• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How reliable are polygragh tests?

Christian

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
1,090
Most of what I've been reading about polygragh testing is that it's pseudoscience. Still, even agencies like the FBI and CIA use them regularly. Is this method useful at all?
 
Christian said:
Most of what I've been reading about polygragh testing is that it's pseudoscience. Still, even agencies like the FBI and CIA use them regularly. Is this method useful at all?
Click to expand...

I imagine it's useful as part of interrogation to have a suspect or someone with information believe that you'll know if they're lying.
 
Cavemonster said:
I imagine it's useful as part of interrogation to have a suspect or someone with information believe that you'll know if they're lying.
Click to expand...

From the book, I can see the usefulness of this method for some situations (never should be used to send someone to prison; could be used to point you in the right direction of someone who might not be trustworthy and must be watched further)
 
They're worse than useless. People can lose security clearances over them, regardless of whether they're actually a security risk. That seems a pretty stupid way to run an organisation. Plus, someone who is a traitor and knows they're going to face a polygraph test will be able to find out how to "beat" the machine, and pass the test thus making it less likely they will be suspected. Quite why organisations like the CIA or FBI would use polygraphs for anything more than a party game is beyond me.
 
Christian said:
Most of what I've been reading about polygragh testing is that it's pseudoscience. Still, even agencies like the FBI and CIA use them regularly. Is this method useful at all?
Click to expand...

It's been very useful for Maury Povich's "have you been cheating on me?" shows. Every once in a while someone swears up and down that the test's conclusion was wrong. I wonder...

We need to measure its accuracy by comparing lie detector results to physical evidence (eg DNA tests on the "who's the father?" shows. I wonder how much of this has been done.
 
Last edited:
Sledge said:
They're worse than useless. People can lose security clearances over them, regardless of whether they're actually a security risk. That seems a pretty stupid way to run an organisation. Plus, someone who is a traitor and knows they're going to face a polygraph test will be able to find out how to "beat" the machine, and pass the test thus making it less likely they will be suspected. Quite why organisations like the CIA or FBI would use polygraphs for anything more than a party game is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. In a well educated population that is versed in these subjects, it makes it useless. I would disagree for populations that are not as knowledgeable on the subject. It can be somewhat useful as an indicator for further investigation.
 
I'd disagree even with that, Christian. All it possibly tells you is that someone might be nervous. Polygraphs should be left behind with phrenology.
 
Cavemonster said:
I imagine it's useful as part of interrogation to have a suspect or someone with information believe that you'll know if they're lying.
Click to expand...

...so there's something like a placebo effect going on there?

I suspect Scientology audits using their "E-meter" as a lie detector to discover wealthy closeted gay celebrities they can blackmail.
 
Sledge said:
I'd disagree even with that, Christian. All it possibly tells you is that someone might be nervous. Polygraphs should be left behind with phrenology.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Book posted? The test does not only consist of hooking someone up to a machine and measuring responses. It includes clever interrogation techniques that I found could be useful. The tampering with the equipment and washing hands bits were really cool.
 
Christian said:
Did you read the Book posted? The test does not only consist of hooking someone up to a machine and measuring responses. It includes clever interrogation techniques that I found could be useful. The tampering with the equipment and washing hands bits were really cool.
Click to expand...

At which point we're not disucssing polygraph tests anymore. You could just as easily hook the guy up to a regular computer or a cardboard box if what you're going on are the reactions of a trained interrorgator.
 
Sledge said:
At which point we're not disucssing polygraph tests anymore. You could just as easily hook the guy up to a regular computer or a cardboard box if what you're going on are the reactions of a trained interrorgator.
Click to expand...

True, but this is from the perspective of someone who already knows they are useless. Consider the point of view of someone who thinks lie detectors are accurate. Now, the whole setup becomes useful. Through this and other deceptions, it is possible to obtain useful information. In other words, the trick might be useful.
 
Mr. Scott said:
...so there's something like a placebo effect going on there?
Click to expand...
It's not so much a placebo effect, but if someone believes that they are going to be caught out, then they will begin to elicit physiological signs of anxiety, such as sweating palms, just the sort of physical signs that the polygraph is designed to detect. So basically, if you're worried your going to be caught, it's likely that you will be, regardless of whether you're lying or not.

More of a nocebo than a placebo.
 
Last edited:
Christian said:
True, but this is from the perspective of someone who already knows they are useless. Consider the point of view of someone who thinks lie detectors are accurate. Now, the whole setup becomes useful. Through this and other deceptions, it is possible to obtain useful information. In other words, the trick might be useful.
Click to expand...

I get that, but my point is you don't need a polygraph for the trick to work.
 
I was interested in polygraphs a while ago, and what I remember from my reading is that there are way too many false positives, rendering them useless. Some people insist that they're still good as part of a larger interrogation strategy, but these are mostly people with a vested interest in their continued use. You can sometimes psych people out with them. Big deal. You can do the same with a cardboard box and a broken TV antenna.

It's tragic that some people take this pseudo-tech seriously. I've heard that some companies force their employees to take polygraph tests. Is this true?
 
Sledge said:
At which point we're not discussing polygraph tests anymore. You could just as easily hook the guy up to a regular computer or a cardboard box if what you're going on are the reactions of a trained interrorgator.
Click to expand...
$cientology, anyone? Their 'auditing' device is not more than a galvanometer that uses two tin cans for electrodes. Sweaty palms and the force of one's grip can deflect the meter more than any lie one might tell.

(Did anyone else notice that Sledge used the word 'interrorgator'? A very appropriate turn of a word.)

Polygraph machines are used as part of an intimidation routine that is intended to trip up the person of interest, and get him or her to eventually reveal a clue that will help the police in their investigation when they have no other solid evidence to present to the judge or district attorney.

Sooner or later the person of interest is told, "We know you're involved, just tell us what happened." At this point, it's fair to assume that the police have nothing to go by, and that they're desperate for a confession that will crack the case.
 
Sledge said:
I get that, but my point is you don't need a polygraph for the trick to work.
Click to expand...

I agree. And a think you can also get that for people who have no training setting up these sorts of tricks, this one could be handy. (to hire, I mean)
 
Fnord said:
(Did anyone else notice that Sledge used the word 'interrorgator'? A very appropriate turn of a word.)
Click to expand...
Totally deliberate and not at all the codeine messing with my spelling. Honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom