Wallerstein wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 11:28pm:

Well stated, Wallerstein.  This is exactly what I wanted to say; you said it much better than I was able to.  You have debunked LBCB's pro-polygraph drivel with his own words. 

LBCB wrote:
"The polygraph process' biggest potential weaknesses are poor examiners and misinformed or "poisoned" examinees."

No, wrong again LBCB.  The polygraph process' biggest weakness is its fundamental lack of validity.   
 

ecchasta wrote on Jan 6^th, 2007 at 2:02am:


I think these questions are a bit off track from my explanation about the science and art of the polygraph process. As I have said before, arguing over the validity of the polygraph process gets us nowhere. I use the polygraph, and it works. I know this by experience. The pro-people use their studies, and the anti-people use theirs, but the pro-people have one thing that almost none of you anti-people has on your side, and that is experience using the process and seeing that it works, while most of you are either simply spouting off second-hand opinion, or you failed a polygraph, or both. I know you hate hearing about experience, but really, there is no substitute for experience.

Let me repeat what I said previously in this thread so we can get back on track to where I was headed:

However, if knowledge of the art can cause an examinee to focus where he or she would otherwise NOT focus, thereby resulting in failure, good intentions turn out to be a disservice. 
 
This topic starter's concerns that both his/her knowledge of the process and the polygrapher's knowledge of his/her knowledge are thus well-founded. He or she may still pass the exam. If so, it won't be because of the knowledge provided by this website, but rather in spite of it.

Whether or not the polygraph process is valid is not the issue. This topic starter was concerned about how knowledge of the polygraph process, and the examiner's knowledge that the examinee possesses that knowledge, might affect the outcome of the exam. The art of the polygraph process can be positively affected by a certain degree of ignorance on the part of the examinee. If the examinee feels that ALL of the questions are important--which is the examiner's job to convey--then the science of the polygraph will work better. Yes, there are some weaknesses in the polygraph process, and yes, knowledge of the process can magnify those weaknesses. But let's face it--the polygraph is being used, and it will continue to be used. As long as it is used--valid or not, reliable or not--why do a disservice to those who have to take the exam by continually drilling into their heads the idea that only two or three questions are of any significance so that their focus is potentially drawn only to those questions, thereby likely causing those examinees to have trouble passing the exam when they would otherwise have had no trouble?  Wouldn't it be ironic that you polygraph failures could sit there and bemoan the injustice of the polygraph process, and at the same time be the unwitting cause of others failing the polygraph, thereby effecting a sick self-fulfilling prophecy? See the point, or not?

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 5^th, 2007 at 10:02pm:


I find it bizarre that you should liken knowledge of the truth about polygraphy to the "poisoning" of one's mind. All too often, when an examinee admits to having tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Polygraph Knowledge and to having seen the nakedness of the polygraphers, the infuriated reaction of a vengeful Polygraph God is to cast him or her into the Outer Darkness.

Quote:


Perhaps we the unwashed, those of us ill-starred enough not to have been initiated into the Cult of Polygraph, are doomed never to receive gnostic revelation of the Esoteric Wisdom of the Polygraph Sages. But having examined the Gospels of Marston, Keeler, Reid, and Backster, DoDPI's Book of Numbers and Book of Rites, as well as various and sundry other epistles of the Polygraph Faithful, I for one remain a polygraph infidel. And so do America's (not to mention the world's) best scientists.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 5:51pm:


Now we have a polygrapher who modifies Sir Francis Bacon's famous expression, Knowledge is Power, to "knowledge contributes to failure."  LOL!

In reference to LBCB's statement:
"Still sidestepping the point."

It seems to me that your point is that the validity of polygraph should be accepted per your pronouncement that it is valid.

The point of the skeptics is that until you (someone, anyone) give proof of its validity via a double blind scientifically conducted study, it will be a junk science.  Just as chiropractors declared a hundrd years ago (also without any scientific verification) that all disease are caused by "subluxations" in the spine, polygraphers declare that lies can be detected through physical responses of the liar.

Show the proof.  I know you have it hidden somewhere!

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 6:22pm:


But AntiPolygraph.org does not tell examinees that relevant questions are "the only ones that matter." Rather, we candidly explain the true rationale behind the "control" questions, physiological responses (but not answers) to which very much do matter. So those who read and understand the information presented in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector will know that in order to pass, they must respond more strongly to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. It is not readily apparent to me why such foreknowledge of polygraph procedure would necessarily tend to cause a person to respond physiologically only to the relevant questions.

By George, I think Onesimus has got it!

In this thread I have not been arguing the validity of the polygraph. I have not been arguing about whether a person can actually train himself well enough to fool the examiner through countermeasures. I've been frank and candid lately, and even admitted to some of the polygraph's potential weaknesses, but some of you can't accept those concessions and view an unbiased point for what it is.

My whole point has been that explaining the whole process of CQT polygraphy to potential examinees may very well cause them to focus ONLY on those relevant questions. If they are led to do that by the "knowledge" they obtained from this site, its proponents, its literature, etc., then they will almost suredly fail the polygraph or at best come up inconclusive, when without that "knowledge" they probably wouldn't have had a problem with those questions.

Knowledge is indeed power, but in this case it may very well empower examinees to fail, when without this particular "knowledge" they probably would have passed.

Just one more thing: Back when I had to take and pass polygraph exams rather than administer them, thank God I didn't know about the entire process. In fact, I deliberately avoided reading anything at all about the process. When I took those exams, I knew there was some "bullshit" going on, but I just didn't know what it was. Had I known the process, I truly believe my mind would have focused only on certain questions at the exclusion of the others, thereby causing me to either fail the exam or roll the dice by trying to fool the examiner. Knowledge may be power, but sometimes ignorance is bliss.  How's that for being candid?