i have wondered about that too.. i think questions they ask are limited to 'yes' and 'no' responses so perhaps if deaf person limited head nods/shaking would be ok ? Or as a drastic measure, one wink = no, two winks = yes ? :)
I think the polygraph expert takes a "baseline" of responses so he probably can calculate what the blood pressure and other responses will look like, even while signing and be able to notice the difference if you're lying.
But a very interesting question. I'm curious to know if I'm right.
There is a system in the UK regarding welfare claims by telephone, calls are connected to some gizmo that detects changes in voice emphasis and delays etc, if it flags up a query on the honesty of the claimant, then they are rejected, or, asked to submit to a personal grilling. However deaf are not part of this, since they text ! Access is so poor in the UK grilling claimants deaf is difficult because they cannot get interpreters. It is suggested as a result deaf people are having less difficulty getting basic allowances, albeit the DLA allowance which is the disability living allowance, has become almost impossible for the deaf to claim,because the questionnaire and criteria are based all around a hearing ability, and an ability to 'get around' which means can you walk etc, not, can you communicate or hear properly when you are outside on your own. There are no real communication questions on the form, so nothing for the deaf to fill in.
I've pondered this in the past. I think it would be unreliable. A lawyer can argue that the stress of following an interpreter on top of the examiner can skew the results.
The polygraph tests are not admissable in the court, even though it's frequently used by the police as a tool. Too many false positives and negative readings make it impossible to be 100% accurate. Using an interpreter adds an untested variable which hadn't been screened before, so its results would be unverified.
Hello, I am glad you brought it up. It did happened at my deaf school once while I was a resident advisor. A polygraph guy ran the deaf students on polygraph testings. The result was very tough and tweaked to find a better answer. Only way was you need to nod/shaking slowly for no or yes. no movements from your arms or body but only head. They found a guy but they were not sure if it was or wasn't right one. I don't know if they run some more in future.
5 comments:
i have wondered about that too.. i think questions they ask are limited to 'yes' and 'no' responses so perhaps if deaf person limited head nods/shaking would be ok ? Or as a drastic measure, one wink = no, two winks = yes ? :)
i.identify.me
I think the polygraph expert takes a "baseline" of responses so he probably can calculate what the blood pressure and other responses will look like, even while signing and be able to notice the difference if you're lying.
But a very interesting question. I'm curious to know if I'm right.
There is a system in the UK regarding welfare claims by telephone, calls are connected to some gizmo that detects changes in voice emphasis and delays etc, if it flags up a query on the honesty of the claimant, then they are rejected, or, asked to submit to a personal grilling. However deaf are not part of this, since they text ! Access is so poor in the UK grilling claimants deaf is difficult because they cannot get interpreters. It is suggested as a result deaf people are having less difficulty getting basic allowances, albeit the DLA allowance which is the disability living allowance, has become almost impossible for the deaf to claim,because the questionnaire and criteria are based all around a hearing ability, and an ability to 'get around' which means can you walk etc, not, can you communicate or hear properly when you are outside on your own. There are no real communication questions on the form, so nothing for the deaf to fill in.
I've pondered this in the past.
I think it would be unreliable. A lawyer can argue that the stress of following an interpreter on top of the examiner can skew the results.
The polygraph tests are not admissable in the court, even though it's frequently used by the police as a tool. Too many false positives and negative readings make it impossible to be 100% accurate. Using an interpreter adds an untested variable which hadn't been screened before, so its results would be unverified.
That's my opinion.
Hello, I am glad you brought it up. It did happened at my deaf school once while I was a resident advisor. A polygraph guy ran the deaf students on polygraph testings. The result was very tough and tweaked to find a better answer. Only way was you need to nod/shaking slowly for no or yes. no movements from your arms or body but only head. They found a guy but they were not sure if it was or wasn't right one. I don't know if they run some more in future.
Post a Comment