anythingformoney wrote on Feb 24
th, 2005 at 12:29am:
That's easy, George, although tiresome. I'll indulge you this time, despite the fact that I feel I provided good responses to most of what you said previously. I apologize beforehand to other readers for my redundancy, but you have only George to blame for that.
How do I know that most examinees won't have access to either a polygraph machine or a willing confederate to provide them with feedback while hooked up to the machine? It doesn't take much intelligence to figure that one out. Polygraph machines--including the laptop, software, and all the components--are not cheap. Finding a trained polygrapher to help you use the machine to perfect your countermeasures would be even more difficult to obtain....
My question to you concerned how you can purport to
know that "[m]ost examinees will NOT receive adequate training" in polygraph countermeasures. I do agree, and think it is self-evident, that most examinees will not have access to a polygraph instrument or a willing confederate to provide feedback. But this does not necessarily entail that most examinees will not receive
adequate training. Techniques for augmenting reactions to "control" questions are relatively simple, and "control" questions are generally not very difficult to pick out.
Quote:...Sure, a person taking a real-life test would be more motivated to pass the exam, but this added motivation would also theoretically, through the principle of psychological set, help him accurately and justifiably pass or fail the exam....
The National Academy of Sciences considered "psychological set" and related theories that have been put forth in support of CQT polygraphy, but did not find these to be compelling. See
p. 74 ff. of
The Polygraph and Lie Detection.) Quote:You base everything you "know" on lab studies, George, so again you show your tendency to accept only those lab studies that support your personal agenda, or should we say vendetta?
It is certainly
not the case that everything I know about polygraphy is based on analog (laboratory) studies. I've considered information from a wide variety of sources, including the available peer-reviewed field studies of CQT polygraphy. Note, however, that the
only peer-reviewed studies of countermeasures to the CQT are analog studies. I don't see how I have drawn unwarranted inferences from these. If you think I have, please explain.
Quote:I'm not saying that the average polygrapher will notice practiced countermeasures. There are many types of motion detection devices, and many polygraphs are video recorded, but really good, practiced countermeasures would admittedly be difficult to observe. That's not really the point, though. The point is that studies (lab studies again) show that while countermeasures may--and again I emphasize MAY because we can't really apply lab studies to the real world--assist the guilty in producing a false negative, but they have no effect with innocent examinees.
Again, I think your latter assertion goes well beyond the evidence of the available research. I think one could reasonably conclude that with subjects like those in Honts et al.'s studies (who received very limited instruction in polygraph procedure and countermeasures), and in similar (low) motivational settings, countermeasures might not help innocent examinees. But it is going too far to assert, as you seemingly do, that it has been conclusively demonstrated that countermeasures
cannot help an innocent examinee to avoid a false positive outcome.
Quote:Thus, even though a polygrapher might not--or even probably will not--detect certain countermeaures unless he or she uses motion detection devices, the risk just isn't worth it when there is no evidence that countermeausures help the innocent in passing a polygraph exam.
A survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research members conducted by William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken showed that of the 96% of respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one’s response to the control questions." Again, it has not been proven that countermeasures
cannot assist the truthful in avoiding a false positive outcome, and no one has set forth a plausible explanation why such should be the case.
Considering the fact that CQT polygraphy lacks any scientific basis, the fact that numerous agencies, including the FBI, report polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, and considering also the polygraph community's failure to put forth any evidence that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures, persons facing polygraph examinations might reach a different risk assessment than the one you offer them.
Quote:You can talk about control-question theory all you want, George, and I understand it better than most of your readers. That theory backs up my arguments just as well as it does yours, and in many lab studies AND some field studies, better.
Not so. Regarding polygraph theory, the National Academy of Sciences concluded:
"The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing."
(The Polygraph and Lie Detection, p. 213. Original emphasis.)
Quote:Finally, you are messing with the scared little boy's and girl's heads because the overwhelming majority of people who take a polygraph exam pass it without trying to mess with the process. By convincing these scared little boys and girls that they must mess with the process to pass it, you are needlessly causing them to put their hopes and efforts into misinformation.
You have repeatedly characterized (in other posts in other message threads) visitors to this site as "scared little boys and girls." I think that's a patronizing and offensive mischaracterization of individuals who come to this website seeking information about polygraphy.
I have never maintained that a person
must employ countermeasures (which you term "messing") in order to pass a polygraph examination. But I think that persons facing this invalid procedure should have access to facts and information necessary for making an informed choice.
Quote:I know you can't back down from this forum, George. Too much ego involved, and too much personal vendetta. But by titling a website "AntiPolygraph.org" and backing up your agenda with refutable lab studies and no experience in the field of polygraphy, you show where your agenda really lies and you aren't open to the possibility that, all this time, you may have been very wrong.
AntiPolygraph.org certainly has an agenda, but it is unhidden and publicly stated: to expose and end waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs. We also seek the abolishment of polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of lie detection) from the American workplace.
You assert that I am not open to the possibility that I may have been wrong. But the only person regarding whom you can truly know such a thing is yourself.
As for your assertion that I have a "personal vendetta," why not address my arguments, rather than my putative motives? If I have said or written anything that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, feel free to point it out for the benefit of all concerned.