What are frequently asked questions when using a lie detector test? (Science Fair Project)?
343259
Check out this site--it may help you.\nhttp://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc&action=display&num=60
388412
Actually I was working on a cloaking device.  I never built a prototype though because the raw materials would have costed me $1000.  Plus, there are several different types of metal detectors and each one has to be fooled in a slightly different fashion.  If you really want to know, just buy a cheap metal detector and see if you can fool it.  I think it can be done.  If you find a way to bypass those blatently unconstitutional airport checkpoints you've got my full support.
817725
You ask awesome questions.\n\n ( see I found a way to lie)
1166854
Question: When is it okay to deny?\n\nThere are different points of view on the subject of "denial". \n\nIn my opinion, denial should be classified under a lie. For me, lies have certain degrees of harm that one should consider before hand. There are tactful lies (a.k.a. euphemism, so as not to hurt people's feelings... i.e. when your girlfriend asks you if she looks fat in that pair of jeans... I know this is not a fair question to ask but what would you say to her if you are afraid of the hellish wrath of a woman scorn), white lies, half-truths, lie due to exclusion of some facts, lies due to silence and true lies (not the movie!) which I fondly call the lie-lies, fictitious stories passed on to others as whole truths.\n\nFirst, you must specify what kind of denial is it. Is it to purposely fool someone into believing some thing (the lie-lie) or not to say anything altogether (denial-lie)? And what kind of situation you were in that had led you to your "Denial"...\n\nIf it is a "lie-lie", and you are in that situation, due to your own misjudgments, and you will be harming some one else in the process; then, it is NOT okay to deny. He/she needs to know the "truth" in order to act accordingly. (Situation Ethics, Joseph Fletcher)\n\nAnother view point can use Ethical Relativism (an ethical doctrine claiming that there are no universal or absolute moral principle - Munson 1979, Pahl 1620), where one acts according to their own moral opinion of an individual because there is no objective basis for saying what is right or wrong in a particular social group. Does your "culture" allow your act? \n\nFor the pragmatists, they would ask if "denying" something would be practical (producing practical results), workable (it can be worked out), beneficial (benefits people, particularly to yourself) and useful (it can be used to yield good results). If all are satisfied, then yes it is okay to deny. (Pragmatism - Charles Pierce, William James)\n\nUtilitarianism justifies action by its consequence. If an act has good consequence(s) for the greatest number of people, then it is good, and vise versa. (Bentham and Mill) However, if there is a rule that states that you MUST say what you are denying; then, you must tell especially when asked to do so.\n\nFor *Deontologists like Immanuel Kant, to deny for the sake of abiding by the rules so as not to be accused of any crime afterwards etc, is not moral; to deny for because you have a special duty to whomever, is moral. You must test your action according to its universability (if random people in any part of the world would do the same thing as you are going to) through a categorical imperative (mandates an action without conditions regardless of its consequence).  \n\nAccording to Kant, you are NEVER to lie under any circumstances, as this is intrinsically wrong. However, the problem comes when in certain situations, you find yourself in a predicament. For example, you are faced with a person looking for his cheating wife to kill her; you are obligated to tell him the truth if you follow Kant's ethics. Therefore, there should be a ranking of your "duties" in order of their precedence over each other.\n\nThe problem with many of these schools of thought is that there are no clear divisions or rules to abide by in telling one poor, confused soul what to do. So, in order to solve this, one must adapt an Epicurean school of thought, where one professes moderation as a moral norm in deciding what the poor confused soul must do. In the end, it is your own good night's rest that would ultimately be a factor in you decision making (Natural Law Ethics)\n\nFor further reading in this subject, or the authors of these schools of thought, Wikipedia has a wide range of information on the philosophies as well as their philosophers... Enjoy!\n\n*Deontologists – A person practicing Deontological ethics or Deontology. From the Gree
488518
I do not know for sure. But I do know that with lie detectors they ask the same question several times different ways.\nSo they may say did you ever cheat on your spouse. Then they will say is your name Billy Jo Bob, then they will say were you born in 1912, then they will say did you ever cheat on your spouse more then 50 times, then they will say did you ever cheat on your spouse more then ten times, then they  will say is the sky blue, then they will say is my hair grey etc etc. \nBy showing how you react to the ever,10,50 times etc you can get a guesstimate of how many times they have cheated.
685340
They probably all could pass a lie detector test. After someone has been lying much of their lives like these guys they could claim to be green with purple polka dots and the machine wouldn't catch it.
320485
What kind of detector?
530999
it compares your levels when lying to those when telling the truth\n\nit measures anxiety indicators and if they rise during a question, then they know you're lying\n\nthe best way to cheat it, is to train yourself to stress during the control questions so that they cant tell the difference when youre actually stressed
108332
case 1:  go to either city.  ask someone "if i go to the other city and ask them 'if i ask someone from the other city if they tell the truth or not, what will they say?' ".\n\nif your answer is no.  you are at the city of lies.\nif your answer is yes, you are at the city of truth.
283750
Here is a free and good one:\n\nhttp://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
80407
Who is doing the test, and why is it being done?\nI do not do polygraph tests, however, I have had clients take them.  Usual protocol is for the examiner to ask what medications the subject has taken.  If the examiner does not ask, volunteer the information.  The test itself takes readings of blood pressure, respiration, etc., which may be affected by the medication, and therefore throw off the results.\nThe real question is what the mental disorder is, and whether it would affect the ability of the subject to tell truth from fiction.  \nThe polygraph is designed to show when the subject is stating something the subject knows is untrue.  If the subject "knows" men from Mars are controlling his thoughts, he will show as truthful when asked if he knows whether there is life on Mars.
976077
I do not think that would be a very good idea. It is not worth lying because a lie is worse that not having a high education level or such! I myself do not know how far they look into those type of things but if they catch you just say you accidentally made a mistake!
357598
No there is not.\nIn all of my years of lying and being lied to in various walks of life I've learned that everybody lies, everybody gives it away, and detecting a lie is more detective work than "dead give-away".\nYes there are lots of bodily quirks to pick up on when someone lies. These (like the eyes for example) reflexes really do not indicate a person is lying. They rather indicate that a person is nervous. Very often that is because they are lying but sometimes it is for any one of many other reasons. For example a murderer might pass a lie detector and even fool seasoned detectives, but you might fidget and cry and do all sorts of strange things if the cops stop at your door and ask where you were yesterday even if you were home quietly minding your own business.\nThe truth is to get to the bottom of a lie you have to be aware of what a particular person does when they lie. To do this you must be calculated and patient. \n1.)Wait to be told a lie that you know is a lie and begin to note any significant or slightly unusual behaviours (such as body language and voice tone out of the ordinary).\n2.) Engage the liar in a conversation where you request as much detail about the lie as you can. Make careful note of body language etc., and note the details of the conversation. Sound interested and convinced and you should get enough info for later.\n3.) Be patient. Find more proof.\n4.) You have to wait until the "LIE" surfaces a second time. You can elicit this it can be in the same conversation.\n5.) Make sure you heard right, ask them to repeat the lie. Make note of all body language etc.\n6.) Make a note of time date or other significant information at the time so you can remember enough to be certain for yourself that you know they have been caught.\n7.) Now this is where this all pays off. You sit your liar down and YOU initiate the conversation about any suspected lie. This time you start talking like your convinced and get them to repeat the suspected lie yet again. Watch the body laguage the whole time. You do not ever have to confront them.\n\nPLEASE NOTE:\nThis is a little trick meant to find out what a PARTICULAR PERSON does when they lie. It is meant to help determine the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN nervousness due to lying and other nervous behaviour one might exhibit when they are not lying. It is not meant to find out a lie. The liar always gives it away you just have to figure it out for your own liar.\n\nYou need a lie you know is a lie and they must think you believe it. The more you talk about the lie you know the more you have to watch and see. The more lies you do it with the more accurate you will become. This is something you can do dozens of times with a coworker or nieghbor before you confront them. The more often you do it before confrontation (if you choose confrontation) the more likely  you will be accurate. \nIf you make all of this happen (which could be done with someone you know but probably not a single encounter with a stranger) you should have a solid list of reflexes, behaviours, etc, that you can apply to ONLY THAT PERSON\nYou should be able to have no more than 95% odds that you can detect A person lying. If you want to keep your friends and family don't do this to them.\nYou will be surprised (and not too happy) to know who is really lying to you and about what. But I hope this helps and hope the lie is not too big. \nREMEMBER THE HUMAN MIND IS INCREDIBLE AND NOTHING IS FOOL PROOF.
617769
There are lie detector tests, Jerry Springer, Murry. You can ask your best friend.You can ask your bf. You can hire a PI.\nBUt if you have a good gut feeling then they probably are.
532614
Yes. Polygraphs are highly innacurate-- so innacurate, in fact, that many states do not allow them to be used as evidence in courts. I know for sure that New York State doesn't allow polygraphs to be used as evidence.\n\nFalse positives are more common than false negatives, however... if someone is very nervous, or the questions are worded badly, it can very easily look like someone is lying who isn't. \n\nYou're right about muscle relaxers, too. They can help a person pass a lie detector. Or he may just be a cool liar-- some people are! Either way, polygraphs really aren't definitive proof of anything.
424952
Well, throughout my lifetime, I've learned one thing.  Scantron tests\nare a bitch.  So this text will hopefully help you out.  I'd like to point\nout that the results that the methods and results I write about came from\nACTUAL experiments with ACTUAL Scantrons and Scanning Machines.  I spent a\nlong time working these out.  I have tried virtually everything there is\nto try to beat the scantron machine, and I can happily say that it can be\ndone.  Now, I am not endorsing that you use these methods to get the first\nletter of the alphabet on your report card.  These are for informational\nand entertainment purposes only.  If you do use these methods, I, of\ncourse, am not at all responsible and blah blah blah.\n   I would like to thank someone that was essential to making this file\npossible, but I doubt that he would want to be identified.  He was one of\nmy teachers.  That's as far as I'll go with that.\n   Now on to the good stuff...\n\n1.  Marking the black lines (Black on Black method)-\n   On the left side of most scantrons that I know of, there are black\nlines next to question numbers.  My hypothesis is that these black lines\ntell the machine where to scan.  I don't know how it works, but it does,\nbut not as often to create a great advantage.  It works about  25%-30% of\nthe time.  I suppose coupled with actual guessing, this does add to the\nprobability of getting a correct answer.  This is my recommended hack.\nThis is the hack that will work more often than any other.  Do it only on\nthe ones you can't answer.\n\n2.  Erasing the same black lines (Erasure method)-\n   Now this hack is pretty self-explanatory.  You erase those same black\nlines, only on the ones you can't answer though.  Sometimes the machine\nskips the question and doesn't mark it at all.  This leaves you with a\ncorrect answer.\n-OR-\n   The machine will record an error and not mark the paper at all,\nincluding the score.  This will then allow the teacher to grade it by\nhand, where he or she may notice the tampering.\n\n3.  Erasing the big black block (Big block eradication method)-\n   Along the left side is a big black block.  It is on the upper part of\nthe column before the question lines.  Occasionally, the machine will just\nskip over the whole damn thing but leave you with a 100%.  This is\npractically impossible to get to work.  I have gotten it to work twice out\nof hundreds of trials, but it can be done.  My reasoning for this is\nbecause there is another similar block at the bottom of the column.  I\nbelieve that the big block tells the machine when to begin scanning for\nquestions.  I think that variations in the printing of scantrons probably\nproduce a block on the bottom similar enough to the erased block.   Thus,\nthe machine sees the block begins scanning, sees nothing to correct and\ngives you a 100%.  Like I said this is probably less than 1% success, but\nit can work.\n\n4.  Cutting out that big block (Hole in your head method)-\n   I have had more success with this than erasing for some reason.  Again\nthis is an all or nothing proposition.  If you like gambling, go ahead.\nRemember that you will leave more noticable physical evidence.\n\n5.  Cross-hatching fill-ins (Cross method)-\n   This method works about 20%-25% of the time.  I believe it is pretty\nself-explanatory.  I find that the best patterns are diaganol\ncross-hatches, or horizontal lines.  I can't explain why this works, I\nassume you are simply confusing the machine.\n\n6.  In-between shading (Grey areas method)-\n   By in-between shading, I mean finding a level of grey that is not too\ndark or too light.  I believe this will work because of the same reason as\n#5.\n\n8.  YOU FILL IN THE CORRECT ANSWER!\n\n*******ADDED SINCE LAST POSTING OF THIS DOCUMENT*********\n\n9.  According to Anthony Iannone <aiannone@maple.nis.net>...\n    This person states that he has worked on maintenance of those\nwonderful machines that COR
791621
in no way whatsoever ( it is not accurate enough for court ) sorry for the pause - at work\n\neven if we ever get a test that is 100% accurate the effect will be minimal \n\nwe would not use it in crime solving ( self incrimination ) nor in business ( right to privacy )