[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Polygraph - ppl pass, right? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/27/2010 5:12:51 AM EDT
|
I had read threads here about polygraphs before. Out of curiosity I went to a few polygraph forums last night, and basically every new thread started as "I failed a polygraph but I've never done __________ [drugs, drove drunk, cheated on my spouse, sold secrets to foreign governments, etc] in my life. HELP!" Then some of the replies were all "its a voodoo box and there's nothing you can do and you're better off without it." A few of the posters were polygraph administrators. So the forum fractured very sharply into pro-poly and anti-poly.
So basically, from that (self-selected) sample, there seems to be a passing rate approaching 0%. But surely on ARF, where multiple people have taken entrance polygraphs and some probably have to/had to regularly take them to maintain security clearances, there are people that pass them. Does anyone know what the pass rates are? |
|
The polygraph is essentially a voodoo box. It's only real utility, I think, is to trick perps into making forthright confessions.
You know all those times you see a politician or celebrity advertising that they passed a polygraph? They have those tests administered privately/confidentially, and only release the results if they actually pass. Pass/fail can give and indication, but it's faaaaar from certain. |
|
Quoted: A polygraph measures your body's responses to stress stimuli. If you can control that, you will pass, regardless of the "truth." This is one thing that has bothered me about them. Does it mean that if you are nervous there is a good chance that you will register as lying? Because if I am being strapped into a lie detector, I'm going to be nervous and sweaty, regardless of any wrongdoing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A polygraph measures your body's responses to stress stimuli. If you can control that, you will pass, regardless of the "truth." This is one thing that has bothered me about them. Does it mean that if you are nervous there is a good chance that you will register as lying? Because if I am being strapped into a lie detector, I'm going to be nervous and sweaty, regardless of any wrongdoing. Possibly. The polygraph looks for changes in certain biological processes in your responses to questions. Even if you're nervous, you're going to have a baseline respiratory rate, heart rate, pupil size, rectal tone, etc. So, while being nervous probably won't dramatically affect your responses to questions, it may make you more excitable overall, and respond to questions you otherwise wouldn't normally respond to. |
|
I got to play with a polygraph in college. Two kinds of people seem to use it, people that want to tell if you're trying to deceive them (mind games) and people that think polygraphs are real. Both are asshats to the extreme. You can ask questions too quickly and you'll get a negative response. Where the questioner is sitting (right behind them/can't face them) and the temperature of the room can change results (making people uncomfortable, same with questioner orientation). You can also get negative responses if you're trying to explain something that is complex, like an economic theory or a personal story (both put some to lots of stress on the person taking it). The only way to beat a polygraph is to take your time answering and relax. But the first kind of people that use it (mind game fuckstains), won't get the negative response they want, and will fail you for bring calm and relaxed. |
|
Quoted:
The polygraph is essentially a voodoo box. It's only real utility, I think, is to trick perps into making forthright confessions. This is my feeling as well. It's a great interrogation device, but a poor diagnostic device. The after-exam interrogation, using the poor polygraph 'results' seems to be where a lot of beans are spilled. |
Subjective test interpretation? Who woulda thunk it.
|
I have been a cop for 15 years (but not a poly examiner) and have attended probably over 100 polygraphs of suspects over the years. Out of those 100 or so I have seen only about 10 where the person lied and got caught by the machine. Never had one in my opinion and knowledge of the particular case where someone passed and I thought or knew they were lying. Also never had one where I knew or thought that the person was telling the truth and failed. Occasionally I have seen an "inconclusive" result where the charts are just so f'd up that a determination can't be made. they are a decent tool in criminal investigastions as long as they are not used as a crutch or an end all/be all.
J- |
|
I've never had a poly but I've passed a CVSA (Computer Voics Stress Analysis) while applying for jobs. They came back and said I "showed some stress" on one of the questions about associating with known criminals. I still don't know how that happened because it was nothing that I would have ever worried about because it's not something that I do. I've never taken any training on them so I don't know if that was a questioning technique to say I "showed stress" on a/the question, but I was later told I passed the test. It really made me doubt the validity of whole damn thing. |
| I took one for employment in 1985 or around that time. when I answered the questioni I spoke into a mic, but nothing was hooked up to me. It came back I had drinking problem. I still got the job. I got my friend a job there and he had to take the test too. I knew him well enough he would have to lie on most of the questions. His results as he said, "I passed everything." I suspect equipment is a lot better now. |
I've taken a few and all came back "inconclusive". One of the operators was practically in tears and asked: "What are you doing to me?" 
I was told that the "BOX" was used primarily as a tool of intimidation and the mandated test was to determine whether or not the polygraph would work on a given individual. If not, a big stick was lost by the command structure. Just my personal experience. |
|
I trained myself to fool a polygraph by using biofeedback when I was an undergraduate. I did it as a demonstration in a physiological psychology lab. I got so good at it that I could flat-out lie about just about anything without the machine detecting it. I have no faith in them at all. Under the proper conditions, in the hands of a skilled operator, they work on most people most of the time. But so many people are psychopaths, so many have non-standard responses, that you can never be sure you are getting to the truth. Operator bias is another big, big problem. |
|
Quoted: My brother supposedly failed one for his first job. I can assure you, he has never "committed robbery". Same with my buddy. Only in his case it was "Domestic violence". They told him that he probably swallowed before he answered the question, or something to that effect. He still failed, and had to wait 6 months to take it again. Needless to say, he didn't wait around... went and got another job.
|
|
Passed mine. It's not what it seems on TV. The guy that did mine was very professional. He had a home office There was a tape presentation I had to listen to and a short 3 page description of the test, how it was used, what it measured and how and what to expect. There were sweat sensors on my fingers, a chest band to measure breathing, and a butt sensor to measure "squirming/movement"
Office was brightly/naturally lit and cool. He sat off to my right and monitored his computer screen while asking the questions in a very calm, quiet voice. To tell you the truth  , I had a hard time fighting off taking a nap in his comfy reclined leather lounge seat. 
I found the whole process very interesting and if I took another similar one as professionally done, I wouldn't be near as nervous about it. |
|
Quoted: With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. If the difference between passing and failing is a cup of coffee in the morning and a cool breeze, nothing about it can be accurate.  I'm not buying anything about a Polygraph. |
|
I took one once as part of a job application process.
The genius administering it told me that I had FAILED!!!!!!!, lied about my name, where I was born, where I went to school, and was lying through the whole test. It was then that I decided I would NEVER take one again. Needless to say, I didn't get the job because every time I opened my mouth a lie came out...or the machine (or operator) was a sham. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. If the difference between passing and failing is a cup of coffee in the morning and a cool breeze, nothing about it can be accurate.
I'm not buying anything about a Polygraph. It isn't supposed to be conducted in a way that makes a cup of coffee and a cool breeze able to bias the test. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. If the difference between passing and failing is a cup of coffee in the morning and a cool breeze, nothing about it can be accurate.
I'm not buying anything about a Polygraph. It isn't supposed to be conducted in a way that makes a cup of coffee and a cool breeze able to bias the test. +1 Read my above post about how mine went. Pretty stress free at the end... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. So... A poly will hold up in court then? Nope, and we can't execute "retarded" people any more either, there is both positive and negative environmental pressure on selected minority groups (except when there isn't), there is a constitutional right to gay sex, the takings clause applies (except when it doesn't), the 14th Amendment means what it says (except for Wong Kim Ark), the 2nd Amendment means what it says (except for Miller, and maybe Heller, but possibly not on alternate Tuesdays ...) –– do you really want to hold SCOTUS up as an example of scientific rigor? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. It is impossible to tell whether or not an individual has been "trained", or responds in a non-standard manner for some other reason. Not impossible, just difficult, and polygraphs are a good way to add data. To give you an example, some people are anxious about everything, pretty much. What is a normal response for someone like that is to screw up questions like "is your name California_Kid" but to then show very little stress when asked "have you ever stolen anything worth more than $10,000 from an employer". It is very, very difficult to suddenly change your body's responses back and forth, when under some stress, that way. It is not hard to "beat" a polygraph, but an experienced operator will notice the lack of response and say that the polygraph was not useful. Someone who similarly shows a lot of anxiety straight through will not produce useful data. Not that many people can control their body well enough to simulate a normal response, and that delta is what you are looking for. A lack of stress is not a "normal response" or an "abnormal response", it's just not useful, so you would disregard a polygraph in that case. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. So... A poly will hold up in court then? Nope, and we can't –– do you really want to hold SCOTUS up as an example of scientific rigor? You jest. Science is repeatable, in double-blind tests. If you hooked up 6 separate polys, with 6 operators, to one person answering the same questions, you'd get a variety of results. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. So... A poly will hold up in court then? Nope, and we can't execute "retarded" people any more either, there is both positive and negative environmental pressure on selected minority groups (except when there isn't), there is a constitutional right to gay sex, the takings clause applies (except when it doesn't), the 14th Amendment means what it says (except for Wong Kim Ark), the 2nd Amendment means what it says (except for Miller, and maybe Heller, but possibly not on alternate Tuesdays ...) –– do you really want to hold SCOTUS up as an example of scientific rigor? Defensive much? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. So... A poly will hold up in court then? Nope, and we can't –– do you really want to hold SCOTUS up as an example of scientific rigor? You jest. Science is repeatable, in double-blind tests. If you hooked up 6 separate polys, with 6 operators, to one person answering the same questions, you'd get a variety of results. I am not sure how to answer this. Similar responses on MMPI tests are not invalid because they aren't identical. If you hooked up 6 polys with 6 operators and 6 subjects, and tested each of the subjects with each of the operators and machines, the sensitivity of the subjects would likely decline sharply and the tests would become less valid over time, but they should be somewhat similar. I think that people seem to think that a polygraph is some sort of truth serum. They aren't supposed to be used that way and when they were common and anyone could hang out a shingle and give the tests they were used that way. That doesn't make them inaccurate any more that people using MB tests to determine who they want to work for them and doing a poor job of interpreting the results makes MB tests a poor description of the personality types that the tests are trying to identify. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a proper operator and a longer test and an untrained subject, they are very accurate. So... A poly will hold up in court then? Nope, and we can't execute "retarded" people any more either, there is both positive and negative environmental pressure on selected minority groups (except when there isn't), there is a constitutional right to gay sex, the takings clause applies (except when it doesn't), the 14th Amendment means what it says (except for Wong Kim Ark), the 2nd Amendment means what it says (except for Miller, and maybe Heller, but possibly not on alternate Tuesdays ...) –– do you really want to hold SCOTUS up as an example of scientific rigor? Defensive much? I have had this argument before and knew where it was going. |
|
CID gave a some of us polys when a lot of cash came up missing from the desk sgt's drawer back when I was an MP.
I took it because I was new, young, and stupid. I passed, but they gave me a bunch of crap for showing stress on some random question. One of the other rookie no-days MPs confessed to stealing a car in high school. That almost had me convinced, but then I figured out it is all just a bunch of crap and what is really going on is that a good questioner uses the box as a crutch while putting the victim under more stress. The guys who had been out of AIT more than a year all told CID to screw themselves. Including the desk sgt who knew the cameras were out and most likely was the one who stole it. Same guy who locked it in his drawer in front of us 'to wait for the MPI custodian the next morning'. |
|
A close and trusted relative of mine currently works in government service in an agency with 3 letters.
This agency is involved in international issues. He has been trained in techniques that allow him to pass polygraph test that might be "administered" to him under questionable legal circumstances by foreign folks. Another close friend of mine who is active duty Navy and a member a certain group has also stated that he has had training to pass polygraph tests in situations where he might be interrogated by foreign governments. |
|
Quoted:
A close and trusted relative of mine currently works in government service in an agency with 3 letters. This agency is involved in international issues. He has been trained in techniques that allow him to pass polygraph test that might be "administered" to him under questionable legal circumstances by foreign folks. Another close friend of mine who is active duty Navy and a member a certain group has also stated that he has had training to pass polygraph tests in situations where he might be interrogated by foreign governments. The problem is that many of these jobs require passing a (or a series of) polygraphs to get into the job. And if the polygraphs give false-positives, then good, qualified, honest people are getting weeded out by a variable 'test'. I'm just wondering how common that scenario is; are we excluding 1% of qualified people based on false-positives or 50% too many? From the very anti-poly message boards (obviously biased), they are impossible to pass even if you're 100% truthful, and thus we are weeding out too many qualified candidates. If, on the other hand, the error rate is single digits, then perhaps that's acceptable. |
|
I've taken a few and all came back "inconclusive". One of the operators was practically in tears and asked: "What are you doing to me?" Another close friend of mine who is active duty Navy and a member a certain group has also stated that he has had training to pass polygraph tests in situations where he might be interrogated by foreign governments.
THIS |
|
Quoted:
My brother supposedly failed one for his first job. I can assure you, he has never "committed robbery". I failed one for a prison guard job for the same thing. Which I can assure you I've never done. I was 19 and nervous as shit. I doubt I'd have much trouble telling a complete lie hooked up to one now. |