This is a very -- how to say it? -- Aspie take on things. Because it asserts something that's certainly true while ignoring the context that would tell us how much weight to afford that truth. Yes, passing a polygraph doesn't prove you're telling the truth. But since you probably wouldn't voluntarily take a polygraph if you knew you were lying, the very fact that you take the test provides some evidence for your sincerity. It's indicative of good faith, if nothing else. In the context of this case, that matters.

The phrase "I'm inclined to thing [he/she] is telling the truth" is so widely batted about in each of these cases that it becomes absurd. Our feelings about what we think the truth is never codifies as evidence.

We shouldn't have senators questioning Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford next week, but instead have an independent investigator ask the questions in the public hearing in order to bypass the politically-tainted questions.

Short Herzog: "Maybe she was sexually assaulted but maybe it was just a bad date with poor wine choices."

Gunning for a job writing hot takes at Slate, Katie?

Even one of the co-inventors of the polygraph came to despise what he'd helped create.

Anyone asked to take one should simply say "those things don't work." You might as well flip a coin to decide if someone's lying or not.

Great book on the subject, btw. By a guy who knows a lot about polygraphs:
https://www.amazon.com/Tremor-Blood-David-T-Lykken/dp/0306457822

I still dont understand why they didn't question Kavanaugh on this during the closed door session. They could have kept the accuser's name out of this whole process, right?

Katie uses current events as a segue to a discussion about a machine. There's no narrative here.

Are you suggesting she was trained to fake a polygraph test? Your examples are people who committed crimes not crime victims. The mere fact that she came forward alone is reason to believe her. The test bolsters her account.

Also, folks seem to equate this to a criminal case. I keep hearing how she has to prove her case for due process. He is nominated for a lifetime appointment. The burden of proof is totally different. Worse case, he doesn't get a job. He isn't facing jail time or sex offender registry, just the loss of a job opportunity.

Anita Hill is getting on in years, it's high time we updated our societal shared memory of a woman being badgered by a bunch of hostile men over crimes another man committed against her!

@8 What a stupid fucking point. "Unlike most women" MEN date women, too.

So I guess that also gives men special magical lie-detector abilities like it does lesbians?

@2 and @10 Roy Moore took a polygraph test and passed it. Did you believe him?

@10, Kavanaugh faces a lot more than just a job opportunity he also faces very sever damage to his reputation. Since this came as the eleventh hour of the confirmation hearings I am very suspect of a political ploy. I think the Democrats are tryin to pull a "Jackie" on him.

@14 Moore was accused of a crime, which is the exact point I am making.

@16 I see what you mean, but you can't just use a polygraph test as valid evidence for accusers and not give the same right to the accused.

Also you absolutely need to prove your allegations in this case. I don't think you need beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal court cases, but proven by a preponderance of the evidence as in civil cases would be sufficient. If there is no evidence that this took place except for a polygraph test which is a garbage test and Kavanaugh is not confirmed, this will become a tactic that both sides will use to stop Supreme Court nominees. DC is a gross place and never doubt what either side will do to win.

All this bullshit over a polygraph is a dumb red herring and a total derail.

Had she NOT taken a polygraph the same rightwing trolls would be saying “Oh yeah? Why didn’t she take a polygraph or sump’n!”

Frankly I’d actually be MORE impressed if the WAS a democratic hit job. Frankly I hope it is a hit job. Exactly the sort of shit Kavanaugh did going after Clinton.

It would show me the Democrats actually have some balls and are willing to play the game as hard and as dirty as the republicans. It would show me they actually want to win this thing.

Fuck. I’d send them even more money.

Why on earth would a reputable psychologist AND college professor put herself through all this misery, misogyny, and expose herself and her family to mortal danger from the TrumpKlan and incel psychos if it wasn't true! Just imagine the phone calls and hate mail and threats she is getting at her home and office right now! Not to mention how all those RepubliKKKans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will try to tear her apart when she testifies. All 11 of them are men with vested interest! Lead by that creepy old Grassley who has done everything to hide Kavanaugh's papers from the Dems. Why were they in such a hurry to shove the confirmation through without a full vetting? They hid most of the papers and waited until the day before the hearing to released what they did release, and refused to delay the hearing so Dems and the Press can look at them. I don't know if Kavanaugh is guilty or not, but Grassley certainly was and is acting like he is!

And Katie, the evidence does NOT show that polygraphs don't work. Because if there was EVIDENCE of them being useless, then no one would use them at all. There is disagreement about how well they work, so they can't be used as proof in a courtroom to convict, but they ARE used by law enforcement and businesses all the time. I don't know what the policy is now, but I had to take a polygraph when I got hired for the county crime lab some years ago! Just because some people might be able to cheat the machine, doesn't mean everyone can, especially people who aren't career criminals or psychopaths!

@22 Feinstein could have brought this allegation up in the closed door session 6 weeks ago right? No one would have to know the accusers name if that was the case. If the previous 2 statments are true, Feinstein is very cruel for bringing this up now.

@21,
No, the evidence shows they're useless. No better than 50/50... flipping a coin.

So why do businesses and law enforcement use them? Because not everyone knows they don't work and they feel intimidated by them. Cops can give someone a polygraph, tell them it said they were lying, and then coerce a confession out of them. They do it all the time.

When a polygraph test is administered, the person supervising the test first asks what the results are supposed to be.

He then makes sure that is the end result, since the machine is highly open to interpretation.

It's garbage, and no one should ever take them or talk about them.