Netflix jump on the wagon the facts With so many recent posts these days. One of them is love with guaranteeIt is a program in which six couples spend three weeks in an ideally located villa. To win the prize, you just have to tell the truth; Something that supposedly wouldn’t be easy. The reason we talk about this in a science article is that, to hunt down liars, the show uses a file Lie detector Supposedly it picks up who isn’t telling the truth through small changes in eyes And his look.
One wonders if this is possible. If so, why not use it in court to make sure that Testimonials – Recommendations fact? Or in Parliament? Well, we will not dwell on the latter, because it will be a difficult topic. But yes in experiments.
Really, it is very important to discover that what is said in them is true. if it was lie detectors It was really effective and no doubt would be used outside of reality shows. The problem is that the scientific evidence doesn’t make it look good. Neither the ones that are based on the eyes nor anything else. Let’s see the reasons.
The pseudoscience that looks for lies in your eyes
Much of what eye-based lie detectors measure stands on foundations NLP. This is nothing more and nothing less than a pseudoscience, invented in the seventies before Richard Bandler, John Grinder and Frank Boslick. She advocates a relationship between neural processes, language, and behavior patterns that are learned through experience.
There are many physiological factors related to truth or lie; But when focusing on the eyes, it is said that people who lie tend to do so look right, while those who tell the truth wear their eye movements left. All this, of course, unconsciously.
They are supposed to be Almost imperceptible movements, but this can be detected, either with machines, such as famous lie detectors, or through trained eye observation. The problem is that there is no scientific evidence that this is true.
In fact, it was published in 2012 study Aim to check it out Three experiences. In the first, the eye movement patterns of people previously known to be telling the truth or lying were coded. No relationship was found with what NLP included. And not in the second experiment, where participants were informed in advance of what this pseudoscience is confirming. Finally, the third experiment encoded the lecturers’ eye movements, with the aim of looking for patterns related to the correctness of their statements. but There was no success either.
Aharon Parameters related to the eyes allegedly scanned by polygraphs are dilated pupils (Supposed to stretch more when lying) or response time before a question. However, there are also no well-designed, peer-reviewed scientific studies that can reliably claim that this is effective. As much as the facts hide it as science.
What happens in lawsuits?
In SpainAs in many other countries, polygraphs or, in general, analysis of physiological parameters do not serve as evidence that a person is giving a fairly true testimony.
In general, interrogations use methods such as Global Rating System. This must be done by Qualified forensic psychologists It consists of several steps. First, the first statement is collected, preferably free. That is, a person is left to speak frankly about the facts, without questions. Secondly, the statement is repeated, but this time questions are asked. So you can check for inconsistency.
As shown in article about the topic Ramon Ars and Francesca Farinha, of the universities of Santiago de Compostela and Vigo respectively, who says the truth “tells the pictures, so the description of events, though very similar, would be of a different construction because it does not respond to the accidental outlines.”
Once this part is completed, the statements made throughout judicial process. However, it should be borne in mind that their value is relative, since they may be texts that do not reliably reflect what has been seen.
Therefore, the rest of the steps such as analyzing the content of the statements and Reliability of measurements. The statement and data of the persons concerned are then evaluated Personal.
Why isn’t using a polygraph a good idea?
Everything described above may seem complicated compared to a mechanical lie detector. But in these cases, simplification as in reality shows is not a good idea. It’s something we talked about hip text with the forensic psychiatristNS Marta Perez Angolo. He notes that “there is no solid scientific evidence on this subject, although there are still colleagues who are interested in presenting these physiological indicators as an objective measure.” “The truth is that in practice, there are individuals who will be able to. pass unnoticed before these counters. As we know in psychology, correlation does not imply causation and falling into these simplifications would be detrimental to science and our field of study.”
It is precisely for this reason, in his opinion, that building a polygraph would be a disaster that would lead us to big bias through different variables.
On the other hand, we will have people with psychopathic traits who pass the test easily and can go unpunished for various crimes. On the other hand, we will find nervous individuals in the context of a polygraph machine that end up showing eye movements that would be suspicious of this machine. In the end, we will have innocent people behind bars and perfect liars on our streets.”
Marta Pérez Angolo, Forensic Psychologist
Plus, it’s not just about the eyes. In general, there is no physiological parameters To help us spot the liar. “Any physiological variable will be subject to bias by different variables and will not be reliable,” says Perez-Angolo. Sweating is neither more nor less accurate in detecting a lie than the rapid blinking of the eyes, because they are not measurable elements, although they can be observed by anyone, as happens with other physiological indicators that have been usually associated with lying., Such as dry lips, swallowing, or a fast heartbeat“.
And why is it used in reality shows?
The fact that polygraphs in Spain or any kind of eye analysis are not used in experiments does not mean that other countries are not used either, the forensic psychiatrist also explains. We are loyal in Spain scientific method in a Legal field Understandably, these pseudoscientific practices are nothing more than an aberration that can cause enormous damage to our legal system. Even as the entire scientific community expresses serious skepticism about these tests, The United States and some Latin American countries They continue to acknowledge these practices as evidence in various judicial processes.”
And of course we can’t rule out reality shows like love with guarantee. This is actually a risk in the form of leisure, because it shows viewers a seemingly simple solution to complex problems, The ability to confuse your awareness about what is actually happening. It is something that, for Marta Pérez Angulo, is based precisely on the need to simplify everything. “The use made in these programs of these devices is no more than A reflection of what people would like science to be, pure tools,” he sees. “Anyone who wants to have a seemingly simple device on hand that allows you to detect if someone is lying, but the reality is quite different.”
This applies to any branch of psychology, not just forensic psychology. “In my opinion, TV has been involved and is still actively involved in Psychology distortion. It cannot be judged that people have a wrong idea of what our job performance consists of, when these characters appear daily on our televisions. It is the responsibility of various organizations to exercise greater control over these pseudo-scientific practices that seriously harm society as a whole and our sector, more specifically.”
In short, as much as this type of show is ambivalently known as reality TV, we must bear in mind that, for the most part, what they say It’s very far from reality. The final award is supposed to be based on the polygraph results. If this realizes in their eyes that they are lying, then the money will go down. It is appreciated that they are telling the truth, but if it is not measured properly, it is of no use. So if we want to watch this show for pure entertainment, that’s fine. But don’t be fooled: whether or not participants tell the truth is something that no machine can measure.
“Infuriatingly humble travel fanatic. Passionate social media practitioner. Amateur writer. Wannabe problem solver. General food specialist.”