|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2001 : 12:53:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lie-detectors are back in the national limelight with Congressman Condit taking a private polygraph test concerning the missing Chandra Levy.
Lie detectors measure how upset you are. You could be upset because of the question. It also assumes that you were taught that lying is bad and upsetting. You also have to be worried about getting caught. The mentally ill and sociopathic can pass a lie detector test with flying colors while spouting the most unbelievable crap. Lie detectors are a subjective test. Which is why it is inadmissable in court.
|
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2001 : 13:24:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lie detectors measure how upset you are. You could be upset because of the question. It also assumes that you were taught that lying is bad and upsetting. You also have to be worried about getting caught. The mentally ill and sociopathic can pass a lie detector test with flying colors while spouting the most unbelievable crap. Lie detectors are a subjective test. Which is why it is inadmissable in court.
That's my point. They SHOULD be inadmissible in court; that doesn't mean they should be not allowed in an investigation. (Mind you, I'm not arguing for them since I don't know enough of the science behind them; I just know how they've been employed by responsible polygraphers and investigators, myself included).
It is true that sociopaths can 'beat' them. It is also true that 'normal' people can 'beat' them. And it is true that the interpretations are subjective. Is that a reason to throw them out? An investigator's interpretation of a face-to-face interview without a polygraph is also subjective. Should we throw those out, too? Human Resources Departments use employment interview techniques that are subjective; should we throw those out? A doctor's diagnosis of a patient is subjective (else we'd just use algorithms); should we throw out his interview of the patient?
And let me point out one final thing: despite what you see on the news, there is no such thing as 'passing' or 'failing' a polygraph (I reiterate my previous post; the practicioners never claim it is a lie detector).
The polygraph is one tool in an investigator's toolbox. It is not the best, most effective, nor most reliable. It is simply a tool that can be used as such. Keep it far, far from the courts, and when possible, keep it far, far from the media, but do not ban it from an investigation merely because it is subjective. (Ban it if reliable studies show that it does more harm than good, which I have not seen but grant could be possible)
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2001 : 14:20:13 [Permalink]
|
I voted junk science. Polygraphs only "work" on people who believe that the test can tell if they are lying. In that way they may be a good investigative tool but only for a reason tangental to their purpose.
Garrett, for someone who in past posts stated that they were not a scientist, your investigative technique sure sounds scientific to me.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2001 : 18:39:11 [Permalink]
|
garrette
that was about the most coherent description of a polygraph exam i have seen so far. very informative, very interesting-thanks
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 07:47:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Garrett, for someone who in past posts stated that they were not a scientist, your investigative technique sure sounds scientific to me.
Well, I did/do try to keep them as objective and defensible as possible. When I've said I'm not a scientist, I've meant that my technical knowledge on subjects normally considered 'scientific' is limited. I have fairly extensive undergraduate coursework in chemistry, elec. engineering, thermofluid dynamics, calc, probs & stats, etc., but my professional life and my personal interests have led me more to the humanities, so I've forgotten most of the specifics of those subjects.
quote:
that was about the most coherent description of a polygraph exam i have seen so far. very informative, very interesting-thanks
Kind of you to say so. Thanks.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Archistrategos
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2002 : 12:13:54 [Permalink]
|
Hello people! I found this info in the Popular Mechanics web page. I hope you like it.
The end of the polygraph era is being hastened by the arrival of a new tool, Brain Fingerprinting. Under development at Haman Brain Research Laboratory of Fair field, Iowa, it works by looking at changes in brain activity that accompany the act of recognition. This this brain activity can be observed using an electroencephalograph (EEG). The sight of something you have seen before triggers a bump in what brain researchers call the EEG's P300 trace.
Armed with an EEG, future spy hunters would not have to ask a suspected spy, "Have you had unauthorized contact with an agent of a foreing goverment?" Instead, they would simply flash pictures of enemy agents on a screen. If you had been plotting with Boris and Natasha, your P300 trace would give you away, without your having to atter a single incrminating word.
Erlier this year,Brain Fingerprintings exonerated a convicted murderer in Iowa. His P300 trace was mute when shown crime scene photos, but bumped at the sight of the location where defense witnesses had placed him. Brain Fingerprinting is not yet admissible as evidence. But, it seems to us, its eventual acceptance is only a matter of time.
I think you should go the site or search for it, if you don't then way calling your selfs skeptics?  
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2002 : 12:41:35 [Permalink]
|
I think the problem with recognition recognizing if it can even be made to work at all is that you never can tell what is being recognized.
Is it the person on the picture? His haircut? Or does the situation itself just seem familar.
Then there are thungs like deja-vu. Sometimes you *recognize* stuff that you have never seen before.
That tool like a poligraph can help you in an interrogation, but only if used the right way. One also should not put more trust in it than an poligraph.
|
|
|
|
Igrokit
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2002 : 21:31:18 [Permalink]
|
I am trying to remember that show. I think it was the one with Alan Alda Scientific American one of the beyond science episodes. They did tests to intentionally try to fool polygraphs by making the lies sound more probable than the true responses and the detectors ended up with something like 85% inaccuracy rates. Which is amazing given the 50%-50% accuracy a coin toss would yeald. I guess this was on the assumption that what the tester is really doing, is what police have done for ages, and use intuition and human clues to determine what is a lie. Sure the stress level would be harder to detect in a situation where your job/freedom etc is not on the line. But even so that convinced me we were dealing with a science at the level of Graphite analyses, or astrology.
What gets to me is that the people who run these tests must know how fake they are. Just puts them up their with so many other con men and swindlers I guess.
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 14:53:24 [Permalink]
|
I seem to remember several articles in the Skeptical Enquirer trashing polygraphs in their usual style, (but they can be wrong, too), and I remember an expose' on 60 Minutes years ago in which every controled test of polygraphy failed. I, also, recall that the Walkers, Aims and Hansen all took regular lie detector tests. I even recall where Aldrich Aims was involved in administration of that dept. within the CIA, and some of his letters from prison explaining how easy it really is to fool the tester.
However, what really bothers me is this trend on day time 'trash talk' shows to use this vehicle as a prove all in the relationship game. To be honest, I certainly would not want to put the future of my marriage in the balance of the tester's opinion about my responses. I wonder how many relationships broke up because of polygraphs.
Then again, anybody crazy enough to even agree to such a thing is probably already a little off balance emotionally, and just the consent proves problems in the relationship.
As for being used as an interogation device - Talk about a rock and a hard place. Guilt aside, I think polygraphs will only work to confirm the suspicions of the suspected. If intimidation toward a confession is sought, well, it may work, but at what cost to the innocent?
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 07:04:35 [Permalink]
|
I disagree with Garrette (first page). I am required to take periodic polygraphs because of the security clearances I hold. I've taken 3 thus far (in 10 years), and passed each time to the satisfaction of the officials (can't say who that is) since I still have my clearance.
At least for polys relating to Defense, there are 3 kinds. Well, 2 kinds with the third being a combo of the first two. They are: Counter-Intelligence, Lifestyle, and Full Scope (which is the combo).
The do indeed take a very long time, maybe 2 or more hours. The poly guy asks the same questions several times, sometimes worded differently.
He can also berate you. I'm not kidding, I've nearly gotten into a fist fight with one guy who actually yelled at me. It's a psychological ploy and has nothing to do with the machine.
My boss is convinced polys work. He was given a coin and asked questions until the poly dude could tell him what the coin was.
I think they are complete bunk. It's junk science, pure and simple. Anything they get is more likely deduced by common psychological observation than any mojo the machine has. You can also fool them very easily. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and Chris Boyce all passed polys while actively spying for Russia. Now there's a track record to be proud of!
If you stop to take a deep breath, that question won't count. They'll ask it again. There is a very rigid set of rules one has to conform to to satisfy a polygrapher. For instance, they demand you sit up strait to answer. Slouching can affect your breathing.
So essentially the test only 'works' if you conform to a framework that no objective test could ever hope to impose. You can slouch during a math test and get it right. Any test that requires jumping thru specific hoops makes me doubt it's validity.
Having spoken to poly guys, their training even focuses on looking for 'indicators', the machine is secondary. Really, I believe it's there only for intimidation purposes.
I could be wrong, but I believe the inventor of the polygraph wrote a document claiming the device didn't work on everyone. In fact, that list included (remember, this was a different time) all minorities, overweight people, people with a certain IQ threshold, people with disabilities, the list goes on. Essentially, it only works on skinny, scared white guys.
I put it this way: you have to scared of the machine itself to come up hot on questions. Anyone with confidence in their answer will show a strait line.
Polygraphs rank up there with phrenology as a science in my book. It's shameful that we subject people to them. Might as well throw them in a pond and determine their guilt by whether the sink or float.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2002 : 20:26:31 [Permalink]
|
I voted for *Not at all accurate* without noticing *It's nothing but junk science.* Of course, they are both about the same.
It most certainly is JUNK SCIENCE, for the same reason that it is NOT AT ALL ACCURATE. The prisons are probably filled with people who are innocent but cannot control their nervousness when taking these stupid tests. Perhaps the test is truly a kind of IQ test(another junk test) in disguise -- testing the testers themselves.
ljbrs 
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2002 : 20:27:16 [Permalink]
|
I voted for *Not at all accurate* without noticing *It's nothing but junk science.* Of course, they are both about the same.
It most certainly is JUNK SCIENCE, for the same reason that it is NOT AT ALL ACCURATE. The prisons are probably filled with people who are innocent but cannot control their nervousness when taking these stupid tests. Perhaps the test is truly a kind of IQ test(another junk test) in disguise -- testing the testers themselves.
ljbrs
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
