To all concerned,

This is a very interesting pdf presentation on the polygraph (validity), with indepth research and accompanying numbers to support it. It is given during one of the Graduate level courses PSYCH501 at the university. It speaks for itself.

Link: 
http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC501A/Lecture%204.pdf

For all of the polygraphers on board ..... Lets see some debate on this research,

Regards ...

LBCB,

To the best of my knowledge, electromyography (EMG), referred to in the context of the study by Honts et al. cited at p. 39 of the above-linked PDF presentation, is not used as a polygraph counter-countermeasure by any federal (or non-federal) agency.

LBGB,

The shortcomings of CQT polygraphy are rooted not in imperfections of the available polygraph instruments, but rather in the fact that the underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method.

LBCB,

I am willing to be convinced by scientific evidence that polygraph testing "works." I have no interest in twisting facts to support arguments I have made regarding the validity of polygraphy. I'm quite willing to be shown that I am in error. It is for this reason that this message board (unlike that at PolygraphPlace.com) is uncensored. But scientific evidence to support of the validity of polygraphic lie detection remains wanting. While I do not question your sincerity of belief, anecdotal evidence based on personal experience is ultimately unsatisfying. This is the same kind of evidence that is typically offered in support of such fantastic claims as alien abductions and faith healings.

LBCB,

Have you ever read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World?

In chapter 10, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Sagan writes "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might sytematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian slection among "multiple working hypotheses", has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy." (p. 210)

When I began researching the polygraph and lie detection, I didn't have a clue whether it really worked or not. Then as I began to read the literature, both pro- and anti-, the preponderance of the evidence (the NAS report was the final straw) began to fall on the anti- side and I became convinced that nature did not equip us with a singular physiological response that is associated with lying. Rather, the psychologists and physiologists were rather convincing in their detailed research that lying and its associated responses are too diffuse to adequately ever come up with a simple test for detecting deception. And as much as we would like to be able to adequately detect deception, we will never get there. You and the other polygraphers on the board hold onto your views not because you're inherently biased, but because you've invested so much of yourselves into your profession that you won't allow yourselves to "spin another hypothesis" that whatever you're seeing on the polygraph might be due to emotion, test anxiety, or illness rather than deception. 

You also keep bringing up the point that with the exception of Dr. Richardson, none of the anti- folk have used a polygraph. But that is misdirection because one needn't have experience in something to be able to read and discern the research and come to a rational conclusion about it. 

Your examples of aliens and faithhealing are also strawmen that support your misdirection fallacy. A better example would be if someone tells you that they have a surefire method for picking stocks, do you try the method first or do you research it? If you find that the preponderance of research shows that the method works no better than chance, would you still be willing use it? Do you need to be an economist or financier or understand econometrics to understand the basics? While it would help, not really. You just need to be able to think critically.

And when it comes down to it with CQT polygraph, the only hypothesis that survives is that it has no scientific basis on which to stand and is merely wishful thinking packaged in scientific sounding jargon sold to a credulous public.

One last thing, I've consistently been attacked on this board by polygraphers with ad hominem attacks (including you, remember the Gilligan remark?) and while I find it amusing, it does not serve you well to stoop those lengths. Please address the topic at hand as I'm not the topic, the CQT is. The only thing ad hominem attacks do is show that one cannot answer the question...

Regards,

digithead

George,

Without wasting any further time trying to convince you or to respond to each and every statement you make, as you did with me, I simply want to thank you for the links to "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Russel's Teapot," which also led me to "The Invisible Unicorn" and articles about Richard Dawkins.  I have always enjoyed religious parodies, as well as political satire, and you gave me some good laughs.    I laughed when I read how the "believers" of The Spaghetti Monster are known as "Pastafarians" (Pasta and Rastafarians, get it?), and they end their prayers with "RAmen."  Hilarious!

I recommend that other readers follow these links for some good humor, as long as they are open-minded enough to be comfortable with having their unfounded beliefs ridiculed.  It's a huge stretch to compare any of this to my personal experience with the polygraph, but I appreciate the attempt.

P.S. Sorry, Digithead.  I noticed your lengthy reply after I responded to George's.  I totally missed it.  You make some excellent points, and this is the best of your posts that I recall reading.   Very cogent and well-organized.  I must remind you, however, that the examples of aliens and faith healing were not mine, but George's, so they are his strawmen, not mine. Obviously I am not going to convince you of anything either by touting personal experience as a necessity when making a final judgment about the polygraph.  I also can't speak for the entire profession.  However, unless you've been there and used the polygraph day in and day out, you really can't give a final opinion that is completely credible.  Like you, I am a very skeptical person, so I need more than simply what other people tell me to finally convince me of certain things.  Experience has taught me that the polygraph, while imperfect, is a good tool in the hands of a good polygrapher, and is correct almost all of the time.  Again, that was a good post, and I really appreciate you taking the time.  You have finally earned a bit of respect from me, Digithead.  

George,

When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph and negative studies against the polygraph, I think experience tips the scale.  There is the lab, and then there is the real-world crucible where the real truth can be found.  The real world of polygraph examiners has shown us things that you can not see when you accept only those studies that support your own wishes.

Yes, George, and I take strong issue with you and your fellow "anti-" followers belittling actual experience in favor of things you've read.  And I take strong issue with those who discount studies that don't conform to their wishes or personal agenda.