I would like to call on and call out my erstwhile interlocutor, nonombre, to address the ramifications of
the things that he believes. Not, I stress, the things that I believe or the things that the antipolygraph community believes. I just want nonombre to think through his own beliefs. If he honestly does so, he will certainly be a better person for it and we might benefit from his insight as well.
Now, nonombre,
you admit, albeit reluctantly, that certain polygraph formats, like the ubiquitous probable lie control question (PLCQ) exams, increase in accuracy if the subject is deceived. You defend yourself against the straw man claims that any deception
ipso facto invalidates a test--something that I, for one, have never claimed. Indeed, deceiving the subject is a noble thing, you say. Because if the subject is appropriately deceived, the accuracy of the exam goes up and everyone wants the exam to be accurate.
To sum up, you believe (and correct me instantly if I'm wrong!):
(1) important polygraph techniques use deception and
(2) the use of the deception increases accuracy[/li]
I agree fully with those two statements and am glad that you have made them, certain colleagues of yours refuse to do so. Thank you.
Keeping in mind (2), consider now, nonombre, what is it that actually helps the accuracy? Is it the mere fact that the polygrapher has made a statement that is false? Or is it that the subject believes the false statement? If the former, that seems like magic; instead of "hocus pocus" you say "if you have ever driven faster than the speed limit, you will probably commit treason and espionage." Of course, I am being facetious. The mere fact that you have said this or that lie does nothing whatsoever to increase accuracy (if anything, the opposite is probably true, see below). It depends completely on whether or not the subject believes the lie to be true, doesn't it? It is only if the subject is actually deceived that the accuracy improves. Do you agree?
I presume you do. If it didn't matter whether or not the subject was deceived, only that certain magic words were said, then you and your colleagues would not be very concerned with the secret of the words getting out. Nor would you put such efforts into acting as you do. Plus, such magical thinking is pretty absurd.
So, nonombre,
your beliefs tell you that people who are deceived will--in general--produce more accurate results than people who are not deceived. This is what
you believe--it's not simply what I believe, though I do. You own this belief, nonombre. Assuming you're still with me and have no material objections to the above, we're making good progress; let's continue.
So, you agree that truthful people who are not deceived are less likely to pass the exam than are truthful people who are deceived. I submit for your consideration, nonombre, that people with the following traits are less likely to be deceived than those who lack them:
- curiosity;
- a desire to understand the world around them;
- willingness to question assumptions;
- willingness to question authority; and
- critical thinking skills.
Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer? Or a CIA analyst? Or in any human being, for that matter? But, according to the logical consequences of your current beliefs, people with those desirable traits are less likely to be employed by agencies and departments that rely on your profession.
Also, I would say that your attempts to deceive knowledgeable subjects is not neutral with regards to the accuracy of their exams. It probable harms it further since they'll be angry at your insults to their intelligence and they'll have their faith in the process and agency shaken by the farce. Isn't it true that strong anger on the part of the subject directed towards the examiner has a negative influence on chart accuracy?
It doesn't compute, does it, nonombre? You're the good guy, right? It can't possibly be that what you're doing is more harmful than good. Right about now you're searching for reasons not to believe the pretty obvious conclusions from the above summary. You don't want it to be true, that would be too big a blow to your identity (not to mention financial and professional security), so it couldn't possibly be true. Therefore, if you just think long enough, you'll be able to come up with a reason--any will do--that it isn't true. But that's not honest. You're being deceptive again--with yourself. And, as I think I've pointed out before, when one group of people has a distorted view of reality, it is often the case that other people get hurt.
Now, are you really dedicated to truth, or just to what makes you feel good? If the former, you'll want to resolve the disconnect between your belief that you're a good guy and the argument based on your other beliefs which indicates that you're doing a bad thing.
So, nonombre, where do you want to go with this?