I read an article that mentioned if you take a test while thinking about different life events you can control the results.
For example:
Think of your grandma passing away while doing the control questions. Then think of marrying your wife during the questions.
Vs.
Thinking of marrying your wife during the control questions. Then thinking of your grandma passing away while doing the questions.
Both situations would yield different results on the same questions whether you are telling the truth or not. The tests are based on things that are controlled by emotions.
How do two sad things counter each other?
Just kidding, dear.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
I'm not at all familiar with the technology etc, but I presume there is a reason (unreliability) that our courts have held that lie detector results are not admissible.
I'm not extremely familiar with it either but to say its 0% accurate wouldn't really make sense to me since it is still used quite a bit as far as I know in criminal cases. Obviously some believe in its validity more than others but I think there is some validity to it. If you watch any shows like Dateline or Forensic Files they are often used and I've found more often than not they do clear innocent suspects and often guilty suspects fail. Also I'm pretty sure the police force actually uses them in their hiring process as well. In court you obviously want to be 100% certain so I fully agree they shouldn't be used in those circumstances but I do believe the average person would have a tough time tricking them. If they wern't of any benefit I doubt they would be used as much as they are.
Also I'm pretty sure the police force actually uses them in their hiring process as well. In court you obviously want to be 100% certain so I fully agree they shouldn't be used in those circumstances but I do believe the average person would have a tough time tricking them. If they wern't of any benefit I doubt they would be used as much as they are.
The police force does use them in hiring. I've also taken one. It's not as easy to trick as one might think, as the whole process is a bit unnerving and designed to put you off your game.
The polygraph machine used today was invented by a crackpot, there is literally no science to it. There's lot's of random anecdote about how to beat it but fundamentally it's like trying to beat a mood ring, it's just a machine that reacts to things that are known to exist (heat, charge, etc) but there is absolutely no science demonstrating any manner of interpreting the data.
The polygraph machine used today was invented by a crackpot, there is literally no science to it. There's lot's of random anecdote about how to beat it but fundamentally it's like trying to beat a mood ring, it's just a machine that reacts to things that are known to exist (heat, charge, etc) but there is absolutely no science demonstrating any manner of interpreting the data.
It absolutely is 0% accurate.
Bah, this is crazy talk. Back in my day, I could beat a mood ring every time. I was (and still am!) always filled with rage but it never turned black. My ring was a sweet purple at all times. Purple means love yet I feel NO LOVE for anything or anyone.
You might want to brush up on your "science". A mood ring can totally be beaten.
__________________
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
The police use lie detectors all the time (and rely on them to a surprising degree).
But they will tell you that it's not the machine that's critical, it's the person charged with the interview. Basically, you can't just give the machine to any chump to ask questions, it needs to be given to a skilled interviewer - someone who can trap you or catch you off guard.
Even so, I'm always surprised how much the cops rely on it. Beat a lie detector, you're pretty much cleared in the eyes of the police. But of course, your very willingness to take the test is telling in itself.
But that's simply because people think they work. Either the suspect gets nervous and confesses or gets pressured into a fake confession because the police think the machine works. The fact that junk science is allowed to exist like this is a sad state of affairs.
But that's simply because people think they work. Either the suspect gets nervous and confesses or gets pressured into a fake confession because the police think the machine works. The fact that junk science is allowed to exist like this is a sad state of affairs.
Penn and Teller did a thing on them on their old show. Basically investigators use them to bully a confession out of suspect regardless of actual guilt.
I read about one case where they fake wired a guy to a photocopy machine which had a sheet of paper saying "LIE" under the cover. Then when they asked the guy about the crime and he denied it, the machine spat out a copy. The guy confessed. This may be an urban myth, but most crooks are dummies.
I read about one case where they fake wired a guy to a photocopy machine which had a sheet of paper saying "LIE" under the cover. Then when they asked the guy about the crime and he denied it, the machine spat out a copy. The guy confessed. This may be an urban myth, but most crooks are dummies.
I read about one case where they fake wired a guy to a photocopy machine which had a sheet of paper saying "LIE" under the cover. Then when they asked the guy about the crime and he denied it, the machine spat out a copy. The guy confessed. This may be an urban myth, but most crooks are dummies.
It really does seem like it's more the read the interviewer gets off of you. A lie detector "test" is an average of 3+ hours. You sit and talk and talk and talk...then the actual test, where you are wired up is about 10 minutes. When I took mine, I really felt that I was going to a "lie detection interview" instead of what TV and movies had made me think the test would be like (wired up to the machine).
Though in a recent submission to the Supreme Court of Canada on a police interrogation case R v Willier, one of the parties cited a Michigan Law Review article written by an ADA from Delaware, Laurie Magid, in which she wrote:
Quote:
Virtually all interrogations — or at least virtually all successful interrogations
— involve some deception.1 As the United States
Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety
of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the
interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic “Mutt and Jeff,” or
“good cop, bad cop,” routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent
eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices
have given statements against them. Interrogators have
been known to put an unsophisticated suspect’s hand on a fancy, new
photocopy machine and tell him that the “Truth Machine” will know if
he is lying. Occasionally, an interrogator will create a piece of evidence,
such as a lab report purporting to link the suspect’s bodily fluids
to the victim. Perhaps most often, interrogators lie to create a rapport
with a suspect. Interrogators who feel utter revulsion toward
suspects accused of horrible crimes sometimes speak in a kindly, solicitous
tone, professing to feel sympathy and compassion for the suspect
and to feel that the victim, even if a child, should share the blame. At
the very least, the successful interrogator deceives the suspect by allowing
the suspect to believe that it somehow will be in the suspect’s
best interest to undertake the almost always self-defeating course of
confessing.
I suppose the ADA could have been relying on an urban myth too, but really this is hardly an atrocious trick...not hard to imagine she was relying on her own knowledge.
