I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work.

I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree.

The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:37am:


Barry, the producers of Mythbusters certainly knew about AntiPolygraph.org (as they contacted me, and I spoke with one of them at length well in advance of the filming date). But it's clear they didn't use The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for the show. The countermeasure instructions given to Tory and Grant are things that one would not expect to work, and that no one knowledgeable about polygraph procedure would attempt.

Note that while Martin appears to have detected Tory's movements when pricking himself in the leg with a thumbtack, there is no indication that he detected Tory's tongue-biting (misapplied as it was).

The bottom line is that Mythbusters' "Beat the Lie Detector" segment tells us nothing about 1) the efficacy of polygraph countermeasures or 2) the validity of the CQT polygraphy.

Quote:


Yet he hides the fact that his "honorary" degree is from an unaccredited diploma mill. Michael Martin is committing academic fraud by representing himself to the public even as an "honorary" Ph.D. and styling himself as "Dr. Martin" in marketing his polygraph services.

Quote:


But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you?

Quote:


I don't know that accurately reprents the APA's position, but yes, I'm on the record as stating it is unethical to do so.  When a person discloses that it's not an earned degree, then we're talking about something different.  It's a complex issue.  For example, Jim Matte's degree, which you've pointed out here, isn't from an accredited organization.  It's a legal degree in California - and you can even get licensed to practice, psychology, for example, with a CPU "degree."  However, those same "degrees" are illegal in many other states (mine included).

As far as Mythbusters goes, there's no sense in arguing here.  I predicted your spin before you wrote it.  It looks like we'll have to stick to the peer-reviewed studies that show they don't work.

Sir Barry,

Please refer you to Mr Maschke posting off 25 Oct reproduced below in response:

Quote:


Quote:

Quote:


I find this to be a very troubling, though rich, over-generalization. 

As for the situation with Mr. Martin, do you think it possible that one can disagree with another, yet remain compassionate? Or is our morality contingent upon persistent antipathy?


r

JP,

At present, I'd be more interested in a conversation regarding that your assertion re morality - that showing sympathy makes one no better than a mis-deed-doer. 

We can beat a dead horse around Mr. Martin's admittedly honorary degree, or we can have an interesting conversation about a very important concept. One that has implications that extend well beyond polygraph, into how individuals and even whole cultures relate with adversaries. 

Sympathy is a difficult concept for many to endorse, because of some distorted implications that have gotten attached to the concept. Would you offer the same assertion if we consider this same premise in the context of extending compassion to one's enemy or to one who has transgressed? Does sympathy or compassion make one morally "no better" than the other? What does it mean to be "no better." Would moral equivalence be desirable or undesirable?

Consider the Christmas Truce of 1914. Was that wrong? If so why? What is right (moral)? Why? Were not those soldiers enemies? Are they morally equivalent as a result of the Christmas truce? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Were then inequivalent before the truce?



r

raymond.nelson wrote on Dec 29^th, 2007 at 7:49pm:


Raymond,

The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.

Donna,

Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."