George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 1:22am:


GM,
Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3!

Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions.   

I believe it was Nonombre that said if they would have incorrectly identified the individuals AP would have had it posted in big bold RED letters.  Bottom line is the tests were good and accurate! 

I will state on the record that I do not agree with the 'DR' status Mr. Martin uses; however, he doesn't need a PH.D behind his name to run a good exam.

I have watched this episode, and I was amazed. I thought that lie detectors were really credulous.


But after reading what you wrote about the phony pHD's and stuff, I am now really confused of how can Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, dislplay a fraud.


But asking you again,

So, "Is the credibility of lie detectors still a myth?

wow.... just wow.

As someone who just got a PhD in molecular biology from a top 5 university I am incredulous.
The extent of my knowledge about polygraphs is that they are considered to be a pseudoscience.  I had no idea, however, that it was such an incestuous little world.
As an impartial observer who stumbled across this page (I don't even remember how) I will tell you that I just downgraded my opinion substantially.  Any profession who knowingly lets its members falsely pass themselves off as "doctors" is simply bogus.
I worked in the molecular biology field for 10 years before starting my PhD program.  Seven years and one degree later I have realized that there is no way that I would have learned the appropriate application of the scientific method or how to properly design and assess experiments without attending grad school.  It is a real bitch, and that is why jokers like this "Dr." Mike guy are worse than pretenders, they are downright charlatans.
This is the first I have ever heard of the APA, but I am already spreading the word about this completely bogus association run by wannabes who either don't have the inclination or the brains to put in the real work to become a doctor.
Oh, and about that nonombre poster... don't even bother.  I've been arguing with idiots on message boards for years, and guys like that will never address your question or even read your full response.  They'll just keep posting the same ALL CAPS, HAHAHA!    responses over and over.  Don't waste your time on fools.

Spanker76   Congratulations on your Phd. This is a bit off topic but would you use your knowledge of molecular biology to address a discussion that is occurring off of this board. 

The argument asks the question: What is the potential of cross contamination or identification error regarding a forensic sample of blood if the sample donor had received a recent transfusion of two pints of whole blood from a non-relative during a surgery? Assume for the sake of this argument that the sample will require polymerase chain reaction to provide a suitable comparison. If it is possible, can you predict how long the contamination or identification error might be possible after the surgery. Would it be hours? days? weeks? 

In other words, in the context of a novel, would it be possible for the donor blood to result in a CODIS "hit" on someone who was not at the scene of the crime? 

I realize that these circumstances are pretty unlikely to occur in real life, but is the possibility supportable by science?

Thanks

Sancho Panza

Why on earth would a polygraph "expert"  require, much less need to misrepresent, a PhD, to begin with? Philip Scala, the man who headed the team that infiltrated and eventually brought down the Gambino crime family, only had his Masters in psychology. What am I missing?

And yeah I do find it mind-numbingly underhanded, for an "expert" to ignore the very protocol that challenges the premise they're upholding as fact.  Thereby neither proving their case, nor disproving yours. These shows are always skewed toward predetermined results. You'd hope they'd drop a segment in a case like this, but alas, I don't think this is the first time they've opted for shoddy methodology to obtain a desired conclusion.

btw there is an account of a woman whose escape from a cult, depended on fooling a crude lie detector, which the cult used for a technique called audit councilling. It's believed that it's purpose is to control people's behavior, attitudes, etc... She was terrified because the needle did seem to reflect a difference in calm and emotionally agitated  states (these sessions often lasted between 1 - 2.5 hours.)  She successfully beat the machine by thinking intensely, about things that made her happy (too bad she didn't know about tongue biting technique etc...). So it does seem possible.

Cheers

The problem with polygraph, even though if it wasn't "exposed", there will be people who secretly knows/trained how to beat it. This is why people shouldn't rely on this machine. Imagine, people letting their guard down to someone who has passed the polygraph, earning their trust, but in reality has done heinous crimes. The harm it may do outweighs the good in this scenario.