SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 9
th, 2008 at 12:29pm:
Attempting to purposely alter the results of the examination is dishonest and unethical.
And, a polygrapher lying to the examinee isn't? The mere fact that you are hooked up to a machine that is called a lie detector is dishonest on it's face, because the machine cannot detect lies.
In fact, the last time I discussed the issue face to face with a polygrapher, he admitted that he cannot tell if a person is lying.
If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as: "Did you kill John Doe?"
A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results. Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed. All of which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.
All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect". I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass. One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive. One cannot "pass" an opinion.
Sheesh... The poly is a joke and a fraud.