The Liar's Walk: Detecting Deception with Gait and Gesture
arxiv.org
arxiv.org
Yikes. Anyone getting a feeling of some racial bias in this experimental setup?
https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2018/04/diversity-0426
>As of fall 2017, UNC-Chapel Hill had a 7.8 percent enrollment rate for Black students, one of the lowest in the state, while just over 22 percent of residents in North Carolina are Black.
Not to mention, there doesn't seem to have been any control in this experiment. What a bunch of nonsense. These students were told to act sketchy, and predictably probably hammed it up to please the experimenters (see: they stuck their hands in their pockets, looked around a lot, etc).
If only 5% of applications to UNC-CH are black, then having 7.8% enrollment is actually good. If 22% of applicants are black, then that is not very good.
You want to increase outreach to underrepresented groups and adjust for biases but then once you have your applicant pool you probably want your selections to mirror the diversity of the applicant pool rather than the state as a whole.
I am scared that our "AI" (really ML) future will be ML trained from bad data and it's pre-crime-fun for anyone that just acts a bit weird or tries to not stand out too much.
I hope there are enough people like you in the institutions where it matters to be all "hey, wait a fuckin SECOND here".
https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recogni...
I guess apparently it's still a problem.
I also wear glasses which color with the sun (not like dark sunglasses) but work normal inside. When I go outside, I hardly notice the difference with regards to light. I'm not sure what the effect is on blue light filters etc.
I wasn't aware of a racial bias regarding hoodies (I'm what Americans call Caucasian white, but European).
IQ is only useful in determining pathologies, at the lower end, where any test is usually helpful. For anything else, it's almost entirely snake oil.
If you want to know whether someone is good at something, the best way to test that is to do a test for that particular thing. A test for general inteligence, based on the assumption that general intelligence aptitude is normally distributed in the population, is just not good for anything, and is unlikely to be a reflection of reality, it's pure scientism (instead of science).
OP is treading the same water as
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.04135v1.pdf
"Automated Inference on Criminality using Face Images"
Also: what does "we recorded many participants performing tasks involving deceptive walking" mean? Does this AI detect those who perform deceptive walking, or people who are actually deceptive walking?
So yeah! No surprise! They told the participant to act sketchy, and they did! What did the participant do? They put their hands in their pocket and looked around a bunch more than normally. Why? Because they were basically told to! That's not "deceptive walking".
Where is the control for picking up the papers off the floor, or the money off the table? How do we know it's not just that people will walk differently when they are about to crouch down? Maybe that would be an interesting paper by itself, but instead the authors think that this type of research is capable of identifying "deception" with 93% accuracy? Absurd!
There is so much wrong with the experiment, that you could write a rebuttal of almost every decision they made.
This is not deceptive walking, this is honest walking. They are honestly trying to broadcast the signal that they were told to broadcast.
The "deceptive" part is just a frosting layer of prejudice they laid on top.
> Deceivers put their hands in their pockets and look around more than the participants in the natural condition.
Doesn't it depend on _context_? If I recall correctly, one of the main giveaways that lead to the identification of the Boston bombers was precisely their composure during the whole situation, which investigators deemed "off" in that context and made them persons of interest.
> Each participant was randomly assigned to walk either naturally or in a deceptive manner, as described below.
So it's like training a "terrorist detection" system by asking your buddies to act "terroristy"? The experiments trains on people displaying behaviors they think convey deception, while deception really tries to convey deceitful behavior.
A better experiment would have been not telling the subjects about the nature of the experiment. Then create a situation where there's a real incentive for the subject to be deceitful. An example would be an experimenter explaining there's a payout for the experiment. The payout must be either monetary or something related. Like saying the study will be at some exotic location, all accomodations taken care of, for a month, and you can bring your significant other.
Then stopping on one answer in particular that disqualifies the subject from the pool of people eligible to that payout.
And then explaining that the experimenter will let this slide but their colleague will probably not; they then instruct the subject and coach them on what they need to avoid saying on several points and before they're done explaining, the "colleague" enters the room and starts going through the checklist.
Now you have incentive to be deceitful and a slightly less crappy experiment than asking people to be deceitful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/well/move/faster-slower-h...
Article is a summary of this paper ("Children are not like other loads: a cross-cultural perspective on the influence of burdens and companionship on human walking"):
After a few years of convtroversry about the low repeatability low-N psychology research published peer-reviewed journals, now we're sharing and upboting non-peer-reviewed non-published psychology papers?
She will consistently jump up from my lap to greet a beloved family member at the door, but never gets up for guests.
This might (or might not) serve to prove that these deceptive gestures do exist. The problem of even this is are that there may be a zillion cue characteristic of the subjects being given their directions.
But even if such gestures exist, it seems pretty given that this would be overwhelmed the complexity of images captured in the wild, where many other variable govern behavior.
Reddit is awash with videos of Labby dogs doing a really bad job of saying "I didn't do it" or of dobbing in the innocent puppy, or whatever.
Do the people working on these projects never reflect on the ridiculously broad scope of the capabilities they're claiming, the multitude of possibilities for false or inappropriate positives (eg people who are trying to conceal their emotional states, but for wholly valid reasons), the abuses that will be committed by over reliance on such technology and rationalized with spurious claims of objectivity, and the overall rush to make public spaces and the world at large into a giant prison camp where techno-utilitarians pass judgement on the rest of the human race?
Almost every paragraph I look at in this paper makes me roll my eyes. A small sample:
We recruited 88 participants (51 female, 30 male, 7 preferred not to say, age = 20.35) from a university campus.
Wow, fantastically diverse sample.
In the deceptive condition, the participant is supposed to conceal their activities from these “onlookers.” The experimenter stresses that [an experimental prop] is a secret, and because of the amount of money involved, it is really important that the participant keeps anyone from noticing as he/she does these things [with the prop]. In the natural condition, the confederate is wearing a hoodie with the hood pulled down. However, in the deceptive condition, the confederate is wearing the same hoodie with the hood pulled up while wearing sunglasses. Because of this setting, the participant makes a deliberate attempt to conceal his/her activities, resulting in deceptive behavior
We use these findings and consider the following set of gestures:{Hands In Pockets, Looking Around, Touching Face, Touching Shirt/Jackets, Touching Hair, Hands Folded, Looking at Phone}. We chose this set because it includes all the hand gestures observed in the walking videos of participants, and these gestures have been reported to be related to deception
Figure 7. Gesture Features: We present the percentage of videos in which the gestures were observed for both deceptive and natural walks. We observe that deceivers put their hands in their pockets and look around more than participants in the natural condition.
So you got a recruited a bunch of college students and then told some of them to be super-covert while dealing with someone dressed up to look like a stereotype of a shady person, but somehow you imagine this will give an 'honestly deceptive' result that accurately reflects the behavior of deceptive people, rather than the awkward-embarrassed parody of deceptive behavior from someone who feels they're playing a silly game.
Besides all the ethical pitfalls, their research is bad. It's like trying to predict crime based on the observed behavior of people in a school drama class putting on a play about cops and robbers. This is why we have so much of a problem with junk forensic science.