UK TV show 'lie detector'

[cdavis]

Greeting, Folks, from a newbie, and from the UK (that foreign place where the History comes from.)

I'd like to thank everyone who organised this site. The more I look into polygraphy the more appalling it seems - a giant malevolent fraud perpetrated on the world, that wrecks people's lives daily. And hardly anyone even questions it!

Horrible. So, to the reason for creating this new topic (which I hope is in the right place). Apologies for the following long pile of drivel:

Over here we have a TV show hosted by one Jeremy Kyle. The format is a bit Oprah, a bit Springer, a bit Ricki. Mostly it's like Montel, with the emphasis on helping the wretched 'guests' with their drinking, drugs, insecurity problems etc.

A regular feature is the 'Lie Detector Results' episodes, in which they wheel out a battered couple, one of whom is fizzing in a passion of sexual jealousy, and the other desperately denying any wrongdoing. The suspect will at some previous time have been subjected to a 'lie detector', which according to bloody Jeremy 'is 96% accurate'. Ninety-six, mind you, not ninety-five - implying that even their accuracy figure is accurate to within 1%. In fact he clearly regards the 4% as a mere flyspeck on a window of pure verity. The position of the show (and of the audience, it seems) is that the results of the test are utterly infallible.

So once again a battered little woman, driven to such terrified anxiety by the incessant wild accusations of her partner that she contacted the show in desperation, is brought out for The Telling of the Truth. And she's clearly semi-relieved that she'll finally be exonerated, and looking forward to the end of the torment.

And the first Q&A: Did she ever phone so-and-so? No. True, says the Machine.
And the second: Did she ever kiss anyone? No. True.
And finally: Did she ever screw anyone: No.

...And with a look of revulsion and a tone of pure hate, Jeremy intones the terrible and irrevocable judgement: 'You were LYING!'

(Gasps from the audience. Uncomprehending shock on the face of the indictee. More sneering accusations from Jeremy. Halting, ineffectual denials. Exit of vindicated partner, swearing retribution. Accusations of cowardice from bloody Jeremy for not confessing, and of arrogant deviousness for having tried to fool the infallible Lie Detector. More digs and denials. Exeunt, relationship in terminal tatters.)

What amazes me is that no-one (as far as I know) has ever sued these bastards for wrecking their lives. No doubt the 'guests' are obliged to sign endless waivers absolving the show of any consequences, but the fact is that the 96% figure is obviously crap, and surely herds of real experts could be wheeled out to say so. The accusees obviously believe that the truth will set them free, and that's false pretences.

And of course I realise that some - maybe even most - are guilty as charged, but there's no way they all are. It's just not feasible.

Is it possible to come up with a reasonably definitive and accurate figure for how reliable polygraph tests would really be in these cases? We're not shown the testing procedure, but recall seeing the polygraph itself at some point, and I think it's just standard analogue transducers, presumably with a PC hooked in to do the measurements and extract the result. For authenticity I think they had the multi-trace wave plotter as well, of course. The procedure is probably pretty standard too.

I'd love to bust these people. Any ideas?

CD

[George W. Maschke]

An entertaining way to bust Jeremy Kyle would be to set up a sting operation, having someone contact the show presenting a fabricated story and requesting a lie detector test. Leon Harmon played such a trick on the television show Lie Detector that aired in the United States in 2005. See Harmon's article, "Bullshitting the Lie Detector":

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-05-25/news/infiltrator_print.html