5 ms·
The U.S. government actively promotes public belief in the pseudoscience of polygraphy, and the press largely plays along.
by ap_org 8y ago
The U.S. government actively promotes public belief in the pseudoscience of polygraphy, and the press largely plays along.
- smhenderson 8y agoAnd Hollywood as well.
- jobigoud 8y agoNot really though. Every time it's used as a plot device to create suspense but in the end the hero or villain has been trained to beat the polygraph and get away with it. So they actually perpetuates the idea that it's fallible / can be fooled.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> So they actually perpetuates the idea that it's fallible / can be fooled. By doing that, they also perpetuate the idea that it does work somewhat reliably and to beat it, you need special training.
- thoughtexplorer 8y agoWhy is the government actively promoting that? As for the press, they only play along if it fits their narrative. During that hearing Fox News framed polygraphs as pseudoscience while CNN was promoting it as evidence. Both sides will just as easily do the opposite the next time depending on what their audience wants to hear.
- 3JPLW 8y agoIt's a useful interrogation technique, but only if the public believes it works. Example in fiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0
- randcraw 8y agoLD tests are an unreliable technique if the subject has a clue of what LDs do measure, namely stress, and how to control those forms of stress measured by the device. After a little behavioral training, most anyone should be able to significantly reduce their stress response when lying, making the test results much harder to interpret effectively. LDs don't catch spies. They catch novices. Aldrich Ames beat the test repeatedly. But he would, since his job was counterespionage.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoThey use it to ferret out untrustworthy people at government contractors. This catches some moles. The real problem is when this hocus pocus enters the legal system and people get convicted based on examiner testimony or face the presumed guilt applied to anyone who refuses a polygraph.
- ap_org 8y agoThere is no documented example of the polygraph ever catching a mole. On the contrary, all of the known moles who were subjected to polygraph screening beat the polygraph.
- zaroth 8y agoSaying that they "beat" the test gives the test too much credence. The test is a ploy to make the subject confess. The only step to beating the test, is the simple knowledge that it's a ploy in the first place.
- ap_org 8y agoPoint well taken. But the U.S. government does consider the polygraph to be a pass/fail procedure. Applicants and employees suffer severe career harm for "failing."
- masonic 8y agoWasn't Philby caught by polygraph but argued his way out of the results? (He was, in fact, a spy all along).
- ap_org 8y agoNo, Philby was not "caught by polygraph."
- ap_org 8y agoExactly as 3JPLW mentioned, government agencies value the polygraph as an aid to interrogation. Naïve and gullible persons, be they applicants for government jobs, criminal suspects, or criminals released on probation or parole, will sometimes make admissions that they might not otherwise make, because the fear that the polygraph can read their mind convinces them that their best choice is to confess. But the polygraph can only have such utility so long as the general public believes that it can detect lies. We're at the point now that applicants for public jobs who face polygraph screening are often being specifically instructed not to research polygraphy.
- reshie 8y agoit can give an avenue for questioning based on raised tension or whatever. its bot a complete farse but is not very dependable and can be decieved as well as false positives.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- derefr 8y agoPolygraph is a placebo "eye of God watching you" to encourage confessions during interrogation. No more, no less. Like any placebo, it doesn't work (as well) if you know it's a placebo. Either way, it's inadmissible in court. It's a technique for aiding in interrogation (like torture would be, if it worked), not a forensic technique for producing evidence.
- ghayes 8y agoI thought the placebo affect can still work (to some degree) even if you knew you were given a placebo. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-know-placebo-201607079926 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-kn...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- User23 8y agoTorture does work in cases where the information is verifiable. Consider for example that the interrogator has an encrypted file and a subject that knows the key. Torture is morally abhorrent, but it's not necessarily ineffective.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- billpg 8y ago"What's the decryption key?" "I don't know."
- shirro 8y agoIt is weird watching US tv shows when they seem to take them seriously. I could never work out if the they are a reflection of real US government practice or if the writers in Hollywood liked the pseudoscience. They are one of those weird things like fan death that doesn't seem to translate out of a particular culture.