If polygraphy were a valid test for detection of deception, it wouldn't matter whether people knew how it works. While this website was indeed created for the purpose of helping the truthful protect themselves against the danger of a false positive outcome, there is no way to make the information provided here available to such persons without also making it available to everyone. Those who should have guilty consciences are the corrupt and/or incompetent public officials who wilfully ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence against polygraphy and continue to rely on this pseudoscience for national security and public safety purposes.

For related discussion, please see my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public."

Rather than blaming the person or people who made it known that the polygraph test is not capable of detecting truth or deception, it seems more appropriate to blame the person or people who decide to utilize such a test for something as important as monitoring convicted sex offenders.

George:

Please look up the meaning of corrupt before you paint all of us polygraphers with the same brush.

PrivateSnowball

On one thread you are trying to pick people's brains on how to become a LEO. Isn't that trying to get a leg up on the hiring process?

Then on this thread you berate the kind of people who are drawn to this site. It drew you didn't it? You must be contemplating using countermeasures.

Most of us have your views on sex offenders but I think you have too many preconceived ideas to make a good LEO. I would suggest you are better suited for a parole officer. Doesn't pay as much, but then, you would be dealing with criminals and not the general public.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 14^th, 2006 at 9:41pm:


So is it the examiner or the machine that matters? What makes someone a competent examiner? Is it the questions they ask? The manner in which they ask them? If this is the part that makes or breaks usefulness of countermeasures then why isn't there more uniformity of process and standardization from examiner to examiner?

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 14^th, 2006 at 9:41pm:



How many articles on the effectiveness of countermeasures are in Polygraph? Do you not believe in your own field's literature and research? Since their information on countermeasures is culled from the polygraph literature written mostly by pro-polgyraph people (Honts, etc.), you're attacking your own field and claiming that its research has no validity. I find that quite funny...

And since you're posting on this site leads me to believe that if countermeasures did not matter then you wouldn't be here trying to persuade people not to use them...

And I don't think George is unwittingly aiding criminals, he is simply giving methods for defeating a pseudoscientific test and demonstrating the danger and folly of its use by showing how easy it is to fool...

digithead wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 12:31am:


A "competent" examiner, in my experience, will often spot countermeasures because most examinees do not have the ability to selectively fine tune their responses to make them appear natural.  When I have caught countermeasures, they have stood out like a sore thumb.  COULD I be fooled by someone very skilled at manipulating his or her physiology enough to make the responses actually appear natural?  Of course.  With a lot of practice, a person might become skilled enough to do this.  However, even with my knowledge and experience AND access to the equipment and assistance from other experienced examiners, I can't even convincingly do it myself.  But for those readers who want to try it with a competent examiner, I say, in the words of Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky . . . punk?"

Actually, I'm NOT trying to persuade people not to use countermeasures.  It's fine with me if they use them.  I've caught examinees using countermeasures, and it simply ends the process for them.  Each time this happens, it allows us to avoid hiring a person who lacks integrity.

You can spout off all you want about this or that study.  Yes, I have read most of the studies used to reinforce the arguments on both sides of the fence.  But when it comes right down to it, I'll take actual experience over laboratory experiments, conjecture, hopes, fears, and hearsay.  Have you used the polygraph as an examiner hundreds or thousands of times to gain experience, or are you just repeating the words of others because their words support your own wishes?

And as for George being "unwitting," again we should question the rationalization that it is justifiable to try to help the "innocent" by making weapons equally available to both them and the guilty.

George,

I don't know if I could stand being you, pretending to be a polygraph expert when all you have are selective laboratory studies, the subjective opinions of other people, and your own polygraph failures to support your views.

You can call polygraph a "pseudoscience" and continue to rationalize and justify both this site's existence and its goals, but it doesn't change anything.  You are still simply a polygraph failure who surely deserved to fail.  After all, didn't you fail not simply one of the relevant questions on your FBI polygraph, but ALL of them?

I know I'm not going to convince you of anything because you have too much at stake personally in maintaining this site.   Likewise, with only the above listed supports for your viewpoint, you won't convince many experienced polygraphers to follow the pied piper's call into the river.  But if examinees read your material and buy into it enough to use it, they either have something serious they are attempting to hide, or they are innocent examinees taking a big risk of ending their application processes.