I think television has come on a lot over the last few years.... not in the quality of shows but the technology that shows them.
Speaking of quality, some low quality television is very addictive such as Big Brother, I'm a Celeb and Jeremy Kyle... the mild mannered UK version of the Jerry Springer Show... again strangely addictive.
But there is something that bothers me about the Jeremy's show. The Lie Detector stuff which he tells us, in great detail, is 96% accurate. This means, of course, that it is inaccurate 4% of the time. That may seem obvious but the way that it is used is to definitely tell the 'truth' about the situation that the poor unfortunates find themselves in.
What bothers me is that 4% get told they are LIARS or some beat the test. Yet there is no comeback, no reexamination of the facts. It's a 96% test with 100% decisions resting on it. Now if one couple/person is maligned this way, he/she/they have no way out; there is no court of appeal. They are labeled on 'National TV' with friends and family finding out, they get Jeremy's reasoned response which can be shouting at them and we are all entertained by his mad yelling! I am sure that the 4% have a rougher time because of it.
Even if they beat the test (it says that they tell the truth but they are 'guilty') then the suspicions carry on because other people will say that they 'know' the truth.
The Lie Detector test is a no win situation here. Beat it (be one of the 4%) and you continue to be under suspicion or it works out you are a liar and you get castigated by Jeremy's delightful high pitched, angry getting angrier speech telling you what a low life you are.
If capital punishment were as inaccurate, would we continue with it?
2 comments:
As regards Jeremy Kyle show's claim that lie detector tests are 96% accurate - that is the biggest lie of all! There is no established scientific verification of polygraph testing as accurate in detecting deception, and the "art" of polygraph testing (the equipment detects physiological changes, the interviewer/interrogator "interprets" them). The accuracy of interpretation has often been described as about as reliable as reading tealeaves or examining the entrails of chickens, and the results are strongly influenced by the beliefs of the interpreter. Ironically, the data on the unreliability and false outcomes of polygraph testing is far stronger than that on its veracity. So where does this claim of "96% reliable" come from and how come it isn't challenged?
- Bryce
Hi Bryce,
Firstly, thank you very much for posting a comment and reading what I wrote. I appreciate your time here.
You question the accuracy of the 'lie detector' and ask where I got the '96% accurate' statement from. From Jeremy Kyle himself! When he does a show that involves the use of a polygraph, he states this before announcing the results of the test.
Hopefully you live in the UK and can get to the itv.com site and then click through to the Jeremy Kyle tab. Then watch a show where he is doing the results of the lie detector test. Listening carefully and you will here him state this.
Challenged? I think that any show that has a degree of unreliability in its tests that purports to be 'finding the truth' is flawed.
Do you agree?
Post a Comment