Quote:


A new topic just for me? Gee, guys, I don't know what to say except . . . thanks. I always wanted one, but you know, it's just one of those things you don't go out and get for yourself, but that you greatly appreciate as a gift. I feel tingly all over.   

Answers to your three questions:

1. All of these.

2. Well, I look at the studies used by the "pro-polygraph" people (look at the APA website as an example), and then I unscientifically, but I feel intuitively, subtract a few percentage points because nothing can be that accurate, in my experienced opinion.

3. Be thankful for the inconclusive. If you have a process that isn't 100% accurate, the inconclusive is a nice buffer zone between passing and failing, providing much less chance, numerically, that the guilty will pass the exam or the innocent will be false positives.

Yes, Bill, I have read many, many studies on both sides. I have debated with people on this forum and others.  I no longer engage in my-study-is-better-than-your-study debates with people like George who have no actual experience. I may as well argue with people about their religion for all the good it would do. What it always comes down to is, there are very persuasive studies on both sides. I tend to side more with the ones that are real-life, field studies, rather than lab studies. Unfortunately, there are not enough field studies, and I know both through experience and experience-based intuition, that most of the lab studies simply can't be applied to the real world because there is such a huge difference between the lab examinee and the real-world examinee. If I were not an experienced polygrapher, I too would probably choose some of the negative polygraph studies to support negative personal views of the polygraph. After all, I don't like the damned machine. I despise it, even though it works.  It is akin to a medieval torture device in its ability to cause even normally truthful people to feel extremely uncomfortable. I hated being polygraphed, and I never want to do it again. I also don't care for the average polygrapher. I don't trust anyone who can look you straight in the eye and act like their process is infallible when they know damned well it isn't. We polygraphers are a cocky bunch, and the reason for this is because we've always got one up on the examinee. We know what we are doing, we know that it works quite well, and we know that most deceptive examinees don't stand a chance.

But when I view studies from both sides through the lenses of my polygrapher's experience (Digithead and others on this website would probably prefer to call those lenses horse blinders or coke bottle goggles), I can see that the positive studies regarding the polygraph have more to back them up than do the negative ones.  I am naturally a skeptic, so it usually takes a lot more than just other people telling me something questionable for me to believe it. I've used the polygraph a lot, and I know how to use it well. In the hands of a competent examiner, the infernal thing simply does what it is supposed to do most of the time.

Twoblock,

I fail to see how my "confession" blows your mind. As I said, I don't like the polygraph, but it does work almost all of the time.

And as for going by my gut feeling, certainly I do that while interviewing the examinee. But never while analyzing the charts. The charts must always be viewed as objectively as possible. When viewing the charts, a good examiner must approach it with no bias, no prejudice, and with the same kind of impartiality that a judge or a juror should look at witness testimony--let it speak for itself, and then weigh the evidence.

Ok, now your questions.

I find that sometimes with extremely intelligent people, they might tend to think too much and overanalyze everything to the point that they can't stay focused. Likewise, really dumb people can sometimes be difficult. But for everyone in between those two extremes, the polygraph works amazingly well almost all of the time. With some of the people on this forum who claim to be false positives, I can see examples of both extremes.  
I certainly wouldn't say that all intelligent people and all dumb people have problems with the polygraph, and I have nothing upon which to base this viewpoint other than experience, and that could be biased simply because certain examinees stand out in my memory as prime examples.

As for what to do if an examinee isn't excited about the exam . . .   Hmmm.  I haven't run into that often in real world polygraph exams. Real examinees are all nervous for various reasons and to varying degrees, and most of them are what I would call optimally stimulated. It is when they are too stimulated that I want to get them to relax a bit.

Now, just because I can be frank and open about the polygraph does not mean I agree with most of you anti-polygraph people, especially those of you--which is most of you--who have no experience conducting polygraph exams and who base your expertise on lab studies or the questionable beliefs of other inexperienced people. I will never claim that the polygraph is perfect, nor will I even claim it is accurate in the high 90s, but it is pretty darned accurate most of the time. If that's a good enough "confession" to get me invited on an Alaskan hunting trip someday, then I'll buy the beer.  

Twoblock,

I have said before that it is possible that, with much training and feedback, a person could learn to manipulate his or her physiological responses convincingly enough to fool the polygrapher. Also, some polygraphers simply score the charts based on textbook responses, having no experience or training with countermeasures. But as I explained in response to Dr. Richardson in another post, when viewed globally and with normal habituation and normal variability of response--and I can't explain that any better unless you've been there as Dr. Richardson has--a well-trained polygrapher can see when things are not normal. I swear to you that I've seen it myself, and it stands out more than you would believe when you know what to look for. The average examinee, despite reading George's well-written book, simply can not convincingly do what you claim to be able to do well enough to not raise red flags for a good examiner. If you get lucky, maybe you end up with a mediocre or poor examiner, but how are you going to know that when you arrive at the polygrapher's office on exam day?

About the high-powered rifle--we polygraphers prefer to sneak up on our prey and slit its throat with a knife. . . 

Any polygrapher who loves the machine has either forgotten how it was to be polygraphed, or they've never been polygraphed. In my opinion, the experience ranges from moderately uncomfortable to mentally tortuous, depending on what the examinee has to hide.