Live data from Hacker News

Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

smithsonianmag.com

21–30 of 201 posts

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#21

I hold out hope for (f)MRI.

There's some research into guilt measurement with fMRI [1] but it's very hard to test. When my lab tests fMRI thought identification, we need participants to write down exactly what they plan to think about for certain concepts (death, family, etc) and we need them to think about one particular strong memory multiple times. We know, or at least we believe we know, and the participant knows that we know, what they're thinking about. Anything else makes it hard/impossible to classify and won't be accepted in the literature.

Asking someone to pretend to lie in a lab environment, like say responding to "What's your name?" with the wrong answer on purpose, won't elicit the kind of arousal response we want to record like "Did you steal this car?". There's just not a good way to standardize and measure this kind of response without deceiving the participant - you might do some kind of social research on them and ask them questions they aren't prepared for, but understandably no IRB would allow that.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/13/8/830/328813

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#22
post #2

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.

In my experience, that's not how the session goes. All the questions are reviewed in advance with the interviewee; there are no surprise questions. The interviewer I worked with even mentioned which questions he wanted and expected lies to. Many of these were somewhat personal questions ("Do you live at X; Is your mother's name Y?"), but nothing overly invasive.

Granted, I did not participate in any polygraph sessions used for the purposes of information gathering; more to confirm information already in the open.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#23
post #2

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.

Yes, exactly. Polygraphs are just a form of interrogation technique, disguised as "science". If the science was debunked, then the credibility of the machines would be questioned and the interrogation process would not yield as positive (if you can call it that) results. So the whole mystique of polygraphs must be guarded to keep up the facade of the lie detector's true capabilities.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#25

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.

Ye, well, e.g. Ted Bundy passed a polygraph. And the Green River Killer did too. But hey, another dude, innocent of course, did not pass the lie detector when they were looking for the Green River Killer. Oops

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#27

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: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimo... Or "bite mark analysis" (don't google that, it will ruin your day as well).

Is there a proper response to this other than just banging your head against a desktop until you're blissfully unconscious? I can't think of any other response that would properly articulate my response to skimming that article.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimo... Or "bite mark analysis" (don't google that, it will ruin your day as well).

Is there a proper response to this other than just banging your head against a desktop until you're blissfully unconscious? I can't think of any other response that would properly articulate my response to skimming that article.

You can ask the Phantom of Heilbronn once you find her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

I am sure, she has valuable input, seeing she is a criminal mastermind who avoided capture for a cool 15+ years.

Post reply on HN