[pc86]

This seems like a pretty adversarial way to look at it, using words like "power play" and "victim." From my understanding the CIA still regularly uses polygraphs. I have to wonder why that is, and it may have nothing to do with the polygraph itself. Maybe it's more just making sure someone has nothing to hide? I'm also not sure what "beating" the polygraph means in the context of them not working in the first place. How do you beat something that doesn't do what it purports to do?

[dx87]

I've talked to someone who administers polygraphs, and they said the machine is mostly theatre, but that there is normally someone watching you through a hidden camera or double sided mirror to see how you act when you think someone isn't looking. For example, when I had to take a polygraph for work, the polygrapher left the room a few times because they "needed to get a second opinion about abnormal results". That's when the hidden person would supposedly be watching to see if I acted differently when I thought I was alone.

[elliekelly]

That process sounds even more scientifically dubious than the demonstrably dubious machine.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Indeed, but no more so than any interview process. Perhaps they should use a whiteboard instead?

[bryanrasmussen]

right, when left alone the subject started flipping a coin (one side of which was disfigured) manically, and seeming to have an argument with themselves, sometimes shouting "you're guilty, you know it" and other times growling "those coppers will never crack me".

[giles_corey]

Beating the polygraph means passing it when you're lying about the relevant issues. Although polygraphy has no scientific basis, the methodology employed makes effective countermeasures possible.