They write an article on polygraphs and do not mention Aldrich Ames?
WTF, NYT?
Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
31–40 of 201 posts
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#32tl;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.
Those who believe clinching works also believe polygraphs work (except when clinching)
Remove the clinching illusion and you restore the polygraph illusion to that group.
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There are two different answers depending on who you ask.
The more ignorant will answer: it’s obviously true because they confessed. Nobody would confess to a crime they didn’t commit.
The more evil answer is: who cares? The public is reassured by a self-admitted criminal going to prison and I get re-elected.
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#34There's a lot of hyperbolic claims being made in the article and these comments which seem unsupported by science. The answer to the question, "can polygraphs be utilized to draw out truth?", is a resounding yes:
>Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/2#4
Although it is not a silver bullet, it certainly has its applications, especially if the person being interviewed believes it works. Thus, the polygraph test makes sense in questioning sex offenders, for example:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/135532508X29...
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#35I 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.
Why were you taking a polygraph? Just curious.
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#36I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an interesting process.
In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and related) in detail with your polygraph examiner. They ask a lot of detailed questions, sometimes including things you aren't legally required to disclose (drug use and foreign travel outside the listed time limits).
In the second phase, they hook you up to the polygraph and ask two series of very specific questions, one called "lifestyle" and one called "national security." Lifestyle questions include questions about drug use, possible crimes, etc., and national security questions include questions about foreign contacts, involvement in terrorism, etc. They're very specific, like "Are you withholding any information about your involvement with illegal drugs in the past ten years?"
About half the time (based on my discussions with other prospective interns), the examiner becomes convinced you're lying about one of these questions and really drills into you. Most of the polygraph examiners are past FBI or CIA interrogators, so they know how to make you very uncomfortable.
I was explicitly told that I failed my first polygraph (the examiner was convinced I used more drugs than I let on), but some of the other interns were drilled about crazier things, like contacts with foreign governments or involvement with terrorist groups.
If you're particularly desirable to the managers who're looking to hire you, they'll keep inviting you to take more polygraphs, and you'll eventually pass.
I ended up turning down the NSA internship for better opportunities after realizing that NSA folks are not the most fun people in the world to hang out with.
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There are two different answers depending on who you ask. The more ignorant will answer: it’s obviously true because they confessed. Nobody would confess to a crime they didn’t commit. The more evil answer is: who cares? The public is reassured by a self-admitted criminal going to prison and I get re-elected.
Right, and both work until the conviction is overturned, the media makes a big deal out of it, and the Justice System is called into question yet again. Or it's not overturned, and someone makes a documentary followed by a dozen podcasts and online petitions. Which again calls into question how just the Justice System is, and how impartial a jury of your peers really is.
The Generation Why podcast will occasionally raise the point that if you try the same case more than once, you often get different results. Which really raises questions. Why didn't the judge allow certain information into the trial the first time, but another judge did the second time? How was the prosecution able to withhold information from the defense? Why on Earth did the jury find the defendant guilty despite no evidence tying them to the crime? Or in some cases, the opposite is true. How did the jury find the defendant innocent with that much evidence against them?
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#38Polygraphs aren’t really used for lie detection. Think of it as a tool for an enhanced interview. It allows for the interviewer to have many more dimensions of straws to grasp at in assessing you. “Lies” are assessed as anomalous readings measured against control questions. This is something polygraphers are open about and inform you of the control stage during the start. Afterwards, it’s all really an internal battle. There’s even various stages cues wherein they might leave you in the room alone to fester in your thoughts. So really it’s not whether youre a liar or not, but more of having a consistent nature
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#39Oh I get it, the title is a pun: the truth-telling machine itself is a lie.
Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted
#40I 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
ALdrich Ames passed a couple of polygraphs.
They only got him because other sources implicated him, and because his finances were notably out of whack for a government employee.