Procedure question (still not finished reading TLBTLD) :

What would've been the purpose of wrapping my hand with a scarf during only one of the three iterations of my 1st polygraph?  Obviously it increases temperature and thus sweat production, but was this to create a 'cieling' on my chart?  Oddly, if I recall correctly, it may have been the 2nd or 3rd iteration.  Is this standard procedure?

Actually George, you are likely incorrect in this case.  Although more information would be needed, I would be willing to bet, based on the supplied information, that Flaw suffers from a disease called Raynaud's Syndrome.  It is a disease that often remains dormant and is more prevalent in middle aged women (but certainly not restricted to that group).  I will grant you that it is probably that the examiner did not know (assuming my diagnosis is correct) what was occuring, but to wrap the hand in a scarf might very well be a effort on the part of the examiner to reduce the problems associated with this disease.  You are wrong to conclude without knowing all of the facts that the only reason for warming the hands is to facilitate scoring the charts.  I have encountered this disease before and in actuality the examinee came into my examination suiite on a summer day wearing light gloves.  It was she who enlightened me and I took the time to explore available information about this and learned what I am providing here.  I would have to conclude that there was nothing devious going on as you would have Flaw believe because often the affilcted person doesn't even know what might be bring forth the symptoms of this very debilitating vascular disease. Based on Flaw's description, I would conclude that throughout chart 1, the examiner observed an absence of response and perhaps even an involuntary twitching of the fingers thereby bringing about difficulty in obtaining acceptable physiological signals.  I would like to know if Flaw knows what the problem is, or explained to the examiner that his/her hands were cold. have provided you with a website where you can learn more about Raynaud's Syndrome....and maybe next time you will not be so hasty to conclude that there is something improper going on.  You know there isn't any sin in just saying "I don't know...and I will look into it"  Any chance you made a mistake here George?

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/7397/

Torpedo,

While it is possible that Flaw's polygrapher was attempting to provide "medical treatment" for some disorder that he/she "diagnosed" (but apparently did not mention to Flaw), I think it is much more likely that the polygrapher was simply attempting to increase reactivity on the electrodermal channel in order to produce more readily scorable charts.

I'm not suggesting that the polygrapher acted out of impure motives. And I'm certainly not suggesting that the polygrapher should be "drawn and quartered." What I am saying is that there is no scientific basis for such manipulation as the polygrapher practiced. Can you name any forensic test where it is appropriate for the person conducting test to introduce an uncontrolled and potentially confounding variable when the results don't turn out as desired?

Well apparently, I was incorrect. Please accept my apologies.  I based my comments on the information that you supplied...or rather did not supply.  I am guilty of jumping to a conclusion.  I was nevertheless trying to offer some explanation as to why the examiner made use of the scarf.  Had I not been knowledgeable of this disesase, I certainly never would have offered the explanation that I did. Again, I was apparently incorrect, but I was also attempting to offer some explanation of why the examiner did what he did, to George, but also, perhaps to you as this disease often goes undetected and thus untreated.  Would you be kind enough to provide more information about your examination...just curious as I too am trying to understand the actions of the examiner; perhaps if he is a reader, he can advise us.