How to spot a liar and ASD

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, polygraph tests have about an 80-90% accuracy. Even the biggest critics will say 70%.

You don't want to use it for every situation. But if it's your last chance at proving innocence, or additional evidence to back your claims, then it's not bad at all.

Unfortunately, prosecutors like to deny defendants of polygraph and DNA tests here in the US. Like what happened to a good friend of mine sitting in prison for a crime he did not commit. Most prosecutors are corrupt in this country, and care nothing about justice. Sad to say.

Actually-actually, there no evidence that the polygraph is really able to detect lies. The machine measures changes in blood pressure, pulse, and respiration rate. When a person lies it is assumed that these physiological changes occur in such a way that a trained expert can detect whether the person is lying.

There is no scientific formula or law which establishes a regular correlation between such physiological changes and lying, nor is there any scientific evidence that polygraph experts can detect lies using their machine at a significantly better rate than non-experts using other methods.

There are no machines and no experts that can detect with a high degree of accuracy when people, selected randomly, are lying and when they are telling the truth.

The reason the polygraph is not a lie detector is that what it measures - changes in heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration - can be caused by many things. Nervousness, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and fear can all be causal factors in altering one's heart rate, blood pressure, or respiration rate. Having to go to the bathroom can also be causative. There are also a number of medical conditions such as colds, headaches, constipation, or neurological and muscular problems which can cause the physiological changes measured by the polygraph.

Even if the device measures nervousness, one cannot be sure that the cause of the nervousness is fear of being caught in a lie. Some people may fear that the machine will indicate they are lying when they are telling the truth and that they will be falsely accused of lying. Furthermore, even the most ardent advocate of the polygraph must admit that liars can sometimes pass their tests. One need only remember the spy Aldrich Ames, who passed the polygraph test several times while with the CIA.

In California and many other states, the results of polygraph tests are inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. This is because polygraph tests are known to be unreliable.

It is also because what little benefit may be derived from using the polygraph is far outweighed by the potential for significant abuse by the police. The test can easily be used to invade a person's privacy or to issue a high-tech browbeating of suspects.

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court argued that Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings, does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of accused members of the military to present a defense (United States, Petitioner v. Edward G. Scheffer).

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly supported the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) which outlaws the use of the polygraph "for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual." The ACLU supported the EPPA not only because of the lack of evidence for the accuracy of the polygraph, but because of abuses related with its administration, including, but not limited to, the invasion of privacy.

Why would so many government and law enforcement agencies, and so many private sector employers, want to use the polygraph if the scientific community is not generally convinced of their validity? It's because the average polygraph machine looks like a very sophisticated, space-age device of modern technical wizardry, and subjects are at the mercy of the high-tech, specially-trained wizards who alone can deliver the prize: a decision as to who is lying and who is not. It is not coincidence that most polygraph operators are both physically and verbally intimidating.

Strong analogies can be drawn the relationships between a polygraph device and a deck of tarot cards, as well as the polygraph operator and a storefront "psychic". The device and the cards serve to distract the subject's attention from the leading questions, the paraphrasing of answers, and the subject's own revealing of issues that he or she would not otherwise reveal.

So if someone insists that a polygraph test will prove your innocence, it won't. Instead, it will "prove" whatever the operator wants - or is paid - to prove. If someone insists that you can get or keep a job only if you take a polygraph test, turn them down and look for a different job.

Besides, with the proliferation of personal data on the Internet, any employer or law-enforcement officer can pay to learn everything they want to know about you, and then some!

^^Unfortunately, in the case of my friend, police didn't need a polygraph to abuse their authority and frame an innocent man to look like a criminal.

We actually had all the evidence and well documented chronologies to prove his innocence. The prosecution provided absolutely no evidence at all. Instead, they fabricated stories and theories and played on the emotions of the jury. It was pretty disgusting. We had our friend take a polygraph test which he took twice with consistent results.

It was not intended to "make our break" the case. Rather the intent was to have additional supporting evidence.

For all the reasons you stated, I don't support polygraph for liberal or even normal use. But I think there is a time where it can be useful.

I think contradiction is a sign of lying. Now there is nothing wrong with changing your mind or not having a clear memory but I can tell the difference between that and if someone is actually contradicting themselves because they can't seem to keep their stories straight and they seem to be all over with their thinking. For example, one day they think I am learning disabled and then they say I am just slow, not learning disabled or they say I am ret*d and then they say I am normal. Make up your mind. Yes I think those people are liars. And people who totally change their story is also a indication of lying. There is nothing wrong with not remembering minor details like what was said or the sequence of the incident but I mean if you are going to say "my ex tried to get my daughter to say in court I raped her so she had to take a lie detector test and she failed" and then say "She didn't take it because she was a minor and they can't give minors those, I had to do it." That is a red flag there. That was my ex right there but he told me he never said that, I was the one who did. I believed him thinking I had a false memory and my memory was all bad because I can't remember things so my mind makes things up but no he was just gas lighting. Gosh no wonder he would get defensive when I would question him and remember the details in his stories and notice the minor change in them and why he would discard me eventually.

No wonder police do interrogation. No matter what answers you give them, they will keep asking you and asking you and you saying the same thing over and over makes them think you are lying. That is why we have the right to remain silent and we are warned anything we said could be and will be used against us. An honest officer might tell you they wouldn't talk if they were you and say you should get a lawyer.


But yeah people will think I am lying no matter what.

And I read psychopath can past a polygraph test with flying colors. They do have the ability to turn their feelings on and off and I think that is a great gift there but unfortunately they exploit that gift. People who do try and pass it, they know when someone has tried to pass it but not a psychopath. I don't think they need to know how to pass it. They can just do it IMO.

Once we have cheap, portable fMRIs, then we'll have a reliable lie detector. The pattern of brain activity is different between lies and truth.

But until then, the best way to tell a liar is to see if the evidence matches their account.

Only works if you have a baseline to work off of. And there will be a way to fool that. Not arguing....just my lack of faith in either the technology or how it's used (human error at best).

Cheap and portable fmris would also have excellent application in psychological diagnoses and counselling.

Here is why I have doubt about this being that reliable: Albert Einstein developed language late in life. Turns out the area of the brain that controlled language was (for lack of a better term) 'smaller' than normal. The areas of the brain that controlled math grew in size to compensate. There are also other things that have been found and disproved or found anew with better investigative techniques.

Basically, the fMRI can illuminate, but not always diagnose. That illumination of how a particular individual's brain works would really be an advantage in counseling.

An MRI can only indicate brain activity. It can not determine what that brain activity means, so it is no better at detecting lies than the average ouijagraph polygraph device.

"ouijagraph" LOL