Lie detector test/Polypraph

[John Jackson]

I like how some operators ask if you are on any medications. As if they really are able to calibrate the machine for every medication and combination of medications.

Popping a valium before a polygraph test is one of the ways to fool it. Medications that can mask physiological responses or psychological fear of being caught telling a lie mean the polygrapher won't get the responses on the instrument that he would like.

I see what you mean though. They even pretend that they can compensate for that!

And I also agree with the sentiment that skeptics should widen their scope of inquiry. I know a lot of skeptics do have a wide-ranging outlook but I think too many of us do tend to focus too much on the paranormal and perhaps homeopathy (although homeopathy is of major concern in the UK at the moment as public money is being spent on it).

 

[Aquila]

Thank you all for your replies.

I wonder what would happen if anyone who was asked to take a lie detector test said no thanks. Would they automatically be presumed to be guilty, or hiding something?

It seems a lot like the inquisition to me. Or witch hunts. Throw 'em in the lake and if they float they're guilty.

 

[Jeff Corey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhu_4m-g.html

 

[Ladewig]

Thank you all for your replies.

I wonder what would happen if anyone who was asked to take a lie detector test said no thanks. Would they automatically be presumed to be guilty, or hiding something?

I remember a somewhat famous case a few years ago that wasn't progressing. The police made a public statement that they would like the chief suspect to take a polygraph. The suspect's lawyer held his own press conference and said that his client would love to take a polygraph and make the results public. The lawyer went on to say that he had already picked out a polygraph operator and if the police agreed to it, then the test could start immediately. The police bellyached about not being able to provide their own operator and the test was never given.

 

[strathmeyer]

If there was such a thing as a lie detector, we wouldn't need to have trials, we'd just hook them up to the machine and ask them what crimes they've committed.

 

[ilikefrogs]

IlikeFrogs, if you the 220 page document you will see that the polygraph operator expected you to lie on the "Have you ever betrayed anyone you trust?" question and falsely implied that it might be a problem if you had done so.

This is called a control question, and provides the baseline which others statements are compared against.

Yes, I read some of that booklet.

 

[blutoski]

The use of pseudo-science and quackery in the form of polygraphs by the police, FBI and CIA doesn't create a very good impression of America for the rest of the world. It makes us look like a bunch of controling thugs. Not to mention our reputation in science and education.

I wish that James Randi and skeptics in general would spend less time on debunking psychics who just do what they do for entertainment or because people want them to, and more time debunking the use of polygraphs by government agencies, which is a serious breach of integrity for everyone concerned.

I think you're falling into a common trap that happens to people new to skepticism:

1) They don't see an article on the subject, so assume Skeptics have ignored their pet issue.

2) Assume that skeptics are at their beck and call somehow, and are failing if they don't scurry around working day and night on said pet project.


To address issue #1:

Skeptics have three decades of fighting the legal system's use of polygraph tests and similar "personality" or "truth" tests such as graphology or astrology. Particularly where they have been used as hiring criteria. Progress has been made in this regard in Canada, as Dr. Beyerstein has been on many senate committees, and it is now illegal to use these as hiring standards in BC. This was also one of the first major projects of CSICOP in the US in the 1970s.

Over and above this, there has been a constant background static of articles in Skeptic and the Skeptics Society (Shermer), Skeptical Inquirer, and more recently, Swift. Actually, Swift covers polygraphs very frequently. A Popular Mechanics Article specifically merits CSICOP with being the most effective organization actively fighting the use of polygraphs as hiring tools.

Singh and Wiseman include a demonstration of polygraph defeating in their Theatre of Science show.



To address point #2:

You can wish all you want for high profile skeptics to re-adjust their schedule to accomodate your personal favourite issue, but Randi is allowed to prioritize his time according to his own interests. He, and other skeptics, obviously disagree with you on the relative potential for harm of polygraphs over these psychics. I don't have any dollar values on the financial damages caused by polygraph testing, but the first (of several) Miss Cleo damages suits was settled for half a billion dollars. The outstanding cases may bring the final settlement into several billion dollars - and that's just for the US plaintiffs. You forget that the psychics are not just at fault for making supernatural claims: they are ordinary scam artists, leaving millions of people in financial ruin due to conventional (although unconventionally large-scale) frauds and cons.

Finally: Skeptic societies are composed largely of individuals following their pet issues. This is partly because in order to be an effective voice against a particular pseudoscience, one needs to have credibility in the relevant field. Some issues are not sufficiently covered, and this is an artefact of the membership's limited size. But you don't need to have these credentials: there is plenty of evidence published on the subject, and a visit to the library will give you all that you need to pick up a pen and start writing letters to your elected representative, or newspaper. From the second you start doing that, "skeptics" will be doing "more" to fight polygraphs.

 

[Z]

My wife and I both had to undergo polygraph testing once. In my case, they spend much longer than usual trying to calibrate the machine. It seems that, whether lying or telling the truth, there were no changes at all. They even disconnected me and hooked up another cop to it, before putting it back through.

Eventually, the polygraph operator thought he detected some minor, minor twitch in one graph when I was asked to lie, so he went with that as his indicator. Needless to say, he decided that not only was I telling the truth, that I was the single most honest and guilt-free person he had ever met in his life.

My wife, on the other hand, the operator claimed was lying almost every question. The police were ready to pounce when we discovered she was six weeks pregnant - which invalidates the entire test, apparently.

For fun, one of our MP units at Ft. Bragg got a polygraph and went around playing with it to the different units a year later. Our section took part in a truth-or-dare polygraph section, and when it came my turn, I lied my backside off. And everyone knew I was lying - the question was, "Who was your first girlfriend?", to which I replied, "Raquel Welch."

The needles never twitched.

Anyway, to make a long boring story short, polygraphs are a load of crap. They're very similar to curses - they work IF the victim thinks they're going to work.

 

[Aquila]

I think you're falling into a common trap that happens to people new to skepticism:

1) They don't see an article on the subject, so assume Skeptics have ignored their pet issue.

2) Assume that skeptics are at their beck and call somehow, and are failing if they don't scurry around working day and night on said pet project.


To address issue #1:

Skeptics have three decades of fighting the legal system's use of polygraph tests and similar "personality" or "truth" tests such as graphology or astrology. Particularly where they have been used as hiring criteria. Progress has been made in this regard in Canada, as Dr. Beyerstein has been on many senate committees, and it is now illegal to use these as hiring standards in BC. This was also one of the first major projects of CSICOP in the US in the 1970s.

Over and above this, there has been a constant background static of articles in Skeptic and the Skeptics Society (Shermer), Skeptical Inquirer, and more recently, Swift. Actually, Swift covers polygraphs very frequently. A Popular Mechanics Article specifically merits CSICOP with being the most effective organization actively fighting the use of polygraphs as hiring tools.

Singh and Wiseman include a demonstration of polygraph defeating in their Theatre of Science show.

OK, I'm sorry that I didn't do more research before posting my thread. I've checked out the links given by you and others and can see that polygraphs are indeed a high priority subject with skeptics.

To address point #2:

You can wish all you want for high profile skeptics to re-adjust their schedule to accomodate your personal favourite issue, but Randi is allowed to prioritize his time according to his own interests. He, and other skeptics, obviously disagree with you on the relative potential for harm of polygraphs over these psychics. I don't have any dollar values on the financial damages caused by polygraph testing, but the first (of several) Miss Cleo damages suits was settled for half a billion dollars. The outstanding cases may bring the final settlement into several billion dollars - and that's just for the US plaintiffs. You forget that the psychics are not just at fault for making supernatural claims: they are ordinary scam artists, leaving millions of people in financial ruin due to conventional (although unconventionally large-scale) frauds and cons.

I don't think that money is the only issue here. Money gained or lost is a good measurement of the severity of an injustice, but in comparing the relative harm done by polygraphss and psychics, psychological/emotional abuse is just as important, if not more so. We are not living in a communist or fascist country, and freedom of the individual is meant to be one of, if not the most important ideals of America, so this issue goes far deeper than just money.

Finally: Skeptic societies are composed largely of individuals following their pet issues.

I'd noticed.

This is partly because in order to be an effective voice against a particular pseudoscience, one needs to have credibility in the relevant field. Some issues are not sufficiently covered, and this is an artefact of the membership's limited size. But you don't need to have these credentials: there is plenty of evidence published on the subject, and a visit to the library will give you all that you need to pick up a pen and start writing letters to your elected representative, or newspaper. From the second you start doing that, "skeptics" will be doing "more" to fight polygraphs.

What's a library? (just kidding)
I am not new to writing to my local newspaper. This would make a good subject. I've never had a polygraph, and I'm actually quite into spiritual stuff which I'm sure would get me stoned to death on this site. But I do consider myself a rational person, love science and hate injustice. I think that the subject of polygraphs may be one area where we can agree.

 

[ChristineR]

There's no reason why someone would feel guilt and stress at claiming Raquel Welch was a girlfriend, as only a wife would not see it immediately for what it was....

 

[blutoski]

I don't think that money is the only issue here. Money gained or lost is a good measurement of the severity of an injustice, but in comparing the relative harm done by polygraphss and psychics, psychological/emotional abuse is just as important, if not more so. We are not living in a communist or fascist country, and freedom of the individual is meant to be one of, if not the most important ideals of America, so this issue goes far deeper than just money.

I agree that money is only a proxy with which to estimate social impact. I just use these dollar-values to establish a baseline for comparison.

It's an apples-and-oranges comparison, which is why reasonable people could disagree with the relative ranking of severity for polygraphs versus psychics.

My pet subject is healthfraud, and immune system claims in particular. This topic I rate high importance because it is a subject littered with the graves of children, who had no informed choice in the matter whatsoever.


With regard to choice, nobody is forced to take a polygraph test that I'm aware of. The problem is that some people are put between a rock and a hard place in their employment situation where they have a choice between being subjected to the polygraph or being let go for refusing to be tested. The DOD and DOE have a history of this type of termination.

 

[blutoski]

OK, I'm sorry that I didn't do more research before posting my thread. I've checked out the links given by you and others and can see that polygraphs are indeed a high priority subject with skeptics.

I'm reminded of an episode of News Radio where Bill gets his car stereo fixed so he can hear more than just bass for the first time since the 1970s.

He keeps trying to get coworkers interested in a new crusade: "Have you heard this so-called rap music's lyrics? Somebody has to start speaking out about this!"

 

[Aquila]

With regard to choice, nobody is forced to take a polygraph test that I'm aware of. The problem is that some people are put between a rock and a hard place in their employment situation where they have a choice between being subjected to the polygraph or being let go for refusing to be tested. The DOD and DOE have a history of this type of termination.

That sounds like force to me. They should sue.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Do people think the work on using fMRI for lie detection will be any more reliable? I've just watched an episode of Lie Lab on Channel 4 where they use it on people who are trying to clear their name after being accused (and convicted in some cases). The one I saw was about a woman who was convicted of poisoning her child with salt and says that the salt encrusted syringe found in her house must have been planted by the police.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/L/lie_lab/index.html

 

[Big Les]

This reminds me of a story I heard. (Not sure where though.... could be in one of the books I read on criminal profiling, but I could be wrong.)

Some cops hooked a suspect up to a 'lie detector', except that it was really a photocopy machine. All the copier had was a sheet of paper that said "He's lying". So, whenever the suspect answered a question that the cops thought was wrong, they'd hit the copy button, and the suspect would be confronted with a sheet of paper "proving" he was lying.

This appears in "Too Good to be True; the Colossal Book of Urban Legends". And on Snopes. Like all urban myths, someone somewhere may have done something similar, but what you heard or read was most likely just apocryphal.