tl;dr (and I don't think it's even mentioned in the article) You can cheat a polygraph by flexing your anal sphincter. More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsoI92BfmqY
Some polygraph setups will include a "butt pad" that you sit on that can detect your flinching.
I think it's interesting because it somewhat supports the claim. If clinching didn't work or help in some way, why bother including a motion detector under your backside.
I think part of the issue is that errors are not evenly distributed. There are many more false positives (detecting a lie when the subject is truthful) then false negatives. Most people assume errors are random, in this case they are not. Of course, this is combined with the other unreliability of the measurements make it close to a waste of time.
Lie detector tests rely on psychological intimidation. The testee invariably gives up compromising information over the course of the test, allowing the tester to apply leverage or outright coercion. If no useful information is divulged, the test is marked a fail and requires a repeat.
Not quite a pseudoscience but not so accurate as to warrant allowing a person's life to be upended as has been documented on many occasions [0]. Unsurprisingly, there's a history of the polygraph industry litigating against third parties that question the reliability of polygraphs [1]. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-b... [1] https://antipolygraph.org/
The polygraph is entirely scientific in the way it actually works: eliciting forced confessions under psychological coercion. However, for that coercion to be effective, the targets and the public at large must be convinced of a pseudoscientific idea that lies are detectable physiologically. Hence the conflict between the promoters and the detractors, proving that it works would make it no longer work.
And how do we know whether a forced confession is true? False confessions do happen under other circumstances. Obviously, if the subject reveals something backed by evidence they wouldn't have known being innocent, that's one thing. But if we're using their confession as the evidence, then it's the same problem as any forced confession.
I'm fairly sure that you are required to take a lie detector to join the FBI, which makes me worry about the validity of all federal forensics. And now we're resuming executions...
I passed a polygraph, I was untruthful and still passed. The person administering the test had done tbis for the FBI for 15 years. I had no special training.
I'm fairly sure that you are required to take a lie detector to join the FBI, which makes me worry about the validity of all federal forensics. And now we're resuming executions...
If you're concerned about this, you really shouldn't read up on the actual "forensics" the FBI did in the past, like "hair analysis", because it will ruin your day:
I passed a polygraph, I was untruthful and still passed. The person administering the test had done tbis for the FBI for 15 years. I had no special training.
I failed a polygraph. I was truthful and still failed. It cost me a job. Luckily I found a better job. So, thanks polygraph.