Interesting analysis:
time.com
Al and Dubya Take a Shot of
Cyber Truth Serum!
TIME.com contributor MARTIN LEWIS analyzes
the presidential candidates' honesty — with a
little help from a new computer lie-detector
program. Who's more truthful? Read on...
BY MARTIN LEWIS
This last debate was clearly important. We are about to elect the
leader of the Free World. And what most of it comes down to is
trust and honesty.
I decided that such a judgment was far too important to leave to
gut instinct or to the opinions of self-appointed pundits. What
price truth, freedom and the American way? I reckon about $160
(plus shipping and handling) should do it — and that's the
amount I invested in a new computer program that promises to
sort the wheat from the chaff, the pretender from the
president-elect — the Bush from the Gore (or vice versa).
The program, hot off the Internet, is called the Truster. Made by
an Israeli company, it is, in essence, an updated version of one
of those lie-detector testers you see on cop shows, but scaled
down for home use (such as flushing out that pesky lying spouse
or fibbing teenager).
Just the ticket for testing politicians, I figured.
To apply the cyber truth serum to our two would-be presidents, I
routed their voices directly into a high-end Pentium-equipped
computer that was running the Truster 2.4 program. It instantly
analyzed the voices and gave out a series of graph readings that
clearly delineated the levels of stress, manipulation, excitement
and plain old lying.
In addition to the scientific graphs, it also pumped out a
constantly updated caption that acted as a running commentary
on the voice it was hearing.
The headlines ranged all the way from "Truth" to "False
Statement," with several gradations in between. "Inaccuracy" is
defined as "the subject is exaggerating." And "Outsmart"
indicates "the subject is being cynical."
The only thing that worries me slightly is that the program bases
all its judgments after calibrating an indisputably truthful
statement by each of the subjects.
I selected "Hello, I'm Al Gore" for the VP's sample and I hoped
that this was not a gross exaggeration. I used one of the
governor's trademark "I appreciate that" lines as his ground zero
and hoped he was being sincere.
The Truth Bout was fought over several grueling rounds.
Gore came out swinging during the first three questions on health
care. The Truster pronounced that he was under stress but mainly
truthful. Discussing prescription drugs he registered a walloping
94 percent under the heading "Intensive Thinking." I have no
idea what that meant, but Bush scored just 17 percent on the
same topic.
Meanwhile, the governor lit up the "Inaccuracy" button when he
talked up the Texan Patient's Bill Of Rights. "You can't gag a
doctor," he claimed. "False Statement!" flashed on the screen.
Perhaps the machine was being too literal. I would think it pretty
tough to stuff a handkerchief in the mouth of the average
physician. Incidentally, every time Gore said the words
"Dingell-Norwood," his "Cognitive Level Indicator" spiked up 4
percent. Mmmm.
It was on education that we started to see real results. Bush
jabbed at those who think he's dumb by proving he could count
out consecutive numbers. “I believe we ought to measure a lot —
three, four, five, six, seven, eighth grade. We do so in my state of
Texas." For some reason the Truster declared "The Subject
might exaggerate from time to time." That seemed unfairly
harsh. Perhaps it was chiding Bush for missing out on the first two
grades.
It also gave Bush a hard time when he said "each of us must love
our children with all our heart and all our soul." "False
Statement"! it screamed. Maybe it was objecting to the
post-grammatical syntax.
But Bush got a "Truth" reading when he said said that if schools
failed "there has to be a consequence." Since "consequence" is
Bush's latest buzzword (Saddam, Hollywood and unlicensed gun
traders all face "consequences"), teachers should be afraid. Very
afraid.
The computer rewarded Bush's "I don't know if you have to be a
paperwork-filler-outer" declaration by presenting him his highest
Intensive Thinking Score of the night, at 54 percent.
The questions about foreign policy and the military took a slight
toll on Al Gore. "We're going to face some serious new
challenges in the next four years" said Gore. "Inaccuracy" said
the computer. Maybe we're not. Well, that's good news, I guess.
But Bush was judged even more severely. His statement that we
have to stand by Israel got a "Truth." But his follow-up, "We need
to reach out to modern Arab nations as well" drew a big "False
Statement." Either Bush was lying or the Israeli software was
trying to short-circuit any pan-Arab sentiment.
The computer didn't like Bush's military deployment position,
which included the statement "I think the mission has somewhat
become fuzzy." The Truster's assessment was "The Subject was
uncertain about many things he said." Far too long-winded,
methinks. Maybe when they come up with Truster 3.0, it will just
borrow a word from Bush and declare the subject "Fuzzy."
Al Gore said that he was going to "fight for you" so many times
that the computer gave up judging him on it. Either Gore means
it or he BELIEVES he means it. Which is more than Bush
apparently does on farm policy. "I don't want to use food as a
diplomatic weapon," said the governor. "False."
The question about morality exposed weaknesses in both
candidates. Gore talked about Tipper's mid-'80s reaction to
"some awful lyrics" on a rock record that daughter Karenna
brought home. "Tipper hit the ceiling," claimed Gore. The
Truster responded by hitting the "False Statement" button.
Maybe it was judging him literally. Maybe Tipper didn't quite
touch the beams of the living room. It seems to operate on a
brutal standard of truth. Perhaps it depends on the meaning of
"ceiling."
Bush declared, "I don't support censorship." That was declared an
Inaccuracy. From this point on the Truster was either detecting
some big-time evasions in the governor's voice or it developed a
bad attitude about Mr. Bush.
His replies on how to reassure people about the political system
— "We need to shoot straight with young and old alike” and (most
ironically) "It needs somebody in office who'll tell the truth" drew
flashing "False Statements" from the computer. As did his
comments on capital punishment ("It saves lives") and his Texas
record ("I brought folks together.")
Gore, meanwhile, was pumping up his adrenaline meter and
nearly overloaded the Pentium chips (his own as well as the
computer's). "Here are some promises I will make to you now. I'll
balance the budget every year. I will pay down the debt every
year. I will give middle-class Americans tax cuts, meaningful
ones. And I will invest in education, health care, protecting the
environment and retirement security." The Truster recovered its
poise and spat out a series of responses: "The Subject was
stressed," "The Subject was excited" and, alarmingly, "The
Subject was not confident in all his words." However, the "Truth"
sign blinked for the majority of these pledges.
After both candidates gave their closing statements (during which
they both hit high levels of stress), it was time to challenge the
Truster to give us an overall analysis of each candidate.
Drum roll, please.
The Truster gave the following readings: In the category of
Stress, Al Gore maxed out at a 44 percent reading, with a 29.2
percent average. Bush hit 38 percent, with a 30.7 percent
average.
In "Uncertainty" Gore's average was 5.6 percent, while Bush got
an impressive 6.6 percent.
Gore's Inaccuracy reading hit 9 percent while Bush's topped 14
percent. Gore managed three "voice manipulations" while Bush
scored four.
Bush was way ahead in the False Statements category,
registering 57, while Gore could manage only 23.
Intensive Thinking was a revelation. Gore topped this category at
94 percent (on prescription drugs), though he hit a low of 12
percent while discussing farming. His average was 47 percent.
Bush scaled 54 percent on taxes and bottomed out at 3 percent
on health care, averaging 34 percent.
The Truster then delivered its final conclusions:
In respect to Al Gore: The Subject was confident in his words.
The Subject might exaggerate from time to time. The Subject
was found reliable.
In respect to George Bush: He was uncertain about many things
he said. The Subject might exaggerate from time to time.
Well, now we know! If only we had had the Truster before! "I am
not a crook!" "Read my lips: no new taxes" "I never had sexual
relations..." — we might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.
Whether we're ready for this is another story. One thing IS certain:
If the Truster is right about George Bush and he still gets elected,
you will have heard it here first.
Additional reference:
wired.com |
