Can I Beat a Lie Detector? - MSN Slate Article

[George W. Maschke]

Emily Yoffe has written an article about her visit to a polygrapher to see if she could beat the polygraph. See, "Can I Beat a Lie Detector?":

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112734/

To see if she could fool the polygraph, Yoffe used countermeasure information from AntiPolygraph.org as well as, unfortunately, Police-test.net (The manual peddled on this website conflates "control" and irrelevant questions and wrongly advises to making one's breathing "very erratic" as a countermeasure.)

[THEPOPO]

damn i just posted this article too...

i was gona see what u guys think about it....

It seems like even a small flexing shows???

[anythingformoney]

Emily Yoffe has written an article about her visit to a polygrapher to see if she could beat the polygraph. See, "Can I Beat a Lie Detector?":

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112734/

To see if she could fool the polygraph, Yoffe used countermeasure information from AntiPolygraph.org as well as, unfortunately, Police-test.net (The manual peddled on this website conflates "control" and irrelevant questions and wrongly advises to making one's breathing "very erratic" as a countermeasure.)

Actually, if you think about it, consistently erratic breathing would probably not be scored as anything on the charts, which is what your manipulated steady breathing also attempts to accomplish.  One problem with erratic breathing is it might piss off your examiner, who might take your failure to follow directions as a countermeasure.  But a problem with both intentional erratic breathing and attempted intentional steady breathing is that you might deprive yourself of any help you might have gotten from the respiratory channel.  That's a two-edged sword.  Therefore, perhaps the better choice is just don't mess with your breathing, don't try to hide your past, and be honest with both yourself and the polygrapher.

[anxietyguy]

So how long have you been a polygrapher Mr. Anal? Don't you think that is quite ironic that you are asking him to be honest with his polygrapher when in turn the polygrapher is lying to him?

[anythingformoney]

There is a method to the apparent madness, believe me.  The polygrapher really DOES want the examinee to pass in most cases.  It makes his/her job easier, and it helps alleviate some of the cynicism we develop over time when seeing so many obvious liars.  In their real lives, most polygraphers I know are extremely honest--almost to a fault, if that's possible.

I would elaborate further, but I don't want to do you a disservice like I feel most so-called experts on this forum are doing with fearful examinees.  If that sounds cryptic or mysterious, all I can say is I know what I'm talking about and ask that you believe me as much as you believe George.  He is a strange fellow.  I don't know his story, but I imagine he failed a polygraph at one time and then felt a need to attack something that hurt him.

[Jeffery]

I don't know his story, but I imagine he failed a polygraph at one time and then felt a need to attack something that hurt him.

Assuming that is the case, is there anything wrong with that?  As a polygraphster can you honestly say that false positives do not happen?  Those that are victimised by your imperfect machine can be devastated.  They can miss out on a dream job for which they are otherwise highly qualified; they can jeapordize their current job, or be stigmatised with false accusations.

Ones concern for his fellow man is perhaps what motivates thsoe who speak out and expose this dangerous fraud.  

Or would you rather those who are victim of polygraph fraud simply lick their wounds and go away silently, so polygrahsters can continue to abuse others?

[seascapes]

OHHHH Jeff, learn how to spell buddy..

[anythingformoney]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!  Thank you for the laugh, Jeffrey!  Not all polygraphsters are bad, you know.

I can't know for sure what their motivation is for keeping this silly site going, but the most logical explanation would be that they probably deservedly failed a polygraph exam and continue to lie to themselves AND others by perpetuating their psychobabble.

Whenever you see someone attacking what many people believe is a good thing, while claiming to dedicate themselves to helping their fellow men, you still have to ask yourself what he or she is getting out of it.  Attention, perhaps?  That would be more likely.  As for me, I'm posting on here mostly for my own amusement.  Georgie and Co. know I'll become bored with them after awhile.  I mean, an intelligent person can only tolerate a bunch of bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers for so long before he or she moves on to more interesting pursuits.  Right now, I'm having fun ridiculing the ridiculous.  

[Jeffery]

Whenever you see someone attacking what many people believe is a good thing, while claiming to dedicate themselves to helping their fellow men, you still have to ask yourself what he or she is getting out of it.  

Spoken like a true polygraphster.  Always suspicious of everybody else not in your own pathetic inner circle.  Maybe Geroge gets an ego boost from this site.  Who cares.  He's not charging any money for anything here.

And as far as referring to others as pathetic whiners -- I prefer to judge people by the tone of their posts.  With those metrics, you win hands down.

[Jeffery]

OHHHH Jeff, learn how to spell buddy..

That certainly added intelligent dialog to this conversation...

[anythingformoney]

With those "metrics"?  Never heard that reference myself, Jeffrey my boy.  But then again, I never heard of a polygraphster, either.  Thank you for teaching us all a new vocabulary.  

[Jeffery]

With those "metrics"?  Never heard that reference myself, Jeffrey my boy.  But then again, I never heard of a polygraphster, either.  Thank you for teaching us all a new vocabulary.  

Well Anal, you really should get out more.  Stop gazing at polygraph charts and pick up a dictionary.  

Here, let me help--
Here's one for the suffix of -ster
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ster
 I think it goes well with polygraph-ster.  As in prankster, gangster, etc

And here's one for metrics-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metrics
see the definition where it says "a standard of measurement".

I know I said earlier I didn't want to get drawn in on a childish discussion.  Now that I've defined the meaning of polygraphster for you, would you care to offer a substantive reply?

Note to audience -- my suspicion is that AnalSphincter is pro-polygraph, and quite possibly a polygrahper/ster himself.  

Take everything you see in an internet forum with a pound of salt (not just a grain).  But judge the poster by the quality of his posts.

[anythingformoney]

Sure, Jeffery, I've heard of the metric system.  But you used the word improperly in that sentence.  You may as well have said: "With those inches, you win hands down," which would have had humorous connotations of commenting favorably on the size of someone's genitalia.

Didn't you say you were done responding to me?  Couldn't help yourself, could you?  I have that irresistible effect on people.  

And while I suspect you used the -ster suffix incorrectly and had to look it up in the dictionary to try for a comeback, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it really is a humorous alteration of the correct word.  

As for quality of posts, when have you posted anything of substance yourself?  You call polygraph a "dangerous fraud," yet you seem to know nothing about it save for the paranoid prognostications you've read on this ridiculous website.

[anythingformoney]

Oh, what the hell--cutting and pasting is easy, Jeffery, so pardon my laziness.  Here's the post to very senior user Gino Scalabrini.  I hope it clears up some of your faulty information:

OK, Gino.  Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once.  We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage.    
 
In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit.  The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80%  on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception.  Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53).
 
Pretty darned good, huh, Gino?  It gets better, so read on:
 
In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%.  It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors.  (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.)  In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts).   However, because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners.  The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation.  What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners.  In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%.  The studies used by the Committee are as follows:
 
Horvath, F.S. (1977)  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136.
 
Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988)  A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.
 
Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection.  Nature, 308, 449-450.
 
Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988)  A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040.  Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
 
Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238.
 
Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application.  The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
 
So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino?
 
(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!)
 
 
Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read.  This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about.  The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world.  Take your best shot, Gino.  I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby!
 
Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be?  He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life.  He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.

[Jeffery]

Sure, Jeffery, I've heard of the metric system.  But you used the word improperly in that sentence.  You may as well have said: "With those inches, you win hands down," which would have had humorous connotations of commenting favorably on the size of someone's genitalia.

While your genitalia remark may be found funny by some, it is irrelevant to this converstation.

The term "metrics" in the context in which it was originially used by me is a commonly and correctly used term, and does not only mean the "metric system."  Look it up if you don't believe me.

Didn't you say you were done responding to me?  Couldn't help yourself, could you?  I have that irresistible effect on people.  

While I find some of your posts informative, I'd hardly consider that an outgrowth of  your irresistibility.  

And while I suspect you used the -ster suffix incorrectly and had to look it up in the dictionary to try for a comeback, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it really is a humorous alteration of the correct word.  

Believe me, Anal, just as you chose a humorous name, I intentionally used the word polygraphster (used correctly, I might add) as a way to associate those who engage in polygraphy with gansters, fraudsters and pranksters.

As for quality of posts, when have you posted anything of substance yourself?  You call polygraph a "dangerous fraud," yet you seem to know nothing about it save for the paranoid prognostications you've read on this ridiculous website.

I'm not an expert in the polygraph field.  Freely admitted.  All I know is what I have read on this form AND WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED MYSELF.  Now, label that whining if you wish, but that is where I am speaking from.