Quick Question/Poll: Do you believe a polygragh can accurately and reliably tell if a person is lying?

[ScoobMaster]

Answer the poll, then check out This website

 

[Analog]

I thought it was pretty good at predicting lying.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

I'm more inclined to believe in that funny concept of pantomimes (anyone who watched True Romance would know at least).

 

[mrgoblin]

Yea

 

[Gurck]

Not failsafe, of course, but I think it's a good indicator. Courts see it that way as well I believe.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Not failsafe, of course, but I think it's a good indicator. Courts see it that way as well I believe.

That's why they are not admissable?

Anyways, I don't think they are very good. Anyone can convince themselves they are telling the truth, even if they are not.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: Gurck
Not failsafe, of course, but I think it's a good indicator. Courts see it that way as well I believe.

That's why they are not admissable?

Anyways, I don't think they are very good. Anyone can convince themselves they are telling the truth, even if they are not.

Emphasis on courts seeing it as "not failsafe", so terribly sorry...

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i think they can somewhat reliably tell if you are lying, but i strongly disagree that they can accurately say if you are telling the truth.

 

[dullard]

It is well known that they can be beat. Thus no they aren't reliable. However, if the person being tested doesn't know how to beat them, I believe they are fairly accurate. Obviously no machine is perfect and since the science behind the lie detector test isn't very good, the results are hit and miss.

I once saw a news clip covering a study that was done on people who could detect lies. A lot of people, say judges for example, think they can detect lies. Watch Judge Judy on TV once in a while and she'll say on almost every show that she is very good at detecting lies since that is her job and she does it day in and day out. For every occupation tested, the people who thought they could detect lies were no better than random chance. That is, except one occupation. Professional poker players. They weren't perfect either, but they did far better than random chance. Why? Since they attempt to detect lies day in and day out, but they are the one occupation where they see the truth. The cards don't lie. Thus they get a chance to learn from their mistakes. Judge Judy makes up her mind on a case, gives a judgement, and moves on never really knowing whether she was right or wrong.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Are they infallible, no. Are they better then the intuition of the police/judges/jury, yes.

 

[FoBoT]

i think they are ok to use on known criminals, but on regular people they shouldn't be used

 

[alm4rr]

It was nerve racking the first time, tho I'm sure that goes away the more practice you get

 

[MrChad]

It's not a lie detector, it's a reaction detector. It's supposed to be used in conjunction with other forms of interrogation.

My first polygraph indicated that I had conspired with foreign nationals and committed a crime. :Q