The secondary topic of the latest episode of Discovery Channel's popular Mythbusters program (Season 5, Episode 24 "Confederate Steam Gun"), which aired on Wednesday, 5 December 2007, is the supposed "myth" that it is possible to beat a polygraph test. (It is, despite the show's conclusion that it is merely "plausible." For documentation, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector [1 mb PDF].) The episode will re-air this Saturday, 8 December. I encourage all to watch.

In the episode, Mythbusters inexplicably fails to explain the truth about how a polygraph "test" actually works and (knowingly as I shall explain) presents a phony Ph.D. as an authority on matters of polygraph validity.

Here's how polygraph "testing" actually works: The examinee is not supposed to know that secretly, the examiner expects answers to the so-called "probable-lie control questions" to be less than truthful. An example of a commonly-used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The examinee is steered into a denial through the suggestion, for example, that anyone who would lie to get out of trouble is the same kind of person who would commit the crime under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is expected that everyone has lied to get out of trouble -- even those innocent of the crime.

Reactions to the control questions are then compared to reactions to the relevant questions (those directly concerning the incident under investigation), for example, "Did you take that money from that office?" If reactions to the control questions are greater, the examinee passes. If reactions to the relevant questions are greater, the examinee fails.

This simplistic methodology has no grounding in the scientific method and is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly and fully one answers the control questions, and as a result feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.

The procedure also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely expains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth" because the true answer is obvious to both examiner and examinee. But in fact, these irrelevant questions are not scored at all, but merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and control questions.

Mythbusters explained none of this critically important information to the audience, although they could have easily done so in a minute or two.

Again, the key to passing or beating a polygraph test is to exhibit stronger reactions to the control questions than to the relevant questions. Methods for doing this include the techniques of tongue-biting and mental activity (such as thinking exciting thoughts) that were shown on the episode. But these must be done timely with the asking of the control questions.

Instead, the Mythbusters personnel were told to apply countermeasures "when telling the truth." It appears that they wrongly applied their countermeasures when answering the unscored irrelevant questions. It is hardly surprising that such misapplied countermeasures did not result in passing scores.

The polygraph operator who appeared on the show is none other than the infamous "Dr." Michael Martin, whom AntiPolygraph.org has previously unmasked as a phony Ph.D. who obtained his "doctoral degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill. He is seen in a video clip currently available on the Discovery Channel website suggesting a 98% accuracy for polygraphy -- a scientifically unfounded claim that goes unquestioned by the Mythbusters staff:

http://dsc.discovery.com

The Discovery Channel's message board has a thread about this episode titled, Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!. (I have made several posts to this thread. I registered and posted under the name "George Maschke," but somehow, perhaps a database corruption, the user names associated with my posts have changed.)

I can reveal that in August of this year, I was contacted by two of Mythbusters' producers. They had seen my appearance on a 2003 British television program, and after a lengthy and pleasant telephone conversation, they were interested in having me either come to San Francisco to appear on the show or be interviewed via webcam.

One of the topics I was asked about in the course of our phone conversation was a polygraph examiner who might be suitable to appear on the show. They were initially interested in Bruce Burgess, who appeared in the same British show as I previously had. In a follow-up e-mail sent on 31 August 2007, I specifically warned them, in the event they chose to seek a polygraph examiner closer to home, against three prominent polygraph operators whom AntiPolygraph.org has identified as phony Ph.D.s: Ed Gelb, James Allan Matte, and Michael Martin. And I included the same hyperlinks you see here. The producers did not reply to my e-mail and did not contact me again.

Mythbusters cannot say they were not warned about Michael Martin's credentials. I think they owe the public an explanation of why they knowingly chose a fraud to appear on the show and allowed him to be presented as "Dr." Martin.

I hereby confer upon myself a PhD in awesomeness.  Please, it's Dr. Lethe to y'all.

Anyway, it is obviously in the interests of the polygraph industrial complex to keep their dirty secrets just that, secret.  I wonder if they guilt trip the producers of such shows and journalists reporting on them into keeping the truth about the poly from the people?  You know, "If you tell people how it really works, all of the children will be raped!  The children!  Do it for the children--who will all be molested!"  

That is, after all, a major way that they keep their minions in line.  "Yeah, you're lying to people and screwing over good folks whose only disqualification is knowing too much.  But, if you weren't doing this excellent work, all the children would be raped!"  "Yeah, they would, wouldn't they?  I'll go tell that to the misguided folks at antipolygraph.org!"

Lethe, PhD

Lethe,

Regarding bogus Ph.D.s and polygraphy, it is worth noting that the foremost polygraph organization, the American Polygraph Association (APA), does not consider it a violation of its ethical standards for a member to falsely hold himself out to the public as a Ph.D.

When I filed an ethics complaint with the APA against celebrity polygrapher Ed Gelb (a past president of the APA) for fraudulently passing himself off as a Ph.D. in marketing his polygraph services, the APA replied that it's none of their business, really.

Although I am disappointed that Mythbusters deceived the public regarding "Dr." Martin's credentials, I am even more dismayed that they helped to perpetuate the myth of the lie detector.

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 7:41am:

Lethe, Although I am disappointed that Mythbusters deceived the public regarding "Dr." Martin's credentials, I am even more dismayed that they helped to perpetuate the myth of the lie detector.

Mr. Maschke,

I just watched the episode of Mythbusters you are referring to and while not the best example of "journalism" I have ever watched, found it to be fairly entertaining (which is what that show is all about anyway).

I also read your expected blazing diatribe attacking the methodology the show's producers used in the particular polygraph experiment used and actually agree with some of the points you make.

That being said, I find myself wondering IF one or more of the show's stars had in fact been able to "beat" the polygraph in this experiment, the headline on the splashpage of Anti-polygraph.org would have been something along the lines of:

"POLYGRAPH DEFEATED ON PRIME TIME!  COUNTERMEASURES PROVED EFFECTIVE!!!!"

Instead the test was completely accurate in all three examinations and in fact proved the countermeasures used by the stars to be utterly futile.

I seem to recall you somewhat playing down those points...

I wonder why?

Nonombre... :-?  

nonombre,

I'm puzzled that you would somehow find me blameworthy for remarks I didn't make regarding an outcome of the show that did not occur...

It is no surprise that the countermeasures used by the Mythbusters staff did not help them to pass the polygraph. After all, they wrongly applied them to the unscored irrelevant questions instead of to the control questions.

To all:

It is also worth noting that "Dr." Martin evidently lacked the confidence to rely exclusively the "control question test" (CQT) -- the standby technique of the polygraph community that accounts for the vast majority of the polygraph examinations conducted in the United States. Some of the questions asked during the show clearly indicate that in addition to a lie test, he used a form of concealed information test (either a peak of tension test or a guilty knowledge test). The questions played on the show that point to this are:

"Was that money stolen from a cashbox?"

"Was that money stolen from a white envelope?"

This form of testing, which has a much sounder theoretical basis than the CQT, involves asking a series of questions about details of a crime that only the perpetrator would know, in this case, the precise location from which the money was taken. It is inferred that if a subject reacts when the question matching the crime scene is asked, that he/she likely has knowledge of the crime.

More information about concealed information tests is available in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

And for an excellent account of how the guilty knowledge test may be employed in a criminal investigation, see "The Body on the Stairs: A Pedagogical Detective Story" by David Thoreson Lykken (Chapter 21 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 1st edition, 1981):

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-037.pdf

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 8:49am:

nonombre, It is no surprise that the countermeasures used by the Mythbusters staff did not help them to pass the polygraph. After all, they wrongly applied them to the unscored irrelevant questions instead of to the control questions.

Mr. Maschke,

I am so happy to see you admit that the countermeasures attempted (some of the same ones you stess in your book) clearly did not work in this case (no surprise).  Regarding the types of questions in which the CMs were performed, the examiner clearly observed deliberate movements in the charts.  Who cares where they were attempted, the examinee was CAUGHT.  This makes your arguement regarding the type of questions in which the CMs were attempted, ridiculous.

I close by posing the question you never answered:

Is it not true that regardless of the methodology you so aggressively attack, if the actors had been able to actually "Beat" the polygraph, you would have proclaimed that fact in BIG BOLD LETTERS??????????

George, in life you really can't have it both ways.

Regards,

Nonombre 8-)

nonombre

I open by posing the questions that you never answered.

The whole underlying premise of this show was wrong.  They wrongfully assumed that a polygraph test detected truthfulness or deception, and were "busting the myth" that countermeasured could change the results of a test.

What they should have done, was concentrate on proving whether or not a lie detecter actually could detect lies, which from what I have read, is the real "myth" involved in lie detectors.

nonombre wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 2:36pm:

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 9th, 2007 at 8:49am: nonombre, It is no surprise that the countermeasures used by the Mythbusters staff did not help them to pass the polygraph. After all, they wrongly applied them to the unscored irrelevant questions instead of to the control questions. Mr. Maschke, I am so happy to see you admit that the countermeasures attempted (some of the same ones you stess in your book) clearly did not work in this case (no surprise).  Regarding the types of questions in which the CMs were performed, the examiner clearly observed deliberate movements in the charts.  Who cares where they were attempted, the examinee was CAUGHT.  This makes your arguement regarding the type of questions in which the CMs were attempted, ridiculous.

No it doesn't. The countermeasure whereon Tory was reportedly "caught" (via sensor pads under the seat of the chair and under his feet) was pricking himself in the leg with a pin tack. This countermeasure has never been suggested by AntiPolygraph.org. Note that the mental countermeasures and tongue-biting, misapplied as they were, appear to have gone undetected.


Quote:

I close by posing the question you never answered: Is it not true that regardless of the methodology you so aggressively attack, if the actors had been able to actually "Beat" the polygraph, you would have proclaimed that fact in BIG BOLD LETTERS??????????

Had Tory and Grant passed the polygraph using the countermeasures they did, in the manner they did, I would not be able to attribute their passing to the use of those countermeasures.

nopolycop wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 3:29pm:

The whole underlying premise of this show was wrong.  They wrongfully assumed that a polygraph test detected truthfulness or deception, and were "busting the myth" that countermeasured could change the results of a test. What they should have done, was concentrate on proving whether or not a lie detecter actually could detect lies, which from what I have read, is the real "myth" involved in lie detectors.

Hmmm,

If I remember the outcome of the show, the examiner correctly identified the two liars as lying and the truthful subject as truthful...

Not bad for a "myth."

Nonombre ;D

Well, since Dr. Martin is such an honest man, we have no need to wonder if he might have manipulated the circumstance to suit his own purposes. Am I missing something here?

Why should we even discuss a test when we can not rely on the credibility of the examiner who has a history for falsifying information?

Brettski wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 7:21pm:

...we have no need to wonder if he (the examiner) might have manipulated the circumstance to suit his own purposes...."

Yes, and while your at it maybe you can wonder if Old Saint Nick has been making the rounds of the local taverns with the Easter Bunny and Barney the Dinosaur. :o

Brettski

Or, while you're at it, you could wonder if St. Nick and his gang (while visiting the tavern) saw nonombre having a drink purchased by a qualified applicant that he singularly kept from being a good LEO because he "suspected" CM use.

If you had asked an intelligent question instead of making a statement, he wouldn't have responded. OR - if he did he would have used CMs.

Hilarious two-block. I am impressed (as always) with your post  :P. But, I still think that something about you strikes me as not quite right....

---

Further posts to this message thread should address should substantively address the original topic.

I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work.

I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree.

The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:37am:

I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work. I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree. The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

But, he allows his phony degree to identify him on the show?  What a scumbag poser.

And, since I am on the topic, why do so many polygraphers feel the need to bolster their credentials by claiming academic achievements they didn't earn?

Barry_C wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:37am:

I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work.

Barry, the producers of Mythbusters certainly knew about AntiPolygraph.org (as they contacted me, and I spoke with one of them at length well in advance of the filming date). But it's clear they didn't use The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for the show. The countermeasure instructions given to Tory and Grant are things that one would not expect to work, and that no one knowledgeable about polygraph procedure would attempt.

Note that while Martin appears to have detected Tory's movements when pricking himself in the leg with a thumbtack, there is no indication that he detected Tory's tongue-biting (misapplied as it was).

The bottom line is that Mythbusters' "Beat the Lie Detector" segment tells us nothing about 1) the efficacy of polygraph countermeasures or 2) the validity of the CQT polygraphy.


Quote:

I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree.

Yet he hides the fact that his "honorary" degree is from an unaccredited diploma mill. Michael Martin is committing academic fraud by representing himself to the public even as an "honorary" Ph.D. and styling himself as "Dr. Martin" in marketing his polygraph services.


Quote:

The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you?

Barry_C wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:37am:

....In fairness to Michael, he discloses that (his phony degree) it is not an earned degree.

Sir,
You condone Mr Martins use of a phony (false) degree, just because he disclosed to you that it is phony. Are you always so forgiving ?

If an examinee disclosed to you during a PE process that his degree was phony - would your report state "....but its okay, because in all fairness he did disclose it...?"

Somehow, I think not.

As the Administrator allude in an old post: When polygrapf examiners are dealing with one another, it becomes an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Respectfully,
JP

Quote:

But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you?

I don't know that accurately reprents the APA's position, but yes, I'm on the record as stating it is unethical to do so.  When a person discloses that it's not an earned degree, then we're talking about something different.  It's a complex issue.  For example, Jim Matte's degree, which you've pointed out here, isn't from an accredited organization.  It's a legal degree in California - and you can even get licensed to practice, psychology, for example, with a CPU "degree."  However, those same "degrees" are illegal in many other states (mine included).

As far as Mythbusters goes, there's no sense in arguing here.  I predicted your spin before you wrote it.  It looks like we'll have to stick to the peer-reviewed studies that show they don't work.

Quote:

an exercise in mutual masturbation

I could be wrong, but I believe 1904 used this same language, perhaps in an email, at some point back a ways....

Sir Barry,

Please refer you to Mr Maschke posting off 25 Oct reproduced below in response:


Quote:

Reply #25 - Oct 4th, 2007, 9:56am    Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4th, 2007, 9:42am: ...Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"?...

Quote:

Mr Maschke: Polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are themselves required to submit to polygraph screening for the sake of keeping up appearances. How would it look to the rank-and-file if the polygraphers were themselves exempted? But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but it is one that I have made before, and it is apt: polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 12:02am:

Quote: But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you? I don't know that accurately reprents the APA's position, but yes, I'm on the record as stating it is unethical to do so.  When a person discloses that it's not an earned degree, then we're talking about something different.  It's a complex issue.  For example, Jim Matte's degree, which you've pointed out here, isn't from an accredited organization.  It's a legal degree in California - and you can even get licensed to practice, psychology, for example, with a CPU "degree."  However, those same "degrees" are illegal in many other states (mine included). As far as Mythbusters goes, there's no sense in arguing here.  I predicted your spin before you wrote it.  It looks like we'll have to stick to the peer-reviewed studies that show they don't work.

Sir,
Why is it now such a complex issue?
If a degree is not earned, then there iss no degree. Surely so.
If there is no degree, then to say that one does have a degree is complete dishonesty. It is criminal yes?
A 'degree' bought from a internet cyber university is false. The buyer know it is false.

When you provide sympathy for mr Martin, then morally you are no better than he.

Respectfully,
JP

Quote:

When you provide sympathy for mr Martin, then morally you are no better than he.

I find this to be a very troubling, though rich, over-generalization.

As for the situation with Mr. Martin, do you think it possible that one can disagree with another, yet remain compassionate? Or is our morality contingent upon persistent antipathy?


r

Sir Nelson,

I agree that people can diagree with one another but should still remain compassionate. Each toward the other.

I do not agree with selectiv compassion or selectiv morality. I think that Mr Barry is applying a selectiv morality. He says that he is 'against' false credentials, but its 'okay' because Mr Martin, admitted his was false.

My first question I asked. Would Mr Barry apply that same compassion to an examinee who had false credential on his job application.

Respectfully,
JP

JP,

At present, I'd be more interested in a conversation regarding that your assertion re morality - that showing sympathy makes one no better than a mis-deed-doer.

We can beat a dead horse around Mr. Martin's admittedly honorary degree, or we can have an interesting conversation about a very important concept. One that has implications that extend well beyond polygraph, into how individuals and even whole cultures relate with adversaries.

Sympathy is a difficult concept for many to endorse, because of some distorted implications that have gotten attached to the concept. Would you offer the same assertion if we consider this same premise in the context of extending compassion to one's enemy or to one who has transgressed? Does sympathy or compassion make one morally "no better" than the other? What does it mean to be "no better." Would moral equivalence be desirable or undesirable?

Consider the Christmas Truce of 1914. Was that wrong? If so why? What is right (moral)? Why? Were not those soldiers enemies? Are they morally equivalent as a result of the Christmas truce? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Were then inequivalent before the truce?



r

Mr. Maschke,

Would you please revise the title of this topic?

At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..."

In fact, they did not.

So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic.

A more accurate topic might be

"the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...."

or, if you prefer something more neutral

"Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode."

Thank you.


r

raymond.nelson wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 7:49pm:

Mr. Maschke, Would you please revise the title of this topic? At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..." In fact, they did not. So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic. A more accurate topic might be "the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...." or, if you prefer something more neutral "Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode." Thank you. r

Raymond,

The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 9:35pm:

raymond.nelson wrote on Dec 29th, 2007 at 7:49pm: Mr. Maschke, Would you please revise the title of this topic? At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..." In fact, they did not. So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic. A more accurate topic might be "the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...." or, if you prefer something more neutral "Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode." Thank you. r Raymond, The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.

Clearly GM you could have stated BUSTED after the tiltle.  You have to admit when printing it on this site it appears they beat the polygraph when in fact the POLYGRAPH CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED ALL THREE INDIVIDUALS. ;D

Donna,

Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 1:22am:

Donna, Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."

The link provided for this "survey" in your book's bibliography is a dead link.

You fail to point out that this is an opinion poll which is pretty much without value absent information regarding what information was provided in the poll to establish the parameters of the subject matter.

I suppose you would prefer that we believe that any member of the Society for Psychophysiological Research possessed knowledge about polygraph, when in fact Psychophysiology is a broad discipline and many may have no more concept of what it does and doesn't do that the average man on the street. This is especially true since their particular membership requirements are pretty broad to wit:
(a) published scientific research in psychophysiology or related areas;
(b) membership in one of the major scientific associations for psychological, neuroscience, medical, biological, or engineering professions; or
(c) interest in psychophysiology, and sponsorship by two members of the Society.

While it would certainly help your argument if we knew that only persons from category A were polled, it is at least as likely that 2/3 of those polled came from categories B and C. This means that the possible qualifications of the persons polled consisted of "membership in another organization" or a casual interest and 2 buddies who were members.

This does not even take into account the "Student Membership class

Sancho Panza

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 1:22am:

Donna, Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."

GM,
Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3! ;)

Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions.  

I believe it was Nonombre that said if they would have incorrectly identified the individuals AP would have had it posted in big bold RED letters.  Bottom line is the tests were good and accurate!

I will state on the record that I do not agree with the 'DR' status Mr. Martin uses; however, he doesn't need a PH.D behind his name to run a good exam.

Donna.Taylor wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 4:03am:

GM, Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3! ;) Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions.

I think that proves that not everyone can beat the CQT, but it hardly proves that no one can.  I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that everyone who uses CM's is successful in beating the polygraph, so proving that some people who use CM's still fail is simply affirming a known fact.

By definition, any successful use of countermeasures goes undetected.  I don't think it is reasonable to assume that no one, in the history of the polygraph, has passed a CQT by using countermeasures.  While that assumption certainly doesn't prove that the CQT can be beaten, neither does the statement that some people who use CM's are caught doing so prove that the CQT cannot be beaten.

I have watched this episode, and I was amazed. I thought that lie detectors were really credulous.


But after reading what you wrote about the phony pHD's and stuff, I am now really confused of how can Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, dislplay a fraud.


But asking you again,

So, "Is the credibility of lie detectors still a myth?

Reynold,

I, too, am mystified by Mythbusters' decision to deceive the public regarding "Dr." Michael Martin's credentials, and disappointed that the show served to perpetuate the myth of the lie detector. You might want to ask Jamie Hyneman about this. He may be contacted at mythbusters@m5industries.com.

wow.... just wow.

As someone who just got a PhD in molecular biology from a top 5 university I am incredulous.
The extent of my knowledge about polygraphs is that they are considered to be a pseudoscience.  I had no idea, however, that it was such an incestuous little world.
As an impartial observer who stumbled across this page (I don't even remember how) I will tell you that I just downgraded my opinion substantially.  Any profession who knowingly lets its members falsely pass themselves off as "doctors" is simply bogus.
I worked in the molecular biology field for 10 years before starting my PhD program.  Seven years and one degree later I have realized that there is no way that I would have learned the appropriate application of the scientific method or how to properly design and assess experiments without attending grad school.  It is a real bitch, and that is why jokers like this "Dr." Mike guy are worse than pretenders, they are downright charlatans.
This is the first I have ever heard of the APA, but I am already spreading the word about this completely bogus association run by wannabes who either don't have the inclination or the brains to put in the real work to become a doctor.
Oh, and about that nonombre poster... don't even bother.  I've been arguing with idiots on message boards for years, and guys like that will never address your question or even read your full response.  They'll just keep posting the same ALL CAPS, HAHAHA!  8-)  responses over and over.  Don't waste your time on fools.

spanker76,

Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org and congratulations on completing your doctoral degree. I agree that the American Polygraph Association's tolerance of members who falsely hold themselves out as Ph.D.s is disgraceful. The APA has also declined to sanction a polygraph school that reportedly shortchanged students on hours and a member who defamed me in a polygraph examination that was video recorded for evidentiary purposes.

Spanker76   Congratulations on your Phd. This is a bit off topic but would you use your knowledge of molecular biology to address a discussion that is occurring off of this board.

The argument asks the question: What is the potential of cross contamination or identification error regarding a forensic sample of blood if the sample donor had received a recent transfusion of two pints of whole blood from a non-relative during a surgery? Assume for the sake of this argument that the sample will require polymerase chain reaction to provide a suitable comparison. If it is possible, can you predict how long the contamination or identification error might be possible after the surgery. Would it be hours? days? weeks?

In other words, in the context of a novel, would it be possible for the donor blood to result in a CODIS "hit" on someone who was not at the scene of the crime?

I realize that these circumstances are pretty unlikely to occur in real life, but is the possibility supportable by science?

Thanks

Sancho Panza

Dear Spanker 76

You have quite aptly pigeonholed the APA and blusterers like SP.
The APA ethos produces megalomaniacs who deem it acceptable to festoon themselves with phony titles.

Why on earth would a polygraph "expert"  require, much less need to misrepresent, a PhD, to begin with? Philip Scala, the man who headed the team that infiltrated and eventually brought down the Gambino crime family, only had his Masters in psychology. What am I missing?

And yeah I do find it mind-numbingly underhanded, for an "expert" to ignore the very protocol that challenges the premise they're upholding as fact.  Thereby neither proving their case, nor disproving yours. These shows are always skewed toward predetermined results. You'd hope they'd drop a segment in a case like this, but alas, I don't think this is the first time they've opted for shoddy methodology to obtain a desired conclusion.

btw there is an account of a woman whose escape from a cult, depended on fooling a crude lie detector, which the cult used for a technique called audit councilling. It's believed that it's purpose is to control people's behavior, attitudes, etc... She was terrified because the needle did seem to reflect a difference in calm and emotionally agitated  states (these sessions often lasted between 1 - 2.5 hours.)  She successfully beat the machine by thinking intensely, about things that made her happy (too bad she didn't know about tongue biting technique etc...). So it does seem possible.

Cheers

hello can you tell me the difference between controled and relevant questionns.  And give me some examples of some of those questions still not getting the diffence..  Thanks alot.

The problem with polygraph, even though if it wasn't "exposed", there will be people who secretly knows/trained how to beat it. This is why people shouldn't rely on this machine. Imagine, people letting their guard down to someone who has passed the polygraph, earning their trust, but in reality has done heinous crimes. The harm it may do outweighs the good in this scenario.