George,

I am in agreement that the use of polygraphs should be prohibited as a hiring practice.  I base this on the fact that polygraphs are not 100% accurate, and any margin of error could exclude a qualified candidate, or allow an unqualified person to get hired.  However, in my discussions with people that have undergone polygraphs, it is my unscientific opinion that polygraphs are generally accurate (more than 50%).  Of course there are always cases where polygraphs are dismally wrong.

The fact is that even though you and I, and others may feel that the polygraph is woefully unjust, inaccurate, and dehumanizing, polygraphy is a here for the time being, and any applicant such as myself must submit to it in order to secure the job of his choosing.  While your book is thorough with regards to discussion of the control/relevant test.  It is sparse with information for this type of test (Irrelevant/Relevant, peak-of-tension, or whatever), particularly in discussing possible counter-measures.  While your critique is primarily that this type of test has not had significant peer review or other academic scrutiny, again, the reality remains that this test is something that an applicant could realistically face.  And it seems to me that Dr. Barland is correct in his statement that this test is tough to beat.

Perhaps there is no effective way to employ countermeasures in this type of test.  In which case, you've done an outstanding job of research and discussion of countermeasures for the control/relevant test.  But if there is a way to sucessfully employ countermeasures for this type of test, please enlighten us.  I know that it is not your job to help others in this way, but you have obviously spent considerable time and effort researching polygraphy, and I and others look to you for information.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.