*The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
*
“Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it’s about 70 percent accurate,” said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association. "Many people refer to polygraph tests as lie detector tests, and that’s a bit of a misnomer.
Not according to Ian Rowland, who wrote the book on the topic, literally.
Cold reading, or the acceptance of its accuracy, is subject to confirmation biases. So is the interpretation of a polygraph chart. Lines drawn on the chart don’t go from “yes” to “no”, but usually end up somewhere in between. It’s up to the examiner to decide if the line is closer to one or the other, made harder by the lack of a firm line to cross. What does 60% between yes & no mean? 40% maybe?
I do not own the book, but I have met Ian in person on more than one occasion and watched him work as a magician and mentalist professionally. He was a poster on SDMB a while ago under the name ianzin, last posting in November 2016. He knows his shit, no matter what the book critics may say.
And he’s not alone in his assessment of cold reading. This subject was a frequent topic in skeptic meetings/conventions I used to attend. The procedure is pretty well defined by the experts now, whether white hat or black hat.
Of the 8 reviews on the Amazon book site, 5 are favorable, even enthusiastically so. Of the 3 who gave negative reviews, one complained about the price, one complained about typos, and one complained about the binding, at the same time complementing the author on his knowledge of the subject.
“Horrible”?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You mean this review? :"*The absolute WORST of its genre, this book is overpriced mediocrity. As other reviewers have said, Rowland’s book is full of typos, poorly designed, poorly written and desperately in need of an editor. More importantly, there are far better books than this pathetic pamphlet on the subject, which is probably why Rowland couldn’t land a publisher and did an amateurish job of self-publishing it.
Rowland’s writing is immature, boring, tiresome and pedantic, and I barely made it halfway through the book before mercifully giving up and just skimming the rest. It’s hard to take what he says seriously as his attempts at whimsy and congeniality fail, like giving each one of his methods cutesy, silly names like “Rainbow ruse” to explain how to use opposites to describe a person, such as “you are generous but also frugal when you want to be.” Just Google some of the Barnum effect stuff for free and you will learn far more than this book offers."*
A blind guess is certainly better, because it isn’t presented as if there is scientific basis or certainty to it, unlike polygraph “experts” who, when presented with evidence that the tool they use isn’t worth shit, make a counter claim that they are the real “polygraph”. Blind guesses are at least devoid of deception when presented as such.
It would be easy to design and perform a double-blind study of polygraphs as lie detectors. That no one has come up with any scientific support for that in how many decades is sufficient evidence that they are not useful for that purpose.
Same reason we know that cow-tipping isn’t a thing because if it were, it’d be on youtube.
Given the evidence against reliability of polygraph examinations (or at least lack of support for their efficacy), it’s surprising they are still a tool of choice when assessing applicants for certain flavors of Top Secret security clearances.
Since there is no evidence that one-on-one cold reading is better than blind guessing(your friend’s claims notwithstanding), I would say I was talking about both. Neither method, cold reading or polygraphs, have anything solid to back them up, yet both use a mask of authority and science.
Obviously you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I have explained two facts:
WHY some LEOs use polygraphs, even when they know the limitations
HOW some LEOs use polygraphs, even when they know the limitations
I agree that polygraphs are unreliable, and pseudoscience. The trickery involved is unethical. I have stated that "I personally opine that all polygraph machines should be junked and no government agency allowed to spend a nickel on such procedures. But that’s morality. "
However my two facts stand. LEO & other agencies do use Polygraphs, they do find them useful. I have tried to explain* why* they do so. I do not agree with their use. I am not defending their use. I am trying to help those who may be faced with one.
Do you disagree that they do use polygraphs? :rolleyes:
What I am disagreeing with is your continued use of the word “useful” without explaining that it is different from how the OP (and most of the rest of us) define it. It may be “useful”, in getting people to confess, rightly or wrongly, and it may be “useful” as a tool to make your friend’s portfolio look good…but the question is this thread concerns it’s usefulness in telling truth from lie.