(M)ike (m_ike) wrote in science_freaks,

А не фрический ли прибор полиграф?

Поискал я в яндексе полиграфы. Оказывается, их вовсю продают:

детектор лжи полиграф "Поларг" без компьютера 165000 рублей
Подготовка специалистов-полиграфологов 80000 рублей

Стоимость обследования на полиграфе одного человека - около 3 000 руб. Цена определяется в каждом конкретном случае по согласованию с заказчиком и зависит от глубины и сложности проводимой проверки. Время обследования одного человека около 2,5 - 3 часа. Возможен выезд в другие города.

...самую прогрессивную методику проверок на полиграфе, которую разработал член академии национальной безопасности, обороны и правопорядка РФ, доктор биологических наук Валерий Алексеевич Варламов. Созданные в лаборатории ученого полиграфы позволяют выявить ложь с вероятностью от 95%, в то время как зарубежные детекторы полиграфы работают с точностью приблизительно 70%. Таким образом, сегодня методика Академика Варламова является самой точной, надежной и современной.

Психологические тесты, проверки на полиграфе (детекторе лжи) весьма трудозатратны, требуют высокого профессионализма сотрудника их проводящего. Их результаты находятся в прямой зависимости от опыта и субъективных качеств специалиста, а не от личностных качеств тестируемого.

Стоп... если показания прибора полностью зависят от субъективных качеств специалиста, то это не прибор. Это уже у мине внутре неонка. Что думают участники сообщества? Для примера приведу отрывок из книги Robert Todd Carroll. Skeptic's Dictionary, в которой доказывается, что сей прибор представляет из себя высочайшее достижение нейтронной мегалоплазмы:

Is there any evidence that the polygraph is really able to detect lies? The machine measures changes in blood pressure, breath rate, and respiration rate. When a person lies it is assumed that these physiological changes occur in such a way that a trained expert can detect whether the person is lying. Is there a scientific formula or law which establishes a regular correlation between such physiological changes and lying? No. Is there any scientific evidence that polygraph experts can detect lies using their machine at a significantly better rate than non-experts using other methods? No. There are no machines and no experts that can detect with a high degree of accuracy when people, selected randomly, are lying and when they are telling the truth.


Why would so many government and law enforcement agencies, and so many private sector employers, want to use the polygraph if the scientific community is not generally convinced of their validity? Is it just wishful thinking? Do the users of the polygraph want to believe there is a quick and dirty test to determine who's lying and who's not, so they blind themselves to the lack of evidence? Perhaps, but there are other factors as well, such as the esoteric technology factor. The polygraph machine looks like a sophisticated, space- age device of modern technology. It can be administered correctly only by experts trained in its arcane ways. Non-experts are at the mercy of the high-tech, specially trained wizards who alone can deliver the prize: a decision as to who is lying and who is not.

Another reason for the polygraph's popularity is the pragmatic fallacy factor: it works! Case after case can be used to exemplify that the polygraph works. There are the cases of those who failed the test and whose lying was corroborated by other evidence. There are the cases of those who, seeing they are failing the test, suddenly confess. What is the evidence that the rate of correct identification of lying corroborated by extrinsic evidence is greater than the rate of identification of lying by non-technological means? There isn't any. The proofs are anecdotal or based on fallacious reasoning such as thinking that a correlation proves a causal connection.

On the other hand, it is possible that one of the main reasons so many government, law enforcement and private sector employers want to use polygraphs is that they think the test will frighten away liars and cheats who are seeking jobs, or it will frighten confessions out of those accused of wrongdoing. In other words, the users of the machine don't really believe it can detect lies, but they know that the people they administer it to think the machine can catch them in a lie. So, the result is the same as if the test really worked: they don't hire the liar/cheat and they catch the dishonest employee.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded