Posts Tagged 'deception'

Results from the first Democratic debate

The debate held on Tuesday night pitted one well known figure (Hillary Clinton) against one up and coming figure (Sanders) and three others with no name recognition except among the wonkiest. The differences in exposure and preparation were obvious. I can’t see that it made any difference to anyone’s opinions.

But it remains interesting to see how well each person did at presenting a persona. Extremely well known politicians do not usually have the luxury of presenting themselves with a new, improved persona because the old one is so well known, so it’s common to find that persona deception scores are low for such candidates. For those who aren’t well-known, the strength of their persona is a blend of how well they can do it personally, and how big the gap is between their previous self-image and the persona that they are trying to project. A relatively unknown candidate with a high persona deception score, therefore, is likely to do well; one with a low score probably will not.

Here are the results from this debate:

deceptdocsThe red and greeen points represent artificial word use corresponding to moderately high amd moderately low levels of persona deception. Clinton, as expected (and from my analysis in the 2008 cycle) has low levels of persona deception. Sanders’s levels are in the mid-range. Chafee is sincere, but this won’t help him with his current level of recognition. O’Malley has the highest level of persona deception, which is a positive indicator for him (for what it’s worth in this crowd). Webb is also in the midrange, but his language use is quite different from that of Sanders.

Results from second Republican debate

Regular readers will know that, especially in a crowded marketplace, politicians try to stand out and attract votes by presenting themselves in the best possible light that they can. This is a form of deception, and carries the word-use signals associated with deception, so it can be measured using some straightforward linguistic analysis.

Generally speaking, the candidate who achieves the highest level of this persona deception wins, so candidates try as hard as they can. There are, however, a number of countervailing forces. First, different candidates have quite different levels of ability to put on this kind of persona (Bill Clinton excelled at it). Second, it seems to be quite exhausting, so that candidates have trouble maintaining it from day to day. Third, the difficulty depends on the magnitude of the difference between the previous role and the new one that is the target of a campaign: if a vice-president runs for president, he is necessarily lumbered with the persona that’s been on view in the previous job; if not, it’s easier to present a new persona and make it seem compelling (e.g. Obama in 2008). Outsiders therefore have a greater opportunity to re-invent themselves. Fourth, it depends on the content of what is said: a speech that’s about pie in the sky can easily present a new persona, while one that talks about a candidate’s track record cannot, because it drags the previous persona into at least the candidate’s mind.

Some kinds of preparation can help to improve the persona being presented — a good actor has to be able to do this. But politicians aren’t usually actors manqué so the levels of persona deception that they achieve from day to day emerge from their subconscious and so provide fine-grained insights into how they’re perceiving themselves.

The results from the second round of debates are shown in the figure:

deceptdocs

The red and green points represent artificial debate participants who use all of the words of the deception model at high frequency and low frequency respectively.

Most of the candidates fall into the band between these two extremes, with Rand Paul with the lowest level of persona deception (which is what you might expect). The highest levels of deception are Christie and Fiorina, who had obviously prepped extensively and were regarded as having done well; and Jindal, who is roughly at the same level, but via completely different word use.

Comparing these to the results from the first round of debates, there are two obvious changes: Trump has moved from being at the low end of the spectrum to being in the upper-middle; and Carson has moved from having very different language patterns from all of the other candidates to being quite similar to most of them. This suggests that both of them are learning to be better politicians (or being sucked into the political machine, depending on your point of view).

The candidates in the early debate have clustered together on the left hand side of the figure, showing that there was a different dynamic in the two different debates. This is an interesting datum about the strength of verbal mimicry.

Canadian election 2015: Leaders’ debate

Regular readers will recall that I’m interested in elections as examples of the language and strategy of influence — what we learn can be applied to understanding jihadist propaganda.

The Canadian election has begun, and last night was the first English-language debate by the four party leaders: Stephen Harper, Elizabeth May, Thomas Mulcair, and Justin Trudeau. Party leaders do not get elected directly, so all four participants had trouble wrapping their minds around whether they were speaking as party spokespeople or as “presidential” candidates.

Deception is a critical part of election campaigns, but not in the way that people tend to think. Politicians make factual misstatements all the time, but it seems that voters have already baked this in to their assessments, and so candidates pay no penalty when they are caught making such statements. This is annoying to the media outlets that use fact checking to discover and point out factual misstatements, because nobody cares, and they can’t figure out why.

Politicians also try to present themselves as smarter, wiser, and generally more qualified for the position for which they’re running, and this is a much more important kind of deception. In a fundamental sense, this is what an election campaign is — a Great White Lie. Empirically, the candidate who is best at this kind of persona deception tends to win.

Therefore, measuring levels of deception is a good predictor of the outcome of an election. Recall that deception in text is signalled by (a) reduced use of first-person singular pronouns, (b) reduced use of so-called exclusive words (“but”, “or”) that introduce extra complexity, (c) increased use of action verbs, and (d) increased use of negative-emotion words. This model can be applied by counting the number of occurrences of these words, adding them up (with appropriate signs), and computing a score for each document. But it turns out to be much more effective to add a step that weights each word by how much it varies in the set of documents being considered, and computing this weighted score.

So, I’ve taken the statements by each of the four candidates last night, and put them together into four documents. Then I’ve applied this deception model to these four documents, and ranked the candidates by levels of deceptiveness (in this socially acceptable election-campaign meaning of deceptiveness).

wordseffectsThis figure shows, in the columns, the intensity of the 35 model words that were actually used, in decreasing frequency order. The rows are the four leaders in alphabetical order: Harper, May, Mulcair, Trudeau; and the colours are the intensity of the use of each word by each leader. The top few words are: I, but, going, go, look, take, my, me, taking, or. But remember, a large positive value means a strong contribution of this word to deception, not necessarily a high frequency — so the brown bar in column 1 of May’s row indicates a strong contribution coming from the word “I”, which actually corresponds to low rates of “I”.

deceptdocsThis figure shows a plot of the variation among the four leaders. The line is oriented from most deceptive to least deceptive; so deception increases from the upper right to the lower left.

Individuals appear in different places because of different patterns of word use. Each leader’s point can be projected onto this line to generate a (relative) deception score.

May appears at the most deceptive end of the spectrum. Trudeau and Harper appear at almost the same level, and Mulcair appears significantly lower. The black point represents an artificial document in which each word of the model is used at one standard deviation above neutral, so it represents a document that is quite deceptive.

You might conclude from this that May managed much higher levels of persona deception than the other candidates and so is destined to win. There are two reasons why her levels are high: she said much less than the other candidates and her results are distorted by the necessary normalizations; and she used “I” many fewer times than the others. Her interactions were often short as well, reducing the opportunities for some kinds of words to be used at all, notably the exclusive words.

Mulcair’s levels are relatively low because he took a couple of opportunities to talk autobiographically. This seems intutively to be a good strategy — appeal to voters with a human face — but unfortunately it tends not to work well. To say “I will implement a wonderful plan” invites the hearer to disbelieve that the speaker actually can; saying instead “We will implement a wonderful plan” makes the hearer’s disbelief harder because they have to eliminate more possibilities’ and saying “A wonderful plan will be implemented” makes it a bit harder still.

It’s hard to draw strong conclusions in the Canadian setting because elections aren’t as much about personalities. But it looks as if this leaders’ debate might have been a wash, with perhaps a slight downward nudge for Mulcair.

Three kinds of knowledge discovery

I’ve always made a distinction between “mainstream” data mining (or knowledge discovery or data analytics) and “adversarial” data mining — they require quite distinct approaches and algorithms. But my work with bioinformatic datasets has made me realise that there are more of these differences, and the differences go deeper than people generally understand. That may be part of the reason why some kinds of data mining are running into performance and applicability brick walls.

So here are 3 distinct kinds of data mining, with some thoughts about what makes them different:

1. Modelling natural/physical, that is clockwork, systems.
Such systems are characterised by apparent complexity, but underlying simplicity (the laws of physics). Such systems are entropy minimising everywhere. Even though parts of such systems can look extremely complex (think surface of a neutron star), the underlying system to be modelled must be simpler than its appearances would, at first glance, suggest.

What are the implications for modelling? Some data records will always be more interesting or significant than others — for most physical systems, records describing the status of deep space are much less interesting than those near a star or planet. So there are issues around the way data is sampled.
Some attributes will also be more interesting or significant than others — but, and here’s the crucial point, this significance is a global property. It’s possible to have irrelevant or uninteresting attributes, but these attributes are similarly uninteresting everywhere. Thus is makes sense to use attribute selection as part of the modelling process.

Because the underlying system is simpler than its appearance suggests, there is a bias towards simple models. In other words, physical systems are the domain of Occam’s Razor.

2. Living systems.
Such systems are characterised by apparent simplicity, but underlying complexity (at least relatively speaking). In other words, most living systems are really complicated underneath, but their appearances often conceal this complexity. It isn’t obvious to me why this should be so, and I haven’t come across much discussion about it — but living systems are full of what computing people call encapsulation, putting parts of systems into boxes with constrained interfaces to the outside.

One big example where this matters, and is starting to cause substantial problems for data mining, is the way diseases work. Most diseases are complex activities in the organism that has the disease, and their precise working out often depends on the genotype and phenotype of that organism as well as of the diseases themselves. In other words, a disease like influenza is a collaborative effort between the virus and the organism that has the flu — but it’s still possible to diagnose the disease because of large-scale regularities that we call symptoms.
It follows that, between the underlying complexity of disease, genotype, and phenotype, and the outward appearances of symptoms, or even RNA concentrations measured by microarrays, there must be substantial “bottlenecks” that reduce the underlying complexity. Our lack of understanding of these bottlenecks has made personalised medicine a much more elusive target than it seemed to be a decade ago. Systems involving living things are full of these bottlenecks that reduce the apparent complexity: species, psychology, language.

All of this has implications for data mining of systems involving living things, most of which have been ignored. First, the appropriate target for modelling should be these bottlenecks because this is where such systems “make the most sense”; but we don’t know where the bottlenecks are, that is which part of the system (which level of abstraction) should be modelled. In general, this means we don’t know how to guess the appropriate complexity of model to fit with the system. (And the model should usually be much more complex than we expect — in neurology, one of the difficult lessons has been that the human brain isn’t divided into nice functional building blocks; rather it is filled with “hacks”. So is a cell.)

Because systems involving living things are locally entropy reducing, different parts of the system play qualitatively different roles. Thus some data records are qualitatively of different significance to others, so the implicit sampling involved in collecting a dataset is much more difficult, but much more critical, than for clockwork systems.

Also, because different parts of the system are so different, the attributes relevant to modelling each part of the system will also tend to be different. Hence, we expect that biclustering will play an important role in modelling living systems. (Attribute selection may also still play a role, but only to remove globally uninteresting attributes; and this should probably be done with extreme caution.)

Systems of living things can also be said to have competing interests, even though these interests are not conscious. Thus such systems may involve communication and some kind of “social” interaction — which introduces a new kind of complexity: non-local entropy reduction. It’s not clear (to me at least) what this means for modelling, but it must mean that it’s easy to fall into a trap of using models that are too simple and too monolithic.

3. Human systems.
Human systems, of course, are also systems involving living things, but the big new feature is the presence of consciousness. Indeed, in settings where humans are involved but their actions and interactions are not conscious, models of the previous kind will suffice.

Systems involving conscious humans are locally and non-locally entropy reducing, but there are two extra feedback loops: (1) the loop within the mind of each actor which causes changes in behaviour because of modelling other actors and themself (the kind of thing that leads to “I know that he knows that I know that … so I’ll …); (2) the feedback loop between actors and data miners.

The first feedback loop creates two processes that must be considered in the modelling:
a. Self-consciousness, which generates, for example, purpose tremor;
b. Social consciousness, which generates, for example, strong signals from deception.

The second feedback loop creates two other processes:
a. Concealment, the intent or action of actors hiding some attributes or records from the modelling;
b. Manipulation, the deliberate attempt to change the outcomes of any analysis that might be applied.

I argue that all data mining involving humans has an adversarial component, because the interests of those being modelled never run exactly with each other, or with those doing the modelling, and so all of these processes must be considered whenever modelling of human systems is done. (You can find much more on this topic by reading back in the blog.)

But one obvious effect is that records and attributes need to have metadata associated with them that carries information about properties such as uncertainty or trustworthiness. Physical systems and living systems might mislead you, but only with your implicit connivance or misunderstanding; systems involving other humans can mislead you either with intent or as a side-effect of misleading someone else.

As I’ve written about before, systems where actors may be trying to conceal or manipulate require care in choosing modelling techniques so as not to be misled. On the other hand, when actors are self-conscious or socially conscious they often generate signals that can help the modelling. However, a complete way of accounting for issues such as trust at the datum level has still to be designed.

Inspire and Azan magazines

I’ve been working (with Edna Reid) on understanding Inspire and Azan magazines from the perspective of their language use.

These two magazines are produced by islamists, aimed at Western audiences, and intended primarily to motivate lone-wolf attacks. Inspire comes out of AQAP, whereas Azan seems to have a Pakistan/Afghanistan base and to be targeted more at South Asians.

Both magazines have some inherent problems: it’s difficult to convince others to carry out actions that will get them killed or imprisoned using such a narrow channel and appealing only to mind and emotions. The evidence for the effectiveness of these magazines is quite weak — those (few) who have carried out lone-wolf attacks in the West have often been found to have read these magazines — but so have many others in their communities who didn’t carry out such attacks.

Regardless of effectiveness, looking at language usage gives us a way to reverse engineer what’s going on the minds of the writers and editors. For example, it’s clear that the first 8 issues of Inspire were produced by the same (two) people, but that issues 9-11 have been produced by three different people (but with some interesting underlying commonalities). It’s also clear that all of the issues of Azan so far are produced by one person (or perhaps a small group with a very similar mindset) despite the different names used as article authors.

Overall, Inspire lacks a strategic focus. Issues appear when some event in the outside world suggests a theme, and what gets covered, and how, varies quite substantially from issue to issue. Azan, on the other hand, has been tightly focused with a consistent message, and much more regular publication. Measures of infomative and imaginative language are also consistently higher for Azan than for Inspire.

The intensity of jihadist language in Inspire has been steadily increasing in recent issues. The level of deception has also been increasing, this latter surprising because previous studies have suggested that jihadi intensity tends to be correlated with low levels of deception. This may be a useful signal for intelligence organizations.

A draft of the paper about this is available on SSRN:

        http://ssrn.com/abstract=2384167

Verbal mimicry isn’t verbal (well, not lexical anyway)

One of my students, Carolyn Lamb, has been looking at deception in interrogation settings.

The Pennebaker model of deception, as devoted readers will know, is robust only for freeform documents. Sadly, the settings in which deception is often most interesting tend to be dialogues (law enforcement, forensic) and it’s known that the model doesn’t extend in any straightforward way to such settings.

We started out with the idea that responses would be mixtures of language elicited by the words in a question and freeform language from the respondent, and developed a clever method to separate them. Sadly, it worked, but it didn’t help. When the effect of question language was removed from answers, the differences between deceptive and truthful responses decreased.

Digging a little deeper, we were able to show that the influence of words from the question must impact response language at a higher level (i.e. earlier in the answer construction process than simply the lexical). Those who are being deceptive respond in qualitatively different ways to prompting words than those being truthful. A paper about this has been accepted for the IEEE Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference in Seattle next month.

Part of the explanation seems to be mirror neurons. There’s a considerable body of work on language acquisition, and on responses to single words, that uses mirror neurons as a big part of the explanation; I haven’t seen anything at an intermediate level where these results fit.

There are some interesting practical applications for interrogators. One strategy would be to reduce the presence of prompting words (and do so consistently across all subjects) so that responses become closer to statements, and so closer to freeform. My impression from my acquaintance is that smarter law enforcement personnel already know this and act on it.

But our results also suggest a new strategy: increase the number of prompting words because that tends to increase the separation between the deceptive and the truthful. This needs a good understanding of what kinds of response words to look for (and, for most, this has to be done offline because we as humans are terrible at estimating rates of words in real-time, especially function words). But it could be very powerful.

You heard it here first

As I predicted on August 8th, Obama has won the U.S. presidential election. The prediction was made based on his higher levels of persona deception, that is the ability to present himself as better and more wonderful than he actually is. Romney developed this a lot during the campaign and the gap was closing, but it wasn’t enough.

On a side note, it’s been interesting to notice the emphasis in the media on factual deception, and the huge amount of fact checking that they love to do. As far as I can tell, factual deception has at best a tiny effect on political success, whether because it’s completely discounted or because the effect of persona is so much stronger. On the record, it seems to me to be a tough argument that Obama has been a successful president, and indeed I saw numerous interviews with voters who said as much — but then went on to say that they would still be voting for him. So I’m inclined to the latter explanation.