We know you did it, you restless leg syndrome sonovabitch.
Just more garbage
out of Cambridge University. Small wonder no one outside of the UK bothers with them anymore.
Yeah, so any hypearctive kid is also a pathologica liar
Err... Knowing how much some teens and pre-teens (and adults for that matter) fidget during even the smallest mental exertion... I have some doubts here...
This also means that the next gen polyugraph can now by bypassed using copious amounts of ritaline... Interesting...
As accurate as conventional polygraphs.
That's not exactly hard to do. Polygraph tests are so unreliable as to be near-useless. There's a reason they aren't admissible in court.
Re: As accurate as conventional polygraphs.
A targeted 82% success rate even after proposed improvements is barely good enough for "balance of probability" for civil cases, let alone the "beyond reasonable doubt" proof threshold required for criminal cases
Re: As accurate as conventional polygraphs.
Cant get to the link at the mo but search for
Penn and Teller Bull shit: lie detectors.
Its on youtube.
Watch how A: the results are easily mis-interperated and B: how easy it is to fool one.
PS, season 7 episodes 4 and / or 5 i believe..
it might be quite hard to fidget deliberately at exactly the same level as you do when you’re not feeling guilty," Anderson writes.
People often believe what they themselves say and don't feel guilty. They don't think they're lying. For example:
Computer scientists at Cambridge University are confident that results can be improved
So, are these guys fidgeting at exactly the same level as they normally do?
Re: Define lying
Put one on the inventors and ask them how accurate their published results really are
Polygraphs are good enough for Jeremy Kyle!
I'll get my coat, I'm leaving.......
Yeah, about right for that Pond scum and his ilk.
By the shows own admission, the test was "upto" 90%, which was then redacted to "exhibits a high degree of accuracy". Either way, some poor saps have had the wrath of the womanising, gambling self righteouss cock-womble that is Kyle spout his vitroil at them because they "lied" when all along they were telling the truth.
There is no wonder that show is shown when most of us of working age/condition are doing that.
Put it on when the dole office opens and watch the viewing figure plummet.
The man is a cunt of royal order....
"it might be quite hard to fidget deliberately"
So just fidget all the time and you're home free, right ?
We found that total body motion was a reliable indicator of guilt, and works about 75 per cent of the time.
I have a car that works about 75% of the time, and I'm always telling everyone how reliable it is.
Well, to be fair, a lot of software can only dream of 75% reliability. Glass houses and all that.
All in the numbers
It must be reasonable to assume guilt with a 75% reliability; if you can get a shit government or president with only 51%.
It just goes to show what a waste of time statistics are without applying common sense as well.
to be hoped he's available as an expert witness for the 20-30% of people wrongly accused.
on a known psychopath ?
"A guilty man can always just freeze, but that will rather give the game away"
And an innocent person would never freeze up under questioning, so they *must* be guilty...
Fidget training seminars coming soon
We suspect it might be quite hard to fidget deliberately at exactly the same level as you do when you’re not feeling guilty.
I suspect it might be quite easy to learn to fidget deliberately at a constant level regardless of whether or not you're feeling guilty.
For those unable to exercise such a demanding level of self-control, perhaps a packet of live crab lice dumped down the Y-fronts would do the trick.
Re: Fidget training seminars coming soon
No seminar needed - just use a 70's-style biofeedback approach. Get yourself a mo-cap rig and a copy of the software, and practice until you've developed the appropriate habits.
Laboearory conditions don't equate to real life situations
I've been asked to take lie detector tests as part of job application processing as well as a couple of investigations. As a Canadian I can refuse.
I agreed to one but the examiner said 'The subject was unable to comply with conditions' (I took medication before the test). If a prospective subject doesn't co-operate with a test conditions, they will never work properly and therefore any 'results' will be inaccurate.
I still got the contract, I was the best candidate for the work involved.
Same with retina scans - they don't work unless you adhere to their demands when they acquire your scans. I don't have any scans, either.
The equipment isn't much better - look at the Apple fingerprint device - or the expose involving the German Defence Minister.
Re: Laboearory conditions don't equate to real life situations
Makes me wonder what medication (over the counter or prescription) would make lie detector tests invalid
I take 5 different types of medication daily (prescription), wonder if they would be in that list