Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Time does not stand still, which means that the means, techniques and methods that are used for “reading a person”do not stand still. Completely deceived by the polygraph – it is not possible, because it takes into account several factors: the magnitude of the skin reaction, pulse with a subsequent compensatory increase in heart rate, breath retention and slowing down of its rhythm, changes in the time of inspiration/exhalation, pauses on inspiration and pauses on exhalation, muscle tremor.�
But there are two categories of people who can “confuse” the polygraph, but it should be noted that not only the polygraph itself analyzes the answers, but also an employee who has all the necessary knowledge in the field of human psychology. And so: social psychopaths-they do not have an adequate perception of social norms and public morals, respectively, questions about the violation of these norms do not cause a physiological reaction of anxiety. Further, it is easy, pathological liars, because if a person sincerely believes in his lie, then for a polygraph it already looks like the truth. It is no coincidence that the instructions of polygraph examiners indicate that testing of mental patients during an exacerbation of manic psychosis or schizophrenia is impossible, since in this case the examinee himself cannot distinguish illusion from reality.
Cheating a polygraph is easy in theory, but almost impossible in practice. On the Internet, you can find a lot of tips on how to do this, from completely useless to having a certain meaning. The first ones will only help the polygraph examiner catch you in a lie. The latter could help deceive the polygraph, but to use them correctly, you need a level of self-control and knowledge of the test technology that I personally have never met in practice, although I am ready to admit that there are such people somewhere, and they are specialists of the highest class. When using such techniques by untrained people, the opposition will be too noticeable, and this is the same as openly confessing, only without the mitigating factor of voluntary confession, but on the contrary with an attempt to cheat that aggravates your guilt.�
As mentioned above, techniques and techniques do not stand still, the technological filling of the polygraph itself is being improved faster than ever, and the structure of the test already includes methods for detecting opposition from the subject, including slightly provocative ones. Therefore, if you are not a polygraph specialist, and at the same time you have not trained for many years to control your mind and body, it is better not to try to deceive the polygraph, this will slightly increase your chances of avoiding retribution.
All this is bullshit, the polygraph as a means of reliable lie detection is popularized by the cinema and all kinds of TV shows do NOT really WORK and are not a priori such.
In 2003, the US National Academy of Sciences published the Polygraph and Lie Detection report. The Academy of Sciences found that most polygraph tests were “unreliable, unscientific, and biased.” After conducting experiments, it was found that a polygraph test of a large number of people in relation to various events (for example, when applying for a job) gives a result no better than random guessing. At the same time, testing a small number of people in relation to a specific event that occurred (for example, a specific crime) allows you to recognize lies and truth “higher than random guessing”
The testimony of a “lie detector” is not a proof or refutation of a person's guilt and cannot be used in court or during an investigation.�
It is used only because people do not know how it works and therefore immediately tell the truth, and a psychologist who directs the process of “detection” to get information forces them to believe that it works.�
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vTg9jPq6tgA?wmode=opaque
In general, the answers of Grusha and Efimov are radically close to the truth. By the way, the first “respondent” also has a hint of the real state of affairs. The whole thing is that the “polygraph” as a technical tool is sharpened for a normal person in a normal state. Hence the conclusion – in the” inadequate ” state of the subject, the polygraph will put any “polygraphist”into a stupor. This problem is solved simply (if you don't believe me, ask specialists from different services). The subject deliberately puts himself in a state of so-called ” panic attack “(it takes half a minute, everyone can do it) – the polygraph can be thrown in the trash. Well, or with the same success attach the car battery terminals to you.
In general, such a topic: I passed a polygraph, and I cheated him. This research was part of a job interview at a fun office. Not to say that I really wanted to get into it, but rather, I was curious. Well, the task of deceiving a psychophysiological study was not so much a matter of life and death, but rather an expression of my dissatisfaction with such methods of selecting candidates (and the position was managerial).
Of all the cheating methods, I chose the simplest one: calibration shift. In fact, the polygraph has no idea whether you are lying or not, until it registers your reactions to questions that suggest a deliberate “yes” or” no ” in the variants when the researcher forces you to first tell the truth, and then deliberately lie (Your name is Sergey?- Yes, but you are Andrey).
I shifted the calibration by biting down hard on the lip lining at the right moment, and then repeating the trick at the right moment. On harmless questions, the device gave peaks of “alarm” on the graphs, the researcher was surprised. In conclusion, he wrote that “nothing really could be established – perhaps the subject deliberately hindered the study” 🙂
Watch Lie to me, the first season (in other seasons of no science). His consultant was internationally recognized scientist and expert in the field of lie recognition Paul Ekman. Better yet, read his books. In short, the polygraph has nothing to do with lying at all, it is only an emotion detector. If you loved or hated the victim, answer the question “did you kill him?” the polygraph will only notice your excitement. Only in the first case, the source of it will be grief, in the second-joy, and if you really killed – fear of exposure. The machine for detecting lies is a person, and the polygraph is just a thermometer in his hands. Therefore, Paul Ekman himself does not even need a polygraph, and a biased “specialist” will easily regard your truth as a lie. The only reason the polygraph is still used is because people simply believe that “it recognizes lies”, and this makes them very nervous if they lie. The real signs of lying (and they are visible to the specialist on the video), he does not fix.
You can use this technique: answer not the question you have asked, but the question you have mentally asked yourself. At the same time, the answer to your question must match the one you would like to voice to the given question. So to speak, mentally “mirror” the question.
Q: Did you kill your neighbor?
You need to answer “no”.
You ask yourself a substitute question: Were you in space?
You answer “no”. You answer sincerely, so it may confuse the polygraph.
Here you can bet that during the substitution of the question, the device will still record a deviation in behavior. It takes time to get your bearings and come up with a suitable question (or you can use a prepared list if you are regularly interrogated on a polygraph, or use just two yes / no questions).
But again, before the interrogation, calibration is carried out, a few harmless questions are asked in order to fix the state with a truthful answer. To have something to compare it with. You can practice on these questions. Then confusion when the question is substituted will become the original norm and will not be regarded as a deviation that is worth paying attention to during the interrogation.
I think that with enough training and a certain temperament, it is quite possible to cheat in this way.