- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Are polygraph ("lie-detector") tests reliable?
Are polygraph ("lie-detector") tests reliable?
I have been polygraphed six times in my life. I spent a few months working in a DoD polygraphy office for a couple months while waiting for my follow-on assignment to open up. Due to my own experience I don't personally think they are reliable. They might be right more often than not, but that is not reliable enough for my comfort. I would never agree to a polygraph if criminally charged with something.
Most people who are caught lying during a polygraph are caught because they get nervous and verbally confess. Or they are caught attempting countermeasures, which are very easy to spot by trained polygraphers.
Are polygraph ("lie-detector") tests reliable?
They can be fooled if you know how. I have fooled voice stress analyzers and regular lie detectors. This is why they are not allowed in criminal cases as evidence.
It is not easy and I am not going to tell how.
Are polygraph ("lie-detector") tests reliable?
Are they helpful in investigations? Yes.
Are they reliable? No, which is why we have issues with them being used as direct singular evidence in court. When they are admitted odds are it is with qualifying reason.
Are polygraph ("lie-detector") tests reliable?
But it isn't something the average employee would be able to do.
I don't believe they are admissible as evidence in any state court, but don't quote me on that. There may be one or two.I know they can't be singular evidence but I was on a couple courts martial where they were key evidence. I think the military must have different rules on that one. Maybe states do as well.
I have been polygraphed six times in my life. I spent a few months working in a DoD polygraphy office for a couple months while waiting for my follow-on assignment to open up. Due to my own experience I don't personally think they are reliable. They might be right more often than not, but that is not reliable enough for my comfort. I would never agree to a polygraph if criminally charged with something.
Most people who are caught lying during a polygraph are caught because they get nervous and verbally confess. Or they are caught attempting countermeasures, which are very easy to spot by trained polygraphers.
I don't believe they are admissible as evidence in any state court, but don't quote me on that. There may be one or two.
I don't know about the military, though it wouldn't surprise me if they are admissible.
I have taken one once in my life... when I applied for a job at 7-11 at age 22. I "failed". The test said I lied about stealing from previous employers. Thing is, I did not lie. I was, however, extremely nervous during the whole process. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Because of that experience I have done a lot of reading and research on the subject, and my conclusion is that they are NOT reliable. Really no better than a coin-flip.They are NOT reliable.
They are based on a pseudo-scientific notion that human reactions caused by apprehension can allows a person skilled enough in reading both these reactions and asking leading questions will result in a reliable evaluation to a person's truthfulness in answering questions.
In the first place, this depends greatly on the so-called "skills" of the person administering the test. Something that varies widely from person to person.
In the second place, people are often apprehensive when facing such a test, because we ALL have something to hide, and a good faith belief that this system is "foolproof" increases such apprehension often resulting it a "deceptive" result.
Finally, this system has never been proven to be foolproof. A pathological liar may or may not pass, the same for a sociopath or psychopath. An honest person may also fail, depending on the circumstances at the time of testing.
I never advised any defendants to take such a test. It almost never helps a case if one passes, but significantly undermines a defense if one fails.
Wrong.In the hands of a skilled examiner, yes.
Wrong.
It has been shown time and again that it is unreliable, anecdotes are not evidence of proof.I've supervised a dozen or so exams and taken eight (IIRC) in 40+ years, and in my experience it's a very effective tool in the hands of a skilled operator.
It has been shown time and again that it is unreliable, anecdotes are not evidence of proof.
Yours is a limited experience, the broader understanding is that they are unreliable.You have your view. I have mine. Mine's based on direct experience.
There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that polygraphs work at all.Are polygraph ("lie-detector") tests reliable?
Yours is a limited experience, the broader understanding is that they are unreliable.