[Hctim]

I can't say i know how lie detectors work, so i'm not sure if this is possible, so does anyone know if it would be with this method. When the interviewer asks a question, would it be possible to come up with your own question in your head and then answer that aloud, for example:

Being a male you are asked are you female.

You ask yourself "is the sky blue?" answering aloud with yes.

Therefore you are telling the truth, (while all the interviewer will here is a lie) and perhaps the signals needed to detect a lie are never made. Is there something i'm missing? I can understand when the question becomes more complex involving more than a one word answer it won't work, but should this not work for basic questions?

[TheLastMohican]

First you must assure us that you do not actually need this information.

[Hctim]

If i needed to fool a test i'd try it on the first question. i don't have access to and hope will never have access to a lie detector. I don't imagine being tested would ever be for a good reason

[Grace]

I was tested as part of a job application process. the test administrator said he thought I was lying about my name, which was ridiculous. I have determined as a result of that experience to discount lie detectors, in general, as being quite flawed.

[HackerX]

Lie detectors work by setting a base line of "bodily activity" (heart rate etc), usually by asking a whole bunch of mundune questions (including ones they know everyone lies about), then comparing activity after that base line against the new questions.

How do you fool them? You either train your body not to react, or you screw with the base line to begin with.

[redbaren]

I think it can still read from your pulse changing, because you know that its not right.

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by Grace To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was tested as part of a job application process. the test administrator said he thought I was lying about my name, which was ridiculous. I have determined as a result of that experience to discount lie detectors, in general, as being quite flawed.

That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard as part of a job interview process.

[Monte314]

I've had 5 lie detector tests.

I don't think they would be easy to beat, but your suggestion is intriguing.

[ScurvyRose]

You can't fool with it, and the results are not a legal matter - as in Inadmissible.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by ScurvyRose To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't fool with it, and the results are not a legal matter - as in Inadmissible.

Aldrich Ames did so successfully.

[NephilimAzrael]

You in intelligence Grace? That would be the only reasonable account for a polygraph.

It is possible to cheat cardio and saline monitors in a polygraph, but if it had a EEG electode rigging, you would be screwed. Although it is not 100% successful (maybe not even 82% successful), the mental activity that occurs when a person lies, as similar to when they imagine is picked up. So it would really be looking for direct reference memory.

It doesn't take a polygraph to tell if a person is lying. Trying keeping there pulse while looking at their eye-movements to keep track of their referencing. I know as a psychologist, the NLP route is kind of hokey, but I have found it has product.

[Noehelia]

I always thought that a lie detector would be messed up with me. First of all there are many times that I am telling the truth and it seems to me that I have the reaction of lying (like i am thinking "am i sure that is my name? maybe it is not, maybe I was adopted"). Then there are times that it's like I can not realize in me what they are asking me or what I am answering and I have no emotional reactions. Also there are times that I lie but it's like I believe I am telling the truth.

[Motor Jax]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.






everyone wants to be able to read minds...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.

i know talks shows use these a lot also... how society would believe something so deceiving... simply because every one wants to believe they can read someone else...


ok, so i am a bit biased on polygraphs... but simply because i've taken one 5 times for my security clearance and all 5 times, it was inconclusive... also because the police department wanted to administer the polygraph, but they would have taken the inconsistencies to throw me in jail or prison...

and also, there was a psychologist that had me take one and he deemed i was somewhere in the 80% deceptive...

it is also referred to as The Polygraph Examination, not Lie Detector as it is not accurate

i read somewhere in 2006 that for deceptors, it would show that they were telling the truth 70 something % of the time... and the truthers were only telling the truth 20-30 something % of the time...

i do not agree with them, and i have refused every one since 2006-2007 because of it... even if it is for employment...

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by HackerX To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lie detectors work by setting a base line of "bodily activity" (heart rate etc), usually by asking a whole bunch of mundune questions (including ones they know everyone lies about), then comparing activity after that base line against the new questions. How do you fool them? You either train your body not to react, or you screw with the base line to begin with.

I read a thing about that a couple years ago or so. They said that one of the easiest ways to beat them is to recognize the base line questions (like "where do you live" and "what's your name"), and just clench your sphincter ever so slightly when answering. Apparently, that messes with your pulse or breathing or whatnot enough to make the lie detector look like a seismograph in an earthquake, so any comparison made with it is useless. You also get the advantage of just being able to claim general nervousness during the process, 'cause you're a high-strung kinda guy.

[ScottH]

The short and skinny of it is this:

1) Lie detectors don't detect lies, per-se. The testing process IS an interrogation process. This will easily explain some of the methods used (telling you that you lied about your name, etc.)

2) The test works by establishing one or (rarely) more "control" questions. These questions show your baseline response. Any response that deviates significantly may be considered a lie (see definition of "may" below).

3) They can be cheated. Almost all of our intelligence personnel have been so trained. Beating them involves learning how they work, spotting the control questions, and manipulating your bio-physical response accordingly such that even lies appear "flat."

Now, the definition of "May." There are several schools of thought on how to best administer a polygraph. But, in general, nobody knows better than the test examiners that the instrument can not detect a lie, it can only give clues. The test will result in something like "the response to question [x] was consistent with the truth" (i.e., a control question) "...or deception" (i.e., a lie-based control question, or much different than an honest control question).

Control questions may be positive, such as "what is your name," intended to measure how you respond to questions that are not intimidating, or negative, such as "when was the first time you stole something," intended to measure how you respond to qeustions that are (or should be) intimidating.

Sometimes they ask only positive questions, but one large school of thought believes the negative questions are best. Almost everybody has stolen something (even candy as a child) and will give a nervous response.

Also, it's accepted methodology to upset you, make you defensive or afraid, because it will exaggerate your responses and presumably increase the sensitivity of the test.

But, no matter what, an examination can only say "I believe him" or "I don't believe him" but it can not indicate that you are lieing.

Also, many collapse under the stress of a test and begin to "confess" things, sometimes meaningful and sometimes meaningless. The best approach is to remember that a polygraph test is an interrogation, and it's done by the examiner with the ASSISTANCE of the machine. Best to say nothing but the most simple answers to the questions. :-)

Oh, just a bit more info... studies have been done that have shown that:

1) They are more likely to call an honest person deceptive, than the other way around (likely because of the methods of intimidation and pressure), and

2) A US held study asked polygraph examiners: "If we wanted you to get a deceptive response from an honest person, could you?" The overwhelming majority said "Yes, of course."

3) Another US held study was conducted, in which a large number of examiners were asked to test several people, but told who was "suspected" of stealing some property. The body of testees was randomly arranged, and there was no truly guilty person. An amazingly high percentage (sorry, exact numbers have left my memory) of the examiners found the "purported" guilty person to be deceptive.

Hence, it's highly subjective.

[jadefalcon]

I have heard somewhere that it measures the stress of the user in his or her voice as they respond to the questions. They are not 100% accurate, but as far as I know it IS possible to fool them, albeit almost impossible- it has happened.

[ScottH]

Actually, that's a VSA (Voice Stress Analyzer). It's a newer technology, can be used just about the same. Talk to a polygraph examiner about them, and they'll tell you THEY DON'T WORK. Duh... they threaten their business. LOL

[Grace]

	Originally Posted by NephilimAzrael To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You in intelligence Grace? That would be the only reasonable account for a polygraph.

No, it was for a private security firm that was big for it's britches - I lasted 3 weeks in that dysfunctional environment. I am a rule MAKER, don't do real well following the rules of others...

[Phalanx]

Sneak a sharp pin into your shoe and jam your toe into it during the control questions.

[Anderson]

	Originally Posted by HackerX To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard as part of a job interview process.

You have to take a polygraph as part of employment screening for police departments/fire departments/FBI. I believe, and don't hold me to this, that some jurisdictions require polygraphing for professionals who work with children, i.e. teachers, social workers, etc. It's not as uncommon as you might think.

[Agile]

The polygraph cannot possibly be a reliable test, by the sheer nature of the way it works. You can either fake polygraph results by physical stimulation, or mental training. Physical would be much easier (such as the pin in the shoe or some sort of tensing/relaxation of muscles).

[unnu]

One method to obscure the results is to forgo sleep before the test date. This requires the individual to know when they'll be tested, of course.

I think polygraph tests are bunk, and are basically used to filter people through intimidation. For government agencies, it's also a way to condition employees - to keep them "honest" - since they are tested multiple times, at least those in the intelligence sector, but the psychological effect only works on people who are do not already realize that the tests are based on subjectivity.

[changos]

I guess lie detectors appear to us as a test-toy to see and measure if we can break them or how much control we have over our body. Interesting, I would like to try.

[enWTFp]

Oh, I think with ENFP it would be a problem to pass any lie detector on any subject, no matter if they are in fact guilty or not. I have a natural instinct to assume at first that I'm guilty, even if I'm not, only because somebody apparently thought I should be. I mean, it goes in my head like this: "well, they think its me, why should they think so, if they didn't have some good reason"... So I'm willing to consider any accusation, pointed at me, even if it is that I've killed my mother, when I've never actually had a mother. Oh, wait.

Yeah, anyway, so basically, I'd fail even the first questions about the date, my age, my name, etc.






This thread had some very interesting posts to read.

[lancelot]

Originally Posted by Hctim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't say i know how lie detectors work, so i'm not sure if this is possible, so does anyone know if it would be with this method. When the interviewer asks a question, would it be possible to come up with your own question in your head and then answer that aloud, for example: Being a male you are asked are you female. You ask yourself "is the sky blue?" answering aloud with yes. Therefore you are telling the truth, (while all the interviewer will here is a lie) and perhaps the signals needed to detect a lie are never made. Is there something i'm missing? I can understand when the question becomes more complex involving more than a one word answer it won't work, but should this not work for basic questions?

When they zero out the meter put yourself in a stressfull state of mind, then when you lie release yourself from the stress. Every lie will be equal to that stress level and will show no significant increase in stress.

For example when they ask is your name Joe etc. raise your heart beat, blood pressure, and respiration. Raising your blood presure and so on can be done by curling your toes for example.

I have never tried it, but It makes sense to me.