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

Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

antipolygraph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#121

Post by kelvin0 »

ballenf wrote: post #105
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I don't think the subconscious mind is able to 'make certain decisions', it operates on a whole different level than the conscious mind. But that's a discussion for another time.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#122

Post by KvanteKat »

mc32 wrote: post #7

My understanding is polygraphs are used as a tool to have people trip over themselves by using it as a prop when the administrator thinks they have something to catch them on. Now that makes me wonder, if they don’t use fMRI is it because it’s also just a prop but with more studies behind it?

fMRI machines are still quite expensive and require a technician to operate and calibrate. They also require the subject to be sitting/lying still inside the machine while it is being operated in order to get any kind of useful measurements.

Not really sure what the consensus among neuroscientists and psychologists is with regard to weather they are reliable lie detectors or not though.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#123

Post by herodotus »

From Wikipedia: "A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." The cited article: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. National Research Council. 2003. ISBN 978-0-309-26392-4. (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10420/the-polygraph-and-lie-dete...)

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#124

Post by unishark »

tingol wrote: post #16
firebaze wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess that polygraph tests need belief into them working, thus making it work. Polygraphs should be able to (at least) measure nervousness correctly (e.g. due to transpiration), so if you believe polygraphs may work you're probably someone on which they will work (1). In other words, long proven nonsense as long as you don't believe in it. (1) https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf (Chapter 3)

You're wrong, they do not magically start working if you believe in them. If you're nervous for ANY reason it will give off a false positive. Not only if you're nervous of the machine itself. It is insane it's still being used in the US.

> You're wrong, they do not magically start working if you believe in them. If you're nervous for ANY reason it will give off a false positive. Not only if you're nervous of the machine itself.

If you're just as nervous during control questions as lies then it would be a false negative. The "tack in shoe" tactic is supposed to make yourself uncomfortable during control questions by stepping on the tack and raising the baseline.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#125

Post by wahern »

tlear wrote: post #95
donw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I totally agree with you, I... have a theory. It might be psychological warfare. I would wager that a surprisingly large number of people think that polygraphs detect lies. An even larger number are probably open to the possibility. If you hook up somebody in that group to a polygraph, you probably rocket their stress levels through the ceiling, which might push them to crack. Behavior under stress is a fascina…

The Wire has a great scene where they use a photocopier as a fake polygraph to crack a suspect.

https://youtu.be/rN7pkFNEg5c?t=70

And David Simon says it's a true story: https://newrepublic.com/article/38982/wire-ripped-real-life

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#126

Post by Analemma_ »

jacquesm wrote: post #84

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.

You're not wrong, but it's a little rich that a site full of programmers, of all professions, can't understand why an interview procedure exists even though everyone knows it's bullshit: done any whiteboard coding questions recently?

Even if everyone knows it's crap, it can persist because of institutional inertia and because no one has come up with anything better. That's what happened to us, so we shouldn't be surprised to see it elsewhere.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#127

Post by kube-system »

mc32 wrote: post #109
Clubber wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

What would they buy a 150cc dirt bike?

There are many places where people do buy motorcycles based on utility and cost -- underbones, standards, and scooters between 49 and 250cc are popular. The most popular vehicle in history is the Honda Super Cub.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#128

Post by bluntfang »

hashedwater wrote: post #65
bluntfang wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>You can absolutely respond to it with your own tactics if you know about it, but it still effects you. Of which ways that it effects a person have you learned?

anecdata: i just rented a house. the listing said x. when i saw the property, the realtor said "rent is ${x+200}". I still felt like i expended my negotiations after clarifying that the rent was actually x. I knew he was fucking with me, but i needed a place to live, and i wanted to negotiate more, but it was hard to muster a negotiation after i felt like I already negotiated.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#129

Post by ganoushoreilly »

Shoreleave wrote: post #117
donw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I totally agree with you, I... have a theory. It might be psychological warfare. I would wager that a surprisingly large number of people think that polygraphs detect lies. An even larger number are probably open to the possibility. If you hook up somebody in that group to a polygraph, you probably rocket their stress levels through the ceiling, which might push them to crack. Behavior under stress is a fascina…

I thought this was quite well accepted. I can't speak to the FBI, but for CSIS, the Canadian Equivalent, the "polygraph tech" who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.

What's Ironic is some of these agencies that require them for classified information, also teach field operators to evade them. The other fun part about them is when you're in an unclassified situation getting a poly and they're asking questions that if you answer you divulge secrets, if you don't you're lying.

I was once told that I was too calm for my poly and then asked why. My response was I didn't trust the science, or the fact that it was a couple week course. That didn't go over well, I ended up taking two more after that and they gave up.

I've seen the other-side of it though where good people failed their poly because they had too low a baseline like I did, caused by medications.

It's really a bunk science. I can get it as a scare tactic, but the fact the the Govt. still relies on it at a higher level is ridiculous.

Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph

#130

Post by ballenf »

kelvin0 wrote: post #121
ballenf wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I don't think the subconscious mind is able to 'make certain decisions', it operates on a whole different level than the conscious mind. But that's a discussion for another time.

Here's the article:

https://psmag.com/magazine/the-lucrative-art-of-chicken-sexi...

Yeah, subconscious decision making is probably the wrong term. "Instinctual" decision making?

Post reply on HN