You forgot scenario #3: the person believes the poly works because he/she knows very little about it and nothing about this site. He/she tells the truth, is falsely accused of deception and fails, but doesn't know what the hell is going on because he/she believed in the accuracy of the test. 

I'd much rather go into a polygraph as an informed consenter. I had absolutely no idea what I was getting myself into when I took mine. I thought I was submitting to a reliable testing procedure that would prove me truthful. If I had known about this site or even how many people fail polys before I took mine, I would never have consented to it. 

P.S. If you've got a low tolerance for bullshit, I'd say you're in real trouble with the poly. You might want to bring a shovel with you.      

You're right. A bulldozer would do the job nicely.

NoPolyPlease wrote on May 15^th, 2005 at 4:41pm:


Should be scored as truthful.

Hi.,

I am a brand new police polygraph examiner and I thought I would take my few short months of experience and weigh in to this anti-polygraph argument with two small questions.  Please don’t boil me in oil for asking this, but…

If the polygraph is so utterly useless and as a result criminals and spies have little to fear of getting caught, then why are there so many postings stressing that if confronted with a lie correctly identified by the polygraph, the person correctly caught should “deny, deny, deny?”

This position would seem to indicate two things.  The first is an apparent acceptance that polygraph can in fact correctly identify liars, or the many postings pushing the guilty to continue to deny would simply not exist.  The second thing it would suggest to me as a law enforcement officer is that the people on this site are in fact openly attempting to assist the guilty to evade capture.  I am not being a “smart ass” here, I am just relating what seems obvious to me.   

This also seems to be true for the whole countermeasure controversy.  For example, in one recent post by Dr. Drew Richardson (the apparent countermeasure guru) repeats the phrase, “UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES deny countermeasure use.”  He states this FIVE times in as many lines of text.  Yet, in the same post, he insists “…examiners can not reliably detect them.”

Well, if Dr Richardson, speaking from purely an objective, scientific position, truly believes that countermeasures cannot be reliably detected, then why is he so fervently telling people who have attempted countermeasures and as a result have been caught in this endeavor, to “deny, deny, deny?”

It would appear to me that Dr. Richardson’s position on this topic is perhaps more personal and emotional than scientific.  Otherwise he would not be so determined on instructing people who have been correctly identified as attempting countermeasures, to deny their use at any and all costs.  Deliberately skew data?  Not a very “scientific” position, I’m afraid.

Yet, former FBI agent Dr. Richardson, like others on this site insists he is making no attempt to assist the guilty.

I’m confused.  What am I missing here?

Once again, please don’t drag me behind a truck for asking about these things.  I am still learning about all this and I am trying to keep an open mind. ...

Jeffrey,

Thank you for responding.  Please allow me to address your thoughts...

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 1:41am:


The polygraph school I attended enforced that we were never to "bluff" when it came to an opinion of deception (or lack there-of)  We were taught that only if our analysis identified "deception", are we to confront the examinee.

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 1:41am:


I believe I have already addressed this point of view.  If I tell someone I have found their test results indicate deception, it is ONLY because my analysis of the results support that opinion.

Jeffery wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 1:41am:


Jeffrey, I believe you make a good point here.  I believe that polygraph does have an error rate (few things are perfect)  and I am concerned that I may one day call a guilty person innocent (or an innocent person guilty for that matter).  However, I believe that based on the little I have experienced so far, the polygraph procedure seems to get it "right" a whole lot more than not.

Thank you again for answering.

nonombre wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 2:35am:


It is the error rate that is so frustrating and has many concerned with the polygraph.  Your school probably taught that the error rate is low (duh!).  Many people's experience proves otherwise.  Even still, the test methodology for scientifically testing polygraph accuracy is a joke.  "Pretend to commit a crime, then lie about it on a test polygraph -- with no consequences to the test subject."  That is my synopsis on the various DoD polygraph accuracy studies I've seen.  What a joke.

To base polygraph reliability on criminals who take the polygraph, lie, are accused of lieing and then later confess is likewise a joke since the test subjects aren't from a good cross section of society and were indeed guilty in the first place.

The danger of falsly accusing an honest person of deception is what angers me about polygraphics.  Do you do pre-employment polygraph screening in your job?

What happens if A: the test subject knows the "lie behind the lie detector" or B: the examiner picks extremely poor control questions, based upon their limited knowledge of the subject (and perhaps incorrect prejudices) and the control question doesn't register a significant enough response.  How do you score the chart then?

polyfool wrote on Jun 19^th, 2005 at 2:37am:


Polyfool, than you for writing.  I have read your post and still do not understand why the people on this site are telling folks who have done various things to try and "beat" the polygraph test, and have yet failed, to deny their attempts to change what was obviously an accurate outcome.  I mean, I guess I know why.  All I am saying is it is impossible to justify those actions and STILL say there is no intent to assist the guilty in evading detection.

Respectfully.

Nonombre