I've talked to someone who administers polygraphs, and they said the machine is mostly theatre, but that there is normally someone watching you through a hidden camera or double sided mirror to see how you act when you think someone isn't looking. For example, when I had to take a polygraph for work, the polygrapher left the room a few times because they "needed to get a second opinion about abnormal results". That's…
That process sounds even more scientifically dubious than the demonstrably dubious machine.
Indeed, but no more so than any interview process. Perhaps they should use a whiteboard instead?
Yes, and I built a very simple one in law school, to illustrate the concept (well to be honest I was an engineer who went to law school as a hobby, and then I took every excuse I could find to build technology things as a hobby within a hobby). Anyway it was just a multimeter, some washers soldered to copper wire and some tape to keep the washers in their place on the subject's hands. When people didn't try to game i…
Just a guess, but I wonder if a polygraph is useful as an intimidation tactic? Maybe you can't detect lies with any sort of accuracy but you can intimidate people into making more mistake when answering questions and that can be used to figure out if someone is lying? OR perhaps they can pressure some people into revealing more information than they otherwise would?
Yes that's how it's used. That depends on people believing polygraphs work though, which is why polygraph companies for decades have been litigating against people who question polygraphs. Sometimes just the idea that there will be a polygraph test is enough to get people to be more truthful. It's like placebo drugs - if it works somehow, should we care about whether it actually works? By that reasoning, should we allow homeopathic drugs for healthcare insurance reimbursements? If Josie doesn't have a headache after taking pills, does it matter whether those pills are paracetamol or water with a story of it being very potent water? Fun discussions, not very productive, but still fun (for a while).
My guess is that this works just like how it does in corporate security: It is vastly easier to add a new security policy than it is to remove it. Even when everyone knows something is useless or perhaps even harmful, nobody wants to be in a position to be held culpable on the off chance that retiring the policy is implicated in a future breach.
Polygraphs are a $2 billion industry, and Upton Sinclair said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Sure, but what about the people buying polygraphs?
Let us never forget this infamous explosives 'detector': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 Sold to law enforcement in military around the world for a while.
It actually makes sense for law enforcement even knowing the device does nothing because it can be used to give them probable cause to search somewhere they wouldn't otherwise legally be able to search. When the shit hits the fan the company that sold it takes the fall, which is part of what the police were paying for. Perhaps a similar logic is at work for the military, but one would think they'd be more concerned w…
I also think there's value in tools that allow our subconscious to override our conscious mind when it comes to making tricky decisions. (But never in support of probable cause.)
I'm reminded of the chick sexing story from a while back. About how no one can tell you what to look for to separate male from female chicks. But you can still learn how to do it through trial and error.
A device that basically tells your conscious mind to pause requires that you believe the device is working.
Even better would be training people to deliberately allow their subconscious to make certain decisions.
The polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.
The issue is accuracy. In terms of being able to infer lies from skin response, this is an effect that actually exists for many people. The net scientific conclusion is that can work but poorly, not that is is complete nonsense like ESP or something.
Being pseudoscience or not is not quite the same question. People claim acupuncture works for them (California is now forcing insurance to pay for it), but it is clearly based on pseudoscience.
Let us never forget this infamous explosives 'detector': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 Sold to law enforcement in military around the world for a while.
It actually makes sense for law enforcement even knowing the device does nothing because it can be used to give them probable cause to search somewhere they wouldn't otherwise legally be able to search. When the shit hits the fan the company that sold it takes the fall, which is part of what the police were paying for. Perhaps a similar logic is at work for the military, but one would think they'd be more concerned w…
Just like those dogs that indicate the presence of drugs. Except of course when there aren't any. I've had my car searched a couple of times at the Canadian/American border because a dog gave a signal. Given the number of times I've crossed that border the false positive rate must be ridiculously high.
Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext. I'm about as anti-drugs as you'll find and if those dogs are responding to my car then they'll respond to any car.
The polygraph is pseudoscience. Of course it can be beaten, it doesn't work to begin with. Why the US still puts so much weight on them when they know they don't work is a mystery to me. Just get rid of the damn things and do your homework better.
The issue is accuracy. In terms of being able to infer lies from skin response, this is an effect that actually exists for many people. The net scientific conclusion is that can work but poorly, not that is is complete nonsense like ESP or something. Being pseudoscience or not is not quite the same question. People claim acupuncture works for them (California is now forcing insurance to pay for it), but it is clearly…
What are the chances of an actual spy being able to beat a lie detector?
I'd put those at about 100%. So you will end up with nervous people who will increase the size of the haystack with zero chance of identifying the needles, which is a net negative.
>Pretty much every manipulation technique used in negotiation, sales and interrogation is useless if the person it's being applied to realizes it. That is just wholly incorrect. The whole point of marketing is that it works even if you know it's happening to you. Anchoring, a common sales tactic, works even if you know they're doing it to you. You can absolutely respond to it with your own tactics if you know about i…
>The whole point of marketing is that it works even if you know it's happening to you. The point of most advertising is selling an emotion. (Advertising is a subset of marketing) Convincing the buyer to buy a product based on projecting a feeling on or drawing an emotion from that person. This is inherently a lie and thus manipulation. Most people don't realize what's going on. Let's use Harley Davidson as an example…
It's a bit of a joke, really. I doubt there's anyone reading this on here who didn't already know polygraphs don't work. The only people who don't seem to know polygraphs don't work are the ones making national security decisions relating to polygraphs.
The polygraph process is not a technical one, but a psychological one. The point is not to detect a lie by "registering it" on the tool, its to create a situation where a person self-elects information because they believe the machine _could_ detect a lie. Its a huge dog-and-pony show, and the poly operators play it as a big game. So, polys _do_ sort of work, but not in the way they are presented to the public.