James,

Hi. I downloaded TLBTLD out of pure curiosity. I don't expect to ever take one however. I was just curious. Hard to say how many others have done the same.

Interesting stuff, eh?

-Marty

Poly cop, thanks for your professional and courteous response.  I definately see your point, however I feel that many people who are tested for a police officer position routinely score no deception indicated when in fact they lied about relevant issues.  If one uses logic, he/she can surely see this is very possible.      

Quote:


That stuff may sell within the polygraph community, but it does not sell in the scientific community. Granted, you may catch people who make an obvious effort to alter a chart (radical change in breathing pattern, movement, swallowing, whatever) and confess to it when challenged, but I know from personal experience that use of countermeasures, when applied intelligently, are undetectable. 

With respect to a control question, you have no idea whether I am reacting to CQ because I feel guilty/know I am lying or because I am spiking the question, and that is the bottom line: you don't know, you have no way of knowing, and you will never know unless I confess to having used a countermeasure. The scare tactic ("we have ways of knowing") may work on some people and discourage the use of countermeasures, but you can be rest assured there are plenty of people who know better. You think all those scientists at Los Alamos are as dumb as rocks and are going into the polygraph believing that crap actually works? You are in denial.

Quote:


In peer-reviewed studies by C.R. Honts and collaborators, about half of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction, and even properly trained and highly experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. (See the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for citations.) In addition, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was not convinced that polygraph "testing" is robust against countermeasures.

So why should we believe you?

Quote:


Considering the large number of polygraph examinations conducted on a daily basis, it is hardly surprising, and of no statistical significance, that some might admit to countermeasure use when accused.

It should also be noted that the polygraph examination itself is a dice roll for the subject: it has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against the truthful. Countermeasure use is arguably less uncertain, because the methodology used for scoring the "test" is known.

Quote:


Not true. What is being argued is that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. Detection means identification at better than chance levels.

Quote:


Again, that a number of case studies have been documented in which individuals accused of countermeasure use admitted to such does not establish an ability to detect countermeasures (just as the fact that some individuals accused of deception have admitted to such does not prove that polygraphy detects deception).

Marty,

That is Honts' conclusion. However, I believe that he goes beyond the evidence of his research. See A Criticism of Honts' Testimony on Countermeasures.