Quote:


Those who took part in the Salem witch trials were probably well intentioned.  What's that saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

Don't laugh, there is A LOT of similarity between polygraph mania and 17th century witch trials.  Both involved false accusations and subsequent "shunning" of innocent people based on bogus beliefs.   

Good intentions can be a very dangerous thing.

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 3:25am:


I agree TC> Do I think that polygraph operators intentionally seek to fail innocent people?  I can honestly say I don't think they do

However, I do think that they realize that they are dealing with an unscientific method of detecting deception and that the real "test" is getting the person to confess, and thats where they fail me. 
They need to get confessions so they MUST consider failing innocent people  "acceptable casualties" to do what hey do for a living.
 
I cannot believe that any polygraph operator doesn't  know that their machines don't work or they would not need to rely so much on the post test interrogation. This is why it's vital for them to keep the public believing that the accuracy rate in in the 90 percentile and why this site gets under their skin.

While Jack Trimarco has made counterfactual public statements Quote:


They, like most of the public, DID probably believe in the validity of polygraphy when they BECAME a polygraph operator.  But I am pretty sure experienced operators actually know the machine does not measure deception, and that they DO IN FACT, have to lie to applicants about that, and often label innocent people liars as part of their FREAKING JOB DESCRIPTION!  

But for peole like that to then go on TV and make "counter factual" statements to feed public misconceptions regarding a process which he/she knows falsely smears people, because (what the heck) this is the way they make a living!  And for such people to come onto a public forum (like this BBS) and slander you (claiming you are aiding terrorists, child molesters, are have fled your homeland to escape the evil clutches of the FBI) because you disagree with them and they can't logically refute you.   Sounds like a "total dick" to me.  Well, maybe just "a dick" would suffice. 

Now, are ALL polygraph operators like this?  Probably not.  They are probably not any worse than used car or snake oil salesmen.  Most probably DO realize they knowingly deceive applicants about the reliability of the polygraph to extract information from them.  That this is "part of the game".  That many they fail are innocent, and will have to live with assumed guilt for the rest of their lives.  But they consider this acceptable "collateral damage".  "Let God sort'em out". 

OTOH, if they actually DO believe the machine detects deception, and that they only rarely fail innocent people.  Despite the scientific facts.  That just makes them deluded.

I agree, though, we should not stoop to their low level by name calling and resorting to slander, or talking about their mothers! 

TC

Oh, I wasn't wishing harm to Mr. Trimarco.  I was merely pointing out that it is possible that he might be hit by a bus at some point in the future.  It is a logical possibility.  It'd be silly to say that it is impossible for any bus to ever hit Mr. Trimarco.  Unlikely, yes.  But possible.   

Furthermore, people who think it is impossible are probably more likely to be hit by a bus that someone who is aware of the possibility, all else being equal, because the person who realizes it is possible will be more likely to look both ways before crossing the street.

Also, I must disagree: simply becoming rich and powerful is not something to praise.  If you use your wealth and power to help people, then that is praise worthy.  But if you just use it to make yourself even more rich and more powerful, then no.

Dr Maschke and Mr Scalabrini,

Thank you for your calm and reasoned replies.
Best Holiday wishes to All.  

I also disagree that Trimarco should be painted in a broad negative light as a person. 

With regard to his belief in the idiocy of control question test (CQT) polygraphy and what he has done to further public confidence in it, he absolutely deserves to be criticized.

Still, the man has dedicated his life to government service. He's worked on some top-tier cases, gone through doors, etc. For that, he deserves our respect. 

As George and I have stated numerous times before, we believe that most people involved with polygraphy are well intentioned. Still, they are wrong in their fanatical belief that a fraudulent, pseudoscientific "test" has any value other than as a psychological rubber hose.

Lethe wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 4:06am:


While Jack Trimarco has made counterfactual public statements regarding polygraphy, I think it is painting with too broad a brush to characterize him and nearly all polygraphers as "total dicks." For example, I've privately had some civil, constructive exchanges with a number of polygraph examiners. Although we may disagree on polygraph matters, I think that all-in-all, most polygraphers are decent, well-meaning people. As I've said before, I don't think anyone becomes a polygraph examiner out of a desire to falsely accuse the innocent (although such inevitably results from reliance on an invalid test for deception).

Quote:


I really don't think it's appropriate to wish physical harm on anyone, even in jest.

Oh, speaking of the polygraph myth in American culture (something that also interests me), it looks like the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still has a scene where they try to polygraph Klaatu (played by Keanu Reeves).

Even before I knew of that scene, I knew that this one wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the original.  Now it's definitely impossible for it to be so.  Rent the original TDTESS, pass on this one.

Jack Trimarco looks like he's a total dick--as do just about all polygraphers.  It's a shame the way they harden themselves and create these fake personas in order to better practice their magic arts.  Eventually, after playing a son of a bitch for long enough, they irreversibly become one.  Such a waste of human potential.  Oh well, they get paid to do that to themselves.

Maybe he'll get hit by a bus soon.

Quote:


I am by no means a regular viewer of the Dr. Phil show. But to the extent that I am able, I do watch those episodes that involve polygraphy, as I am interested in the status of the lie detector myth in American popular culture. For commentary on past Dr. Phil polygraph episodes, see:

• Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 & 28 Nov. 2006
• Yet Another Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode (17Nov06)
• Dr. Phil Lie Detector Episode, 4 April 2007
• Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode with John Swartz, 5 September 2007
• Dr. Phil Lie Detector Episode with Joelle Ogletree, Chayce Wilson, and Matt Brooks

Its psychology 101 that lie detector test give false results.  "Doctor" Phill is a quack, who profits from 1960-70's spiritual guru bull that he recycling and packages for dollars $$

So...just why do you watch him .. I don't!!
Are you one of those preverts that watch Jerry Springer?

Just more reason not to marry a religious nutbag

Entertainment is perhaps the best use to which the pseudoscience of polygraphy can be put, just so long as everyone understands that it's all for laughs (as on the Howard Stern show). Regrettably, Dr. Phil McGraw -- who with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology should know better -- has for years been falsely promoting polygraphy as a scientifically valid test that can provide meaningful answers to serious life questions -- though somehow it never seems to do so in the episodes wherein he turns to the polygraph for answers.




The 26 November 2008 installment of the Dr. Phil show, titled, "A Husband's Double Life," is a prime example of such misplaced and irresponsible reliance on the lie detector. The episode delves into lurid details of husband Michael's numerous infidelities to his wife, Elaine. Michael -- a self-described "sex addict" and father of two young girls --  admits that he has performed oral sex on an estimated 80 men at adult bookstores, that he has met other women for sex, that he has masturbated while driving on the freeway, and that he now faces legal consequences for his behavior. He has been in counseling since October 2007 and claims to have been sexually "sober" since September 2008.




Michael's wife, Elaine, suspects that there is more that her husband hasn't told her. She fears that he may take a sexual interest in children and that their two young daughters may be at risk. Elaine is desperate for answers. And so Dr. Phil suggests a lie detector test:

Quote:





Retired FBI polygrapher Jack Trimarco is on hand to perform the polygraph services:

Quote:





Quote:


A scientifically invalid test for emotional and moral growth? Really? Dr. Weiss operates the Heart to Heart Counseling Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which markets sex addiction counseling services. A FAQ on Weiss' website offers an interesting explanation of why people become sexually addicted: "Spiritually, a person is filling up the God hole in them with their sexual addiction."

As an aside, regular readers of AntiPolygraph.org may recall that former Colorado Springs clergyman Ted Haggard went to erstwhile male prostitute Mike Jones to get his "God hole" filled. Jones failed a polygraph test regarding his sex and drug allegations, but was vindicated when Haggard resigned in disgrace as president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Perhaps Haggard had in fact been filling up the "gay hole" in him with religion (not to mention an extra large helping of hypocrisy)?

But let us return to our present polygraph saga. The show returns from a commercial break:




Quote:


It's tragic that Elaine is ready to base her decision whether or not to divorce Michael on the results of a lie detector test. But it's an outrage that Dr. Phil and Dr. Weiss haven't disabused her of the notion that polygraph chart readings can be relied upon for such purposes. The show returns from another commercial break:

Quote:


Here, Trimarco repeats a falsehood that he has uttered numerous times. In fact, polygraphy has not been proven to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. The best available field studies suggest (255kb PDF) that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data." Indeed, the consensus view among scientists is that polygraphy has no scientific basis.

Quote:


While Trimarco may have been polite and, in keeping with normal polygraph practice, reviewed all questions during the pretest phase, he would not have revealed to Michael that polygraphy actually depends on trickery -- and the naïveté and gullibility of the person being "tested." Nor would Trimarco have disclosed that the procedure is inherently biased against the truthful: the more candidly one answers the so-called "control" questions (answers to which are secretly expected to be less than honest), and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail! See Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF) for a thorough exposition of polygraph procedure.

And now the moment the audience has been waiting for, the polygraph results!




Quote:





If you're like me, you might be wondering, why on Earth did Jack Trimarco select such a poor relevant question? Is he taking his job seriously at all? Michael has already admitted to numerous sexual encounters that he had hidden from his wife. It seems both Michael and Elaine are confused, too:

Quote:





Quote:





Quote:





Dr. Phil proceeds to the third and last question:




Quote:


Note that this time the result is just "deceptive," not "conclusively deceptive." No explanation is offered, and the distinction is not mentioned on the show. Michael, maintaining his innocence, tries to explain the results:

Quote:


Dr. Phil then turns to Jack Trimarco to bolster the dependability of the polygraph results:

Quote:


However disinterested a polygraph operator may believe himself to be, it's unrealistic to suppose that a polygraph examiner's expectations will have no influence on test outcomes. Michael continues in vain to try to explain the results:

Quote:


After a digression, Dr. Phil takes up the polygraph results with Michael. The confusion relating to the wording of the first question rises again:

Quote:


Michael asks Dr. Weiss whether his sex addiction could have influenced his polygraph results:

Quote:


Note that while Dr. Weiss characterizes Michael's question as "fair," he doesn't provide a straight answer. It is not unusual that anyone -- sex addict or not, truthful or not -- would react strongly when asked "hot" questions of the kind that Trimarco put to Michael.

Because Michael has failed the polygraph, Elaine now fears she might commit an act of violence against Michael:

Quote:


Elaine expresses a desire to speak with Jack Trimarco, and a post-taping session is held:




Quote:





Quote:





Quote:


Trimarco's answer to Elaine is not really responsive. Although questions are reviewed first, as Trimarco correctly states, this pre-test review cannot stop thoughts, such as revulsion at the question being asked, or fear of the consequences of not being believed, from producing reactions that could lead a truthful person to wrongly fail.

Having failed to answer Elaine's question, Trimarco directs an accusatory statement to Michael:




Quote:





Quote:


One thing Elaine should not do is to rely on polygraph results to make the crucial decisions she faces. As in numerous past Dr. Phil episodes where the lie detector has been trotted out, the polygraph has failed to provide any real answers. Nonetheless, the lie detector may well have achieved its intended effect: that of boosting viewership during Nielsen's all-important November sweeps, the last day of which was 26 November, the day this episode aired!