41–50 of 201 posts
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.
Why were you taking a polygraph? Just curious.
If you wanna be a senior sys admin for bed bath and beyond, you 'll be probably getting one.
Polygraphs 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 battl…
I've had a few experiences in my past that, when brought to memory, cause fairly large adrenaline spikes. Certainly, the memories increase my heart rate by just thinking intently about them.
In theory... couldn't you bring these thoughts to memory - at random? When asked about what you had for breakfast, for example. It would appear as an anomaly... But if you did that often enough, the interviewer couldn't trust the anomalies.
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
Earlier 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.
http://www.memoryillusion.com/
It's very easy to get false convictions, and to make people believe false memories. There have been widely replicated experiments.
Have the subject write down a random number from 1 to 1024. Perhaps this random number is assigned via a phone app. Have the subject put the paper in his pocket.
An maximally accurate polygraph will require no more than 10 questions to determine the number in the subject's pocket.
[However, I think we all know what the result would be, which is why nobody publishes a simple calibration like the above: It is not in an trained examiner's interest to expose the inaccuracy of polygraphs.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why were you taking a polygraph? Just curious.
Some jobs require it. Not even super-secret top-hacker men-behind-the-curtain type of operations. If you wanna be a senior sys admin for bed bath and beyond, you 'll be probably getting one.
Huh. I was a very senior 'sys admin' type for an enormous retailer for over a decade, and polygraphs never came up for me or anyone else there.
Any idea why bed bath and beyond is into such a thing?
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
You just need to show consistency Imagining that I’m running gets my heart rate up, I can keep my breathing consistent, and the finest sensor detects perspiration changes on your finger which is the toughest but also a mental game. Finally you need to consider the psychology of the tester or institution testing you. There are irrelevant questions that may not be yes or no questions, but its often more important for y…
I hold out hope for (f)MRI.
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.
Doesn't mean they don't work as an intimidation tactic. Though most of the agencies that use them are probably filtering out a lot of good employees by putting them through a test designed to mess with them. Instead of focusing on whether the person has the skills needed for the job.