Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#81

Post by that_jojo »

throwawy123 wrote: post #62
JackFr wrote: post #58

I passed my NSA polygraph, though it was uncomfortable. However my psych interviewer was able to get disqualifying info out of me using just technique. It was only years later while reading a book about the Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence), I recognized the way I was manipulated. No hard feelings, after all I was telling the truth, and I probably would have hated the job anyway.

What sort of disqualifying info, if you don't mind my asking? There were a lot of interesting questions in the psych interview, from porn use to romantic relationships and digital pirating... And, just spitballing, I wonder if it's a crime to lie in the psych interview. I know it is during the polygraph, since the examiners are federal investigators.

They asked him if he had moral standards.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#82

Post by throwawy123 »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #73
throwawy123 wrote: post #36

I 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…

Forgive me for asking if you are uncomfortable saying, but were they correct about your drug use? I'm coming very close to being 100% eligible for my security clearness but some of those questions would be tricky for me right now. I've often wondered if I could round 8 years up to 10 to pass a polygraph.

Unless you used to have a serious meth or heroine problem I'd say you're fine. ;)

I was pretty honest about my drug use. The way they phrase the questions sometimes leaves you with a bit of doubt, though. Like, "How many times did you use this drug?" I'm not sure who keeps a really diligent record of how many times they do drugs at parties.

But, yeah, I tried to be as accurate as possible, modulo that doubt about how possible it is to accurately answer these questions.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#83

Post by hestipod »

dripton wrote: post #20
taxidump wrote: post #18

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.

I have known multiple people who went through investigations including polygraphs for clearances. They were all told to be 100% honest and that it wasn't violations (within reason) that would hurt them...its not displaying "integrity". Those people were screened out for admitting to minor things like marijuana use etc. One's rejection read like some self righteous admonishment and said something like "You do not display the moral quality of character we here at are looking for. We wish you the best in your future endeavors". They were told they failed the polygraph when they were being honest. Frankly if this is the hypocritical "quality of character" those places exhibit...people are better off avoiding them. The agencies/companies prove with their behavior they do not have the honesty and integrity they claim to look for and use these tools selectively. They reward lying and manipulating the system and punish honesty.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#84

Post by xorcist »

How is this not a joke?

I get the comments that it's an "enhanced interrogation technique", but it sounds like it requires the subjects to be at least a bit intimidated by it. If someone pointed a dowsing stick at you, you wouldn't be the slightest bit intimidated by it, no matter how mean looking it was.

What kind of strange culture lets a prop straight out of a 50s sci-fi flick instill respect in people? And how they do it? Surely it can't just be the Hollywood movies?

Sorry for breaking out in a bit of a rant, but I seriously can't wrap my mind around how these things could possibly be useful.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#85

Post by gist »

hirundo wrote: post #69
pixelbath wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 session…

I had the "intimidation" kind of polygraph session when I was questioned by a couple of police detectives about a theft in a building where I was a security guard. Intimidation and threats. Like if you don't answer right we're headed to your place to search everything. They did not review the questions in advance; they did try to surprise me; there was no attempt at calibration. The lie detector seemed to be a prop.…

> when I was tested by a couple of police detectives about a theft in a building where I was a security guard.

Why did you agree to take the polygraph?

> Like if you don't answer right we're headed to your place to search everything.

If in the US they can't do that (w/o a court order which they would not get solely based on the way you are describing the situation).

> I guess it was the right answer.

The right answer would have been to not take the polygraph test at all and not to talk to them.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#86

Post by outworlder »

the-pigeon wrote: post #53
throwaway66666 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow. Never heard of a non-government agency using them. Pretty clear sign of a messed up company culture.

And one that trusts unscientific methods just because others use them.

That's not the kind of company you want to get involved, ever. If they do that during _hiring_ ...

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#87

Post by tempestn »

Spearchucker wrote: post #71

I've done a few and never failed one. Was told to clench my butt cheeks really hard to get a pass. Another tip was to put a drawing pin into your shoe and push down onto it with your foot as hard s you were able to tolerate. And if you search online there are a few other techniques you can use to ace the tests. Most interesting for me was being told I'd failed a test I was later told I'd passed. It's sheer madness.

At least on TV there are now pressure sensors in the seats to catch the butt-clenching thing.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#88

Post by JackFr »

throwawy123 wrote: post #62
JackFr wrote: post #58

I passed my NSA polygraph, though it was uncomfortable. However my psych interviewer was able to get disqualifying info out of me using just technique. It was only years later while reading a book about the Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence), I recognized the way I was manipulated. No hard feelings, after all I was telling the truth, and I probably would have hated the job anyway.

What sort of disqualifying info, if you don't mind my asking? There were a lot of interesting questions in the psych interview, from porn use to romantic relationships and digital pirating... And, just spitballing, I wonder if it's a crime to lie in the psych interview. I know it is during the polygraph, since the examiners are federal investigators.

Let's just say at the time I was a bit of a heavy drinker.

And the technique basically was to spend about 15 minutes having possibly the most uncomfortable conversation I've ever had about sexual relationships, pornography, sexual fantasies, etc. -- none of which they actually cared about. The intent was to make me as absolutely uncomfortable as possible. Then he moved on to a few quick questions about drug and alcohol use, which was such a relief, that before I realized what I was doing, I had answered fully and truthfully.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#89

Post by jefftk »

jpmattia wrote: post #46

I have no idea why there is not an accurate calibration of polygraphs published. Here's a straightforward calibration: 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 w…

Committing to answer "yes" to every question without registering it enough to even understand it would make your polygraph "fail" even if it actually worked well in real usage.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#90

Post by stevekemp »

jdoliner wrote: post #52
glitchc wrote: 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.

There's a wonderful scene in The Wire where they give a young thug a "polygraph test" by interviewing him in front of a copy machine and hit the copy button when he answers a question so that it spits out the message they preloaded into the machine "false." The thug looks crestfallen and tells them the truth.

For reference this is the scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ5aIvjNgao

Post reply on HN