https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#National_Academy_of_Sciences says that
Also,
Yes, my my expert i quoted was a FBI operator, and that’s what he told me.
They are cold readers using the machine to intimidate people into confessing.
The FBI guys are REALLY good cold readers using the machine to intimidate people into confessing.
FBI polygraph technicians are, in fact, better at it than most. They’re so good at it that they’re almost as good as a flipped coin at detecting lies. Which, incidentally, is a lot cheaper. And yeah, maybe the coin is mistaken, but if I ask a guy a question and the coin comes up “tails”, well, shouldn’t I at least take a closer look at that fellow?
Well, they are* really good* cold readers and interrogators, dont think otherwise.
But to them the Polygraph is really more of a prop.
But you are getting your info from a guy who runs one, aren’t you? Got any info from an unbiased source?
Well, since he spilled the beans about the Polygraph being used mostly as a prop, how biased was he?
The FBI is generally recognized as having some of the best interrogators in the world.
What’s that got to do with being the most accurate when it comes to using a polygraph(the original claim)? And can you cite either claim?
At no time did i claim the FBI was the most accurate when using the Polygraph*. That was Morgenstern.
- no one can be accurate all with it, since it is bogus pseudoscience.
Apologies for confusin’ the twos of yuse. So I ask him to verify his claim, and for you to verify yours, please.
Edited to add: Although you did verify his claim by saying
which claim is that?
This one:
which claim?
When I was a little kid Radio Shack had a DIY circuit board Lie Detector Kit. Well, I had to have it. My reasoning was, while the X-Ray specs and Sea Monkeys were kind of a rip off, Radio Shack wouldn’t scam on us solder-heads.
I scrimped and saved my paper route money and bought, and built, the kit. When I got done with it I was interrogating my older brother without success. Dad came home from work and saw what was going on and jumped right in. It was great - he acted like it was a joke and played along but there was a method to the madness, started out by asking innocuous questions like favorite colors and such. No reaction from my machine.
Then his demeanor changed and started needling personal questions and my machine started perking up and showing signs of life, finally he asked “Have you ever taken the car without my knowledge or permission?” The machine (audio based) pegged to the high side and my brother turned red. Busted!
I’m quite certain that in the hands of a skilled operator (and a subject with at least a modicum of conscience or guilt) they would provide very useful information. Not perfect, but they shouldn’t be discounted out of hand altogether, nor the fact that they have been misused in the past by unscrupulous types should preclude their use, that makes no sense either. They are simply another tool in the box, to be used like anything else.
Have always thought political candidates should have their heart rate and BP displayed during debates and such.
That’s a terrible idea. The only thing it would show is that some questions make them nervous and that could be for a dozen perfectly legitimate reasons. It would reveal absolutely nothing about the truth-value of their replies.
And of course there’s the fact that every time a politician opens their mouth they’re lying. 
I’ve been looking for that a long time! One of my favorite episodes of Barney Miller. Thanks!
The FBI must believe in its efficacy as it uses polygraphs for pre-employment screening.
Efficacy at detecting lies? I (and what research is available) doubt it.
Efficacy at providing a psychological edge for their questioning? Absolutely.
You know who’s really, really good at beating lie detectors? Psychopaths. The don’t have normal anxiety reactions, and are also great criminals in the first place, because they’re fearless, and like to take risks.
You know who blows lie detector tests big? People with anxiety disorders, who are also lousy criminals, because they are fearful, and risk-aversive.
I read something about lie detector tests once, where apparently the administrator tries to gain the subject’s faith in the test’s accuracy with a card trick, that is supposedly just part of “establishing a baseline.” They have a loaded deck (it’s all one card, Queen of spades, or two of diamonds, or whatever), and the subject picks a card, then replaces it in the deck, and the administrator tells the person to answer “No” no matter what he asks, and he goes through six or seven cards, “Was it the Ace of hearts?” “No,” “Was in the 10 of clubs?” “No,” until they ask the target card, then they look at the subject, after doing nothing but studying the machine the whole time, and say “It was the Queen of spades, wasn’t it?” and this makes the subject think that the machine did something they couldn’t even feel, because most people don’t get nervous over saying “No,” when the right card is named, they way they would over truthfully saying “No,” when asked if they killed someone.
Anyway, if the administrator really does pull a stunt like that, some people may confess before the polygraph test is even completed, which may be what the point of it actually is.
Yes, it’s a simple cheap card trick, and even if your stats dont blip, they will show you a blip and say they did.
“Accurately” is a weird word here. A polygraph isn’t a lie-detector. It’s just a tool to trick people into telling you things, like a magic trick or a fortune-teller.