Polygraphs have major flaws. Are there better options?

Here's something that might surprise you — polygraphs, the so-called 'lie detectors,' are actually pretty flawed. Sarah Scoles from Undark Magazine shares the story of George Maschke, who passed security checks for years but then flunked a polygraph during a job interview with the FBI. The machine claimed he was hiding stuff about foreign contacts, even though he swore he was telling the truth. Now, here's where it gets interesting — according to Scoles, researchers have shown that polygraphs can't reliably tell truth from lie because they only measure physiological responses like heart rate and sweating, which can be triggered by anxiety or stress, not deception. That means these machines often give false positives or negatives, making them pretty unreliable for serious security decisions. What Sarah Scoles highlights is that modern science is looking for better ways — like brain imaging — to spot deception more accurately. So, the big takeaway? We might need to rethink how we judge honesty, especially in high-stakes settings.