nonombre wrote on Aug 14
th, 2005 at 6:13am:
Furthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."
I’m afraid I simply can’t agree with you. Polygraphy is purported to be a valid scientific test. If that is so then I don’t see how it could possibly matter if the subject of such a test has knowledge of how the test works.
When you come right down to it that is all the information this site provides. There is information here regarding how the test is run and what the polygraph examiner is looking for in order to determine if the subject is being deceptive.
Some people will choose to use that information to protect themselves from a false positive, and I have no doubt that others will use that to lie to the authorities and get away with it. I can’t see how that is the responsibility of the people who created this site.
If anything, I believe that the fact a person can spend a few minutes looking at a web site and then “beat” a supposedly objective and scientific test such as the polygraph is one more significant reason to reexamine the validity of that test. If a person could produce a different set of fingerprints by biting their tongue or thinking exciting thoughts, and by doing so they caused some sort of negative (dangerous) outcome, would that be the fault of the web site which provided the tongue-biting information, or would it be the fault of the authority that chose to rely on a test that can be defeated by such laughably mundane countermeasures?
Enrico Fermi once said, “It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge.”
You can’t stuff everything back inside Pandora’s box. Knowledge of the polygraph is out there and is easily available to everyone. If having that knowledge invalidates the test, then I believe the test was never valid in the first place.
I think it is time to acknowledge that polygraphy cannot survive if everyone who may become subject to a test is aware of the deception that goes on and is also aware of what the examiner is looking for. Wishing that knowledge was never made widely available is a bit immature, in my opinion. Move with the cheese.
nonombre wrote on Aug 14
th, 2005 at 6:37am:
Nonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information. How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not? At least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful. What effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent? Do you really care? I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.
Providing information to people who seek it is not wrong. Citizens engaging in free speech directed at what they believe to be an injustice are not wrong.
I’m sure there are some polygraphers who believe they are making an effort to weed out the truthful from the deceptive. I’m also sure that a century ago phrenologists believed they were making a good faith effort to identify people with criminal tendencies.
It seems that, in your opinion, providing information is the same as failing to protect the innocent. If you could explain that I’d be very interested to hear it. As someone who has dedicated his entire adult life to protecting the innocent I’d be curious to see how I am apparently undermining all the good I’ve done by providing information.