Saidme wrote on Jun 23
rd, 2003 at 12:57am:
Wombat
Your psychological tie to the relevant issues won't allow you to pass the test. The mere fact that you're coming to this website is testimony by itself that you've got major issues with some relevant questions. You can practice all you want and read all you want. When the test begins your performance (CM's) will fall apart. Trust me, I've seen it happen many times.
Saidme,
The foregoing is a nice attempt at instilling fear -- a key element of the polygraph process -- but it's junk psychology.
Convicted spies Aldrich Ames, Karel Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Ana Belen Montes in the U.S., and Marcus Klingberg in Israel, all managed to pass their polygraph "tests," despite the fact that they were committing espionage against their governments.
Quote:George
Bravo with your word games. You must be excellent at scrabble. Maybe we shouldn't play that since we haven't seen any scientific studies. Since I've employed polygraph for some time now and have observed it work and work well, I don't need a scientific study to tell me polygraph does or doesn't work. I'll continue to use it. Can you tell me about your experiences as a polygraph examiner? I didn't think so. You experience lies (pun intended) with your own deceptions during your examination.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
But let's get real: CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method. It's in the same league as such quackeries as phrenology and graphology.
To whom do you refer when you say that "we haven't seen any scientific studies?" Perhaps
you haven't. But I have. So have many other polygraph critics, including the scientists and engineers at the national laboratories. And so has the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.
I'm not saying that polygraphy should definitely
not be used to interrogate criminal suspects. It does have some value as an interrogational ruse for getting confessions/admissions from the naive and the gullible. But CQT polygraph chart readings are completely unreliable as an indication of truth versus deception.
You conclude saying that, "You [sic] experience lies (pun intended) with your own deceptions during your examination." Actually, I answered all relevant questions truthfully and was also candid in answering the "control" questions. The experience of being nonetheless branded as a liar (and essentially, a spy) by the polygraph prompted me to learn more about polygraphy.
My experience lies not merely in having been the victim of a false positive outcome, but also in extensive review of the polygraph literature. See the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a partial listing. You, too, would do well to research the scientific underpinnings (or lack thereof) of your chosen profession.
Pages: 
No Admissions (Read 8166 times)
