Attempts to Censor AntiPolygraph.org(antipolygraph.org)
antipolygraph.org
Attempts to Censor AntiPolygraph.org
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2019/06/28/pseudoscientist-dr-charles-humble-attempts-to-censor-antipolygraph-org/
45 comments
> In all the media frenzy around the incident, I didn't see a single source mention that lie detectors are unproven bullshit.
I've had the radio on for the last2-3 weeks and the BBC have been constantly saying that lie detectors are flawed and that the producers of the show apparently weren't even aware of this fact.
I've had the radio on for the last2-3 weeks and the BBC have been constantly saying that lie detectors are flawed and that the producers of the show apparently weren't even aware of this fact.
In the United States, there has been at least one similarly deadly talk show episode, albeit without the lie detector tie in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Scott_Amedure
In a way, you get the sense that these shows operate with the understanding that dead bodies are known to be a non-zero quantity, given the subject matter of taunting people on camera, such that they get their reputation thrown permanently into a relativistic black hole from which it will never escape.
As for gullible people eating up lie detector results, as the saying goes, I don't have to outrun the bear... I only have to outrun you.
Which is to say, it doesn't matter if you have firm grounds to disbelieve the lie detector test. I only have to convince your dimwitted peers, who are just itching for a reason to hang you. And as is evident, these TV shows prey on the slower people who simply need to see an interesting instrument and a convincing astrologer inspecting the dowsing rods.
Here in the United States, there's a subtle hint that lie detectors are all but tea leaves: They are inadmissible as evidence in a legal context. As a rule of law, no judge will tolerate the results being used as proof of a fact.
With a wink and a nod, this is how one is to clued into their actual value. But that's it. No one will accept the idea that they're worthless. They only point out legal inadmissibility as a point of trivia, and then move right along with whatever else they had to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Scott_Amedure
In a way, you get the sense that these shows operate with the understanding that dead bodies are known to be a non-zero quantity, given the subject matter of taunting people on camera, such that they get their reputation thrown permanently into a relativistic black hole from which it will never escape.
As for gullible people eating up lie detector results, as the saying goes, I don't have to outrun the bear... I only have to outrun you.
Which is to say, it doesn't matter if you have firm grounds to disbelieve the lie detector test. I only have to convince your dimwitted peers, who are just itching for a reason to hang you. And as is evident, these TV shows prey on the slower people who simply need to see an interesting instrument and a convincing astrologer inspecting the dowsing rods.
Here in the United States, there's a subtle hint that lie detectors are all but tea leaves: They are inadmissible as evidence in a legal context. As a rule of law, no judge will tolerate the results being used as proof of a fact.
With a wink and a nod, this is how one is to clued into their actual value. But that's it. No one will accept the idea that they're worthless. They only point out legal inadmissibility as a point of trivia, and then move right along with whatever else they had to say.
"Lie detectors" are in practice a measurement of nervousity, right?
"Oh, his heart rate jumped when I asked what the end score was in the game he said he saw in his home at the time of the murder even though he gave the correct score maybe he guessed."
"Oh, his heart rate jumped when I asked what the end score was in the game he said he saw in his home at the time of the murder even though he gave the correct score maybe he guessed."
Not even nervousness per se.
If you get angry, it will "measure" that too, as a lie. Or if you get embarrassed, that "measures" as a lie. My grandma would have failed any cheater polygraph test horribly, as she turned red every time anybody mentioned anything related to sex in general. You could have asked her if somebody she never heard of had extramarital sex, and her answer, no matter what she said, would have showed up as a lie every time.
Physical or psychological exhaustion change the "results", too, of course. Or if you sit next to a window and the test takes long enough so that you start when you still sit in the shades but later the sun comes around and you sit in the light, that can be enough, too.
Or if you deliberately clench your anal sphincter, that's enough to change results. And yes, that actually works; that's why some lie detectors now feature ass-clenching detention technology.
If you get angry, it will "measure" that too, as a lie. Or if you get embarrassed, that "measures" as a lie. My grandma would have failed any cheater polygraph test horribly, as she turned red every time anybody mentioned anything related to sex in general. You could have asked her if somebody she never heard of had extramarital sex, and her answer, no matter what she said, would have showed up as a lie every time.
Physical or psychological exhaustion change the "results", too, of course. Or if you sit next to a window and the test takes long enough so that you start when you still sit in the shades but later the sun comes around and you sit in the light, that can be enough, too.
Or if you deliberately clench your anal sphincter, that's enough to change results. And yes, that actually works; that's why some lie detectors now feature ass-clenching detention technology.
> that's why some lie detectors now feature ass-clenching detention technology
This is one of the most entertaining sentences I've ever read on this website.
This is one of the most entertaining sentences I've ever read on this website.
Sounds like psychopaths would do the best on these tests.
Not necessarily, but it's certainly not unheard of:
>In 2003, Gary Ridgway admitted he was the Green River Killer, having murdered 49 women in the Seattle area. Ridgway had passed a lie detector test in 1987, while another man - who turned out to be innocent - failed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22467640
>In 2003, Gary Ridgway admitted he was the Green River Killer, having murdered 49 women in the Seattle area. Ridgway had passed a lie detector test in 1987, while another man - who turned out to be innocent - failed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22467640
Lie detectors are a measure of heart rate, respiration, and galvanic skin response (roughly == how much you sweat).
What relationship—if any—those have to the truthfulness of a person at any given moment, remains debatable at best.
What relationship—if any—those have to the truthfulness of a person at any given moment, remains debatable at best.
There is no “debatable”: no correlation exists. Anyone who claims otherwise has to prove otherwise, and nobody has ever done so.
No correlation exists.
No correlation exists.
And yet we appear to be debating.
In one of Cory Doctorow's books, the trick to cheat a lie detector is said to be to clench and unclench the anus repeatedly for several minutes (in advance before the test). Purportedly, this agitates the nervous system so the measurements hike up, and on this background your legitimate discomposure will look like smooth sailing. The anus is probably chosen just for the inconspicuousness.
Dunno how true this is and haven't heard of this trick elsewhere, though admittedly I haven't researched the topic. Other techniques in the ‘Little Brother’ books are real, apart from two or three that are doubtful to me.
Dunno how true this is and haven't heard of this trick elsewhere, though admittedly I haven't researched the topic. Other techniques in the ‘Little Brother’ books are real, apart from two or three that are doubtful to me.
In the US, they use a sensor pad the subject sits on to detect such attempts to modify the results.
I wonder if vividly picturing a cavalcade of ultraviolent mental images is enough to disrupt the test.
Unfortunately, disrupting the test is the same as failing it. Typically, subjects are expected to pass it to avoid negative consequences.
I once went through a polygraph and used my meditative breathing techniques to calm my mind, and failed the test because I was "controlling my breath".
I once went through a polygraph and used my meditative breathing techniques to calm my mind, and failed the test because I was "controlling my breath".
I mostly belly breathe and have little upper chest expansion at rest. This caused some consternation during my test.
I was subjected to a polygraph test once, and I successfully misled the operator several times, by slightly biting my tongue (so I was asked, "you show heightened emotional response to X and Y, something you're trying to hide?")
Exactly, you use all sorts of ways to screw up the baseline.
Polygraphs measure heart rate, breathing, and palmar sweating, which are affected by nervousness, but are not systematically correlated with lying. Voice stress analyzers don't actually measure stress in the voice.
Even worse than that, there are in fact plenty of people who will systematically fail to show nervousness when lying, or more generally in socially-stressful situations, viz. psychopaths (in a broad sense, including Dark Triad traits more generally). As it happens, their lies are incredibly easy to detect for other reasons (basically, they never keep their stories straight, especially since they like to embellish them with all sorts of fanciful details), but still, it's hard to imagine a more catastrophic failure of this whole "lie detectors as infallible" paradigm.
This video with a former FBI agent about how they interpret body language was interesting to me: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4jwUXV4QaTw
Lie detectors are basically like one of those body language tells. They don't tell you if someone is lying, but they can give you a hint as to how someone is feeling that might be useful in deciding what lines of questioning to pursue further.
Lie detectors are basically like one of those body language tells. They don't tell you if someone is lying, but they can give you a hint as to how someone is feeling that might be useful in deciding what lines of questioning to pursue further.
The goal of the use of a polygraph in witness interrogation during criminal investigation (its original purpose, separate from all this bunk about “passing” or “failing” polygraph “tests”) isn’t to get the information the interrogation needs from the polygraph, but rather to use that information to steer the interrogation toward whatever seems to most upset the witness, because that’s usually something they’d rather not be talking about (and ergo something that may have involved them committing a crime, moving them from “witness” to “suspect.”)
Of course, polygraphs don’t guide toward lies specifically, just toward uncomfortable subjects—which is why you hear about e.g. TSA screeners demanding to know if you were cheating on your wife, when that has nothing to do with things the TSA could care about. Whether or not they’re using a polygraph, the interrogation process involves digging for upsetting subjects; and so, if you have something upsetting you unrelated to the case at hand, they have to “dig it up” to “weed it out” of the interrogation, i.e. to put the way you’re reacting to questions about the subject they do care about in context. A witness who is very nervous because they’re off to visit their mistress, has had their nervousness “explained away”, and so being nervous is no longer suspect. (But other responses, like anger, still are leading. Being an interrogator requires recognizing differences in subtly-triggered emotions, because they usually have different sources. This is why so much was made of the power of “recognizing micro-expressions” back when, before that got mostly debunked.)
And, of course, it’s pretty easy to train someone to control a polygraph signal, and some people are even naturally “immune” to being read by one. Mindfulness meditation works pretty well to defuse most of the physiological responses to stressful stimuli, for example, and interrogators have no idea whether you’re doing it. It works even better—if you’re a professional spy and have some time on your hands—to just sit around hooked up to a polygraph, watching its output yourself, as someone tries to upset you. (The polygraph is, in this case, acting as a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofeedback mechanism.)
Still, polygraphs were never intended to aid in the interrogation of professional spies; they were intended to be used like a drug-sniffing dog, to act as a quick heuristic to filter a large pool of “ordinary passers-by” (e.g. in a murder committed in a crowd) down to a few suspects who seem genuinely uncomfortable about something. Since most crimes aren’t committed by sociopaths, or Zen monks, or spies, but rather by people who think they have a momentary opportunity and usually regret their crime somewhat afterward, looking for discomfort tends to be fairly helpful in pre-filtering a large suspect pool; and using a machine that can detect “silent” discomfort is indeed an enhancement to that pre-filtering. (But, again, it’s only a pre filter. It’s a weak heuristic that needs following-up with further interrogation and detective work, to know whether to put these people on an actual suspects list. It’s common, when using such a heuristic, to filter some people in on the first pass, but filter every one of them back out in a second pass, and then realize you have to start from scratch with a different approach.)
And, of course, there are going to be departments who know none of this, whose understanding of the use of a polygraph comes from cop movies, but who go out and buy one anyway, ditch the highly suggested training offered by the manufacturer (or don’t get access to it because they’re buying the device used), and then do stupid pass/fail polygraph “tests” where “passing” the “test” is exclusionary, as if you had a non-matching blood type to the suspect’s blood or something. (And there are also departments who just use a polygraph—real or fake—as a prop to perform “enhanced interrogation.” Interrogation doesn’t need “enhancement” IMHO—it doesn’t even need a stern voice—but at least interrogation with a polygraph-prop isn’t literally a crime and an abridgement of human rights in the way some other “enhancements” are.)
Of course, polygraphs don’t guide toward lies specifically, just toward uncomfortable subjects—which is why you hear about e.g. TSA screeners demanding to know if you were cheating on your wife, when that has nothing to do with things the TSA could care about. Whether or not they’re using a polygraph, the interrogation process involves digging for upsetting subjects; and so, if you have something upsetting you unrelated to the case at hand, they have to “dig it up” to “weed it out” of the interrogation, i.e. to put the way you’re reacting to questions about the subject they do care about in context. A witness who is very nervous because they’re off to visit their mistress, has had their nervousness “explained away”, and so being nervous is no longer suspect. (But other responses, like anger, still are leading. Being an interrogator requires recognizing differences in subtly-triggered emotions, because they usually have different sources. This is why so much was made of the power of “recognizing micro-expressions” back when, before that got mostly debunked.)
And, of course, it’s pretty easy to train someone to control a polygraph signal, and some people are even naturally “immune” to being read by one. Mindfulness meditation works pretty well to defuse most of the physiological responses to stressful stimuli, for example, and interrogators have no idea whether you’re doing it. It works even better—if you’re a professional spy and have some time on your hands—to just sit around hooked up to a polygraph, watching its output yourself, as someone tries to upset you. (The polygraph is, in this case, acting as a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofeedback mechanism.)
Still, polygraphs were never intended to aid in the interrogation of professional spies; they were intended to be used like a drug-sniffing dog, to act as a quick heuristic to filter a large pool of “ordinary passers-by” (e.g. in a murder committed in a crowd) down to a few suspects who seem genuinely uncomfortable about something. Since most crimes aren’t committed by sociopaths, or Zen monks, or spies, but rather by people who think they have a momentary opportunity and usually regret their crime somewhat afterward, looking for discomfort tends to be fairly helpful in pre-filtering a large suspect pool; and using a machine that can detect “silent” discomfort is indeed an enhancement to that pre-filtering. (But, again, it’s only a pre filter. It’s a weak heuristic that needs following-up with further interrogation and detective work, to know whether to put these people on an actual suspects list. It’s common, when using such a heuristic, to filter some people in on the first pass, but filter every one of them back out in a second pass, and then realize you have to start from scratch with a different approach.)
And, of course, there are going to be departments who know none of this, whose understanding of the use of a polygraph comes from cop movies, but who go out and buy one anyway, ditch the highly suggested training offered by the manufacturer (or don’t get access to it because they’re buying the device used), and then do stupid pass/fail polygraph “tests” where “passing” the “test” is exclusionary, as if you had a non-matching blood type to the suspect’s blood or something. (And there are also departments who just use a polygraph—real or fake—as a prop to perform “enhanced interrogation.” Interrogation doesn’t need “enhancement” IMHO—it doesn’t even need a stern voice—but at least interrogation with a polygraph-prop isn’t literally a crime and an abridgement of human rights in the way some other “enhancements” are.)
It did come up explicitly in the DCMS subcommittee hearing on the incident, including headlines that the exec producer claimed he had no idea if they worked or not.
I note that they haven't come up in Love Island yet this year as they normally do, and I suspect they won't.
I note that they haven't come up in Love Island yet this year as they normally do, and I suspect they won't.
I don't understand how otherwise normal people believe we live in a world where reliable lie detectors exist
Because for the better part of a century, the entertainment industry (and Hollywood in particular) has told us they work. They're a central plot device in tens of thousands of books, radio dramas, plays, television shows, and movies.
It's like they say in politics: If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.
Because for the better part of a century, the entertainment industry (and Hollywood in particular) has told us they work. They're a central plot device in tens of thousands of books, radio dramas, plays, television shows, and movies.
It's like they say in politics: If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.
When I read this, I immediately thought of my favorite pop-culture lie detector reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylthSc5tcqk
Still hilarious 23 (?) years later, but the laughs are based on the assumption that the device really works that well.
Still hilarious 23 (?) years later, but the laughs are based on the assumption that the device really works that well.
Yes, this is a very important issue.
The polygraph is just an interrogation prop, like a cop holding a thick file of empty papers disputing your answers during interrogation "But we have a witness statement that says you were in the building at the time". The random squiggles and wires attached to you are designed to stress you into screwing up your alibi/story and it's still effective enough they keep using it because people believe it actually works. If you try and defeat a fake prop by clenching muscles or some silly breathing techniques you've already lost because you believe it's real in the first place, much like how a voodoo curse works on those who actually believe and start to see the curse manifesting everywhere. It's job has been completed, to distract and stress you enough in hopes you begin to contradict your previous statements.
The interrogators will always have props and fake analysis, like a "chair sensor" that can detect you trying to defeat the machine, or eye movement sensor, face reading 'expert', blood patterns they claim disputes your statements, a small wand with decorative LEDs and wires they claim can read chemical traces from your clothing as they wave it around and make a concerned face looking at a switched off laptop screen afterwards, or a fake phone on the desk "We've just learned your accomplice has been arrested and is in the next room making a deal, are you sure you don't want to change your story?". The Chicago Police are famous for arresting groups of people, and taking photos of one of them signing some kind of property release waiver, then presenting the photos to the other suspects claiming they have been snitched on.
The most critical part of the interrogation with a polygraph is in the middle of the test where they switch off the machine and then continue to interrogate you "Let's just talk freely". Classic interrogation tricks (that still work), nothing more.
The interrogators will always have props and fake analysis, like a "chair sensor" that can detect you trying to defeat the machine, or eye movement sensor, face reading 'expert', blood patterns they claim disputes your statements, a small wand with decorative LEDs and wires they claim can read chemical traces from your clothing as they wave it around and make a concerned face looking at a switched off laptop screen afterwards, or a fake phone on the desk "We've just learned your accomplice has been arrested and is in the next room making a deal, are you sure you don't want to change your story?". The Chicago Police are famous for arresting groups of people, and taking photos of one of them signing some kind of property release waiver, then presenting the photos to the other suspects claiming they have been snitched on.
The most critical part of the interrogation with a polygraph is in the middle of the test where they switch off the machine and then continue to interrogate you "Let's just talk freely". Classic interrogation tricks (that still work), nothing more.
The utility of "lie detectors", which I personally imagine most law enforcement people understand, is as a tool of coercion and deception. It's not so much that they believe the devices actually function how they are claimed to, but that it gives the officers some 'legitimate' excuse to prosecute people based upon the intuition of the officer. It's not an accident that all of these systems require a human being to look at whatever readings are taken and "interpret" them. Any real system would include no such feature at all, because putting a human in the loop does nothing but invalidate whatever determination is made by opening up the inevitability of human error. At the end of the day, the verdict of a lie detector is nothing more than "the examiner has a gut hunch the person is lying/telling the truth" + a little bit of extra credibility in the eyes of the uneducated.
I've heard tales of police departments using "lie detectors" which consisted of a colander placed upon the head of the subject, connected by non-functional wires to a photocopier in which was placed a piece of paper with the words "You're Lying" printed on it.
That sounds similar to the opening scene from series five of The Wire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ5aIvjNgao
There they queue up a photocopier with "true", "true", and "false" prior to asking questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ5aIvjNgao
There they queue up a photocopier with "true", "true", and "false" prior to asking questions.
It’s amazing how Dr. Humble of the NITV buoys his reputation on his title which he has publicly admitted was awarded as an honorific for six hours of Bible study at an unaccredited college.
Calling himself "Dr Humble" is somewhat ironic...
Does the technique of clenching your butt hole actually work to beat a polygraph? (As described in my favorite "The Americans" season 2 episode 7, "Arpanet".) Does it also help to visualize someone you love at the same time? ;)
If it actually works, the photo of Charles Wayne Humble in the article looks like he could lie through his teeth while passing a polygraph exam with flying colors!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet_(The_Americans)
After consulting with Arkady and Oleg, and with the promise of coaching from Oleg, Nina tells Stan that she will take the FBI's polygraph test. Oleg suggests a few techniques including that she visualize him in the room as well as clenching her anus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3OMSMq9zPA
The Americans Season 2 Episode 7 "Arpanet" Review: "I like when I learn something from an episode, and now I know ..." "If you're having to do a polygraph, squeeze your anus."
https://tv.avclub.com/the-americans-arpanet-1798180091
(One of the ways to beat a polygraph turns out to be clenching one’s anus. This show is full of helpful hints.)
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a28316/spy-on-the-a...
ESQ: The show featured Nina learning to beat and eventually beating a polygraph. How easy is it to do that?
PE: We have a number of real-world instances. The Aldrich Ames case. He went through the polygraph twice, after he went to work for the Soviets. Administering a polygraph is an art, not a science. That's why it's not admitted in court. People have claimed to have had training to beat the polygraph. Everything from tightening your sphincter to breathing a certain way, and so forth.
ESQ: Speaking of sphincters, the trick she's told is "squeeze your anus." Is that a thing?
PE: I can't confirm. [Laughs] I took several polygraphs. Taking them is a standard thing in the intelligence life.
If it actually works, the photo of Charles Wayne Humble in the article looks like he could lie through his teeth while passing a polygraph exam with flying colors!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet_(The_Americans)
After consulting with Arkady and Oleg, and with the promise of coaching from Oleg, Nina tells Stan that she will take the FBI's polygraph test. Oleg suggests a few techniques including that she visualize him in the room as well as clenching her anus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3OMSMq9zPA
The Americans Season 2 Episode 7 "Arpanet" Review: "I like when I learn something from an episode, and now I know ..." "If you're having to do a polygraph, squeeze your anus."
https://tv.avclub.com/the-americans-arpanet-1798180091
(One of the ways to beat a polygraph turns out to be clenching one’s anus. This show is full of helpful hints.)
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a28316/spy-on-the-a...
ESQ: The show featured Nina learning to beat and eventually beating a polygraph. How easy is it to do that?
PE: We have a number of real-world instances. The Aldrich Ames case. He went through the polygraph twice, after he went to work for the Soviets. Administering a polygraph is an art, not a science. That's why it's not admitted in court. People have claimed to have had training to beat the polygraph. Everything from tightening your sphincter to breathing a certain way, and so forth.
ESQ: Speaking of sphincters, the trick she's told is "squeeze your anus." Is that a thing?
PE: I can't confirm. [Laughs] I took several polygraphs. Taking them is a standard thing in the intelligence life.
Constricting one's anus can work as a polygraph countermeasure provided that it is done timely with the asking of the "control" questions. This countermeasure so concerns polygraph operators that all federal polygraphers are required to use a seat pad that purports to detect such activity.
Alternative countermeasures include mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts, or doing math in one's head) and tongue-biting.
For more on polygraph countermeasures, see Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
Alternative countermeasures include mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts, or doing math in one's head) and tongue-biting.
For more on polygraph countermeasures, see Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
I'd love to be the government contractor providing all the expensive anal clenching divination seat pads.
Sounds like that would be a great input device for Affective Computing, Sentiment Analysis, and Targeted Ad Analytics. Maybe Facebook will make one to go with the Oculus some day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_computing
Sounds like that would be a great input device for Affective Computing, Sentiment Analysis, and Targeted Ad Analytics. Maybe Facebook will make one to go with the Oculus some day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_computing
Tests nowadays use a sensor pad that the subject sits on to detect this attempt to modify the test results.
I'm just tickled by the number of layers of opposition in this title.
(“Pseudoscientist Attempts to Censor Anti-Lie Detector Website,” in case it gets changed later.)
(“Pseudoscientist Attempts to Censor Anti-Lie Detector Website,” in case it gets changed later.)
It's the grammatical equivalent of stepping through all of the captures and counter-captures poised to begin at a critical piece in a chess game and trying to determine who'll come out on top.
Here's some previous popular HN threads about debunking or beating lie detector tests:
(2009) antipolygraph.org (first HN submission) - NSA polygraph experiences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489
(2013) WaPo - Man accused of teaching anti-polygraph techniques faces prison https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878
(2015) NYT - How to beat a polygraph: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385
(2018) Gizmodo - Use of AI lie detector in EU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18351733
(2018) antipolygraph.org - CIA Analyst on polygraph BS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18155548
(2018) antipolygraph.org - book on how to beat polygraphs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683
I wanted to provided the pro-polygraph side of the argument but literally could not find any popular threads in support of that case. Please correct me if anyone can find credible pro polygraph positions.
(2009) antipolygraph.org (first HN submission) - NSA polygraph experiences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489
(2013) WaPo - Man accused of teaching anti-polygraph techniques faces prison https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878
(2015) NYT - How to beat a polygraph: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385
(2018) Gizmodo - Use of AI lie detector in EU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18351733
(2018) antipolygraph.org - CIA Analyst on polygraph BS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18155548
(2018) antipolygraph.org - book on how to beat polygraphs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683
I wanted to provided the pro-polygraph side of the argument but literally could not find any popular threads in support of that case. Please correct me if anyone can find credible pro polygraph positions.
Title should be changed to "Pseudoscientist Attempts to Censor Anti Polygraph Website" (for a moment I read "anti-lie detector" as "detector that prevents people from lying").
Intuitively, it seems to obvious to me that any "lie detector" that is basically a stress meter (be it GSR, heart rate monitoring or even voice analysis) will have a bit of bit of value in that someone who is lying is likely to have a response, but at the same time this could just as likely be from anxiety of being falsely accused. I don't see how it could possibly be considered meaningful in any way.
They of course aren't very accurate, and really shouldn't be relied upon in anything more critical than daytime television.
But you can use techniques to attempt to make them more revealing. The first obvious one is to simply convince people they work, and then use them as a persuasion technique. "Look, do you want to just come clean here or are we going to have to bring out the polygraph?"
The second technique you can use is to ask a series of alternate fact questions and look for response. "Did the murder happen at five o'clock? Did it happen at six o'clock? Did it happen at eight o'clock?" Somebody who is doesn't know the answer isn't going to be any more nervous at any of those questions in particular, but someone who does is often going to have a nervous spike as, or just before, the correct question is asked.
But you can use techniques to attempt to make them more revealing. The first obvious one is to simply convince people they work, and then use them as a persuasion technique. "Look, do you want to just come clean here or are we going to have to bring out the polygraph?"
The second technique you can use is to ask a series of alternate fact questions and look for response. "Did the murder happen at five o'clock? Did it happen at six o'clock? Did it happen at eight o'clock?" Somebody who is doesn't know the answer isn't going to be any more nervous at any of those questions in particular, but someone who does is often going to have a nervous spike as, or just before, the correct question is asked.
> Somebody who is doesn't know the answer isn't going to be any more nervous at any of those questions in particular, but someone who does is often going to have a nervous spike as, or just before, the correct question is asked.
... or once they realize thats the intent of the questions, or when the questioner changes their tone of voice subconsciously, or when they have an intrusive thought etc.
... or once they realize thats the intent of the questions, or when the questioner changes their tone of voice subconsciously, or when they have an intrusive thought etc.
The show was recently cancelled because someone who was on the show committed suicide. This was clearly because of a false lie detector result which said he cheated on his partner.
In all the media frenzy around the incident, I didn't see a single source mention that lie detectors are unproven bullshit. I don't understand how otherwise normal people believe we live in a world where reliable lie detectors exist (the effects of this would of course be world changing).