SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 4
th, 2008 at 4:44am:
The founder of this site has failed so far in causing any significant changes in polygraph laws or policies, because he is wrong. I believe he has chosen instead to attack polygraph with a feeble little guerilla action by convincing the courageous honest people that are needed in government service to become dishonest liars.
Was the Employee Polygraph Protection Act signed into law because the ideas supported by this web site are wrong? I am aware that this web site was founded long after the EPPA became law, but isn't the existance of the EPPA at least an indication that someone else on the planet besides George believed that polygraphs are not reliable detectors of deception?
BTW, I don't believe one can convince honest people to become liars. If they choose to lie they were not and are not honest people. I think you are deliberately misstating things when you imply that "courageous honest people" are somehow changed into "dishonest liars" by visiting this site and reading TLBTLD.
I think you are also deliberately misstating things when you refer to studies that prove the polygraph works. If the polygraph "worked" in the way you contextually imply that it does, then truthful people would always pass and deceptive people would always fail, and no other results would exist. That is simply not the case.
Of course, you could say that the polygraph "works" because sometimes it is correct in labeling a specific person a liar, and later that result is proven correct by incontrovertible physical evidence or a credible confession. Or sometimes the polygraph indicates a subject is truthful, and no incontrovertible physical evidence comes to light to prove that result incorrect, and the subject does not come forward and admit that they lied or used countermeasures. None of that, in my opinion, proves that the polygraph works. It simply indicates that in each polygraph the examiner has a 50% of being right, so it stands to reason that he or she will be right some of the time.
You could toss a coin for all police applicants and disqualify all tosses that landed on tails. For every "coin-landed-on-heads" applicant that turned out to be a good cop, you could claim that their success was proof that the coin works. For every disqualified applicant who went on to get into some sort of trouble later in life, you could point to their problems and claim the coin toss methods worked yet again. And none of that would "prove" the coin toss method of applicant screening is any more or less accurate than the polygraph method.