tronanews.com

Lie Detector Brain Scans Could Be the Future of Murder Trials
While this is interesting, it isn't really an improvement over traditional lie detector tests for a number of reasons despite contentions of those who insist that it works. Both technologies fail miserably when it comes to detecting lies, but that's not to say that brain scans aren't useful in a number of OTHER ways.

"Deliberately lying is hard work," Huizenga told VICE. "When you're telling the truth, you're just retrieving a memory. But when you lie you have to bring back the truth first and then manipulate it and doing that requires much more of the brain to be active. This means blood rushes to specific areas which are never really used when you're being truthful, and the fMRI allows us to detect these relative changes of blood flow."

The problem is that sometimes lies are simple and sometimes lies are complicated. The same goes for the truth and so when things are complicated the conclusion will always be GUILTY and when the situation is simple the conclusion will always be INNOCENT. There are other confounding variables to consider such as anxiety about whether or not the story is believable (true or not) and a host of other possible factors. So it seems obvious that this technology will never be appropriate for a court of law and should never be used to determine anything of importance.
LINK: https://www.vice.com/read/are-brain-scans-the-future-of-murder-trials-456

Smoke and mirrors. It's all just a big put on to try to fool crooks into confessing. The problem is that they snag some innocent people along the way. Law enforcment in general is more interested in scoring convictions than protecting the innocent.

Polygraph Expert Shows How to Beat a Lie Detector Test
More truth than most people can handle in this video!

desertrat: The funny thing is that none of the information presented in the Polygraph Expert video is new. It's all been presented in one way or another in this thread already and is actually what you might call common knowledge for the most part. I don't see how he can be charged with a crime for simply sharing information which is already obvious to any intelligent person.

Not only is polygraph evidence not admissible in court, but several companies who polygraph employees and potential employees have been sued. There were three cases that I know of where settlements topped THREE MILLION DOLARS. Any company dumb enough to continue using the polygraph is asking for a lawsuit.

The language of lying — Noah Zandan
The good thing about this video is that it points out that polygraphs and other methods of detecting lies are basically useless. However, the bad thing is that it suggests that "linguistic analysis" could be useful. Linguistic analysis is far too subjective and makes way too many assumptions to be worth anything at all. Ultimately it can't be put to the test and relying on media examples is cherry-picking at its worst! I'm not sure if believing your own bullshit is a form of lying, but if it is then the guy who narrates this video is a liar!

wildrose: Linguistic Text Analysis is just another half-assed attempt at convincing people that it's possible to detect lies. The four components of linguistic analysis (less self-reference, greater negativity, overly simplified story, and convoluted sentence structure) seem reasonable enough, but it's the usual smoke and mirrors routine. It's always the case that the decision as to whether someone is deceptive or not is made first and only then after the outcome is determined are the elements of linguistic analysis used to justify the conclusion. It's a scam just like any other lie detection scam, but scams often have the potential of making money or influencing others, etc.

pcslim: There are probably a lot of things loosely associated with deception, but they are too loosely associated to be useful in detecting deception. Ultimately it's wishful thinking to believe that there is a reliable way of detecting lies. That won't stop people from making claims because there are plenty of people who want to believe and there will always be people who will give fools what they want. It's hard to say if it's the charlatans or the overly eager customers who are the real problem, but that's been one of humankind's biggests problems since we first started forming into social groups.

I heard Ben Carson talking about truth serum and I'm afraid that even something along those lines would not yield reliable information. He specifically mentioned one drug by name, but said that there are several other drugs which have the same effect on the brain. The problem is that anything that is likely to have one effect on the brain is also likely to have other effects on the brain and the end result is that the information produced is not likely to be in any way accurate. And that's not even getting into the moral objections many of us would have with the use of such a substance.

shadylady: Wishful thinking gets the best of people quite often. They want something so bad that they convince themselves that it's possible. There will probably never be a reliable way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not. The only way is to discover irrefutable proof, but even then wishful thinking sometimes plays tricks on the mind and people jump to conclusions not supported by the evidence. Human minds seem especially vulnerable to this kind of weakness.