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

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#91

Post by hirundo »

gist wrote: post #85
hirundo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why did you agree to take the polygraph?

I wanted to keep my job. I didn't want the cops to find my weed (campus housing) and maybe get kicked out of college. Nobody had threatened to fire me and I may well have made the wrong decision. But I was very easy to replace and the condominium was full of paranoid rich people with lots of time on their hands.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#92

Post by blackflame7000 »

xorcist wrote: post #84

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 th…

It's not the machine itself that's intimidating, it's the consequence of being caught lying and the accompanying loss of freedom or job opportunity.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#93

Post by pmarreck »

oufoufouf wrote: post #79

The dumbest things about these polygraphs is that you're pretty much forced to lie if you want to pass. Some of the questions were vague and if you are a normal human being without a halo glowing on your head you would fail. Questions like "Do you love your parents?", "Have you ever spread gossip?", "Have you ever done anything immoral" (My interviewer specified watching pornography as something immoral). Thankfully…

> watching pornography as something immoral

Well, there goes everyone.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#94

Post by polygraphed »

taftster wrote: post #63
the-pigeon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean they have been debunked and anyone that Google's it knows it. 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.

It's got to be pretty intimidating. Getting locked up in a room with the investigator, being told that you're not actually required to be there, but it will seriously jeopardize your chances of employment if you decide to leave or decline, etc. I'm sure it works well as an intimidation tactic, as you say. People need jobs and are willing to put up with lots. Going through with a polygraph is likely just one of a numb…

It is extremely intimidating. My interviewer decided that he was going to tear me apart and that he knew I was lying about something (I wasn't). He said he could only help me out if I admitted I was hiding something and told him why. I stuck to my guns, told him that I wasn't hiding anything, that I was sorry that it seemed like I was, and that I would be able to sleep soundly knowing I had been honest on my test, even if it appeared otherwise. He didn't like that a whole lot, but I told him I'd rather fail the process having told the truth than pass it having lied on it. Ended up leaving that job shortly after largely because I didn't want to do the polygraph. Fuck that noise.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#95

Post by rhinoceraptor »

the-pigeon wrote: post #50
taftster wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean they have been debunked and anyone that Google's it knows it. 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.

I'd imagine it's also a good way to filter out non-sociopaths from the three letter agencies.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#96

Post by tomohawk »

They could probably double the accuracy by also adding in phrenology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Aldrich Ames didn't appear to have any trouble passing his, but I can't help but think if they added some phrenology in, they maybe could have caught him.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/opinion/lie-detectors-lie...

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#97

Post by c3534l »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #17

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...

You should worry. Nearly the entire field of criminology is pseudoscience. Few techniques employed during the 20th century have stood up to scientific investigation which is because they were never developed scientifically in the first place. It's simply a veneer of science promulgated by those who haven't actually understood the scientific method.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#98

Post by all_blue_chucks »

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…

The goal isn't to detect lies; it's to detect which lines of questioning make you nervous.

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#99

Post by xorcist »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #92
xorcist wrote: post #84

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 th…

It's not the machine itself that's intimidating, it's the consequence of being caught lying and the accompanying loss of freedom or job opportunity.

Sure, but nobody chose a wizard's hat or a dowsing rod, so there must be some cultural significance to it completely beyond my understanding?

Re: Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted

#100

Post by thfuran »

tempestn wrote: post #87
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.

How is that even supposed to work?
Post reply on HN