Hacker News Reader

It sounds like you're arguing that a lie detector only detects lies that the subject considers "meaningful".

So now you have two problems: Detecting whether a subject believes a particular topic is "meaningful", and then detecting whether they are lying about it.

You're kind of missing the point of the book: "Polygraphy is not science." It's an interrogation technique.

I think interrogators are missing the point: If your interrogation technique can't even produce information that is verifiably correct, then why on earth would you believe any information produced that is non-verifiable?

You could always offer the subject a hundred bucks (or some other significant amount) if he is able to obfuscate it.

Then just make it meaningful by threatening to shoot the interviewee in the head if they fail to trick you.

Yeah, that would totally be acceptable. /s

Could use blanks or a paintball gun.. would probably be enough to get a baseline stress level.