• 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.

Polygraph tests

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,014
Location
Yokohama, Japan
This video brought up the question in my mind of how scientific polygraph tests really are. I'm just a layperson with no expertise, but I'm very skeptical about polygraph tests.

Does anyone know more about them, and what do you think of this news report?
 
You mean the "poly-laugh" test?

There is already a cornucopia of discussion of this subject on this forum. Maybe some enterprising forum member can point you in the right direction.

In summary, it's one of those "lose-lose" types of tests that ascribes meaning, namely lying, to specific physiological changes that can occur during intense questioning. And, if you don't express those physiologic changes, many people will still simply believe you are still lying and somehow "beat" the test.

In other words, the polygraph ultimately proves nothing.

~Dr. Imago
 
If that's the case, then what a terrible report.

The guy even admits that the results depend on who administers the test. That's a huge red flag to me right there, in addition to what you said.

And here's the criteria he claims which makes him believe in this particular guy: some people have passed and others have failed his tests. Beyond some kind of vague sense of trust in this guy's reputation, there is no objective rationale. Maybe she is guilty and maybe not, and maybe she was dumb or ignorant for asking to be tested, but she's basically being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion on the basis of this polygraph test.
 
IIRC polygraph test results are not acceptable in court in the US or the UK. Which would suggest that they are not that reliable.

Oh, and Aldrich Ames passed two polygraph tests.
 
Most police officers who are familiar with the test will say things like "It's all the operator."

They know that the best operators are skilled at observing the often-obvious personal quirks and "tells" of the subject.
Some years ago, 60 Minutes did a segment where they set up a phony camera shop and hired three different private lie-detector outfits to ferret out the "criminal" who was stealing from the shop.
In each case, the operator was told...."We're not sure, but we think it's George."
In all cases, "George" was found to be deceptive...
 
Bikewer said:
Some years ago, 60 Minutes did a segment where they set up a phony camera shop and hired three different private lie-detector outfits to ferret out the "criminal" who was stealing from the shop.
In each case, the operator was told...."We're not sure, but we think it's George."
In all cases, "George" was found to be deceptive...
Click to expand...

If it was a "phony" shop, how could George not have been deceptive?
 
I think it's possible a polygraph would be useful in a situation where there is information that's only available to the police and to people connected with the crime. If someone was killed with an unusual poison, for example, asking the question "How much do you know about [this unusual poison]" might elicit a reaction in the murderer, but not in an ordinary Joe off the street.

I also think false positives are unavoidable, and it's possible for guilty people to train themselves to beat the polygraph.
 
Bikewer said:
Most police officers who are familiar with the test will say things like "It's all the operator." They know that the best operators are skilled at observing the often-obvious personal quirks and "tells" of the subject...
Click to expand...
.
It's also how capable the operator is at intimidating the subject into a physical response whenever certain key questions are asked. It has to do with tone of voice, cadence, body language, and other other "Alpha-Male" signals the operator displays to the subject.

For example, I have taken polygraph tests for various reasons. During each one, I was told to maintain eye contact with the operator. I caught ever micro-twitch, every sneer, every sigh, and every shake of his head - none of which were noticed by any of the others in he room.

It was either that I was raised by an alcoholic father and learned to keep my reactions under control or that I have Asperger's Syndrome that prevented me from responding to the operator's tics. I passed each test, even though I was still considered a "person of interest" in each case long after the actual perps were arrested, tried, and convicted. This is one of the reasons I don't live in the Midwest any more.

(A little explanation is in order here. My brothers and cousins were juvenile delinquents and adult criminals, and I was considered "guilty by relation" by many people. My lawyers told me that the operators were just trying to get somebody to confess to something in order to better their reputations with law enforcement.)

Polygraph Machines are nothing more than tools of intimidation, used on people that may (or may not) actually be guilty in order to coerce a confession, or at least some incriminating "evidence."
 
Have any of you ever felt that reaction to a question, where you are innocent, but just the question makes you react funny...almost as though you are guilty? That happens to me, I wonder if that would give a guilty verdict for me, even though I was innocent?
 
Dr. Imago said:
You mean the "poly-laugh" test?

There is already a cornucopia of discussion of this subject on this forum. Maybe some enterprising forum member can point you in the right direction.

In summary, it's one of those "lose-lose" types of tests that ascribes meaning, namely lying, to specific physiological changes that can occur during intense questioning. And, if you don't express those physiologic changes, many people will still simply believe you are still lying and somehow "beat" the test.

In other words, the polygraph ultimately proves nothing.

~Dr. Imago
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are looking for. It is not terribly useful for determining truth or lie, but it does measure a number of responces that can be useful measurements for other things. Say measuring stress durring various kinds of exam to correlate it to exam performance, or determining if someone is having an orgasm.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Depends on what you are looking for. It is not terribly useful for determining truth or lie, but it does measure a number of responces that can be useful measurements for other things. Say measuring stress durring various kinds of exam to correlate it to exam performance, or determining if someone is having an orgasm.
Click to expand...


How do I enroll in that class and how many exams are offered?
 
NoZed Avenger said:
How do I enroll in that class and how many exams are offered?
Click to expand...
Ask your wife or girlfriend. The number and frequency of the exams depends on how well you perform. Poor performance leads to disinterest on the part of the examee. Stellar performance tends to leave them incapable of a rapid retest. You'll want to restrict your perfomance level to something mid-range in order to maximize the number of exams you can take. ;)
 
shandyjan said:
Have any of you ever felt that reaction to a question, where you are innocent, but just the question makes you react funny ... almost as though you are guilty?
Click to expand...
.
What do you mean?

I never had sex with that woman!

;)
 
Puppycow said:
This video brought up the question in my mind of how scientific polygraph tests really are. I'm just a layperson with no expertise, but I'm very skeptical about polygraph tests.

Does anyone know more about them, and what do you think of this news report?
Click to expand...

From what i recall, polygraph tests are quite accurate, to 98%. The accuracy should be well known to me, i love morning talk shows see. They love to use polygraph tests to out the lies.
 
I remember the tv-aired polygraph test of the guy who was the long time suspect of the murder of Swedens prime minister Olof Palme 1986. He was first sentenced, later aquitted, mainly because of a botched up witness confrontation. To a lot of swedes he was always the guy who killed Palme and got away with it. A few years after he was freed one of the commercial channels in sweden offered him a polygraph test, aired live. He passed without problem. The reporter then asked him the hypothetical question, if he would have been guilty, would he still be able to pass the test anyway? He answered without hesitation: Yes, definitely!
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
.
What do you mean?

I never had sex with that woman!

;)
Click to expand...

Well....I wonder what the polygraph would have said to that question?Depends what he said was sex and what he believed was sex really. Id have failed by saying I never had sex with that woman, go figure! :D
 
scratchy said:
I remember the tv-aired polygraph test of the guy who was the long time suspect of the murder of Swedens prime minister Olof Palme 1986. He was first sentenced, later aquitted, mainly because of a botched up witness confrontation. To a lot of swedes he was always the guy who killed Palme and got away with it. A few years after he was freed one of the commercial channels in sweden offered him a polygraph test, aired live. He passed without problem. The reporter then asked him the hypothetical question, if he would have been guilty, would he still be able to pass the test anyway? He answered without hesitation: Yes, definitely!
Click to expand...
I know of at least two methods of fooling a polygraph. I presume there are more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom