Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                     

Lie detector use in public debates

 Debate biofeedback
  (+5, -6)
(+5, -6) 		  [vote for,
against]

Politicians should build trust by using truth serums (alcohol or sodium thiopental) while connected to biological analysis and theatric outputs. We would put them in an fMRI, connect them to a polygraph, and use eye-tracking and voice stress analysis. We would process all these inputs and connect control theatrical outputs. If we were more confident they were lying, we would turn down the lights, turn up the ominous music, increase the echo, feedback, and distortion in their voice.

WHY?

Democracy would benefit from reducing dishonesty from elected officials.

Political lies harm democracy.

We should use technology to draw attention to lies from politicians.

Confronting lies in real-time is the only way to encourage honesty from our politicians.

Politicians know that they can get away with dishonesty. Correcting politicians by pointing out their lies, after the event, is ineffective. The correction never receives the same audience as the live event. The media loves the drama and will repeat what politicians say, even if it isn't true.

Watching debates would be more entertaining, educational, and informative.

We should support candidates that are completely transparent with us.

Politicians don't have a right to lie to us.

There is no reason, other than national security (which we can make exceptions for) for politicians to be dishonest with us.

HOW?

Lets brainstorming and use trial & error to find the best way.

When a statement is flagged as a potential lie, they could be given a chance to clarify.

Politicians could be connected to lie detectors whenever they speak in public, just during public debates, or periodically (monthly/weekly/daily).

They could periodically report to a facility with a lie detector & answer questions.

Reporting

1. Direct reporting with computer software.

2. Voting knob used by polygraph experts with a computer averaging their score.

Indication

1. Altering the lighting. Less flattering light color & more shadows when they are lying.

2. Altering visuals. The nose could grow or shrink on an image of the politician behind them.

Examples from Popular Culture

1. Johnny Carson Lie Detector Politician 2. Meet the parents 3. Moe on the Simpsons.

Do politicians lie?

Bill Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman.

George HW Bush: Read my lips, no new taxes.

Obama: I will close Guantanamo.

Do lies that politicians tell us to cause problems? Or would our world be better if politicians were more honest?

What are the biggest problems resulting from politicians lying? I think one of the biggest problems is us choosing the wrong guy.

I'll give you an example: there are two candidates, & one of them is more qualified to be president. The other guy says all the stuff that we want to hear, & so he gets elected.

However, he never believed any of the stuff he said, he was just saying things to get elected. The harm done to society is we picked a less qualified guy, & so our nation, as a result, used more of its money in worse ways. The harm is that we were less competitive against other countries.

Our citizens made less money, fewer people were employed. We go to bad wars, etc.

Another harm to the country is we don't face the real problems. Every politician knows that our country should do certain things that aren't popular. Potential these type of items including reducing our dependence on foreign oil, & not stabilizing social security. Social security is the "3rd-rale" or the electrical issue that you get killed for trying to touch.

We could come up with some way to use technology to evaluate if politicians are lying to us.

I think the above are self-evident, & don't need to be argued. They can just be used as a given. However, I was wrong.

If these are true, then we should. Even the threat of lie detectors will stop dishonest people from going into politics, or force them to be honest. Also, if it doesn't stop all of the lying, it will serve the same purpose as the radar gun. People drive slowly, knowing that they might get caught.

Potential Questions that may be periodically be asked of politicians

Perhaps a panel of retired judges would approve 3 questions from the media that the judges feel are relevant.

1. Are you supporting this bill because you believe it will help or just because it is popular?

2. Will you balance the budget?

—myclob, Mar 06 2005

(?) Steven Johnson article http://slate.msn.com/id/2099411/
[JesusHChrist, Apr 05 2005]

Reasons to agree and disagree http://myclob.pbwik...where-lie-detectors
A different format for the same idea [myclob, Apr 05 2008]

(?) They are doing it! http://ap.google.co...wIkVi9msLQD93MIGGO0
They are doing a lie-detector debate! [myclob, Oct 10 2008]

[link]






       So the invention would be a lie detector that is meant to complement the rest of the output of a politician. If the politician was giving a speech the lie detector would play a visualization on a screen behind the politician and maybe change musical chords underneath the speech -- maybe chainging modes acording to different input. This could be advantageous to politicians because it would give them a higher bandwidth connection with their constituents.
—JesusHChrist, Mar 07 2005
   

       Magic lie detector?
—david_scothern, Mar 07 2005
   

       Lie-detector-biofeedback with color visualizations and musical accentuations will become very popular because it will allow politicians to REALLY communicate -- to really give people a detailed picture of their emotional process. This will make politicians like rock stars. Watching them will be much more entertaining, and educational. Once people learn to use these biofeedback machines themselves they can start to follow leaders who really feel like they do, not just say the right words.
—JesusHChrist, Mar 08 2005
   

       I honestly don't know.   

       With JHC's addition, is this still boardering on advocacy? And when you said [marked for deletion] did you mean it was OK for me to delete your comment, or my idea has been marked for deletion. Also, why do I need to read the help file, is the Idea not a good one? Does it not belong on this site? I deleted the link to my website is it still boardering on advococy. I had a new Idea of how to improve the world. I thought that is what this website was about.
—myclob, Mar 10 2005
   

       Does the lie-detector have a setting on the back that sets it to 'earnestly telling the truth' for that extra boost of plausability? This could be used for appearances on TV and party conferences.
—zen_tom, Mar 10 2005
   

       //We have the technology to stop people from lying to us// We do?
—AbsintheWithoutLeave, Mar 10 2005
   

       Thats a lie.
—skinflaps, Mar 10 2005
   

       Maybe the reason I suggest this, is because I have a built in emotion display... I blush terribly, turn red, when I get slightly mad. It is impossible for me to not be honest with how I feel. I think it should be the same with politicians.   

       “People who put themselves up for election are the ones I'd least like to have any power." We need to find some way of promoting good politicians, and discouraging bad politicians.   

       Perhaps a panel of retired judges would approve 3 questions from the media that the judges feel are relevant. The have new lie detectors that use cat scans, but politicians are pretty busy people, and I don't know if they could make weekly stops to the hospital for that.   

       If the equipment isn't too expensive, maybe they could just set it up in their office, so it could go quick. Or maybe the news outlet that had the rights to air the test/results would have to purchase it.
—myclob, Mar 17 2005
   

       Why does everyone talk about my crappy ideas, and no one even looks at this one?
—myclob, Apr 05 2005
   

       I think this is a great idea. Steven Johnson's "Mind Wide Open" is a good book. See link for a short article. Acutally in that article he has "PROS" and "CONS" along the lines of your reasons to agree and disagree. I think biofeedback is really the wave of the future. Once we learn to hack into our brains there will be no stopping us. But don't let that article fool you, you don't have to spend a lot of money to hack into your head. One easy way is to buy a 15 dollar lie detector kit and improvise around with it. Another way that even cheaper and more powerful is to look into someone elses eyes and watch for feedback loops -- reactions the other person has to you that you react to and so on. That is really the biofeedback wave of the future.
—JesusHChrist, Apr 05 2005
   

       Thanks for the article. I knew it was a good idea (my best) and figured that someone else would have thought of it! Good article.   

       By the way, when I get some time, I’m going to try and make a list of each reason to agree and disagree with each of my ideas. When you categorize each submission into “reasons to agree” “books that agree” etc, it makes it easier to move them into data bases. Then, once each submission is moved into a data base, you can create a survival of the fittest system, where the best ideas are able to “compete”, and “fight” for better “position”.   

       But I digress.   

       Individuals who want to run for office that would be willing to do this: 1. myclob 2. Anyone else?
—myclob, Apr 05 2005
   

       Seemingly similar situations might require very different approaches - I don't want to artificially limit someone who's trying to do an already difficult job [longshot9999]
—zen_tom, Apr 05 2005
   

       When you put it that way, it makes more sense - I was just pointing out that sometimes politicians have to change their positions - and perfectly reasonably too.   

       Though you have to admire those who take a stand on principle (sadly lacking in today's circus) They might be wrong, but they are at least admirably wrong.
—zen_tom, Apr 05 2005
   

       Can't you just look for the lump under their clothes and the confused look on their face?
—normzone, Mar 17 2006
   

       March, and [myclob] resurges.
—bungston, Mar 17 2006
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle