They never learn

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:13 am

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI has asked members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to take lie-detector tests as part of an investigation into the leak of information related to the Sept. 11 attacks, a law enforcement official said.***There is NO SUCH THING as a "lie detector. There is NO SUCH THING as a "lie detector. There is NO SUCH THING as a "lie detector.***

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Aug 02, 2002 10:00 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>***There is NO SUCH THING as a "lie detector. There is NO SUCH THING as a "lie detector. There is NO SUCH THING as a "lie detector.***<hr></blockquote>There is in my copy of Webster's, Phil.I never have understood your aversion to this term. What's up with that?[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Aug 02, 2002 8:54 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
There is in my copy of Webster's, Phil.I never have understood your aversion to this term. What's up with that?[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>There is no device that can reliably "detect" falsehoods. Polygraphs are essentially worthless, and they can--and are--manipulated by those who use them. There is a good reason why their use is restricted for screening job applicants. To use the term "lie detector" is to suggest that polygraphs "detect lies," which they do not. Most well-edited publications avoid it.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:15 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
There is no device that can reliably "detect" falsehoods. Polygraphs are essentially worthless, and they can--and are--manipulated by those who use them. There is a good reason why their use is restricted for screening job applicants. To use the term "lie detector" is to suggest that polygraphs "detect lies," which they do not. Most well-edited publications avoid it.<hr></blockquote>You are absolutely right that no device exists that can tell with certainty whether the subject is lying. But that's not the point. The fact is, polygraphs are used to find evidence of lying or cover-up. They can detect lies, albeit imperfectly. So why shouldn't newspapers use the term "lie-detector test" to "suggest" the tests' purpose is to detect lies?If indeed "most well-edited publications avoid it," then this is another example of out-of-touch, ivory-tower editors ramming down their readers' throats said editors' own myopic, arrogant vision of what the English language should be.I would like to hear some other opinions. I can't believe I'm a minority of one on this.

tommangan · **Posted:** Sat Aug 03, 2002 2:34 am

If it can't reliably detect lying, you can't call it a lie-detector. It's not just semantics, it's a matter of us writing what we know to be true. Sorry, but I side with Blanp on this one.

tim · **Posted:** Sat Aug 03, 2002 8:48 am

A polygraph is designed to detect physiological reactions associated with nervousness, which may or may not indicate lying.It can detect lies on occasion, but so can I, without benefit of a machine. You cannot reliably call me a lie detector any more than you can refer to a machine as one.And I don't think it is arrogant for editors to decide on what is appropriate use of the English language for their publications. I think it is part of our job. (And I cannot even sniff the ivory tower from where I sit. :) )Sorry, Gary, but I am also with Phillip on this one.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 05, 2002 10:58 am

Minority of one, your table is ready.i'm piling on with the majority. honestly.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Aug 07, 2002 1:39 am

Well, thanks for your feedback, everyone. Even if I'm not buying it for a minute. I do find it interesting that so many of my colleagues believe that a test whose purpose is detecting lies can't be called a lie-detector test.I'd like to believe I have an open mind on this, but I need to hear more-persuasive arguments than "If it can't reliably detect lying, you can't call it a lie-detector." One, the tests apparently are reliable enough that they're widely used for that very purpose. Two, if you guys insist on draconian standards of infallibility before calling such a procedure a "test," then you also must have a problem with the term "sobriety test." Or do well-edited publications ban this term as well?[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ][ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Aug 07, 2002 1:50 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
If you buy into that logic, then you also must have a problem with the term "sobriety test." <hr></blockquote>"Sobriety tests" are measuring something that can be expressed by numerical values. They have proven quite reliable, and, in many states at least, are followed up with a blood test when practical. "Breathalyzer" entered the language so long ago, I expect to see a lowercase "b" on it any day now.It's not that the polygraph isn't "foolproof." It's that it does not and cannot "detect lies." If anything is a "lie detector," its the technician who analyzes the results, expect, of course, technicians are making subjective judgments based on indicators that might -- just might -- indicate physiological changes attributable to lying or, just as likely, indignation or fear.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Aug 07, 2002 9:15 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
"Sobriety tests" are measuring something that can be expressed by numerical values.<hr></blockquote>Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to Breathalyzer tests. I meant the more subjective "tests," like walking a straight line, touching your nose with an outstretched arm, etc.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Aug 07, 2002 1:10 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
I meant the more subjective "tests," like walking a straight line, touching your nose with an outstretched arm, etc.<hr></blockquote>Do the police still do that?
Those aren't "sobriety tests." They are tests of whether the subject can walk a straight line or touch his nose with his outstretched arm.(I know you can lose your license for refushing a Breathalyzer test. I wonder if one can refuse, without penalty, to participate in such cartoon-like activity.)

snoopyr13 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 09, 2002 10:08 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Do the police still do that?
Those aren't "sobriety tests." They are tests of whether the subject can walk a straight line or touch his nose with his outstretched arm.(I know you can lose your license for refushing a Breathalyzer test. I wonder if one can refuse, without penalty, to participate in such cartoon-like activity.)<hr></blockquote>This is off the subject, but those tests are called "field sobriety tests." Police still use them to help justify administering a Breathalyzer test. I'm with you on the use of polygraph: Just because most people say "lie-detector test" doesn't mean we should use it in print. Using it further would strenghten the belief that it can detect lies, when in truth, it cannot.

Guest · **Posted:** Sat Aug 10, 2002 2:56 pm

So is there such a thing, then, as a "bullshit detector"? Seems like most of us have one as a requirement of being in this profession ....

Testy Copy Editors

They never learn

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links