Hi everyone - I'm new here - I've read many of the posts here and I'm wondering why there is such a dichotomy of views.  The "pro" people here (Eastwood, Polycop, etc) have such diametrically different opinions of the polygraph than the others (Maschke, "beachtrees", etc)...there must be a reason.  Obviously the "pros" are polygraphers or proponents of the use of polygraph, but why are the detractors so negative?  Did you take polygraphs and fail, and if so, what was so negative about your experiences.  I'm curious on both ends.

Nicole,

Welcome to the forum. It is always good to see an impartial observer join the discussion. 

As you have already noticed, discussion on this board is extremely polarized.
The debate here essentially pits those who have researched polygraphy (this group includes scientists and those who have been victimized by polygraph “tests”) against the ever vociferous peddlers and consumers of polygraph goods and services

You are indeed correct when you speculate that a good number of polygraph critics have been wrongly accused because of these "tests." When I was first branded as “deceptive” by a polygrapher, I figured that I was the victim of random error during a slightly imperfect but nonetheless scientific procedure. After having a number of friends also "fail," I decided to research polygraphy. I was shocked to learn that polygraphy is not science at all, but actually codified conjecture similar to astrology or phrenology. It has never been shown to operate at better than chance levels under field conditions in a peer-reviewed scientific study. In addition to not being a valid psychometric test, polygraphy actually depends on the examiner lying to and deceiving the examinee. Lastly, these “tests” are easily beaten by deceptive individuals using the countermeasures described in detail on this site.

Many of the anti-polygraph posters are motivated by the fact that they have been subjected to behavior that would be considered unprofessional in any other field. In addition to being lied to (deception on the part of the polygrapher is vital to the polygraph technique), those who submit to polygraph “tests” are frequently subjected to screaming, profanity, and even veiled physical threats. Complaints are rarely entertained.

You also are correct when you posit that the vast majority of posters who support polygraphy are polygraphers. AntiPolygraph.org is dedicated to exposing the trickery behind their fraudulent means of income. As you may know, polygraphers—who often have no college education and as little as 8 weeks of training—often earn in excess of $200/hr. Needless to say, some of them are less than happy with us for exposing their sweet little scam.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask why the pro-polygraph participants you name spend the bulk of their time making personal attacks against those who disparage polygraphy instead of bringing forth facts. As always, we encourage the examiners who frequent this board to point out any information  they feel is false. Still, the vast majority of the posts made by polygraph supporters come in the form of ad hominem attacks.

J.B.,

    I would agree with several of the points that you made.  With regard to one, I believe some clarification is needed.  Although I believe inquiring people should see differing and well-articulated opposing perspectives (e.g., pro and anti-polygraph sites in theory), I believe only those sites that are non-censored (and therefore allowing other than some propaganda position of the webmasters) should be recommended.  This site is an excellent example.  Are there any pro-polygraph sites that you believe meet this criterion and that you would recommend to the novice reader?  As you no doubt are aware there do exist completely censored pro-polygraph sites that are little more than advertisement at best and narrowly controlled propaganda in the main.

Newbie, what I see is that the information being provided does't help anyone, it can only hurt those who try to beat an exam, particularly if they get caught trying, which makes wonder what they did they want to hide from.  I sure see people who have failed their tests for whatever reason and are trying to make themselves self proclaimed experts in a profession that the only experience they seem to have in it is failing their test.  Then I see this guy Richardson proclaimed to be the FBI's top examiner but every FBI Examiner I know and I know them all claim he never even ran an exam for the FBI cause they wouldn't let him.  I must question the credibility of this entire web site.  The poor folks who ask these guys are getting really bad advice.  It is amusing to watch this though.

Wow, quite a statement to make about Drew Richardson.  The resident "expert" in the FBI and he never conducted a test?  Is that really true?  Even I find this difficult to believe, after all, he's frequently quoted as the "chief of the FBI research program".
I'll be fair and let Drew respond.

Anonymous_Observer wrote on Jun 28^th, 2002 at 9:07pm:


Dear Anonymous (but apparently not disinterested) Observer,

If you truly believe that the information being provided here doesn't help, but can only hurt, individuals who read it and employ countermeasures, then why don't you accept Dr. Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge?

What are you polygraph chart rollers afraid of? Your reluctance to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge is strong evidence that:

1) Despite your public representations to the contrary, you privately believe that countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector do work, and...

2) You do not truly believe that you can detect these countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2002 at 7:31pm:


Eastwood,

Beech Trees merely pointed out that Dr. Richardson has already answered your question (whether he had ever administered a polygraph examination) elsewhere on this message board, and he pointed you to that response. What more do you expect to hear from Dr. Richardson?

If you're curious about his credentials, you might take a look at his 1997 opening statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts and his 2001 presentation before the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee. Dr. Richardson's credentials as a polygraph expert are unassailable.

Eastwood,

A number of years ago, David Lykken shared a bit of wisdom with me that he had come to realize over many years.  He told me that as a critic of polygraphy and one who neither sought clientele (victims of polygraph abuse and error) and one who did not receive recompense for any services provided, that I would only be able to measure any degree of short term success from two sources: the thanks received from those whom I have helped and the bluster of those I oppose.  I do thank you for contributing in a small way to my sense of self worth.   Although probability would indicate that my general academic and specific scientific background (basis for examining the diagnostic value of various polygraph applications and formats) would match or exceed yours, for a variety of reasons to include poor taste and a lack of relevance, I have not insisted upon you revealing your identity or providing a curriculum vitae in order to merit further discussion with me.  The overriding consideration is that any of the dozen or so topics that I have discussed in my roughly forty posts can be further discussed or debated based on the merits of the topics themselves independent of our individual pedigrees.  I would appreciate the same consideration and courtesy from you and be quite happy to continue to engage you and others on such terms.  Perhaps you might care to begin with one of the posts I made yesterday.  Regards,

Drew Richardson