Cop fired for lying to TSA
Aug 15, 2009 | 6:07 am
#62
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: just above cargo
Posts: 2,072
The other thing is that people who don't know or care that their information is false won't "lie" as far as the machine is concerned.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_talbot -> really excellent article on lie detection through the ages.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_talbot -> really excellent article on lie detection through the ages.
Aug 15, 2009 | 9:41 am
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
A person who convinces himself that he is telling the truth can pass the polygraph. The polygraph is a pretty good litmus test for lying; however, there are a lot of factors that come into play such as whether or not the person is jacked up on caffeine, whether or not the person had a good night's sleep, whether or not the person is currently under stress (or duress), etc. The polygrapher needs to know these factors in order to establish an accurate baseline.
Otherwise, without a deliberate, systematic approach, it is, as you pointed out, voodoo.
Otherwise, without a deliberate, systematic approach, it is, as you pointed out, voodoo.
Aug 15, 2009 | 11:23 am
#65
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,760
Replace lie-detector in this paragraph with any other pseudo-science like acupuncture or dianetics. "It's not the machine it's the examiner" is a classic way to weasel out of any failure. You can always claim that well, the tester was doing it wrong. If there's no actual method to the process, just the tester's instincts then there's nothing that can be disproved.
Aug 15, 2009 | 7:02 pm
#66
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pre-9/11 America
Posts: 5,115
The other thing is that people who don't know or care that their information is false won't "lie" as far as the machine is concerned.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_talbot -> really excellent article on lie detection through the ages.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_talbot -> really excellent article on lie detection through the ages.
"Then again we are in a technology-besotted age that rivals the twenties, when Marston popularized lie detection. And we live in a time when there is an understandable hunger for effective ways to expose evildoers, and when concerns about privacy have been nudged aside by our desire for security and certainty. “Brain scans indicate”: what a powerful phrase. One can easily imagine judges being impressed by these pixellated images, which appear so often in scientific journals and in the newspaper. Indeed, if fMRI lie detection is successfully marketed as a service that lawyers steer their clients to, then a refusal even to take such a test could one day be cause for suspicion."
And then there is the issue of "show me the money." For example, if fMRI can be shown to provide substantial cost savings over lengthy investigations and trials, and a lucrative industry can be developed around training and certifying a whole new group of paraprofessionals, then acceptance should become wider and easier.