pailryder wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 12:39pm:


His understanding of polygraphy is deeper than that of polygraph practitioners because he understands that it has no scientific basis.

Jim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.

George,

I do not find that all examiners are careless in whom they accuse or suspect of using CM's or being falsely suspected of deception.  We (generally) do care about the results of every examination.  The problem is, like most tests involving human beings, the risk of false results is greatly outweighed by the accuracy and utility of the test.  We, as examiners admit there are false positives and negatives within our profession.  We DO NOT agree they are as frequent as you would like your readers to believe.

I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work. 

I think you are wrong and are repeatedly proven as such when claiming anyone who reads your book can easily beat the examiner.

So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.

No-one said the NAS was prepared and written by "know nothing egg heads", though I like your terminology.  Many of us simply dispute the intent and agenda behind the selected readings and research used in the paper.

Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.

You are certainly entitled to your evaluative opinion.

What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.

I have said many times here, CM's DO NOT beat the test, they beat the examiner.  If an examiner is trained in detecting CM's and stays on top of what you and the others teach, they are relatively easy to catch.  If, like I have also said, and which applies to many examiners, they remain complacent; they will be beaten.

...In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.

I am addressing readers of this board using what you teach on their own and employing CM's and beating the examiner; NOT, what a researcher can teach and instruct a novice in how to provide enhanced physiology in order to produce false readings.  There is a big difference between the two, and this research did not address whether the examiner was able to detect what they were doing in regards to CM's, only their effect on the test itself.

It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.

George, how do you know what his ground truth was?  You accept everyone's tale of woe at face value as it supports your agenda; and without any proof or support.

You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com, where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!

Polygrahplace.com was never and has never presented itself as an open board for anyone to post their opinions and statements about polygraph.  It IS a place where someone with an honest question about polygraph can get an honest answer from examiners without receiving an opinionated diatribe, like as experienced here.

Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.

George, lets be honest.  There is no debate here, there is only attacks on pro-polygraph supporters and then milk and cookies and the sining of Kumbaya for the so-called anti folks. 

It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.

Most examiners are sensitive to CM's.  Many are hyper-sensitive.  I agree.  Most of this has to do with training.  Some are comfortable with their knowledge.  Some are paranoid and may very well see them where they don't exists.  This is an individual issue and no-one can control that.

Sackett

Quote:


With regard to preemployment tests, and according to the NAS report, frequent enough to justify NOT having the test!

But that would require LEADERSHIP on the part of politicians and bureaucrats who allow preemployment testing to continue.  They are the ones ULTIMATELY to blame!

Let the record show, however, that there have been some on Capitol Hill who have tried to do the right thing.  In fact, the NAS report was requested by Congress, I believe.  Sen Deconcini (R-NM) admonished congress on his way out of the senate for not acting on the report.

TC

sackett wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 10:14pm:


Come on, give me a number.  What is the percentage rate?