Current Events > do you think polygraph tests are legit?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think they work 90% of the time, but there are a good 10% of clever individuals that can get around it, and i think there are a small percentage that are telling the truth but are anxious and end up failing the test.
---

Pretty sure they're complete bunk.

The general consensus is that no, they're not
---

They're "close enough" results. It's fucked up. If something goes wrong and it says you failed when you shouldn't of, well, welcome to the life of being treated like a villain.
---

I think the idea of a polygraph test is legit but there are a lot of intangibles. There was a polygraph expert once who purposefully misgraded the suspect's score even though he passed by 1 point and then it came out later the cop was dirty. Also there are books and stuff about "how to beat a polygraph test." There's a new thing out that Steven Avery's attorney used where it supposedly reads your mind to see if you're telling the truth or not by asking questions that only the suspect would know. I think it involves a helmet but the technology is way too new for anyone to take it seriously.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULoRYxzZuMY" data-time="
---

All you gotta do is relax your asshole when you lie and you'll pass

---

They're junk science.

Law enforcement knowingly uses them as a pressure tactic. It's a way for them to get into a suspect's head, convince the suspect that this rigorous scientific instrument will see through any lies told to them.

Where it gets more messed up is if you want a government job or military post involving sensitive security the the tests will make or break your career.
---

the new process is called brain fingerprinting

https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/18/42/1539942904-brain-fingerprinting-making-a-murderer.jpg?resize=480:*
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLdV45oFd5M" data-time="&start=60 . This guy was able to fool a polygraph test even though he later confessed to the crime.
---

Usually they are right but they they are wrong enough times not to be used as evidence in a court of law.

Theyre not complete bunk as some fellow CEusers suggest, but they should only be used as a guide in trivial things.
---

Polygraph tests do not hold up in a court case, get a lawyer if you have to if you are ever asked to take one.
---

QuantumTheory posted...

Theyre not complete bunk

They are when it comes to their stated purpose of being 'lie detectors'. All they're really doing is telling examiners when a person gets nervous, which potentially indicates an evasive answer. If a person tells a bunch of bold-faced lies without hesitation the machine does nothing to indicate that.
---

DuneMan posted...

QuantumTheory posted...

Theyre not complete bunk

They are when it comes to their stated purpose of being 'lie detectors'. All they're really doing is telling examiners when a person gets nervous, which potentially indicates an evasive answer. If a person tells a bunch of bold-faced lies without hesitation the machine does nothing to indicate that.

You sure showed him.

Feetish posted...

You sure showed him.

Yeah, nice smarmy ass response there. Sure, the machine detects things sweat production. Such lie, so detect! You can also get the same just be observing someone's body language, something that all detectives are taught to do.

Alternatively, the machine can produce false detections from something as simple as an itchy asshole. If the interview is conducted in an uncomfortable room, which is a psychological tactic often employed, that can also produce false detections as the person fidgets and reacts to the environment.
---

DuneMan posted...

Feetish posted...

You sure showed him.

Yeah, nice smarmy ass response there. Sure, the machine detects things sweat production. Such lie, so detect! You can also get the same just be observing someone's body language, something that all detectives are taught to do.

Alternatively, the machine can produce false detections from something as simple as an itchy asshole. If the interview is conducted in an uncomfortable room, which is a psychological tactic often employed, that can also produce false detections as the person fidgets and reacts to the environment.

I wasnt making fun, I actually agree with you and not him(?). I just meant he(?) should stfu about things he(?) doesnt know anything about.

Oh, sorry. My bad. I thought that was dripping sarsasm. Time for a break from the Internet.
---

P
---

Theyre inadmissible as evidence in court 100% but for whatever reason some people dont know that and it can still be a somewhat effective psychological tactic in police interviews. Shady but accepted.
---

P

DuneMan posted...

Oh, sorry. My bad. I thought that was dripping sarsasm. Time for a break from the Internet.

Its ok, what I posted is sometimes used sarcastically so I see the confusion. The error was on my part.

they work in the sense that they detect when you have a physiological response, but you cant use it to prove someone is lying.
---

Polygraphs do not work at all if the person comes from a foreign culture where being able to tell bald-faced lies is the norm.

Nall posted...

Lie detectors are garbage science. Detecting blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate is just going to detect nervousness and nothing else. Being hooked up to a machine and blasted with questions is naturally going to make a person nervous. And since its so easy to manipulate the results it makes it that much more garbage.

Unless you are Christine Blasey-Ford where all you have to do is write down a statement and answer only two questions: "Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?" So very challenging.
---

Feetish posted...

DuneMan posted...

Feetish posted...

You sure showed him.

Yeah, nice smarmy ass response there. Sure, the machine detects things sweat production. Such lie, so detect! You can also get the same just be observing someone's body language, something that all detectives are taught to do.

Alternatively, the machine can produce false detections from something as simple as an itchy asshole. If the interview is conducted in an uncomfortable room, which is a psychological tactic often employed, that can also produce false detections as the person fidgets and reacts to the environment.

I wasnt making fun, I actually agree with you and not him(?). I just meant he(?) should stfu about things he(?) doesnt know anything about.

I am male so stfu with the ? Also just stfu about the rest of your post too.
---

While they aren't 100% crap, according to law enforcement, they are pretty...(_) ( _)>- (_) pojr indeed.
---

are they better than chance?
---

They're bullshit, and pretty sure the inventor said they're bullshit. Until you can read minds then there's no real foolproof lie detection technology.

---

The are objectively not "legit" for reasons others have already posted. Actually, the amount of forensic science that is basically made up horseshit is disturbing.