Challenging The 'Unbeatable' Polygraph

George Maschke writes "Dr. Louis Rovner, a prominent California polygraph operator, has (through PR Newswire) issued a press release titled, 'Polygraph Unbeatable, Says California Psychologist.' All too often, such publicly-made claims by those with vested interests in the perpetuation of polygraphy (a make-believe science that offers make-believe security) go unchallenged. So, I've publicly challenged Dr. Rovner to support his claim and pointed out scientific research that contradicts it, as well as the examples of several notorious spies and a serial killer who have beaten the polygraph. See, A Public Challenge to Dr. Louis I. Rovner."

Comments

Re:So...

[George Maschke]

And the claim that "almost no human being can beat a polygraph test" is flatly contradicted by the research to which I referred in the linked public challenge, wherein some 50% of polygraph subjects were able to fool the lie detector after receiving a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction...

Don't forget human polygraphs

[PIPBoy3000]

There was a recent study where a small number of people were able to detect lies with a nearly 100% accuracy. To me, this is far more impressive than a polygraph's results.

Polygraphs are bunk

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I've taken one polygraph in my life. I was 19 and full of that sort of moral superiority that comes from the false certainty of youth. I answered all the questions truthfully, especially the one about whether I'd ever smoked pot. I hadn't and thought anyone who did was a loser. In fact, I felt strongly about the subject.

Afterward, the guy puts his arm around me and tells me I passed and that one lie that I told about the pot wouldn't be held against me. He patted me on the back and sent me on my may.

One anomalous response was interpreted as a lie. A faulty technology had convinced a total stranger that I smoked pot when I never had. The report of that session went to my new employer who didn't fire me but did make the report available to another employee who happened to be my sister. To this day, she thinks I've experimented with drugs when I haven't. After all, what's my word balanced against a neat-o cool technology with all those scribbling pens and sensors and stuff, right?

Polygraphs are bunk. People who make their living in that industry are, by my definition, liars and should be shunned.

Yes, I know I'm only one data point. But sometimes it only takes one data point to know when a technology has failed and is not trustworthy in broad application.

Re:So...

[George Maschke]

One of the spies I pointed out to Dr. Rovner is Ana Belen Montes, who got a job with DIA at a time when she was already a Cuban agent. She passed her polygraph. The one that's supposed to tell whether or not you're a spy...

Re:false positives

[George Maschke]

False positive rates(along with overall positive rates) in pre-employment screening situations will vary depending on the agency. The FBI, for example, has an overall polygraph failure rate of about 50%. There is no way of knowing for sure what percentage of those are false positives, but it seems likely that many are. Before 9/11, the FBI's overall pre-employment polygraph failure rate was only about 20%. Did a flood of liars suddenly start applying for the FBI? I don't think so...

Other agencies that administer lifestlye polygraph examinations, such as the CIA and NSA, do not make their polygraph failure rates public, though I suspect that they are somewhat lower than the FBI's.

In the Department of Defense (which uses a counterintelligence-scope polygraph), virtually everyone passes: the only ones who "fail" seem to be those who make what DoD terms "substantive admissions."

For information on what you might expect during your polygraph examination, and tips on how you might protect yourself against the risk of a false positive outcome, see Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF).