Quote:A.S.,
. . . the compendium we have been discussing is not representative of serious research. It is little more than a listing of favorite and recommended readings of a trade union. Polygraphy is a business and as such I have no problem with the concept of its members being represented by a trade union and/or a fraternal association. The APA presumably serves those purpose(s) well, but a listing such as the one published and adopted by the APA is in no way or shape a research document or a meaningful compendium of research. Even the few proponents of polygraphy with serious academic credentials, e.g., David Raskin, would be taken aback with the notion of that compendium representing a meaningful contribution to research understanding. Again, first things first--once meaningful (appropriately funded, conducted, and published in a professional and unbiased manner) research is defined, then by all means, lets have more of it.
The problem with both sides of the debate is that they pick and choose what supports them. Again, this is what the APA says about their compendium of studies, both field and lab:
[It is] a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%.
Sounds pretty favorable, doesn't it? Of course it does. It's from the "pro-polygraph" people, and it sounds as biased as this website. I tend to believe those studies have more merit than AntiPolygraph.Org people would have the worried boys and girls believe.
I keep telling you, George, Gino, etc., that we can throw opposing studies at each other without "proving" anything. What I want the worried boys and girls to realize is that there is another side to the story than what they read on this one-sided website. AND, I want them to realize that the other side of the story at least has the benefit of a lot of HANDS-ON experience WITH THE POLYGRAPH to back up its claims, while the AntiPolygraph side has nothing but regurgitations of refutable LAB studies of its own.
I don't care if you, George, Gino and the other fearmongers of this website ever change your minds. George certainly won't change his because what began as a personal vendetta has now become too much of his own ego. What I do care about is that the other side of the story at least be heard on a website with the pompous title of "AntiPolygraph.Org."
I realize, and you should too, that I don't need this website like some of you do. I can quit posting at any time, and when I tire of fielding all of your pop flies, I will. Then this website can go back to simply and mindlessly dispensing its placebo to the worried boys and girls.
Something else I've thought about:
Have you ever visited other Web forums, whether they be singles forums, game forums, religious forums, etc.? The people on every one of those websites become so engrossed in their little daily exchanges that they begin to think the world revolves around them. They develop an over-inflated idea that their daily sniveling actually matters and is important to the world at large. In fact, they praise and complement each other as if their small thoughts are somehow unique and ingenious. Quite amusing, when you think about it, but that's what AntiPolygraph.Org is--it's a haven for a very tiny minority of disgruntled people focused on trying to make small things into big things.