EPTOn March 19 2016 02:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Yup.
Doesn't stop stupid people though.
Yup.
Doesn't stop stupid people though.
what a nuanced and informed opinion on the efficacy of polygraphs
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3393
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
what a nuanced and informed opinion on the efficacy of polygraphs | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:54 Reaps wrote: Polygraphs do have a level of accuracy much higher than people think, but aslong as it's not 100% then they can't be used in court. Isn't it also conceivable that what the CIA uses is very different from what understand a polygraph to be? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:55 Mohdoo wrote: Isn't it also conceivable that what the CIA uses is very different from what understand a polygraph to be? Yes. And that we are not aware what they use the results for. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:49 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: polygraphs are mostly about change in physiological reaction relative to a baseline, so if you ask the same question every year you can expect the same rough reading unless something dramatic happened (she became a terrorist) that is to say, polygraphs are probably most accurate for detecting whether or not someone's answer to the same question has changed over a period the reason why a polygraph would be more useful for "are you a terrorist" every month than for an investigation of an exceptional crime should be obvious... it's a tool clearly suited more for internal auditing of sensitive organizations than for trying to tell if a stranger killed a guy | ||
|
Powerpill
United States1693 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:55 Mohdoo wrote: Isn't it also conceivable that what the CIA uses is very different from what understand a polygraph to be? Sadly they are not, at least not the ones used for initial interviews. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:59 Powerpill wrote: Sadly they are not, at least not the ones used for initial interviews. being a data-intensive organization, why would the central intelligence agency not want initial readings on a bunch of biometrics for all their candidates?!?!?!?!? you guys assume way too much about how these things are used | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:59 Powerpill wrote: Sadly they are not, at least not the ones used for initial interviews. I would argue it may be intentionally deceptive, appearing as such. I mean, do we really think the CIA hasn't come up with anything better than a polygraph? | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44124 Posts
On March 19 2016 02:48 Plansix wrote: They are not admissible in court. They still use them because they have some level of accuracy and that is all they care about. They have no level of accuracy. Their only use is to deceive people who think polygraphs do work in order to extract information through other means. You say "Where were you that night?" "Home alone, watching tv" You then look at the technician who looks back at you and obviously shakes his head "We know you weren't there. Where were you really?" etc | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On March 19 2016 03:01 KwarK wrote: They have no level of accuracy. Their only use is to deceive people who think polygraphs do work in order to extract information through other means. You say "Where were you that night?" "Home alone, watching tv" You then look at the technician who looks back at you and obviously shakes his head "We know you weren't there. Where were you really?" etc WHY IS A MOD POSTING THIS POP LOGIC BULLSHIT WHILE MY ACTUAL EXPLANATION GETS IGNORED On March 19 2016 02:57 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: the reason why a polygraph would be more useful for "are you a terrorist" every month than for an investigation of an exceptional crime should be obvious... it's a tool clearly suited more for internal auditing of sensitive organizations than for trying to tell if a stranger killed a guy youre fucking pathetic kwark User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Wanna bet, if you put trump on one, it wouldn't show that he's lying when he's spouting his usual nonsense? Put Breivik on one, ask him if he thinks he's guilty - what you think it'll show when he answers "no"? Apart from the obvious problem that you can train to trick a polygraph. And also question someone intensively enough to get the polygraph to react even for an innocent person. That's the reason why it's also retarded to use for CIA etc - "terrorists" or "enemy agents" will most likely trick the test. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44124 Posts
It's somewhat amazing that he combined that particular mix of hysterical outrage that people were ignoring his words on the subject and calling other people pathetic. The all caps "WHY DOES NOBODY CARE WHAT I THINK!??!" shit isn't the most dignified platform to occupy while insulting others. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 19 2016 03:12 KwarK wrote: Incidentally I read the topic in order which is why I sometimes reply to things a few pages ago. In this case it was just one page ago but I hadn't yet gotten to his explanation. It's somewhat amazing that he combined that particular mix of hysterical outrage that people were ignoring his words on the subject and calling other people pathetic. The all caps "WHY DOES NOBODY CARE WHAT I THINK!??!" shit isn't the most dignified platform to occupy while insulting others. There's a BLM joke just waiting to be made somewhere in here. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44124 Posts
On March 19 2016 03:11 m4ini wrote: A polygraph is easily tricked. Wanna bet, if you put trump on one, it wouldn't show that he's lying when he's spouting his usual nonsense? Put Breivik on one, ask him if he thinks he's guilty - what you think it'll show when he answers "no"? Apart from the obvious problem that you can train to trick a polygraph. And also question someone intensively enough to get the polygraph to react even for an innocent person. That's the reason why it's also retarded to use for CIA etc - "terrorists" or "enemy agents" will most likely trick the test. Also reader error. Unless the reader is kept completely blind of who the subject is and what the questions are they will interpret the results through their own bias. I guess you could negate that by having the reader look at anonymized results with the question order scrambled (except for control questions) and the different results after each question marked as "result 1, result 2, result 3" etc. I suspect they'll find them far less useful for generating positives if they do that though because just as sniffer dog accuracy comes in part from the experience of the handler of knowing which kind of vehicles are likely to contain drugs and indicating that to the dog which picks up on the cue and reports a positive so to will the reader have their own bias. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 19 2016 03:19 wei2coolman wrote: At least from my understanding of how polygraphs are used in internal auditing for security, is comparing current results with established baselines. But that's pointless too. In the terrorist example, what if the person who was "recruited" believes he isn't a terrorist? A polygraph only reacts if you basically know you're wrong. I don't think any terrorist considers himself a terrorist. edit: this at least makes the polygraph "unreliable" at best. | ||
| ||
