May I predict a response from the pro-polygraph crowd?

Probably something along the lines of:  "The only people qualified to form an opinion regarding the accuracy of the polygraph are polygraph examiners, since they are the only ones with sufficient training in the polygraph."

If the National Academy of Sciences' opinion can be discounted I doubt any pro-polygraph people will listen attentively to a psychologist.

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 10:20pm:



As usual you fail to READ!

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

Now, I can say that there is a coffee pot that circles the earth that know that you are lying. It cannot be seen or proven not to be there.
The only validity to my "test" is that I have convinced enough people that many times I get a confession.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COFFE POT IS THERE!!

Your self serving slant on everything is so evident. 
What is so thin about ?
"There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious." 
Seems clear to me and many others that have been victims of your scam not to mention respected people in law, medicine and government.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 1:52am:


As much as I would like to see the EPPA amended, I have always been less than optimistic that this will happen. Twenty years ago, polygraphy was outlawed for use on a majority of the general public. There are so few people left subject to it that this issue is not likely to generate much traction among elected officials.

I think the way we will ultimately be successful in the destruction of polygraphy is through exposing the trickery behind this pseudoscientific fraud, destroying its value in extracting confessions.

As you pointed out, the only real utility of polygraphy is that it is very effective in making those ignorant of the procedure volunteer information that they would otherwise conceal. 

With AntiPolygraph.org occupying the #1 spot with Google searches for polygraph for a vast majority of the past five years, I think that it’s fair to speculate that our message on polygraphy is being delivered. 

Moreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS. 
     
Whether they refuse to submit to the “test,” pass (with CM or without) or fail, the best way anyone faced with a polygraph can hasten the destruction of this fraud is to deny the process its primary utility by not volunteering any information.

The ability to extract admissions comprises two of the three legs in that table under the polygraph house of cards. Once removed, the cards will come crashing to the floor, as the poor track record of polygraphy with regard to detect deception will leave it unlikely to persevere with this as its only purported benefit. 

Sancho Panza, who has recently lied to us about the existence of published studies on polygraph countermeasure detection, now complains that the American Psychological Association's article on lie detectors lacks "anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article."

But in point of fact, the article is not unbalanced. The authors of all of the sources referenced are scientists at arm's length from polygraphy. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy is to psychology as intelligent design is to biology. Sancho Panza might as well bemoan the fact that an article on evolutionary biology fails to include an opposing point of view from a clergyman.

S.P.   
You write in part:

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 10:55am:


Have you completely lost your mind? Are you really defining "caught" as being found deceptive on a polygraph examination?  Unless you have independent corroborative evidence related to your aforementioned assertions, you are not only without reason, but a slandering fool.  Only a fool would suggest to the hundreds of victims of false positive polygraph results who view this site that a deceptive result on a polygraph exam is equivalent to being caught. Yes, get real already!

SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 10:55am:


This is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."

Quote:


I have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.

Quote:


No. I've labeled you a liar because you lied about the existence of "published studies as late as 2007 that countermeasures are detectable..." No such studies have been published.

Quote:


As I pointed out earlier:

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:

pailryder wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 1:39pm:


I certainly endorse the use of polygraph countermeasures by truthful persons to protect themselves against the all-too-serious risk of a false positive outcome. And I'm in good company. As the late Professor David T. Lykken observed:

Quote:


You continue:

Quote:


Not so. The truth of the matter is that I do not know whether the information provided here on AntiPolygraph.org is used more often by liars or by truthful persons.