I though it was so interesting learning about the detecting of deception. I was unaware of the percentage of polygraph tests and their accuracy. I was actually quite surprised by that. I though that polygraph tests were more accurate than that, so reading more about that and learning that they are only really accurate 60-80% of the time. It makes sense that there is not way to be 100 percent accurate when attempting to detect deception, but I thought it would be easier than it really is.
I also really enjoyed learning about emphasis. We use so many parts of our body in order to emphasize certain things when we are communicating. I never really realized how much I do this, but after learning more about emphasis, I realized how much I actually do use it. I realized how much I use my eyebrows and head when I am communicating things that I feel deeply about. Something I loved about this class is how it opened up my eyes to how much I use nonverbal communication and how essential it is.
I think the whole polygraph thing is interesting, too. I don't know how you could ever really measure someone's "honesty."
ReplyDeleteAt the core, I think the whole concept of true and false is contingent upon some more fundamental philosophical questions about the nature of reality and the existence of absolute truth.
You can monitor someone's distress, but what that really amounts to beyond that is purely speculative.
I study math, and that's hands down my favorite form of logic and reason. It requires absolute equality and accuracy. There are no dark corners in a mathematical truth. If it doesn't hold every time, it doesn't hold at all.
And so with that background I have a tendency to complete reject some of the concepts generated in other fields. The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "popular opinion" dictating the truth value of something is borderline absurd to me, and lie detectors are right up the same alley.