The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.

The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.

The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.

The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through.

Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers frequently claim they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't.

Educate yourself. Before playing Russian roulette with your reputation, learn how to protect yourself against this invalid test. Download AntiPolygraph.org's free book:

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge Clock On 28 January 2002, retired FBI polygraph expert Dr. Drew C. Richardson reiterated his challenge to the polygraph community to prove their claimed ability to detect countermeasures (techniques for passing -- or beating -- the polygraph). This clock figure shows the number of weeks Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone without takers. What are the polygraph operators afraid of? (Listen to a personal message from Dr. Richardson.)

338 weeks

Disgraced Attorney F. Lee Bailey to be Keynote Speaker at 2008 American Polygraph Association Seminar
The featured speaker at the APA's 2008 seminar in Indianapolis, Indiana was disbarred for "multiple counts of egregious misconduct, including offering false testimony, engaging in ex parte communications, violating a client's confidences, violating two federal court orders, and trust account violations, including commingling and misappropriation."

Government Accuses Florida Polygrapher Thomas W.K. Mote of Misconduct
CBS News 4 of Miami reports that according to a filing by the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuting Guillermo Zarabozo for murder in the "Joe Cool" case, polygrapher Tom Mote, a former Metro-Dade detective and member of the Florida Polygraph Association, attempted to conceal unfavorable polygraph results.

Are you kidding me? FBI rejection letter.
I wanted to post my experience here and get any feedback that was offered. I think sharing the story will help me personally as is hard for me to currently swallow.

Hand-held Lie Detector Deployed in Afghanistan (YouTube video)

Send a Suggestion to the Obama Campaign to End Polygraph Screening
The Obama campaign has a web form through which members of the public can present their ideas on issues of policy. Regardless of whom you support for president of the United States in this fall's election, you might want to send a suggestion to the Obama campaign to end polygraph screening.

The Art of Deception: Polygraph Lie Detection
"The accuracy of polygraphic lie detection is slightly above chance. Nevertheless, State and local police departments and law enforcement agencies across the United States are devoted proponents of this unscientific and specious device...."

Harmon Leon Infiltrates PAX TV's Lie Detector Show
In 2005, PAX TV (now ION Television) ran a single season show called Lie Detector hosted by Rolanda Watts and featuring celebrity polygraph operator "Dr." Ed Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association (whom AntiPolygraph.org has previously exposed as a phony Ph.D.).

U.S. Border Patrol to Begin Pre-Employment Polygraph Screening
In "Border Agents, Lured by the Other Side," New York Times reporters Randal C. Archibold and Andrew Becker write that in an effort to stem corruption, the U.S. Border Patrol plans, among other things, to begin polygraph screening of applicants.

Of Colanders and Lie Detectors (YouTube video)

My Horror Story
I want to start off my first post by saying I really wish I had researched polygraphs before I had been administered one. I knew they were inadmissible in most court situations, I knew they were regarded as bunk science, yet I didn't "refresh" my memory prior to my polygraph because I was worried it would make me more anxious and cause me to fail. Little did I know that I was being set up to fail from the start; and having read this site would have let me beat the odds that were stacked against me.

 

 

---