Polygraphs are comic book technology. The first one was invented by the guy who created Wonder Woman and they were popularized by a commercial for Gillette razors. It's as ridiculous as determining guilt by batarang or kryptonite. It's amazing we still allow them in law enforcement.
Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
71–80 of 196 posts
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Any lawyers in the house? I was under the impression that (in the US) refusing to take a polygraph was not considered an admission of guilt though could be grounds for dismissal from federal employment.
[deleted]
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#73Earlier 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.…
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 when the hidden person would supposedly be watching to see if I acted differently when I thought I was alone.
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#74I know we all know that polygraphs don't work, but: is that true in practice or in principle?
I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves. Does it really seem impossible for a machine with current tech to detect signals of lying with high certainty?
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#75It'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.
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.
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#76I know we all know that polygraphs don't work, but: is that true in practice or in principle? I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves. Does it really seem impossible for a machine with current tech to detect signals of lying with high certainty?
I think a good liar is just exceptionally good at convincing themselves that what they're saying is the truth. I think that even better liars are so narcissistic that they basically believe what they say as it's coming out of their mouth, on account of it being them that is the one saying it.
I say all of this as a horrible liar.
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
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.
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#78It'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.
Polygraphs are there to create a high-stakes stress/interrogation situation to see if someone cracks or reacts. It's more of an art form than a science -- and that's why it's not admissible as evidence in a criminal investigation (and shouldn't be)
The rationale for continued use in clearance screenings is that it's not scientific, but it's better than nothing.
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#79Earlier 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.
I'm not sure how stupid a spy would have to be for "are you a spy? Be honest!" questions to work. But if I were running an organisation I suppose I'd have people ask anyway because it'll catch some idiot sooner or later. Polygraphs as a power play - well, I'm sure it happens but that probably isn't the reason it is in the room. Maybe the polygraph is a ruse to make people think FBI questioners are stupider than they…
> I'm not sure how stupid a spy would have to be for "are you a spy? Be honest!" questions to work. But if I were running an organisation I suppose I'd have people ask anyway because it'll catch some idiot sooner or later.
Those are questions on the SF-86. Ditto for a lot of customs & immigration paperwork. "Idiot detector" questions.
But if you don't have them on there then they can claim "but you never asked".
Re: Accused spy Alexander Yuk Ching Ma evidently beat the polygraph
#80I know we all know that polygraphs don't work, but: is that true in practice or in principle? I mean, there are papers out there about methods capable of extracting complete words from brainwaves. Does it really seem impossible for a machine with current tech to detect signals of lying with high certainty?
It works the other way around: polygraphs need to show that they work in replicated, controlled experiments.
That hasn't happened[1].
Lying is a complex behavior. Like, really complex. Even with all of modern technology, we've only just started to detect far more gross brain functions: pre-speech motor patterns, fear responses, etc.
It goes without saying that an MRI is at least slightly more complicated than something you could knock together in an afternoon after a shopping trip to Radio Shack in 1963.
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."