Is it as hard to beat a lie detection test as it is on TV? What do you need to do to beat it?
The test does not detect lies. The test detects stress. But mostly what they do is decide whether or not you are lying, look down at the paper, point at a squiggle and say “this sez here you were lying, why don’t you tell me the truth?” And you do.
In other words, lie detectors are a scam. Even when used by a expert, they depend very heavily on his “gut”.
Just be a little nervous, even during the “test questions”, and deny everything. Oh, and when they ask you “have you ever stolen anything from someone who trusted you” they assume you have, so if you say “no” they assume you lied. So, make up some little story about stealing a apple from your 3rd grade teacher. Then a quarter from your baby-sitter, then a candy bar when you were 8, and keep it up until he stops. In other words, confess to such petty shit when you were really young that no one cares.
Oh, and if they asked if you ever took recreational drugs, they assume you have.
But they “detect” nothing. At worst, all they can do is say “hmm, looks like he was stressed when we asked him if he broke into the safe”- which of course you would be.
So, when they get to the “nut” question, and afterwards say you were lying, simply keep denying it.
I give you this advice based upon the fact that "lie detectors’ are such a complete scam.
Food for thought: http://antipolygraph.org/
What I was taught previously is to just be nervous about every single question they ask you, including the ‘control’ questions.
“What’s your name?” - Stress out.
“How old are you?” - Stress out.
“Where are you?” - Stress out.
Etc. etc. etc. You aren’t so much as trying to “beat” the polygraph, rather than to just confuse it enough to draw inconclusive answers.
Recall seeing something on TV a while back (may have been on Penn&Teller’s Bullshit) about placing a thumbtack in your shoe and pushing down on it for the innocent questions. This would give high readings on the simple questions and then don’t press down when there may be a conflict.
I’ve always felt that all in all liers can beat a polygraph and nervous people often can’t pass even when telling the truth.
The standard properly done polygraph has yes/no questions - is not done like it is done on tv (usually) - there is a decent wait between when the question is answered and the next question is asked.
In the form I am familiar - it is a set of 10 questions that are asked three times in a random order.
There is much more science in it than skeptics will believe. Especially if they have never taken one.
I was NOT nervous (that I could tell) when taking one. I had read in “big secrets” that it was all a scam. I was sure it was. I even told the polygrapher this ahead of time.
They ASKED me to lie when picking a number between 3 and 8 (not sure the exact range). They then asked “Did you pick the number 3, did you pick the number 4, …”.
I lied - as instructed - to one of them. Why would I be nervous.
There was a printer running (not the needles like with older stuff you see on tv)
The pulled the sheet off and showed it to me. There was a vertical line after each number - where they had asked the question.
You didn’t have to be an expert to see where I was lying.
They do not work for everyone - I am sure of that, but I think they are much more reliable than what most skeptics give them credit for.
I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the Feds put great reliance in it.
There are stories of them working and them not working. There have been spies that have been caught - and those that have been overlooked.
I certainly didn’t used to believe they work, but now do.
Some also give a numerical score - below .10 is “non deceptive” - 0.10 -0.90 is considered “inconclusive” and 0.90 or above in considered “deceptive”.
I’m taking one sometime this week, I could let you know after. But I don’t need to “beat” it, just pass it. I’m sure I will be nervous as I have never taken one, but I am also pretty sure there is nothing capable of being asked that I will need to worry about. Recreational drugs? I went to college in the 70’s. Steal anything? Sure when I was 10 or 11 I grabbed some candy.
I do think it is more Psychological than physical and part of the test is to convince you it works. That will be hard to do.
It is for a local government job and they put great stock in passing a polygraph for their trusted positions.
I know the answer from a Discover Magazine article I read 25 years ago. I could share, but this seems like it skirts the “don’t share information on how to break the law” rule. If a mod or senior board member has some input, I’d appreciate it.
Looks like Wired magazine has a similar article.
Dude - don’t worry about it. Most of them limit it to the last 10 years (or something like it). Almost everyone has stolen as a kid.
If done properly - they will go over the questions ahead of time.
Usually 4 of these will be relevant questions “In the last ten years have you committed a crime other than a minor traffic violation”
Usually 4 will be irrelevant “Are the lights on?”
Sometimes 2 will be honesty questions, but they “expect” you to lie - “Have you ever lied to a friend?”. “Before 1996 did you steal anything?”.
You should already be familiar with what their standards are. They almost certainly won’t be asking you anything that wasn’t on your application. If you told the truth on your application - you have NOTHING to worry about.
Don’t fret the possible two questions where they “expect” you to lie.
They don’t even detect stress. The detect heart rate skin resistance and a few other basic measurements. These results are then subjectively interpreted as stress.
The supposed technique I’ve read somewhere (perhaps one of the articles others have mentioned) was that you should very slightly bear-down with your bowels when you answer every question. The various sensors will pick this up and interpret it as a normal pattern in all your responses, and it will serve to effectively drown out most other tell-tale readings that they may otherwise pick up that you’re not aware of and/or can’t control.
They don’t ask general questions about drugs, stealing, etc., in order to penalize you for doing those things, they do so in order to establish a “benchmark” to determine whether or lying about the more serious misconduct that the test is actually being administered for. Most people have done these things, but tend to lie about it, resulting in a level of stress that is measurably higher than when truthfully answering generic questions such as name, age, etc. However, since their are no actual consequences to being caught lying about these things, they will not produce the same stress level as lying about offenses actually related to the test. For example, if someone taking a polygraph as part of consideration for a job at a bank denies that they have ever embezzled from a previous employer and the feedback indicates a stress level somewhere between when being asked their name, and being asked if they have ever smoked marijuana, then they will “pass.” If the stress level for the embezzlement question is higher than for the marijuana question, they will fail.
My understanding is that if you never have actually committed any of the minor “benchmark” offenses they ask about, or if you keep telling them the truth and confess, they have other techniques. Anyone know anything about those?
That’s true. But honestly, the idea is to lie to you to get you to confess. Thus, unless you confess, you rarely actually ‘fail”. Confess to nothing but normal minor offenses well in the past, drug use in college, shoplifting in high school, etc.
In the words of George Costanza “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
I do not believe this is accurate. I have spoken to four polygraphers and all of them have told me they believe they can detect lying without this.
I believe all four - and two of them had no reason whatsoever to lie to me.
If you consistently have a higher reaction to the relevant questions than you do to the control questions - you will fail the test - even if you never confess.
There is no trickery involved with modern polygraphs (other than getting you to believe in some cases that you are supposed to tell the truth about two general honesty questions) - it is a case of measuring your reaction against the controls - if the same - you are telling the truth - if significantly higher - you are lying.
They go over each and every question they will ask you ahead of time. If you fail a relevant one - they will then give you a separate polygraph trying to break that one down (from what I know at least - maybe not in all cases/systems).
For a few years, I worked for a small company that made medical sensors and software. Among other things I learned that polygraphs were a load of crap. The sensors and software are excellent for detecting stress levels IF AND ONLY IF the subject is not trying to deceive the machine. Pneumatrodes, Galvanic skin response sensors, photoplathysmagraphs and the rest are unbelievably sensitive. It’s trivial to throw out enough noise to make a decent reading impossible.
DataX All four testers had a very good reason to tell you that polygraphs work. Their jobs depend on it. They’ve probably even convinced themselves that they work. This does not make it true.
I didn’t say that it meant polygraphs worked - I said that it meant they would believe they detected attention WITHOUT getting someone to confess. This is really not in dispute (people fail polygraphs without confessing). Whether they actually work is of course very much in dispute.
Of course they only work if they person is sitting there calm. You will not get hired by the Feds if you jump up and down during a polygraph - or look like you are intentiionally trying to defeat the test. Most people when sitting still - are NOT going to be able to create enough noise while sitting still to do anything. Anyone should be able to “pass” a control test. If they are giving off enough “noise” as you put it during this part of the test - they won’t be hired - they will (my understanding is) usually be allowed to retake the test.
I disagree, rather strongly.