George,
Since when has the truth ever stopped the media?

EJohnson wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 3:30am:

Why would they feel that way?

If the polygraph is a valid scientific method of determining truth or deception, why would it be unethical to use it to determine truth or deception on television?

I can think of a bunch of valid scientific tests that wouldn't be unethical to administer on television.  Why is it so "detestable" to have an APA member administer a polygraph on TV?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 8:14am:


Please name those scientific tests which would  be "ethical" in the framework where people are consuming the results without the guidance of a professional counselor, in front of millions of people, and under the umbrella of "entertainment." Take the old DNA type of TV scenario where a would be father of a 8 year old child is thrust with the news that he is not the actual father. What the cameras fail to show is the aftermath of the families----left unguided to attempt to reassemble their broken lives. Those people sat for the test for a few bucks and a plane ticket to "the big city." If you erroneously compare a person who seeks a job filled with tests, and background investigations, stress interviews, and normed against a population of purist-thinking boyscouts, than you are terribly misguided. A wise examiner once said that domestic type issue polygraph testing is not for public consumption, and should be properly framed and implimented by a professional therapist. Take it or leave it.

nopolycop wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2008 at 4:25pm:


Ah, another good out-of-context quote and remark. You are like a White Castle Hamburger, no matter what time, where, or when, you always know how to twist the insides. The only difference is that White Castle doesn't pretend to be healthy or smart. I'll pass on addressing your straw man remark. Inductive reasoning is best left for the prejudicial masses.

While I agree with Media Life magazine writer Diego Vasquez's characterization of The Moment of Truth as "an hour of poor taste," it seems the viewing public may feel differently. According to Benjamin Toff of the New York Times, "...Nielsen estimated that the show delivered 23.2 million viewers, more than any series premiere on any network in almost a year."

Interestingly, in its first episode, the show made no claims about the accuracy of lie detectors, perhaps supposing that Americans already have sufficient belief in the pseudoscience of polygraphy that no explanation was necessary. The polygraph itself takes a backseat in the show. Contestants are asked some 50 questions while hooked up to the lie detector prior to the show's taping. As each contestant is introduced, the screen displays rapid-fire video sequences from the person's polygraph examination. Let's look at some frame grabs.

Here we see that polygrapher Nick Savastano is using a four-pen analog (non-computerized) polygraph instrument. There is no channel for a seat pad or strain gauge (used by many polygraphers nowadays in an effort to detect or deter physical countermeasures such as the anal sphincter contraction):



Note that the polygraph chair has no arm rest for the examinee's left hand (to which the galvanic plates are attached). The examinee's right arm rests on a table:



Here we see that Savastano's polygraph instrument is a Lafayette Ambassador:



Another glimpse of the polygraph instrument:



The first contestant was personal trainer and former XFL football player Ty Keck, who played for the Los Angeles Xtreme. He made it past the first round of personally intrusive questions to win $10,000, but decided to risk it and proceed to the second round, during which he was eliminated for allegedly lying when answering "no" to the question, "As a personal trainer, have you touched a female client more than was required of you?":







The next contestant was George Ortuzar, marketing manager at the Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood, California. He made it past the first round of personal questions, went on to the second, and will continue on next week's show:







And by accident or design, sleeveless blouses were de rigeur for wives and girlfriends:

This show gives people a large (up to $500,000) monetary incentive to develop good countermeasures skills.  It'll be interesting to see if anyone wins big and then, after cashing the check, fesses up to using CMs.  Or if the show will ever flunk someone for apparently trying to use them.  (My guess is that peeps who are detected using CMs won't ever appear on the show, it'd shatter the image of the box being all but infallible)

I'm sure contestants have got to sign pretty lengthy agreement forms being going on the show, releasing the show, network, etc from all sorts of liability.  I wonder if that agreement also says anything about attempting to use countermeasures?  Maybe the Smoking Gun will turn something up?

A close look at the credits from last night's (30 January 2008) episode of The Moment of Truth reveals that Nick Savastano is not the only polygrapher performing polygraph services for the show. He is joined by Pete Perrin of Lake Forest, California, a 2006-2007 member of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners' board of directors:



And sleeveless attire remains in style for younger females appearing on the show:







But not for older ones: