Batman,

You write:


Quote:

...each polygraph is totally unique and cannot be replicated because each examinee is so totally different...

 


John Furedy, noted polygraph critic and esteemed colleague writes:


Quote:

…The fact that the procedure is not a test, but an unstandardizable interrogatory interview, means that its accuracy is not empirically, but only rhetorically, or anecdotally, evaluatable.  That is, one can state accuracy figures only for a given examiner interacting with a given examinee, because the CQT is a dynamic interview situation rather than a standardizable and specifiable test,  Even the weak assertion that a certain examiner is highly accurate cannot be supported, as different examinees alter the dynamic examiner-examinee relationship that grossly influences each unique and unspecifiable CQT episode….

 


It is astounding  to see the similarity between the positions of  Batman and John Furedy.  The latter will be flabbergasted to know.  You are quite correct; as you point out every examinee is different, and as John Furedy has correctly and additionally  pointed out (and perhaps of more significance to this discussion)--every exam is different--that is why that which you do is art and not science.  I happen to believe and others from this site will swear to you based on their personal experience that this is not pretty art either...

With regard to solving missing children cases, I would agree that the polygraph community could make a greater contribution to these and other criminal investigations--not by focusing on the problems that it has brought on itself (the countermeasure problem) through the victimization of large numbers of educated and now internet-connected individuals but by ending the nonsense and waste of resources surrounding and devoted to polygraph screening and by becoming serious about criminal specific testing.  This will  require that the current "Maytag Repairman" approach to polygraphy (waiting for a case agent/investigator to invite you to ask a suspect "Did you do it?" with a control question test) be abandoned and serious effort put into investigating criminal matters, collecting and protecting privileged information, and utilizing information-based polygraph exams.  

These exams can be scientifically/statistically defended,  do not invade the purview of judge and juror, have a basis for large scale introduction into the courtroom (will never happen with the CQT via Daubert hearings) and could actually provide a legitimate basis for polygraphy to be considered a forensic discipline.  This admittedly will require more effort than is currently put into a polygraph examination, and although that which is currently done in using a Peak of Tension (POT) as a secondary test will not suffice, nothing about that which I believe should be done will prevent an aggressive post-test interrogation from being conducted when appropriate.

Drew Richardson