pailryder wrote on May 10
th, 2008 at 6:22pm:
Just to be provocative. You and I know it is never ethical to deceive in order to gain a position of trust. That is catch-22, the contradiction that we use to attempt to elicit CQ response from the knowledgable, informed, truthful subject.
I have encountered few superior examples of a catch-22. If you lie, you're dishonest and shouldn't get the job. But if you don't lie, you can't be tested and so won't get the job. You know, before the polygraph came along, lying was considered a bad thing, especially when done to get a sensitive position. Now, in one of the polygraph's chief contributions to society, that type of activity is perfectly okay--if it serves the interests of the polygraph.
I see no way out of the contradiction for you. You say it is not okay to lie, but you pass people all the time who do just that. How do you explain this? Also, do you have any way to discriminate between the person who refuses to lie because he has something to hide and the one who refuses to lie because he doesn't?
Also, I don't think your explanation is convincing with regards to informed subjects. You seem to be saying that the examinees thought process would be something like the following:
(1) I shouldn't lie, lying is wrong;
(2) I especially shouldn't lie to get an important, sensitive job;
(3) And certainly not while on a lie detector!
(4) But I must lie to get the job!
(5) Does not compute! I'm so stressed and anxious about this [control question]!
However, think, for the informed subject, it is more like this:
(1) Yeah, he's trying to get me to lie, just like I knew he would;
(2) I'm not a very good liar? Speak for yourself, buddy!
(3) This is so lame, does anyone really believe this stuff? Like any agency would have a single employee if this was true.
(4) Okay, control question, I'm supposed to lie now.
(5) Okay, this one is relevant, tell the truth.
(6) Another control question. "Oh, no. I've never done that." Yeah, but I would like to thank the Academy...
In short, I fail to see how a truly informed subject is going to be so stressed out at the control questions, as he or she must be for the thing to work. If someone tells me they'll give me a hundred dollars if I say the sky is purple am I going to produce a result that says "deception" with the same reliability as the guy who thinks he's going to be fired if he doesn't lie and if he's caught lying? I don't think so. And if I'm wrong, then there's no reason for all the secrecy about how the polygraph works, it can be brought out into the light and many people who are tempted to use countermeasures won't.
I wonder what percentage of the Amish would lie to pass a polygraph exam? I think we can assume that they, at least, have never visited this website. But I suppose that would tell us more about the Amish than about the polygraph. Still, it would be interesting, albeit a bit exploitative. (And since the Amish have been able to forgive even that guy who murdered several of their daughters--they even donated money to his widow and children--they get a pass from me.)
Also, out of curiosity, has there been any research done on whether the gender of the polygrapher could influence results, say if the examinee is a female sexual assault victim and the polygrapher is male? I understand that many women after a rape find it very difficult to trust and form healthy relationships with men, it seems that could introduce an unfortunate variable that could create additional noise on the polygraph. Just wondering if there is any such effect and, if so, what measures are taken to eliminate or minimize it. (Polygraph Place would probably be the place to post this question, but it'd take forever to get an answer, I suspect, if I ever could; those guys are suspicious of everyone)