With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you.  These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-polygraph" crowd--so often relies.  I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice.  The studies I refer to are the following: 
 
Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K.  (1996)  Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281. 
 
Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108. 
 
Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247. 
 
Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees.  (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing.  Academic Press, 2002.) 
 
What does that last statement mean to this forum?  It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge, this site does absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher.  Meanwhile, it provides the guilty with knowledge that may (not will, but may) help them avoid being detected altogether.  When seen in that light, so much for this site being a service to the innocent. 
 
The "challenge" issued to polygraph examiners by people on this site is an empty challenge.  Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world.  At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis.  So what's the point?  For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time,  the "challenge" is ignored.
 

LieBabyCryBaby,

Amongst other things you write and attach some importance to is the following:
Quote:


The explanation for Gershon's finding is really quite simple.  For the typical simulated-crime (laboratory) polygraph study (in the absence of examinee countermeasure application), there is little to no fear of consequences for innocent examinees which results in a diminished (relative to the real world environment) and underestimated rate of false positive results for said examinees.  Because of this there would not be expected to be much if any benefit and effect of countermeasures for these same subjects in laboratory countermeasure studies, i.e., although they might well benefit in the real world where there is a fear of consequences of being found deceptive, in the laboratory setting where there is none, no benefit would likely be expected, needed nor seen (as Gershon as indicated).

Please examine Drew Richardsons post, it clearly states the problem with the "Scientific Research" in the polygraph arena, it is all laboratory research which has no scientific validity because it is not "Real Life" research, only laboratory.  Those of us in the industry have conducted studies regarding admissions after obtaiing reactions indicitave of deception.  Those figures give us 98% correct calls on deception.  That my friend is real life.  How many pass while telling lies?  I have no idea so cannot give any reliable estimate of figure.   

Regarding concern about false positivies.  When a polygrapher detects deception, further investigation is necessary if admissions are not obtained.  (Personal Opinion not held by all departments or examiners)

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 12:22am:


Could you cite a field study to this effect?  Preferably one regarding screening applications.  I'd like to read it.

I've personally known people who would fail with one agency and pass at another (this would imply a false positive or false negative somewhere along the line probably the former).  This happens far too many times to support a 98% accuracy.

Besides Dr. Richardson's statement was with regards to the motivation of innocent examinees to use countermeasures.  It had nothing to do with the actuall application of countermeasure use.  In Hont's study the examineer accused approximately 15% of the innocent examinees of using mental countermeasures (and exactly ZERO of the actual utilizers).

Onesimus, thanks for the verification that admissions are made when deception, for what ever cause, is detected.

Mr. Mystery, 

I cannot cite "Scientific" studies, they are all Laboratory studies.  Real Life studies are flawed also because we do not know what ground truth is.   

When we use laboratory studies, we have no fear of detection, therefore we have very little reason for reaction on "relevant" issues, therefore the study is not a scientific study, only a WAG study.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 3:57am:


Oh yeah, according to NSA polygraph divsion's technical directory, the polygraph doesn't detect lies in the first place.

"you, by definition, ignore the results of those innocent subjects who have been found deceptive and who do not confess.  In other words you would have grossly underestimated your rate of false positives through such means."


As often as this issue comes up, I am beginning to wonder if people in the polygraph field are truly this ignorant.  Or, do they just forget that people outside of their little circle posses the intelligence to see the most fundamental flaws in their logic.   

Each day that I come to this board and read another person try to defend polygraphs, the more I realize what a hoax it has become.  And of course, another day goes by without a shred of scientific validity to the voodoo that is polygraph. 

The scientific community would laugh these clowns right out of the laboratory if they attempted "valid" studies that used the actual scientific method to determine results.

Instead, polygraph people prefer to work inside their little bubble, patting each other on the back, reassuring each other that they are not the smuck of the earth, scientifically and morally.


Back on topic, there are far better way to invesitgate a person suspected of sexual abuse.  Relying on this stupid device was an insult to the victim.  I hope people wake up someday and realize that polygraphs hurt everyone.

Micki

As in a lot of threads the original post gets turned into a debate.

As George said, anyone can beat the poly. I haven't answered because the only suggestion I have is have your lawyer file a petition with the court to have your ex-husband's polygraph invalidated because of it's vast inaccuracy. List this website, the NAS report or anything else he can find to get the sicko's polygraph thrown out and ask the court to consider the hard evidence. Your lawyer needs to research this site. Your ex needs to be in lock-up. Not in the military. This idiot shouldn't be allowed contact with your daughter even in the presence of another adult.