My Haiku ...

Apply named Ode of the Cobra :

Never trust a snake
The look is sincere but fake
The mongoose will win 

Couldn't resist the opportunity !! hehehe 

It seems that deception detection is better with thorough analysis, non-arguable evidence, and of course the human brain.  Again I see no polygraph in sight and the SR & JR Cobra got bagged. Oh thats right I found them deceptive earlier the same way.  hehehe

I love little gifts from heaven ...

Posting privileges of darkcobra2005 and Mercible have been permanently suspended. This father-son tag team misrepresented their relationship and only acknowledged the truth when it was presented to them with irrefutable evidence (not all of which has been publicly posted). At that point, darkcobra2005 promptly deleted all of his roughly 165 posts. Note that darkcobra2005 is a repeat offender. He previously forged posts as thevet2/checking. Such game-playing violates the trust of all who read this message board and will not be tolerated.

Mercible wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 12:29am:



Cobra Jr.,

Both you and your father misrepresented yourselves on this site and hid your relationship while you backed him up, making him out to be the poor victim being attacked by other posters--LIES, LIES, LIES.  The definition of a  misrepresentation is the sense of presenting information in a way that does not accord with the TRUTH.

As for the games, allow me to refer to the "Baad feeling in my stomach" thread where you quoted dear old dad about how he's so concerned about false positives and you go on to coyly ask him what he does to help prevent false positives, does he report them--blah, blah blah.

DarkCobra Sr.,

It was difficult to get past your initial FALSE postings, but  I  gave you the benefit of the doubt as many other fair minded posters on this site and engaged in some discussion. After I said, all polygraphers are not the same and even defended you, I now find myself eating those words. You should be ashamed of yourself--pretending to be concerned about false positive victims. Why should anyone believe anything you say? You're probably just here to gather ammo to better catch examinees in your trap. I hope you've had a really good time playing with people, but the posters on this site are real victims who have suffered at the hands of an invalid testing procedure and/or unethical examiners. There's nothing funny or entertaining about that. I'm glad you won't be posting anymore disingenuous entries here. What a total waste of everyone's time. And don't think we didn't all notice how often you declined to respond to  counterpoints and questions about polygraphy. I for one, regret wasting my time on you. Why don't you crawl back underneath the rock from which you slithered?

As for you Cobra Junior, 
I have zero interest in conversing with someone reared by a snake. You know what they say, "Like father, like son..."

Mercible wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 12:38am:

I have found the majority of the posts under the name “DarkCobra” to be fair-minded and informative.

However, I do not see him as an ally to the antipolygraph crowd.  He has recently written that he believes the accuracy of the polygraph to be greater than 90-95% if a skilled examiner is involved.  I do not believe someone could claim that the polygraph is more than 95% accurate and still be in favor of abolishing its use.

Well that's too bad in my opinion.  I thought Darkcobra2005 added to the conversations and in many instances contributed useful information.  Although I didn't agree with him on many points, it was nice to have the point of view of a polygrapher.  One that was not "militant" in his defense of polygraphy.

I must mention that I did not see an out and out family issue brought up or an attack, only the possibility of a familial relation between Darkcobra2005 and Mercible.  The mention was that there stood a possibility of a parent/child relationship which was not being disclosed.  The problem many of the posters have on this site with limited disclosure is our previous experiences with polygraphers in which we were advised to hold nothing back, to provide full disclosure.  It would be along the same lines as having one of my family members log on to agree with me on my points and give credibility to my statements.  That would seemingly be faux agreement.  According to what you have written, Mercible, that was not exactly the case.

Mercible, I am sure now that you know of my story with polygraphy.  Does that help you understand the viewpoints of the many anti-polygraph posters on this site (those who have been refused further application processing due to a false-positive result)?

I may be in the minority but personally, I would like to see Darkcobra2005 continue to contribute.  However, ultimately that decision is not mine.

Quote:


You folks just lost your best ally in the fight to banish the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening. What a shame!

George,

I’ve responded to you privately, but you admonished me to respond publicly as well.  So, here it is….

Darkcobra2005 IS my Father. Now doesn’t that sound like something off of Star Wars?  “Luke, I AM Your Father…” 

All kidding aside, there was no game playing or collusion here.  Dad (darkcobra) wanted me to see the website and see the postings he had done.  Without his knowledge or consent, I joined the site and started posting myself.  I’m sure he was surprised when I did.  And, you are right, there is no “shame” in it for me.  I’m very proud of my father and the person he is.  Yes, he started out on this site under “false” pretense as you call it, but I think he was just bored and wanted to be a pain in the A**, which he is good at sometimes.  (Sorry Dad, remember I have to be honest here)   

Since he started posting as Darkcobra, it appears he is genuinely engaged in the debate and is seeking to truly help people who have been falsely accused of being deceptive.  I’m sure Brandon Hall and others can attest to that.   

So, why did I not immediately make my family connection known?  Simple enough, I wanted my thoughts, comments, arguments to stand or fall on their own.  Also, didn’t want to be found “guilty” by association as Polyfool has already done now:

Quote:

That really hurt my feelings... 

Quote:

True in some respects, but my wife swears I was adopted.

Polyfool, for someone who hated being called a liar, you sure are quick to point the finger without any proof.   Are you just trying to get under my skin or do you really believe I lied to you or anyone else on this message board? If so answer the following:   

Where have I lied on this site? _{(better be able to back is up with more than just speculation)}

What game(s) have I played? 

Everything I have written was exactly how I feel and what I believe.  All the info I have given about myself it true and correct.  Had I been interested in deceit, I would have never said the things I did about myself or my father which led George to be able to connect the dots.  I figured someone would eventually make the connection and I was pretty sure I’d get some derogatory reactions such as Polyfool’s.  But Polyfool’s post only confirms the points I made earlier about there being a propensity for people who are not 100% anti-poly to get attacks leveled at them on this site.  Had anyone of you suspected my relation to Darkcobra and asked me directly, I would have replied honestly as I did with George when he e-mailed me privately.  I’ve got nothing to hide, so ask away!   

George, Polyfool, and everyone else…. I whole-heartedly apologize that my relation to Darkcobra was withheld.    I don’t see why it really matters, but apparently it does to you and I have to respect your feelings in the matter.  If this causes you to doubt my motivations for my posts then please re-read my last post answering the direct question from Polyfool: 

Quote:


If you want me in the debate, I’ll gladly continue to post.  If you don’t, just say so and I’ll just as gladly leave you alone.  As you can see above, I’ve already changed my personal text under my Icon to state the following “Darkcobra IS My Father.”  Hopefully that will avoid any confusion for new folks who visit the site. 

So, where do we go from here?  Don’t know, but it should be interesting either way!

Sincerely,
Mercible (a.k.a. Darkcobra Jr.)

darkcobra2005 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2005 at 12:05am:


Goodbye, darkcobra2005.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2005 at 10:29pm:


You weren't honest. And now that your secret is out, I see you are deleting all your posts, to destroy the evidence, as it were. I suppose you do have a sense of shame.

Quote:



George,

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Mercible is in fact, somehow connected to DarkCobra 2005. If he is Cobra's offspring, I suppose he gets the lying and game playing honest. If my memory serves me correctly didn't Cobra begin posting on this site as "vet2" and "checking"under the ruses that he didn't know anything about polygraph and was just trying to learn more about it? He kept up the charade and even gave out bad advice designed to trip up examinees, giving himself away in the process. That is, before you outed him after you checked his IP address showing that he had posted under more than one user name? I think that's how it went. Anyway, that would certainly explain Cobra junior's IP address comment.  I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.....

Mercible

Funny thing is you do know alot about insurance ...
 
hmmm one does wonder ...

IP addresses and subnet masks don't lie either

Mercible,

I find it, um...interesting...that all of the "excerpts of posts that gave [you] the negative impressions [you] have so far" -- excerpts that you chose to quote out of context without regard to the remarks that prompted them -- just happen to be replies to darkcobra2005.

In your first post to this message board, you wrote "My Dad is a polygraph examiner and has been for the last 20 years!" Earlier in this message thread, darkcobra2005 wrote," I will state for the record that I have never had a complaint filed against me by an examinee in 20 years of polygraph." All this makes one wonder whether perhaps the polygraph examiner who is your father is none other than...darkcobra2005 himself! True?

Why would you choose to hide your relationship to darkcobra2005? It only creates doubts about your motivations for posting. If you are darkcobra2005's son, why not say so? There's no shame in it.

Brandon & Polyfool,

This is a long post, so you may want to get a cup of coffee first.  I apologize, up front, but when I get on a roll, I just have to let it all out……

Yep, I’m certainly late to the table, no denying that at all.  As I write this, there are 19,140 posts and counting.  Darkcobra has 165 posts.  Unfortunately, my work schedule and family life have precluded me from reading the vast majority of them, but I’m catching up as quickly as I can.

Brandon, you say: 
Quote:


I would agree, Darkcobra seems to me to be very open-minded individual.  I think it is wonderful that he has the courage to state in no uncertain terms that polygraph is not an absolute.  But, what I’m not seeing is folks on the other side of the debate concede that there is any possibility that there may be some validity to polygraph.   They keep using the terms “Quackery” and “Junk Science.”  Again, that kind of inflammatory language doesn’t move the debate forward, it only alienates possible allies.

Brandon, I agree entirely with the remainder of your post.  Thank you for being one of the civil folks.

Polyfool, you say: 
Quote:


I would agree that “some” have engaged him in civil discussion, but here are some excerpts of posts that gave me the negative impressions I have so far:

Administrator 4-18-05: Quote:


George: 4-19-05: Quote:


Anxietyguy 4-24-05: Quote:


Bill Crider 5-7-05: Quote:


Anxietyguy 5-10-05: Quote:


Anxietyguy 5-10-05: Quote:


Anxietyguy 5-11-05: Quote:


Bill Crider 5-25-05: _{This one is my favorite, very creative} Quote:


Polyfool 5-26-05: Quote:


Now, I will admit that the ferociousness of the comments has gotten better, but I think you have a long way to go overall.  I’m sure many of you have gained some respect for the “Shady Snake,” I know I have.  I have respect for many of the non-examiners as well.  I hope I have shown that respect on all occasions when posting here.   

Polyfool, you say: 

Quote:


I thought the answer would be obvious based on my very first posting to the site.  My father is an examiner.  He has been in the industry as an independent examiner for many years.  His life’s work is of interest to me.  He believes polygraph to be a useful tool and can, in the hands of the right person, be used to accurately detect deception. I, of course, believe him.  Why should he lie to me about it?  He’s never lied to me before.  Besides, the man is a human lie detector himself. Long before going to polygraph school he could sniff out a lie like a hound dog on the trail of a fox.   

So then, I find this site and decide to see what the opponents have to say.  The more I read, the more I was intrigued.  Yes, the snide comments by both polygraph proponents and opponents tick me off.  But, the underlying debate has merit on both sides.  After reading George’s story, I decided I needed to pay careful attention to his postings.  I read TLBTLD.  Then I re-read it.   

I then asked myself, can I help?  Is it possible to bring the two sides together to further the debate and gain true understanding?  I can tell you, the resistance I’ve met so far makes me think it is possible, but very unlikely.  But, being the eternal optimist that I am, I decided to wade into the debate and try it anyway.   

So, here I am.  I’m your average citizen who is now tuned into the debate.  I’d like to help.  I don’t have any scientific or psychological background, but I can sure tell you what the average person will or won’t buy into.  I think you guys need an outside perspective.  Granted, I am biased towards the use of polygraph, but I have a lot of strong views about the use of it being very limited and much regulated.  But, because polygraph isn’t my lively hood, the abolishment won’t affect me.  It won’t really even affect my father as he is slowly scaling back the number of tests he runs and will eventually retire altogether.  Also, I haven’t had the misfortune to be the subject of a botched exam.  I know that makes you feel very strongly about the issue, but perhaps it also taints your view a bit too.

For those of you who are still skeptical about my intentions, or that maybe I’m one of those dubious polygraph examiners who are just posing as someone else.  Feel free to ask the Administrator of the site whether the IP address I’m posing from doesn’t match my story.  I happen to know the IP address should actually tell him which Insurance company I work for.   

Speaking of Insurance… George, you said: 

Quote:


Thank God! Something I can speak with authority on.  Professional Liability insurance policies (also called E&O policies) vary from company to company.  Each company also decides their underwriting requirements for their policies. There is no true “standard” in the industry as professional Liability policies are very unique and pose the greatest risk in most instances.  The policy language may not require that a waiver be signed by a subject; the policies are usually worded very broadly.  But, the underwriter of the policy can always require proof of certain documents used in the course of conducting certain types of business.   

As Darkcobra states, these waivers are as worthless as the paper they are written on.  Similar waivers and release documents are signed in the course of settling claims, but they are just as worthless.  I’ve seen them defeated in court many times.  Yet, the insurance companies still use them.  It amounts to a handshake agreement and makes the person who received the settlement a little less likely to reopen the claim.  The only waiver or release forms that do withstand the scrutiny of the courts are the ones where the lawyer of the person who signs the form also signs off on the form.  This indicates that the person’s lawyer was there to fully explain the language to his client before the client signed the form.  I doubt many people who take a polygraph bring their lawyer with them to co-sign any documents. Maybe they should?

Next time you rent a car, take a look at the waivers and releases in that agreement. Yikes!

Anyhow, the weekend is finally here.  I hope everyone has a great weekend.   

Mercible   

darkcobra2005 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 8:39am:

Everyone’s opinions are shaped by their experience.

Based on my own experiences with the polygraph, I would place their accuracy at 25%, since I failed three out of four tests while giving the same truthful answers on all of them.

I find it impossible to dismiss the large amount of anecdotal evidence on this site from people who, like myself, told the truth and were wrongly labeled as “deceptive.”   

I suppose it is possible that some of the people who claim to have been falsely accused of deception were truly being deceptive during their examination.  But I think it is highly unlikely that everyone (or even a significant percentage) making that claim was actually deceptive.

I also believe that the accuracy of the polygraph must include the false-positive rate.  To me, the most problematic aspect of the polygraph is the fact that false-positives happen.  The rate at which they occur is debatable, but I have yet to encounter a single examiner who claims they don’t happen at all.

As soon as you encounter a false-positive rate, the rest of the process quickly becomes meaningless.  If there were absolutely no chance that a truthful person could be labeled as “deceptive” then the rate at which polygraphs and their operators detected deception would be an actual accuracy rate.  Perhaps not all deceptive people would be detected, but at least you would know that when deception was detected it meant, with 100% certainty, that the person had been deceptive during the examination.

With an unknown rate of false-positives it becomes impossible to come to any conclusion after a polygraph, regardless of the result.  A “deception indicated” result means that the subject was deceptive, or the subject was truthful but is coming up as a false positive.  A “no deception indicated” results means that the person was truthful, or the person was deceptive but it was not detected, or that the person successfully utilized countermeasures.

In the end you have nothing but the guess, educated though that guess may be, of one person with regards to what another person was thinking.  You can achieve exactly the same results in a normal interview and I believe they would be just as accurate.  But they wouldn’t have the aura of accuracy which the polygraph promises but fails to deliver. 

darkcobra2005,

I'm not suggesting that you have stated anything that you didn't believe to be true. But it seems to me that in rationalizing the practice of demanding liability waivers from examinees, you jumped from one argument of convenience to another without adequately checking your facts.

Thank you for explaining the situation with your own liability insurance. It does seems odd to me that your insurance company would require you to obtain liability waivers that have no legal force. But I have no further questions of you in this regard.

darkcobra2005,

You earlier wrote that your insurance company required you to demand waiver liabilities from applicants:

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 10:33pm:


I still have not received from you any documentation of that claim. But I did succeed in obtaining a sample copy of the terms and conditions of the standard policy for American Polygraph Association members offered by Complete Equity Markets, Inc. of Wheeling, Illinois, who are listed on American Polygraph Association website. The conditions of that policy do not require the examiner to make the examinee sign any waiver of liability:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cem-polygraph-insurance-policy.pdf

To recap, you initially offered the implausible explanation that state laws require polygraphers to obtain a waiver of liability from examinees. When called on this, you initally refused further comment. You then adopted the position that it is insurance companies that require polygraphers to demand waivers of liability from examinees. But you wouldn't provide a copy of your insurance policy to prove it. And now we see that a major provider of polygraph liability insurance has no such requirement. Your credibility is wearing thin.

If you (and other polygraphers) truly accept responsibility for your actions and omissions, you have no excuse for demanding liability waivers from examinees.

Mercible wrote on Nov 4^th, 2005 at 1:38am:



Mercible,

You're a little late on the scene. Perhaps, you should do a search of Cobra's posts. He has been enaged in civil poly discussion with many users of this board for several months. He has said that he's concerned about preventing false positives and that the poly should not be used as the sole determining factor in employment. Hopefully, he and his examinees have benefited from information gleaned during these exchanges and I think his presence here has been beneficial to those shafted by unethical examiners by allowing them to see that not all examiners are the same. 

And just so we won't have to repeat this conversation, Nonombre is also a polygrapher who posts here and engages in civil discussions with users on a regular basis. That's the beauty of this board--a free exchange of ideas with mutual respect regarding differences of opinion. You might want to do a search on his posts as well. Happy reading!!

Now, a question for you. Why are you so interested in polygraphy? You say you're not an examiner, you've never taken one, yet you obviously feel passionate about it. Why?

Mercible,

You are a little late or at least unaware regarding you most recent advisement.  Months ago Darkcobra and I began talking about our views of polygraphy.  It may be no surprise that we disagree on quite a few points, however we agree on others.  Darkcobra is quite different from many of the other examiner's I have communicated with in that there is the absence belief in the polygraph as an absolute.  This is not an admission that many a polygrapher would offer as most seem to be under the impression that this would destroy credibility on their part.

I do thing you are correct in that the general public is quite disinterested in this debate about polygraphy.  Most of the population has no actual knowledge regarding polygraph examining other than what little snippets they have read or seen in the news as well as the fictional dramas and comedies which are loosely based on real-life polygraphy.  In addition, the vast majority of the general population will never undergo a polygraph examination.  I never had an interest either way until becoming a false postive.

I agree that common ground or a least a general air of civility is needed in order to reform or do away with polygraphy.  It truly has no place in employment screening which is my largest concern with polygraphy.

Bravo!  

Darkcobra has extended the olive branch.  

He is your opponent, your sworn enemy in the fight against polygraph.  I am very curious to see how those on the opposite side of the fight will respond.  

Will you disregard him, ignore him, question his motives, question his sincerity, attack him, twist his words? OR... will you accept the outstretched hand of friendship and work with him to gain mutual understanding and additional knowlege?

I know which I would choose, but then I'm just a spectator sitting in the stands watching the game unfold.   

Alas, the choice is yours.  Choose wisely.......

Mercible

Dr Richardson, 

So glad to have you in on the conversation.   

You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe...    Don't you love that song? It really does sum up many of the posts I have read on this site.  You have so much common ground with those you oppose, but you fail to really see it for what it is.    

As far as the analogies I've put forward, they are there to compare and contrast.  In the end, I still give the benefit of the doubt to the polygraph community.  Why is that?

• The position of the anti-polygraph community is that polygraph is quackery and there is no scientific basis.  So What? 

   

• The position of the polygraph community is there is a scientific basis and the problems with polygraph is the examiner, possibly even the exam method.  Again, I say So What? 

 

And here I am in the middle to tell you the general public really isn't paying attention to either argument.  You can analogize, analyze, theorize, and even fantasize, but if you aren't winning the hearts and minds of the average registered voter, then you certainly aren't going to get the politicians to change a thing.   

You have your experts and the polygraph community also has their experts.  The general public doesn't have the time to take an in-depth look at the research.  Hell, half the things you say on this site go right over my head.  You may technically win the debate, but for all I know it's just a bunch of fancy lingo that  gets you nowhere with the common voter.   

Even though I disagree with many of the things you say, I am on your side when it comes to stopping the use (and abuse) of polygraph in the sole determination of guilt/innocence or even the suitability for employment.

Do you want to know why that is?  I have no stake in the game.  I'm not an examiner, I never took a polygraph, I've never been affected by one.  So why would I care about your cause?  It's the human factor.  George Maschke's story made me angry!  Not at George, but at the government.  George's story and those like his are your real ammunition.  All the psycho-babble and scientific tests mean nothing to me or the average voter.  You show me how an American patriot who has served his country well and is then dragged through the mud for no good reason and I am on your side!

The average voter will give the benefit of the doubt to the police and the government, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.   Why, well because the government and the police protect them.  Besides, they know going head-to-head with any authority is an uphill battle and best left to attorneys and politicians who have the financial wherewithal to fight those types of battles.   

If the ACLU isn't even interested in taking up the fight, the that tells you one very clear thing.  You aren't making your case very well.  You have to tell the Story, not give them scientific mumbo-jumbo.  The Story has gotten lost in all the white noise of the debate.  Remember people like a good.....      



You need publicity.  Hire a public relations firm to help you spread the Story effectively and you might actually gain some traction.

One of the many points I try to make is that demonizing the other side doesn't help your cause.  It only makes you look weak. They certainly look weak when they do it to you.  Be willing to engage the other side, not challenge them to a dual.  If they believe their cause is noble and just, then attacking them only strengthens their resolve.

So how do you get the other side to listen to your cause?  I suggest Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People."  It's an old book, but many of the lessons in that book are as true today as when it was written.  I try to read it once every couple of years to remind myself that just because I think I'm right, doesn't mean everyone else will agree.  You have to get them on your side.   

You already have a couple of examiners on your side, Darkcobra and Nonombre.  And that is despite some of the ugly attacks they have endured on this site.  They must be truly sick individuals to keep coming back for more.  But, that makes me believe they too care about those who have suffered at the hands of a bad examiner.   

Well, so long for now.  Keep the debate lively but civil!

Regards,
Mercible...




   

[quote author=Mercible link=board=Policy;num=1124414574;start=80#98 date=11/01/05 at 12:27:53]

You say, "So what!"  I say, there's something there to be learned.  Something is happening on those charts.  Science does tell us that people do react physiologically to stress.  That's a proven fact that is beyond dispute.  From what I know, polygraph is used in an attempt to capture that stress reaction, put it into context to determine if a subject is being deceptive.  Are they going about it the right way?  I haven't a clue, but I don't think the argument is that polygraph is useless. I think the argument is can it be improved to the point of reliability?  I think it can, but again, I'm in the insurance business, what do I know?

Mercible,

It's too bad that you've never taken a polygraph without prior knowledge and then been falsely deemed "deception indicated."  The real life experience would provide you with valuable insight and give you a true appreciation of the instrument's limitations.  It's also unfortunate that examiners can't have this same experience as it would provide a unique perspective to the whole process. I realize that examiners typically have to pass polygraphs to become examiners, but that's only after they've learned about polygraphy, which is vastly different from an uninformed examinee undergoing the procedure. 

I agree there is something happening on those charts, but the causes of the reactions vary just as widely as do the people behind them. 

Mercible,

You write in part:
Quote:


Wrong.  There is no right examiner or wrong examiner.  This is not about malpractice or the lack thereof.  This (lie detection) is about quackery.  Because there is no demonstrated relationship between the monitored physiology and deception, the other factors (although they may well affect the examination environment) become secondary at best to the lack of a primary theoretical construct for the intended experiment.

You further write:
Quote:


George's criticism and Sergeant1107's analysis regarding your sonar analogy are quite on track.  Your further comparison of  that analogy to any reference George has made to astrology again misses the mark.  Lie Detection is quackery and the parallel to astrology is much more apt than your references to sonar or the patellar reflex.  I must admit though that a representative of the astrology industry recently let me know that they take offense at being compared to polygraphy.

Ok,

I'll concede that the sonar comparison was far reaching, but I'm sticking with subjects I'm familiar with.  I like to compare and contrast.  I don't think the comparisons necessarily have to match one another to gain insight and understanding.   

George, the comparison of phrenology (bumps on the head) and Astrology (telling the future) are also vastly different from an actual polygraph exam, yet you use them to make a point.  That's all I was trying to do as well. 

Let me make another attempt:  It's a reflex test where the doctor hits you in the knee joint with a rubber hammer.  Either the knee jumps or it doesn't.  If it does, the doctor is looking to see how much it jumps.  Now, based on that one test, the doctor can tell if your reflex reaction is abnormal.  Only problem is, that one test alone cannot tell you why.  The doctor has to perform additional examinations, tests and such to zero in  on a diagnosis.   

As you can see, my overarching theme is that polygraph is only one test.  Everyone agrees that the machine can capture a physiological reaction to a question.  What that reaction means has to be taken into context with the other factors surrounding the test.  In my opinion, the right examiner knows how to take those other factors into consideration.  Does that mean he can tell you 100% if the person is lying or telling the truth?  No, he can only say that "Deception is Indicated"    It's an opinion, much like a doctor would give a medical "opinion."  How many people get a second "opinion" from another doctor?  I find it curious that the medical profession uses that exact term, "opinion."  They know that NOTHING is 100%.

You say, "So what!"  I say, there's something there to be learned.  Something is happening on those charts.  Science does tell us that people do react physiologically to stress.  That's a proven fact that is beyond dispute.  From what I know, polygraph is used in an attempt to capture that stress reaction, put it into context to determine if a subject is being deceptive.  Are they going about it the right way?  I haven't a clue, but I don't think the argument is that polygraph is useless. I think the argument is can it be improved to the point of reliability?  I think it can, but again, I'm in the insurance business, what do I know?

George, you ask, who can?  Well, the answer is, you can.  Have you made it a point to meet face to face with an examiner who believes as strongly as you do, just not the same as you do.  I'd say Darkcobra and Nonombre are good candidates.  They seem to understand some of the limitations of polygraph and are willing to be in the debate. 

I don't think they would be willing to do it publicly, but perhaps if the circumstances were right, they would meet with you privately and perhaps be involved in some research.  Maybe as they gain more confidence in you and you in they, a public forum might not be impossible.  But, you have to build trust first.   

Who knows, you may both learn something in the process, even if you don't reach the same conclusions.

I'd even volunteer to help mediate the process. 

Alright, it's lunchtime again and I need to go.    Look forward to continuing the discussion later.

Mercible.

Sergeant1107,

You write:

Quote:


Bravo!  Excellent analysis.

I think the comparison between sonar and the polygraph is incomplete.  Sonar does a very good job of collecting data, and an experienced sonar operator can interpret that data to determine what object has been encountered.  Where the comparison falls apart is that the sonar operator does not take his collected data and attempt to determine what the commander of the detected vessel is thinking.

If polygraphs were solely used to determine a subject’s heart rate, respiration rate, and galvanic skin response I’m sure they would function admirably in that capacity.  That is what they are designed to do and I’m sure that an experienced operator would be able to collect that data on a subject with a high degree of accuracy.