Lie Detector Test For Christians?

[thefriendlyghost]

I would LOVE to see a study done, with lie detector tests, just to see how many Christians actually BELIEVE what they say they believe. I'm sure some would pass, but seriously, if there was a long list of really good questions, what would the results be? The lie detector would probably burst into flames. Has anyone ever heard of anybody trying this? I think it would make a fascinating study.

[Shyone]

I would LOVE to see a study done, with lie detector tests, just to see how many Christians actually BELIEVE what they say they believe. I'm sure some would pass, but seriously, if there was a long list of really good questions, what would the results be? The lie detector would probably burst into flames. Has anyone ever heard of anybody trying this? I think it would make a fascinating study.

It would make great entertainment as well as being educational.

 

Mauri Povich could open the envelope and say, "You are NOT - a Real Christian^TM!"

 

The questions could range from the resurrection to the Garden of Eden. The problem would be that too many are ignorant of what's in the bible, and I think that might be misleading.

 

"Who was Jesus"?

"Uh, was he, like, a really imporant Saint, or a preacher? Or like, maybe, he sang for Black Sabbath!?"

[FreeLily]

I would LOVE to see a study done, with lie detector tests, just to see how many Christians actually BELIEVE what they say they believe. I'm sure some would pass, but seriously, if there was a long list of really good questions, what would the results be? The lie detector would probably burst into flames. Has anyone ever heard of anybody trying this? I think it would make a fascinating study.

 

It's an interesting concept, but I think it would be comparing apples to oranges. For most atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc., knowledge is held in the highest regard. We like science and reason and peer reviewed sources. Many of us know the Bible better than they do and can readily quote chapter and verse.

 

The problem is, that doesn't impress them. The thing they value most is not knowledge, but *experience.* Have coffee with any devout Christian and they'll find a way to work their testimony into the conversation. Testimonies are anecdotes; they are stories. They are one person's unique experience with their version of Ultimate Truth.

 

They do read and study the Bible, but in a completely different way than we do. They've even memorized some stuff, usually passages that further their agenda or validate their lives. When I was a Christian, I spent most of my time poring over the passages that brought me comfort and hope. I didn't actually *study* it as an ancient document until much later.

 

So, I think even if they couldn't pass such a test, they might still be Real Christians in their hearts. They were washed in the Spirit, they spoke in tongues, and Jesus is their personal BFF who has all the answers when life hurts. You can't study that scientifically any more than you can study Santa Claus.

[ContraBardus]

Except polygraphs are bullshit. They are not effective at all and are essentially just a mind game. They ask leading questions, and then follow up without showing the results and attempt to trick you into admitting things.

 

Those lying manipulative fucktards that try and use that smoke and mirrors bullshit to entrap people piss me off.

 

I've beaten several, lying intentionally and obviously to do it just to piss the operator off. [i assassinated JFK. Aliens live in my closet. I can lift a semi truck with my penis. I think purple unicorns live on Mars. Chocolate tastes like strawberries.] I've made fools of several operators, once in a job interview, and a couple of times where it was being used as an entertainment object in a stage show. Sort of like stage psychics and hypnotists are sometimes used, as well as a couple of times at a booth at a local fair.

 

One time, during a stage show, involving a douche with a huge sign behind him touting [is he or she cheating on you? Find out!] I gave an elaborate tale of my marriage and infidelities while with a female friend of mine [and her boyfriend, who pretended to not be with us]. I instructed her to get upset as I listed my many perversions and flings with her friends and family members, and other assorted things that made me look like an asshole. Stealing, breaking something she treasured, doing disgusting things to her toothbrush, and pissing in her shampoo.] He looked very grave and serious as if he was sorry it had happened and explained that the machine did not lie.

 

After the operator showed his results to the crowd on a big projection, and explained where it showed I was being honest and dishonest by pointing out sections of the graph and acting as if he'd caught me and implied that I should be ashamed of myself. I revealed that I was single, and had in fact never been married, nor had I lived with her or spent any amount of time in her home, I had not slept with any of my 'wife's' friend or family, and pointed out her boyfriend, and that I'd not uttered a single truth outside a few control questions.

 

I then went on to explain exactly how I had beaten him, what the polygraph actually read, how those things were not valid indicators of honesty, and that his machine was total bullshit and I'd just proved it. I then called him a manipulative prick and pointed out that he had probably ruined many good relationships with false allegations based on nothing more than the nervous discomfort of his victims with his lies and theatrics, and that he was a much bigger liar than anyone he'd 'caught' with his bullshit contraption.

 

Needless to say he seemed quite embarrassed and most everyone there had a good laugh at his expense.

 

There are several tricks to do this. The most common of which is to realize that it's crap and remain calm and relaxed. It actually measures signs of nervousness, not lying. Perspiration levels, respiratory rate, and heart rate. None of these things are valid indicators of a person's level of honesty.

 

You can trick also trick the machine by tightening your sphincter and then relaxing it to adjust your blood flow, giving false positive spikes at will. It increases your blood pressure, and confuses the machine. Though, the operator will also likely know you're screwing with him. It still invalidates the results and doesn't give him the baseline he needs to try and corner you with his bullshit graphs later on.

 

After the initial test, you'll be interviewed by the operator who will attempt to use his 'results' [without showing them] to ask leading questions and try to trick the subject into giving a confession.

 

 

Did you know:

 

* The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis?

* The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot?

* The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?

* The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge?

* A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem?

* The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?

* The Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?

* The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?"

* The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?"

* Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph?

* One of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history passed the polygraph and killed again?

* Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus?

* You don't have to be a psychopath, go to spy school, or somehow believe your own lies to fool the polygraph? (We'll reveal how it's done.)

 

 

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.

 

Antipolygraph.org

 

"The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Free Book in PDF form. Right click and Save As.

 

"Interview and Interrogation Handbook" PDF. Right click and Save as.

[ShallowByThyGame]

I concur, the polygraph test is not about the machine results, it's about interrogation under stressful situations.

[Neon Genesis]

Hasn't Sam Harris already proved that religious believers take their beliefs seriously anyway? http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/10/03/how-our-brain-treats-religious-beliefs-and-actual-facts/

Our believing brains make no qualitative distinctions between the kinds of things you learn in a math textbook and the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school. Though the existence of God will never be proved — or disproved — by an fMRI scan, science can study a thing or two about the neurological mechanisms of belief. What Harris’s study shows is that when a conservative Christian says he believes in the Second Coming as an undeniable fact, he isn’t lying or exaggerating or employing any other rhetorical maneuver. If a believer’s brain regards the Second Coming the way it does every other fact, then debates about the veracity of faith would seem — to the committed believer, at least — to be rather pointless.

[thefriendlyghost]

Maybe I'm just wondering if I would've passed. If the tests were accurate, I think I would've failed. I'd spent the whole time trying to fool myself, so I was just curious how much of my brain actually believed this stuff. My convictions were fear based, so I was always afraid I didn't believe enough, or believed for the wrong reasons, which made me feel condemned, and 'unsaved'. Suffering from OCD made me pick apart the 'technicalities' of being a 'true christian'. Thanks for the insight.

[Loren]

Maybe I'm just wondering if I would've passed. If the tests were accurate, I think I would've failed. I'd spent the whole time trying to fool myself, so I was just curious how much of my brain actually believed this stuff. My convictions were fear based, so I was always afraid I didn't believe enough, or believed for the wrong reasons, which made me feel condemned, and 'unsaved'. Suffering from OCD made me pick apart the 'technicalities' of being a 'true christian'. Thanks for the insight.

And that's exactly what it's designed to do, OCD or no OCD.

[Wizened Sage]

I agree shyone, most Christians are totally unaware of most of the atrocities in the Bible. That's one thing that would make such a program entertaining. Imagine the typical fundamentalist answering the question, "Who created evil?" A. Satan B. The Pharisees C. God ? It could be quite an eye opener for Christians in the audience.

[HRDWarrior]

As for all the tests meant to "prove" someone is lying, well, they are questionable at best. I had to do a voice stress analyzer test (a more modern version of the polygraph, supposedly more accurate since you're not freaking out being hooked up with a bunch of wires) and my results were too even...I didn't show enough stress on the controlled lie questions to get a very good reading. In fact, the only question that really put me into the "take a look at this question" catagory had to deal with domestic violence (had I ever been involved in it) - the reason being, although I never personally have had issues in my relationships, my parents had a very rough relationship when I was growing up. Those memories popped into my head and it registered in my voice.

 

Everything else was so level, it was almost too close. Basically, I was too comfortable taking the test! They really do operate off of the idea that you will be a little worried going into the test, and therefore your reactions to things will be a bit more readable. If someone was completely relaxed, the results would show nothing of value.