FBI File of Lie Detector's Creator

George Maschke writes, "It appears that the FBI considered William Moulton Marston (1893-1947), who invented the lie detector and created the comic book character Wonder Woman under the pseudonym Charles Moulton, to be a 'phony' and a 'crackpot.' He is alleged to have misrepresented the result of a study he conducted for the Gillette razor company in 1938, for which he reportedly received some $30,000, a handsome sum in those days. Despite these misgivings, the FBI today uses Marston's creation (the polygraph, not the Lasso of Truth) to guide investigations as well as to screen applicants and employees. You can download Marston's FBI file here (736 KB PDF)."

Comments

Reciprocate

[psykocrime]

That's ok with me, as I happen to consider the FBI to be a bunch of phonies and crackpots themselves.

A way out?

[BalorTFL]

Is there any chance that this could be used in court cases to challenge polygraph test results? After all, if the FBI believes that the machine's inventer was a lunatic, couldn't it be argued that perhaps his so-called "lie detector" is inaccurate and inadmissable as evidence?

Re:A way out?

[CoverStory]

As shown recently on MythBusters, Cleve Backster the man that originated the comparison test used by most law enforcement agencies to determine the results of a polygraph test spent most of his career using those tests on plants.

From any interview given in 1997

... the imagery entered my mind of burning the leaf I was testing. I didn't verbalize, I didn't touch the plant, I didn't touch the equipment. The only new thing that could have been a stimulus for the plant was the mental image. Yet the plant went wild. The pen jumped right off the top of the chart.

If that won't convince someone about the accuracy of the test, I don't think TFA will.

Re:A way out?

[AKAImBatman]

Is there any chance that this could be used in court cases to challenge polygraph test results?

Polygraphs are already inadmissable as court evidence, and can no longer be used to screen employees. Pretty much the only area you'll run into them is in federal jobs requiring security clearance. Investigators also use them on occasion to determine if the suspect is misleading them during an investigation, but the results can't be held against the subject of the test.

The truth is that the polygraph is a form of psychological testing. The results are meaningless unless the "operator" is a well trained psychologist. Even then, he may be unable to extract the "truth" from you; partly because "truth" is a subjective matter. In addition, some people don't do well (or do TOO well) under stress testing. So the results can be bogus in those cases. Basically, polygraphs are unreliable at best, and should never be counted on for accurate information.

Re:A way out?

[Dun Malg]

The truth is that the polygraph is a form of psychological testing. The results are meaningless unless the "operator" is a well trained psychologist. Even then, he may be unable to extract the "truth" from you; partly because "truth" is a subjective matter. In addition, some people don't do well (or do TOO well) under stress testing. So the results can be bogus in those cases. Basically, polygraphs are unreliable at best, and should never be counted on for accurate information.

Indeed, the best description I've heard of a polygraph test is that it's a little theatrical play designed to trick the gullible into confessing and/or acting guilty.

Re:A way out?

[fbjon]

I took a polygraph as part of the interview process

Did you sell it on eBay?

Re:A way out?

[DrVomact]

The truth is that the polygraph is a form of psychological testing. The results are meaningless unless the "operator" is a well trained psychologist.

Actually, the operator has to be a well-trained interrogator. Lie detectors have nothing to do with science. There has never been a credible peer-reviewed study that shows "polygraphs" really work--that is, that they can distinguish truth from lies. As far as I know, no other civilized country uses "polygraphs". The "polygraph" is an instrument of intimidation; once you are hooked up to one, the interrogator can ask you anything he likes, and you--trapped in a web of hoses and wires--feel obliged to answer.It's a "scientific" instrument, after all, and you can't just get up and walk away (not without doing a lot of damage to that delicate instrument, anyway). If you believe it works, your blood pressure will probably go through the ceiling when you lie. Furthermore, the interrogator is free to interpret the results in any way he likes. If someone disagrees with his interpretation of the little squiggles on the paper, why then he's not a "skilled operator". The interrogator can even lie about the results of the test to you...hoping you'll break down and confess.

Given these facts, I would never submit to a lie detector test. To do so is to put yourself at the mercy of a ju-ju-man, and being innocent is not going to protect you against his shenanigans.

When 6 blades aren't enough

[shamer]

Now with lie detection !!!

correct category?

[fortinbras47]

Is this really your rights online?

Is the FBI going to jump out of my cable modem and polygraph me?

Bondage

[Harmonious Botch]

He wasn't so interested in lie detection, he just liked tying people up. A lie detector that didn't require strapping things on people wouldn't interest him. Look at what happened to so many women in the WW comics.

What if a high false positive rate doesn't matter?

[dircha]

According to the studies linked from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph) it seems that while the test has a high false positive rate, the false negative rate is lower than one would expect of random chance. Does anyone read it otherwise?

While I think it would be abhorrent to allow such a device to be used against a defendant in our criminal justice system, it the above is true it doesn't seem to me so unreasonable at all that it be used in the hiring of FBI and CIA agents and the like.

A better chance of keeping Russian and Chinese spies out of our security forces may very well outweigh turning away candidates incorrectly classified as deceitful.

Whereas in matters of criminal justice most seem to agree it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that 1 innocent man should be condemned.

Also, I've always wondered whether this isn't really more of a "nervousness test" than anything else.

Wrong...

[BalorTFL]

According to Wikipedia, the value of the polygraph in court is up to the individual jurisdiction. More specifically:

In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

Nice try, though...

He didn't actually receive $30,000

[StickMang]

The FBI file actually says that the deal fell through, and that he stood to make 30k if he could make the study appear favorable to Gilette. Apparently he couldn't do this because he couldn't get the guy who was helping him with the study to help with the lie. Since it turned out that the study showed half preferred the gilette blade and half the generic. This doesn't prove that the lie detector doesn't work, but it might prove that gilette blades of that time period were no better than generic blades. Some FBI person wrote on the bottom of the page, "I always thought this fellow Marston was a phony, and this proves it". He obviously already didn't like the guy when he wrote this. So yes, he did try to lie about some test results to make some money off of gilette, but overall, the file seems like pretty good stuff. Included are letters and memos that talk about how the FBI was excited about the publication of Marston's book, and also Marston's letter to the President offering his services and expertise when the US joined WW2. Gotta love how /. submitters try to swing the story their way.

Re:What if a high false positive rate doesn't matt

[Dun Malg]

According to the studies linked...it seems that while the test has a high false positive rate, the false negative rate is lower than one would expect of random chance. ...if the above is true it doesn't seem to me so unreasonable at all that it be used in the hiring of FBI and CIA agents and the like.

As clearly demonstrated by the above mentioned stats, the problem is that polygraphs achieve their low false negative by basically lowering the thresholds, casting a wider net of "guilt" and snaring more innocent people. I can guarantee a 0% false negative rate-- so long as you let me declare everyone who walks in the door "deceptive". Polygraph is just theater. It's pretty much bog-standard interrogation techniques dressed up with a few electronic props to trick people into essentially admitting guilt.

Crackpot Science

[frost22]

you are probably more right than you meant to.

The lie detector is crackpot science. Apparently the idea of forcing people to tell the truth rings some arch-american instinct, so the attempts to abolish it on scientific grounds have been unsuccsessful so far (as with other highly questionable practices, like the death penalty, or the unlimited "adult" criminal responsibility of children, that also appeal to brutish instincts of the american populace).

Virtually nobody outside of the US uses it any more.

Re:Crackpot Science

[gx5000]

There's nothing crackpot about it.....
The main determination is never made by the machine, it simply
registers changes in your metabolism...every security agency STILL uses it
when agents come back in from the field...it IS science, but calling it a
"lie detector" can be considered nonsense...it's called a POLYGRAPH.

The interrogator is the main component of that scenario that determines if you're
trying to hide something. I suggest that unless you've gone through one
(Yes, twice, passed) and studied the "science" behind the procedure you might want to
hold off on further comments....

Re:The Prestige

[Catbeller]

For that matter, why are we relying on the interrogator's lie detection abilities? What's his error rate? Where's the data?