I see the Ramsey’s are declaring their innocence based on results from a polygraph test. Now I have no idea if they are truly innocent or guilty – my outrage is directed at the instrument they and others have pointed to as some magical lie-detector. Media sources regularly report instances of polygraph examinations as if they had some validity and with no scientific criticism of the device. The US government argued before the Supreme Court against the use of the polygraph because it is so easy to manipulate, yet will use it when making hiring decisions and determining security clearances.
I can understand its usage as an interrogation tool when questioning a criminal suspect. If you can convince someone of its efficacy, perhaps they will confess or at least give damaging information. What I find difficult to grasp is why any person, regardless of guilt, would submit to such an obviously flawed and biased procedure. The entire process is steeped in deception and outright untruths, and I for one wish the general public would recognize the device for the sham it certainly is. So I would like to offer several points for debate:
[list=1]
[li]Am I missing something?! Is there any scientific evidence to support using a polygraph as a device to ascertain truthfulness?[/li]
Should a business and/or the government be allowed to use the polygraph to screen potential employees or investigate existing employees?[/list=1]
I was going to say “If it’s good enough for these guys, then it’s good enough for me.” and post a link to the CAP Alert website where they say some doctor proved everybody believes in God by using a polygraph.
[Un]Fortunately they seem to have taken the link down (or hide it real good from me). I wanted to draw David B. out. I missed him.
Anyway, I thought iw was common knoledge that these machines aren’t reliable. But I guess I was mistaken, as usual.
SterlingNorth
[sup]Truth detector on loan from God[/sup]
If its power is greater than its significance, then I guess it’s a useful tool, and it is reasonable to take its results into account (although that doesn’t necessarily ean that one should rely solely on it). If a job is so sensitive that the danger of an untrustworthy person holding it outweighs the drawback of possibly refusing a good candidate, then it is appropiate. Of course, it is the nature of bureucrats to obverephasize the iportance of their department, which means that it is used much more than it should.
Personally, I think a polygraph is just like those funky “cleansing” machines that Scientologists use… two soup cans and a cardboard box (or some cheap-ass gizmo like that). The results are fed in by the polygraph operator, who presses a button depending on whether or not he thinks the testee is lying or not.
Okay, that’s bunk, polygraphs do have SOME accuracy… but not enough that they should be allowed in a court of law. A polygraph works by detecting the moisture in your palms, rising blood pressure, shakiness, things that are normally associated with nervousness. However, I would imagine that a good actor, with strong control over his/her emotions/body/etc. would be able to foil a polygraph.
I see no reason why employers shouldn’t be allowed to use polygraphs to screen people… it may not be definite and/or exact to 100% accuracy, but it’s another layer of screening that may catch something that a background check doesn’t. A polygraph used by itself, however, with no background check, probably wouldn’t make a very useful tool in checking up on employees.
As for criminal cases… again, a polygraph test definitely should NOT be the only means of ascertaining guilt… it’s a tool of adding credence to a suspects’ already-established criminality status.
They DO detect guilt or nervousness on the part of many people. Hoever, feeling guilty or nervous about something does not mean you ARE guilty. And some psychopaths can fool it every time, as they feel no guilt. This is what I would believe is the case here.
Has anyone here ever had a cop show up at your door for something innocuous? I had one knock on my door to tell me my headlights were on. Even with my family home and safe, and knowing that I hadn’t done anything wrong, opening the door to a uniform made my palms sweat an my heart race. I think I’d probably show up as a liar if I asserted the sky was blue.
I don’t see how it can be appropriate. Would either of you feel the same if a potential employer were to whip out a magic 8-ball and use it during the interview? How about a dowsing rod? These devices likely have the same effectiveness in determining trustworthiness.
Danielinthewolvesden
I agree the nervousness of some individuals might be detected, but how can you say that it detects guilt? The person could be nervous for a great many reasons, not the least of which could be a desire to obtain the job or embarrassment due to the question.
We’ve all known individuals who blush easily. I suspect their readings would be different than mine, and they would be denied employment unfairly. Shouldn’t this be considered discrimination?
JonF
This has got to be the highest ratio of spelling errors per length of post I have ever seen from someone possessing such a high IQ. ;):D:p
I have not and will not submit to a lie detector examination for any reason, including job interviews. If all of us emphatically declined to submit ourselves to questioning by some jerk with a machine, maybe the damn things would just go away.
My attitude has cost me the chance at two jobs I really wanted.
I may be misremembering this, but I thought I read that polygraphs were about 96% accurate. I have no idea if that’s correct or how it was arrived at. Can anyone shed some light on this? Also on the notion that the tests are easily manipulated? That was not my impression, but I only know what I’ve seen on “Murder She Wrote”…
If this is the case (>95% accuracy), I’m not sure why this isn’t a reasonable screening tool. Yeah, maybe you don’t want to convict someone based on it, but given the efficacy of face-to-face interviews (typically a very bad screening device), what’s wrong with using polygraphs for job applicants? Nothing is fool-proof, after all–even drug tests have error rates. People are turned down for jobs for all kinds of reasons; at least this one seems less toward the arbitrary side.
Also, I may just lack an adequately developed “question authority” gland, but why would you refuse to take a polygraph test (and ensure you won’t get the job) rather than take it (and assume only a risk you might not)?
And it seems absolutely appropriate to use in criminal investigations (not that the investigation should end there).
Tipying awn a laptop ceeborde liiing on a rekliner …
A litttle. First you have to define “accurate”. Do you mean 96% correct detection of lying/truth-telling with 4% inconclusive? Do you mean 96% correct detection of lying and some other percentage of correct detection of truth-telling? Or 96% correct detection of truth-telling and some other percentage of correct detection of truth-telling? And what about the remaining percentage … whether that means inconclusive or claiming that someone is lying when they are in fact telling the truth or claiming that somone is telling the truth when in fact they are lying may make a big difference.
There are claims of "accuracy … close to 100% (How accurate is a polygraph?. (Note that the APA quote given on that page ducks the question).
The Office of Technology Assessment concluded, in 1983 (which could make this out of date, but quite probably not) that “no overall measure or single, simple judgment of polygraph testing validity can be established based on available scientific evidence.” The full report discusses some of the issues in detail: cientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation.
In 1999, Steven Algood of the Federation of American Scientists stated at a DOE hearing: “… there is growing sentiment among security experts and others that the polygraph is a flawed instrument that should be phased out and ultimately replaced.” (Statement of Steven Aftergood).
At best, maybe polygraph tests are accurate. IMHO they should not be used unless they are known to be accurate and the nature of their accuracy is defined.
You’re being silly. It is well established that there is a positive correlation between a polygraph machine saying that somone is lying and that person actually lying. The statement “These devices likely have the same effectiveness in determining trustworthiness” is ignorance at best.
In addition, an employer should be allowed to use any criteria he feels is necessary to ensure the continued operation of his/her company. They’re capable of summoning up your criminal records, school transcripts, friends, family, and foes… with that in mind, a polygraph is small potatoes.
HOWEVER…
A polygraph shouldn’t be the ONLY means checking for worthy candidates. THAT would be stupid, and irresponsible, t’boot.
So we lost a couple of manslaughterers.
You don’t really think it was on purpose, like O.J.?
Half the murder-murders go unsolved and we drage these people through a personal tradegy. There should be some way for them to just move to New Zeland and start over with their grief.
WhoaNellie, the Pit is the place for complaints about the administration of the SDMB, which would include your sig. Ditto for personal attacks on other posters.
I oppose drug tests for other reasons, but at least the underlying science is established.
Substitute “astrological charts” or “palm readings” for “polygraphs” and see if you feel differently.
I see many things wrong with using polygraphs, not the least of which is the lack of scientific evidence to support its validity. The typical procedure involves a lot of demeaning and embarrassing questions under the guise of “testing your responses”. Questions like “When was the last time you were aroused while viewing a child?” The entire process is simply a deception employed to try and trick you into voluntarily revealing any damaging information they are trying to obtain. In addition, studies have shown that the interpretation of the results is influenced by the examiner’s prior assumption of the subject’s guilt.
Employer’s are not allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of gender or race. I foresee the possibility of an employer “weeding out undesirables” by interpreting polygraphs as they wish, or at the very least according to their prior prejudices. This fact alone should preclude their usage.
The Ryan
Please assume I have actually done some research prior to posting. I suggest you investigate the links JonF provided above to realize that most scientists dispute the legitimacy of polygraphs. Calling me ignorant “at best” about a topic I initiated indicates you either dismiss the conflicting evidence, are unaware of it, or merely wish to depict your insolence.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly
Should they be allowed to ask you to submit to an astrological reading? How about a palm reading, or a psychic? A phrenologist? What about a device to see under the clothing of an applicant? It seems to me that in order to use a technique, it should have some scientific validity. Also, some things may be considered too intrusive.
I am stunned to hear that anyone feels that 95% (or so) is an acceptable test to use for employment in positions of responsibility.
95% is disappointing. Failure rates are often evaluated by the logarithm of the error rate. By this test, 99% is five times better than 95%, as you’d expect, BUT 95% is only 13 times better than flipping a coin. (Put another way, your chances of failing unfairly are about a third of your chances of losing a round of Russian roulette. Wanna play?)
Not the same thing, you say? Well don’t be so cavalier about playing with other’s life-changing decisions, okay?
Sociopaths (not to be confused with psychopaths) are very likely to pass polygraphs. They are alse capable of great charm, and can be exceprionally convincing, precisely because they are so detached. They are precisely the people you want to keep out of responsible positions. They are likely to act in an unconscionable fashion (and you’ll find plenty of them in boardrooms and legislatures)
if this test is judged ‘acceptable’, one would expect it to become common (this came disturnbingly close to happening at one time) How can we limit access to responsible jobs to the millions of people who, for reasons of physiology or psychology, would consistently ‘fail’ this flawed test?
Reason for failing could include: a) being nervous about the risks and deficiencies of the machine; and b) being falsely found untruthful in the past. I know people who failed polygraphs and now are terrified of the machines. They may never pass again.
The common standard of scientific validity is p=.05, which means a 5% chance of an accidental positive result. However, every good scientist knows that this means that if they do 20+ tests (or analyze the same data for 20 different studies) they will probably find a ‘false positive’ that looks valid. This is one reason why so-called ‘prospective’ studies (where the data was gathered after the study design) are considerably sounder than ‘retrospective’ studies, using existing data like old medical records. The studies I’ve seen that claim “95%” accuracy do so on a “per incident” basis. ‘Incident’ is defined differently in different studies, but in some cases this means “per question”. By this standard, I stand a very good chance of finding anyone guilty by asking enough questions.
Polygraphs don’t have a flashing “LIAR” light. they are subject to interpretations. The numbers you see are the best results (good days) by the best interpreters. Why? Because they show ‘what the test is capable of’ There is no way to assess what the accuracy “usually” is (in real life use), precisely because ‘in real life’ we don’t know the truth. If we did, we wouldn’t need the polygraph (or that knowledge would contaminate the results in many ways)
Polygraph reports are also very vague. Often they report “subject was evasive” on a given topic, or offer other interpretations that are generally used to confirm pre-existing prejudices. I know of people who were hired by the Federal government after failing, and I know people who were not hired because of ‘equivocal results’. This is generally what happens in real hiring situations. There is simply no other way to use vague results!
Here’s another real-world example: a convenience store chain routinely used polygraphs to detect pilferage. I knew a teenager who was fired and made to pay restitution or face criminal charges (he hotly denied the charge). Later I saw a news show that stated managers of poorly performing stores knew that if they did the tests, there was a high likelihood that someone would fail.
A bad manager could hang on to his job for years by periodically finding “thieving employees” (so poor profits were not his fault). One manager reported used it to coerce his teenage female employees. Company security also had a pattern of institutional abuse (e.g. why monitor all-night employees when you can appear to do just as good a job in a few hours with Gestapo bullying followed by a polygraph?)
For the record, I’ve tried various research polygraphs. It appears that I may be one of the ‘lucky ones’ who can often ‘fool’ the test, (at least in testing when nothing is riding on the results). This only makes me more opposed to it.
What I meant is that a polygraph should be a “last resort” kind of deal… that they should go through an interview, background check, and such, before they should even consider using a polygraph.
In addition, I was working under the assumption that a polygraph test was more accurate than you say it is. No scientific proof, you say? Well, having not researched polygraphs (beyond general knowledge), I’ll have to concede the point. If polygraphs are as innaccurate as you say, then it’s probably not a very useful tool in the practical sense. Just goes to show what happens when you “assume”…
I would imagine that a lie detector test is a tool for the media more than anything else… “So-and-so took a lie detector test, and now WE’LL tell YOU the results! Plus… does Michael Jackson wear glow-in-the-dark underwear? All this and more, at 11!”
Anyone else remember when Secretary of State George Shultz said he’d resign from Reagan’s cabinet before he would take a lie detector test?
I’ve taken lie detector tests on two occasions, and on both occasions the organism administering the test decided I was lying. I use the term “organism” because I refuse to even rate those entities as hominids. On both occasions they intentially were antagonistic, and on one of the occasions the tester told me afterwards that I had done poorly on the drug questions, which I found laughable as I have never used any illegal drugs (heck, I waited until I was legal before I had my first beer!). It turned out later that the tester was focusing on the drug issue because the manager at the store I was applying to was focusing on that issue, as the manager was a recovering addict himself.
The whole time I was being tested the thought going through my head was “who the hell are YOU to be asking me these personal questions?”
No way no how I’ll ever take a polygraph test again. The idea of one of those operators asking me a bunch of personal questions again is enough to make my blood boil.
Hardcore: i meant they detect the feeling of guilt, not actual guilt. Many feel guity, even when they are not actually guitly “I had lust in my heart”.
If you assume 5% are really guilty, with an accuracy rate of
95% ( which is doubtful), then somewhat more innocents are accussed, than guilty persons found. The same thing goes for drug tests. Drug tests have one thing going for them, a second test is not likely to be “false” in the same way a polygraph test was. Ie if your pee sample was accidentally contaminated, a second test should correct this. But, if you feel guity about something you did not do, then you are likely to retest the same.
But I’ll give you one hint. Almost never do PG tests actually “catch” the guilty party; you usually “confess” PRIOR to the test, or they show you a section of the tape that they claim sez “you’re lying”, and try to browbeat it out of you. Usually, they already “know” who “did it”, and use the “test” to get them to admit it. That is where the 95% “accuracy” comes in.
Polygraph operators also use a real bad “card trick” that the Amazing Randi would bust his gut laughing at. REALLY.
