Website Analysis and Critique: On Becoming a Human Lie Detector
Check out: https://www.scienceofpeople.com/courses/lie-detection/
What is the purpose of this essay?
The purpose of this essay is to grapple with a complex multimodal text related to the course, which will (thanks to your careful analysis) shine light on course themes, in particular Ariely’s moderate-optimistic view honesty and dishonesty. In other words, your analysis of this text will serve as an illuminating lens to view not only the text itself but the course overall so far. In addition, you will gain a more critical perspective on how a claim is made (ex: “humans can—and should be– accurate lie detectors”) in relation to other experts’ opinions.
What will I be writing about?
On her website, “Science of People,” Vanessa Van Edwards advertises a course on “How to Be a Human Lie Detector.” The course promises to educate and train people in detecting lies and hidden emotions with up to 90% accuracy, as it promotes abilities such as “speed read anyone” and “find dishonesty behind words.” The course is expensive, and its marketing (images, expressions, “promises,” assumptions about human nature and deceit being all around us) is elaborate. Your job is to analyze the website as a kind of deliberate message about honesty and dishonesty all around us; to analyze how the website communicates that message (again, images, expressions, promises, assumptions), and how all this information either confirms or contradicts Ariely’s moderate-optimistic view of honesty and dishonesty you’ve been picking up from his book. Note: DO NOT sign up for the course. Only view the webpages that are available—there is already plenty to observe and pick up information on.
What kind of structure can I use for the essay?
Part A: Write the Introduction:
What does it mean to know ourselves as human? Should we strive to see, understand, and accept our own dishonesty? Or does being human obligate us to be “better”? –to be more honest, more integral, and to constantly improve ourselves? (And so should we be less tolerant of others’ faults—such as their lieing—as a result?) As your last sentence of the introduction, create a thesis statement that makes clear your position as well as the point that you realize there are two varying ideas of human nature in play–the view of Van Edwards on self-improvement (and intolerance for others’ faults) and the view of Ariely.
Part B: Next, talk about the advertised course:
Smoothly transition into your discussion of “How to Be a Human Lie Detector,” as it is advertised on the website: How is the course presented? What does Van Edwards want you to believe about lying? (“Point” to what you’re looking at on the site.) What does she want you to believe about people who lie? (“Point” to what you’re looking at the on the site.) What does she want you to believe how easy or hard it is to learn more about liars and lying? (“Point” to what you’re looking at on the site.) As you analyze these messages in the advertisement, analyze the language and images she uses–images, expressions, “promises,” assumptions about human nature and deceit being all around us. Depending on how you feel about this kind of messaging (and what you said in your introduction), also critique (evaluate) her perspective in a strong, ironic, or perceptive tone.
Part C: Next, make a choice: This course does—or does not—hold interest or value for you:
Yes, this course holds definite interest or value for me.
Perhaps this course goes along with your notions of how human beings should constantly improve themselves and not make excuses for themselves or others. Perhaps certain marketing messages or images from the site struck a chord with you, based on your past experience and what you know of other humans. Perhaps you think the course could explain some aspects of human nature that have always annoyed you or that you feel need more attention in today’s world. Bring in some mention of Ariely, and make your case with examples that are believably based on your experience or your own close-up observations of your community, news, culture, or social scene.
No, this course and others like it hold no interest or value for me.
Perhaps you can discern manipulation coming from the site in several places. Perhaps you do not trust Van Edwards for her self-presentation or inconsistencies. Perhaps you’re thinking the approach she offers is not “real world,” not sustainable, and could possibly even backfire in relationships or psychologically for individuals. Bring in some mention of Ariely, and make your case with examples that are believably based on your experience or your own close-up observations of your community, culture, news, or social scene.
Part D: Finally, add some research:
What is one research source you can find—for example, a source on how children learn to trust, or how detecting lies is or is not possible—that supports something you’ve said in Part C of this paper?
