Weird thoughts go thru my head. Like this one...


Say you were being interrogated about your firearms, and you ahd some hidden. Could you lie well enuf to beat a lie detector???

I doubt I could. I remain pretty cool on the outside, but the pulse rises, palms sweat, etc.

Anyone ever taken a lie detector test???

I would intentionally lie on every question to skew the results.

I feel guilty over everything. The machine would show me guilty of every crime ever perpetrated by man.

I've always wanted to take a lie detector test because I really think I could beat it. I'm pretty unemotional for the most part, and I can control my reactions very well. I'm a natural born poker player.

Anybody have a lie detector that we can play with?

I tested for Phoenix Police.  I flunked the polygraph test because I got so worked up.  They got me for a serious undected crime and theft.  I have never done anything like that, but I was so nervous that I failed it.

I seems to me that you would only take a polygraph in a situation where you have a vested interest in the results.  That's is, you want to be found truthful (i.e. to avoid be charged in a crime; to get a job in postition of trust etc.).  

Therefore, lying on every question does nothing for you.  The examiner will figure out your tactic and you then lose the possiblity of the exam actually helping you.  

In a situation where you aren't going to give them any info because you are ALREADY in a completely adversarial scenario (i.e. the JBT's are trying to find your hidden weapons cache), you might as well lie--they know this and would NOT use a polygraph in that situation.  

The reliability of the polygraph depends upon the examiner's ability to make you believe that the result will be an accurate portrayal of what you believe is the truth.  Should he lose that advantage, the usefulness of the polygraph become moot.  

Having said that.  I belive you could otherwise skew the results so as to be inconclusive while still APPEARING truthful.  

You could use bio-feedback techniques (lots of practice), you MAY be able to convince yourself that you didn't really use drugs in the '70s (depends on what the meaning of 'use' is--he he), or you alter your physical response SUBTELY so as to give inconclusive results.  A big thumb tack in your shoe will produce a spike that the examiner can see and would be cause for suspicion.  

I don't think polygraphs are inherently reliable but are a good intimidation technique to get you to spill your guts so to speak.  

Big balls and lots of attitude probably go farther on that test than anything else.  Just state your answer as boldly and without thought as possible.  Pretend everthing and nothing you say is right or wrong and you could give the examiner fits.  The test is only as accurate as the examiner's interpretation of your answers and psyching HIM out is half the battle.  

Of course, I've never been given one so I'm going on reasoned research and opinion here.  YMMV.  

Put a stone in your shoe. Press down on it causing pain for every question. Simple.

I have beaten lie detectors several times.  It used to be that employers could give prospective employees lie detector tests in Florida.  They have since outlawed it, but I took at least three and passed every one despite lying about one thing each time.  What, I won't say.

[:D]

[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=294&item=1949219609[/url]

[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1468&item=2902997902[/url]

They asked you if you were good buddies with ole garandman.

You lied and said "Yes."  [:D]  [:D]

Whoever originally coined the term “lie detector” was, undeniably, a public-relations genius; for it is impossible to speak or write the term “lie detector” without simultaneously attesting the reliability of the device. When you call it a “lie detector,” you strongly imply that it does detect lies. But even the most ardent defenders of “lie detectors” have, in recent years, abandoned the
term in favor of calling it a “polygraph,” which, they hope, sounds more sophisticated and scientific, and less subject to ridicule from the scientific community.
In my opinion, the most accurate name for the device would be “nervousness detector” because, at best, nervousness is all the machine detects.

But the obvious fallacy, here, is the presumption that the only reason for a person to be nervous is that he or she is lying.
Today they use “control questions” and a “soothing atmosphere”
to “guarantee” that only false answers evoke nervousness
in victims or suspects.

Even the noted FBI polygraph expert Drew Richardson was forced to confess on this point that “The diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology
or tea leaf reading.” Yet police and government agencies continue
to give tens-of-thousands of nervousness-detecting tests a year. Why?
One reason is that nervousness detectors provide a ready-made
excuse for lazy government investigators to sit idly on their butts.

Take the case of Aldrich Ames. Ames was a 52-year-old, 31-year
veteran of the CIA, having access to secret intelligence data critical
to US security. Ames had for years been a traitor, selling CIA secrets
to foreign powers for over two-million dollars in payoffs. Ames
had even sold the names and addresses of US covert agents working
abroad, many of whom were executed as a direct result. The
money that Ames “earned” betraying his country was used to fund
his ultra-lavish lifestyle—a lifestyle about which Ames publicly
boasted. All of Ames’s family, friends and neighbors knew that he
was somehow earning a literal fortune to support his extravagance.
Meanwhile, back at the CIA, Ames had submitted year after
year to all routine nervousness-detecting tests required of CIA
employees. Each time, Ames passed the test without arousing suspicion
that he was a traitor. Even a cursory examination of Ames’s
finances or possessions would have instantly revealed that his meager
government salary could not support his opulent living. But
why should the government conduct a real-world investigation
when it’s so much easier to use a nervousness detector instead?

After being tipped off, the FBI finally arrested Ames in 1994, ten
years after he had first masked his crimes using bogus “lie-detector”
results. Said Ames from behind prison bars, “You have to realize
that the government swears by these lie detectors. First, they swear
that they don’t swear by them; then they swear by them. I always
found that if I got a good night’s sleep before the test and just
relaxed, I could pass without any problem.”

Let’s pause for a moment, and think carefully about the statement
made by US government attorneys before the Supreme Court:
“There is no objectively verifiable method of determining the accuracy
of a polygraph examination.”

Just use the "Sting" technique!

[url]www.polygraph.com/[/url]

I took a lie dector test once about twenty years ago. I was applying for a really crappy job out in California that I needed badly. The test was part of the pre-employment interview.

I was nervous, and became more nervous as the test progressed. When we were done, I asked the guy giving the test how I did. He got pissy and said that I had lied about everything, including my name and where I went to school. I asked him why I would lie about that and he got really pissy, preferring to believe that he and his machine could not make a mistake so obviously I was dirt.

If the police ever strapped me up as part of a criminal investigation I would be doomed. [>(]

I didn't get the job either. [BD]

There's a LOT more to countermeasures than that...and a truly high-level screener can have counter-countermeasures in place such as strain sensors in the floor or chair to detect certain techniques.  

Much of the elicitation happens in the pre-screening interview.  Knowing how to handle this part can render your physical and mental countermeasures a lot more effective.

YMMV, and don't try this at home.

QS

G-man??? Is that you?? I MISSED YA BUDDY!! How the heck are ya??

Lie detectors measure a "stress response" to questions. If the test says you were "lying" all that means is you had a stress response to the question.

That is why lie detectors must have both a pre interview and a post interview.

Say the polygraph examiner ask you if you ever used illegal drugs. You answer no but the poly measures a stress responce. That measured stress responce may mean you were lying about drug use. Or it may mean you just feel passionately about the issue for some reason. Maybe your brother is a shithead and drugs ruined his life and caused your family much financial and emotional pain. That would have to be cleared up in the post poly interview.

If you know how to give the right explainations to the measured stress responce. You can beat the test in the post poly interview phase.

"Shucks, nuttin to it..."

[img]http://www.screamingpickle.com/fromweb/clinton/bill-clinton.jpg[/img]

The two times I had to take the test...I did'nt have anything to hide. I just sweated a whooooole bunch.