Polygraphs do not work, Why do you have faith in them?

[Followers4christ]

The FBI gives a polygraph test to every single person who's considered for a job there. When the DEA, CIA, and other agencies are taken into account, about 70,000 people a year submit to polygraphs while seeking security clearances and jobs with the federal government.

Polygraphs are also regularly used by law enforcement when interrogating suspects. In some places, they're used to monitor the activities of sex offenders on probation, andsome judges have recently permitted plea bargains that hinge on the results of defendants' polygraph tests.

Here's what makes this all so baffling: the question of whether polygraphs are a good way to figure out whether someone is lying was settled long ago. They aren't.

"There's no unique physiological sign of deception. And there's no evidence whatsoever that the things the polygraph measures — heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, and breathing — are linked to whether you're telling the truth or not," says Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at Brandeis University who's conducted research into polygraphs. In an exhaustive report, the National Research Council concluded that "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."

This isn't exactly breaking news: Saxe's 1983 report for Congress ended up leading to a nationwide ban on private employers giving polygraph tests to employees, and a 1998 Supreme Court decision banned use of polygraphic evidence in federal courts because "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."

And yet polygraphs are still routinely used by government agencies and law enforcement. This raises an obvious question: why are they relying on pseudoscience to screen employees and solve cases?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/polygraphs-dont-why-still-them-130002387.html?ref=gs

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

So why do we have faith in a flawed machine in criminal cases and in trivial reality tv shows?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So why do we have faith in a flawed machine in criminal cases and in trivial reality tv shows?

Who does ? (Who is 'we'?) (not me) (not ecclesia immersed in Y'SHUA anywhere in the world)

 

[Followers4christ]

Who does ? (Who is 'we'?) (not me) (not ecclesia immersed in Y'SHUA anywhere in the world)

Police do in courts and TV reality shows like Steve Wilkos does. But why is my question. They are easy to beat and has sent innocent people behind bars.

 

[Winken]

Good question. But express doubt to a police officer, those who wish that they had something like a breathalyzer in every case. Think about it:

Officer: Put your index finger in this loop. Person being questioned complies.

Officer: Were you speeding in the school zone? Person being questioned: No.

Officer: The Liealyzer says otherwise. I'll issue the citation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Police do in courts and TV reality shows like Steve Wilkos does. But why is my question. They are easy to beat and has sent innocent people behind bars.

Why is because they lie.
The world loves its own.
Did you expect to find justice in pagan courts , before pagan judges, with unjust laws in an unjust society ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The FBI gives a polygraph test to every single person who's considered for a job there. When the DEA, CIA, and other agencies are taken into account, about 70,000 people a year submit to polygraphs while seeking security clearances and jobs with the federal government.

Polygraphs are also regularly used by law enforcement when interrogating suspects. In some places, they're used to monitor the activities of sex offenders on probation, andsome judges have recently permitted plea bargains that hinge on the results of defendants' polygraph tests.

Here's what makes this all so baffling: the question of whether polygraphs are a good way to figure out whether someone is lying was settled long ago. They aren't.

"There's no unique physiological sign of deception. And there's no evidence whatsoever that the things the polygraph measures — heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, and breathing — are linked to whether you're telling the truth or not," says Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at Brandeis University who's conducted research into polygraphs. In an exhaustive report, the National Research Council concluded that "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."

This isn't exactly breaking news: Saxe's 1983 report for Congress ended up leading to a nationwide ban on private employers giving polygraph tests to employees, and a 1998 Supreme Court decision banned use of polygraphic evidence in federal courts because "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."

And yet polygraphs are still routinely used by government agencies and law enforcement. This raises an obvious question: why are they relying on pseudoscience to screen employees and solve cases?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/polygraphs-dont-why-still-them-130002387.html?ref=gs

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

So why do we have faith in a flawed machine in criminal cases and in trivial reality tv shows?

I think most people are too dumb to look into it. As for the FBI and such, I think the general perception is that it's an effective bluff. Someone criminal wants to get into the fbi...they learn they have to take a polygraph, they look for a job at Foot Locker instead.

 

[Moral Orel]

Police do in courts and TV reality shows like Steve Wilkos does. But why is my question. They are easy to beat and has sent innocent people behind bars.

They don't use polygraphs in judicial settings. Your APA source states this. Just because police use them during their investigation doesn't mean that becomes evidence in court. So, no, they have not put innocent people behind bars.

And who cares if they use them on reality TV? It's sensationalism, and lie detector tests are flashy. Should we expect more from the likes of Jerry Springer?

 

[Followers4christ]

They don't use polygraphs in judicial settings. Your APA source states this. Just because police use them during their investigation doesn't mean that becomes evidence in court. So, no, they have not put innocent people behind bars.

And who cares if they use them on reality TV? It's sensationalism, and lie detector tests are flashy. Should we expect more from the likes of Jerry Springer?

This is partly true, except they use them for people on probation and if you fail you go to prison. Also they will bring up a failed polygraph in court to bring doubt to a jury that might sway them towards a verdict. I have been to a few court proceedings where it was brought up in court to bring doubt. So it can be brought up in court but not as credible evidence. Refusing to take a test may often convince police that you are guilty, at which point you may be harassed and searched until some kind of evidence is found. Including "evidence" that has convicted the wrong guys in the past like a microscopic hair.

 

[Moral Orel]

Also they will bring up a failed polygraph in court to bring doubt to a jury that might sway them towards a verdict. I have been to a few court proceedings where it was brought up in court to bring doubt. So it can be brought up in court but not as credible evidence.

I'm pretty sure that is outright illegal to do. A good defense attorney would have a good case of throwing that trial out and starting with an untainted jury if it ever happened. I don't doubt that it does happen though, from time to time. Like I said in the other thread you have, I don't have faith in our judicial system. I seriously doubt that it is prevalent at all though. And I would bet that most of the time it's used it's thrown out and sometimes the jury is as well when a prosecutor screws up and uses it to taint a jury.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I think most people are too dumb to look into it. As for the FBI and such, I think the general perception is that it's an effective bluff. Someone criminal wants to get into the fbi...they learn they have to take a polygraph, they look for a job at Foot Locker instead.

Polygraphs are usually more for the purposes of bluffing and trickery than anything else. I've never met a cop or lawyer than honestly believes it's a real "lie detector".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Polygraphs are usually more for the purposes of bluffing and trickery than anything else. I've never met a cop or lawyer than honestly believes it's a real "lie detector".

I've known several co-workers who believe in them...and they're in law enforcement...but it's more out of ignorance. I've never known an actual person who does polygraphs who believes in them.

I think they are more of a "deterrent" and bluffing tool for law enforcement than anything else.

 

[RDKirk]

This is partly true, except they use them for people on probation and if you fail you go to prison.

That would not be an "innocent person." And "failing a polygraph" is not the reason the parolee would be sent to jail, only part of it. The polygraph is no more effective than the operator.

I took polygraphs as an intelligence analyst at DIA.

Kind of interesting. One thing I picked up was that they could not have used the polygraph itself as evidence of a crime.

Rather, first they read me my rights ("...anything you say may be used against you...")

Then the operator ran some "baseline setting" tests. For instance, he had me write the name of a color in the middle of a piece of paper (I wrote "orange"). Then he wrote several other names of colors above and below it.

The taped the paper to the wall in front of me and had me read each color name. Then he'd ask me, "Did you write that word? You must answer 'no.'"

Interestingly, as I answered "no" for each word the operator had written, I could hear the graph-writer behind me scratching more and more and more as I went down the list toward the word I had written, and would have to deny writing it. Then when I denied writing "orange," it sounded like the machine was going to flip its pen.

With the denial of the following word, it got quiet...no reaction. And this was with a line of questioning that I had no real attachment to.

So part of the "test" was whether I was a person who did exhibit nervous reaction to even a totally insignificant lie. A cold liar wasn't someone they wanted on that job in the first place.

There were three questions I had trouble with:

1. "Have you ever exaggerated about yourself to impress someone else? You must answer 'no.'" I could not answer that question "no" without the machine showing a response, so the operator disconnected me (a lengthy process), then asked me, "So what came to your mind when I asked that question? Don't worry, I've heard everything."

Yeah, sure. As though I had forgotten he read me my rights when we started.

I had to ask, "Does that include high school?" He explained that they really only wanted to know if I'd exaggerated on something significant like a job resume. With that explanation, he hooked me back into the machine, and I could answer "no" without showing a response.

2. "Have you ever made a mistake at work and not told your supervisor? You must answer 'no.'"

I had to ask, "Do you mean this afternoon?" Well, sure, I'd made minor errors that I had to fix, like pulling a report I'd written out of the edit file to make corrections, then putting it back in. I gave him some examples. He assured me that wasn't what they were looking for. With that explanation, he hooked me back into the machine, and I could answer "no" without showing a response.

3. "Do you consider yourself an absolutely honest person? You must answer 'yes.'"

I told him my bar for "absolutely honest" was Jesus. I considered "absolute honesty" to mean I'd never even consider being dishonest--it would never occur to me. But it had, even though I'd overcome it...mostly. I gave him some examples. He hooked me back up again and repeated the question, "Excluding the examples you've given me...."

After that, we got down to real questions like, "Have you ever transmitted classified information to an unauthorized party?"

But clearly, the initial questions were to determine if I were a cold liar in the first place and whether a polygraph would display accurate results with me. If it had appeared that I was "polygraph proof," that itself would have been reason enough to deny me the job.

 

[Nithavela]

In germany, nobody uses lie detectors. It's an american movie cliche, nothing more.

Why do you guys use it? Propably because the American Polygraph Association gives money to your politicians.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Followers4christ]

And "failing a polygraph" is not the reason the parolee would be sent to jail, only part of it. The polygraph is no more effective than the operator.

I took polygraphs as an intelligence analyst at DIA.

Kind of interesting. One thing I picked up was that they could not have used the polygraph itself as evidence of a crime.

Rather, first they read me my rights ("...anything you say may be used against you...")

Then the operator ran some "baseline setting" tests. For instance, he had me write the name of a color in the middle of a piece of paper (I wrote "orange"). Then he wrote several other names of colors above and below it.

The taped the paper to the wall in front of me and had me read each color name. Then he'd ask me, "Did you write that word? You must answer 'no.'"

Interestingly, as I answered "no" for each word the operator had written, I could hear the graph-writer behind me scratching more and more and more as I went down the list toward the word I had written, and would have to deny writing it. Then when I denied writing "orange," it sounded like the machine was going to flip its pen.

With the denial of the following word, it got quiet...no reaction. And this was with a line of questioning that I had no real attachment to.

So part of the "test" was whether I was a person who did exhibit nervous reaction to even a totally insignificant lie. A cold liar wasn't someone they wanted on that job in the first place.

There were three questions I had trouble with:

1. "Have you ever exaggerated about yourself to impress someone else? You must answer 'no.'" I could not answer that question "no" without the machine showing a response, so the operator disconnected me (a lengthy process), then asked me, "So what came to your mind when I asked that question? Don't worry, I've heard everything."

Yeah, sure. As though I had forgotten he read me my rights when we started.

I had to ask, "Does that include high school?" He explained that they really only wanted to know if I'd exaggerated on something significant like a job resume. With that explanation, he hooked me back into the machine, and I could answer "no" without showing a response.

2. "Have you ever made a mistake at work and not told your supervisor? You must answer 'no.'"

I had to ask, "Do you mean this afternoon?" Well, sure, I'd made minor errors that I had to fix, like pulling a report I'd written out of the edit file to make corrections, then putting it back in. I gave him some examples. He assured me that wasn't what they were looking for. With that explanation, he hooked me back into the machine, and I could answer "no" without showing a response.

3. "Do you consider yourself an absolutely honest person? You must answer 'yes.'"

I told him my bar for "absolutely honest" was Jesus. I considered "absolute honesty" to mean I'd never even consider being dishonest--it would never occur to me. But it had, even though I'd overcome it...mostly. I gave him some examples. He hooked me back up again and repeated the question, "Excluding the examples you've given me...."

After that, we got down to real questions like, "Have you ever transmitted classified information to an unauthorized party?"

But clearly, the initial questions were to determine if I were a cold liar in the first place and whether a polygraph would display accurate results with me. If it had appeared that I was "polygraph proof," that itself would have been reason enough to deny me the job.

It depends what they are on probation for, sex offenders have to take polygraphs as part of their probation and a failed test will get you removed from treatment that will land you in jail or prison without any further evidence. (My younger brother has been on probation)

I paid for polygraphs from 5 different people with law enforcement backgrounds and they were certified. I paid 150-200 dollars to take a standard test that people would take if they were on probation. A normal person goes out of district and can drink, but not if your on probation. I passed every test easily and lied on questions a total of 6 question on each test. I have never been in trouble with the law but anyone can beat these things and anyone can fail these things.

How to beat a polygraph is simple control your breathing by doing this you control your heart rate and blood pressure. On test questions simply breath a bit faster to increase your heart rate and the machine will pick it up as a lie. Then non control questions just remain calm, dont think of the questions and control your breathing by doing this you will pass every test.

As the articles suggest the machines are not at all reliable and at best is junk science.

 

[Followers4christ]

Adam Ruins Everything - Why Lie Detectors Don't Detect Lies

 

[RDKirk]

How to beat a polygraph is simple control your breathing by doing this you control your heart rate and blood pressure. On test questions simply breath a bit faster to increase your heart rate and the machine will pick it up as a lie. Then non control questions just remain calm, dont think of the questions and control your breathing by doing this you will pass every test.

Sure, I can do that--I always did it for Air Force fitness examinations.

But I can't control my rate of perspiration. Further, a good polygraph analyst will note--and direct you to stop--a deliberate change in respiration (that's what the expansion tube around the chest is for) and tell you to stop it.

 

[Followers4christ]

Sure, I can do that--I always did it for Air Force fitness examinations.

But I can't control my rate of perspiration. Further, a good polygraph analyst will note--and direct you to stop--a deliberate change in respiration (that's what the expansion tube around the chest is for) and tell you to stop it.

If you do it noticeably yes you will be told to stop it. But if you practice, nobody should know. I have beat them, anyone can beat them. They are not hard at all, unless your saying all the polygraphers who were certified and had law enforcement backgrounds didnt know who to correctly operate it? Here is a couple of the places that tested me:

http://www.debordpolygraph.com/

http://www.freedompolygraph.com/ourpolygraphexaminers/billcrawford.html

Also breathing does help you with that other problem of sweating:

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/stress#1

 

[football5680]

The test can be used to justify further investigation but it should not be used as evidence or proof of guilt.

 

[RDKirk]

If you do it noticeably yes you will be told to stop it. But if you practice, nobody should know. I have beat them, anyone can beat them. They are not hard at all, unless your saying all the polygraphers who were certified and had law enforcement backgrounds didnt know who to correctly operate it? Here is a couple of the places that tested me:

http://www.debordpolygraph.com/

http://www.freedompolygraph.com/ourpolygraphexaminers/billcrawford.html

Also breathing does help you with that other problem of sweating:

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/stress#1

They should totally know that your respiration rate has changed--even if you don't know it.

And, yes, I suspect that your polygraph tests did not run a full eight hour day as mine did.