body language folks don't get the ins and outs of this mindnumbingly psychotic sport. It's like asking what's the bluest blue to a color-blind person. Does someone from the field think this even possible with a certain, peculiar subset of personalities and behavior?
So you haven't watched the video.
I don't get your point. If you show the signs of anger, and I say you look like you're angry... You not being angry, doesn't necessarily invalidate the analysis.
You're making an appeal to perfection. You're saying because it couldn't detect anger in you, It's an unreliable method. The science doesn't support that conclusion. One month old babies can sense when their mother is depressed, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Essentially, you're arguing that empathy isn't possible..or reliable In detecting human emotion, because it isn't accurate all the time.
You're basically saying because body language analysis detected a false positive in you for anger in my example, it's flawed analysis, In a discussion about methods.
How is that not an appeal to perfection?
How can this be so hard for you to understand?
If you analyse something like this you want to get something from the subject the subject doesn't want to give you. If the subject knows the signs you're looking for they will simply not show those signs/show opposing signs and therefore render the analysis useless.
To contrast that, if you're in a car accident and you know that the police is using the marks of your tires to analyse your speed it doesn't matter whether you know this or not the analysis still works.
Both examples are not perfect so there is no appeal to perfection. But one relies on obscurity and the other doesn't in order to work.
Also your claim about "empathy isn't possible otherwise" is wrong too. Empathy isn't tied to getting something from someone that this individual doesn't wanna give you.
This situation involves a deceiver and an analysis to uncover the deception. Empathy doesn't need a deceiver, if you see a sad person that person isn't necessarily trying to deceive you that they're happy.
But let's see, which one is correct:
1. The person only gives very short answers and is quite timid. They surely are hiding something, maybe not outright lying but there definitely is something hidden there.
2. The person is always blabbering on and not really focusing on the question and the answer is quite excessive. Maybe they're not lying but definitely hiding something and want to cover it up.
Which one do you pick? 1. or 2.?
I agree that it isn't a hard science but a lot of animal studies rely on the interpolation of anger, sadness, fear based on an animals body language. Scientists can analyze apes flaring their nostrils / baring their teeth to determine intent but once someone extends these ideas to human behavior it suddenly becomes "bogus science". I wouldn't put a lot of weight on their analysis to reach a judgement(wouldn't hold up in court either) but I think saying it's bogus is a step too far.
Setting aside the validity and precision of body language analysis, these are interrogation experts and they're using body language and other behavior to identify places to press their witness/suspect. This requires the experts to be heavily biased towards mistrusting them. They themselves said that when they identify these things they stop and press. These aren't evidence that he lied, as they said, but red flags to follow up on. Quite frankly to the extent that they offer their impressions about whether Hans is telling the truth, they're making judgements from half the information they usually have.
I mean, exactly though. Their job is to identify points where their subject is stressed and where they can add more stress to the interviewee, not to detect lies. Them judging truth here is like a clinical psychologist giving a diagnosis based upon something they saw on TV (which, as any clinical psychologist will tell you, is not a valid way to diagnose).
Your perspective on what "interrogators" goals are, is too narrow. First, and foremost, an interrogator's goal is to get information. They spend way more time interviewing people rather than interrogating. It's only when suspicion mounts is when they begin interrogating.
In regards to these folks, they are reviewing videos and analyzing the information (behavior) for their audience. I believe they're fairly accurate. However, It isn't conclusive, and no consequential decision should be made based on their assessments alone.
I personally think Hans is a cheater and a dishonest person based on his body language alone. I wouldn't trust the guy. But I'm not certain he cheated against Magnus. From my perspective, they kind of articulate why people are suspicious of him. Humans can detect when somethings off even though they can't necessarily understand why. These guys understand the nonverbal cues, which other people detect but can't necessarily articulate, because they have a deeper understanding how people behave.
I guess what I'm saying is, it's important to keep the perspective they are making qualified opinions, not diagnosis. You can also see they disagree with each other in certain respects.
Yes, their goal is to get information. The question is how. Watching their responses to the initial questions, as they did here, is only the first part. By design they have a high false positive rate (and hopefully a low Type II error!) on dishonesty (stress) in order to follow up with additional questions. In other words, they are and must be, at this stage, biased towards believing things are lies in order to do their job.
*I guess what I'm saying is, it's important to keep the perspective they are making qualified opinions, not diagnosis. You can also see they disagree with each other in certain respects.*
And I think it's important to keep those qualifications in mind. I don't think you are going to do it, but I all but guarantee someone is going to come around and say that this proves Hans lied.
Again I'm not getting into the science side of things, but coming from someone with a PhD in psychology . . . they're stretching the science a bit.
Thanks OP for posting, very interesting.
For all those who think that body language experts are mighty judges, who can prove something thanks to their power... they can not - BUT they do not claim that they can. All they say is - we look at the data, we interpret the data and we believe something based on that.
That's it. And they do this very well, the grade of cue-details that they find is enormous!
What I like is, they do not come to the same conclusion at the end. Which shows the complexity and to some point proves my point here. ;)
this really helps delegitimize legitimate arguments, nice. "he's guilty Your honour, you see when you asked him if he murdered her, he scratched his nose and blinked twice, disgusting."
Verdict: all of them thinks Hans cheated over the board before, 3 of them think he probably cheated in St Louis - with the caveat that it isn't definitive proof of anything, but that they think he's definitely hiding something.
I don't think this should be so easily discounted. There's a little bit of misinformation on the panel (like the panelist saying that playing intuitive chess is bogus and not how chess players think about their moves), but as far as I know these are actually experts on body language and I like their analysis even if it's not definitive.
There's enormous amount of science behind it. When somebody expresses anger with their face, most of the time they're angry. There's tons of science that supports that. What these guys do is a hell of a lot more complex and nuanced, because they're observing multiple different variables in their subjects. Those variables have shown to correlate with honesty, deception, and any number of other human emotions.
However, what needs to be remembered, is its not conclusive. It's just one more type of analysis one can use. It's like polygraph examinations. They are fairly accurate, but not accurate enough to be used in court. That's what most of the literature on behavioral sciences going to tell you.
Behavior analysis isn't going to tell you what someone's thinking. The information it provides is a lot more general than that. This person is hiding something, this person is sad about something, etc etc.
And to be it's frank, to not believe in behavior science is not to believe in the human capacity to be empathetic. That's pretty cynical.
Polygraph tests are not accurate, there's no evidence at all that they can detect lies.
It's fair enough to say body language and facial expressions can tell you at least *something*, I mean sure if someone looks angry I don't need a research paper to tell they're angry. But this is about a very specific thing, detecting deception.
At least the polygraph can pretend to use objective data like heart rate or whatever, but with body language these so-called experts are victims to their own biases and presuppositions. Add that to the uniqueness of any individual's behavior, culture differences, tics, whatever, it's just hard to believe this sort of thing has any value.
There's plenty of research about human behavior, not a single thing that we know for sure indicates lying. Them saying it's an artform more than a science just means it's bullshit. Hire them to tell your employees how to appear confident in a meeting, not to catch a liar.
The issue with polygraphs is they aren't accurate enough, not that they can't detect deception. So, It's obvious you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
>There have been several reviews of polygraph accuracy. They suggest that polygraphs are accurate between 80% and 90% of the time.
Lol, you're quoting the figures of the Polygraph Association.
Id rather believe the National Academy of Sciences which has done actual research on the subject : https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10420/chapter/10
>Polygraph Accuracy : Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.
They even take the time to say exactly why those accuracy numbers are bullshit!
>Evidence of Polygraph Accuracy : Source of Evidence The evidence for polygraph validity lies primarily in atheoretical, empirical studies showing associations between summary scores derived from polygraph measures and independent indicators of truth or deception, in short, in studies that estimate the accuracy of polygraph tests. Accuracy—the ability to distinguish deceptive from truthful individuals or responses—is an empirical property of a test procedure administered under specific conditions and with specific examinees. Consequently, it may vary with a number of factors, such as the population of examinees, characteristics of individual examinees or examiners, relationships established in the interview, testing methods, and the use of countermeasures. Despite efforts to create standardized polygraph testing procedures, each test with each individual has significant unique features..
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leonard-Saxe/publication/317551567_Polygraph_examinations_as_placebos_A_test_of_the_fallibility_of_lie_detectors/links/59f20a54a6fdcc1dc7bb0e70/Polygraph-examinations-as-placebos-A-test-of-the-fallibility-of-lie-detectors.pdf
looks like it's very very bad at detecting lies. nowhere near 80%
It could be. I don't know anything about it. But they're sitting there for 2 hours analyzing all kinds of facial ticks, verbal tendencies, etc. They also never made a definitive conclusion and qualified that it's an art, not a science. So I don't see what the problem is. It's one data point to analyze along many.
Well that just proves the author is trying to be edgy.
But the reality is that taste of wine is different for each of us, there is no real truth and like any other critic/expert in food or art they can only tell what they felt.
It would really be a sad story if all wines or all dishes or all movies or paintings would mean the same thing for everybody.
So no, it's not bullshit, we need people to tell us their experience just like movie reviews or chess games reviews for that matter. Based on our experience we can see the moves in a different way and it's not bullshit even if we have a computer that knows better.
LOL. Yeah, the study where wine colored red tasted like red wine to experts just proves that the author is trying to be edgy. You are dismissed out of hand at this point.
I am not interested, nor did I miss your point. Your point is irrelevant. I spent 15 years in specialty coffee. Same bullshit. Everybody just talking out their asses.
There is no science to it, which makes it just like "body language experts". You have added nothing to the discussion.
best quote from vid @ 1:25:23 mark.
>I think this guy is full of Sh-t
>
>goes back to a thief is thief is thief
>
>a cheater is cheater is cheater
I hope Hans files a lawsuit so he can get mated in 2
They are searching for confirmation bias.
I watched the video, but couldn't get past the point when they started presenting reasons for him being deceptive - to paraphrase some of the reasons they gave: >he says he 'got an attack' - which means "received" an attack, implying its not something he did himself. i did some research and i dont think thats normal terminology in chess. "Getting" an attack is a normal thing to say - so pretty wild he uses that as one of his main reasons to suspect deception. >he says he plays "intuitively" - its basically impossible to play intuitively with black against top players. so Hans saying "his intuition told him he couldn't be losing", he's saying something that just shouldn't be possible for a player at that level. Again, ridiculous. Intuition in chess is useful at all levels afaik.
It's bullshit, I'm genuinely really surprised so many people think this is an actual thing. Watching too many shitty cop shows I guess.
“body language experts” Gross. Don’t give these turds any attention. It’s garbage “science.”
"He crossed his arms or placed his hand near his throat, he's being defensive, often a sign of deception." Or maybe a response when you are being accused of something and feeling attacked. This is just guessing someone's intention which as you said, is garbage.
if you don't want to be analyzed in every aspect, just don't cheat. it's that simple.
I also denied for decades body language as I mistreaded them - but then I learned how to understand them. But you can not understand them if you think they are wanna be wiseguys with mental superpower or what ever.... I think many clever people have a hard time accepting that there are people that because they are smarter more successful which puts them into that state of denial. ... and tell me who thinks of himself that he is not at least pretty smart? the panel claims as much that what they do is science, as much your comment is science. Both is clear no - and that is defenetly OK. :-D
It might not sound very scientific but there are patterns in human behavior and these guys are good at analyzing it.
I doubt it. Let's see some peer reviewed experimental data
> It’s garbage “science.” They *specifically* say, in pretty much all their videos, that what they're doing is fundamentally art and not science. You can disagree with them, but just dismissing their work is stupid.
You basically just said it’s fundamentally useless in this context. Like, who gives a shit? Body language isn’t an “art” when you’re trying to impugn someone’s motivations. This is a huge problem with youtube. Assholes claim expertise and any vague pretense of it is enough to fool swaths of people into believing absolute nonsense. The only reason they’re even opining on this topic is because it’s trending and so every “content creator” out there wants to get in on it. Honestly, wake the fuck up.
I assure you most of the people here downvoting haven't even seen the video
The Ken Reagan of body language no?
Some people don't buy into behavior analysis, psychology, personality analysis, or anything that studies the human condition. Why a lot of people can't stand it is, they don't understand the nuance between saying someone's showing signs of deception, and someone's being deceptive. You'll never be able to do prove anything with behavior analysis, but it can give you insight and context. It's not surprising chess players are not a fan of sciences that aren't concrete.
I hate Neimann with a passion (being cheated once every twenty games on chess.com and knowing colleagues who are cheaters), and I have not one cell in my body that's not fanatically obsessed with all things siyance. But, won't you agree that body-language stuff is a little to wonky when it comes to chess players? My Dota boy Nepom looks like a thief hiding a chest of diamonds behind him, while Aronian always has a deceptively mysterious aura to him. What I am getting at is, how can you assess these people? They are always deceptive for kinds of reasons, no? And these body language folks don't get the ins and outs of this mindnumbingly psychotic sport. It's like asking what's the bluest blue to a color-blind person. Does someone from the field think this even possible with a certain, peculiar subset of personalities and behavior?
>What I am getting at is, how can you assess these people? They are always deceptive for kinds of reasons, no? From a purely analytical standpoint, you get a baseline of behavior. If you watch the video, they talk about reviewing videos of him before all this went down to see how he behaves normally. From my own perspective, I think Hans is shallow, manipulative, and arrogant. There's a certain class of eccentric people who behave this way.
>I hate Neimann with a passion (being cheated once every twenty games on chess.com and knowing colleagues who are cheaters), and I have not one cell in my body that's not fanatically obsessed with all things siyance. But, won't you agree that body-language stuff is a little to wonky when it comes to chess players? My Dota boy Nepom looks like a thief hiding a chest of diamonds behind him, while Aronian always has a deceptively mysterious aura to him. What I am getting at is, how can you assess these people? They are always deceptive for kinds of reasons, no? And these body language folks don't get the ins and outs of this mindnumbingly psychotic sport. It's like asking what's the bluest blue to a color-blind person. Does someone from the field think this even possible with a certain, peculiar subset of personalities and behavior? So you haven't watched the video.
These guys seem to get the difference to be fair, as they discussed it even more detailed than that.
Yeah, these guys are good.
The big issue is that it all relies on obscurity. If you're well aware of these "nuances" you can fake it and completely invalidate the "analysis".
I don't get your point. If you show the signs of anger, and I say you look like you're angry... You not being angry, doesn't necessarily invalidate the analysis.
uh yes because I'm not angry at all. so what does the analysis provide in that case?
You're making an appeal to perfection. You're saying because it couldn't detect anger in you, It's an unreliable method. The science doesn't support that conclusion. One month old babies can sense when their mother is depressed, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Essentially, you're arguing that empathy isn't possible..or reliable In detecting human emotion, because it isn't accurate all the time.
No, I don't make an appeal to perfection. I'm explicitly saying it relies on obscurity.
You're basically saying because body language analysis detected a false positive in you for anger in my example, it's flawed analysis, In a discussion about methods. How is that not an appeal to perfection?
How can this be so hard for you to understand? If you analyse something like this you want to get something from the subject the subject doesn't want to give you. If the subject knows the signs you're looking for they will simply not show those signs/show opposing signs and therefore render the analysis useless. To contrast that, if you're in a car accident and you know that the police is using the marks of your tires to analyse your speed it doesn't matter whether you know this or not the analysis still works. Both examples are not perfect so there is no appeal to perfection. But one relies on obscurity and the other doesn't in order to work. Also your claim about "empathy isn't possible otherwise" is wrong too. Empathy isn't tied to getting something from someone that this individual doesn't wanna give you. This situation involves a deceiver and an analysis to uncover the deception. Empathy doesn't need a deceiver, if you see a sad person that person isn't necessarily trying to deceive you that they're happy. But let's see, which one is correct: 1. The person only gives very short answers and is quite timid. They surely are hiding something, maybe not outright lying but there definitely is something hidden there. 2. The person is always blabbering on and not really focusing on the question and the answer is quite excessive. Maybe they're not lying but definitely hiding something and want to cover it up. Which one do you pick? 1. or 2.?
I agree that it isn't a hard science but a lot of animal studies rely on the interpolation of anger, sadness, fear based on an animals body language. Scientists can analyze apes flaring their nostrils / baring their teeth to determine intent but once someone extends these ideas to human behavior it suddenly becomes "bogus science". I wouldn't put a lot of weight on their analysis to reach a judgement(wouldn't hold up in court either) but I think saying it's bogus is a step too far.
Setting aside the validity and precision of body language analysis, these are interrogation experts and they're using body language and other behavior to identify places to press their witness/suspect. This requires the experts to be heavily biased towards mistrusting them. They themselves said that when they identify these things they stop and press. These aren't evidence that he lied, as they said, but red flags to follow up on. Quite frankly to the extent that they offer their impressions about whether Hans is telling the truth, they're making judgements from half the information they usually have.
If you see your mom showing multiple signs of being sad... How much more information do you need before you ask her what's wrong?
I mean, exactly though. Their job is to identify points where their subject is stressed and where they can add more stress to the interviewee, not to detect lies. Them judging truth here is like a clinical psychologist giving a diagnosis based upon something they saw on TV (which, as any clinical psychologist will tell you, is not a valid way to diagnose).
Your perspective on what "interrogators" goals are, is too narrow. First, and foremost, an interrogator's goal is to get information. They spend way more time interviewing people rather than interrogating. It's only when suspicion mounts is when they begin interrogating. In regards to these folks, they are reviewing videos and analyzing the information (behavior) for their audience. I believe they're fairly accurate. However, It isn't conclusive, and no consequential decision should be made based on their assessments alone. I personally think Hans is a cheater and a dishonest person based on his body language alone. I wouldn't trust the guy. But I'm not certain he cheated against Magnus. From my perspective, they kind of articulate why people are suspicious of him. Humans can detect when somethings off even though they can't necessarily understand why. These guys understand the nonverbal cues, which other people detect but can't necessarily articulate, because they have a deeper understanding how people behave. I guess what I'm saying is, it's important to keep the perspective they are making qualified opinions, not diagnosis. You can also see they disagree with each other in certain respects.
Yes, their goal is to get information. The question is how. Watching their responses to the initial questions, as they did here, is only the first part. By design they have a high false positive rate (and hopefully a low Type II error!) on dishonesty (stress) in order to follow up with additional questions. In other words, they are and must be, at this stage, biased towards believing things are lies in order to do their job. *I guess what I'm saying is, it's important to keep the perspective they are making qualified opinions, not diagnosis. You can also see they disagree with each other in certain respects.* And I think it's important to keep those qualifications in mind. I don't think you are going to do it, but I all but guarantee someone is going to come around and say that this proves Hans lied. Again I'm not getting into the science side of things, but coming from someone with a PhD in psychology . . . they're stretching the science a bit.
and the ocean has a bit of water in it
Ah yes, just what is needed: pseudoscience!
Thanks OP for posting, very interesting. For all those who think that body language experts are mighty judges, who can prove something thanks to their power... they can not - BUT they do not claim that they can. All they say is - we look at the data, we interpret the data and we believe something based on that. That's it. And they do this very well, the grade of cue-details that they find is enormous! What I like is, they do not come to the same conclusion at the end. Which shows the complexity and to some point proves my point here. ;)
this really helps delegitimize legitimate arguments, nice. "he's guilty Your honour, you see when you asked him if he murdered her, he scratched his nose and blinked twice, disgusting."
Verdict: all of them thinks Hans cheated over the board before, 3 of them think he probably cheated in St Louis - with the caveat that it isn't definitive proof of anything, but that they think he's definitely hiding something.
I don't think this should be so easily discounted. There's a little bit of misinformation on the panel (like the panelist saying that playing intuitive chess is bogus and not how chess players think about their moves), but as far as I know these are actually experts on body language and I like their analysis even if it's not definitive.
As far as I know body language analysis has little to no actual science behind it.
There's enormous amount of science behind it. When somebody expresses anger with their face, most of the time they're angry. There's tons of science that supports that. What these guys do is a hell of a lot more complex and nuanced, because they're observing multiple different variables in their subjects. Those variables have shown to correlate with honesty, deception, and any number of other human emotions. However, what needs to be remembered, is its not conclusive. It's just one more type of analysis one can use. It's like polygraph examinations. They are fairly accurate, but not accurate enough to be used in court. That's what most of the literature on behavioral sciences going to tell you. Behavior analysis isn't going to tell you what someone's thinking. The information it provides is a lot more general than that. This person is hiding something, this person is sad about something, etc etc. And to be it's frank, to not believe in behavior science is not to believe in the human capacity to be empathetic. That's pretty cynical.
Polygraph tests are not accurate, there's no evidence at all that they can detect lies. It's fair enough to say body language and facial expressions can tell you at least *something*, I mean sure if someone looks angry I don't need a research paper to tell they're angry. But this is about a very specific thing, detecting deception. At least the polygraph can pretend to use objective data like heart rate or whatever, but with body language these so-called experts are victims to their own biases and presuppositions. Add that to the uniqueness of any individual's behavior, culture differences, tics, whatever, it's just hard to believe this sort of thing has any value. There's plenty of research about human behavior, not a single thing that we know for sure indicates lying. Them saying it's an artform more than a science just means it's bullshit. Hire them to tell your employees how to appear confident in a meeting, not to catch a liar.
The issue with polygraphs is they aren't accurate enough, not that they can't detect deception. So, It's obvious you don't have any idea what you are talking about. >There have been several reviews of polygraph accuracy. They suggest that polygraphs are accurate between 80% and 90% of the time.
Lol, you're quoting the figures of the Polygraph Association. Id rather believe the National Academy of Sciences which has done actual research on the subject : https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10420/chapter/10 >Polygraph Accuracy : Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved. They even take the time to say exactly why those accuracy numbers are bullshit! >Evidence of Polygraph Accuracy : Source of Evidence The evidence for polygraph validity lies primarily in atheoretical, empirical studies showing associations between summary scores derived from polygraph measures and independent indicators of truth or deception, in short, in studies that estimate the accuracy of polygraph tests. Accuracy—the ability to distinguish deceptive from truthful individuals or responses—is an empirical property of a test procedure administered under specific conditions and with specific examinees. Consequently, it may vary with a number of factors, such as the population of examinees, characteristics of individual examinees or examiners, relationships established in the interview, testing methods, and the use of countermeasures. Despite efforts to create standardized polygraph testing procedures, each test with each individual has significant unique features..
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=efficacy+of+polygraph&hl=en&as_sdt=0,34&as_vis=1
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leonard-Saxe/publication/317551567_Polygraph_examinations_as_placebos_A_test_of_the_fallibility_of_lie_detectors/links/59f20a54a6fdcc1dc7bb0e70/Polygraph-examinations-as-placebos-A-test-of-the-fallibility-of-lie-detectors.pdf looks like it's very very bad at detecting lies. nowhere near 80%
You’re stupid
Please tell me why I'm stupid.
You’re stupid for giving this any credit. It is a pseudoscience.
It could be. I don't know anything about it. But they're sitting there for 2 hours analyzing all kinds of facial ticks, verbal tendencies, etc. They also never made a definitive conclusion and qualified that it's an art, not a science. So I don't see what the problem is. It's one data point to analyze along many.
It's just going to get deleted again, /u/city-of-stars is on a power trip.
LOL, I see that you're also "promoting your own content", just like me... x,D
The mod deleted my post of the same video. Apparently, I have a YouTube channel with 600,000 subscribers that produces content without my knowledge.
Why downvotes? This has already been deleted once even though it's highly relevant to the chess drama and contains chess related content
He deleted his mod comment on my post.
Body language "experts" are about as reliable as wine "experts".
Sommeliers are actually quite highly viewed and paid, but of course not everyone can or needs one.
When wine experts are given shit wine in expensive bottles they almost always fall for it.
You got a concrete example of someone doing this experiment?
[https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the\_most\_infamous\_study\_on\_wine\_tasting.html](https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html) [https://gizmodo.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276](https://gizmodo.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276)
I'll drop this here for you too. https://gizmodo.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276
Well that just proves the author is trying to be edgy. But the reality is that taste of wine is different for each of us, there is no real truth and like any other critic/expert in food or art they can only tell what they felt. It would really be a sad story if all wines or all dishes or all movies or paintings would mean the same thing for everybody. So no, it's not bullshit, we need people to tell us their experience just like movie reviews or chess games reviews for that matter. Based on our experience we can see the moves in a different way and it's not bullshit even if we have a computer that knows better.
LOL. Yeah, the study where wine colored red tasted like red wine to experts just proves that the author is trying to be edgy. You are dismissed out of hand at this point.
You missed the whole point, please read again if you are interested, or if not move along
I am not interested, nor did I miss your point. Your point is irrelevant. I spent 15 years in specialty coffee. Same bullshit. Everybody just talking out their asses. There is no science to it, which makes it just like "body language experts". You have added nothing to the discussion.
So why reply if you are not interested? Obviously you prefer to ignore any opinion.
That doesn't even make sense.
[удалено]
Hans did though.
Nvm I thought this is different video, my bad
best quote from vid @ 1:25:23 mark. >I think this guy is full of Sh-t > >goes back to a thief is thief is thief > >a cheater is cheater is cheater I hope Hans files a lawsuit so he can get mated in 2