Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25
th, 2007 at 1:11am:
Boy, did I get bated into that one. That is why I have refrained from joining these discussions over the years.
No one baited you into posting on this website. It was your choice. I hope you won't regret it. Those who are dedicated to the truth should have nothing to fear from a frank debate.
Quote:George, I respect your opinon on polygraphs. I don't agree with it, but you are entitled it. I have tested hundreds of people that also didn't believe in polygraphs and after the test their opinion changed.
You've no doubt also polygraphed people who believed in polygraphs until you incorrectly accused them of deception. But in most cases, such persons will have the better judgment not to question polygraphy to your face.
Quote:I have also tested many that attempted CMs and got caught.
But you have no way of knowing how many you've polygraphed who employed countermeasures and were not caught. The fact remains that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated the ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Quote:I understand your quest to conquer polygraphs but I think that your site harms more than it helps.
On what do you base this belief? How much of it is based on self-interest?
Quote:I don't give a crap if a guilty person like policeHopeful wants to come in and lie (and get caught) but I feel bad for the innocent person looking for information and finds this site and gets psyched out - they loose out on a prospective employer due to the measures they use.
You really have no way of knowing whether policeHopeful, who posted in
another thread, is "guilty" of disqualifying behavior or plans on lying to any relevant question. In any event, despite your expressed concern about innocent persons looking for information being "psyched out" by this website, you haven't pointed out anything published here about polygraphy that is untrue.
Quote:If polygraphs don't work - then why do you suggest CM's?
Precisely because they don't work: simply telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass. If it were, this site would not exist.
Quote:Bottom line is the polygraph detects 'physiological changes' that are indicative of deception on the naive and educated examinee.
No it doesn't. The polygraph detects physiological changes that may stem from a multitude of uncontrolled and uncontrollable factors. As Professor John Furedy has observed, polygraph techniques have no real way of differentiating between the nervous-but-innocent and the nervous-and-guilty.
Quote:Now, I do not intend to debate art vs science, provide research, take the challenge or reveal how I can detemine if CMs are used.
You may make this choice, but it doesn't inspire confidence.
Quote:Do I believe they are 100% accurate? No.
How accurate do you believe them to be? And on the basis of what evidence?
Quote:On pre-employment exams the investigator should do a thorough job before the polygraph. If there is arousal on a particular area, the info should be given back to the investigator for further investigation. We don't believe the hiring process should be based entirely on the polygraph.
Unfortunately, that's not the way things work in practice. With most agencies, the applications of those who "fail" their pre-employment polygraph examinations are summarily terminated.
Quote:As for PCSOT, I have found hundreds if not thousands of victims over the years that would not be known if it were not for the polygraph - on both the naive and educated examinee. It is because of this issue that this site really irks me.
This is an example of the utility, and not the validity, of polygraphy. As Dr. Drew Richardson has
pointed out, post conviction sex offender "testing" is every bit as invalid as pre-employment polygraph screening. And as public understanding that polygraphy is a pseudoscience inevitably grows, the utility of the polygraph for eliciting admissions from those who might otherwise be unwilling to make them will inevitably wane.