Mysterymeat wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 8:20pm:


You forgot to mention those crazy folks at the National Academy of Science who concluded that the polygraph has no scientific validity and poses a threat to national security. They really have no credibility...

nonombre wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 11:48pm:


You guys always quote mining. The NAS statement is that:

Quote:


They were talking about specific-incident cases which are related to the scientific study of cognition. This is because the examiner can tailor the questions so that responses are more likely to be based on cognition rather than emotion which is what CQT is based on and is the root of polygraph's unreliability...

The NAS also concluded that:

Quote:


And that:

Quote:


What was that again about the NAS having a differing conclusion than the anti-people about the polygraph?

Mysterymeat wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 8:20pm:

Feel free to add me to that field.

I am now a ten-year (plus) veteran police sergeant with an unblemished record of integrity and professionalism.

More than ten years ago, I was a police applicant who couldn't figure out why I kept failing pre-employment polygraphs even though I was being completely truthful.

You and the other polygraph supporters can say what they want.  I know from experience with three different examiners at three different companies/agencies that it is all bullshit.  All three of them looked me right in the eye and told me they knew I was lying when I knew I was telling the absolute truth.   

Oddly enough, all three of them told me I was lying about something different.  It seems logical that if I had an issue with one particular topic or subject that particular item would have shown up on all three polygraphs that I failed, and it would have showed up on the polygraph I passed.  If I kept failing because of DUI questions, for example, maybe it would make sense that I had some sort of issue with DUI's or with drinking and that's why I was failing.  But the fact that each time it was a different issue makes it very difficult indeed for me to believe the whole test was nothing more than a crap shoot, wherein the examiner would pick out a topic he or she guessed I might have been lying or holding back information on.

If the polygraph was accurate I would have passed, because I was telling the truth.  I wasn't using countermeasures, and in fact didn't even know countermeasures existed.

The information on this site makes sense to me.  Given my own personal experience, I do not believe the polygraph is accurate at all with regards to non-specific issue pre-employment screening.  In fact, it is worse than worthless because it eliminates otherwise outstanding candidates (like me) with no due process or recourse.

As far as the "help" this site provides to sex offenders, I will say again that if anyone is using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders, and that test can be beaten or confounded by anyone with access to the Internet, how could that test possibly be valid?

One more thing...
George did not invent the material on this web site; he merely collected it from freely available sources.  The pro-polygraph community that wishes to crucify George because he "helps child molestors" should try to remember that.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 11:11pm:


Blunder-Woman
I think that you do Paradiddle a disservice by running in his shadow.
He is intelligent and articulate, whilst you battle to talk past your shoe. 

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 2:31pm:


You went well beyond that which is contained in Mark Johnson's declaration to insinuate that Dr. Richardson has falsified his credentials and "owes the people of this site both an explanation and an apology for committing such fraud." As we have seen, Dr. Richardson has committed no such fraud. In the opening message of this thread you went on to berate Dr. Richardson with the words, "Have you no honor sir?" If you have any, you will apologize for having falsely accused him.

I testify as an expert witness in criminal and civil trials involving motor vehicle accidents.

No one has ever asked me, nor has it ever seemed pertinent, how many times I have had other vehicles collide with mine as I drove down the road.

They also do not ask me if I was present in either car during the events of the crash.  My expertise does not derive from my involvement in the crash, but in my interpretation of the physical evidence after the crash.


I believe you are being deliberately obtuse.  Surely you are familiar with experts who make their living in the lab rather than in the field.  It is easy for me to acknowledge the expertise of a person who has spent time researching a particular field.  I find it hard to believe you cannot do the same.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 3:14pm:


I fail to see the logic of tying your willingness to apologize to Dr. Richardson to my willingness to answer your question. Nonetheless, I shall indulge you. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, defines "expert witness" thus: "One who by reason of education or specialized experience possesses superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming an accurate opinion or deducting correct conclusions...."

I believe that Dr. Richardson, as a research scientist with a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University whose doctoral dissertation applied novel cardiovascular indices to a lie detection task, is eminently qualified to testify as an expert witness on matters related to the (lack of) validity of polygraphy. Indeed, I believe he has testified as such in the past, as have other non-polygraphers including Bill Iacono, John Furedy, Al Zelicoff, and the late David Lykken.