Why No Attention to Lie Detectors???

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Lie detectors remain a staple of law enforcement, business, and government agencies in spite of the fact that there is no credible scientific evidence that they work one iota better than Sylvia Browne. Why has the skeptic community turned a blind eye to stopping these "lie detection dowsing" instruments from being used to discriminate against people and in some instances ruin lives?!

I just did a search of past issues of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. Not a single mention of lie detectors.

Thank You

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I just did a search of past issues of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. Not a single mention of lie detectors.

Thank You

Searching their online index, I found four references under polygraph:

* Lying Without Polygraph Tests, Elie A. Shneour, 14(3)292-297
* National Academy of Sciences Report Says Polygraph Testing Too Flawed for Security Screening, Kendrick Frazier, 27(1)5-6
* Electronic Inquisitor, A. P. Grishin, 10(4)381-382
* Polygraphs and the National Labs: Dangerous Ruse Undermines National Security, Alan P. Zelicoff, 25(4)21-23 (actual article here.)

I also found this press release, and mention of a polygraph article by John Ruscio entitled, Exploring Controversies in the Art and Science of Polygraph Testing, with the following excerpt:

Quote:

Polygraph testing has always been controversial, with a wide gulf separating practitioners from scientists with relevant expertise. Myths about its alleged objectivity and infallibility stem from a failure to recognize that the polygraph simply records physiological responses and that the validity with which deception can be diagnosed depends on the nature of the examination and its social context.

If you go to the csicop website and do a search for polygraph, it will return 10 hits in total.

RayG

[Gene L]

Lie Detectors, or Polygraphs, are not admissable as evidence in the U.S.. As you no doubt know.

They CAN work, but they can NOT work. It mostly depends on the skill (or lack) of the operator. There is scientific proof they work, but not in all instances, and we simply do not have the ability or the science to make them foolproof.

So, they're not admissable in any criminal court. They are voluntary, not compelled by a court order. They are used in law enforcement principally to partially eliminate people as suspects.

But they're no substitute for other law enforcement techniques. Don't know about business uses.

Aldrich Ames, the CIA spy for the former Soviet Union, passed polygraphs yearly. Someone who has no scruples about lying or getting caught can fool an operator, and I'm told a person can learn to fool the examiner.

[Jeff Corey]

Skepdic.com is always a good place to start. Viz http://www.skepdic.com/polygrap.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Hey ! Just be glad they don't still use the ' red-hot poker on the tongue ' version ..

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I just did a search of past issues of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. Not a single mention of lie detectors.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic, did a feature on lie detectors:

Part 1

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Part 2

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/11/polygraph-2/

Skeptical Inquirer articles:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/polygraph.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-01/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...79794387/pg_10
Shneour, Elie. "Lying about polygraph tests," Skeptical Inquirer Spring 1990 (vol.14, no.3). (Not online)

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Gene L

There is scientific proof they work...

There is?

RayG

[Gene L]

Sure. Polygraphs are based on the body's unconscious reaction, BP, breathing, pulse.

The one that gets pedophiles is the pecker-checker, in which (again, this is voluntary) a sensor is hooked up to the penis. The tester shows pictures of kids at play, nothing sexual, and the pecker-checker records arousal. It's a lot more accurate, IMO, than a Polygraph.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Gene L

Sure. Polygraphs are based on the body's unconscious reaction, BP, breathing, pulse.

The one that gets pedophiles is the pecker-checker, in which (again, this is voluntary) a sensor is hooked up to the penis. The tester shows pictures of kids at play, nothing sexual, and the pecker-checker records arousal. It's a lot more accurate, IMO, than a Polygraph.

Dude, I'm well past my teen years, and I occasionally get erections for no reason. It would be a strange coincidence, but one could randomly have an erection while being questioned.
Polygraphs are very good at detecting changes in certain bodily parameters, but those changes are the sum total of information recieved. No operator, however skilled, can give any information more useful than x reading changed for a reason that can not be determined.

[Gene L]

If you get erections when shown pictures of kids playing, my advice is not to take a pecker test. My further advice is to get counselling or some kind of help for your problem of getting sexually aroused by children playing. And my third advice is to stay away from children, far away. It's not an appropriate response.

I'm not talking about a full diamond-cutter, just arousal. These things have been tested on known pedophiles and they work and tested with non-pedophiles and they show no response. That's your scientific proof.

You can't control some things, like chill bumps when it gets cold, can't control your teeth chattering, either. Aside from being physical manifestations of external stimuli, they are also present in other cases of internal forces at work: fear, and strong emotions.

If you get chill bumps on your johnson, I don't know what that means.

[JWideman]

Actually, Gene, the "pecker checker" doesn't measure just full erections, but ALL movement of the penis - a physiological behavior which all healthy adult men display. The damn test will say you get turned on by pictures of bowling balls.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I just did a search of past issues of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer. Not a single mention of lie detectors.

Thank You

Perhaps if you try searching for "polygraph" you might have better success.

Lots of threads on the subject.

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by Gene L

I'm not talking about a full diamond-cutter, just arousal. These things have been tested on known pedophiles and they work and tested with non-pedophiles and they show no response. That's your scientific proof.

I don't think so. You can check the links below to learn more.

http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/4b.htm
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~mwogan/eyemovement.htm
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Be...eE00005_2.html

And finally...
http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Scienti...nce_Brief.html
In State v. Spencer, the North Carolina court reviewed the literature and case law and concluded that penile plethysmography was scientifically unreliable:

There is a substantial difference of opinion within the scientific community regarding the plethysmograph's reliability to measure sexual deviancy. See e.g., Barker and Howell, The Plethysmograph: A Review of Recent Literature, 20 Bull. Am. Acad. of Psychiatry and Law 13 (1992) (identifying several problems with the reliability of the plethysmograph, namely "lack of standards for training and interpretation of data, lack of norms and standardization and susceptibility of the data to false negatives and false positives," and concluding that "despite the sophistication of the current equipment technology, a question remains whether the information emitted is a valid and reliable means of assessing sexual preference").

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Gene L

Sure. Polygraphs are based on the body's unconscious reaction, BP, breathing, pulse.

Oh that, I thought you meant there was scientific proof they work at detecting lies.

RayG

[Ocelot]

Pecker Checker? What if you get turned on by people attaching things to your penis?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Gene L

Sure. Polygraphs are based on the body's unconscious reaction, BP, breathing, pulse.

Is there scientific evidence that when people lie their blood pressure changes?

. . . . . . . . . .

One should also consider the plying card test often used by people administering polygraphs. They tell the subject that he or she will be shown playing cards one at a time and the interrogator will ask, "are you looking at the ten of clubs?" The subject is instructed to say "no" to every card. The interrogator has stacked the deck and knows when the target card is being viewed by the subject. At that point, the interrogator then looks at the needles and says, "ha, you are lying. You are looking at the target card."

It is difficult to ascribe the adjective scientific to any procedure that begins with a parlor trick.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Gene L

The one that gets pedophiles is the pecker-checker, in which (again, this is voluntary) a sensor is hooked up to the penis. The tester shows pictures of kids at play, nothing sexual, and the pecker-checker records arousal. It's a lot more accurate, IMO, than a Polygraph.

What exactly is it accurate at? There's nothing illegal about being aroused by children. It is illegal to do various things involving children, but not to think about doing so. So what exactly would be the point of this "pecker-checker", assuming such a thing actually exists? Unless we have started policing thought crime while I wasn't watching, it appears to be nothing more than a gross invasion of privacy with no possibility of providing any evidence of criminal behaviour.

[Drudgewire]

For those who don't want to read back through the old threads to get the link, this site should be part of any discussion of polygraphs:

http://antipolygraph.org/

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

Pecker Checker? What if you get turned on by people attaching things to your penis?

That's what I was thinking. Considering that the penis is basicly one long erogenous zone, wouldn't that lead to a lot of false positives?

If something were attached to my nipples, I'd expect a bit of arousal to occur for the simple fact that a)someone had just been touching them to attach the equipment and b) the equipment remains in contact with them. This would all be regardless of what I was looking at and could not be conclusive in determining that I was visually aroused rather than tactilely(?) aroused. I assume the same would be true for a man who is having his penis handled.

[Gene L]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

What exactly is it accurate at? There's nothing illegal about being aroused by children. It is illegal to do various things involving children, but not to think about doing so. So what exactly would be the point of this "pecker-checker", assuming such a thing actually exists? Unless we have started policing thought crime while I wasn't watching, it appears to be nothing more than a gross invasion of privacy with no possibility of providing any evidence of criminal behaviour.

If you had carefully read the previous posts, you would know it's not an invasion of privacy at all and can't be compelled. In other words, the accused asks for and pays for the test, which is recognized as forensic evidence in court.

The reason it's done at all is because pedophiles who are charged with child molestation get this test to try to prove they are not pedophiles and are not aroused by children. They fail the test, WHICH AGAIN IS INITIATED BY THE DEFENSE.

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Gene L

In other words, the accused asks for and pays for the test, which is recognized as forensic evidence in court.

Do you have a link to prove this? I find it hard to believe that such a test would be allowed as evidence in court since it is on the same level as polygraphs and polygraphs are not allowed as evidence in court.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

What exactly is it accurate at? There's nothing illegal about being aroused by children. It is illegal to do various things involving children, but not to think about doing so.

I have seen it claimed that there's no such thing as a person who is sexually attracted to children and does not commit crimes related to that attraction. They supposedly just can't possibly exist. I asked what made this kind of sexual arousal impossible to "resist" or "ignore" or whatever, when we all know that there are people who are attracted to adults and choose not to act on it for one reason or another (religion, hiding homosexuality, annoyance at opposite sex's behavior, avoiding complications to focus on something else they're devoting time and energy to...). There was no particular answer, just some anger and lashing out and claiming of offense at something.

Originally Posted by Gene L

The reason it's done at all is because pedophiles who are charged with child molestation get this test to try to prove they are not pedophiles and are not aroused by children. They fail the test, WHICH AGAIN IS INITIATED BY THE DEFENSE.

An accurate test would be something that only those who aren't attracted to children would have any reason to want to take, so a high failure rate among volunteers is a sign of the test's inaccuracy.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Lie detectors remain a staple of law enforcement, business, and government agencies in spite of the fact that there is no credible scientific evidence that they work one iota better than Sylvia Browne.

ETA: deleted most.

If a lie detector is simply part of the theatre of an interview, what need is there for skepticism?

[Bikewer]

The correct name for the "pecker checker" is a "penile plesmythrograph" (or something like that) It's used primarily as a diagnostic tool.

The use of the polygraph in law enforcement, despite it's inadmissibility in court, is as an investigative tool. Most people do not really know about the inherent fallibility of the machine, and the investigators do nothing to dispel this ignorance.
In fact, I have heard investigators asking suspects to take the (equally suspect) voice-stress analysis test refer to it as "infallible".

It puts pressure on the suspect. Refusal to take the test is an indicator of having some "guilty knowledge". Failure of the test gives the investigators more reason to probe more deeply.
As well, polygraph operators are often skillful "cold readers" who are well able to detect mannerisms, tics, and other signs of lying. Most good investigators/interrogators have this skill.

My big complaint with the polygraph is not so much it's use as an investigative tool but as a pre-employment interview device.

[calebprime]

1 little joke, 1 reaction.

Originally Posted by Gene L

Sure. Polygraphs are based on the body's unconscious reaction, BP, breathing, pulse.

The one that gets pedophiles is the pecker-checker, in which (again, this is voluntary) a sensor is hooked up to the penis. The tester shows pictures of kids at play, nothing sexual, and the pecker-checker records arousal. It's a lot more accurate, IMO, than a Polygraph.

Boy, if they gave me the pecker-checker, now that I'm 50, I'd be pretty much innocent of everything.

They could show me goats, couples, women, men, you-name-it.

Bring it on!

Originally Posted by Gene L

If you get erections when shown pictures of kids playing, my advice is not to take a pecker test. My further advice is to get counselling or some kind of help for your problem of getting sexually aroused by children playing. And my third advice is to stay away from children, far away. It's not an appropriate response.

Why the rather bizarre readiness to give such obvious "advice"?

Maybe this is irony.

It's probably worse than "not...appropriate"!

Such a person would almost certainly have a real problem, and, as far as I know, neither antidepressants nor lobotomy (both tried) are going to do much about it. And some counselling certainly ain't gonna cure it.

[Gene L]

Irony: you get the cigar. However, it was not I who admitted to arousal at inappropriate times.

The bigger irony is that almost every true pedophile (as opposed to child molesters, a forensic difference that's important in investigations) thinks he can blow thru any kind of test, since he feels "normal." Again, unlike child molesters, who know they are perverts. That's why they ask for the tests.

These tests are done here locally at a University psychology department, not at a law enforcement agency.

[Gene L]

Originally Posted by Edges

Do you have a link to prove this? I find it hard to believe that such a test would be allowed as evidence in court since it is on the same level as polygraphs and polygraphs are not allowed as evidence in court.

There may be a link, but it's generally under "rules of evidence." It couldn't be introduced by Prosecution, but if the defendant brings his character into evidence, it could be used in rebuttal to his assertions that he's a good character. It's kinda like past crimes, which can't be introduced as evidence, either, but can be used as a rebuttal.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen a few pedophile prosecutions. So I know the test can be used as rebuttal, but not the details. As for polygraphs, if a guy failed a polygraph and testified to the fact that he passed a polygraph, that is one instance where a polygraph could be admitted.

We don't use polygraphs for either hiring or any other evidence reason. (since they can't be used for evidence.) People who want to, take them but that doesn't mean their innocent or guilty. True evidence will establish that.

The other thing I would mention in relation to another post is the P.P test is administered by a Ph D in Psychology, using physical data that can be interpreted and compared with a "ordinary" person, or a number of ordinary persons.

A Polygraph can be administered by a guy with a high-school education who goes to school for 3 months or however long it takes. It's a difficult school, but it's not a Ph D. program.

And finally, to add to what Bikewer said, polygraph operators do the opposite of dispelling rumors of a polygraph's fallibility. This is because the more you believe (as the guy taking the polygraph) the more you believe it works, the more likely it is to work properly. This is a psychological aspect the operator tries to establish. It's also why they ask you the questions before administering the test so you'll give a reaction to the "true" answers like "I ate breakfast" and measure that response against the "lie" questions like "I killed John Doe."

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Gene L

Irony: you get the cigar. However, it was not I who admitted to arousal at inappropriate times.

Try to read for comprehension - it helps!

Quote:

The bigger irony is that almost every true pedophile (as opposed to child molesters, a forensic difference that's important in investigations) thinks he can blow thru any kind of test, since he feels "normal." Again, unlike child molesters, who know they are perverts. That's why they ask for the tests.

Got any evidence for these various claims?

Quote:

These tests are done here locally at a University psychology department, not at a law enforcement agency.

Ah. Right. So how did oyu conclude how reliable they would be in a law enforcement environment where people would have quite different motivations to cheat the tests?

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

ETA: deleted most.

If a lie detector is simply part of the theatre of an interview, what need is there for skepticism?

It's not. The private sector's forbidden by law from using polygraph screening on employees, but the ogvernment isn't bound by such rules. Many government positions require taking a polygraph test as part of security screening, and given that at best it's a highly inaccurate device only somewhat better than chance, that's a problem.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

It's not. The private sector's forbidden by law from using polygraph screening on employees, but the ogvernment isn't bound by such rules. Many government positions require taking a polygraph test as part of security screening, and given that at best it's a highly inaccurate device only somewhat better than chance, that's a problem.

But how is it used? Again, is it used as part of interview theatre, or does someone genuinely believe that they can use blindly use printouts or something? That is, like in a police interview, is the interviewer giving an expert opinion?

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I have seen it claimed that there's no such thing as a person who is sexually attracted to children and does not commit crimes related to that attraction. They supposedly just can't possibly exist.

I think we'd need to see evidence of such a thing.

I have a comment on this similar to what Cuddles said. This is about thought crime. You can't know what a person is thinking when they are shown a picture. Images have all sorts of different associations for everybody, and showing a person an image of a child may not mean that they are thinking of that child. They may, for example, think of their own child/ren, and that may lead to thoughts of their partner, and I can see that in those circumstances some men would become aroused. As was said above some would be aroused from the unusualness of the situation, and perhaps the placing of the equipment. I seriously doubt that you can definitively identify paedophiles based on reactions to images in a fake situation.

[JWideman]

To quote George Costanza, "It moved." When I was a teenager, I'd get a boner in math class. That doesn't mean I have a thing for fractions.
If you read the research, Gene, that "pecker checker" has about an 80% false positive rate. I think it's very likely that a portion of the people that volunteer to take the test think they can pass it because they are NOT pedophiles.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

But how is it used? Again, is it used as part of interview theatre, or does someone genuinely believe that they can use blindly use printouts or something? That is, like in a police interview, is the interviewer giving an expert opinion?

I don't see how that matters. The device is highly inaccurate, at best. Why even include its use?

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Thanks for all the responses. I was searching on the term lie detector when of course I should have been searching on the term polygraph.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I don't see how that matters. The device is highly inaccurate, at best. Why even include its use?

... because what if it's not the device itself which is giving the skilled interviewers the answers they are looking for?

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by Gene L

If you had carefully read the previous posts, you would know it's not an invasion of privacy at all and can't be compelled. In other words, the accused asks for and pays for the test, which is recognized as forensic evidence in court.

The reason it's done at all is because pedophiles who are charged with child molestation get this test to try to prove they are not pedophiles and are not aroused by children. They fail the test, WHICH AGAIN IS INITIATED BY THE DEFENSE.

Did you not check out the links I sent you? Here's another one:

http://skepdic.com/penilep.html

Quote:

We agree with the trial court that the evidence before it by no means established the reliability of the plethysmograph; there is a substantial difference of opinion within the scientific community regarding the plethysmograph's reliability to measure sexual deviancy....

In the present case, plethysmograph testing formed the basis for Dr. Gullick's opinion that defendant was not sexually aroused by children, thereby making it less likely that he committed the acts charged. In view of the lack of general acceptance of the plethysmograph's validity and utility and therefore, its reliability for forensic purposes in the scientific community in which it is employed, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant's plethysmograph testing data insufficiently reliable to provide a basis for the opinion testimony which defendant sought to elicit from Dr. Gullick. (State of North Carolina v. Robert Earl Spencer)

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

... because what if it's not the device itself which is giving the skilled interviewers the answers they are looking for?

I can't follow your logic. You're suggesting that the machine is irrelevant?

[Gene L]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Got any evidence for these various claims?

Got plenty of "evidence." It's boilerplate in the textbooks of sexual crimes investigation. Each of the two types (molesters and pedophiles) has his own M.O. Also got years of personal experience. The crime is still "Child Molestation" but each requires a different investigative technique, and each type has its own personality, usually. Pedophiles are usually much more educated, take lots of pictures, and think they're normal. They take jobs that put them around children, like youth group leaders. Molesters don't.

Biggest dif is that pedophiles almost always have caches of pictures, and they share them with other pedophiles (now that the internet is here.) Molesters don't.

As I said, the crime is the same, but the investigative techniques have to differ. Peds think their behavior, if not entirely normal, is within the range of normal enough so they can live with it or justify it.

Ah. Right. So how did oyu conclude how reliable they would be in a law enforcement environment where people would have quite different motivations to cheat the tests?

Not sure I understand, since they're not done in a law enforcement environment. Explain? I'm reading for content, but not getting the subtly of the question. I don't think you can cheat a P.P. test.

[Gene L]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Did you not check out the links I sent you? Here's another one:

http://skepdic.com/penilep.html

That's sounds like the evidence was like that of a hired shrink or other "expert witness." It was ruled inadmissable as evidence to be given, as I read the opinion. It also said "the evidence before [the court] failed to establish the reliability, not that there was no evidence in the whole wide world to establish the reliability.

The Court in lots of cases takes judicial notice of institutions based on their former reliability. In general, a Court would give more weight to a State Forensics Lab over a guy with a microscope and a chemistry set, since the Lab has much more experience. So the test in this case, apparently exculpatory, did not meet the standards of the court, for reasons not explained. It's like a private company giving a Polygraph to someone and it coming up "negative." Can't be used as either exculpatory or inculpatory, but for different reasons.

Same with any expert witness who has to first establish his knowledge of the subject, and second to establish the reliability of his testing methods. If you remember the O.J. trial, and who doesn't, the DNA evidence took weeks to establish in that case, the history of DNA, and why it was reliable beyond the total number of people on the planet, and was still ignored by the jury.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I can't follow your logic. You're suggesting that the machine is irrelevant?

No... it, or something like it, would have to be there. What I am saying is that it could be a beep-boop beep-boop box with blinking lights. I imagine it does need a feedback loop for the untrained liar to believe their lies are being caught by a machine, so why not physiological responses? It all seems so 'sciencey'.

The interview's the thing. The subject has tells...