Matt,

While it may be true that the average person does not bother to research polygraphy on-line, the average person does not face a polygraph examination, either. Those who do face a polygraph interrogation presumably have more incentive to look into it (and perhaps, especially, those who would be motivated to lie with regard to the relevant issue(s)).

I think it stands to reason, as Skeptic noted, that as more and more people discover that polygraphy is a fraud (as more and more are doing), it will lose its utility.

PS: You may wish to register on the message board; doing so will enable you to edit posts for typos, etc. (as I often do with my own).

Matt B. wrote on Oct 29^th, 2002 at 8:58pm:


Matt,
As George pointed out, most people don't apply for positions that require a polygraph.  In most cases, this has nothing to do with having to take a polygraph; rather, most people simply aren't interested in the position, or want one with better pay, or don't know anything about what sorts of positions are available, or don't have the education or aptitude, etc.

I am sure that some people don't apply for positions because they've done things they don't want a polygraph to reveal.  However, there's no way to know how many people fit this bill.  For that matter, some might simply be scared off by the prospect of a background check.   

On the other hand, there are probably quite a few very qualified people who have done nothing wrong, who nontheless don't apply for positions because they know the polygraph is bogus, and don't want to go through such an invasive and potentially humiliating process.

Among qualified people who would be interested in a position that requires a polygraph, I think it stands to reason that many would look into what it's all about.  I think it also stands to reason that the number is increasing as the word is spread about the polygraph's problems.

And yes, I've dealt with people and the public for much of my life.

Skeptic

BTW, most of my friends are aware, thanks to my efforts, that the polygraph is bogus.  Too late for that poll, I guess.

Most everyone is missing the point.  If someone goes through life thinking the poly is a good tool (and most people do) to weed out their dishonesty then they never bother to pursue a career in jobs that require a poly and therefore never research them .  If you can't understand that then there's nothing more I can say to you and elaborating on any topic around that principle is a waste of my time.

>BTW, most of my friends are aware, thanks to my efforts, >that the polygraph is bogus.  Too late for that poll, I guess.

I guess so.  I deal with a wide range of folks daily. From computer programers to thieves.  Mostly upper middle class folks.  The smarter ones are unsure if the poly works and have their doubts.  The others just assume it works.  I overheard one lady (computer tech) yesterday say "all they have to due is keep the sniper on the phone for a minute or so and they will trace the call"  I had to ask here how she knew that and she said "TV and movies".  I mentioned how caller ID is instant and wouldn't see think the police can get instant too?  She's a smart lady but so many people are not as well informed about the truth as you think.  I also find that many people that hang out on the web and post on decent message boards (like you do Skeptic) tend to have above average IQ and are more inquisitive by nature.  I use to be a school teacher and I've seen a wide range of intellect.  Folks in this message board are not the norm when it comes to polygraph knowledge. 

If you can't use the lie detector test on your friends just ask them about how long it takes to trace a phone call. (the correct answer is before it rings, just like on a caller ID box, and no you can't block caller ID on a line used for criminal comunication, such as the line set up for the sniper)

Matt B. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 4:40am:


Registered users can opt to hide their e-mail addresses from public view. For extra privacy, you can create an anonymous e-mail account with ZipLip for use with this board.

Thanks George.  I'm official now.  

Matt,

You write in part:

Quote:


The purpose of this website is to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse, and to help the truthful protect themselves against the very real danger of a false positive outcome.

I suggest that you read further before drawing any final conclusions regarding the nature of this website, and the motivations of those who contribute to the discussions here.

That large numbers of truthful persons are falsely accused of deception through the polygraph screening process is beyond dispute. You might care to re-read these personal statements by some of those you have characterized as "babies and liars."

As for the damage that reliance on polygraphy is causing to both the national security and to individuals, read Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Matt B. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 7:15am:


Introspection is indeed a poor substitute for comprensive scientific study with representative samples.  You will note, however, that you have likewise failed to back up your assertion regarding the polygraph and deterrence.  You may in fact be correct in your beliefs; however, informal observation and inference is also fraught with bias and carries little scientific weight.

Skeptic