Infallible lie detector

Great Debates
1

Good or bad?
The thread discussing a telepathic group mind reminded me of a question I’ve been meaning to posit here.

In the book The Truth Machine an infallible lie detector has been invented.

Basic summary, no spoilers.

It starts out as a large non-portable device, hook a person up to it and ask questions. Green is truth, red indicates an attempt to decieve. Answering a question in a way that is technically or literally true to misdirect the questioner will still trigger a false response.

The fifth amendment has been rescinded so you can be put on the witness stand and asked, “Did you participate in robbing xyzzy bank.” Honestly answering that you didn’t lets you walk out the door in five minutes. Refusal to answer is tantamount to a confession.

Somewhere about here a policy is put in place where once a year you have to answer, “Have you commited a felony since 20xx (date of implementation of truth machine)?” to be allowed access to government programs and jobs. I believe that at this time all medicine is socialized and covered as a government service.

Eventually technology allows it to be put in a briefcase available for purchase and use by the general public. There is a noticable spike in divorces at this point.

Ultimately the whole thing is microminiaturized to the point of being a wearable accessory and finally a surgical implant with the indicator on the back of your hand.

The question, would the world be a utopia if no one could successfully tell a lie? Or where and how would it fall apart?

2

How does the machine respond when the wearer answers the question, “Yes or No: Have you stopped beating your wife?” The ability to identify lies with 100% success doesn’t preclude the existence of deception.

I don’t see any reason to think that the invention of such a machine would lead us to some kind of utopia. Partially because of what I mentioned above, and also because people will still continue to cheat/steal/kill/etc., regardless of whether or not they can successfully lie.

Also, I don’t like the idea of implanting the machine in my body. :slight_smile:

3

[QUOTE=Projammer]
Somewhere about here a policy is put in place where once a year you have to answer, “Have you commited a felony since 20xx (date of implementation of truth machine)?” to be allowed access to government programs and jobs. I believe that at this time all medicine is socialized and covered as a government service.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a terrible question, and my answer would be, “I don’t know.” To answer it, you’d not only need a detailed knowledge of the relevant criminal code, but also a knowledge of how the courts have applied it to particular factual situations. At least 99% of the population doesn’t have the legal knowledge to answer it.

4

[QUOTE=Giles]
That’s a terrible question, and my answer would be, “I don’t know.” To answer it, you’d not only need a detailed knowledge of the relevant criminal code, but also a knowledge of how the courts have applied it to particular factual situations. At least 99% of the population doesn’t have the legal knowledge to answer it.
[/QUOTE]
Add to that the sub-optimal memory that many of us have, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

5

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
How does the machine respond when the wearer answers the question, “Yes or No: Have you stopped beating your wife?” The ability to identify lies with 100% success doesn’t preclude the existence of deception.
[/QUOTE]
Either answer would result as a false statement as neither answer is true.

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I don’t see any reason to think that the invention of such a machine would lead us to some kind of utopia. Partially because of what I mentioned above, and also because people will still continue to cheat/steal/kill/etc., regardless of whether or not they can successfully lie.
[/QUOTE]
That is substantially correct for the current generation, but as children are born and raised into a society where they know such activity will be caught and punished with absolute certainty those actions will become aberant.

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
Also, I don’t like the idea of implanting the machine in my body. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]
Not relevent in the context of the question. That is an option, you just forfeit all claim to government services beyond basic legal support if you are the victim of a crime or are in need of emergency health services.

[QUOTE=Giles]
That’s a terrible question, and my answer would be, “I don’t know.” To answer it, you’d not only need a detailed knowledge of the relevant criminal code, but also a knowledge of how the courts have applied it to particular factual situations. At least 99% of the population doesn’t have the legal knowledge to answer it.
[/QUOTE]
While there are some actions that would be in a grey area covered by “I don’t know” there are plenty that fall solidly into “Oh hell yes” that 99% of the population has no doubt would result in serious consequences. embezzlement, theft, robbery, murder, kidnapping, rape, and a whole list of others.

6

If used sparingly it would probably be a good thing. Used too much, and it would be a disaster. “Little white lies” appear to be a necessary lubricant in human affairs.

Another flaw in a technology like this; it can’t tell you if the person in question is simply wrong. Faulty memory like LilShieste says, an error in perception, even outright delusion wouldn’t be caught by a truth detector.

It’d be interesting to see how many political/religious/etc leaders and gurus and pundits actually believe what they are saying though, and how many are just manipulating people.

Another question is what the effects would be in tyrannies. On the other hand, it has obvious uses in ferreting out dissent. On the other hand, if a tyrant succeeds in eliminating all the dissenters from his government, how often would there be enough people to even run a government ? A popular demagogue might be able to pull it off, but a rule-of-the-iron-fist type might find out that he’s not paranoid, he really is surrounded by enemies, and he can’t get rid of them all without collapsing his government.

7

[QUOTE=Projammer]
The question, would the world be a utopia if no one could successfully tell a lie? Or where and how would it fall apart?
[/QUOTE]
It would fall apart very early. If the officials in power controlled who got called to answer questions, and what questions were asked, they would use it to destroy their rivals and solidify their hold on power. If, somehow, egalitarian access to the machines and universal abilities to lodge accusations and write questions for the accused was implemented, then busybodies would become a new ruling elite. The inbalance of information betwen people who want to simply live their lives and people who are willing to spend their lives destroying others for personal advancement would be the failing point. Similar to the “Red Scare” of the 1950’s where people were accused and half-truths and leading questions were used to destroy many careers and land people in jail. This type of system would breed a new type of Mcarthy-ism, one in which ordinary people, who don’t hide their actions, even those which could be used against them, would be smeared and damaged by unscrupulous individuals who, although committing heinous deeds themselves, simply hid their actions better.

For a similar book, which also takes a “this would create a utopia” viewpoint, consider David Brin’s The Transparent Society. Brin also ignores the problem of people gaming the system to gain power for themselves, taking actions to hide their flaws, while using the court of public opinion to nitpick their rivals/opponents to death.

Enjoy,
Steven

8

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
It would fall apart very early. If the officials in power controlled who got called to answer questions, and what questions were asked, they would use it to destroy their rivals and solidify their hold on power. If, somehow, egalitarian access to the machines and universal abilities to lodge accusations and write questions for the accused was implemented, then busybodies would become a new ruling elite. The inbalance of information betwen people who want to simply live their lives and people who are willing to spend their lives destroying others for personal advancement would be the failing point. Similar to the “Red Scare” of the 1950’s where people were accused and half-truths and leading questions were used to destroy many careers and land people in jail. This type of system would breed a new type of Mcarthy-ism, one in which ordinary people, who don’t hide their actions, even those which could be used against them, would be smeared and damaged by unscrupulous individuals who, although committing heinous deeds themselves, simply hid their actions better.

For a similar book, which also takes a “this would create a utopia” viewpoint, consider David Brin’s The Transparent Society. Brin also ignores the problem of people gaming the system to gain power for themselves, taking actions to hide their flaws, while using the court of public opinion to nitpick their rivals/opponents to death.

Enjoy,
Steven
[/QUOTE]
McCarthyism depended on FUD - and in this society, the response “No, I am not a communist” would be accepted absolutely. Ergo, the innocent would be immune. The court of public opinion could not be used against them.

Also, the accused person could just ask, “Well, what have you done?” and thereby instantly unravel the accuser’s hidden flaws; he could also ask, “Why are you harrassing me with all these questions?” and expose the accuser to the very court of public opinion that cannot be used against the innocent.

I don’t think the problems you describe works if everyone has one of these chips in them - the audience cannot be fooled.

9

[QUOTE=begbert2]
McCarthyism depended on FUD - and in this society, the response “No, I am not a communist” would be accepted absolutely. Ergo, the innocent would be immune. The court of public opinion could not be used against them.

Also, the accused person could just ask, “Well, what have you done?” and thereby instantly unravel the accuser’s hidden flaws; he could also ask, “Why are you harrassing me with all these questions?” and expose the accuser to the very court of public opinion that cannot be used against the innocent.

I don’t think the problems you describe works if everyone has one of these chips in them - the audience cannot be fooled.
[/QUOTE]
The problem arises when the accused isn’t “innocent”, but the accusation itself is unjust. Like being gay, or atheist, or finding people other than your spouse attractive or liberal, and so on.

10

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The problem arises when the accused isn’t “innocent”, but the accusation itself is unjust. Like being gay, or atheist, or finding people other than your spouse attractive or liberal, and so on.
[/QUOTE]
“It’s not against the law to be gay in this country. What’s your problem with it? Are you some sort of bigot?”

“Why do you care what I believe? What are you aiming to accoplish with prying into my private, personal beliefs about religion?”

“I’m sleeping on the couch again, aren’t I?”*

  • conceded that white lies are casualty of the truth chip…
11

Society would undoubtedly collapse under the weight of the “Honey, does my butt look big?” question; or worse “Mommy, Daddy, you’re still proud of me even after what I did?”

12

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I don’t see any reason to think that the invention of such a machine would lead us to some kind of utopia. Partially because of what I mentioned above, and also because people will still continue to cheat/steal/kill/etc., regardless of whether or not they can successfully lie.
[/QUOTE]

Flashing on the SNL skit “The Honest Planet.”

13

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
It would fall apart very early. If the officials in power controlled who got called to answer questions, and what questions were asked, they would use it to destroy their rivals and solidify their hold on power. If, somehow, egalitarian access to the machines and universal abilities to lodge accusations and write questions for the accused was implemented, then busybodies would become a new ruling elite. The inbalance of information betwen people who want to simply live their lives and people who are willing to spend their lives destroying others for personal advancement would be the failing point. Similar to the “Red Scare” of the 1950’s where people were accused and half-truths and leading questions were used to destroy many careers and land people in jail. This type of system would breed a new type of Mcarthy-ism, one in which ordinary people, who don’t hide their actions, even those which could be used against them, would be smeared and damaged by unscrupulous individuals who, although committing heinous deeds themselves, simply hid their actions better.

For a similar book, which also takes a “this would create a utopia” viewpoint, consider David Brin’s The Transparent Society. Brin also ignores the problem of people gaming the system to gain power for themselves, taking actions to hide their flaws, while using the court of public opinion to nitpick their rivals/opponents to death.

Enjoy,
Steven
[/QUOTE]

But the questioner is also subject to being questioned. “What is your motive for questioning me?”. And hiding your actions will be moot when all someone has to do is ask if you have any involvement in whatever incident.

Imagine political campaigns where one candidate makes all their statements under the “eye” of the machine while their opponent refuses to. Who would you be more willing to believe when they say they aren’t beholden to special interests.

Shareholders meetings where the CEO/CFO/board members/Sr. accountants and managers state that all their actions have been legal and above reproach. Enron would never have happened. At least not on the scale that it did.

Sadam stating that he had no WMDs. Admitted, we would still be there over the whole genocide thing, but the reasons would be valid.

There would be some rough times, and white lies would certainly be a casualty. But then, I believe the questions necesitating white lies would also be a casualty. Imagine not being asked if these pants make my ass look fat. Or if it was good for you too..

14

People have been arguing for thousands of year about what truth is. There a small and for the most part uninteresting set of questions that have an easily identifiable objective truth. Simple questions like “Is that house white?” need a lot of qualification to decide if you are really presenting the truth. I can look over there and say yes. Am I lying if the house has blue colored window frame? Is it white or is it egg shell #3? What if the other side is blue?

15

[QUOTE=gazpacho]
People have been arguing for thousands of year about what truth is. There a small and for the most part uninteresting set of questions that have an easily identifiable objective truth.
[/QUOTE]

Red herring. The machine does not reveal whether my statement is the objective truth. It reveals whether my statement is a lie. I might not know what’s true, but I know when I’m lying, and now you too can know when I’m lying.

This is discussed in the Spider Robinson short story, “Satan’s Children,” featuring not a machine but a drug called TWT – “The Whole Truth” – which, in addition to a mild hallucinogenic/euphoric effect, fills the user with a compulsion to tell the truth – as in, seek out the nearest person you’ve been lying to and set things straight. In the story, this is a high in it’s own right. “It’s not the drug, it’s the truth that’s addictive!” Users soon discard the drug and simply become more honest.

16

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Red herring. The machine does not reveal whether my statement is the objective truth. It reveals whether my statement is a lie. I might not know what’s true, but I know when I’m lying, and now you too can know when I’m lying.
[/quote]
Am I lying when I say the house is white if the windows are trimmed in blue?

17

[QUOTE=gazpacho]
Am I lying when I say the house is white if the windows are trimmed in blue?
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: No. That is the whole point.

18

Relevant joke:
One day a father brings home a new robot that can tell with 100% accuracy whether or not you are lying. If you tell a lie, it will smack you on the head. The bigger the lie, the harder the smack.

After he introduces this to his kids and explains what it does, he asks
Dad: “So, Johnny, have you done your homework?”
Johnny: “Yes”
<smack from the robot>

Dad: “Johnny, what grade did you get on your last Math test?”
Johnny: “A”
<bigger smack>

Dad: “Johnny, are you going to get a passing grade this semester in Math?”
Johnny: “Sure”
<even bigger smack>

Dad: “You’re useless! When I was your age I was an ace at Math!”
<robot smacks dad across the room>
:smiley:

19

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:dubious: No. That is the whole point.
[/QUOTE]
Then the use of a lie detector does not find much in the way of useful information. People believe the most outrageous things.

20

[QUOTE=Projammer]
The question, would the world be a utopia if no one could successfully tell a lie? Or where and how would it fall apart?
[/QUOTE]

It would be a bad thing if we could never tell a lie, especially “white lies”.

Examples

  1. You are throwing a surprise birthday party for someone, and they ask you “what are you doing at 3pm?” You could tell a white lie that you will be studying, while actually you will be preparing the surprise party for them.

  2. Your friend/colleague just got a haircut that you don’t like too much, and he/she asks you if you like it. It would not help anyone if you couldn’t tell a white lie and say that it looks good.

  3. In general any case where a white lie is best for the recipient of the lie.

  4. On a more serious note, the classic “Jews in your basement, Nazis looking for them” example.