digithead wrote on Apr 25^th, 2006 at 5:12am:


Hey no problem    I've been called much worse than a polygraph sympathizer (but not much).  Yes, some of the old threads from polygraphers are quite entertaining.  They've done everything from accusing George of being a pedophile through a bogus Washington Times article and I believe we had one who was posting as two separate people working for the NSA.

They could stop this site very quickly simply by publicly demonstrating their ability to detect countermeasures.  That would be much more effective than half-hearted dis-information attempts.

retcopper wrote on Apr 25^th, 2006 at 3:34pm:


How?

nonombre wrote on Apr 16^th, 2006 at 4:01am:

Nonombre,
 
I must have skipped over this thread for some reason for a few days, as I’m just seeing it now.

The purpose of this site is to provide information on the polygraph.  George and many others believe that the accuracy of the polygraph for non-specific issue testing (such as pre-employment screening) is approximately 50%.  The reason it is approximately 50% (random chance when you have two possible outcomes, DI or NDI) is because the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or deception.

George has specifically stated that he believes an applicant for a public service position has an ethical responsibility to tell the truth.  He also believes that simply telling the truth will not increase a person’s chances of passing a polygraph.  So he also provides information on how to artificially augment one’s reactions to certain questions during the polygraph exam to ensure that you will pass.

I know from personal experience that telling the truth on a polygraph actually allows you to pass only 25% of the time.  I wish I had known about this site when I was agonizing over why I was failing my polygraphs and losing out on the police career at which I know I would excel.  It certainly would have helped me feel better and not beat myself up for my continuing failures at the polygraph.  And that’s what this site is here for.

The purpose of this site is to help people.  People like me who were telling the complete truth and couldn’t figure out why I alternately being labeled as “deceptive” with regards to selling cocaine, “deceptive” with regards to assaulting people, and “deceptive” with regards to stealing.  I thought there was something wrong with me, since I had never heard anything about the polygraph other than it was a “lie detector.”  I have always been a very honest person and I was hurt by the accusations of deception on matters I was being 100% honest and forthright about.

By providing this information George helps people understand that if they suffered through one or more false-positives they are not alone.  If they told the truth and still “failed” their test they are not alone.  If they missed out on a job because they couldn’t pass the polygraph exam even though they were completely honest they are not alone.

If you have never been a false-positive then you probably don’t understand what I’m talking about.  It is a hurtful experience that leaves you shaken.  I remember thinking, “This must be some sort of terrible mistake!  How can this be?”  And then it happened again, and again after that.   

I applaud George’s efforts in bringing this information to the Internet for anyone to read.  By doing so he has helped many people, which I am confident was his intention.

If some people choose to use the information on this site for unethical reasons the responsibility for doing so is theirs and theirs alone.  Pretty much any sort of information, regardless of the motivation behind its dissemination, could be used for nefarious purposes.  That doesn’t mean that all such information should be withheld from this point on.

Leaving a loaded shotgun in a schoolhouse serves no useful purpose other than to endanger the children.  There is no realistic reason for leaving the shotgun there that could be deemed to be benevolent in any fashion.  It would be a reckless act that could hardly be compared to providing information on how a supposedly scientific test works.

As I have mentioned before in other threads, why would anyone be concerned about the information on this site if the polygraph was, in fact, a scientifically valid test?  How valid can a test be if one can learn to defeat it by studying a web site for a few minutes?

If there was a website called “AntiPhysics.org” which claimed that Newton’s laws of motion were invalid and could not be used to determine the paths of vehicles involved in a motor vehicle accident I cannot imagine that it would bother me.  If the site contained information on how to “think exciting thoughts” or bite your tongue during an accident in order to thwart the efforts of the traffic crash reconstructionist it would make me laugh, but it wouldn’t bother me.  Since I know physics is a scientifically valid method of reconstructing traffic accidents I really don’t care if some people don’t believe it works.

If someone can study an online manual for a few minutes and learn how to defeat a supposedly valid test, and by doing so get away with doing unethical or criminal acts, doesn’t that speak more to the validity of the test than it does to the propriety of disclosing that information? 

Geroge and Mr Mystery:

With all due respect why would I want to tell you how we detect counter measures.  Polygraphers  have nothing to prove so I personally don't fell the need to do what Mr. Mystery suggests. I will say that when I do detect counter measures and warn the subject, they stop trying to manipulate the test in about 95% of the time.