No, because if you repeat someone else's lie, you will not be telling the objective truth, but your statements will be free of the indicators of deception.I frequently have the problem where i can go through a day hearing nothing but false statements. In some the speakers are trying to deceive (or at least obfuscate the truth), in some the speakers are uneducated and using terms of art incorrectly, in some they really believe what they're saying but aren't living in our reality.This blog has been helpful to me as i think about which is which while someone is talking. I find it to be a very valuable tool.CPS ATTY
No. I have said things that were truthful....however I was deceptive at the same time.
No. If someone was being questioned in regard to a crime they participated in, they could acknowledge the truth that they are being confronted with while withholding information and still being deceptive. So, I guess my answer is they are separate but can occur simultaneously.
No.Truth verification means there are no signs of deception and the subject believes what they are saying. Deception detection means that the subject is willfully trying to deceive.
I say no. From the terms given, I think 'truth verification' is verifying the truth. 'Detection of deception' is only looking for deception. Verification of truth would go further and even to the final result of the actual verification that something is the truth. Detecting deception is just that: detecting and noting. It does not go further than that nor does it verify the untruth or lie. It would take another step or two to verify the deception.
No.Being truthful can also be a means to deceeve by withholding or omitting information.
No. When you verify someone is telling you the truth, you know a fact. If you need to find corroborative evidence, you can start looking for it based on that information.When you detect that someone is being deceptive, unless it's an either/or issue, such as, did you graduate college? yes/no, you still have no hard facts.
No. If my kids withheld information, for example, and I knew they were being deceptive, I still would not necessarily know the truth."Detection of deception" might lead you to find the truth but it is not "truth verification."
No. The truth is the truth however if a person doesn't tell the whole truth, deception will be detected. Dawn
With out knowing the definition of "Truth Verification" and "Deception Detection" and going by titles only...I would say yes and no.Yes:Because I would think truth verification and deception detection would have the same outcome. Separating fact from fiction.No: Because their purposes are different. Truth verification would be looking to validate truth. Where as deception detection would be looking for lies.Their difference lies in the purposes and their similarity lies in their outcome.Just my wild guess & explanation for it.Now to peak at everyone else's answers. ;)
of course not. people tell some truths and hide others. please analize Knox interviews and book excerpts!!!! i read / watch them with statement analysis in mind -- and it's -- a cornicopia of stuff to flag.
Hmm, now you have me rethinking it SALurker.Yes, it would depend on the definition. Truth Indicated would be one thing and Truth Verification another. Verification would have to go beyond just knowing that a person believes what they are saying. Verification follow questions about their internal subjective dictionary showed that you had a common understanding about the question and answer and other supporting evidence.So I'm changing my answer to YES
I think truth verification you are starting out with the opinion that the person is telling you the truth. Detection of deception is knowing that the person is being deceptive and investigating further as to why.
Detection of deception does not necessarily mean the lack of truth. It's a clue of sensitivity in the topic to further explore that area for untruths. Truth verification is obtaining proof of what is true.kmn
?Last RedoI reread Peter's question and my answer is once again NO, but for the reasons in my second post. Final answer.
No. Detecting deception could be used as a tool to get to the truth. Truth verification requires proof.
Innocent vs. not-guilty....
I'm getting here late. No detecting deception is not truth verification. One can detect deception but until it is verified, it is not the truth. It is a flag, a signal for the investigator to look further into what has been flagged as deception.
I don't see them as the same thing ... however I can see how some people might choose to use the terms interchangeably. To me, "truth verification" sounds as if there is a presupposition of truth but steps are taken to confirm it. (Because it is the right thing to do in certain circumstances.) As for "detection of deception" it seems to me that there is an inference of a high probability of someone obscuring the truth or lying. If whoever is using the term likes to use sarcasm I can see how they'd use the term : "truth verification" when they really mean that it's pretty obvious that someone's story isn't going to add up. Besides that, the first term " truth verification" is more solid, once the supposed facts are confirmed you've got something solid. With detection of deception, once you've determined that there has been intent to deceive you have more to work with but you don't know how far you have to go until you get to the truth.
OT: A 21 year old woman, Mary Koye, has been charged with throwing sulphuric acid in Naomi Oni's face. The police say they have sufficient evidence to believe she is a public threat and that she will be convicted.So...acid attacks on browser that Naomi admits to...coincidence of pharmacist aunt being at homr and all the other highly unusual circumstances...???No motive was given but they were former class mates at one time.Getting info from the UK is very hard!
No Truth can be asetained through many avenues.Statement analisis is but one .So is behaviour .People tend to be creatures of habbit.And sometimes a spouse boy freind or significant other.Sences deception in another simply by there change in behaviaral patterns /habbits ect.Truthfull statements can also be seseptive because .And this is especialy true amongst criminals .Thers such a thing as the lesser of two evils. Forinstance some one whom abducts a woman on the highway.Rapes her an then throwa her alive of a thousand feet cliff mightt take a polygraph an pass by stateing.Sure I saw that girl she entered my car we had sex last time I saw her she was alive an wel an breathing .Definetly not dead.And if he hadnt looked over the cliff at her mangled broken corpse he would for all in tence an purposes be makeing a truthfulll statement.People like that can compartmilise there hidious act .An think to himself I never killed her gravity and contact with the ground is what killed her.
No. A statement can be truthful on the whole, but still be deceptive.
"and" still be deceptive :)
I think truth verification sounds more pleasant than deception detected
OT- But interesting...mom goes missing 11 years, declared dead then shows up as a homeless person miles away... I know the police suspected the husband, but I do not think arrest was made (thank goodness)...http://www.inquisitr.com/644146/mom-missing-since-2002-declared-dead-2010-found-alive/
Truth verification sounds like something that can be verified by another person. Like a fact.Detection of Deception sounds like figuring out that a person is not being truthful, like through thier statements, or for example, finding something that is hidden that was not disclosed.
Not even close to the same thing. Truth verification sounds to me like vetting information to see if its true. Of course, I haven't been around here long enough to know if that's an SA term or not. Deception detection is the same thing as statement analysis In my opinion. Isn't that what we are doing when we pick part something someone says? We can tell using SA the person is being deceptive, or lying, but that doesn't usually mean we know exactly what they are being deceptive about - so we don't glean the truth, just glean that we should be digging for the truth.
I have not heard of "truth verification." I can't see how they would be the same thing, however, as the two names depict different things.
I don't think so. I would think the detection of deception, or lack of, would aid in truth verification.
No, not the same.truth verification - objective, factualdeception detection - subjective, nuanced
Truth verification- by definition if you verify something you are establishing the truth, accuracy, or reality. For example, a bank may ask for more than one type of identification for verification of identity. Detection of deception- to detect means to find or seek. To detect deception would be to seek a falsehood or a lie.no. They are not the same. Maybe.
I would say no.
Yes, for the purpose of detecting lies.
There are 2 epic posts on this page...
Agreed Lis, I wonder if we agree which two! :)
Peter,Is there any chance you would add a Subscribe option or RSS feed for the COMMENTS on your blog? I'd love to get a notice when someone comments. Thanks!
I think no.Peter tells us that Statement Analysis detects deception (if it is there). Red/ Blue flags indicate the areas of deception and follow up questions on these areas are needed to establish the reason for the deception and hopefully the truth would come out. Verifying truth would require evidence. ?
OT..Tragedy as 5-year-old boy shoots dead his sister, 2, with child size .22 caliber rifle he was given as a GIFTCaroline Starks, 2, was fatally shot in the chest after the children's mother stepped outside for a few minutes according to policeFirearm used is designed for lITTLE kids called 'My First Rifle'Kentucky sheriff: Not unusual for children to have a gun.A 2-year-old girl was accidentally shot and killed by her 5-year-old brother while he was playing with a child-size rifle given to him as a gift authorities in Kentucky say.Caroline Starks, a blonde, blue-eyed girl, was fatally shot in the chest by her brother's .22-caliber rifle only minutes after her mother says she "STEPPED" (Body Postured,increased tension) OUTSIDE )Possible alibi building) their home in Burkesville on Tuesday.The single-shot weapon fired is a rifle specifically marketed to children as 'My First Rifle' by company Keystone Sporting Arms, according to authorities.Killed: Caroline Sparks, 2, was killed on Tuesday when her 5-year-old brother accidentally shot her in the chest with his rifleWorst nightmare: Authorities say Caroline's older brother, pictured with her here, fired the single shot from his .22-caliber rifle called a Cricket, fatally shooting her in the chestIt was given to the 5-year-old as a gift last year, Cumberland County Coroner Gary White told the Lexington Herald-Leader.'It's a Crickett,' White identified the weapon used. 'It's a lITTLE rifle for a kid. ...The lITTLE boy's used to shooting the lITTLE gun.'LITTLE x 3(Minimising Language)'Accidents happen with guns,' he continued. 'They thought the gun was actually unloaded, and it wasn't.'
Cont.'I WAS GODS WILL IT WAS HER TIME TO GO , I GUESS, (Strange Statement to make") Caroline's grandmother, Linda Riddle, told Lex18 on Wednesday.'I just know she's in heaven right now and I know she's in good hands with the lord,' Riddle said.The company, Keystone Sporting Arms, produced 60,000 Crickett and Chipmunk rifles in 2008, according to its website. It also makes guns for adults, but most of its products are geared toward children. The smaller guns come in all sorts of colors, including blue and pink.Weapon: The 5-year-old boy shot dead his sister with a Crickett .22 caliber rifle (like the one pictured) that he was given a year agoAccident: The Cumberland County Coroner maintains that the girl's death was an accident as the child's family now mourns her unexpected lossThe company's slogan is 'my first rifle' and its website has a 'Kids Corner' section where pictures of young boys and girls are displayed, most of them showing the children at shooting ranges and on bird and deer hunts. The smaller rifles are sold with a mount to use at a shooting range.
Cont..The shooting highlights a cultural divide in the gun debate. While many suburban and urban areas work to keep guns out of the hands of children, it's not uncommon for youths in rural areas to own guns for target practice and hunting.'Down in Kentucky where we're from, you know, guns are passed down from generation to generation. You start at a young age with guns for hunting and everything,' White said on Wednesday. What is more unusual than a child having a gun, he said, is 'that a kid would get shot with it.'Heartbreak: The girl's grandmother said she's coping with the loss through religion while personally assured that she's gone to a better place'The goal of KSA is to instill gun safety in the minds of youth shooters and encourage them to gain the knowledge and respect that hunting and shooting activities require and deserve,' the website says.The coroner said the gun was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a shell was left inside it.It's 'just one of those crazy accidents,' White said. In a brief news release, state police said the shooting occurred when the boy was 'playing' with the rifle, BUT DID NOT ELOBERATE.(Missing information) It is not clear whether any charges will be filed, said Kentucky State Police spokesman Trooper Billy Gregory.
Cont..I think it's too early to say whether there will or won't be,' Gregory said.An autopsy is scheduled for Wednesday. Tragedy: The 2-year-old victim was transported to the Cumberland County Hospital in Burkesville, where she was pronounced deadIt is located in foothills of Appalachia. The median household income in 2009 was estimated to be $17,747. According to Keystone Sporting Arm's website, 'The goal of KSA is to instill gun safety in the minds of youth shooters and encourage them to gain the knowledge and respect that hunting and shooting activities require and deserve.'.Bill McNeal and his son Steve McNeal decided to make guns for young shooters in the mid-1990s and opened Keystone in 1996 with just four employees, producing 4,000 rifles that year. It now employs about 70 people, according to their website.No one at the company answered the phone on Wednesday.(More information,and statements are required)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317512/Kentucky-boy-5-shoots-sister-Caroline-Starks-2-child-size-22-caliber-rifle-given-GIFT.html#ixzz2S7YAhuep
One last Post.From Sky News.Snipped."She was actually cleaning her house, and she had went out on the porch," the coroner told WKYT-TV."She said no more than ("THREE MINUTES") had went by and she actually heard the rifle go off. She "RAN" back in and found the little girl."3=possible deception.When someone chooses a number between 1-9,the number 3 is usually the one they pick. (McClish)More information needed.. http://news.sky.com/story/1085554/boy-5-kills-sister-2-with-childrens-rifle
OTHere's another one caught with her pants down:University of Wyoming Feminist Allegedly Fakes Facebook Rape Threat Against HerselfAt the University of Wyoming (UW), feminist activist Meg Lanker-Simons was well regarded as a blogger and radio host. But now, she’s regarded by police as a criminal after she allegedly faked a Facebook posting threatening a rape against her. The posting read: “I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch.” Lanker-Simons then commented on the post and posted it to her own blog, labeling it “disgusting, misogynistic, and apparently something the admins of this page think is a perfectly acceptable sentiment.” She then added, “Instead of focusing on how angry and turned on me ‘running my mouth’ makes you, perhaps you should listen instead. You might learn something.” Unfortunately for Lanker-Simons, the police were called in. She was then cited after admitting “to making a controversial post on UW Crushes webpage and then [lying] about not doing it.” The University of Wyoming said the Facebook post came from her computer, according to police.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/01/Feminist-student-fakes-Facebook-rape-threat
People who lie usually twitch!!
Truth verification: verifying that something is, in fact, the truth.Detection of deception: Discovering a lie (i.e. the opposite of verifying the truth.)
I've been thinking about this and have had a change of thought. In relation to Statement Analysis I think they could be the same thing. I have seen you, Peter, use SA to say that you believe someone is telling the truth or you believe them because there are no indicators of deception and their sentences were construed in the manner of one telling the truth. Therefore you were verifying truth either by finding no detection of deception or verifying truth AND finding no detection of deception using the same method.
In statement analysis, if measured on a scale, detection of deception would be at the bottom, the beginning of the search for truth. If deception is indicated and followup questions or statements continue to show deception then we can conclude the subject is lying or guilty. At the top of the scale would be truth verification. If the subject consistantly shows no signs of deception,gives a reliable denial and when asked "why should I believe you" answers "because I told the truth", that would be truth verification.
No. A murderer may say: "I heard a shot and I saw the victim laying on the floor, full of blood" and that may be true. Yet, it's deceptive, he doesn't say that he was the one that shot the victim!
@ John about shooting death of 2 yoIt is true that there are varying attitudes about guns and what age a child should be (or not be) included in hunting etc. I am from Texas so gun tolerance is high here. My husband has guns for target shooting which are in a locked gun cabinet at all times until he is walking out the door to go shoot at the range. But where is common sense here? I suppose the answer is in the outcome. How does a parent let their child handle a weapon (loaded or not)as a toy? Even when she was in the room with them she may not have been able to prevent this. Or did he retrieve the gun while she was outside and she didnt know? if this is the case, then I would say that she may have been on the porch for longer than three minutes.I see some qualifiers and minimizing and passive words in my post, ha ha -fun to analyze myself.
"Is 'truth verification' and 'detection of deception' the same thing?"My answer would be no, they are not. I think truth verification comes after the initial analysis and then follow up questions, where you get into the persons internal subjective dictionary.For example...when President Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." It was a reliable denial. Only after asking him what construed "sexual relations" to him might you have learned the truth. Even though it was a reliable denial it was not verification of the truth.When you detect deception within a statement you need to ask more questions. The person may be deceiving about a particular aspect but not the overall outcome. It does not involve the persons internal subjective dictionary, but rather a need to deceive to cover something. For example - A little girl goes missing while playing outside on her bike. The father is questioned and deception is indicated in his statements. It is not because he is involved in harming the girl but because he tried to cover the fact he wasn't watching her and was passed out on the couch or something along those lines.Truth verification and deception detected are similar but different in my mind.
No. IMO, you read a statement to verify it's truth. Detection of deception is a result of the analysis. i.e., You expect to find truth and you discover the unexpected (deception).
Please help find Ayla"Have you seen my son?""NO Ma'am. I'M just LYIN' down."" No Ma'am(qualifier after no, respectful address). I'm ( I shows closeness) just (qualifier for precediing words) LYIN" (K) down.
Post a Comment