The TechTV program "Call for Help" airing today, Monday, 22 April 2002 at 5:00 P.M. Eastern (and to be re-broadcast at different times tomorrow) features a story on lie detectors:

http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/?nav

The TechTV website includes an article on lie detectors by polygrapher Patrick Coffey:

http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/features/story/0,24330,3341950,00.html

Mr. Coffey writes in part:

Quote:

Fooling the lie detector If you see a booklet claiming that you can pass a lie detector test using countermeasure techniques, don't believe it. Individuals selling these systems are the P.T. Barnum's of their information -- there's an e-sucker born every minute. Under laboratory conditions, few people successfully fool examiners that have a reasonable level of experience.

Perhaps Mr. Coffey (who also does polygraph "testing" for the "Jenny Jones Show") would be willing to accept Dr. Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge?

Honestly, these individuals who consistently abide by the polygraph's infallibility really bring a smile to my face and laughter to my heart.  Because twenty years from now, they will have so much egg on their face!  

How about the new Reality TV programs that use the "lie detector" to choose whom their son or daughter gets to take on a trip to Hawaii? I think the name is "Meet My Parents". It is based on the movie with a similar title. They all reinforce the myth that the polygraph is the perfect answer to telling if someone is being truthful and it can all be done in a matter of 5 minutes between commercial breaks. It feels like my life has been reduced to a silly reality show and I'm the loser that didn't get the trip to Hawaii and lost his good reputation.

PDD-Fed,

Perhaps a good place for you and your colleagues to begin your journey towards professional status is by denouncing the sort of quackery (publicly and without anonymity), referred to by Damaged in the previous post.  You might then follow closely with a suitably strong denouncement of polygraph screening.  As long as you (collectively speaking) are willing to allow the aforementioned to exist in your midst, you are nothing but tradesmen hoping to benefit through mutual support of any nonsense that suits any one member's financial purposes.

It seems rather ironic that a guest using the name anonymous would be critical of others writing here using a screen name. I did take a stand and it was reported on in the newspaper and as a result I have begun the process of researching this issue. What are you doing?

Damaged,

No one has been critical of you.  If you will notice my last post (assuming you are referring to my annonymous post) was not addressed to you, but to PDD-Fed.  The implied criticism was to the polygraph community that apparently will allow the unabated continuation of the quackery you pointed out.  Are we clear?

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2002 at 8:26pm:

PDD-Fed, Perhaps a good place for you and your colleagues to begin your journey towards professional status is by denouncing the sort of quackery (publicly and without anonymity), referred to by Damaged in the previous post.  You might then follow closely with a suitably strong denouncement of polygraph screening.  As long as you (collectively speaking) are willing to allow the aforementioned to exist in your midst, you are nothing but tradesmen hoping to benefit through mutual support of any nonsense that suits any one member's financial purposes.

Anonymous,

I never thought I would agree with you on anything, but I more assuredly agree with you on this matter.  ANY polygraph examiner who participates in allowing this profession to be portrayed on T.V. as a circus sideshow, needs to find a new source of employment.  There are far to many professional polygraph examiners fighting the rap put on us by sources such as this site, to tolerate the idiots selling out for publicity, a little cash, and the opportunity to see themselves on T.V.  The problem is that the APA has too little regulatory authority.  Polygraph Examiners should be governed by the equivelent of a state bar association, then problem examiners could be "dis-barred."  I would start with the performing chimps on the talk show circuit and work from there....

PDD-Fed

PDD-Fed,

Amen, brother, amen!  ;)  But remember it is not sufficient to anonymously condemn on a message board while the condemned activity continues unabated.  You and your colleagues must publicly come forth using your own names and not be content with hiding behind the inertia of the APA.  Which raises another question…. if the APA does represent itself as some sort of a professional body, then why can’t it readily and immediately publicly condemn and castigate the quacks (non-professionals) from its midst??

PDD-Fed,

You wrote in part:


Quote:

There are far to many professional polygraph examiners fighting the rap put on us by sources such as this site...

Who are these multitudes of "professional polygraph examiners?" I've seen little but evasiveness from the polygraph community when confronted with the criticisms made here on AntiPolygraph.org.


Quote:

Polygraph Examiners should be governed by the equivelent of a state bar association, then problem examiners could be "dis-barred."  I would start with the performing chimps on the talk show circuit and work from there....

One "performing chimp" you may wish to start with is Ronda Dianne Decker Robinson, who performs for the Jenny Jones daytime T.V. talk show. But beware! She's presumably has the backing of Ronald E. Decker, a venerated poobah of the polygraph priesthood, and two-term past president of the American Polygraph Association.

Anonymous,

Sorry, I'm a little new to this forum for discussion and I did think you were talking to me. I do intend to use what little influence I may have to change things in this little pond I swim in. This issue is so new to me that I am not prepared to debate it. I am still responding from a position of feeling victimized (emotional) and not from a position of knowledge. I intend to become more educated, before I really get into the fight. Thanks for setting me straight.