{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00967741935483871, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.330708661417323, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Polygraphology, profiling, eyetracking and other parascientific methods of psychiatric diagnostics

The article analyzes the problem of scientific groundlessness, inexpediency and unethical use of instrumental paraclinical methods for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders. An opinion is expressed about the discrepancy between instrumental diagnostics and the criteria set out in international classifications. The use of polygraph examination, profiling and eye tracking in forensic psychiatric expert practice is criticized. It is concluded that in the context of a subjective interpretation of the results obtained and the absence of evidence of correlations between the clinical syndrome and psychophysiological parameters, the conclusion about the presence of psychopathological disorders based on the proposed methods should be recognized as dangerous for the fate of patients and discrediting psychiatric diagnostics.