In the UK we have a long running 'institution' called the Jeremy Kyle show. I believe it is solar to the Jerry Springer show in the US? Basically, low SES people go on and argue about who cheated on who and at the end get either a lie detector or paternity test.
The show was recently cancelled because someone who was on the show committed suicide. This was clearly because of a false lie detector result which said he cheated on his partner.
In all the media frenzy around the incident, I didn't see a single source mention that lie detectors are unproven bullshit. I don't understand how otherwise normal people believe we live in a world where reliable lie detectors exist (the effects of this would of course be world changing).
> In all the media frenzy around the incident, I didn't see a single source mention that lie detectors are unproven bullshit.
I've had the radio on for the last2-3 weeks and the BBC have been constantly saying that lie detectors are flawed and that the producers of the show apparently weren't even aware of this fact.
In a way, you get the sense that these shows operate with the understanding that dead bodies are known to be a non-zero quantity, given the subject matter of taunting people on camera, such that they get their reputation thrown permanently into a relativistic black hole from which it will never escape.
As for gullible people eating up lie detector results, as the saying goes, I don't have to outrun the bear... I only have to outrun you.
Which is to say, it doesn't matter if you have firm grounds to disbelieve the lie detector test. I only have to convince your dimwitted peers, who are just itching for a reason to hang you. And as is evident, these TV shows prey on the slower people who simply need to see an interesting instrument and a convincing astrologer inspecting the dowsing rods.
Here in the United States, there's a subtle hint that lie detectors are all but tea leaves: They are inadmissible as evidence in a legal context. As a rule of law, no judge will tolerate the results being used as proof of a fact.
With a wink and a nod, this is how one is to clued into their actual value. But that's it. No one will accept the idea that they're worthless. They only point out legal inadmissibility as a point of trivia, and then move right along with whatever else they had to say.
"Lie detectors" are in practice a measurement of nervousity, right?
"Oh, his heart rate jumped when I asked what the end score was in the game he said he saw in his home at the time of the murder even though he gave the correct score maybe he guessed."
It did come up explicitly in the DCMS subcommittee hearing on the incident, including headlines that the exec producer claimed he had no idea if they worked or not.
I note that they haven't come up in Love Island yet this year as they normally do, and I suspect they won't.
I don't understand how otherwise normal people believe we live in a world where reliable lie detectors exist
Because for the better part of a century, the entertainment industry (and Hollywood in particular) has told us they work. They're a central plot device in tens of thousands of books, radio dramas, plays, television shows, and movies.
It's like they say in politics: If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.
The polygraph is just an interrogation prop, like a cop holding a thick file of empty papers disputing your answers during interrogation "But we have a witness statement that says you were in the building at the time". The random squiggles and wires attached to you are designed to stress you into screwing up your alibi/story and it's still effective enough they keep using it because people believe it actually works. If you try and defeat a fake prop by clenching muscles or some silly breathing techniques you've already lost because you believe it's real in the first place, much like how a voodoo curse works on those who actually believe and start to see the curse manifesting everywhere. It's job has been completed, to distract and stress you enough in hopes you begin to contradict your previous statements.
The interrogators will always have props and fake analysis, like a "chair sensor" that can detect you trying to defeat the machine, or eye movement sensor, face reading 'expert', blood patterns they claim disputes your statements, a small wand with decorative LEDs and wires they claim can read chemical traces from your clothing as they wave it around and make a concerned face looking at a switched off laptop screen afterwards, or a fake phone on the desk "We've just learned your accomplice has been arrested and is in the next room making a deal, are you sure you don't want to change your story?". The Chicago Police are famous for arresting groups of people, and taking photos of one of them signing some kind of property release waiver, then presenting the photos to the other suspects claiming they have been snitched on.
The most critical part of the interrogation with a polygraph is in the middle of the test where they switch off the machine and then continue to interrogate you "Let's just talk freely". Classic interrogation tricks (that still work), nothing more.
The utility of "lie detectors", which I personally imagine most law enforcement people understand, is as a tool of coercion and deception. It's not so much that they believe the devices actually function how they are claimed to, but that it gives the officers some 'legitimate' excuse to prosecute people based upon the intuition of the officer. It's not an accident that all of these systems require a human being to look at whatever readings are taken and "interpret" them. Any real system would include no such feature at all, because putting a human in the loop does nothing but invalidate whatever determination is made by opening up the inevitability of human error. At the end of the day, the verdict of a lie detector is nothing more than "the examiner has a gut hunch the person is lying/telling the truth" + a little bit of extra credibility in the eyes of the uneducated.
I've heard tales of police departments using "lie detectors" which consisted of a colander placed upon the head of the subject, connected by non-functional wires to a photocopier in which was placed a piece of paper with the words "You're Lying" printed on it.
It’s amazing how Dr. Humble of the NITV buoys his reputation on his title which he has publicly admitted was awarded as an honorific for six hours of Bible study at an unaccredited college.
Does the technique of clenching your butt hole actually work to beat a polygraph? (As described in my favorite "The Americans" season 2 episode 7, "Arpanet".) Does it also help to visualize someone you love at the same time? ;)
If it actually works, the photo of Charles Wayne Humble in the article looks like he could lie through his teeth while passing a polygraph exam with flying colors!
After consulting with Arkady and Oleg, and with the promise of coaching from Oleg, Nina tells Stan that she will take the FBI's polygraph test. Oleg suggests a few techniques including that she visualize him in the room as well as clenching her anus.
The Americans Season 2 Episode 7 "Arpanet" Review:
"I like when I learn something from an episode, and now I know ..." "If you're having to do a polygraph, squeeze your anus."
ESQ: The show featured Nina learning to beat and eventually beating a polygraph. How easy is it to do that?
PE: We have a number of real-world instances. The Aldrich Ames case. He went through the polygraph twice, after he went to work for the Soviets. Administering a polygraph is an art, not a science. That's why it's not admitted in court. People have claimed to have had training to beat the polygraph. Everything from tightening your sphincter to breathing a certain way, and so forth.
ESQ: Speaking of sphincters, the trick she's told is "squeeze your anus." Is that a thing?
PE: I can't confirm. [Laughs] I took several polygraphs. Taking them is a standard thing in the intelligence life.
Constricting one's anus can work as a polygraph countermeasure provided that it is done timely with the asking of the "control" questions. This countermeasure so concerns polygraph operators that all federal polygraphers are required to use a seat pad that purports to detect such activity.
Alternative countermeasures include mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts, or doing math in one's head) and tongue-biting.
For more on polygraph countermeasures, see Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
It's the grammatical equivalent of stepping through all of the captures and counter-captures poised to begin at a critical piece in a chess game and trying to determine who'll come out on top.
I wanted to provided the pro-polygraph side of the argument but literally could not find any popular threads in support of that case. Please correct me if anyone can find credible pro polygraph positions.
Title should be changed to "Pseudoscientist Attempts to Censor Anti Polygraph Website" (for a moment I read "anti-lie detector" as "detector that prevents people from lying").
Intuitively, it seems to obvious to me that any "lie detector" that is basically a stress meter (be it GSR, heart rate monitoring or even voice analysis) will have a bit of bit of value in that someone who is lying is likely to have a response, but at the same time this could just as likely be from anxiety of being falsely accused. I don't see how it could possibly be considered meaningful in any way.
They of course aren't very accurate, and really shouldn't be relied upon in anything more critical than daytime television.
But you can use techniques to attempt to make them more revealing. The first obvious one is to simply convince people they work, and then use them as a persuasion technique. "Look, do you want to just come clean here or are we going to have to bring out the polygraph?"
The second technique you can use is to ask a series of alternate fact questions and look for response. "Did the murder happen at five o'clock? Did it happen at six o'clock? Did it happen at eight o'clock?" Somebody who is doesn't know the answer isn't going to be any more nervous at any of those questions in particular, but someone who does is often going to have a nervous spike as, or just before, the correct question is asked.
[+] [-] krilly|6 years ago|reply
The show was recently cancelled because someone who was on the show committed suicide. This was clearly because of a false lie detector result which said he cheated on his partner.
In all the media frenzy around the incident, I didn't see a single source mention that lie detectors are unproven bullshit. I don't understand how otherwise normal people believe we live in a world where reliable lie detectors exist (the effects of this would of course be world changing).
[+] [-] maccard|6 years ago|reply
I've had the radio on for the last2-3 weeks and the BBC have been constantly saying that lie detectors are flawed and that the producers of the show apparently weren't even aware of this fact.
[+] [-] untruthGauge|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Scott_Amedure
In a way, you get the sense that these shows operate with the understanding that dead bodies are known to be a non-zero quantity, given the subject matter of taunting people on camera, such that they get their reputation thrown permanently into a relativistic black hole from which it will never escape.
As for gullible people eating up lie detector results, as the saying goes, I don't have to outrun the bear... I only have to outrun you.
Which is to say, it doesn't matter if you have firm grounds to disbelieve the lie detector test. I only have to convince your dimwitted peers, who are just itching for a reason to hang you. And as is evident, these TV shows prey on the slower people who simply need to see an interesting instrument and a convincing astrologer inspecting the dowsing rods.
Here in the United States, there's a subtle hint that lie detectors are all but tea leaves: They are inadmissible as evidence in a legal context. As a rule of law, no judge will tolerate the results being used as proof of a fact.
With a wink and a nod, this is how one is to clued into their actual value. But that's it. No one will accept the idea that they're worthless. They only point out legal inadmissibility as a point of trivia, and then move right along with whatever else they had to say.
[+] [-] rightbyte|6 years ago|reply
"Oh, his heart rate jumped when I asked what the end score was in the game he said he saw in his home at the time of the murder even though he gave the correct score maybe he guessed."
[+] [-] Mindwipe|6 years ago|reply
I note that they haven't come up in Love Island yet this year as they normally do, and I suspect they won't.
[+] [-] reaperducer|6 years ago|reply
Because for the better part of a century, the entertainment industry (and Hollywood in particular) has told us they work. They're a central plot device in tens of thousands of books, radio dramas, plays, television shows, and movies.
It's like they say in politics: If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.
[+] [-] aj7|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackermailman|6 years ago|reply
The interrogators will always have props and fake analysis, like a "chair sensor" that can detect you trying to defeat the machine, or eye movement sensor, face reading 'expert', blood patterns they claim disputes your statements, a small wand with decorative LEDs and wires they claim can read chemical traces from your clothing as they wave it around and make a concerned face looking at a switched off laptop screen afterwards, or a fake phone on the desk "We've just learned your accomplice has been arrested and is in the next room making a deal, are you sure you don't want to change your story?". The Chicago Police are famous for arresting groups of people, and taking photos of one of them signing some kind of property release waiver, then presenting the photos to the other suspects claiming they have been snitched on.
The most critical part of the interrogation with a polygraph is in the middle of the test where they switch off the machine and then continue to interrogate you "Let's just talk freely". Classic interrogation tricks (that still work), nothing more.
[+] [-] otakucode|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitwize|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plink|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevesimmons|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonHopkins|6 years ago|reply
If it actually works, the photo of Charles Wayne Humble in the article looks like he could lie through his teeth while passing a polygraph exam with flying colors!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet_(The_Americans)
After consulting with Arkady and Oleg, and with the promise of coaching from Oleg, Nina tells Stan that she will take the FBI's polygraph test. Oleg suggests a few techniques including that she visualize him in the room as well as clenching her anus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3OMSMq9zPA
The Americans Season 2 Episode 7 "Arpanet" Review: "I like when I learn something from an episode, and now I know ..." "If you're having to do a polygraph, squeeze your anus."
https://tv.avclub.com/the-americans-arpanet-1798180091
(One of the ways to beat a polygraph turns out to be clenching one’s anus. This show is full of helpful hints.)
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a28316/spy-on-the-a...
ESQ: The show featured Nina learning to beat and eventually beating a polygraph. How easy is it to do that?
PE: We have a number of real-world instances. The Aldrich Ames case. He went through the polygraph twice, after he went to work for the Soviets. Administering a polygraph is an art, not a science. That's why it's not admitted in court. People have claimed to have had training to beat the polygraph. Everything from tightening your sphincter to breathing a certain way, and so forth.
ESQ: Speaking of sphincters, the trick she's told is "squeeze your anus." Is that a thing?
PE: I can't confirm. [Laughs] I took several polygraphs. Taking them is a standard thing in the intelligence life.
[+] [-] ap_org|6 years ago|reply
Alternative countermeasures include mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts, or doing math in one's head) and tongue-biting.
For more on polygraph countermeasures, see Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
[+] [-] aasasd|6 years ago|reply
(“Pseudoscientist Attempts to Censor Anti-Lie Detector Website,” in case it gets changed later.)
[+] [-] EForEndeavour|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ex3xu|6 years ago|reply
(2009) antipolygraph.org (first HN submission) - NSA polygraph experiences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489
(2013) WaPo - Man accused of teaching anti-polygraph techniques faces prison https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878
(2015) NYT - How to beat a polygraph: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385
(2018) Gizmodo - Use of AI lie detector in EU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18351733
(2018) antipolygraph.org - CIA Analyst on polygraph BS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18155548
(2018) antipolygraph.org - book on how to beat polygraphs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683
I wanted to provided the pro-polygraph side of the argument but literally could not find any popular threads in support of that case. Please correct me if anyone can find credible pro polygraph positions.
[+] [-] olalonde|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristiandupont|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technothrasher|6 years ago|reply
But you can use techniques to attempt to make them more revealing. The first obvious one is to simply convince people they work, and then use them as a persuasion technique. "Look, do you want to just come clean here or are we going to have to bring out the polygraph?"
The second technique you can use is to ask a series of alternate fact questions and look for response. "Did the murder happen at five o'clock? Did it happen at six o'clock? Did it happen at eight o'clock?" Somebody who is doesn't know the answer isn't going to be any more nervous at any of those questions in particular, but someone who does is often going to have a nervous spike as, or just before, the correct question is asked.