> the fishing championship didn’t get the world's leading expert to run it. That would actually make the results less reliable, not more. Polygraphs are good

> the fishing championship didn’t get the world's leading expert to run it. That would actually make the results less reliable, not more. Polygraphs are good at two things: interrogation, which is basically hitting the subject's knowledge-tree with a stick and seeing what falls out, with the polygraph giving a crude estimate of where to aim for more information. And legitimization, pretending that the interrogation 'produced' some specific result (interrogation does not work that way) to trick people into thinking that result is true. Interrogation is mostly useless (you might get information about how they (may have) cheated, but that's worth less than nothing unless you can verify it against real evidence), and legitimization makes your beliefs wronger than they were to begin with, because you no longer know that you don't know things.