If an ANS (autonomic nervous system) response, detected by the polygraph thing-a-bob after a "no" answer to a relevant question, is a "visceral" response and not subject to conscious thought (which might well be true), how could it be a "lie"?

A "lie" is a deliberate act produced with ones conscious faculties.  I hear the question, I understand the question, and I will now KNOWINGLY produce a false answer.  For example,  "NO! (I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski)"

The polygraph can not get into the CONSCIOUS MIND of the test subject, and thus, can not measure a lie which by definition is a conscious act.

But polygraphers will claim the machine is detecting "DECEPTION".  Well, if it's "deception", that would presume the subject is consciously aware he/she is being deceptive.  But the machine doesn't measure conscious mentation.  Just visceral reactions.

Some polygraphers will just claim that something is "bothering" you about the question.  Which, with a reaction, is by definition is true.  Something is bothering YOUR UNconscious MIND.  But there are lot of things that could be bothering the unconscious which is the seat of one's fantasies.  The unconscious does not know reality from fantasy.   

The "subconscious" aspect you mention is one thing that I also have a problem with.  What can one do, imagine a brick wall or try to keep your mind blank during the test?  They ask about drugs and I think of the show "Cops."  They ask about espionage and I think of Tom Clancy films.   "Have you ever lied?"  What kind of question is that???  EVERYONE has lied at one time or another!

The opinion of the polygrapher as to whether or not one is being deceptive in regards to the question asked, relies upon the assumption that a physiological response, (blood pressure, heart rate, galvanic skin response and breathing rate) is due to the examinees falsely answering the question asked.

     Hi NotGuilty1,

  Food for thought !   Isn't fingerprint evidence "Opinion" evidence ?  They need eleven points of reference to say they have met statistical significance ?  Isn't hair and fiber evidence "Opinion" evidence as well.  In most cases, Medical evidence is that of "Opinion" evidence, as each side has an Doctor with an opposing "opinion" view.   

  You mentioned "Assumptions".  Tell me this then.  Since polygraphs are done in a vacuum, that is an environment free of artificial stimuli, and the questions are reviewed in advance with no surprise questions in a test (No poster here I have read said anything was a surprise), then why the reactivity if not the lie.  What is the other stimulus internally which is not otherwise a constant variable present in the sequence ?  If you say it could be "He's just nervous" that is a worn out rag of an excuse, and would be again a consistent variable.  So identify for me what new variable is it that the test has not accounted for since the commitment to the questions was made in advance and already processed prior to any charts.   

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 3:30am:

Well, I am here as many others are, to say that we failed despite being truthfull. 
You are the ones claiming the tests works so don't ask me why the reactions are what they are. You push the test you should be showing the proof that it works.

I am here to say I failed and was truthfull. So I must be crazy because according to you my subconcious mind does not agree with what I know to be truth. I must be really messed up and so are all the others on here that say the same.

OH PLEASE GET OFF IT ALREADY

Sackett

There may only 4 or 5 false positives posting at this time. If you care to find out the numbers who have actually posted of their false positives, which I doubt, search all through the boards. There is quite a number. There was quite a number who posted on the website that preceeded this one. The older posters just don't want to read or debate the same old stuff over and over. Polygraphers nor false positives will ever change their minds no matter what proof either side may presents. They probably feel like - why beat a dead horse.

My opinion is polygraphers come hear now solely to discredit George, Gino and this site. They are not presenting anything new. If the information in this site is not presenting any problems to the poly industry, as most of you say, then why continue to be redundant? I believe this has been asked of all of you, many times, and I don't remember reading a straight forward answer. If you remember one, then point me to it. I sometimes suffer from Halfhimers.

There was one polygrapher years ago that I really liked. He posted under the name of Public Servant. I liked him so well that I offered him a moose hunt in Alaska. He stayed so busy he couldn't accept. This guy was a square shooter. However, this was before you guys realized that CMs were a pain in the ass. Sure wish I knew how he was getting along. If you're out there Public Servant, PM me.

notguilty1 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 1:04am:


Well, if I could get twoblock and notguilty1 to stop taking warm showers together and looking for a third for their three-some, maybe your attention could be directed to the facts.

I am not here to discredit George, but to add an examiner's perspective to his statements and thoughts. Some of what George reports is true.  I can not deny that.  Some of what he reports and suggests is disinformation and willl get an examinee into trouble during an examination.  I am trying to make the difference clear.

In other words, and repeating myself, I am trying to put a ??? where George and his minions would put an !!!

Your suggestion that we examiner's do not answer your questions, I suggest, you simply do not want to accept the answers we give you. We are not here to give you the answers YOU want, but what is accurate and true, related to polygraph.  You said, "I simply don't know of any other "profession" that has to come on a web site to defend thier actions."  As an explanation, there are few sites which attack a well established profession, then give suggestions as to how to beat it when subjected to it... Why am I here? it IS obvious...

I am not defending polygraph, I'm simply trying to explain and povide free education.  The fact is, you simply do not want to learn.  Don't blame the teacher for the student's ignorance and testing failure, when they want to ignore the text.   

Finally, I am not suggesting that false positives do not occur, they simply do not occur at the rate you and the others posting here would want other, more naive readers to believe.

Sackett

"n.p.c.",

I believe I provided an earlier posting in which I informed "you guys" that while I personally will try to answer most questions given me, there will be some questions that I will not answer.  Reason?  As I stated before, I am not here to help George write a better book or modify his mistakes.  I'm simply trying to offer an alternative, truer account of polygraph than those of fanatical distortions may present to the unsuspecting examinees who review these pages.

Sackett

P.S.  Statement analysis indicates Fred's guilty and I didn't even need to test him...