Do polygraph tests qualify for the prize?

[bpesta22]

Perhaps this was discussed elsewhere, but anyone know if Randi would test lie detectors for the prize money?

 

[Hastur]

I don't know about testing the polygraphs themselves, but what about their interpreters?
Here's a protocol procedure I thought up:

1. Randomly select ten polygraph readouts of at least ten questions each. Best results would be different jurisdictions, but different interpreters should suffice. The hypothesis I have going here is that the polygraphs, while accurately measuring body feedback, only show truth and falsehood according to the judgment of the interpreter and no two could come to the same conclusion 100% of the time.

2. Ten interpreters would be selected at random. Ideally, none shall ever have seen these polygraph readouts before.

3. Each will be given one polygraph readout. Any identifying marks (subject's name, case number, whatever) will be redacted; the interpreter doing a blind read. The interpreters will not be told of what questions were asked each subject. Each question will be marked off to avoid confusion. There shall be no conferring between interpreters.

4. Interpreters will be asked to determine which of the ten questions are showing truth or falsehood. For the purposes of a "correct" answer, the determination of the original interpreter will be the standard. Interpreters will have as much time as they require. When all have signaled they are done, the readouts will be given to new interpreters. This will continue until all interpreters have completed ten readout answer forms.

5. The answer keys will be kept in a secure location away from the test proctor and grader until after the test is complete. Only after the answer sheets are returned and the readers have been dismissed will the grader see the answer keys for the first time. All tests, sheets, and keys will be numbered correspondingly. Test answers must match the original interpreter's to be correct.

What do you think, Kramer?

 

[jmercer]

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't think this would qualify. Interpreter's may be very good at simply reading a person's reaction - forget about the polygraph equipment. Nothing paranormal about that.

Moreover, you'd have to get an interpreter to state that their ability is a paranormal one. Good luck with that - doing so would trash their reputations six ways from Sunday, as the saying goes.

Also, just because current polygraphic equipment doesn't "do the job" doesn't mean that someone else won't eventually develop something that will.

 

[Drooper]

Perhaps this was discussed elsewhere, but anyone know if Randi would test lie detectors for the prize money?

I will probably be quickly correct here, but this is my take.

It is not that polygraphs are paranormal, but just that they are so unreliable and easily fooled by a knowledgable subject, to make them worthless for any type of predictive use.

 

[Hitch]

Polygraph machines ... not paranormal.

Being able to fool a polygraph machine ... not paranormal.

Using a polygraph machine to detect ghost ... now we might have something.*





* No. I can't do this. And I don't know of anyone who claims to be able to. I'm just trying to stir things up.

 

[Jekyll]

3. Each will be given one polygraph readout. Any identifying marks (subject's name, case number, whatever) will be redacted; the interpreter doing a blind read. The interpreters will not be told of what questions were asked each subject. Each question will be marked off to avoid confusion. There shall be no conferring between interpreters.

4. Interpreters will be asked to determine which of the ten questions are showing truth or falsehood. For the purposes of a "correct" answer, the determination of the original interpreter will be the standard. Interpreters will have as much time as they require. When all have signaled they are done, the readouts will be given to new interpreters. This will continue until all interpreters have completed ten readout answer forms.

You would have to ensure that the interpreters didnt set up a predetermined string of T/F/T/T/F/F/F/F/T/..... as answers.
To show that polygraphs work you would have to repeated identify known criminals from transcripts and polygraph readings of several suspects taken before the evidence that differentiated them became avalible.

 

[Gayle]

All the discussion that applied to Oliver Mills-Dopamine Producer would apply to polygraph testing.

Not paranormal.

I'm pretty sure that with two weeks practice and a certain prescription drug or two that a polygraph test would show I was telling the truth when I said I was born in a galaxy long, long ago and far, far away, that I regularly saw ghosts, and that I was here to visit my indigo children.

Pretty sure.

 

[Sujay]

I believe Randi HAS spoken against polygraph tests, but I am not sure it would qualify for the prize. The problem lies in the fact that the proponents of the polygraph themselves do not consider it to be an "exact science". What accuracy percentage would Randi settle for? A long-term, sustained test, proving that polygraph tests are not very accurate, or have negligible rates of accuracy would probably settle the matter? If, over a long period of time, if polygraphs were shown to have 70% accuracy atleast, then that might be something of interest.

 

[bpesta22]

I believe Randi HAS spoken against polygraph tests, but I am not sure it would qualify for the prize. The problem lies in the fact that the proponents of the polygraph themselves do not consider it to be an "exact science". What accuracy percentage would Randi settle for? A long-term, sustained test, proving that polygraph tests are not very accurate, or have negligible rates of accuracy would probably settle the matter? If, over a long period of time, if polygraphs were shown to have 70% accuracy atleast, then that might be something of interest.

Surely statisticians could figure out what level of significance is required, given there's a million bucks at stake. I don't think randi ever requires 100% accuracy, just improbably accuracy (assuming they cannot do what they claim to do).

I asked Randi once if graphology qualified-- he said yes. There's no paranormal claims involved in that, so the fact that lie detectors dont involve paranormal stuff wouldn't seem to preclude it.

I would email him, but I fear he will yell at me (you idiot, I covered this in the june 1999 commentary!)

 

[Timothy]

I'm unsure what the claim is regarding polygraph machines and why anyone is asking whether they qualify for the Challenge.

There's nothing remotely paranormal about them.

Polygraphs and their operators use physical response and psychological pressure to get subjects to admit to things that the subject doesn't want to reveal.

Polygraphs cannot detect between a truth and a falsehood. The method of questioning is as important as the machine itself. The system is designed to provoke highly charged emotional responses when the subject matter is theft, murder, espionage, sex ... things that if true the subject wishes to hide.

If you ask a subject "what color is your car?" most people could lie to their heart's content and the polygraph wouldn't show anything. But when questions like "have you ever stolen from your employer?" and "have you ever cheated on your wife?" are asked, the embarassment over a wrongdoing will tend to make most people have a much more prominent autonomic response. They should be called "shame detectors" rather than "lie detectors".

Many people can control their autonomic responses as well. This is simply a case of not being ashamed when asked a question about a topic that would provoke a response in the rest of the population. That's why polygraph operators are trained in how to question subjects, and how *not* to ask questions. A well-timed, lengthy silence on the part of a polygraph operator can fool an unknowledgable subject into thinking that the operator knows something he in fact does not. Read accounts of how polygraph sessions go ... an extraordinarily large number of people confess to things during a polygraph session that they were not asked about.

Not paranormal. Not science, but not paranormal.

- Timothy

 

[KRAMER]

Perhaps this was discussed elsewhere, but anyone know if Randi would test lie detectors for the prize money?

No.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Do polygraph tests qualify for the prize?

No.

Gawd, Kramer, you are overly verbose, ya know that?

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Polygraph is not paranormal scam. It is a very normal psychological scam.

 

[Gayle]

Please make that an investigative scam.

 

[Sujay]

Taken from Randi's archives April 4, 2003 :

http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html

For the complete article, click on the link, here is a part of the article :

We've assailed the use of polygraph ("lie detector") technology here, many times. It is simply an area of failed technology, one that seemed promising, but then proved to be not only faulty, but quite dangerous to those upon whom was inflicted. State and federal governments, however, opted to embrace it despite the facts. Why are we not surprised? We can't forget that jailed nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee was misled by federal investigators who told him he had failed a Department of Energy lie-detector test. During a lengthy interrogation, FBI agents pressured Lee to admit to passing nuclear weapons secrets to China. Lee said he had not and insisted he was telling the truth. His interrogators, however, never told him that DOE polygraph operators had actually given him a high score for honesty. Lee is only one victim of this mis-use of technology.


Now, in the latest reality check, Dr. Stephen E. Fienberg, chairman of the statistics department at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, concluded that "almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."

Randi calls it a "psuedoscience", and its not really paranormal, so it might not qualify for the prize.

 

[bpesta22]

Taken from Randi's archives April 4, 2003 :

http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html

For the complete article, click on the link, here is a part of the article :



Randi calls it a "psuedoscience", and its not really paranormal, so it might not qualify for the prize.

Ok, to Kramer: Why then does graphology-- handwriting analyses intended to reveal personality traits-- qualify for the prize when it's clearly non-paranormal?

Interesting-- not being confrontational, just trying to understand the logic. Clearly if Timothy above's argument is right, then the same logic should exclude graphology from the prize. But I remember Randi on his radio show saying that it was BS, and would qualify for the prize.

 

[bpesta22]

What made me ask: A colleague was at a conference last week, wherein part of it included a presentation by FBI agents on the psychology of lying.

These people were "expert" polygraphists who swear by the technique.

They use the lie detector in combo with other psychological measures of whether one is lying. They conducted a field experiment where they had 5 randomly selected people.

Each was to play the role of a manager who was accused of cooking the books by top management. 4 of the subjects were told they were in fact innocent of the charge. The fifth one was told he was in fact guilty, but if he could fool the interrogators that he would receive 500$ (in real money!). Thus giving him real-world incentive to lie.

According to my friend, the expert analysis was strikingly accurate. After the FBI agents lectured on what to look for, picking out the liar among the five was a no-brainer.

So, I wonder if the lie detector test is just the pretext law enforcement uses to get the suspect talking. Then, the actual science of lying is applied to the suspect's behavior / reactions, which make the "test" valid to some level of accuracy better than chance, though far less than perfect.

Randi seems to be of the mindset that most everyone is an idiot, so it's no surprise to hear law enforcement using junk science.

I agree in general, but surely there are some smart law enforcers out there-- some perhaps are even smarter than I or Randi.

The fact that they swear by it gives me pause. Perhaps the tests have some validity; perhaps it's confirmation bias, or perhaps the validity is due to other techniques the examiner uses to form a conclusion.

I just wonder if there's some validity to the testing scenario beyond just the occasional naive person offering info he / she didn't need to, for fear of the test.

TIA.

Kramer, are you related to Randi?!

 

[Hastur]

Re: Re: Do polygraph tests qualify for the prize?

No.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Jekyll
You would have to ensure that the interpreters didnt set up a predetermined string of T/F/T/T/F/F/F/F/T/..... as answers. To show that polygraphs work you would have to repeated identify known criminals from transcripts and polygraph readings of several suspects taken before the evidence that differentiated them became avalible.

The way polygraph use is generally depicted, the interpreters ask several "control" questions, having the subject answer truthfully or deliberately lie to some meaningless questions. The way I envision the interpreters getting the polygraph sheets is they will be given the controls for comparison and ten readouts from questions asked. The interpreters will not know who the polygraph subjects are nor what questions were asked of them.

 

[jmercer]

What made me ask: A colleague was at a conference last week, wherein part of it included a presentation by FBI agents on the psychology of lying.

These people were "expert" polygraphists who swear by the technique.

They use the lie detector in combo with other psychological measures of whether one is lying. They conducted a field experiment where they had 5 randomly selected people.

Each was to play the role of a manager who was accused of cooking the books by top management. 4 of the subjects were told they were in fact innocent of the charge. The fifth one was told he was in fact guilty, but if he could fool the interrogators that he would receive 500$ (in real money!). Thus giving him real-world incentive to lie.

According to my friend, the expert analysis was strikingly accurate. After the FBI agents lectured on what to look for, picking out the liar among the five was a no-brainer.

So, I wonder if the lie detector test is just the pretext law enforcement uses to get the suspect talking. Then, the actual science of lying is applied to the suspect's behavior / reactions, which make the "test" valid to some level of accuracy better than chance, though far less than perfect.

Randi seems to be of the mindset that most everyone is an idiot, so it's no surprise to hear law enforcement using junk science.

I agree in general, but surely there are some smart law enforcers out there-- some perhaps are even smarter than I or Randi.

The fact that they swear by it gives me pause. Perhaps the tests have some validity; perhaps it's confirmation bias, or perhaps the validity is due to other techniques the examiner uses to form a conclusion.

I just wonder if there's some validity to the testing scenario beyond just the occasional naive person offering info he / she didn't need to, for fear of the test.

TIA.

Kramer, are you related to Randi?!

Some of them use psychics, too, and publicly swear by them. Does that mean anything?

If lie detectors don't really work and are intentionally used as a prop for psychological leverage during interrogations, it would have to be kept utterly secret to maintain the effectiveness of the technique. Once the "secret" was out, the bad guys wouldn't believe in the detector and the technique wouldn't work. So for this to remain effective, law enforcement agencies at all levels - Federal, State and local - would have to have hidden this "secret" for decades.

That sounds far to close to a conspiracy theory from my perspective.

 

[catbasket]

... Each was to play the role of a manager who was accused of cooking the books by top management. 4 of the subjects were told they were in fact innocent of the charge. The fifth one was told he was in fact guilty, but if he could fool the interrogators that he would receive 500$ (in real money!). Thus giving him real-world incentive to lie.

I've been thinking about this off and on for a couple of hours and I still can't work out what this actually demonstrates. Simplistically I'm thinking if all five are asked the question "did you cook the books?" the answers would be -

For people one through four, answer "no" is true.
For person five answer "no" is also true - (s)he's only role-playing, but she's the only one with a chance of winning $500.

So are the polygraphists really finding who is lying, or who has been offered $500 if they can convince the polygraphists the answer "no" is true?

My head is spinning