Polygraphs are farking voodoo. Why are we still using them?

Dread Pirate Slasher: Polygraphs are farking voodoo. Why are we still using them?

Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. Polygraphs only sorta kinda work, not really, in very controlled situations. Even then, I wouldn't bet my life on one. Or even $20. In any case, in an uncontrolled environment, like say, a stage under floodlights while engaged in a stressful activity like a debate?

Yeah, that'll work out great.

Polygraphs will reveal that Presidential candidates are highly nervous and that they bend the truth left and right.

You just know that Palin would have passed, since she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about.

There is a reason they are called "polygraphs" not "lie detectors"

/just sayin

I disagree. Polygraphs are only 95% accurate. Which means that we'll only know if they are lying 95% of the time, instead of 100% of the time.

There's a reason polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

FarKnight: I disagree. Polygraphs are only 95% accurate. Which means that we'll only know if they are lying 95% of the time, instead of 100% of the time.

Actually, polygraphs have a habit of reading false positives, so it would look like they were lying 110% of the time.

Actually, these will be 100% accurate; seeing as this is a political debate, they've completely disabled the machines'"TRUTH" sensors.

pete, meet repeat

How about we just get our Politicians stinking drunk and shot up with sodium pentothal before debates?

Jack Bauer to moderate

The congressperson would like to answer, but there isnt enough time

boop...beep..boop...beep

Sometimes you gotta go back to the basics.

Yawn.... repeat.

Link

Debate Moderator:
Triumph the Comic Insult Dog!

/Seriously, it's not a debate unless the moderator challenges the debaters!

I always thought is was spelled EVAR....

FarKnight: I disagree. Polygraphs are only 95% accurate. Which means that we'll only know if they are lying 95% of the time, instead of 100% of the time.

I'd be interested in a citation for the "accurate 95% of the time" and whether that number holds up while on a stage, giving a speech. I'm thinking it probably doesn't, and that this is a pointless idea.

A polygraph is only effective if the person being tested feels bad about lying or requires extra mental effort telling a lie.

How about having an augur on hand to read the truth in the entrails of a fish? Just about as precise, and it'd provide a seafood dinner afterwards.

Link (new window)

Never. Happen.

/go 'way. batin'.

I heard polygraphs were only about 70% accurate...?

I love the idea, but realistically it's just not feasible. After all, are you going to take a minute after each candidate's response to get the results of the lie detector from some random third person?

My understanding is that polygraphs don't work very well when people are giving long winded answers, which is exactly the situation in a debate.

Dread Pirate Slasher: Polygraphs are farking voodoo. Why are we still using them?

Because ideally they'll turn the subjects into zombies. Then we can control them and TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Mr Logo: My understanding is that polygraphs don't work very well when people are giving long winded answers, which is exactly the situation in a debate.

Larry Sinclair agrees with you.

I came for Nixon's Head under a truth-o-scope, and I leave dissappointed.

I really wish people would stop giving any credence to polygraphs. There is no scientific basis to believe it works and they give both false positives and false negatives. They are worthless mumbo-jumbo.

Hah, this is my district.

Mike Sodrel's a great big jerk. He keeps running, and he keeps losing.

However, presumably ANY of the candidates would make the poor polygraph machine explode.

Marcus Aurelius: You just know that Palin would have passed, since she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about.

This. I'd almost prefer she knew she was being untruthful and was simply lying. Instead she's a boderline fanatic.

Befuddled: I really wish people would stop giving any credence to polygraphs. There is no scientific basis to believe it works and they give both false positives and false negatives. They are worthless mumbo-jumbo.

Actually Larry Sinclair finally STFU after he failed. I think that proves that they have a use.

Or, you know, the press could fact-check, rather than just reporting what both sides say and declaring them to be equal.

Larry Mahnken: Or, you know, the press could fact-check, rather than just reporting what both sides say and declaring them to be equal.

What the fark is wrong with you? That is way too much work. Journalists are sleepy folk.

Galius_Persnickety: Debate Moderator:
Triumph the Comic Insult Dog!

/Seriously, it's not a debate unless the moderator challenges the debaters!

The moderator is not a debater.

hyperspacemonkey: Galius_Persnickety: Debate Moderator:
Triumph the Comic Insult Dog!

/Seriously, it's not a debate unless the moderator challenges the debaters!

The moderator is not a debater.

No, the moderator does call for clarification on less than truthful statements, though. And does call for followups. Followups are the enemy of the Republicans, especially that whore, Sarah Palin.

What'd be nice is a panel of experts who critique each answer for honesty following each response.

Candidate: And my opponent voted for higher taxes 53 times!
Moderator: Judges?
Judges: That's dishonest. The other candidate had to vote for those items as part of larger bills. The tax increases were for minimal stuff, tacked on as add-ons that most people ignored.
Candidate: I KEEL YOU JUDGES!

helix400: What'd be nice is a panel of experts who critique each answer for honesty following each response.

Candidate: And my opponent voted for higher taxes 53 times!
Moderator: Judges?
Judges: That's dishonest. The other candidate had to vote for those items as part of larger bills. The tax increases were for minimal stuff, tacked on as add-ons that most people ignored.
Candidate: I KEEL YOU JUDGES!

Well, that would actually be nice.

I prefer sheep entrails for my scrying needs.

This guy has never failed a polygraph test. Afterall, it's not a lie if you really think it's true.

Replace lie detector test with real-time fMRI and then we're talking...

Try again. I'm repeating myself, but what I think we need is to administer several psychological examinations to each candidate to determine what predilections for psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, megalomania, egotism, greed, etc... They should also have to get at least a 140 on an I.Q. test and display a rich and deep understanding of civics and history.

It's utterly striking and disheartening to me that we human beings have this one little blue ball for a home hanging in the midst of blackness that is for most intents and purposes infinite and yet we give control over it and ourselves to the individuals to whom we do. Sarah Palin? John McCain? George Bush? Really? REALLY?!! You F*CKING RETARDS! So many of you just need to be shot!

I mean we aren't even performing the most cursory or perfunctory of tests to determine competence! How can that be?! I am reminded of that SNL skit with Hilary and Palin where Hilary says "ANYone. ANYone! anyone." in response to Palin saying that (paraphrasing) "just goes to show that anyone can be president if he puts his mind to it."

etc... exist in the person

Palin saying that


FTFM

The typos have just got to stop. This is getting ridiculous.

Polygraphs are only useful as an interrogation technique to induce confessions. That is all.

Moderator: is this a repeat subby?

[polygraph] beeeeep BLOOOP bap bleeeep BLOOOP BLOOOOP

Moderator: why is this thing going off? you haven't even answered my question yet....

Subby: I was browsing foobies...

Moderator: ...

Larry Mahnken: Or, you know, the press could fact-check, rather than just reporting what both sides say and declaring them to be equal.

There is a problem with this idea. A lot of people would look at any 'Fact Checking' by Fox News, for example, as being dishonest in itself. And people who would consider Fox accurate would not trust CNN or the New York Times. How many times here on FARK or at your work have you heard some form of 'MainStream Media is biased' because it reports something that a lot of people don't want to hear or believe?

We spend a lot of time killing the messenger.

Are polygraphs reliable? Who cares. The debate is doing this, not to find out whether the candidates are lying but to give the perception that the candidates aren't lying. That's all that matters to the candidates.

Lie detector technology should be implememted in our judicial system. The technology is not there yet, but when it's at a 99% rate, it should. Can you honestly say the current system is 99% accurate? Think of how many people will be freed from wrongful convictions.

Link (new window)

Brilliant! Next we can build a bridge out of them.

/polygraph not science
//not even art

Tacoby Bellisbury: Lie detector technology should be implememted in our judicial system. The technology is not there yet, but when it's at a 99% rate, it should. Can you honestly say the current system is 99% accurate? Think of how many people will be freed from wrongful convictions.

Link (new window)

It's 50% at best, which means if you have a binary choice between Lie/NotLie you may as well flip a coin. I doubt you'll be swayed by any sort of scientific reason, but perhaps this link will dissuade others from your drivel:

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures.

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.

-- From THE POLYGRAPH AND LIE DETECTION. By Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, and Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

I thought you needed a yes or no answer, and that they could not work on psychopaths since they feel no guilt. Therefore this is invalid.