Slashdot Mirror


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."

5 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So... by lobsterGun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it is true that you cannot be convicted on the basis of a polygraph, would you want the news that you had failed a polygraph leaked to the press?

    Even if you aren't acused of a crime, consider that you can still lose your job because of a failed polygraph.

    Polygraphs are bad science; They should not be used as the basis for making decisions.

  2. Base Rate Fallacy by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What you are referring to is something that is called the "base rate fallacy". This mathematical fallacy occurs when you try to interpret the results of a test without taking into account the frequency of the thing being tested for in the population being sampled.

    Taking the claimed 96% accuracy rate as a given, suppose that 1/10K people are terrorists. If I randomly polygraph 10K peple, I'll on average turn up 1 terrorist and 400 false positives. I can only be 1/4 of one percent sure in my result.

    On the other hand, suppose I know that 50% of the people working in an office are stealing supplies, but I don't know which. If I test 100 people, I'll get 4 false positives and 48 true positives. I can be 92% positive than any person who failed their polygraph steals office supplies.

    The lesson is this: evidence can only be weighed in context. There will probably never be a single test that can determine the truth on its own.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. The Effectiveness of the Polygraph by Jason+Ford · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I took three polygraphs as part of a process to obtain a security clearance (no, I didn't get it.) I believe the effectiveness of the polygraph has little to do with the 'technology', and a lot to do with the theater surrounding the examination.

    From Skepdic:

    'It doesn't appease me that many defenders of the polygraph know it is junk science but defend its use because many people confess to crimes during interviews done before or after being given the test. The machine may not be able to detect lies accurately but, as Richard Nixon said, "it scares the hell out of people." The end justifies the means.'

    --
    I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
  4. You fail by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What you show is that people can defeat the polygraph if they are lying. What is far more important is if the polygraph says people lie when they are telling the truth.

    Falls positives is what I am worried about. People being convicted because they were nervous and upset about being charged with something they didn't do.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:You fail by idlethought · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think about it a step further along..

      Suspect A lies under polygraph implicating Suspect B - polygraph indicates he's telling the truth.

      Suspect B is interviewed, shown 'proof' that he committed the crime, offered a deal..

      False negatives can be just as dangerous if they are believed..