Maybe. Tactics aimed at fooling the machine are really only to bolster the confidence of the person being tested. It's not the case that you're playing against a machine though, the machine doesn't "do" anything; it's a game that you're playing against the examiner.
I think what I'm getting at is that the notion of "cheating" or "beating" a polygraph seems like it dignifies the procedure. It's a little like "beating" a psychic medium, isn't it?
It's better than "beating" a psychic medium because there is often a real, valuable prize to be gained (ie: a job).
As far as I am concerned, even submitting to examination dignifies the procedure too much.
To be clear: I don't think you do need those tactics, but I'm asking, not asserting; I've never taken a polygraph.
To succeed in the situation your mind must be prepared to deal with the gun or the handcuffs or the polygraph. I doubt many people are able to simply ignore them.
In fact they try to check for it. Like they might say things like "it looks like you pizza-ed on this one when you should-a frenchfried, ... hmm that's interesting'. Where say "pizza" and "frenchfry" are polygraph specific terminilogy. If you don't ask "hey what does that mean?" they might assume your read up on and research about how to beat polygraphs.
And on your point of "what if I really don't believe in polygraphs". The problem is the polygraph measures involuntary emotional response. You might rationally not believe in efficacy of polygraphs. But emotionally you'd start breathing faster anyway. Maybe because you are afried the polygraph examiner will figure out that you really know how polygraphs work.
It also sounds like polygraphers may think they are reading someone, but in actuality just injecting their own bias. I have also never taken a polygraph, but maybe the process to beat is the bias of the interviewer, not the machine.
I mean, measuring perspiration, pulse, breathing, and movement is perhaps a step above a Magic 8 Ball. I too am entirely doubtful that anyone can reliably detect deceit with those measurements, but it's hard to have a nonchalant attitude of "this is just a silly game" when you're connected to devices that do in fact actually measure those things.
Curious.. Why so sure?
Well, yeah, wouldn't you? I mean, the fact that you're being given a polygraph implies that your interrogator believes it has some effect that benefits them. And if you're completely convinced that that isn't true, meaning the human-with-polygraph is not more reliable than an unaided human, that still leaves the possibility that the human-with-polygraph is worse in a way that affects you.
If there's a possibility for the device to convince your interrogator that you're being deceptive, but you're honest, you're taking a risk unless you attempt to avoid causing a false positive. Conversely, if there's a possibility for the device to convince your interrogator that you're being truthful, and you're deceitful, you're missing out on an advantage unless you attempt to cause a false negative.
There's no case where your interrogator is better off, so your premise isn't invalidated; the polygraph itself is still bunk. But it's your interrogator's trust in it which has created a relative advantage for you if you play along.
The exact same applies if they show up with a "psychic", although it might be harder -- or easier -- to manipulate.
Even if my strategic goal is to show that a polygraph is meaningless, being able to pass or fail one at will could be really useful to that end.
The odds seem pretty low that any job or clearance requiring a polygraph would let you get by without one, even if you displayed an extensive knowledge of them and how they're flawed. Personally, if acting on principle, I'd probably just not want to work at a place like that to begin with. Of course, I'm sure there are some highly sought after individuals that could get by with that, and it probably depends on whether or not the organization you're engaging with views the polygraph seriously or as a relic on its way out.
If it were something to do with legal proceedings, I'd have to talk to a lawyer first, and see what was in my best interest.
As far as term semantics go (which I think are important), maybe "manipulating" would be a better word than "beating" or "cheating"
edit: The sibling poster also has a really good point about everyone possibly knowing it's a sham, but using it as a tool to get rid of people they want to get rid of. That might be more likely than all my speculation
I'm keying in on things like "being able to pass or fail [a polygraph]". "Able" to "pass" or "fail"? Would you say the same thing about being able to pass or fail a psychic palm reading?
I feel like I'm missing something, which is why I keep asking.
Say they ask you "have you engaged in homosexual behavior, especially under the age of 14?" Most people I know, given the situation, will blush. And blushing is basically all a polygraph can actually measure. So now they start berating you that you lied, and if you continue to insist you didn't lie about that particular question, they say it means you lied about a previous one.
The only way to pass a polygraph is to know what they are like and just get through it. Honest people and liars both just need to stick to their stories, regardless of what the polygraph is saying, because eventually they will just fail you and schedule you for another one. Repeat until you've been through it so many times it doesn't phase you anymore. Then their job is done, their job being, "it wasn't my fault if you turn out to be a spy."
Is where I'm going with this clear? I feel like I'm just confusing everyone with this line of questions.
I'm literally just asking:
If I was given a polygraph tomorrow, knowing what I know now (in fact having conviction about what I know about polygraphs), wouldn't a reasonable strategy be to ignore any polygraph-specific advice, and manage the process the same way I would if there was a Magic 8 Ball adjudicating it?
I know there are differences between the plastic toy and the fortune-telling billiard-ball, but are they meaningful?