The Confusion between Opinions and Lies
We’ve been looking at comments on news articles and sociable media nowadays. There seems to be much confusion between opinion and lies.
An opinion Isn’t a lie
There are two chief ways that people formulate opinions. Some will read an article or listen to the news and decide whether they think it or not. This really isn’t the ideal method to make an opinion unless you’ve got specific knowledge of the topic. But when something doesn’t make sense it always isn’t sensible! So an opinion may be formed depending on the absence of logic.
The better method is to do a little bit of research and set the details of an issue. When you have the details you are able to think about these, add your own ideas and post your opinion.
Some may elaborate on the reason why they disagree with you and try to change your opinion. Others might suggest you are lying because they can not know how you may potentially have reached your conclusion, given the facts.
A very simple example to demonstrate that the difference between opinions and lies comes from a BBC broadcast from years ago.
Were individuals lying when they said spaghetti grew on trees?
On 1 April 1957 BBC Panorama broadcast a’documentary’ about a Korean family that were seen to be harvesting a’spaghetti tree’. It was possibly among the greatest hoaxes in the history of April Fool’s Day pranks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti-tree_hoax
Very little was known about spaghetti in the UK at the time and it certainly was not readily available as it is now. Canned spaghetti was the closest anyone got to eat a pasta dish in these days.
Following the broadcast, countless audiences known as the BBC. Some asked whether it had been authentic and many sought additional information as to how they might develop a spaghetti tree of their own.
But, it had been the nation media broadcaster and several individuals genuinely believed the content of this documentary. The concept of an organisation like the BBC lying would not have been countenanced.
When talk about growing the trees started between acquaintances and friends, some did not think it was possible but others mentioned the BBC documentary. Those who believed it was possible were stating an opinion based on the’fact’ the BBC said it had been. In this instance the first way of forming an impression comes into play. Some people did not believe it was plausible so therefore did not think it. They were right. But people who did think it weren’t telling lies when they said you could grow the trees. It was their opinion based on which they were told and seen.
Think carefully about opinions and lies
Calling someone a liar on social networking or an article comments session is never going to achieve a good outcome. You might consider something to be a lie but it’s not necessarily clear why someone else doesn’t. You will know it is a lie therefore the best strategy is to determine why you think the article is wrong backed up by credible evidence.
We are living in a world where there’s an overload of information. Almost all we read and listen to has to be researched to confirm its veracity. Short of small red lights flashing each time a lie seems having half of the world take lie detector tests, our quest for the truth is never easy. As humans we do not all think in the same way, even if we’re presented with the same evidence. There’ll always be opinions and lies but our capacity to determine the difference makes for great discussion.Read More
Deception is Part of Human Nature and Animal Behaviour
It can be surprising to many but deception has been a human trait since life began. There is nothing novel about it, and nothing too suggest that it has diminished or increased as time passes. Deceit exists everywhere as a part of human nature and creature behaviour.
One of the main reasons for deception is the fact that it will help all living things to survive. Even a chameleon will change colour to avoid a predator. It is used on the internet to receive a date and it’s practised in business to baffle competitors.
Biologically it can be found across the spectrum of reptiles, birds, fish, mammals, insects and many plants. Invertebrates and bacteria display it too. So we might be forgiven for concluding that where there’s life, there is deceit.
People are the masters of deceit and practice it more often than all other species combined. Our deception is more elegant and we have significantly more reasons to utilise it. Maybe this is because our brains are comparatively bigger and more developed than most species. However, whilst white lies could possibly be acceptable in our society as well as expected or demanded on event, there are situations when lying is individually destructive.
When deception is detrimental, polygraph machines are invaluable in exposing it.
Primitive Procedures of establishing deception
Lie detection technologies is relatively new and certainly more civilised, compared to the historic quest for the truth.
Dry mouth test
By way of instance, the Chinese (around 1000 BC) used a readily available commodity to determine if someone was lying or not. The alleged liar would be required to spend a little time with a mouthful of dry rice and spit it out. If the rice was not moist and stayed dry, it had been considered evidence of deceit and remorse. The physiological basis of this assertion was that anxiety and stress dries the mouth area. Of course there might be a number of explanations for why a defendant may be scared or fearful but irrespective of this, if you failed the dry mouth test, you’d be executed.
Oversaw the pulse
A couple of hundred years later around 300 to 250 BC a Greek doctor (Erasistratus) quantified the pulse in an attempt to discover deceit. In 1921 the identical method would eventually become a part of polygraph exams and is still employed today.
Other uncivilised techniques, contained trials by ordeal. These were especially common in Europe and were occasionally referred to as”Judgements of God”. Defendants were put specific barbaric tasks to show their innocence. Frequently they entailed fire or water. These trials were based on the premise that God would not allow an innocent man to endure. In areas of Eastern Europe, throughout the 11th century, even some suspect had to plunge a hand into boiling water and leave it underwater for a predetermined period of time. In the event the hand surfaced unblemished (that’s impossible) that it’proved’ the accused was naive.
Another impossible evaluation involved cold water. The accused could be placed in a sack that would then be tied with a rope. The sack was submerged in cold water however in case the suspect emerged alive, they’d be judged . It was deemed, that water which is used in baptising, wouldn’t accept the person and therefore they were lying.
You will find various ways the cold water test evolved over years. It was often used on girls suspected of being witches. Who can forget the ducking stools?
From the late 1500s courts in the Netherlands commissioned a college to study the boiling water method and its effectiveness in discovering deception. Logic prevailed and it was decided the test did not prove whether a suspect was lying or not. On the other hand, the cold water system continued to be utilised through the 1700s until it had been abolished.
Walking over hot coals or carrying hot irons for an extended time period were two approaches used to define innocence. If no flaws were evident after the ordeal, they healed quickly, there was no guilt. You may imagine how often that happened!
Luckily, as civilisation progressed and science evolved, people started to appreciate that tests based on divine intervention were unreliable. We have state of the art polygraph machines to determine deception with fully competent and large trained examiners who can achieve accuracy levels of over 90%. Contact us today to discuss your test with a fully qualified examiner.Read More
Terrorists to take lie detector tests
Is this about time given the sex offender polygraph testing has been so successful in the UK. Lie Detectors UK fully support this move.
Terrorists could be made to take a lie detector test to prove they have reformed and are not planning to carry out another attack.
Plans to introduce “polygraph testing” were announced by the Government as part of a wave of measures being described as a “major overhaul” in the way terrorists are punished and monitored, including tougher sentences to see them locked up for longer.
It is understood there are hopes terrorists who are going to be out on licence could be made to take the test in a similar way to which sex offenders are sometimes questioned to check their behavior.
More details of The Counter Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill have been released after plans for change were put in place in the wake of the latest London Bridge attack and later announced during the Queen’s Speech.
It is less than two months since convicted terrorist Usman Khan embarked on a killing spree armed with two knives and wearing a fake suicide vest after attending a prisoner rehabilitation programme near London Bridge.
– Force dangerous terrorists who receive extended determinate sentences to serve the whole time behind bars.
– Ensure those convicted of serious offences such as preparing acts of terrorism or directing a terrorist organisation would have to spend a minimum of 14 years in jail.
– Scrap early release from jail for those classed as dangerous and handed extended determinate sentences – in which criminals have to spend longer on licence after prison.
– Double the number of counter terrorism probation officers.
– Make more places available in probation hostels so authorities can monitor terrorists in the weeks after they are released from prison.
– Increase counter-terrorism policing funding by £90 million year-on-year for the coming year to £906 million.
– Give an immediate £500,000 cash injection for support for victims of terrorism and a review of services available.
– Provide more specialist psychologists and trained imams who help to assess the risk of radicalised offenders.
– Offer more training for front-line prison and probation staff to identify and challenge extremism behind bars and on licence.
Terrorists deemed not to be a risk would have to serve two-thirds of their sentence before the Parole Board could consider them for release.
Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, will also review the way in which agencies like the police, probation and security services investigate and monitor terrorists – known as Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Mappa).
Home Secretary Priti Patel said: “The senseless terror attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November confronted us with some hard truths about how we deal with terrorist offenders, which is why we immediately announced a review into sentencing and licence conditions, to do whatever is necessary to stop these sickening attacks from taking place.
“Today we are delivering on those promises.”
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said: “Terrorists pose a great risk to our society and our way of life, which is why we must bring them to justice and keep the public safe.”
Plans for the Bill were first mooted shortly after the November attack, which claimed the lives of Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt.
At the time Mr Merritt’s father Dave hit out at Boris Johnson, accusing him of seeing an opportunity to score political points during the general election in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Khan, a 28-year-old British national from Staffordshire, had been released from prison on licence in December 2018, halfway through a 16-year prison sentence after he was convicted of terror offences in February 2012.
He was part of an al Qaida-inspired terror group, linked to radical preacher Anjem Choudary, that plotted to bomb the London Stock Exchange and build a terrorist training camp on land in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir owned by his family.
Staffordshire Police is being investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct for its role in managing Khan.
In the year to the end of September, there were 44 convictions for terrorism offences, with 17 offenders being sent to jail for between four and 10 years, the Government said.
Five were jailed for 10 years or more and one was handed a life sentence.
Around 245 convicted terrorists were freed from jail between 2012 and 2019.
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said the announcement of a security overhaul was “an admission of failure” by the Government.
“Major terrorist outrages have occurred all too frequently, including attacks by perpetrators who were known to the security services,” she said.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokeswoman Christine Jardine said judges already had the power to lock up terrorists for life while polygraphs were “not accurate or reliable enough” for such critical decisions.
“We will continue to oppose authoritarian laws that do little to make us safer, but a lot to undermine essential British freedoms,” she said.
How Much Does a 2020 Lie Detector Test Cost in UK?
You have decided to take a lie detector test but a quick search online is confusing and calling suppliers even more so, what should you pay and what should you look for. There is a big difference in charges, we have had clients come to us with quotes for £1000 and then had other clients tell us they have been quoted £185. For up to date costs in 2020 click to visit our UK Polygraph Lie Detector Prices page or call our London office on 020 7859 4960.
Lie Detector Test at Home and Locally Near You
The real cost of a lie detector test in the UK is between £399 and £499, anymore or any less something is wrong and you need to investigate why. In this industry we have referral agencies that will charge significantly higher than working direct with a polygraph examiner, always ask to speak to the examiner, we personally review every case on the telephone or via email before ensuring a lie detector test is right for the situation.
If the test is anywhere else in the UK including a home location or we can hire an office close to you, we charge a fixed £499.
Funny Lie Detector Story
I wanted to share with you an almost comical experience I had maybe about 20-years ago with an individual who was on probation for a sexual molestation offense. He was tough, evasive, complaining, ridged, and even confrontational. However, I was able to maintain an objective disposition (as best I could, I feel I’m much better at this now than I was 20-years ago,) but the turning point came maybe about the third appointment he had with us. He was required to pay for his examination. What made this unusual was that instead of paying dollar bills for the test, he had first gone to the bank and obtained $250 in quarters, and brought this to pay for his test, thinking this would be something that I would be angry about this kind of defiance. However, instead of being angry about this, Paula and I look as if we were more amused, and we laughed about it. More importantly, his attitude also changed. Oh by the way, the tons of quarters he presented really did not present any kind of problem because they were at least rolled up. He disclosed the name of the bank he had used, and later that day I just returned to that same bank and exchanged the quarter mine for paper cash.
Cheap Polygraph Testing – Be Aware – Our Tests are 90% Accurate
At the other end of the scale there is a self-taught individual charging £185 in London using a polygraph he had bought from eBay. He has no qualifications, experience and can offer no accuracy in any test he runs.
Lie Detector Tests – Discounts Available – Same Day Testing and Multiple Bookings
We offer substantial discounts for multiple tests on the same day and can provide multiple examiners if required to cover the work in a day and get the results to you quickly. In some cases, it is advantageous to test all suspects on the same day.
UK Polygraph Association Members and Qualifications
So what qualifications should you look for to ensure the examiner you have chosen in qualified? Fortunately, we have the American Polygraph Association who have over 4800 members/examiners worldwide, they regulate the polygraph industry ensuring its members are fully qualified, using validated equipment and techniques and up to date training. It’s an expensive process to become a qualified polygraph examiner in time and money and many fail so there will always be someone looking for a shortcut. In the UK we also have the UK Polygraph Association.
We are members with all the major polygraph governing associations:
- British Polygraph Association (BPA)
- UK Polygraph Association (UKPA)
- American Polygraph Association (APA)
- National Polygraph Association (NPA)
When looking at for how much does a lie detector test cost UK I would recommend you ask if there are any extra charges, start with the obvious, does your price include VAT? We have heard of others charging extra for a report, charging for travel expenses and the hire of a meeting room if required. We are always up front with our costs with no hidden surprises, at our own head offices we charge an all-inclusive cost of £399 for a lie detector test.
Lie detector tests are available worldwide, contact us and we can provide a full quote for our services.
We can also offer payment plans as we completely appreciate the cost of a lie detector test is expensive, we require full payment before we test. Also we can take credit card payments.
To conclude make sure whomever you choose is a fully qualified member of the American Polygraph Association (APA) as this ensures you get an experienced and qualified examiner who will be able to achieve maximum accuracy for your lie detector test.
‘The author of this blog Jason Hubble is the owner of Lie Detectors UK a fully qualified APA examiner and the Secretary of the UK Polygraph Association. Lie Detectors UK won the prestigious Polygraph Testing Company 2019/2020’Read More
UK Nationwide Couples Lie Detector Tests – A Study
Lie Detectors UK don’t usually advise a ‘couples lie detector test’ however in the case study below it was the only way for one lady to get her partner to take a lie detector test. We have locations Nationwide however we also offer Home Lie Detector Tests and we are able to hire an office near to you should you prefer.
Polygraph testing by a UK qualified professional in our offices – London, Maidstone, Kent, Liverpool, Birmingham and throughout England Wales and Scotland – is a flat fee of £399, for a home polygraph test or in a private room in an area nominated by you we charge £499. Read more on our Lie Detector Pricing page.
Infidelity Polygraph UK Case Study – Cheating Partners
Afraid of throwing away what had been a great connection, terrified of decided that she would afterwards regret, Jane had stayed in the relationship with her partner, even though she knew that things were not perfect and could be better.
Not able to put up with the constant impression that she had been lied to, tired of not knowing what to think, Jane was lying to her friends and family. She was beginning to feel like she was on the verge of a breakdown.
Desperate to do something, Jane decided to book a lie detector test for himself and her partner, Mike. Keep reading to find out how the test directed Jane and Mike to have a deeper, more meaningful connection and relationship.
Lies, Fiction and Deceit in a Relationship without Evidence
With only a sense that her spouse was lying to her, the lines between fact and fiction had begun to blur Jane.
With no concrete evidence, Jane felt like she could not talk to her family or friends regarding her suspicions, she just sounded insecure and unwanted. After being together for such a long time, in addition, it sounded really stupid to say out loud.
Mike was his usual loving self, actually he’d been really good. But, her instincts were still telling her something was going on.
Jane was going round in circles about what to for the very best for months, and she couldn’t create a decision., Mike was giving away nothing, and half her felt like that she should be imagining it.
Really all Jane wished to do was ignore her feelings and continue as before. She had no idea that taking the polygraph would produce the outcomes it did.
Jane didn’t understand when it had begun, but she did know that Mike was lying. Trying hard to make sense of what had been happening to her connection and self-esteem, it had reached a stage where she had to understand the facts on way or another to decide how to move on.
Six months ago, her world had come crashing down when a fantastic friend confessed they had seen her spouse Mike out with another woman during the week.
Jane had wanted to believe him, Mike worked, so it was difficult to tell what he was around during the day. She’d actually made a decision to follow him a few occasions, but it always felt too pathetic.
Really making the telephone call to discuss this with a polygraph examiner was the hardest part. Jane was actually relieved to speak to the person on the opposite end of the telephone, who had been warm and very sympathetic.
Couples Polygraph Test – How to Book
Mike and Jane decided to do a couples polygraph test, Mike wanted Jane tested at the same time. You can send an enquiry via our Contact Form online.
Mike had really been cheating on her for several years. Mike had believed he would bluff his way through the polygraph test, but he’d found it cathartic to tell someone the truth about his cheating for once in the pre-test.
Knowing he was going to lose Jane, he’d wanted to tell her himself. Saying it loudly had left him see he had to get some professional help, he was hooked on sex.
Deep down Jane felt relief and empathy that Mike had told her but her first feelings were disappointment, disgust and betrayal.
Even though it was bad news, in addition, it marked the beginning of a new chapter to the couple. Mike started therapy for sex addiction after six months, Jane and Mike got back together. Mike still sees a therapist and the pair attended couples counselling together when they rekindled their relationship.
If you’re worried about infidelity or dishonesty in a connection, a lie detector test could provide a fast and easy method to put an end to the lies once and for all.
Instead, if you are going through dishonesty around paternity, recruiting, insurance claims, theft or fraud, our experienced and qualified staff, work with compassion and care that will help you resolve any issue. Speak with one of our friendly staff today via phone on 0207 859 4960Read More
What is a Polygraph or Lie Detector Test ?
In case you watch daytime TV, undoubtedly you will have seen a show like Jeremy Kyle in which the host utilizes a lie indicator to demonstrate or invalidate, that one of the visitors is lying. It perpetually fixates on whether somebody has swindled, or stolen from a companion or relative, or brought about criminal harm – all exceptionally emotional and awesome for TV evaluations.
In any case, while you will have heard the term lie detector, or polygraph, not everybody really realizes what this involves or even what the hardware resembles. What’s more, on account of the previously mentioned appear, this is in light of current circumstances – everything adds to the demeanor of puzzle. This “mysterious” machine which can get inside the person to be tested body and really read their brains!
Lie Detector Test Near Me
We offer polygraph lie detector tests in locations UK Nationwide, the most popular areas are Lie Detector Testing in London, Lie Detector Testing in Birmigham, Lie Detector Testing in Liverpool and Lie Detector Testing in Kent.
If just it was so mysterious. Be that as it may, in the same way as other things which entrance us, it is immovably established in science.
Polygraph gear comprises of a few sections.
The Pneumograph comprises of two elastic tubes which are connected to the subject’s upper body.
A Blood Pressure Cuff is put around the highest point of the subject’s arm.
The GSR skin sensor measure how much the subject is sweating.
The Plesmograph measures blood volume.
The screen gets the greater part of the physiological markers, which we will broadly expound in a minute, and records them, either (verifiably) on a long segment of paper or, a great deal more probable, a PC screen. The Examiner is the master who unravels the outcomes.
What Does the Equipment Do?
When we lie, our bodies respond automatically. We have no influence over our bodies involuntary responses. The hardware specified above measures these reactions and records them.So we should take a gander at each of those segments in more detail.
The Pneumograph comprises of two empty elastic tubes. The elastic tubes are loaded with air and put around the subject’s midriff. As the subject inhales, the air in the tubes is uprooted, and it is this development of dislodged air which the pneumograph measures. The development will accelerate or back off, contingent upon whether the subject is focused on (lying) or loose (being honest).
The Blood Pressure Cuff is fundamentally the same as the ones utilized by Doctors and Nurses in a surgery or healing center setting, despite the fact that in a polygraph circumstance it will be marginally less expanded, making it more agreeable. When we are being misleading, our heart rate increments and this is gotten by the Blood Pressure Cuff – again because of the air dislodging in the sleeve as every heart beat may be ‘listened’, or all the more precisely “felt” by the sleeve.
The GSR is utilized to quantify discretionary dermal movement, or, to put it all the more just – sweat. The fingertips are unfathomably permeable, so this is the ideal spot to search for sweating, which is another automatic reaction to lying. Little finger plates are connected to two of the subject’s fingers, and these measure the sweat reaction – the more sweat that is available on the plate, the better the power is led.
The Examiner is, doubtlessly, the most essential ‘bit of hardware’ there is in a polygraph examination. The best, most advanced hardware on the planet is not going to yield great outcomes without a profoundly talented inspector to translate the reactions. He or she will nearly watch the reactions recorded, and in addition the general non-verbal communication of the subject all through the examination – group the majority of the reactions together and, with their broad information and preparing, will give an exact outcome. An ineffectively gifted analyst will have the capacity to give no superior to anything a half exactness result – you should flip a coin – so guaranteeing you are getting the most profoundly prepared experts accessible will give you the most precise outcome conceivable.
So how are the Results Deciphered?
Amid a polygraph, or lie locator, test, the subject will be posed a few questions. Some of those inquiries will be ‘standard, for example, ‘is your name … .?’ To which the subject will answer honestly. That will give a base estimation against which to think about the important question, for example, ‘did you take the cash from the drawer?’ If the subject didn’t take the cash, the responses recorded will stay consistent – in any case, if the subject stole the cash, and denies it, there will be a stamped contrast in the responses recorded on the screen. You can read more about addressing procedures on our site.
In any case, does it Really Detect Lies?
Entirely – no. Polygraphs can’t read minds. ‘Lie Detector’ is a name given to the test by the media throughout the years. The word Polygraph, truly deciphered, signifies ‘numerous works’, and this alludes to the more established style machines which used to record the progressions in physiological reactions utilizing an alternate pen for each substantial capacity (breath, heart rate, and sweat). Each pen would climb and down on a long portion of paper, and vacillate with greater markings on the paper when lying. In any case, it wasn’t recording contemptibility, it was recording the developments of the subject – developments which change when the subject is under anxiety.
Cynics will dependably rush to bring up that anybody experiencing a polygraph examination will be anxious, and they would be correct. In any case, as the subject is apprehensive all through the test, the distinctions in reactions is as yet going to happen – they will be more anxious, or pushed, at whatever point they are lying.
In its easiest shape, a polygraph, or lie locator, is a discussion between the subject and the analyst. The main distinction amongst that and a discussion sitting at a bar is that the subject’s reactions are being observed and analyzed – something which is difficult to manage without the utilization of the hardware.
It’s not difficult, it’s not physically awkward, and – as there are just you two in the stay with nobody else tuning in – it isn’t even truly unbalanced. An expert Polygraph inspector will never be judgemental, so whatever your “mystery” is, you won’t be made to feel awful about it. Experts are likewise bound by a strict code of morals, and, unless they have your express consent, they won’t unveil or talk about your outcomes with any other person.
Along these lines, take away the riddle and there you have it. Not all that startling all things considered!Read More
Can we spot a liar with non verbal communication ? How do our bodies react ?Read More
Polygraph Testing for Lie Detection – Used by Essex Police
Essex Criminals and Sex Offenders Continue Lie Detection Tests in 2020
“The polygraph examination itself is carried out in three stages, with an interview, followed by the polygraph test and a post-test discussion. We have seen some participants tell us about reoffending during the pre-test interview and others make admissions after undergoing the polygraph. We have had occasions where offenders have admitted further offences or breaches of preventative orders, which have triggered investigations that are ongoing.
We have also seen some admit that they may have potential contact with children, which has allowed us to directly intervene and keep people safe.”
Article originally published in 2016Read More
Liverpool Lie Detector Test UK Polygraph Testing
Lie Detector company (Jason Hubble) offers free test after suspended Wallasey Labour member challenges MP – The offer followed row over whether threats and homophobic comments were made at party meeting
Jason Hubble the owner of a leading lie detector company has offered to carry out tests to resolve a dispute within a Merseyside Labour party as reported in the Liverpool Echo Lie Detector Test article back in 2014.
Suspended Wallasey Labour member Paul Davies called for the tests after allegations of threats and homophobic remarks at a party meeting earlier in the summer.
The accusations have been strongly denied but are understood to be one of the factors which led to the suspension of Wallasey Constituency Labour Party (CLP) by national party bosses.
An investigation is now taking place but Mr Davies said he would submit to a lie detector test and called upon MP Angela Eagle or those who had made the allegations to also take one.
After the ECHO revealed Mr Davies’ challenge Jason Hubble, chief examiner of Lie Detectors UK offered to carry out the tests for free.
Lie Detector Tests £399 UK Nationwide in Local Locations
Normally, the company would charge £399 for a UK lie detector test, but Mr Hubble said he “would love to polygraph a politician” and said “there has to be a sense of jeopardy for it to work”.
Mr Hubble says the tests provide 92% to 98% accuracy and the Ministry of Justice has been training probation officers to use polygraphs to ensure serious sex offenders adhere to their licence conditions.
The test works by measuring body functions such as blood pressure, pulse, and breathing while the person is asked questions.
Jason Hubble from Lie Detectors UK who has offered free polygraph tests after Wallasey MP Angela Eagle was challenged by a local party member Paul Davies
Jason Hubble said some people try to beat the test but they have different techniques for spotting this and compensating.
He admitted the offer to do the test is “good publicity for us” but insisted he would be able to help, and said he had tested more than 1,000 people in cases ranging from infidelity to theft and said: “Around 70 to 80% of people we test pass.”
He said: “I would love to polygraph a politician. I’m not involved with any political party, but we get so many promises from them, but I don’t think any of them would put themselves though it.”
Paul Davies, who is co-vice chair of the suspended CLP, has been the most outspoken critic of the Wallasey MP since the allegations were made, and even spoke at length at a public meeting organised by Wirral TUC and attended by hundreds of local party members, insisting the claims of threats and homophobic comments could not be true.
Mr Davies said he would be happy to take the test, and said: “I’m looking forward to it.”
Jeremy Kyle Lie Detector Testing – Real Polygraph Test Results
However, earlier this week a source close to Ms Eagle dismissed the idea of the MP taking a polygraph saying they are “are only extensively used in Britain on the Jeremy Kyle show” and adding: “In most European judicial systems, polygraph tests are not considered reliable evidence.”
The ECHO understands that Labour’s National Executive Committee is now taking evidence for their investigation into the allegations about Wallasey CLP and Mr Davies will be given an opportunity to give evidence to them.
Original article date: 14 AUG 2016 by LIAM MURPHY
Measurement Theory and Lie Detection
It is sometimes said that it is not possible to actually measure a lie by lie detection. Simplistic and concrete thinkers, and those opposed to the polygraph test, are content to end the discussion at this point and offer the impulsive and erroneous conclusion that scientific tests for lie detection and credibility assessment are not possible. This conclusion is erroneous, a non-sequitur, because many areas of science involve the quantification of phenomena for which direct physical measurement is not possible. The theory of the polygraph test, and lie detection and credibility assessment in general, in fact does not involve the measurement of deception or truth-telling. Nor does it involve the measurement, or recording, of fear or any other specific emotion.
Polygraph Test Accuracy 90% – Read Case Studies and Research
This publication attempts to introduce and orient the reader to measurement theory and its application to the problem of the polygraph and scientific lie detection or credibility assessment testing. The analytic theory of the polygraph is that greater changes in physiological activity are loaded at different types of test stimuli as a function of deception or truth-telling in response to the relevant target stimuli (Nelson, 2015a, 2016; Senter, Weatherman, Krapohl & Horvath, 2010).
In the absence of an analytic theory or hypothesis of polygraph testing, polygraph theories have previously been expressed in terms intended to describe the psychological process or mechanism responsible for reactions to polygraph test stimuli. Although much has been learned about the recordable physiology associated with deception and polygraph testing, less work has been done to investigate psychological hypotheses about deception. In general, the psychological basis of the polygraph is presently assumed to involve a combination of emotional, cognitive and behaviorally conditioned factors (Handler, Shaw & Gougler, 2010; Handler, Deitchman, Kuczek, Hoffman, & Nelson, 2013; Kahn, Nelson & Handler, 2009).
The analytic theory of polygraph testing implies that there are physiological changes associated with deception and truth-telling, and that these changes can be recorded, analyzed, and quantified through the comparison responses to different types of test stimuli. Comparison and quantification are objectives central to measurement theory. Application of measurement theory to the polygraph test will require at least a basic understanding of measurement theory.
Types of measurement Stevens (1946) attempted to provide a framework for understanding types of measurement. At that time, part of the intent was to clarify the selection of statistical and analytic methods associated with different types of measurement data. It was evident almost immediately that the selection of statistical was a more complex endeavor than could be characterized by the reduction of the array of data types and scientific questions to a small set of categories. Nominal scales are without any rank order meaning (e.g., cat, mouse, dog, ostrich, zombie, robot). Mathematical transformation of nominal items is not possible. Ordinal measurements have rank order meaning but have imprecise meaning about the distance between items (e.g., knowing the first, second and third place winners of an ostrich race does not provide information about the difference in race times). Some mathematical transformations are possible with ordinal measurements, with the requirement that they preserve the ordinal information and meaning. Interval scale measurement have both rank order meaning and provide meaningful information about the difference between items. However, the zero point of an ordinal scale is arbitrary and therefor meaningless.
A classical teaching example for the arbitrariness of an interval-scale zero point is a temperature scale for which we have both the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales with different arbitrary zero points, and no expectation that zero means that there is no temperature or no heat to be measured. Ratio measurements include combination of rank order meaning and interval distance meaning along with the notion of a non-arbitrary zero point. In ratio scales measurements zero means none (e.g., no difference). Later, Stevens (1951) offered a set of prescriptions and proscriptions as to the type of statistics that are appropriate for each type of data. The most common form of criticism of Stevens have focused on the fact that it is unnecessarily restrictive (Velleman & Wilkinson, 1993), resulting in the overuse of non-parametric methods that are known to be less efficient than parametric methods (Baker, Hardyck, & Petrinovich, 1966; Borgatta & Bohrnstedt, 1980), and that the type of analysis should be determined by the research question to be asked (Guttman, 1977; Lord, 1953; Tukey, 1961). Luce (1997) asserted directly that measurement theorists today do not accept Stevens’ overly broad definition of measurement. Nevertheless, Stevens’s work provides a useful introduction to the conceptual language and problems of measurement theory.
Measurement theory is an area of science concerned with the investigation of measurability and what makes measurement possible. Helmholtz (1887) began the tradition of scientific and philosophical inquiry into measurement theory by asking the question “why can numbers be assigned to things”, along with other questions such as “what can be understood from those numbers”? According to Campbell (1920/1957), measurement is the process of using numbers to represent qualities. In general, the properties of measurable phenomena must in some ways resemble the properties of numbers. Later work by Suppes (1951) on the differences between measurable and un-measurable phenomena and began to formalize the tradition of measurement theory by clarifying our understanding of the requirements for measurement and gave rise to a modern representational theory of measurement (Diez, 1997; Suppes, 2002; Suppes & Zinnes, 1963; Suppes, Krantz, Luce, & Tversky, 1989; Niederee, 1992). Stated simply, the representational theory of measurement involves the assignment of numbers to physical phenomena such that empirical or observable relationships are preserved.
The existence of order (rank order) relationships between measurable objects is central to the requirements for the measurability of any phenomena. We must be able to quantify one instance of the phenomena as have greater magnitude than another. Another central requirement of measurable phenomena is that there must be a way of combining measurable objects in a way that is analogous to mathematical addition. This is, the addition of measurable phenomena must have a sensible physical interpretation. These are among the main differences between measurable and un-measurable phenomena. For example: measurements can be applied to physical phenomena such as a person’s height, weight, and blood pressure. This is possible because these things involve physical phenomena: the linear or unitized distance from head to toe, the gravitational force on a person’s physical mass, and the unitized pressure required to overcome and occlude arterial pressure relative to a reference point such as average atmospheric pressure at sea level (i.e., 29.92inHg or 760mmHg).
These phenomena can be combined in ways that are in some way analogous to numerical addition. That is, there is some coherent physical interpretation to additive combinations of different instances of these physical phenomena. Time limited events can also be measured. For example: if a person jumps into the air two times and if we mark the physical height of each jump and then combine the two distances, then this is also analogous numerical addition. However, attempts to record physiological changes to polygraph stimuli does not necessarily conform to these requirements for rank order relationships and additivity. The details of how recorded polygraph data can result in the quantification of deception and truth-telling are addressed in the remainder of this publication. Firstly, it has long been established that responses to polygraph stimuli cannot be taken or interpreted directly as a measurement of deception. Nor can responses to polygraph stimuli be interpreted as a recording or measurement of fear or any other specific emotion. Responses to polygraph stimuli are a form of proxy or substitute data for which there is a relationship or correlation with deception and truth-telling.
The reactions and recorded data themselves are neither deception nor truth-telling per se. Secondly, although it may be possible to interpret rank-order the relationships between test stimuli according to the magnitude of response, polygraph recording instrumentation today has not been designed to provide data that satisfy the additivity requirement for measurement data. In other words, attempts to make any sensible additive combination of the actual response data within each of the respiration, cardio, electrodermal and vasomotor sensors is neither intended or established. Instead, polygraph data must be transformed to a more abstracted form before it can be further analyzed and interpreted as to their meaning. Polygraph scoring and analysis algorithms, whether manual or automated, are intended to accomplish and facilitate such transformation, analysis and interpretation.1 Fundamental and derived measurements Some measurements can be referred to as fundamental and require no previously measured phenomena to achieve their determination. The main requirement for a fundamental measurement is that there are some physical phenomena for which there is 1. A major difference between manual an automated polygraph analysis algorithms is that manual scoring protocols were developed during a time when field practitioners did not have access to and were unfamiliar with use of powerful microcomputers. Manual scoring algorithms therefore rely on mathematical transformations that are, of necessity, very simple, if not somewhat blunt. Earlier versions of manual scoring protocols did not make use of normative reference distributions, statistical corrections or confidence intervals. Another major difference is that manual scoring protocols accomplish feature extraction tasks – the extraction of signal information from other recorded information and noise – using subjective visual methods. Automated analysis algorithm will make use of more advanced statistical methods, and will rely on objective and automated feature extraction methods that are less vulnerable to subjective interference.
Some quantity that can be understood as either more or less (e.g. is it heavy) as opposed to phenomena that are better understood as all-or-nothing (e.g., is it an ostrich). If we have two ostriches, it makes some sense to ask a question such as which ostrich is heavier because there is meaningful intuition around the idea that some ostriches are heavier. But it does not make sense to ask the question which is more an ostrich, because there is no meaningful intuition that can be gained from its answer. Being an ostrich is a property, not a quantity. The weight of an ostrich is also a property, and this illustrates that some properties can also be quantities. The physical phenomena of weight or heaviness can be quantified to achieve greater precision than simply saying very heavy or very very heavy when attempting to compare the weight of two ostriches. Without the use of numerical quantities, two different observers might reach two different conclusions about which ostrich is heavier no matter how we attempt to use our descriptive adjectives. Different observers are more likely to reach similar conclusions when using measurements vs. the alternative of not using measurements. The use of measurements permits us to think about, understand, describe and plan the world around us with greater precision, which is to say greater reproducibility. When a measurement is not intended or not expected to be a precise or exact quantity it is sometimes referred to as an estimate.
Probabilities, because they are not expected to be exact, are estimates. Although some may use or express the notion of probabilities subjectively, reproducibility of computational probability estimates is an important difference between the scientific and unscientific use of the concept of probability. Some measurements can be thought of as derived, because these are achieved not through the direct quantification of a physical phenomenon, but through the comparison of an unquantified physical phenomenon with another known physical phenomenon. In principle, we can measure an unknown distance if we have some other distances and angles that are already known. For example, if we place a set of satellites in orbit around the earth we can calculate and know the locations of those satellites relative to a set of objects for which the locations are known on the earth. Then, if we have some means of receiving information from the satellites with known locations, we can use the information from the satellites to calculate and measure our own location if our location is unknown.
This would be like older practices in which if we can calculate the location of objects in the solar system according to a system of counting or quantifying the number of days since a previously observed event, then we can use the location of the object in the solar system. And the location of objects in the solar system could be used, along with a defined system of scientific and mathematical rules, to measure or quantify our current location on the earth. Another example of a derived measurement is the measurement of blood pressure, for which we use our knowledge about atmospheric pressure to quantify our assessments of cardio pressures during the systolic and diastolic phases of the cardiac cycle. Scientific testing as a form of (probabilistic) measurement As it happens, many interesting and important phenomena cannot be either observed directly or are not subject to physical measurement.
This is sometimes because the phenomenon of interest is amorphous (without physical substance), and sometimes because the information does not conform to the order and additivity requirements of measurement. If we want to improve the precision of our assessment and decisions for these phenomena we will need to rely not on measurements but on scientific tests that quantify a phenomenon of interest using statistics and probability theory. Nelson (2015b) provided a description of how a polygraph test, and tests in general, can be thought of as a single subject science experiment. Scientific tests can also be thought of as a form of probabilistic measurement, in which statistical and probability theories are used to quantify a phenomenon that is not amenable to actual measurement.
An example of scientific testing as a form of probabilistic measurement is the testing measurement of amorphous and un-measurable psychological phenomena such as personality and intellectual functioning, during which an observed quantity of data from an individual is compared mathematically to a known quantity in the form of normative reference distribution, or probability reference model, that characterizes our knowledge of what we expect to observe. Reference models can be calculated empirically, through statistical sampling methods, and can also take the form of theoretical reference distributions that characterize our working theories about how the universe, or some small part, works by relying only on facts and information that are subject to mathematical and logical proof. In the case of the polygraph test – for which the basic analytic theory holds that greater changes in physiological activity will be loaded for different types of test stimuli as a function of deception and truth-telling in response to the relevant stimuli – it is not the comparison of relevant and other test questions that forms the basis of our conclusions. Instead, it is the comparison of differences in reactions to relevant and other test questions to a reference distribution that anchors our knowledge about the expected differences in responses to relevant and other questions among deceptive or truthful persons. Ideally, other questions would have the potential to evoke cognitive and emotional activity of similar quality, though perhaps different in magnitude, then the relevant target stimuli. However, it is not necessary that other questions have similar ecological value compared to the relevant stimuli to be a useful and effective basis for statistical comparison. An example of this can be seen in the use of directed
lie-comparison (DLC) questions, for which Blalock, Nelson, Handler & Shaw (2011) provided a summary of the research on their effectiveness (and for which the name DLC should not be taken to imply that response to these questions are actual lies).
Scientific tests as a form of prediction If we want to quantify or improve the accuracy or precision associated with our assessments and conclusions about future events that have not yet occurred – assuming we want to quantify our conclusions now without waiting for the event to occur – then we are once again attempting to quantify a phenomenon that is not amenable to direct observation or measurement. For this we need a test, with which we can make probabilistic conclusions about the future outcome. Tests used in this way can be thought of as a form of scientific prediction. It is not a form of magic or divination. It is a form of probabilistic modeling. An example of the quantification of a future event is the measurement or quantification of risk level for some hazardous event – for which it is implicit that the future event has not yet occurred and therefore cannot be physically quantified or observed. Yet another example, involving the prediction of a future event, will be the quantification of an outcome for an election that has not yet occurred. Both examples – risk outcomes and election outcomes – can involve a future event for which the associated value is binary (e.g., an event has or has not occurred, or an election has been won or not won). At any single point in time, the event has either occurred or has not occurred. We might, at times, want to simply wait to observe the result to achieve a deterministic conclusion. Deterministic observation of an outcome would, of course, obviate any need for testing and quantification. A notable difference between the prediction of risk events and scheduled outcomes is that election outcomes can be expected to occur at a scheduled point in time, at which time it is possible to observe the result. After the scheduled event the outcome is a matter of fact, not probability. Prior to the scheduled event, the outcome can be thought of as a probability, such that there are some factors that are associated with the different possible outcomes. A goal of scientific prediction involves the identification these associated factors so that they can be characterized as random variables and used to develop a predictive test or model. Probabilities associated with the outcomes of scheduled events that have not yet occurred can be thought of as the proportion of outcomes that would occur a certain way, given the random variables that influence the outcome, if it were possible to observe the event over numerous repetitions.
Effectiveness or precision of a test as a predictive model will depend on our ability to correctly understand the random variables related to the possible outcomes. Ultimately, the outcome will be a certainty, and not a probability. Prior to the outcome occurrence, it remains a probability or prediction. When prediction errors occur, their causes can be due either to random variation, or to misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the random variables related to the possible outcomes. Some types of outcomes are expected to occur at an unknown time, or they may not occur at all for very long periods of time. We can think of these outcomes as probabilities. For example: what is the probability that a known criminal offender will re-offend, or what is the probability of an earthquake in Mexico City, or what is the probability of a flood? These events can also be regarded as certainties after they have occurred, and are also subject to some relationship with related factors that are associated with their occurrence. As with other prediction models, identification and characterization of the associated factors is an important objective in the development of risk assessment or risk prediction models. Probabilities associated with risk prediction outcomes can be thought of in terms of frequencies, such that high probability events occur with greater frequency, while low probability events occur with lower frequency. Nearly everything – including events for which our intuition tells us the likelihood is very low – can thought of as a probability. This can, at times, be taken to absurdity.
For example: what is the probability of a zombie horde attack, or what is the probability of a robot apocalypse? For these extreme examples our intuition tells us the probability is either absolute zero or essentially zero, but we can still engage some imagination as to the factors that could become associated with their occurrence. If we expand the period under consideration, then the probabilities associated with rare events can become conceivably greater. For example: what is the probability that an ostrich will fall from the sky? If we expand our dimensions for time and location to the notions of ever and anywhere, we can intuitively understand some non-zero probability associated with an ostrich falling from the sky, along with the kinds of factors that might APA Magazine 2016, 49(6) 90 be associated with its possible occurrence (e.g., emergency ostrich airlift from a flooded ostrich farm). Quantification of future events such as hazards or election outcomes requires that we treat the future outcome in the same manner as any other amorphous phenomena that we may wish to quantify. We treat the future outcome as a probability. Quantification of an outcome is useful only when it is a future outcome – an outcome that has not yet occurred. If information exists, and is available for observation or measurement, then the outcome is not amorphous but is a physical phenomenon. Direct observation or measurement of a future outcome will require that we wait until the future point in time. Until then, if we want to try to predict a future outcome that has not yet occurred we will need to rely on probabilities to describe the amorphous future event. Similarly, observation or measurement of a past event will require that some physical phenomena from the event are available for observation or measurement. If we wish to quantify a past event for which no physical phenomena are available, then we will once again need to rely on probability theory to quantifying the amorphous phenomena. A famous quotation of unknown Danish authorship during the years 1937- 1938 states, [in English] “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” This simple and humorous quotation reminds us that predictions of all kinds are inherently imperfect, including predications based on scientific test data. Probabilistic conclusions are inherently imperfect. Indeed, they are not expected to be perfect. Probabilistic conclusions are expected only to quantify the margin of uncertainty associated with a conclusion. Statistical predication is an inherently probabilistic and statistical endeavor for which any conclusion is both probably correct and probably incorrect. Conclusions about deception or truth-telling, despite the desire for certainty and infallibility, will be inherently probabilistic and inherently imperfect. Conclusion: scientific polygraph tests as a form of statistical classification Polygraph test results can be thought of a form of prediction that some other evidence exists and can be identified as a basis of evidence to confirm or refute a test result. A simpler and more general way to think about these tests will be as a form of statistical classification. Like other scientific tests, statistical tests intended for classification are not expected to be perfect, infallible or deterministic. Neither are statistical classifications expected to provide the same level of precision as an actual measurement of a physical phenomenon.
Like other probabilistic endeavors, scientific tests intended for classification are expected only to quantify the margin of uncertainty or level of confidence that can be attributed to a conclusion. Most importantly, the method for statistical quantification should be accountable and the results should be reproducible by others. The ultimate measure of effectiveness of a statistical test is not in the achievement of perfection or infallibility, but in the observation of correct and incorrect real-world classifications that conform to our calculated probability estimates. If the basic analytic theory of the polygraph test is incorrect – if no physiological changes are correlated with differences between deception and truth-telling – if all physiological activity in mere random chaos with regard to deception and truth-telling, then humans have virtually no chance of ever known if they are being lied with any precision greater than random chance.
The only way to protect oneself from deception will be to remain cynical and suspicious of all, while trusting no-one. Although perhaps tempting, this will be unrealistic and unsustainable over time. On the other hand, if it is correct that some changes in physiological activity are associated with deception and truthtelling at rates significantly greater than chance, then it is only a matter of time before technologists, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians and data analysts devise some means to increase the availability of useful signal information amid the chaotic noise of other physiological activities and exploit those signals with some new form of scientific credibility assessment or lie detection test. If the polygraph test is ultimately an interrogation and not a scientific test, then measurement theory is of no concern and no consequence to the polygraph profession. But in this case, people will begin to turn to other scientific methodologies when they desire a scientific test for credibility assessment, and the polygraph test may eventually be replaced. On the other hand, if the polygraph test is a scientific test, then it will serve the interests of all for polygraph professionals to become familiar with the basics of measurement theory and the discussion of scientific polygraph test results, including categorical conclusions about deception and truth-telling and conclusions about countermeasures, using the conceptual language of measurement and probability theories. Polygraph conclusions are not physical measurements; they are probability estimates. In the absence of probabilistic thinking applied to the polygraph test, there will be an impulse for some to engage in naïve and unrealistic expectations for deterministic perfection.
There will also be a desire or impulse for some to feign infallibility, due to superior professional wizardry or skill, and this can for a time appear to be an effective marketing strategy. But feigned infallibility will lead to confusion and frustration when it is inevitably observed that testing errors can, and do, occur. A temporary corrective solution to this frustration will be to find fault with the professional, not the test – thereby restoring the false assumption of infallibility, so long as we avoid those less competent wizards less competent experts. Although gratifying for a time, this type of approach is unscientific, and will be unsustainable in the context real-world experience and scientific evidence. Polygraph test result should be understood and described like other scientific test results, using the conceptual language of statistical probabilities. Expression of purportedly scientific conclusions, including conclusions about deception and truth-telling and conclusions about the use of countermeasure, without the use of probability metrics will invite accusation that polygraph is mere subjective pseudoscience cloaked in overconfidence. A scientific approach to polygraph testing will recognize that the task of any test is to quantify a phenomenon probabilistically when direct observation or physical measurement are not possible, and to recognize and make accountable use of the potential for testing error when deciding what value to place upon and how to use or rely upon the test result. Like other scientific tests, polygraph tests are intended to make probabilistic classifications of deception and truth telling in the absence of an ability to directly observe or physically measure the issue of concern. If physical phenomena were available for observation or measurement, then a scientific test would not be needed.
Because deception and truth-telling are amorphous constructs, scientific lie detection and credibility assessment are, ultimately, epistemological concerns that are sometimes the subject of complex and important philosophical questions such as: what does it mean to say that something is true, and what kind of things can be said to be true? Although deeply interesting, these must be the subject of another publication.Read More