CNN: polygraph not a lie detector

[hgc]

At least that is the position of CNN's security analyst, Ken Robinson. He was being questioned yesterday by Anderson Cooper (I think) about the what might happen with Saddam's interrogation, and asked about the lie detector. Robinson said, and I'll have to paraphrase, "it is not effective," and "the polygraph does not detect lies; it detects [something about physiological changes]." He then suggested that analysis of body language, such as eye movements, is probably more effective.

This is surprising. Is the mass media's unquestioning acceptance of the polygraph-as-lie-detector starting to crumble? Or is this just one rogue CNN employee (or contractor)?

[pupdog]

Maybe they ought to borrow a scientologist's E-Meter.

[bug_girl]

This is correct. in most US jurisdictions polygraphs are not accepted as evidence in court. There are lots of ways to knowingly (and unknowingly) control the output.

It is however effective at use in interrogation ("the machine says you did!") and it makes for great television, since their evidentiary rules are.......looser
:D

I'll let someone with a T1 connection provide the citation.

[bug_girl]

oh wait--i found a quick loading one.
Cornell Law Briefs (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/088_0217.htm)

this is a case that occured after a major ruling byt the supreme court that polygraphs didn't meet the Frye test of "general acceptance of the procedures and methodology as reliable within the scientific community"

i think that's the frye test. Council?

[Jeff Corey]

There's no doubt that measures like the GSR, heart rate, BP, and all can detect physiological responses mediated by the sympathetic NS.
In many people, these measures can detect emotional responses to key words or phrases.
But others are harder to read because they either under- or over-react. So you get a lot of false positives and negatives.
I use a cheap GSR to let a class decide which number between 1 and 10 a volunteer is thinking of.
Their hit rate is pretty high.

These devices can be used in the treatment of anxiety disorders by providing biofeedback.

[Iamme]

What is GSR and NS, if I may ask?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Iamme
What is GSR and NS, if I may ask?

Since you didnt direct your question to anyone in particular, Ill tell you:

GSR = Galvanic Skin Response

NS = Nervous System

[SteveGrenard]

The statement by CNN that polygraphs are not lie detectors is true. Polygraphs were never lie detectors. This is not news.

Polygraphs are multi-channel devices designed to collect, amplify and record physiological signals.

ECGs that simulatenously record multiple leads, up to 12 in fact, are polygraphs.

EEGs are polygraphs.

EMGs are polygraphs.

Up to 32 and more simultaneously collected channel polygraphs are used in medical diagnostics for a variety of purposes. They can be set up to record breathing, ECG, pulse, aterial oxygen saturation, multiple EEG channels, EMGs of limbs, and the movement of the eyes under the lids during REM sleep (EOG).
etc etc etc. There is nothing inherent in the definition of the term polygraph that makes them "lie detectors." This term was invented by people who claim they can use polygraphs, some particular simulatenously recorded channels, to detect deception.

[Iamme]

Thanks Steve. That enabled me to go back and reread Jeff'as post and get a handle on what he was talking about.

(Jeff)

I use a cheap GSR to let a class decide which number between 1 and 10 a volunteer is thinking of.
Their hit rate is pretty high.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff---can you explain the process, and why the hit rate would be high?

[hgc]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The statement by CNN that polygraphs are not lie detectors is true. Polygraphs were never lie detectors. This is not news.

Polygraphs are multi-channel devices designed to collect, amplify and record physiological signals.

ECGs that simulatenously record multiple leads, up to 12 in fact, are polygraphs.

EEGs are polygraphs.

EMGs are polygraphs.

Up to 32 and more simultaneously collected channel polygraphs are used in medical diagnostics for a variety of purposes. They can be set up to record breathing, ECG, pulse, aterial oxygen saturation, multiple EEG channels, EMGs of limbs, and the movement of the eyes under the lids during REM sleep (EOG).
etc etc etc. There is nothing inherent in the definition of the term polygraph that makes them "lie detectors." This term was invented by people who claim they can use polygraphs, some particular simulatenously recorded channels, to detect deception. Thanks for the detailed explanation. My purpose was not to point out the obvious. Maybe you know and I know that polygraphs are not lie detectors, but the general public impression in this country is that the polygraph is a lie detector. Hence the common interchangability of the terms.

My purpose was to celebrate that at least one on-air employee of a major media outlet has stated such. He did it in response to a question from the anchor, no less, asking him if Saddam would get a lie detector test (meaning polygraph test).

It's a good thing that courts won't accept polygraph tests as evidence, but they are still heavily used in criminal justice (police interrogations), in government security screenings and in private hiring practices. Perhaps if more of the media starts to speak the plain truth about polygraphs, then we won't have people like Aldrich Ames escaping scrutiny merely by passing a "lie detector" test.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by hgc
Thanks for the detailed explanation. My purpose was not to point out the obvious. Maybe you know and I know that polygraphs are not lie detectors, but the general public impression in this country is that the polygraph is a lie detector. Hence the common interchangability of the terms.


An unfortunate and erroneous interchangeability that gives polygraph devices an undeserved black eye.
Polygraph evidence:

medical/phsyiological data obtained by polygraph, including EEG, ECG and EMG are accepted in court cases all the time. But not for the detection of deception. Everytime one mentions to a patient or someone asking about such devices, they have to go into a lengthy explanation why the polygraph is not, per se, a lie detector and that we are not using a lie detector on them to record their physiological data, we're using a polygraph! Polygraph does not equal lie detector.


It's a good thing that courts won't accept polygraph tests as evidence, but they are still heavily used in criminal justice (police interrogations), in government security screenings and in private hiring practices. Perhaps if more of the media starts to speak the plain truth about polygraphs, then we won't have people like Aldrich Ames escaping scrutiny merely by passing a "lie detector" test.

Agreed. The courts won't except them because they are not 100% reliable which is sort of ironic since courts accept other types of evidence which is not 100% reliable either. Heck people are convicted of murder without a body, w/o a weapon and w/o clear cut motive. I think its called cirucmstantial evidence but it is allowed.

The common 4 channel polygraph aka lie detector (heart rate, breathing rate, blood pressure and GSR) is subject to too many countermeasures to be reliable on the positive side and because some people under stress don't do well (even after test questions which validate the aberrations to be expected if someone is lying)and are made to look like their being deceptive. This can throw off an investigation rather than be useful for it. And yes, accepting them as evidence that an Aldrich Ames type is not spying for the enemy is ridiculous as well.

Researchers are working on other physiological means for detecting deception. Check out

www.brainwavesciences.com

for one such interesting effort.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by hgc
Thanks for the detailed explanation. My purpose was not to point out the obvious. Maybe you know and I know that polygraphs are not lie detectors, but the general public impression in this country is that the polygraph is a lie detector. Hence the common interchangability of the terms.


An unfortunate and erroneous interchangeability that gives polygraph devices an undeserved black eye.
Polygraph evidence:

medical/phsyiological data obtained by polygraph, including EEG, ECG and EMG are accepted in court cases all the time. But not for the detection of deception. Everytime one mentions to a patient or someone asking about such devices, they have to go into a lengthy explanation why the polygraph is not, per se, a lie detector and that we are not using a lie detector on them to record their physiological data, we're using a polygraph! Polygraph does not equal lie detector.


It's a good thing that courts won't accept polygraph tests as evidence, but they are still heavily used in criminal justice (police interrogations), in government security screenings and in private hiring practices. Perhaps if more of the media starts to speak the plain truth about polygraphs, then we won't have people like Aldrich Ames escaping scrutiny merely by passing a "lie detector" test.

Agreed. The courts won't except them because they are not 100% reliable which is sort of ironic since courts accept other types of evidence which is not 100% reliable either. Heck people are convicted of murder without a body, w/o a weapon and w/o clear cut motive. I think its called cirucmstantial evidence but it is allowed.

The common 4 channel polygraph aka lie detector (heart rate, breathing rate, blood pressure and GSR) is subject to too many countermeasures to be reliable on the positive side and because some people under stress don't do well (even after test questions which validate the aberrations to be expected if someone is lying)and are made to look like their being deceptive. This can throw off an investigation rather than be useful for it. And yes, accepting them as evidence that an Aldrich Ames type is not spying for the enemy is ridiculous as well.

Researchers are working on other physiological means for detecting deception. Check out

www.brainwavescience.com

for one such interesting effort.

[hgc]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

...
Agreed. The courts won't except them because they are not 100% reliable which is sort of ironic since courts accept other types of evidence which is not 100% reliable either. Heck people are convicted of murder without a body, w/o a weapon and w/o clear cut motive. I think its called cirucmstantial evidence but it is allowed.
... This is incorrect. It's NOT because they are not 100% reliable. It's because there is insufficient scientific basis to the claim that they are lie detectors. You need read no further than bug_girl's 2nd post (and the link therein) in this very thread.

[SteveGrenard]

Bug Girl's Post#1: "This is correct. in most US jurisdictions polygraphs are not accepted as evidence in court. There are lots of ways to knowingly (and unknowingly) control the output."

Bug Girl's Link #2: Inadmissible based on defendent's state of mind when he took the lie detector test. The state of mind of a subject can result in #2 or #1 result below. The device cannot control for this. If you want to say this is a scientific basis fine.

hgc's post: "This is incorrect. It's NOT because they are not 100% reliable. It's because there is insufficient scientific basis to the claim that they are lie detectors. You need read no further than bug_girl's 2nd post (and the link therein) in this very thread."

Now my reply:

First of all 100% reliability is not obtainable with anything. Secondly, the lack of even near 100% reliability is partly due to the reason clearly stated by bug girl but in different language, to wit: "There are lots of ways to knowingly (and unknowingly) control the output."

People are convicted of crimes including capital crimes based on less than 100% reliable evidence. But not lie detectors.
I agree it would be ridiculous to convict or exonerate someone solely on the basis of this single "test" so therefore it is a good thing that they are not admissible. They are an investigative tool and a poor one if the results are erroneous.

Frankly hgc I didn't see anything in her post about scientific proof but that's okay. Scientific proof is important and it
would be based on proof that would not be subject to controlling the output which is another way of saying that the 4 channels
now used in polygraph testing are subject to countermeasures which would knowingly control the output. People taking
lie detectors can take medications, can learn to control their responses and pathological liars could (unknowingly?) easily
subvert or control the output. On the other hand stressed out, nervous people who do well on control question tetsing
(a technique known as CQT) may still "fail" or be made out to be deceptive. There is scientific proof that the output can
be knowingly or unknowingly controlled, thus making the device not 100% reliable. There are three types of results that
reuslt from a polygraph examination:

1. People who lie and the machine doesn't catch it (e.g Aldrich Ames)
2. People who tell the truth and the machine makes it look like their are being deceptive (e.g. innocent parties)
3. People who lie and the machine does catch it (e.g. truly guilty parties)

hence it is not 100% reliable. But number 3 does occur.

[hgc]

Ay carumba!

You say polygraphs are not admissible because their not 100% reliable.Steve Grenard:

The courts won't except them because they are not 100% reliable which is sort of ironic since courts accept other types of evidence which is not 100% reliable either.I say, not correct, it's because there's no scientific basis, and that bug_girl already pointed that out.hgc:

This is incorrect. It's NOT because they are not 100% reliable. It's because there is insufficient scientific basis to the claim that they are lie detectors. You need read no further than bug_girl's 2nd post (and the link therein) in this very thread.Now you want to turn around and lecture to me that 100% reliability isn't obtainable? Well, no friggin' duh. That's why I corrected you in the first place.

Now look at bug_girl's post again.bug_girl:

this is a case that occured after a major ruling byt the supreme court that polygraphs didn't meet the Frye test of "general acceptance of the procedures and methodology as reliable within the scientific community"That line about "[not meeting ... a test of] general acceptance of the procedures and methodology as reliable within the scientific community;" that's what I mean by "no scientific basis." Gee, the word "scientific" appears in both places.

All of this is really minor quibbling, but that you are starting to get on my nerves.

[SteveGrenard]

Polygraphs are 100% reliable; lie detectors are not 100% reliable. I suggest that they do not meet the Frye test of because they are not 100% reliable. In fact different lie detector operators have gotten different results with the same subject. The irony, once again, is that there is no Frye test for an absent corpse, a missing murder weapon or an indeterminate motive or circumstantial evidence. There are many people on death row and jailed for life who may be innocent because of this.

There is a scientific basis for polygraphs, but not for lie detectors. If you doubt this you are throwing out every facet of electroneurodiagnostic, cardiological and electromyographic technology there ever was. Every EEG, ECG, EMG, EOG, apnea recorder, etc etc etc collect and record data by means of a polygraph.

[hgc]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Polygraphs are 100% reliable; lie detectors are not 100% reliable. I suggest that they do not meet the Frye test of because they are not 100% reliable. In fact different lie detector operators have gotten different results with the same subject. The irony, once again, is that there is no Frye test for an absent corpse, a missing murder weapon or an indeterminate motive or circumstantial evidence. There are many people on death row and jailed for life who may be innocent because of this. You should have had your Wheaties this morning; you are tripping all over yourself. Compare the first line of the above quote with another quote from you in this thread.First of all 100% reliability is not obtainable with anything.Now, you're not telling me that all the stuff that the polygraph is measuring is really 100% reliable, are you? Because that's just ... unlikey and unproven.

Frankly I don't have a lot of interest in what the polygraph does (not that I necessarily think it's worthless), but that it would be great if people realized it's not a lie detector. If it does have some other practical use, then groovy.

Once again, the Frye test is not testing for 100% reliability, nor is any sensible measure of sufficient scientific evidence. So all your bemoaning of the use of circumstantial evidence is really beside the point. Circumstantial evidence can be very good and very compelling. Not all evidence is scientific evidence. A jury can reasonably infer that a person is dead, absent a body.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Iamme
I use a cheap GSR to let a class decide which number between 1 and 10 a volunteer is thinking of.
Their hit rate is pretty high.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff---can you explain the process, and why the hit rate would be high?
I show them how the galvinometer works by putting on the finger electrodes and showing how the needle responds about 3 sec after I slap myself in the thigh. Then I recruit a volunteer, ask her to think of a number between 1 and 10, write it down privately and seal it into an envelope so no one knows what it is.
Then she sits in a desk in front of the class with the electrodes on, with the meter facing the class. She can't see the meter, but I can. I have to continually adjust zero and sensitivity. (Expensive meters are self-adjusting).
The class is told to remain silent, as is the volunteer.
After the readings settle down, I say the numbers in a random order and note the magnitude of the GSR, repeating the process until I think there is a clear outcome.
Then I ask the class. If we agree, the envelope is opened. In about 18 out of 20 times the class is right.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

....
Then I ask the class. If we agree, the envelope is opened. In about 18 out of 20 tihes the class is right. That's a very cool experiment. Question though: who's more reliable - the meter or the class? Doesn't seem to me that you're measuring that, but your opinion?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by hgc
Question though: who's more reliable - the meter or the class? Doesn't seem to me that you're measuring that, but your opinion?
That isn't the question. The class and I are judging which digit elicts the greatest GSR from the meter. That one is usually the secret number.The meter is just sitting there and reading skin resistance.

[Iamme]

Jeff---What is going on in (or on) the finger, for the meter to know?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Iamme
Jeff---What is going on in (or on) the finger, for the meter to know?
The sympathetic branch of the autonomic branch of the peripheral system reacts to stressors, like pain. This gives rise to a variety of measurable physiological behaviors. Like sweating.

So you go to Radio Shack and get an ohmmeter, figure out how to amplify the output, and attach two eletrodes with contacts made of aluminium foil to 2 adjacent fingers.

As sweat is secreted, the resistance (since we're talkin' DC here) decreases. Salt water conducts electricity better than dry skin.

(All material copywrote 2003 by Jeff Corey. Any quotes used for educational purposes must not exceed 500 words and must include a proper citation.)

Edited to add, don't forget the duct tape used to make sure the eletrodes adhere tightly and to hold the hand down on the desk.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Polygraphs are 100% reliable; lie detectors are not 100% reliable.
Fabulous claim, Steve! 100% reliable? No systematic error? No random error? No + / - figures for the measurement accuracy? The perfect measuring device? Please provide evidence for these specs, Steve. Give us the links to all the manufacturer's specifications. I mean, all of them, after all: "100% reliable." I really want to see them. They should look like this:

Operating temperature: any
Measurement range: - INF to + INF
Precision: infinite
Accuracy + / - 0.00...
Pen nib width: 0.00...

I'm looking forward to reviewing these specs.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Fabulous claim, Steve! 100% reliable? No systematic error? No random error? ...
Stop being picky, Bill. He meant to say "sort of reliable", but he didn't edit his post in time.

[SteveGrenard]

You caught me. I should have said 100% reliable when used according to specs such as between +5 C to +40 C. Or RH at 30% to 75%.

Polygraphs used as lie detectors are NOT reliable even when used according to specs. Are you saying that they are if they are used according to specification. If so, I disagree. Polygraphs are reliable for the purpose of collecting and recording physiological signals if used according to spec. If a subject is in V-Tach while hooked up to a polygraph measuring the ECG you can be 100% certain that the patient needs to be resuscitated. If his heart rate jumps from 90 to 100 when asked a question you cannot be certain at all he is lying.

(PS: Pen nib witdths can be adjusted virtually now since most polygraphs are now computer based.) I havent used a paper chart recorder in close to ten years but they are around. Luddites just can't throw them out in favor of new technology.

[hgc]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You caught me. I should have said 100% reliable when used according to specs such as between +5 C to +40 C. Or RH at 30% to 75%.Is that your final answer? Are you sure you want to stick with that?Polygraphs used as lie detectors are NOT reliable even when used according to specs. Are you saying that they are if they are used according to specification. If so, I disagree. Polygraphs are reliable for the purpose of collecting and recording physiological signals if used according to spec. If a subject is in V-Tach while hooked up to a polygraph measuring the ECG you can be 100% certain that the patient needs to be resuscitated. If his heart rate jumps from 90 to 100 when asked a question you cannot be certain at all he is lying.You must be kidding. No one in this thread has averred that polygraphs are reliable lie detectors.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


First of all 100% reliability is not obtainable with anything.


Polygraphs are 100% reliable; lie detectors are not 100% reliable






You can't make this stuff up.:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


As sweat is secreted, the resistance (since we're talkin' DC here) decreases.


:D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You caught me. I should have said 100% reliable when used according to specs such as between +5 C to +40 C. Or RH at 30% to 75%.
Okay, so those specs you still haven't provided a link for should give an operating temp and RH range other than any. But they still claim infinite precision and +/- 0.00... accuracy? Where are those specs?
Polygraphs used as lie detectors are NOT reliable even when used according to specs. Are you saying that they are if they are used according to specification. If so, I disagree. Polygraphs are reliable for the purpose of collecting and recording physiological signals if used according to spec. If a subject is in V-Tach while hooked up to a polygraph measuring the ECG you can be 100% certain that the patient needs to be resuscitated. If his heart rate jumps from 90 to 100 when asked a question you cannot be certain at all he is lying.
They never break down? Never need calibration? Are perfectly precise and perfectly accurate? They have an infinite MTBF? and a 0 MTTR? Where are those specs?

(PS: Pen nib witdths can be adjusted virtually now since most polygraphs are now computer based.) I havent used a paper chart recorder in close to ten years but they are around. Luddites just can't throw them out in favor of new technology.
Kewl! So this magical computer-generated line can be adjusted to 0 width and still be visible? The A/D converter on the input end has an infinite number of bits and a 0.00... conversion time? Wow! Where are those specs?

[Cynical]

Take it easy, Billy Boy. You're beginning to sound like Claus Larsen with your demands for evidence. No sense in having two people here going over the edge.


Chill out, Billy.:D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Cynical
Take it easy, Billy Boy. You're beginning to sound like Claus Larsen with your demands for evidence. No sense in having two people here going over the edge.


Chill out, Billy.:D
If you make a ridiculous claim, you need to provide evidence. "100% reliable" was ridiculous. If he has the evidence to marshall, he should marshall it.

Now, ten-watt, do you have any substantive to add?

[Brummbar]

All "Lie Detectors" are fraudulent because they do not, in fact, detect lies.

They detect anxiety in the subject (to use simple terms).

Whether the testing subject's anxiety is actual, inferred, assumed and to what degree it can be quantified are all irrelevent.

In order for Lie Detectors to actually work, there would have to be a distinct, quantifiable physical manifestation of conscious dishonesty that ONLY occurs when a person is lying and NEVER occurs for other reasons.

I suggest calling this non-extant phenomenon the "Pinocchio Response."

Since there is no Pinocchio Response, the only way Lie Detectors could work would be to literally read the subject's mind.

[SteveGrenard]

First of all 100% reliability is not obtainable with anything.


Polygraphs are 100% reliable; lie detectors are not 100% reliable




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Ed: You can't make this stuff up.


Response: I amended the above statement to say if used according to spec, say for ECG or EEG or EMG they are 100% reliable and if thery are not broken. Obviously. They are collecting an electromagentic physiologic signal. The signal is amplified, filtered if nec and recorded and then can be read by the human eye. If a human does not use proper filters, proper gains or makes an improper diagnosis they are 100% doomed to failure. However, if they are set-up correctly, used according to spec and if the electrodes are placed according to international standards such as the International 10-20 System then they are 100% reliable. There are lots of factors that infleunce such devices which is why they need to be used according to spec.

Also think hard about the term 100% reliable where physiological measurements are concerned and where the use of polygraphs as lie detectors is concerned. The ECG or brain wave trace you see, if collected properlyand at proper (adjustable) settings is 100% reliable. What you see is what you get. You cant get a flat line on a functioning, properly set-up and electroded (patient) unless they are in cardiac arrest (asystole). You can't get V-tach or VF or see PVCs unless they are there. There is no + or - accuracy factor. If used as a lie detector it is far from this.

[hgc]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
blah blah blah ... What you see is what you get ... blah blah blah You might be on to something here. What you see is what you get, but that ain't the same as what is.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by hgc
You might be on to something here. What you see is what you get, but that ain't the same as what is.

This statement just proves you dont know squat about the collection of phsyiological signals using a polygraph. A signal is a signal is a signal and it is what it is. What it isn't, however, is a means to detect deception. I am sorry if you feel otherwise. So many people defending this concept
while castigating the true and valid use of polygraphs is amazing.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So many people defending this concept while castigating the true and valid use of polygraphs is amazing.

And just what is the "true and valid" use for a polygraph?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by TLN


And just what is the "true and valid" use for a polygraph?

excuse me, but geezus:

12 lead electrocardiography
electroencephalography - multi lead
electromyography - many muscles
electrooculography-up to 4 points (eyes)
continuous oxygen saturation
continuous rate and depth of respirations
chest wall motion - rate and depth
abdominal wall - rate and depth
continuous end tidal CO2

and about anything else that produces an analog signal that can be converted to a digital one

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


excuse me, but geezus:

12 lead electrocardiography
electroencephalography - multi lead
electromyography - many muscles
electrooculography-up to 4 points (eyes)
continuous oxygen saturation
continuous rate and depth of respirations
chest wall motion - rate and depth
abdominal wall - rate and depth
continuous end tidal CO2

and about anything else that produces an analog signal that can be converted to a digital one

Well excuse me, but that doesn't answer my question at all. Try to get some verbs in there and try again.

What's the true and vaild use for a polygraph? What does it detect and what usefullness does it have?

[TLN]

Steve, just say you don't know. It's okay, really.

[SteveGrenard]

I really don't suffer fools easily. Excuse the baby talk:

it detects brain waves -- this includes diagnostic indicators that determine sleep stage, seizure activity and even the presence of tumours.

it detects heart waves; this includes normal heart waves, abnormal heart waves also known as arrhythmias and
it can also diagnose a number of different types of conditions under the umbrella of heart block. It detects potentially fatal arrhythmias such as ventricular tachycardia and ventricular standstill (also known as asystole).
In short: cardiac arrest but people can have 10 second or less asystoles which are anormal but are prognostic of problems.

it detects defects in muscle activity which means it can be used to diagnose a number of neuromuscular diseases

using evoked potential, auditory, visual and even small electric charges, it can determine if there is a normal or abnormal response to these. Preprogrammed flashing strobe like lights can elicit epileptiform seizure activity seen on the polygraph measuring brain waves in people with epilepsy. Some kinds of epilepsy does not manifest with outward convlusive seizures, only internalized seizure activity in the brain. It is very damaging and dangerous and needs to be treated and this is the only way to diagnose it.
Particularly in children.


when electrodes are placed near the eyes, it can record and diagnose rapid eye movements while asleep (REM sleep) as well as abnormal eye movements anytime including while awake

if your breathing becomes obstructed partially it can detect the presence of an abnormal respiration known as a hypopnea

if your breathing becomes completely obstructed, even for short periods while asleep (sleep apnea), it can detect the presence of an abnormal respiration which is a flat line and no respiration at all -- its called an obstructive apnea

if the chest wall and abdomen also decrease or go flatline, the apnea is known as a central apnea: these are due to drugs and to some kinds of neuromuscular disorders

if your oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the blood become abnormally low, even transiently, it records that so that measures can be taken to correct them if the swings are wide, sustained and potentialy harmful

I hope the above helps. These are all valid and legitimate medical uses for polygraphs.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I really don't suffer fools easily.

Nice. I'll look for your next post decrying personal insults you hypocrite.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by TLN


Nice. I'll look for your next post decrying personal insults you hypocrite.


Aww..poor baby's feeling are hurt. The biggest offenders are usually the first to cry ad hominem. They don't like it when it applies to them, even in as an innocuous form as I did so here. What a farce......
why don't you go and copy some more Larsen questionnaires so you can credit yourself carrying his water bucket while some of us try to ignore his harassment.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Aww..poor baby's feeling are hurt. The biggest offenders are usually the first to cry ad hominem. They don't like it when it applies to them, even in as an innocuous form as I did so here. What a farce......

Well, if you say so, Steve.... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
why don't you go and copy some more Larsen questionnaires so you can credit yourself carrying his water bucket while some of us try to ignore his harassment.

Can you make up your mind?

First, you claim to ignore me.

Then, you brag about your spies, informing you of my every move.

Now, you claim you are trying to ignore my "harassment" (sic).

[Cynical]

Cantata, you really are amusing. Can't you see that Steve is trying to get a rise out of you? And he is succeeding, beyond his wildest dreams. Steve is winning the game, Cantata. Why do you continue to play it?

The only explanation I can think of is that you take this seriously, and you think that Steve is REALLY challenging you. If this is the case, then you really are paranoid. Perhaps you should call on Jeff Corey to give you some professional advice. My amatuer advice? Here it is: Get a life.:roll:

[Brummbar]

Back to the subject.

A good way to think about "Lie Detectors" is this:

Imagine someone tells you that he has invented a machine that can detect whether or not you find something truly funny - a movie, a joke, a humorous song... anything.

This machine, the Mirthometer, measures various physical phenomena related to feelings of amusement, such as facial muscles (smiling) and breathing patterns (laughing).

As a good skeptic, my first concern about this gadget would be this:

People can and do feign amusement all the time. Haven't you ever laughed at an unfunny joke out of courtesy? How do you know the reactions are genuine?

Short of telepathy, you can't know. Same thing with lying.

[Iamme]

Jeff Corey said:

The sympathetic branch of the autonomic branch of the peripheral system reacts to stressors, like pain. This gives rise to a variety of measurable physiological behaviors. Like sweating.

So you go to Radio Shack and get an ohmmeter, figure out how to amplify the output, and attach two eletrodes with contacts made of aluminium foil to 2 adjacent fingers.

As sweat is secreted, the resistance (since we're talkin' DC here) decreases. Salt water conducts electricity better than dry skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff---because I am this humble maintenance man...I have one of those voltmeter thingies, and fully comprehend the theory behind the activity. Makes sense. I suppose scrotums could be used as well?

Also, I suppose if you wanted to do somebody in, you might want to add salt to the bathtub, before throwing the radio in?:D

[Zero]

Did anyone think about the fact that the lie detector was invented by the creator of Wonder Woman, she of the lesbian bondage island and the lasso that makes you tell the truth?

[BillHoyt]

Steve,

Still waiting for evidence supporting the "100% reliable" polygraph claim. Where are those specs that show no measurement errors or infinite MTBF and 0 MTTR? Where, Steve? Come on, Steve, where is the evidence?

[Garrette]

TLN:

And just what is the "true and valid" use for a polygraph?

As an investigative tool with no independent evidentiary value, as bug_girl implied.

I have used (more accurately, directed the use of) polygraphs in investigations in the past. To be honest, I have believed in the accuracy of 'lie detectors' in the past; sites like this one made me review my stance. In my defense, though, I never used them as evidence, merely as an investigative tool, normally under one of two circumstances:

1. The investigation is stalled with no new leads and no way to differentiate between a group of suspects

2. The investigation points to one suspect in particular but there is insufficient evidence to act on the suspicion


In both cases, my methodology was the same.

1. Get consent of all suspects for the polygraph (I never sent fewer than four).

2. Cover the basics of the case with the polygrapher and develop, in cooperation with him, the list of questions to be asked.

3. Do not indicate on which person suspicion is highest, if there is one.

4. Have someone not associated with the investigation assign the suspects in random order to have the polygraph administered.

5. Stay away from the polygraph as it is administered.

6. Receive the polygrapher's written report.

7. Disregard the written report if it says anything along the lines of "John is guilty." Consider it if it says something along the lines of "John demonstrated anomalous readings when answering question 12 concerning access to the safe."

8. Use the results to advance the investigation and to perhaps re-interview the suspects, this time equipped with more tools in the psychological tool box.

9. NEVER tell anyone "He failed the polygraph."


As such, the polygraph is similar to other interview techniques.

"John, John, John, John, John.....[sigh].....do you know which way you looked when I asked where you were Saturday night? Do you know that if you were just remembering the truth you would have looked xxxxx. But you didn't. You looked yyyyyy. It's a fact, John. Makes me think there's something you don't want to tell me. Can we start over, John?"

Not a whit of it is or should be admissible as evidence. All of it is and should remain techniques for uncovering the path to the truth.

[SteveGrenard]

Garette ...

You mean lie detector right? Not polygraph being used as a lie detector...

I am tired of the misapplication of the language. Polygraphs are not lie detectors
why do you all insist on calling them that?

Hoyt especially doesn't get it.

[Garrette]

Steve,

My (admittedly non-technical) understanding is that there is nothing that isn't a polygraph that is called a lie detector by those who employ it (with the exception of obvious woo-woos). The term 'lie detector' is a media creation.

But specifically to answer your question, the services I used were by people who called them polygraphs, not lie detectors.

No problem admitting that I'm wrong or have been wrong. I've been a user of the service, not an expert in the field.

[SteveGrenard]

My point is a polygraph is not a lie detector. A lie detector is a corrupted use of the polygraph.

A polygraph is a multichannel physiological recorder. I enumerated the things it is used to measure in medicine: ECG, EEG, EMG, etc. I use 32 AC channel + 8 DC (40 channel) channel polygraphs every day of the week.

TLN didn't know what those things were so I explained it to him on a 6th grade level. It is 100% reliable for these purposes when used according to spec. Hoyt doesn't think so.

He thinks they operate with a margin of error. He doesn't know that they are manually calibrated or automatically self-calibrating whenever they are turned on so are therefore 100% reliable (if they are working, of course).
If they do not calibrate correctly, that is come within .00X decimal places of expected versus actual, they cannot be used until they do. Thats 99.99x %
accurate. I round up to 100% and Hoyt has a apoplexy. Most of the channels come in at 100% when re-calibrated so this makes them 100% reliable. The devices it derives signals from are 100% accurate and they are calibrated to this tolerance as well. I am not talking about cheap alternatives you buy at Radio Shack and patch together to measure GSR or froggy muscle twitch experiments in the classroom. This is this year, state of the art.

Now Billy may come back and hit me with line voltage fluctuations but that's because he doesn't know these devices should be and are getting their juice via an isolation transformer and other modulating devices, and not directly from mains current.

[Garrette]

Steve, I believe we're in agreement. I used to believe otherwise.

Polygraphs exist. They do not detect lies. Sometimes they are mistakenly called lie detectors. Lie detectors do not exist.

Right?

My point was that regardless of their scientific effectiveness, they did have investigative effectiveness; I suppose that is due to the popular but mistaken belief that polygraphs are lie detectors.

[SteveGrenard]

Yup. You got it absolutely correct. You hit the nail right on the head.

There was a big item in the press here day before yesterday that all the translators are going to be given polygraphs. I won't say any more but I get your drift.

[Garrette]

Good. We are in agreement. I would just like to point out that this is where I started my input into this thread. My original post here said--though perhaps not clearly enough--the same thing my last post said.

I also want to add that I have nothing of value to add regarding the scientific accuracy of polygraphs as polygraphs, though I doubt it's 100%. That is a doubt borne of a general distrust of absolutes as opposed to any technical knowledge.

I'm done now.

[SteveGrenard]

I guess I have to explain what I mean by 100% reliable when used according to specs.

First of all, a polygraph used as a lie detector, and I said this, is 100% unreliable because it is subject to manipulation by the operator, the nature and type of questions asked, the stress levels of the subject, the medical condition of the subjects and, of course, any deliberate attempt to counter the physiologic variables through the use of medications. Therefore for determining the objective of detecting deception, they are far from reliable. I suppose they can be consigned as an adjunct investigative tool but I wouldn't send anyone to jail or worse based on such results. Many subjects are intimidated by them and confess, lets make a deal. This is often a desired result.

However, used as a medical device, it collects, records and plays back (now on a computer rather than a ink-pen chart recorder) tracings of the ECG, EEG and EMG, etc. These tracings are calibrated, amplified signals. They are recognizable by their amplitude, frequency, morphology (shape) and length. They are very distinct and they are diagnostic: in other words, if you had bundle branch block, a cardiologist could diagnose it with 100% certainty looking at your ECG tracing. If you had myocardial ischemia, your cardiologist can also tell this, if you were in a potentially fatal situation requiring resuscitation because your ECG trace was demonstrating ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation or asystole, it can be determined with absolute 100% certainty. If you have a seizure spike originating in your left occipital lobe, it can be seen with absolute certainty on the lead, properly placed and labeled as O-1. If your oxygen saturation falls, a signal input from a calibrated pulse oximeter accurately records that. If you stop breathing momentarily, a signal input from a calibrated pressure transducer demonstrates that. If your oxygen saturation falls to below a certain threshold, this is a cause for action: it is irrelevant at that point if the recorded number is 84.3 or 84.5. You intervene, with 100% certainty that such intervention is necessary, and correct the desaturation.

For these purposes nothing less than 100% certainty and reliability is acceptable. If you were a patient or a care giver you wouldn't want anything less.

Modern polygraphs used for this purpose are highy sophisticated, self-calibrating and cost upwards of
$15,000.00+ each.

You cannot put them together with parts from Radio Shack.

They are not the "old-fashioned" 4 channel strip chart recorders and miniamps built into a suitcase that are used by retired cops or active law enforcement taking courses in this such as those given by DODPI. The DODPI, BTW, is funding many studies looking at how expanded physiologic variables can be brought into play because they recognize the shortfalls of the current technology themselves.


Farwell,

at:www.brainwavescience.com

has tried and suceeded in getting rid of the human element (e.g. interrogator) as well as finding a brain wave signal he has associated with deception (P-300). His ideas need considerably more validation, however but they are big cut above current technology for detection of deception.



I described the physiological signals above and elsewhere. These are not the same as measuring a component of the blood plus or minus a few deciliters or whatever. Used according to spec, such devices for these purposes are 100% reliable.


And BTW you do know what I mean by "reliable?" We are looking at "pictures" here, not numbers so it is best to think of it in these terms. It means that if you had a particular abnormal heart rhythm, there could be no mistake if the equipment is working and used according to spec. The only number would be heart rate and this is highy accurate as well. The sweep of each page on the computer is set to a specific time and the number of events in each sweep are easily counted. Where they are not, such as in some fast EEG, subjecting those tracings post test to spectral analysis using FFT does this with mathematical precision.

I have tried very hard several times to make some here understand the above. This will be my last attempt, For those of you who can perceive what I am talking about fine, for those who cannot, forget about it as they say in Brooklyn.You don't have to worry about it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I guess I have to explain what I mean by 100% reliable when used according to specs.

First of all, a polygraph used as a lie detector, and I said this, is 100% unreliable because it is subject to manipulation by the operator, the nature and type of questions asked, the stress levels of the subject, the medical condition of the subjects and, of course, any deliberate attempt to counter the physiologic variables through the use of medications. Therefore for determining the objective of detecting deception, they are far from reliable. I suppose they can be consigned as an adjunct investigative tool but I wouldn't send anyone to jail or worse based on such results. Many subjects are intimidated by them and confess, lets make a deal. This is often a desired result.

However, used as a medical device, it collects, records and plays back (now on a computer rather than a ink-pen chart recorder) tracings of the ECG, EEG and EMG, etc. These tracings are calibrated, amplified signals. They are recognizable by their amplitude, frequency, morphology (shape) and length. They are very distinct and they are diagnostic: in other words, if you had bundle branch block, a cardiologist could diagnose it with 100% certainty looking at your ECG tracing. If you had myocardial ischemia, your cardiologist can also tell this, if you were in a potentially fatal situation requiring resuscitation because your ECG trace was demonstrating ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation or asystole, it can be determined with absolute 100% certainty. If you have a seizure spike originating in your left occipital lobe, it can be seen with absolute certainty on the lead, properly placed and labeled as O-1. If your oxygen saturation falls, a signal input from a calibrated pulse oximeter accurately records that. If you stop breathing momentarily, a signal input from a calibrated pressure transducer demonstrates that. If your oxygen saturation falls to below a certain threshold, this is a cause for action: it is irrelevant at that point if the recorded number is 84.3 or 84.5. You intervene, with 100% certainty that such intervention is necessary, and correct the desaturation.

For these purposes nothing less than 100% certainty and reliability is acceptable. If you were a patient or a care giver you wouldn't want anything less.

Modern polygraphs used for this purpose are highy sophisticated, self-calibrating and cost upwards of
$15,000.00+ each.

You cannot put them together with parts from Radio Shack.

They are not the "old-fashioned" 4 channel strip chart recorders and miniamps built into a suitcase that are used by retired cops or active law enforcement taking courses in this such as those given by DODPI. The DODPI, BTW, is funding many studies looking at how expanded physiologic variables can be brought into play because they recognize the shortfalls of the current technology themselves.


Farwell,

at:www.brainwavescience.com

has tried and suceeded in getting rid of the human element (e.g. interrogator) as well as finding a brain wave signal he has associated with deception (P-300). His ideas need considerably more validation, however but they are big cut above current technology for detection of deception.



I described the physiological signals above and elsewhere. These are not the same as measuring a component of the blood plus or minus a few deciliters or whatever. Used according to spec, such devices for these purposes are 100% reliable.


And BTW you do know what I mean by "reliable?" We are looking at "pictures" here, not numbers so it is best to think of it in these terms. It means that if you had a particular abnormal heart rhythm, there could be no mistake if the equipment is working and used according to spec. The only number would be heart rate and this is highy accurate as well. The sweep of each page on the computer is set to a specific time and the number of events in each sweep are easily counted. Where they are not, such as in some fast EEG, subjecting those tracings post test to spectral analysis using FFT does this with mathematical precision.

I have tried very hard several times to make some here understand the above. This will be my last attempt, For those of you who can perceive what I am talking about fine, for those who cannot, forget about it as they say in Brooklyn.You don't have to worry about it.

So now you wish to redefine reliable to make your comment right? No dice, Steve. There are no 100% reliable devices. Every device mismeasures. Every device fails. That is the basic manufacturer's reliability definiton. Reliable = pricey? Wow, Steve, you are seriously reaching to cover up your idiotic hyperbole. Where are the manufacturer's specs that say:

MTBF: INF
MTTR: 0

That is 100% reliable. The world doesn't give Steve Grenard the ability to redefine words. If you believe otherwise, please scan and attach your License to Lie.

[SteveGrenard]

There is no such designation as you state above in their specs or in their manuals. You obvciously will not admit you don't know anything about state of the art in this field. Oh well.

You know you're really being stupid here and to what end? Of course all devices fail. The power goes out and they fail. A fuse blows and they fail. A short occurs and they fail. Of course in 6 years I have never experienced any of these problems. I reiterate that if used according to spec (and I also said somewhere above that they are functional) they are 100% reliable. This is not a lie. People's lives depend on this reliability every day and I am sorely tempted to remind you that your
rants are bordering on irrational --- and at the very least, are causing you to utter serious lies that undermines confidence in TycoHealthCare and other
manufacturers of these devices installed in tens of 1000s of hospitals worldwide.

So you're done attacking so-called alternative medicine, now you have decided to attack mainstream medicine as well. Your prounouncements that a cardiologist cannot accurately diagnose the problems outlined above with 100% certainty are duly noted. Your statement that a neurologist cannot accurately and with 100% reliability diagbnose seizures on an EEG polygraoh are also duly noted. And your produncement that this equipment is not reliable is also duly noted. That makes you one of the biggest fools around here. What do you really do? Administer vision tests for driver's licenses? Give shots in a well-baby clinic? Dont pay him or me much mind folks, its a personal thing.

Now why don't you go out a kick a stray cat or something. I am gonna have a chocolate milk with a splash of seltzer. Yeah that sounds good. You are on ignore.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Iamme
Jeff Corey said:

The sympathetic branch of the autonomic branch of the peripheral system reacts to stressors, like pain. This gives rise to a variety of measurable physiological behaviors. Like sweating.

So you go to Radio Shack and get an ohmmeter, figure out how to amplify the output, and attach two eletrodes with contacts made of aluminium foil to 2 adjacent fingers.

As sweat is secreted, the resistance (since we're talkin' DC here) decreases. Salt water conducts electricity better than dry skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff---because I am this humble maintenance man...I have one of those voltmeter thingies, and fully comprehend the theory behind the activity. Makes sense. I suppose scrotums could be used as well?
(Sexist swine! J. C.)

Also, I suppose if you wanted to do somebody in, you might want to add salt to the bathtub, before throwing the radio in?:D
I don't know whether that would be a 100 percent reliable method. Because 100 percent reliable would mean that it would work every time.
That's reasoning from induction. Just because all the crows you have seen are black, doesn't mean all crows are black.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There is no such designation as you state above in their specs or in their manuals.
Steve,

You are quite right in one sense. There are no "MTBF: INF" specs in the manufacturer's manuals because 100% reliability is impossible. But that was my point, wasn't it? However, you display, once again, an inablity to stick with the truth. Here is one manufacturer's claims about MTBF:

"Models 284J, 286J have calculated MTBF of over
390,000 hours and are designed to meet MIL-STD-202E
environmental testing as well as the IEEE Standard for Transient
Voltage Protection (472-1974: Surge Withstand Capability)."
www.intronics.com/products/pdf/284j.pdf+polygraph+MTBF&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:odQB0yWbrloJ:Intronics

[Cynical]

From "Jeff Corey":

"That's reasoning from induction. Just because all the crows you have seen are black, doesn't mean all crows are black."

LOL...of course, the crow that posted this is white.....and we've never seen him! Point proven!

However, Crow, I think it's a well known fact that, with the exception of yourself, all crows are black. There's even a choral music selection that begins like this:

"The crow, the crow, the big black crow..."

I'll bet Cantata could tell us the composer.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Cynical
However, Crow, I think it's a well known fact that, with the exception of yourself, all crows are black.

Jimmy, the albino crow (http://www.dragon-pictures.com/a59.htm)

There are caramel crows, too.

:dl:

[George Maschke]

Originally posted by hgc
...

My purpose was to celebrate that at least one on-air employee of a major media outlet has stated such. He did it in response to a question from the anchor, no less, asking him if Saddam would get a lie detector test (meaning polygraph test).

It's a good thing that courts won't accept polygraph tests as evidence, but they are still heavily used in criminal justice (police interrogations), in government security screenings and in private hiring practices. Perhaps if more of the media starts to speak the plain truth about polygraphs, then we won't have people like Aldrich Ames escaping scrutiny merely by passing a "lie detector" test.

It would be good to see the media start to speak the truth about polygraph "testing." It's rarely seen from the mainstream media, however. The standby technique of the polygraph community, the "Control Question Test," depends (in theory -- it in fact has no scientific basis) on the person being "tested" being ignorant of how the "test" is actually scored.

I would estimate that less than 1% of the general public understands the trickery on which polygraphy actually depends, and the dubious assumptions on which it's based. You'll find a summary explanation on the AntiPolygraph.org home page:

http://antipolygraph.org

I think if more people were to learn how polygraphy actually "works" (and doesn't), the polygraph operators would soon be out of a job.

[Iamme]

(Jeff Corey)

That's reasoning from induction. Just because all the crows you have seen are black, doesn't mean all crows are black.

--------------------------------------------

This Cynical broad thinks she has certain crows all figured out...doesn't she?:bgrin:

[Cynical]

BOO, PHELPS! Hello!

What are you doing over here? Get tired of waiting on JR's big announcement?:D Or did you just get tired of the JE board being so slow to load? That's why I'm here. The JE board is going to lose its members if somebody doesn't address the technical problems over there!

[Iamme]

Hi Cynical. Too bad YOU didn't try a different handle for this forum over here. Something sweet, like: Obnoxious:rub: There, there. ..You know I jest. And when you run into Phelps, tell him hi. :D And tell Trevor to get on the stick, or else we will have to send him his pink slip. :)

[Cynical]

Whaddya mean "when I run into Phelps", Phelps? YOU are Phelps, aren't you? You sure ain't Ecman...you're way too articulate!:roll:

[Iamme]

Shhhhhhh!!!! You want to dilute threads and wake up the dead in one whack? Speaking about waking up the dead... go back to that appropriate board that is up and running again, before I put a bar of soap in your mouth. Phelps, indeed! And then there seems to be this affinity you have for crows, for some reason.:crazy: But...we still love you just the same. And you are famous now, as you are featured in someone elses sig!

[Iamme]

Cynical---You are in one of BillHoyt's sigs, just above!

[Cynical]

I know I'm in Billy's signature, Phelps. I'd like to know WHY. Do you know? Does anyone? Does even BILLHOYT himself know?:(