3 ms·
> have they been discredited as in that double-blind trials show no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct? Yes. The reading of polygraphs is very subjectiv
by zik 8y ago
> have they been discredited as in that double-blind trials show no more than a 50/50 chance of being correct?
Yes. The reading of polygraphs is very subjective and it's been found that they reflect only whether the person administering the test thinks the subject is guilty.
- darkpuma 8y agoThey also reflect whether or not the subject of the test believes the test works. In practice polygraphs are used as a form of psychological torture, used to frighten people into giving confessions. Of course whether a polygraph can frighten an innocent person enough to falsely confess is another matter, but if the subject is guilty and understands how polygraphs (don't) work, they can deceive the person administering the test very easily. There is no shortage of spies that have passed polygraphs regularly and reliably with flying colors.
- wahern 8y agoObligatory scene from The Wire: https://youtu.be/AJ5aIvjNgao?t=115 https://youtu.be/AJ5aIvjNgao?t=115
- auiya 8y agoYou can read the National Academy of Sciences' conclusions on the polygraph and lie detection in their paper here - https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10 https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10
- samstave 8y agoI know this will sound stupid - but its a serious showerthought of a question: Are "clearers" from Scientology any 'better' at reading a polygraph than non-"clearers"
- SEJeff 8y agoAuditors in scientology are in fact using a primitive polygraph device to get gullible people to divulge their deepest and darkest secrets. This is something the "church" has used to blackmail and discredit their enemies.