
Why Lie Detector Tests Can’t Be Trusted - pseudolus
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-lie-detector-tests-cant-be-trusted-180972724/
======
throwawy123
I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an
interesting process.

In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and related) in
detail with your polygraph examiner. They ask a lot of detailed questions,
sometimes including things you aren't legally required to disclose (drug use
and foreign travel outside the listed time limits).

In the second phase, they hook you up to the polygraph and ask two series of
very specific questions, one called "lifestyle" and one called "national
security." Lifestyle questions include questions about drug use, possible
crimes, etc., and national security questions include questions about foreign
contacts, involvement in terrorism, etc. They're very specific, like "Are you
withholding any information about your involvement with illegal drugs in the
past ten years?"

About half the time (based on my discussions with other prospective interns),
the examiner becomes convinced you're lying about one of these questions and
really drills into you. Most of the polygraph examiners are past FBI or CIA
interrogators, so they know how to make you very uncomfortable.

I was explicitly told that I failed my first polygraph (the examiner was
convinced I used more drugs than I let on), but some of the other interns were
drilled about crazier things, like contacts with foreign governments or
involvement with terrorist groups.

If you're particularly desirable to the managers who're looking to hire you,
they'll keep inviting you to take more polygraphs, and you'll eventually pass.

I ended up turning down the NSA internship for better opportunities after
realizing that NSA folks are not the most fun people in the world to hang out
with.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Forgive me for asking if you are uncomfortable saying, but were they correct
about your drug use?

I'm coming very close to being 100% eligible for my security clearness but
some of those questions would be tricky for me right now.

I've often wondered if I could round 8 years up to 10 to pass a polygraph.

~~~
throwawy123
Unless you used to have a serious meth or heroine problem I'd say you're fine.
;)

I was pretty honest about my drug use. The way they phrase the questions
sometimes leaves you with a bit of doubt, though. Like, "How many times did
you use this drug?" I'm not sure who keeps a really diligent record of how
many times they do drugs at parties.

But, yeah, I tried to be as accurate as possible, modulo that doubt about how
possible it is to accurately answer these questions.

~~~
bradknowles
At least when they interviewed me back in 1989, I was as honest with them as I
could be about what I could remember, and I was honest with them about how
much I couldn't remember.

I have no idea what the rules are now.

------
jpmattia
I have no idea why there is not an accurate calibration of polygraphs
published. Here's a straightforward calibration:

Have the subject write down a random number from 1 to 1024. Perhaps this
random number is assigned via a phone app. Have the subject put the paper in
his pocket.

An maximally accurate polygraph will require no more than 10 questions to
determine the number in the subject's pocket.

[However, I think we all know what the result would be, which is why nobody
publishes a simple calibration like the above: It is not in an trained
examiner's interest to expose the inaccuracy of polygraphs.]

~~~
nxpnsv
Trying to keep a random number secret likely is less stressful than an actual
lie. Even if lie detectors worked this wouldn’t be a great approach. My way is
better, scrap them for parts and buy beer for whatever is left over.

~~~
jpmattia
> _Trying to keep a random number secret likely is less stressful than an
> actual lie._

Which begs the issue: If a lie detector is accurate only for answers that are
stressful, then it sure looks like we need a detector to figure out if an
answer is stressful or not.

Or to put it differently, now you have two problems: Lie detection and
stressful-answer detection.

Nevertheless, I concede that your beer detection plan is superior.

~~~
johnfactorial
Indeed it occurred to me when I took my LDTs that the test's basic premise is:
our machine detects stress responses, and our questioner assumes repeated
stress coincident with the same answer equates to a lie. Stated outright like
that, everyone can see the assumption behind the test is obviously,
irredeemably flawed.

Therefore I too must concede that the beer plan is flawless.

------
glitchc
Lie detector tests rely on psychological intimidation. The testee invariably
gives up compromising information over the course of the test, allowing the
tester to apply leverage or outright coercion. If no useful information is
divulged, the test is marked a fail and requires a repeat.

~~~
taftster
Yes, exactly. Polygraphs are just a form of interrogation technique, disguised
as "science". If the science was debunked, then the credibility of the
machines would be questioned and the interrogation process would not yield as
positive (if you can call it that) results. So the whole mystique of
polygraphs must be guarded to keep up the facade of the lie detector's true
capabilities.

~~~
the-pigeon
I mean they have been debunked and anyone that Google's it knows it.

Doesn't mean they don't work as an intimidation tactic. Though most of the
agencies that use them are probably filtering out a lot of good employees by
putting them through a test designed to mess with them. Instead of focusing on
whether the person has the skills needed for the job.

~~~
taftster
It's got to be pretty intimidating. Getting locked up in a room with the
investigator, being told that you're not actually required to be there, but it
will seriously jeopardize your chances of employment if you decide to leave or
decline, etc. I'm sure it works well as an intimidation tactic, as you say.

People need jobs and are willing to put up with lots. Going through with a
polygraph is likely just one of a number of the things that people in these
industries have to put up with.

~~~
polygraphed
It is _extremely_ intimidating. My interviewer decided that he was going to
tear me apart and that he _knew_ I was lying about something (I wasn't). He
said he could only help me out if I admitted I was hiding something and told
him why. I stuck to my guns, told him that I wasn't hiding anything, that I
was sorry that it seemed like I was, and that I would be able to sleep soundly
knowing I had been honest on my test, even if it appeared otherwise. He didn't
like that a whole lot, but I told him I'd rather fail the process having told
the truth than pass it having lied on it. Ended up leaving that job shortly
after largely because I didn't want to do the polygraph. Fuck that noise.

------
xorcist
How is this not a joke?

I get the comments that it's an "enhanced interrogation technique", but it
sounds like it requires the subjects to be at least a bit intimidated by it.
If someone pointed a dowsing stick at you, you wouldn't be the slightest bit
intimidated by it, no matter how mean looking it was.

What kind of strange culture lets a prop straight out of a 50s sci-fi flick
instill respect in people? And how they do it? Surely it can't just be the
Hollywood movies?

Sorry for breaking out in a bit of a rant, but I seriously can't wrap my mind
around how these things could possibly be useful.

~~~
blackflame7000
It's not the machine itself that's intimidating, it's the consequence of being
caught lying and the accompanying loss of freedom or job opportunity.

~~~
xorcist
Sure, but nobody chose a wizard's hat or a dowsing rod, so there must be some
cultural significance to it completely beyond my understanding?

~~~
derivagral
Sadly (and incredibly) this is not always true:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651)

~~~
blackflame7000
"as much as US$60,000 each. The Iraqi government is said to have spent £52
million on the devices" \- Wow and no one thought hey let's test this baby out
before we buy a thousand of them?

~~~
daveFNbuck
They did test them. Dowsing rods work very well in unblinded tests. That's a
big part of why so many people believe in dowsing.

~~~
throwaway344534
I'm gonna have to call BS on that. Finding water accidentally is
astronomically more likely than finding a bomb.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Unblinded tests mean that the tester knows where the bomb is. Imagine you have
a bomb on a table. Someone brings a bomb detector over and when they point it
at the bomb, it indicates that a bomb is detected. Point it away, and it
stops. This is a very convincing demonstration if you don't suspect
shenanigans.

------
oufoufouf
The dumbest things about these polygraphs is that you're pretty much forced to
lie if you want to pass. Some of the questions were vague and if you are a
normal human being without a halo glowing on your head you would fail.
Questions like "Do you love your parents?", "Have you ever spread gossip?",
"Have you ever done anything immoral" (My interviewer specified watching
pornography as something immoral).

Thankfully my interviewer was much nice and seemed to give me multiple tries,
telling me that they might do another one later if I really failed.

Overall the interview process was OK. I guess the only invasive part was when
they interviewed my neighbors in person without telling me. (When the FBI
comes knocking on your door, you freak out)

I also turned down the internship because the pay was abysmal for IT. $15 an
hour.

~~~
pmarreck
> watching pornography as something immoral

Well, there goes everyone.

~~~
robbyking
"I disagree with the premise of the question."

~~~
NullPrefix
It's a yes or no question

~~~
bradknowles
And I still disagree with the premise of the question, and so therefore I
automatically fail.

------
taxidump
I passed a polygraph, I was untruthful and still passed. The person
administering the test had done tbis for the FBI for 15 years. I had no
special training.

~~~
rndgermandude
Ye, well, e.g. Ted Bundy passed a polygraph. And the Green River Killer did
too. But hey, another dude, innocent of course, did not pass the lie detector
when they were looking for the Green River Killer. Oops

~~~
jandrese
I've heard that they're not very useful with true sociopaths because they
require you to be uncomfortable with lying.

~~~
cblades
Even then, unless they are coupled with a comprehensive psychological
evaluation that could identify sociopathy, they could not be considered a
useful tool (generously assuming that they have any truth-discerning
usefulness to begin with).

------
pseudolus
Not quite a pseudoscience but not so accurate as to warrant allowing a
person's life to be upended as has been documented on many occasions [0].
Unsurprisingly, there's a history of the polygraph industry litigating against
third parties that question the reliability of polygraphs [1].

[0] [https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-
screening-b...](https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-
black-mirror/)

[1] [https://antipolygraph.org/](https://antipolygraph.org/)

~~~
yholio
The polygraph is entirely scientific in the way it actually works: eliciting
forced confessions under psychological coercion. However, for that coercion to
be effective, the targets and the public at large must be convinced of a
pseudoscientific idea that lies are detectable physiologically.

Hence the conflict between the promoters and the detractors, proving that it
works would make it no longer work.

~~~
goatlover
And how do we know whether a forced confession is true? False confessions do
happen under other circumstances. Obviously, if the subject reveals something
backed by evidence they wouldn't have known being innocent, that's one thing.
But if we're using their confession as the evidence, then it's the same
problem as any forced confession.

~~~
mikeash
There are two different answers depending on who you ask.

The more ignorant will answer: it’s obviously true because they confessed.
Nobody would confess to a crime they didn’t commit.

The more evil answer is: who cares? The public is reassured by a self-admitted
criminal going to prison and I get re-elected.

~~~
goatlover
Right, and both work until the conviction is overturned, the media makes a big
deal out of it, and the Justice System is called into question yet again. Or
it's not overturned, and someone makes a documentary followed by a dozen
podcasts and online petitions. Which again calls into question how just the
Justice System is, and how impartial a jury of your peers really is.

The Generation Why podcast will occasionally raise the point that if you try
the same case more than once, you often get different results. Which really
raises questions. Why didn't the judge allow certain information into the
trial the first time, but another judge did the second time? How was the
prosecution able to withhold information from the defense? Why on Earth did
the jury find the defendant guilty despite no evidence tying them to the
crime? Or in some cases, the opposite is true. How did the jury find the
defendant innocent with that much evidence against them?

------
dang
Some relevant previous threads:

2018
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683)

2018
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120270)

2015
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002889)

2015
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385)

2013
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878)

2013
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6307479](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6307479)

2009
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489)

------
riffic
> Bureaucratic usefulness, rather than any scientific validity, goes a long
> way toward explaining why the polygraph became a standard instrument of the
> American national security state.

In other words, it's pseudo-scientific bullshit.

~~~
aksss
meh. it's biometrics. How the data is incorporated into the subjective
interrogator's experience and knowledge framework is where the weakness is.
But don't blame the robot. IOW, the polygraph is just outputting data, the
rigor of applying the data suffers from underdeveloped understanding, but if I
were an interrogator I'd much rather have biometric data in my back pocket
than not.

------
Spearchucker
I've done a few and never failed one. Was told to clench my butt cheeks really
hard to get a pass. Another tip was to put a drawing pin into your shoe and
push down onto it with your foot as hard s you were able to tolerate. And if
you search online there are a few other techniques you can use to ace the
tests. Most interesting for me was being told I'd failed a test I was later
told I'd passed. It's sheer madness.

~~~
hestipod
They often ask you explicitly if you know or have researched methods to defeat
the polygraph. It's a lose/lose situation because most people have heard of
such things or DID research out of curiosity facing taking a test, but
admitting it makes you look bad. You generally don't get the chance to explain
yourself, and if you do it just makes you look more guilty. The entire process
is designed to give an excuse to arrive at the conclusions the entity
administering the test wants to arrive at.

~~~
bradknowles
So, I would have totally failed the test repeatedly, because I would keep
insisting on fully explaining the circumstances under which I had heard about
the methods but not actively researched them.

And I would tell them to check my shoe and see that there is no thumbtack
there. And check my cheek to prove that I'm not biting it in secret. And
otherwise expose all the other methods that I know of, and prove that I'm not
using any of them.

I'm sure that I would have frustrated the hell out of them, and they would
have made damn sure that I always failed the tests, every time.

------
nocsi
Polygraphs aren’t really used for lie detection. Think of it as a tool for an
enhanced interview. It allows for the interviewer to have many more dimensions
of straws to grasp at in assessing you. “Lies” are assessed as anomalous
readings measured against control questions. This is something polygraphers
are open about and inform you of the control stage during the start.
Afterwards, it’s all really an internal battle. There’s even various stages
cues wherein they might leave you in the room alone to fester in your
thoughts. So really it’s not whether youre a liar or not, but more of having a
consistent nature

~~~
rubicon33
Knowing this, it seems like it would be very easy to throw them off your lying
scent.

I've had a few experiences in my past that, when brought to memory, cause
fairly large adrenaline spikes. Certainly, the memories increase my heart rate
by just thinking intently about them.

In theory... couldn't you bring these thoughts to memory - at random? When
asked about what you had for breakfast, for example. It would appear as an
anomaly... But if you did that often enough, the interviewer couldn't trust
the anomalies.

~~~
nocsi
Sure if what you lied about is a big deal. The polygraph room is purposefully
sound-dampened. I remember being able to abnormally hear more of my body
(heartbeat, saliva, etc) in the room. What I'm getting at is that during a
polygraph, it's very doubtful you're going to be daydreaming while undergoing
a 4-5hr long interview lol. If you want to know how to 'cheat' the polygraph -
I'll tell you.

There's no magic to it, you just have to really not give a shit about anything
really. In the context of the US government, they want workers that are first
and foremost, resilient to manipulation. Historically, the biggest traitors in
the country have been money-driven, hence the emphasis on identifying huge
debt areas. Such debt can be leveraged against people easily. The other thing
to consider is, do you think they want someone that's _too_ honest? What about
in the scenario that you're being interrogated by a foreign agency, you're
telling the truth but you're sweating balls. A polygrapher can latch onto
these signs and use them against you. And someone that's emotionless and
doesn't really give a shit about anything good or bad? Pass the polygraph with
flying colors, have fun swaying someone that can't be bought off nor exempts
guilt.

------
boomboomsubban
I'm fairly sure that you are required to take a lie detector to join the FBI,
which makes me worry about the validity of all federal forensics. And now
we're resuming executions...

~~~
rndgermandude
If you're concerned about this, you really shouldn't read up on the actual
"forensics" the FBI did in the past, like "hair analysis", because it will
ruin your day:

[https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-
testimo...](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on-
microscopic-hair-analysis-contained-errors-in-at-least-90-percent-of-cases-in-
ongoing-review)

Or "bite mark analysis" (don't google that, it will ruin your day as well).

~~~
RankingMember
Is there a proper response to this other than just banging your head against a
desktop until you're blissfully unconscious? I can't think of any other
response that would properly articulate my response to skimming that article.

~~~
rndgermandude
You can ask the Phantom of Heilbronn once you find her:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn)

I am sure, she has valuable input, seeing she is a criminal mastermind who
avoided capture for a cool 15+ years.

------
tomohawk
They could probably double the accuracy by also adding in phrenology.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)

Aldrich Ames didn't appear to have any trouble passing his, but I can't help
but think if they added some phrenology in, they maybe could have caught him.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/opinion/lie-detectors-
lie...](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/opinion/lie-detectors-lie-tell-the-
cia.html)

------
gmoore
There is a lot of great info on the subject at
[https://antipolygraph.org/](https://antipolygraph.org/)

~~~
pseudolus
The site offers a >200 page free PDF that details the failings of polygraph
testing and lists extensive countermeasures [0].

[0] [https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-
detector.pdf](https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf)

------
JackFr
I passed my NSA polygraph, though it was uncomfortable. However my psych
interviewer was able to get disqualifying info out of me using just technique.

It was only years later while reading a book about the Shin Bet (Israeli
military intelligence), I recognized the way I was manipulated.

No hard feelings, after all I was telling the truth, and I probably would have
hated the job anyway.

~~~
throwawy123
What sort of disqualifying info, if you don't mind my asking?

There were a lot of interesting questions in the psych interview, from porn
use to romantic relationships and digital pirating...

And, just spitballing, I wonder if it's a crime to lie in the psych interview.
I know it is during the polygraph, since the examiners are federal
investigators.

~~~
JackFr
Let's just say at the time I was a bit of a heavy drinker.

And the technique basically was to spend about 15 minutes having possibly the
most uncomfortable conversation I've ever had about sexual relationships,
pornography, sexual fantasies, etc. -- none of which they actually cared
about. The intent was to make me as absolutely uncomfortable as possible. Then
he moved on to a few quick questions about drug and alcohol use, which was
such a relief, that before I realized what I was doing, I had answered fully
and truthfully.

------
naiaokami
I was polygraphed back in 2015. They polygraphed me three times, and then said
that I failed the question regarding unauthorized foreign contacts. It was a
very bizarre experience. They would often repeat stuff like "Don't try to make
anything happen or stop anything from happening. Got it!?" during the
questioning. I remember having to sit perfectly still, with a pad under my
bottom as well as under my feet.

Amusingly, before polygraphing me I was asked if I had "read anything online"
about the process, to which I shrugged and said "Hasn't everybody?" The entire
process is ridiculous.

------
mgamache
I think part of the issue is that errors are not evenly distributed. There are
many more false positives (detecting a lie when the subject is truthful) then
false negatives. Most people assume errors are random, in this case they are
not. Of course, this is combined with the other unreliability of the
measurements make it close to a waste of time.

[[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-
beast/2013...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-
beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work)]

------
JTbane
George Costanza: It's not a lie if you believe it.

------
hanoz
Surely everyone knows first hand how much variation there is in the inner
experience of telling a lie to realise that these tests are a sham.

------
TrinaryWorksToo
If we want to detect recognition of something they deny, we can go directly to
the brain: [https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/detecting-
dece...](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/detecting-deception)

Michael from VSauce already tried to countermeasure this method and failed.

[https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-
psychology/poli...](https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-
psychology/police-psychology/detection-of-deception-event-related-potential/)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002770...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027709001310)

------
fulldecent2
Also just want to say this plainly. If you ever will take a polygraph in the
future, you should read about it online even if you "have nothing to hide."

------
leakybit
The usefulness of the polygraph is not to detect lies, but is to be used as a
enhanced interrogation tool.

------
kristofferR
What drugs can you take to be able to cheat your way though a polygraph? Since
polygraphs are based on producing anxiety I guess anxiolytics would work.

Would something like Phenibut suffice I wonder?

------
crimsonalucard
Many people can believe their own lies which I guess will likely complicate
any physiological pattern they try to correlate with a lie.

------
tantalor
Oh I get it, the title is a pun: the truth-telling machine itself is a lie.

------
humantiy
I've always looked at the polygraph as not really a lie detector but more so
as the person taking it believe their own statements or doesn't get nervous.

------
thatgerhard
I see a lawsuit coming..

------
cracauer
They write an article on polygraphs and do not mention Aldrich Ames?

WTF, NYT?

------
yakshaving_jgt
tl;dr (and I don't think it's even mentioned in the article)

You can cheat a polygraph by flexing your anal sphincter.

More:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsoI92BfmqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsoI92BfmqY)

~~~
taftster
Some polygraph setups will include a "butt pad" that you sit on that can
detect your flinching.

I think it's interesting because it somewhat supports the claim. If clinching
didn't work or help in some way, why bother including a motion detector under
your backside.

~~~
TomMckenny
Those who believe clinching works also believe polygraphs work (except when
clinching)

Remove the clinching illusion and you restore the polygraph illusion to that
group.

~~~
taftster
Right. I don't honestly understand any justification for the "defenses"
described (at various websites). If the polygraph just doesn't work, why
attempt any "countermeasures". The whole thing is kind of funny.

I think you're exactly right. The fact that the "butt pad" is there means that
you have to believe that clinching would have any effect one way or the other.
So the butt pad is really just part of the overage mirage.

~~~
saalweachter
Or imagine someone comes into take a polygraph and you search their shoes and
find a tack. You can be _pretty sure_ they came in expecting to tell some
lies, and had a plan for "beating the machine".

------
VikingCoder
I hold out hope for (f)MRI.

~~~
PascLeRasc
There's some research into guilt measurement with fMRI [1] but it's _very_
hard to test. When my lab tests fMRI thought identification, we need
participants to write down exactly what they plan to think about for certain
concepts (death, family, etc) and we need them to think about one particular
strong memory multiple times. We know, or at least we believe we know, and the
participant knows that we know, what they're thinking about. Anything else
makes it hard/impossible to classify and won't be accepted in the literature.

Asking someone to pretend to lie in a lab environment, like say responding to
"What's your name?" with the wrong answer on purpose, won't elicit the kind of
arousal response we want to record like "Did you steal this car?". There's
just not a good way to standardize and measure this kind of response without
deceiving the participant - you might do some kind of social research on them
and ask them questions they aren't prepared for, but understandably no IRB
would allow that.

[1]
[https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/13/8/830/328813](https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/13/8/830/328813)

------
khawkins
There's a lot of hyperbolic claims being made in the article and these
comments which seem unsupported by science. The answer to the question, "can
polygraphs be utilized to draw out truth?", is a resounding yes:

>Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and
the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in
populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research
literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests
can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though
well below perfection.

[https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/2#4](https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/2#4)

Although it is not a silver bullet, it certainly has its applications,
especially if the person being interviewed believes it works. Thus, the
polygraph test makes sense in questioning sex offenders, for example:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/135532508X29...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/135532508X295165)

~~~
bityard
> Although it is not a silver bullet, it certainly has its applications,
> especially if the person being interviewed believes it works.

The whole premise of a lie-detector test is that they are marketed to end user
and the public at large as being both accurate and "scientific." That they
yield results better than chance isn't particularly relevant: they are not
what the sellers and users of them claim they are. The conclusions drawn from
the readings of the machines are only loosely based on anything scientific and
depend heavily on the interviewer's own personal biases. Yet they determine
the fate of people's lives all the time.

~~~
khawkins
Most science isn't accurate, that's why it's filled with p-values. They're
often only reporting the mere hint of an effect which allows them to
distinguish between a control and experimental population.

Polygraphs are almost certainly not reliable enough to convict someone on, but
it's not admissible in court. That doesn't mean it can't be used to help
coerce a confession or help lead an investigation. And the fact that you won't
face up to the extraordinary amount of evidence showing that it can be useful
suggests stubborn ignorance on your behalf.

