The FBI teaches you lie detection, people reading and intelligence skills

Chapter 26 Lie Detector Baby: Lie Detector (2)
Psychologist David Ruskin, a leading proponent of the frame-of-reference questioning technique, believes that lie detectors can interrogate a person by asking them something like: Since this case involves theft, I must ask you a few general questions. Questions, they are questions about stealing and whether you are honest.Someone stole it.People's money is not recognized, and I ask you questions like this to find out if you are such a person, and to know what kind of person you are as far as stealing is concerned.So, when I ask you, "From the time you were born until now, have you ever taken something that doesn't belong to you, how would you answer"?In Ruskin's view, the purpose of designing such questions is to achieve such an effect: if the subject is innocent, he will pay more attention to referential questions, because what he cares about is whether he can answer them honestly. , as for the key issues, he will not care; if the subject is guilty, he will be just the opposite, because for him the key issues are the threats.If the polygraph chart shows that the subject's autonomic nervous system is more active when answering the "key" questions, it can be concluded that the subject is guilty.

Another questioning technique when investigating crimes is known as the "Only the Criminal" question.The point of this questioning technique is that instead of asking whether the person under test has committed a crime, the polygrapher asks questions about the crime that only the criminal knows.For example, a person is a suspect in a murder, he has a motive for the murder, and witnesses saw him at the scene of the murder.At this point, the polygrapher should use the "only criminals know" questioning technique.A polygrapher is supposed to ask the suspect a series of questions, and each question has several possible answers, but only one answer is actually the case.For example, a polygraph tester could ask a suspect, "Did the victim fall face up or down? Was he lying on his side or his back?" and ask the suspect to answer "no" or "don't know" to each option. ".The innocent did not know what was really going on, only the real criminal knew that the victim was lying face up.As a result, the suspect's autonomic nervous system activity changed when asked about the real situation.As another example, in a polygraph process investigating a $5000 theft case, the polygrapher designed a series of questions like this:

“你偷了多少钱？是500美元？1000美元？5000美元？10000美元？30000美元？50000美元？”

Innocent but frightened suspects may display a stronger fear response to "$50000," while real burglars have a stronger emotional response to "$5000."

A polygrapher does not only rely on the record chart of the polygraph to judge whether the subject is lying. In the polygraph test for investigating crimes, the polygrapher not only knows in advance what the investigation finds, but also designs the test accordingly. Questions to ask, and a lot of information can be gained from the subject's facial expressions, voice, and gestures when talking before, during, and after the test.When a polygrapher assesses whether a subject is lying, he must not only rely on the record chart of the polygraph, but also consider various signs of lying in the behavior of the subject.

§§§ Section [-] Will the lie detector lie?

A polygraph is a tool to detect whether a person is lying, but can the polygraph itself lie?This question has been debated since the invention of the polygraph.

One side believes that the polygraph record is the physiological reaction to the emotional changes of the subject when answering the relevant questions. As long as the polygraph conditions are complete and the experts are experienced, the polygraph results are trustworthy.Mike O'Kelly, an American expert who has studied polygraphs for 15 years, claims that his polygraph results are 96% accurate.The American Polygraph Association puts it even more mysteriously, and the accuracy rate of qualified polygraphs can reach [-]%.An FBI document also states that in addition to uncovering criminal conduct, polygraphs can "remove suspicion, verify eyewitness testimony, corroborate intelligence provided, and establish the accuracy of plaintiff's claims."

The other side argues that polygraphs only record subjective responses and that in some cases it can get it wrong.For example, when an innocent person behaves like a criminal, he is very nervous when he confesses because of fear, which is likely to be mistaken for lying.In other words, if there is no reason to lie, but there is a lying reaction, it may be caused by other reasons.Lie detectors appear to be objective, but under the surface of objectivity they often make unforgivable mistakes.There have been research reports that the accuracy rate of polygraphs is very low, only 35%.Even under the conditions that best meet the requirements of the laboratory, the accuracy rate is only between 64% and 71%.

In the final analysis, the polygraph is just a tool, and the polygraph results can only be said to be a reference. No matter how accurate the polygraph is, it cannot be foolproof.

§§§The embarrassment encountered by the lie detector in the fifth section

Since the advent of the polygraph, there has been a heated debate about its function and limitations, and it has been directly transformed into an opposition in favor of and against the use of the polygraph, making the use of the polygraph an awkward situation.

Taking the situation in the United States as an example, those who are in favor of using polygraphs mainly include judicial agencies, public security agencies, intelligence agencies, companies that hate corruption and theft, and some researchers who study related topics.In the United States, the area where polygraphs are often used is in the field of criminal investigation.The U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, and most police departments use polygraphs to varying degrees in criminal investigations.Not only are suspects subjected to polygraph testing, but witnesses or victims are also subjected to polygraph testing when their statements are questioned.

Of course, there is disagreement over whether to allow polygraph results to be used as evidence in court.Most states do not allow polygraph results to appear in court, but courts in some states allow polygraph results to be used as evidence.For example, the New York State Supreme Court has published an article arguing that evidence provided by polygraphs should be allowed in court.The article reads: "If the evidence provided by the polygraph is of significant critical value, is relevant to the events involved, does not pose a threat to the rights of the accused or prejudice the interests of the jury, and does not mislead the judicial decision, then , these evidences should be recognized like other evidences.” The article also pointed out that fingerprints, bullet marks and other scientific evidences are recognized according to the same standard.In response to possible objections, the article states that "the probability of evading a polygraph test is no greater than the probability of outwitting a jury." Moreover, the article refers to a specific case before a court in which In this case, the prosecution against the defendant was based on the testimony of the only eyewitness, the victim.In this regard, the court pointed out that the witness's testimony was "absolutely unreliable", and it was not as reliable as the conclusions provided by the polygraph, because if the test is carried out smoothly and the evaluation is reasonable, the accuracy of the polygraph The rate can reach 90%.However, when polygraph results are used as evidence in court, prior consent must be obtained from both the plaintiff and the defendant.In general, the defendant's attorney can agree with the prosecutor that if the defendant passes the polygraph test, the charges will be dropped.Of course, he would not agree if the evidence the prosecutor already had was extremely strong.

The U.S. government has long advocated and endorsed the use of polygraphs on government employees to determine their loyalty and reliability.According to statistics, in 1982 alone, various agencies of the U.S. government conducted 22597 polygraph tests, which is three times that of 10 years ago. In 3, President Reagan issued an order requiring the federal government to use polygraphs more widely in investigations to protect national security and prevent employees from leaking classified information to the press.

It pointed out that "when investigating leaks, all administrative departments have the right to require their employees to accept polygraphs, and those who refuse to accept them will be subject to administrative sanctions and no longer deal with confidential documents."The order was postponed indefinitely due to opposition from Congress.Otherwise, the statistics on the use of polygraphs by the U.S. government are bound to increase significantly.

Those who oppose the use of polygraphs are mainly advocates of civil liberties, including jurists, lawyers, and some experts who have studied polygraphs.

Let's look first at the evidence presented by the Congressional Center for Technology Assessment in October 1983.Responding to a Reagan administration proposal to test federal employees with polygraphs, the center's director, John Gibbons, pointed out that the machines themselves cannot detect deception.Since polygraphs measure a person's emotional response to questions, they are "not so much used to detect lies as they are to detect cowardice."Gibbons noted that studies have shown polygraphs to be between 10 percent and 64 percent accurate, but that accuracy depends on the percentage of those screened who are guilty.If this percentage is small, the polygraph has the potential to incorrectly identify many people as liars, even though it has correctly identified most liars.Gibbons also pointed out that the effectiveness of polygraphs in solving crimes can only be shown after investigators have collected a large amount of data and narrowed down the suspects.

Let's look at other examples.

Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's national security adviser, had a taste of a polygraph test.At one point, the New York Times ran an article on national security matters.The Reagan administration tried to find out who in the White House had leaked this information to The New York Times.During the ensuing investigation, many White House aides were tested by lie detectors.McFarlane failed both tests, and both polygraph tests pointed to him as the leaker.For this reason, McFarlane was in danger of being fired, and he was uneasy.But he knew he was innocent, but couldn't prove it.In the end, McFarlane had to beg the head of the New York Times to make it clear to President Reagan that he was getting information from time to time.After learning that the information had indeed been provided by someone else, the head of the New York Times told President Reagan that McFarlane was innocent.

Through many research results, some people pointed out that the lie detector is the chief culprit of slandering good people. The more teachers are, the easier it is for them to be wronged by the lie detector; criminals who are psychologically trained can easily fool the lie detector.Polygraphs are good for finding out if someone is afraid, not for telling truth.

All in all, the pros and cons of polygraphs have been around since the day they were invented, making it an awkward situation, and perhaps it will continue to be so.

§§§Section [-] Frequently Asked Questions in Polygraph Tests

Psychologists believe that the accuracy of the results of the polygraph cannot be determined by the polygraph itself.The formation of polygraph results is closely related to three factors, namely the content of the lie, the person being tested and the polygraph examiner.As far as the polygraph itself is concerned, the accuracy of its polygraph results is also affected by three factors, which are the skills of designing questions, questioning skills and judging skills of polygraph results.

First, let's talk about lie detectors.As a polygraph examiner, it should be clear that the strong emotional reaction detected by the polygraph is only a trace of lying, not the lying itself.Therefore, there must be two possibilities for the result of the polygraph test - the person who reacted strongly did not necessarily tell the truth, and the person who responded flatly did not necessarily tell the truth.For this reason, some psychologists pointed out that determining whether the polygraph result is accurate or not must be based on "basic facts".The so-called "basic facts" are non-lie detector methods of knowing whether someone is telling the truth or committing a crime.If this basic fact is not known or the liar cannot be fully identified, it is extremely difficult to determine whether the polygraph result is accurate or not.

Next, let’s talk about the testee.The reason why many innocent testees fail to pass the polygraph test cannot simply be attributed to "wrongedness", but there is an objective basis-the testees respond flatly to referential questions during the polygraph test, but do not respond to The key issues have strong responses.The root cause is that the subjects' strong reactions to the key questions may have completely different interpretations.It could be the fear of being found out, the fear that a polygrapher won't believe you when you tell the truth, or even a mood swing because the stakes are high.For example, for an innocent person under test, the fact that he is forced to accept a lie detector test is enough to make him conclude that the other party has made a mistake, because the person under test is originally innocent but has been included in the ranks of suspects, so Although the person under test may accept this polygraph test as an opportunity to prove his innocence, he is also worried that he will make more mistakes or make bigger mistakes.There are also some innocent people who are tested by the polygraph because they are involved in major cases. Therefore, the people under test may have strong emotional reactions to all specific issues related to that case, but not to vague or abstract references. Sexual questions were less responsive, especially when the subject found that his fate depended on a machine.

As far as polygraphs are concerned, psychologists believe that accuracy and usefulness are two different criteria - even if a polygraph is not accurate, it can still be used to maximize its effectiveness.For example, to prevent lying - even if it does not always detect lies accurately, the use of a lie detector itself is enough to intimidate, intimidate some people, and some people admit things that they have never confessed before. .Even the mere threat of using a lie detector can deter some people from trying to tell a lie.

For many people who use a polygraph, being accurate and being useful are really two different goals.Users seem to place more value on the usefulness of lie detectors in areas other than investigating crime.For example, for an employer conducting a pre-employment inspection, the purpose of using a lie detector is really to weed out some people, and it doesn't matter whether they can accurately determine that they are dishonest.Although there may be mistakes, if not all unsuitable candidates are detected, or if many suitable candidates are missed, in the eyes of the employer, as long as the polygraph does find many unsuitable candidates, it is enough. Because without a polygraph, the cost would be even greater.In addition, some employers use the polygraph not to decide whether to hire the person, but to decide what job to let him do.For example, if a polygraph test reveals that a job applicant is an alcoholic, he may be offered a job as a porter rather than a driver.

(End of this chapter)