Quote:


How is antipolygraph.org a 'site of wrong doing'?

Quote:

Most of your comment I agree with but I think this last thought demonstrates a certain jaundiced view that is likely wrong. Polygraphy "tests", like a few other psych tests, work more poorly if the subject understands the actual theory of the test. Polygraphers do what they can to obfuscate but this doesn't mean they want examinees to fail simply because they read this site.

BTW, Ian Rowland's Cold Reading techniques were incorporated learned and executed by M. Shermer in an interesting demonstration of the power of the psychological manipulation - details in current issue of "Skeptic."

-Marty

Quote:


Maybe.  Anonymous doesn't need to worry about anonymity.  I have examined many persons who have told me they have visited this site.  After we discuss and laugh about their experience here we conduct an exam with no problems.  Visiting this site is not grounds for disqualification, using countermeasures is!  Just as any attempt to thwart the test would.

Quote:


No worries George.

LOL

This thread is starting to sound like polygraphplace.

You examiners/liers are entertaining to read.

It is unfortunate that human nature would have most people believe your lies that "if you tell the truth and follow your examiners instructions everything will go just fine".

Why is it that we as supposed intelligent beings have to get kicked in the face and screwed by one of you polygraphers before we wake up?

I truely hope your "test" goes well Anonymous.

Please post back here with your results and experiences.  I hope you prove us anti-poly people wrong.

Marty wrote on Aug 26^th, 2003 at 8:13pm:


Sorry. I am new at this.  I didn't get my reply to the quote in.

Not all exams require CQs and yes I'm that good.  The anger in this thread is amusing.  Are some of you actually ticked he didn't follow your advise and counsel?

You can only suspect someone is using countermeasures; you have no definitive method of determining it otherwise, short of a confession from the examinee. That is a fact, plain and simple.

Marty wrote on Aug 26^th, 2003 at 7:52pm:


Marty,

My expressed hope that the NSA polygraph unit would not "fail" Anonymous based on his/her having educated him-/herself about polygraphy is based on reports of such things having happened to applicants with other agencies who admitted their knowledge of polygraphy, including, but not limited to, the case of CIA applicant Maureen Lenihan, which is mentioned in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. It is to be hoped that with knowledge of how the "test" actually "works" (and doesn't) becoming more and more widespread (and, perhaps, admissions to such knowledge becoming less shocking to polygraphers) that such knee-jerk reactions by polygraphers will become less common.

My expressing the hope that Anonymous would not be disqualified merely for admitting his/her knowledge of polygraphy was also made in the hope that those NSA polygraphers who read this thread would realize the wrongness of such conduct and not engage in it.

Situations such as Anonymous's do pose a larger ethical question for the polygraph community: how will you handle those who understand "the lie behind the lie detector?" Former American Polygraph Association president Skip Webb declined to answer this question when I put it to him some three years ago. It's about time the APA, which professes to be "dedicated to truth," provided a candid answer.