|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 07/14/2001 : 18:49:11
|
Poll Question:
Lie-detectors are back in the national limelight with Congressman Condit taking a private polygraph test concerning the missing Chandra Levy.
It was stated he passed with flying colors.
Whether a private test or police administered, how would you rate the accuracy of lie-detector tests?
|
| Results: |
| Highly Accurate |
 [1%] |
2 votes |
| Somewhat Accurate |
[19%] |
30 votes |
| Not at all Accurate |
[23%] |
35 votes |
| It's nothing but junk-science |
[43%] |
66 votes |
| Depends on who is overseeing the test |
[14%] |
21 votes |
| 0 |
[0%] |
0 votes |
| 0 |
[0%] |
0 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 154 counted »» |
Last Vote:
10/14/2004 14:18:20 |
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2001 : 22:33:03 [Permalink]
|
Personally I view the polygraph about on the same level as the crystal ball or the ouija board.
I am skeptical of their use and claims.
Too many ambiguities,...Is the person tested showing response because of guilt or is it from other emotional reasons?
Courts of law are correct in not allowing their use as evidence.
Neither should anyone else. The claim of Condit's passing a polygraph concerning the missing girl means nothing to me.
Whether he's guilty of anything criminal with her disappearance or not remains to be seen. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2001 : 23:16:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personally I view the polygraph about on the same level as the crystal ball or the ouija board.
I am skeptical of their use and claims.
Too many ambiguities,...Is the person tested showing response because of guilt or is it from other emotional reasons?
Courts of law are correct in not allowing their use as evidence.
Neither should anyone else. The claim of Condit's passing a polygraph concerning the missing girl means nothing to me.
Whether he's guilty of anything criminal with her disappearance or not remains to be seen.
I voted- Junk science but I don't know everything about them. I think there might be just some truth to them (no pun intended ) but I think people can fool them and the tester can make mistakes. So unless they are perfected and proven to be accurate then, no, I don't trust or believe them.
I agree with all you've said.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2001 : 23:44:33 [Permalink]
|
I've not had one myself, but recall a particular story from a friend from some 30 years ago.
Mike and Paul were applying at the same company for a entry level position; a polygraph was required as part of the job interview. (again people, early 70s!)
One question asked of both was, "Have you ever stole from a previous employer before?"
The one that lied, saying he hadn't, got the job.
Simple little story but I'm sure there are some horrific ones out there too, that of people's careers ruined, etc.
Another can of worms, as far as job interviews go, is that of reading about companies that have new applicants hand writing analyzed. (another poll!) |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 00:32:50 [Permalink]
|
polygraph = junk science.
the machine measures blood pressure, perspiration, and plulse, i think. the results are the subjective judgement of the person giving the test. if you are high strung or nervous you must be guilty. or what i think is lots of squigglel lines=lie. not admissable in any us court that i know of.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 04:28:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Another can of worms, as far as job interviews go, is that of reading about companies that have new applicants hand writing analyzed. (another poll!)
Now, that is really scary. I can see using it for comparison to see if someone forged a check but to tell if you are honest or something. I think it calls for way to much interpretation and is not objective.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 04:36:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
polygraph = junk science.
the machine measures blood pressure, perspiration, and plulse, i think. the results are the subjective judgement of the person giving the test. if you are high strung or nervous you must be guilty. or what i think is lots of squigglel lines=lie. not admissable in any us court that i know of.
comrade billyboy
Almost always when I have my BP taken it's very good. But there have been a couple of times where a doctor said it was high. I questioned them then. I was told to be sure you really have high blood presure you have to take the reading several times durring the day to get an average to be accurate. Don't know if that means anything that has to do with the pollygraph but who knows? I also never perspire. Gee, I could go kill someone and no one would know. Heh he.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 07:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
polygraph = junk science.
the machine measures blood pressure, perspiration, and plulse, i think. the results are the subjective judgement of the person giving the test. if you are high strung or nervous you must be guilty. or what i think is lots of squigglel lines=lie. not admissable in any us court that i know of.
comrade billyboy
Along with respiration, blood pressure, perspiration, pulse - cardiovascular activity,...polygraphs also monitors galvanic skin response.
True Comrade Billyboy, the test results are not admissable in U.S. Courts; and I would shutter to think if they are allowed in other countries judicial systems.
As the link below comments, "If you're nervous, how can they tell between fear and deception?"
http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/polygraph/4.htm
Edited by - randy on 07/15/2001 16:53:29 |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 11:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Dang, wish I could remember where I read this. Someone wrote that a polygraph is as accurate as flipping a coin when the testee walks in the room.
I've also read that the polygraph does have a deterrant effect. Enough people really do believe in junk science that they'll buy the company line when it comes to the polygraph. An employer says "to make sure you don't steal from us, you might be tested periodically". The company counts on the spectre of the test to keep people in line.
BTW, the number of spies in the US government who have been caught by the polygraph = 0. The spies who have done our intelligence community the most harm actually passed many test before being caught.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 16:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Another can of worms, as far as job interviews go, is that of reading about companies that have new applicants hand writing analyzed. (another poll!)
I am in an Enlisted-Commissioning Program in the Navy, and part of my application package was a one-page hand-written letter describing myself and why I would make a good officer.
The only reason they would require this to be hand-written (IMHO) is for handwriting analysis, so I took my time: I spent about 2 hours just writing this paper, after I had drafted it. It must have worked, since I'll be commissioned in a year, eh?
-Timmy! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 17:57:24 [Permalink]
|
I've never understood the logic behind handwriting analysis. I've love to see what the so-called experts think of my scrawls. You see, I was never taught to write. Dad was stationed on Guam when I started school, and my second grade teacher only had a 9th grade education. When it came time to teach handwriting, she gave everyone one of those little "How to Write Cursive" books and sent us home. Would a handwriting expert look at my work and say something about my personality? Or would this modern day seer be able to tell my early education really sucked.
Boron, they may have also been checking out your written communication skills. Until you've had to intercept every missive leaving an office to keep from embarassing your unit, you'll never know how important that is.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 18:12:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Until you've had to intercept every missive leaving an office to keep from embarassing your unit, you'll never know how important that is.
Oy. I am really not looking foreward to that part.... 
The interesting thing is, normally my writing is terrible (i slopilly pring everthing), but I just showed them I could write neatly if I tried hard enough. What does that really say?
-Timmy! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 18:30:15 [Permalink]
|
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk.html#cops
Some nice thoughts from the Skeptics Dictionary about polygraphs.
Actually, some nice thoughts on a couple of things. Mr. Carroll seems to be on a roll.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done
Edited by - Lisa on 07/15/2001 18:38:32 |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2001 : 19:48:41 [Permalink]
|
Interesting polygraph write-up there Lisa, from the Skeptic site.
I had quite a eye-opening experience with handwriting analysis back in my freshman dazes in college. A friend of mine's mother did analysis on the side, also for the local attorneys, courts....forgeries, etc. Of course there's a difference in the study of writing in the case of forgeries.
My friend asked if I'd like to have my handwriting analyzed. She then handed me a specific paragraph to write out in long hand. Said the wording was to allow all usage of the alphabet. It was then taken to her mom. I had never met her before.
After a couple of days, the handwriting analysis was completed and returned to me. There were about three pages or so of different points made about myself, gleaned only from my writing. A number of them were generalities, a few I thought were off base.
But then the rest, - how should I say?, made me blush with wide-eyed disbelief, - that is, these few points truly delved into the marrow of my inner-self. I was (young) truly amazed! And quite swept off my feet over it all. But that didn't last long.
I had my dorm roommate go thru the same as I had. He wrote out the identical paragraph and I then handed it over the next day for analysis.
Again, after a couple of days, we got my roommates analysis back. I still remember seeing his eyebrows raise and his jaw hit the floor a couple-three times while reading his report. He was too embarrassed to hand it to me to read, since it was so close to his inner self, so to speak.
After a bit of convincing, he relented. I quickly read thru his longhand analysis.
My jaw hit the floor also! But for quite a different reason. What I was reading was _MY_ report I was given the other day; but importantly, this one was written with some variations, - differences but similarities along the lines of human psychology.
I then had him read my own analysis.
Bingo! He said it was like reading his own. Similar but different.
My conclusion back then was the friend's mom was just writing down a lengthy, generalized list of human traits, behaviors. Anyone that has a conscious thought would have comparable reactions to these two reports. Where I thought one comment was somewhat -or not- like me, my roommate may have found the same, when applied to himself, as being deeply personal. Or visa-versa.
Throw enough lines out there and anyone can grab on a number of them.
This was a "in my face" situation where I first felt a real sense and value of skepticism. It's never left me.
Religion made it's permanent adios out of my life at that time too.
Questions asked...
Lessons learned. :-)
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2001 : 03:48:20 [Permalink]
|
How to fake a handwritting bullshit test.
First step is to see if you can get to type it up, maybe even use one of those hand writting like fonts and hope that whoever looks at it is too dumb to tell the difference.
If your able to fake handwriting well enough and wont be able to use a computer (maybe I should write a program to fake it for me) then you have a few tricks that might be useful.
If you want to appear to be ambitious and thinking big then write large, if you would rather make them think you have feelings of inferiority and modesty then use small writing, although the small writing is said to mean that the writer is likely to be objective and scientific.
Also watch for the slant. Left slant is said to mean your retiring and shy, whilst a right slant means outgoing personality.
Narrow writting is said to say a person is disciplined but inhibited, may also be mean and restricted in view. Broad handwriting means uninhibited and like travel, but can be rash and uncontrolled.
The space between words is also important, wide spacing means you don't mix easily with other people and can be stand-offish and solitary whereas narrow spacing means a gregarious personality and suggest that the writer chooses friends indiscriminately.
Its basically a handwriting horoscope.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2001 : 07:48:38 [Permalink]
|
I voted "Not at all accurate" for the lie-detector test, but that's not really my position.
As someone with extensive investigation, interview and interrogation experience, I have used the polygraph several times (meaning I have requested them and used their results; I am not personally a polygrapher).
First point that seems minor, but is not: they are NOT and have never been presented by those who use them as "Lie Detectors."
Second point: No legitimate polygrapher will ever tell you that "John is lying." You will get only one of two results (and the polygraphers admit it is a judgment call): 1) "The test does not indicate deception." 2) "The test indicates that John is being deceptive when answering questions about the relevant incident."
That's it. Nothing to say that John is lying or that John is guilty. Of course, it comes with a long report explaining the baseline readings as compared to the readings on the relevant questions.
Third point: Polygraphs are not the way they are depicted in the movies or even the way news accounts describe them. They do not comprise a bunch of spontaneous questions, and they do not take long. All questions are written prior to the actual polygraph and read to the subject in order and verbatim. The polygrapher does not have the option of going back to a question he got a suspicious reading on; he cannot repeat a question unless the repetition is written into the approved list beforehand. The list of questions, by the way, is written by the investigator with recommendations from the polygrapher, and they all have short answers (either 'yes' or 'no' or a name or number; something like that). The first several questions will be non-descript questions to establish a baseline.
Here's a top-of-the-head list of questions for a hypothetical investigation concerning missing cash from a store cash register:
1. What is your name?
2. Where do you live?
3. How old are you?
4. Are you ____ years old?
5. Where do you work?
6. How long have you worked there?
7. Did you tell anyone you were coming here?
8. Are you nervous?
9. What is your job title?
10. Who is your boss?
11. Were you working on June 11th this year?
12. Where were you working on June 11th this year?
13. What was your job function on June 11th this year?
14. Do you know how much money was in the cash register at the end of 2nd shift on June 11th?
15. How much money was in the cash register at the end of 2nd shift on June 11th?
16. Have you ever taken money from your employer without permission?
17. Do you know of anyone taking money from your employer without permission?
18. Who took the missing money from the cash register on June 11th?
19. Did you take the missing money from the cash register on June 11th?
20. How much money did you leave work with on June 11th?
21. Where is the missing money from the cash register?
22. When did you leave work on June 11th?
23. Do you know how the money came to be missing from the cash register?
That's just about the absolute maximum number of questions; actually, it's probably about 8 questions too long. The reason for that is physical; the apparatus hurts after a while (imagine a blood pressure cuff on your arm, pumped full, for 20 minutes). 10 minutes is about the max, and even that can be uncomfortable and cause its own false readings.
Next point (I lost count): There are many bad polygraphers out there and only a few good ones. In the Louisville, Kentucky area, there are only two good ones; perhaps five in the entire state. Along the front range in Colorado (Fort Collins-Denver-Colorado Springs), there may be four or five. These good ones have undergone extensive training similar to reading EKG's, and will never oversell their results. The bad ones have minimal training and will promise you they can find the guilty party.
Next point: I tend to use polygraphs in the same way I would a line-up. I have never sent just one 'suspect' to be polygraphed. The fewest I have sent is four, out of whom I have had a good idea of which was guilty, though I was having trouble proving it or wasn't as sure as I wanted to be. So I set up the polygraph, and this is how:
1) Set up the date and place.
2) Brief the polygrapher on the particulars of the case, but do not mention suspects.
3) Create the list of questions.
4) Have someone without knowledge of the case schedule the suspects in a random order to go see the polygrapher.
5) Get the results of the polygraphs and compare them to my own findings/beliefs.
6) Proceed with the investigation, possibly modified as a result of the polygraph, possibly not.
Next point, and my true feelings on polygraphs: They are a useful investigative tool and nothing more. When I interview or interrogate someone (there's a legal and practical difference), I use my experience and training to determine whether or not the subject is being deceptive, and I have no equipment at all. I watch body language, pay attention to speech patterns, look for inconsistencies, and note those recurring behaviors that the nearly-caught-guilty have been shown to demonstrate. When my subjective evaluation of the interview/interrogation tell me that the subject is being deceptive, I follow it up with more investigation and perhaps another interview. But I would not expect my subjective evaluation of the interview itself to be allowed into court as evidence; it is only the foundation for a branch of the investigation. It would be ridiculous of me to get on the stand and say "His eyes looked left instead of right when he answered my question on his whereabouts; therefore, he's guilty." But it is perfectly reasonable and necessary for me to note that he looked left instead of right in my investigative notes and then follow up on the question of his whereabouts. That is exactly the attitude I have toward polygraphs, and exactly the attitude of the good polygraphers.
Another note: Unless you are a government employee, it is unlikely that you can be compelled by your employer to take a polygraph. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 laid down some very strict guidelines limiting polygraph use in the workplace.
http://www.polygraph.org/eppa.htm
And on the graphology comments: They're the same as horoscopes--hogwash, tripe, and generalities.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
