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

41–50 of 196 posts

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

#41

Post by pc86 »

bluntfang wrote: post #31
moomin wrote: post #29

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.

let's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the victim know who the boss is.

This seems like a pretty adversarial way to look at it, using words like "power play" and "victim." From my understanding the CIA still regularly uses polygraphs. I have to wonder why that is, and it may have nothing to do with the polygraph itself. Maybe it's more just making sure someone has nothing to hide? I'm also not sure what "beating" the polygraph means in the context of them not working in the first place. How do you beat something that doesn't do what it purports to do?

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

#42

Post by AdmiralGinge »

roguesupport wrote: post #11

This is what happens when you rely on junk pseudo-science as a screening mechanism

Many of the water companies in the UK still use divining rods to locate pipes, there's a lot of bollocks used in places that really ought to know better.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-fi...

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

#43

Post by pc86 »

3pt14159 wrote: post #32
tingol wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In former CIA officer Valery Plame's book Fair Game, she describes how an old hand at CIA told her that the best way to get through the polygraph is to be as detailed and honest as possible. Even on subjects that would be embarrassing, merely focussing on describing the truth and knowing that the interviewers appreciate candor can often alleviate nervousness. I've never been polygraphed and I have conflicting views o…

Polygraphs are not used in US courts and the results are not admissible at trial, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in the last paragraph.

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

#44

Post by LatteLazy »

bluntfang wrote: post #31
moomin wrote: post #29

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.

let's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the victim know who the boss is.

Partly its that. Partly its about tricking juries, "He failed/refused the polygraph" is a very nice way to discredit someone. At least 5 of the 12 people there will find that concerning and not know its BS.

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

#45

Post by the_af »

3pt14159 wrote: post #32
tingol wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In former CIA officer Valery Plame's book Fair Game, she describes how an old hand at CIA told her that the best way to get through the polygraph is to be as detailed and honest as possible. Even on subjects that would be embarrassing, merely focussing on describing the truth and knowing that the interviewers appreciate candor can often alleviate nervousness. I've never been polygraphed and I have conflicting views o…

If I remember correctly, note this is contrary to the advice the antipolygraph sites gives. They state anything the person interviewed admits, no matter how trivial, will be used against them (e.g. "have you ever smoked pot in college?"). That the "good cop" of the interrogation is always a ruse; and that since polygraphs don't actually work, small "admissions" are a big part of the actual information gathering... including the questions that are allegedly for "calibration".

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

#46

Post by LatteLazy »

AdmiralGinge wrote: post #39
LatteLazy wrote: post #4

Ah yes, polygraphs, long proven nonsense and not used in virtually any other western country. I wonder how he beat that?

Aren't they essentially just glorified galvanometers like the Scientology e-meter?

Pretty much. They also do heart beat and a bunch of other things. Then (like a scientologist) the operator "interprets" that you're lying or not.

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

#47

Post by giles_corey »

pc86 wrote: post #41
bluntfang wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's get real, polygraphs are a ruse in order to humiliate people and see how they react in torture situations. Using them is a power play. It lets the victim know who the boss is.

This seems like a pretty adversarial way to look at it, using words like "power play" and "victim." From my understanding the CIA still regularly uses polygraphs. I have to wonder why that is, and it may have nothing to do with the polygraph itself. Maybe it's more just making sure someone has nothing to hide? I'm also not sure what "beating" the polygraph means in the context of them not working in the first place.…

Beating the polygraph means passing it when you're lying about the relevant issues. Although polygraphy has no scientific basis, the methodology employed makes effective countermeasures possible.

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

#48

Post by meroes »

3pt14159 wrote: post #32
tingol wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In former CIA officer Valery Plame's book Fair Game, she describes how an old hand at CIA told her that the best way to get through the polygraph is to be as detailed and honest as possible. Even on subjects that would be embarrassing, merely focussing on describing the truth and knowing that the interviewers appreciate candor can often alleviate nervousness. I've never been polygraphed and I have conflicting views o…

One of Obama's staff, maybe press secretary said something similar. On NPR she said when they pressed about marijuana use in the screenings, she told them flatly she used it 500+ times.

But like you said, in a legal proceeding they are terrible to use.

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

#49

Post by GavinMcG »

dagenleg wrote: post #25
thaumasiotes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read an article somewhere in which a cop told the story of conducting an interrogation using an ersatz lie detector. If he thought the suspect was lying, he'd push a button, and out would come a piece of paper saying "He's lying." It was a Xerox machine.

That's a scene from The Wire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0

The story was around before The Wire.

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

#50

Post by ed_elliott_asc »

LatteLazy wrote: post #4

Ah yes, polygraphs, long proven nonsense and not used in virtually any other western country. I wonder how he beat that?

There was a tv show in the uk where they used them to prove/disprove infidelity - I think it caused people to actually break up.
Post reply on HN