Drinking vinegar will indeed result in your passing the lie detector test. Each time you are asked a question, simply take a big ole swig of vinegar. The inevitable massive puckering of your lips in reaction to the sourness of the vinegar will render your speech mechanisms useless. If you cannot speak, you cannot lie, thus you will be home free. This works equally well with lemon juice.
Get a lot of sleep the night before & be on nice terms with the examiner is what I read… Would it be too much to ask why you are taking this hypothetical test donotprodme (nice handle for the situation)…
And I’ve heard that about you, too, zydecat. 
They try to get you to lie at first to see what kind of response you have when you lie. They will ask something like “have you ever stolen anything in your life?” For most people the answer is “yes” but they will not admit it while on a lie detector. So when you say “no” , they assume that is a lie.
I guess if you are a rare person who has never stolen anything even as a kid then your “yes” answer is correct. In that case I guess you have already screwed them up.
I have heard the tack in the shoe works well.
I’d like to second (or third, or whatever) the notion of the LD’s BS-ness. A former roommate of mine had to take a LDTest as part of his application process for the CIA. He repeatedly failed 2 questions that he was definitely not lying on–had he ever taken illegal drugs (no; he was a nerdy straight arrow); had he ever committed a violent crime against another person (no; he had never so much as gotten into a heated argument with anyone).
The bummer is, even though the polygraph is BS, the CIA values it enough that they denied him employment. (Instead, the NSA, which doesn’t use a polygraph, hired him. Go fig.)
Q about the baseline questions:
If he asks me if I’m Napoleon and I say “yes”, does that stupid joke really make me nervous enough so that the polygraph registers extra sweat or a faster heartbeat? I understand the theory, as far as lies that I hope not to get caught at, but for the baseline? Is the body that delicate that such a fib causes noticable physiological changes?
BTW, here’s a guy crusading against polygraphs http://www.polygraph.com/media.html This is probably the same guy I saw a few years ago.
Sorry, meant to consolidate these two posts.
And here’s another group http://antipolygraph.org/ Sounds like it’s pretty easy to beat.
You know, the very fact that the same guy who is meeting the interviewee and is asking the questions makes this pretty unreliable and subject to personal bias. According to this Scientific American article they’re finally writing filters for computers to use to try and make it a little more objective.
That depends on you, really. You could be telling the complete truth but if you’re nervous, the machine will register a lie. Alternatively, you could be telling a massive lie but if you’re calm, the machine will say it’s 'is 'onest truth, guvna!
Yes, all my lie detectors speak Cockney.
What about sarcasm? Wouldn’t that screw things up? If you killed a man, you could be all “Tsuh. Yeah, I killed him. Sure”, but the sarcasm would be the kind you normally use when you’re lying, so it would show up as a lie. Anyway, should I ever be in the position to take a polygraph test, I’d most definitely be odd and sarcastic. If not for my own benefit, for the tester’s. Just so he could have an anecdote for later.
A properly conducted polygraph test is supposed to ask only yes or no questions. And each question is supposed to be about a single subject. If there’s any chance of it working, the tester needs to get the subject into a pattern. Then the reactions are more likely to be recognizable. Varying from the pattern invalidates the next several “relevant” questions. Several control questions are necessary to reestablish the pattern.
For the last time: Lie detectors do not measure lies. They measure stress. The correct term for them is polygraph. So if you aren’t stressed, you can lie or joke or profane your mother’s name all you want and it won’t set off the polygraph.
‘Polygraph’ as in polygraph machine, that is.
Additionally, my understanding is that it is a subjective test in which the administrator makes a subjective judgement using a number of factors including the results from the polygraph machine.
I believe that this is another reason why the results are not admissable and fairly inconclusive.
Lemur866 wrote:
Reminds me of a classic News of the Weird item about a couple of enterprising cops who made their own polygraph by connecting a colander to a copier. The copier was pre-loaded with a slip of paper bearing the words “he’s lying”.
The suspect would wear the colander on his head, and the cops would press the start button on the copier when they suspected a lie. The machine would then spit out a piece of paper saying “he’s lying”, causing the suspect to change his story.
What reminded you? The message already posted about it?
Consuming vinegar does not allow one to beat a polygraph “test.” In addition, almost everything that has thus far been posted here in response to your question is either completely wrong or so incomplete as to not be useful. Here is the “straight dope”:
The key to passing a typical polygraph “test” is:
-
to make no significant admissions
-
to produce stronger physiological responses to the so-called “control” questions than to the relevant questions.
You’ll find this explained in much greater detail in chapters 3 & 4 of AntiPolygraph.org’s free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In addition, for further discussion of polygraph issues, see the AntiPolygraph.org message board.
George W. Maschke