textfiles/groups/OMNIPOTENT/beatlied.omn

1 line
11 KiB
Plaintext

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% %%
%% ========================== %%
%% How to Beat a Lie-Detector %%
%% ========================== %%
%% %%
%% By _The Reflex_ %%
%% An Official_Omnipotent,_Inc._Production %%
%% %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
This file would be useful to you if you were caught by the Gestapo, uh...I
mean Bell Security (B. S. for short).
The polygraph test was invented by William Moulton Marston, who was,
strangely enough, also the creator of the Wonder Woman comic strip (under the
name Charles Moulton). The standard polygraph records only three distinct
vital signs. A blood-pressure. Wires attached to the fingers measure changes
in electrical resistance of the skin due to sweating. Rubber straps around the
torso measure the breathing rate. This information is displayed as four
squiggles on a moving strip of graph paper.
Whether or not you believe a polygraph provides useful information (most
psychologists have their doubts), there is a good chance you'll be asked to
take a polygraph test. The vast majority of lie-detector tests are
administered for employee screening -- "Have you been using the WATS line for
personal calls?" and so forth -- not for police work. In 'A Tremor In the
Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector' (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981),
polygraph critic David Thoreson Lykken estimates that as many as one million
polygraph examinations are performed on Americans each year. In criminal cases
however, even the manifestly innocent may be asked to take a polygraph test.
All Yakima County, Washington, rape victims are required to take the test;
refusal means the case will not be prosecuted.
At best, all the polygraph can indicate is a heightened emotional reaction
to a question. It cannot specify what kind of an emotional reaction.
Polygraphers try to design question formats so guilt-induced nervousness will
be the only emotional invoked and so the subject's reaction to relevant
questions can be compared to other, "control" questions.
THE LIE CONTROL TEST
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the question format used in most police investigations. It
usually starts with a card trick devised by two pioneer polygraphers, John E.
Reid and F. E. Inbau.
The polygrapher hooks the subject to the polygraph and takes out a deck of
cards. The polygrapher tells the subject that he must "calibrate" the
polygraph with a simple test. He fans the deck and asks the subject to select
a card. The subject is told to look at the card but not to show it or mention
its name. The polygrapher tells the subject to answer "no" to every question
asked about the card. "Is it a black card?" the polygrapher asks. "Is it a
high card?" and so on. After each "no" the polygrapher scrutinizes the
tracings and fiddles with the dials. If the no answer is incorrect, the
polygrapher disagrees. The field is soon narrowed to one card -- and it is the
correct card.
Needless to say, the polygrapher uses a trick deck. The point is to
foster confidence in the machine. After identifying the card, the polygrapher
comments that the subject's reactions are particularly easy to read and segues
into the interrogation.
Three types of questions are used in a lie-control test. The entire list
is read to the subject well in advance of the test. The start of a typical
interrogation might run like this:
1. Is you name Sarah Elkins?
2. Is Paris the capital of France?
3. Have you ever failed to report more than $50 of tip, gambling or gift
income on a single year's tax return?
4. Is this apple red?
5. Do you have any idea why the cash receipts for the last quarter are about
$22,000 in error?
6. Is there something important that you did not mention on your job
application?
7. Have you ever been embezzling from the company?
The first question is always irrelevant to the matter being investigated.
It has to be because many subjects get nervous on the first question no matter
what. Other irrelevant questions are asked throughout the interrogation
(questions 2 and 4 in the sample list). If the subject gives any questions to
provide a yardstick for evaluating responses to the relevant questions.
Actually, the irrelevant questions are there to give the subject's vital signs
time to return to normal. They aren't the control questions.
Questions 5 and 7 in the list above are relevant questions -- the only
questions the examiner is really interested in. The relevant questions are
asked in several different wordings during the test.
Questions 3 and 6 are control questions. In the pretest discussion of the
questions, the polygrapher explains that it is helpful to throw in a few
"general honesty" questions. Whoever committed the serious crime, the spiel
goes, probably committed less serious crimes in the past. Hence the inclusion
of questions about tax cheating, lying on the job applications, stealing as a
child, etc.
The polygrapher affects the attitude that it would be damaging indeed to
admit any such indiscretions. Frequently this scares the subject into
admitting minor crimes. In that case, the polygrapher frowns and agrees to
rewrite the question. Should the subject concede failing to report eighty
dollars in gambling winnings, question 3 might be changes to "Have you ever
failed to report more than a hundred dollars of tip, gambling, or gift income
on a single years's tax return?" If necessary, several of the control
questions may be reworded before the test -- always so that the subject will
be able to give the "honest" response.
In reality, the whole point of each working question is to manufacture a
lie. It is the secret working premise of polygraphers that everyone commits
the minor transgressions that are the subject of the usual control questions.
All the subject's denials on the control questions are assumed to be lies. The
polygraph tracings during these "lies" establish a base line for interpreting
the reaction to the relevant questions.
The reason for rewriting some control questions is so a candid subject
will not admit to minor crimes on the test. That would be telling the truth,
and the polygrapher wants the subject to lie. The control questions are
intentionally broad. Even if a question is reworded to exclude the confessed
instance, it is assumed that any denial must be a lie.
The rationale for the lie-control test goes like this: The honest subject
will be worried about the control questions. He'll know that he has committed
small transgressions or suspect that he must have, even if he can't remember
them. So he'll be afraid that the machine will detect his deception on the
"general honesty" questions (especially in view of its success with the card
trick). That would be embarrassing at least, and it might throw suspicion on
him for the larger crime. In contrast, the relevant questions should be less
threatening to the honest subject. He knows he didn't commit the crimes they
refer to.
The guilty person, on the other hand, should have far more to fear from
the relevant questions. If the machine can detect lying on the relevant issue,
it matters little that it might also implicate him in petty matters.
By this hypothesis, an innocent person should have greater polygraphic
response to the control questions than to the relevant questions. The guilty
pattern is just the reverse: Greater response to the relevant questions.
This, at any rate, is what polygraphers look for when the machine is switched
on.
THE RELEVANT-CONTROL TEST
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The relevant-control test is the type used for most employee screenings.
Thus it is the most common type of examination. The interrogation consists
only of irrelevant and relevant questions. As with the lie-control test, the
first question and a few others are irrelevant. The relevant questions usually
test workplace honesty: "Have you ever taken home office supplies for personal
use?" "Have you ever clocked in for someone else?"
The premise is that no one will lie about everything. So if a few of the
relevant questions produce heightened responses, they are presumed to be the
questions on which the subject is lying. Unfortunately, there is no ambiguous
way of deciding how much response is indicates a lie. Most psychologists agree
that the relevant-control test is a poor test of deception.
The Reid/Inbau card trick is eliminated from employee screenings: There
is too great of a chance of coworkers comparing notes and discovering that
everyone picked the ace of spades.
HOW TO BEAT THE LIE-DETECTOR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To the extent that the polygraph works at all, it works because people
believe it does. Many criminals confess during polygraph examinations. Many
employees are more honest for fear of periodic screenings. But a dummy
polygraph that hummed and scribbled preprogrammed tracings would be no less in
these instances.
David Thoreson Lykken estimates that lie-control polygraph tests are about
70 percent accurate. (Remember, though, that choosing "heads" or "tails" of a
flipped coin can be accurate 50 percent of the time.) Accuracy of 70 percent
is not impressive, but it is high enough to talk meaningfully of beating a
polygraph test.
Just by having read this far, you stand a greater chance of beating a
polygraph test. You won't be wowed by the card demonstration. You realize
that the polygraph's powers are limited. There are two additional techniques
for beating the polygraph. The more obvious is to learn how to repress
physiologic responses to stressful questions. Some people are good at this
one; others are not. Most people can get better by practicing with a
polygraph. Of course, this training requires a polygraph, and polygraphs are
expensive.
The opposite approach is to pick out the control questions in the pretest
discussion and exaggerate reactions to these questions during the test. When
the control-question responses are greater than the relevant-question
responses, the polygrapher must acquit the subject.
Because breathing is one of the parameters measures, taking a deep breath
and holding it will record as an abnormal response. Flexing the arm muscles
under the cuff distorts the blood-pressure reading. But a suspicious
polygrapher may spot wither ruse.
A more subtle method is to hide a tack in one shoe. Stepping on the tack
during the control questions produces stress reactions with no outward signs of
fidgeting. Biting the tongue forcefully also works. Can you imagine the
polygrapher's response to the "Is this apple red?" question when you say "red"
and the machine starts going crazy? He'd shit his pants!
_______________________________________________________________________________