Sounds like operator bias. You know you’re lying when you say it isn’t Wednesday, and so does the operator. It’s easy to see a blip that really isn’t there under those circumstances. Now, if you show the printout to someone who doesn’t know what questions you were asked and ask them to point at the bit where you lied, and they point right at the bit where you did lie, that would mean something.
The above should give you a hint about my view of polygraphs: unscientific crap. For decades (I don’t know if they’re still doing it) every CIA agent was tested on the polygraph, and exactly zero double agents were caught using that method. I’ll let you guess if the number of actual double agents was higher than zero.
That is how he did it. He covered the days up and asked me to show the lie. There was only one place where it spiked even a little. After pointing that place out he showed me which day it was.
You still knew the order of his questions, how many questions you were asked, and so forth. The operator knew where the lie was, and may have inadvertently (without you consciously noticing) given you clues.
It may sound like I’m grasping at straws, but it’s astounding how results like yours disappear when subjected to strictly controlled, double-blind testing. Magic tricks work the same way; people who are taken from the audience to “assist” the magician on some trick, are fooled, and then describe what the magician did, almost invariably tell a different story than a videotaping of the event. That doesn’t mean they’re stupid, susceptible to persuasion, inattentive, or ignorant, it just means they’re as impressionable as the rest of us.
I believe the biggest problem w/ polygraphs is that they require “interpretation” by an operator. Now they will defend that by explaining the control questions, and their observation of the test subject during the test, but I think those same arguments can be used to show bias.
I thought the polygrapgh had been invented around the 30’s, or 40’s, turns out that the modern polygraph was invented in 1921. (there was an earlier device dating to 1902) If it’s been in use for over 85 years why hasn’t it been improved to the point where it’s been scientifically tested and accepted as reliable by the legal community as a whole?
They are totally unreliable. I used to have to take them on a regular basis when I worked for 7-Eleven. More people lost their jobs due to those idiot boxes than ever stole a dime from the company.
As others have said, they are often used as a way to coerce confessions from people. They, in very, very rare cases may be used to support someone’s truthfulness IF: the police (or others administering the test) are already half-way convinced of the subject’s truthfulness; and if the subject’s nervousness about the test doesn’t affect their readings for the test. But the coercive nature seems far more common.
IOW, I’m not going to say it’s complete bunkum - there often are physiological reactions to statements that people make. But, the way that they’re used, is often fraudulent in the extreme. There’s a reason that lawyers generally advise their clients to decline to take a polygraph test. Like someone said upthread - most of the time the police only suggest it for people they consider major, credible suspects; “passing” the test will not change their minds about the suspect’s guilt, and a “failure” or inconclusive result will only confirm the guilt in their eyes.
Counter example. What about ECG readings that show heart disease. If you showa guy like me 9 normal heartbeats and one anomalous one, ask me to spot the anomoly, I couldn’t do it. I wouldn’t know what to look for. These things may only be visible to someone who knows exactly what he’s looking for. Just because they are invisible to an ordinary person doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Not that I believe in lie detectors. But I do believe in proper critical thinking and making sure your arguments are logically sound. And that particular argument makes me cringe every time it’s trotted out.
Is this actually your own opinion? Or are you just copying what someone else told you?
cite? I do not believe that is true. Can you show me some evidence to support this claim?
Again, cite? Would you care to share with us the source of your information?
Seriously, how exactly do YOU know how many double agents were caught, and hoiw many got away?
I think it is partly due to the subjectiveness or seemingly so, of the interpretation.
And, some people are much better at concealing their emotions.
Radio Shack, for a time, sold a simple “lie detector” kit that was based in part due to the audible oscillator noise from the speaker. Two metallic velcro pads were placed around two fingers, and the device measured skin conductivity to extremely low values. As one physiological reaction to stress is sweating, nervousness results in the tone from the speaker to go up in pitch. The “subject” could hear it as well, while the “examiner” asks various questions. Assuming that the person being questioned does not wish to be caught in a lie or falsehood, it was a very sensitive feedback loop into someones conscience. They do “work”, but with a lot of caveats.
I think the polygraph is just about as reliable as an “E-Meter” (a standard prop of the $cientology cult. There is no proof that they work as advertised, and most often the results are ambiguous. As was pointed out, taking one (as a defendent) is extremely dangeous-you can only cast doubt on yourself-and if the results go your way, you will still be questioned.
I’d class it with geomancy, in terms of accuracy
Jeez. Replace “someone” with “someone with training”, then. I doubt there is any legit training for using a polygraph, but whatever.
It’s my own opinion, based on the facts as I understand them. The facts I did get from someone else, since I haven’t personally performed any double-blind tests of polygraphs. If that invalidates my opinion in your eyes, living your life must be quite difficult.
Where I first heard it, I do not remember. CynicalGabe mentioned one name of a double agent who got through polygraph examinations.
How many got away, no-one knows, as I’m sure you understand. Some were caught with other methods, and those we do know about. Why the CIA would tell us about the double agents caught by chance or another method and keep silent on the topic of double agents caught by polygraph, I can’t figure out.
Let me put it another way. We agree there have been double agents in the CIA, right? We also, based on my cite above, agree that CIA agents undergo periodic polygraph examinations, I hope. I know of no double agent in the CIA caught by polygraph. I know of other double agents in the CIA. There are a few possibilities here, but I’m going to go with the one I find most reasonable. You already know which one that is.
I now see that Wikipedia mentions one Harold James Nicholson who failed a polygraph test which “later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction”. There are no references, though. I’ll look for more information on him when I have time.
So that’s one double agent caught by polygraph. Personally, I don’t think it says much about the polygraph, mainly because it would surprise me greatly if the number of false positives isn’t higher than 1/X, where X is the number of double agents that have ever been polygraph-tested. If we were to roll a D20 for each CIA employee and investigate those for whom the die came up twenty, we would sooner or later catch a double agent, but that says little about the validity of the dice-rolling process as a way to identify double agents.
You do realise that you have undermined your own argument, don’t you.
Your argument was that an ordinary person without training ought to be able to see the result.
who? cite some reliable source for your “facts”
Strawman.
I’m not saying that your opinion is wrong. I said above that I don’t believe in lie detectors.Its the weak arguments you use that are wrong, and tend to undermine your position
Fair enough, the CIA do use polygraphs.
Are you sure? I believe the CIA operates in secret, and generally doesn’t reveal how spies are caught. Can you be certain that NONE of them were caught with a polygraph? That is your assumption
you are using circular reasoning.
You start off with the belief that polygraphs don’t work.
You assume that the CIA has never caught a double agent this way. You don’t know this, you are just basing this assumption on your own belief.
You then use the assumption as evidence to support your own belief.
Okay, just consider this. Note that this is a question, not a statement. While I’m sure that the polygraph doesn’t reliably “detect lies” can it be used as a tool in interrogation? Could a suspect give away information by his reactions?
scenario: they have caught an enemy agent by whatever means. They put him on a polygraph, and interrogate him. They want to know about his associations with their own guys. And maybe he shows a flicker of reaction when the double agent’s name is mentioned.
look, the polygraph has been around since the 1930’s, and despite all of the hype. the “evidence” they supply is still not admissable in USA courts (I don’t know about the UK, ot other countries). Seems like 60+ years is enough time to prove/disprove something. The CIA does use them, but you accept that as a condition of accepting a job with the CIA. What i don’t understant-the CIA has a TERRIBLE track record of uncovereing moles in its own house. J.J. Angleton destroyed many lives and reputations, yet never uncovered the true moles.
No, my argument was that someone being able to spot the lie while knowing where the lie was means nothing. I didn’t mention training at all.
As for the rest of your post, did you even bother to read my last two posts? You know, the ones where I myself named a double agent that was caught by polygraph, and gave credible cites to that effect?
The subjectiveness can go well beyond interpretation of the test graph and observation of the subjects behavior. Consider the operator’s demeanor during the test; body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, eye contact, etc. and the possible reactions by the subject. Add to that the suspense of not knowing what questions might be asked. Everyone has secrets that they want to protect, what if the questioning borders on something unrelated to the purpose of the test, but threatening to the subject. Those are just a few things that could create inaccurate results, I’m sure there are many others.
“The Agency uses a polygraph to check the veracity of information that bears upon the areas listed above. CIA’s polygraph examiners are highly trained security professionals, among the world’s best in their field. They work closely and carefully with applicants to ensure that the information upon which clearance decisions are based is as accurate as it can be and is guarded with the strictest confidence.The Agency uses a polygraph to check the veracity of information that bears upon the areas listed above. CIA’s polygraph examiners are highly trained security professionals, among the world’s best in their field. They work closely and carefully with applicants to ensure that the information upon which clearance decisions are based is as accurate as it can be and is guarded with the strictest confidence.”
“CIA employees undergo regular reinvestigations, including periodic polygraph examinations.”
The following exerpts from the CIA homepage. I’m very afraid for our country having people like this in charge of our security. Ug.