Girl Ruins Marriage

[Aange10]

Well, it had to be shown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyFmlP5CX0w&feature=autoplay&list=PL819A1D0B1E3253DD&lf=plcp&playnext=6

[Raknarg]

Dear god.

[Aange10]

*like

[Insectoid]

I knew back when they aired that show that it was a bad idea. The sad thing is, most people would have very similar answers to those questions.

[Dan]

I find it tragic, in that the polygraph test is bascily pseudoscience. In this case she may have actually cheated, but it would be very easy for a false postive ruin some ones life. Hell, I would not put it past fox to fake the allready questionable results just for ratings.

There is a reason we don't allow polygraph tests in a court of law.

[Aange10]

I have to agree with it being pseudoscience.


However, I only find it fair to point out:

Wikipedia wrote:

In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[50] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.

...

In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

In Canada they may not be valid in court, but I just felt the need to point that out.

[Dan]

Aange10 @ 16th January 2012, 11:23 pm wrote:

In Canada they may not be valid in court, but I just felt the need to point that out.

From the same page:

"In the 1987 decision of R. v. B?land, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court."


If we went by US laws, they could just skip the trial and court system all together and lock you up indefinitely.

[Aange10]

Quote:

From the same page:

"In the 1987 decision of R. v. B?land, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court."

I read that too, like I said just needed to point out that the view of it not being aloud in court was not universal.

Quote:

If we went by US laws, they could just skip the trial and court system all together and lock you up indefinitely.

Why so? The main point was that you could call on the polygraph examiners to testify their results and "educated opinions on the results"

[RandomLetters]

I think Dan was referring to the national security laws which allow them to lock up people suspected of terrorism indefinetly, without trial.

But, I think the polygraph worked fine. It certainly detected "Do you think you are a good person"

[Dan]

RandomLetters @ 16th January 2012, 11:50 pm wrote:

I think Dan was referring to the national security laws which allow them to lock up people suspected of terrorism indefinetly, without trial.

Indeed, my point was that US law is not extactly a good model for what should be allowed in a justice system.

Quote:

But, I think the polygraph worked fine. It certainly detected "Do you think you are a good person"

It's 50/50, it will at least be right half the time in the wrost case

The show asks 21 questions if i rember correctly, even if we assume the polygraph is correct 95% of the time you are going to get about 1 false postive for every contestant on the show.

Edit: It should also be noted that this game show is a bit of a scam as you have at least a 66% chance of losing due to an error in the polygraph test (assuming that the polygraph is correct 95% of the time for each question) if you awnser all the questions honestly. If the polygraph is closer to 80% accuracy which may be more realistic, your odds of losing due to error jump to 99%.

[mirhagk]

Well we can even say the polygraph is higher, because as you get closer to winning, chances are that you are going to get more nervous, more anxious, and scared. Those are the things that trigger the polygraph to say your lying.

[Insectoid]

The participants weren't tested during the show. They took a polygraph prior to the show, and just repeat their answers for the crowd.

[mirhagk]

ahh, okay. But still, the nervousness of the game would have some affect on it.

oh and at your signature: It's a trit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinary

[ecookman]

Dan @ Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:09 pm wrote:

I find it tragic, in that the polygraph test is bascily pseudoscience. In this case she may have actually cheated, but it would be very easy for a false postive ruin some ones life. Hell, I would not put it past fox to fake the allready questionable results just for ratings.

There is a reason we don't allow polygraph tests in a court of law.

They should have used an MRI if they were serious.

[Insectoid]

Exactly what does an MRI have to do with lie detection?