rusch107: April 2012 Archives

Déjà vu
We've all heard of déjà vu and many of us have probably experienced it too. Research has shown that more than two-thirds of us have had an episode of déjà vu. Déjà vu is French for "already seen" and the technical definition is a feeling of reliving an experience that's new. If you've ever seen the movie "Groundhog Day", you can imagine what déjà vu is like even if you haven't experienced it yourself (the movie is a bit of an extreme version of this however).

Although the cause of déjà vu isn't clear, researchers have come up with some possible explanations:

1) Excess of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the temporal lobes
2) People who experience small seizures in the right temporal lobe (responsible for feelings of familiarity) may experience déjà vu right before a seizure
3) When a present experience resembles an earlier one

Jamais Vu
Even though déjà vu is commonly known, not many people have heard of jamais vu. This is basically the opposite of déjà vu and is French for "never seen". In jamais vu, one feels as though a previously familiar experience suddenly feels new or unfamiliar.

Sometimes neurological disorders are associated with jamais vu. These disorders include amnesia (memory loss) and epilepsy (sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions). Although there is not a lot about jamais vu on the internet, I was able to find an interesting video about a woman describing her jamais vu experience during a partial seizure. (In the video, she hadn't yet known that she had experienced jamais vu, but found out later as her video is titled accordingly).

Some Questions...
Have you ever experienced déjà vu or jamais vu? What was it like? Can you think of a reason or possible explanation for it?
Can you think of a way that déjà vu or jamais vu can be tested in an experimental setting?
Do you think the woman in this video was really experiencing jamais vu?

(make-up blog for missed discussion on 2/15)

Detecting Fires
Detecting lies has become somewhat of a big deal to our society. Multiple systems have been developed to accomplish such a feat, but how reliable are these methods? Research tells us that there hasn't yet been a breakthrough that allows us to be completely successful, although some theorists have much faith in their own process.

Ekman's approach
Paul Ekman, a psychologist, wrote the book Telling Lies in 1985 that later was the basis of the Fox TV series Lie to Me. In this book, Ekman writes about his theory of micro-expressions as revealers of emotion. He believes that when people try to hide their emotions a very quick facial expression emerges. This video shows an example of Ekman explaining his theory through a real world trial.
It seems like Ekman's approach works, but research argues that verbal cues are more reliable that non-verbal cues (which is what Ekman uses) in detecting lies. If you'd enjoy delving deeper into Ekman's work, feel free to visit his website.

The Polygraph Test
A more well-known approach is the polygraph test or the "lie-detector". This test assumes that the Pinocchio Response is real which means people have a supposedly perfect physiological or behavioral indicator of lying. In other words, a person's body will react much like Pinocchio's nose reacted when telling a lie, but in a more realistic way.

This test, however, has its problems. It confuses arousal with evidence of guilt. For example, Sally is being tested because she has been accused of stealing a necklace. Naturally, Sally is anxious even though she is innocent. This anxiety or arousal could easily mislead the test to report Sally as being a liar, and hence guilty.

Some Questions...
After watching Ekman's video, how do you feel about his approach? Do you think it's unreliable?
Although several methods have been developed, why do you think detecting a lie is so difficult?