LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 14
th, 2006 at 9:41pm:
I see where you're coming from, Snowball. But here is my own opinion as an experienced polygrapher:
I believe, based on experience rather than heresay, fantasy, desire, or personal agenda, that the countermeasures information on this site does NOT help a guilty examinee pass a polygraph exam administered by a competent examiner. When I say "guilty examinee," I'm referring to someone who really has something serious to hide, such as sex offenders, which you refer to in your post. Questions such as "Did you use marijuana more than five times?" MIGHT--and I repeat MIGHT--not have the same response impetus as sex crime or other more serious crimes questions, of course.
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:
However, I understand how you feel about this site possibly catering to criminals. The fact that George and others on this site actually believe the information they provide works speaks to us on two levels. First, they believe they are doing a service for innocent examinees. If this were actually the case, then I would say, "Good job and God bless George et. al for their service." But on another level, since they DO believe in the validity of their information, we have to question their priorities and reasoning, because they MUST feel that the benefits to the "innocent" outweigh the harm that could be caused when bad people are assisted by good intentions. In this case, your analogy of known criminals being unwittingly given weapons by people who don't know any better rings true.
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...