LieBabyCryBaby:

Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson - 

"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity... the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. ...(A)nyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."

I suppose this is secondhand information? I also suppose you have the credentials to challenge this individual's opinion?

The American Psychological Association -

"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."

"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

Psychologist Dr. Carol Tavris -

"There is no reliable way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not."

"People who offer hi-tech solutions and all kinds of fancy gizmos that promise a way to give you the answer - that's a very appealing promise to be able to make. But they're dead wrong."

Psychologist Dr. Phil Zimbardo - 

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal..."

National Academy of Sciences - 

"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology
provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph
test could have extremely high accuracy"

"The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially
in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states
that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions"

I could go on listlessly.

The bottom line is that the professionals who spend years researching the science of human behavior have concluded that the polygraph is not scientifically sound,  accurate, or valid. Yet you and other polygraphers with self serving interests stand all out there on your own insisting your little machine works. It does not take much common sense to see which side has more credibility.

If someone legitimately does not give a rat's ass about the polygraph, does not fear it, and does not believe it works, the polygraph is ultimately useless, and therefore its accuracy is nil. You cannot argue this. With no fearful responses from a subject, the polygraph has absolutely no utility. And this is why your subculture relies on spreading the myth of "lie detection" and "98% accuracy," when in all actuality, such claims are BS.

The myth is dying, and eventually you will be confined to strip malls with psychics, tarot card readers and the rest of your kind.

LBCB,

You still haven't explained why, if the polygraph doesn't detect lies as you stated in an earlier post, do polygraph operators use the phrase "detection indicated" when referring to results as measured by the polygraph machine.

LieBabyCryBaby does not like us because perhaps because we are a constant reminder of the wreckage of polygraph screening. I do not doubt the polygraph as an interrogation tool or as a tool that accurately records stimuli to questions.
The fact is that the people on this board who have been on here for years are not on here because we are mad about being busted lying on polygraphs. There is for more outrage among the innocent accused than the guilty exposed.

you may or may not pass your polylgraph. my advice. quit obsessing, take the damn thing and good luck. if you make it you will have a nice career somewhere. If you dont make it, have a backup plan and join us on the forum. lol.

LieBabyCryBaby,

The words of a fraud: "Our method cannot be proven in controlled experiments. It only works in 'real world' settings." Does this work for ANYTHING legitimate? I cannot think of any psychological/medical/scientific application that is nearly unequivocally accepted that the aforementioned statement may apply to. That must mean one thing: the polygraph doesn't fall into any of those domains. Its domain lies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psuedoscience

It is my understanding that Dr. Drew C. Richardson earned his doctorate in physiology in the process of studying lie detection. This is a legitimate doctorate from a legitimate university, mind you, unlike many of your peers who list phony degrees in an attempt to bolster their credibility. This equates to years and years of scientific research under academic, peer-reviewed scrutiny. He then proceeded to graduate from the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which, from what I have gathered, is supposed to be something like the "holy grail" of polygraph schools. In addition, I hardly believe an individual who has earned a doctorate in science would have the slightest amount of difficulty with "polygraph school," especially given that the polygraph is infinitely simpler than the subject of physiology as a whole. Lastly, Dr. Richardson spent time in the FBI's polygraph research unit. Now, unless you have a similar degree, graduated from DoDPI, and spent time researching the polygraph for the federal government, it seems to me that Dr. Richardson has you outmatched in terms of qualifications. Do you even have a degree in a scientific subject from an accredited university? Oh, I forgot, science is wrong, why would you care about such an education.


I forgot to parrot one other resource for you.

The American Medical Association:

"The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."

Every REAL scientific body that the polygraph can be linked to has condemned the polygraph, be it medical, psychological or wholly scientific in scope. Your device has failed. It is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. It never will be because its premise is incorrect. And this causes innocent people to be barred from jobs they have spent years preparing for, and allows guilty people to go by undetected into jobs of public trust. Yet you attempt to insult us because we are using conclusions (“theories” you say) from these subject matter experts. Aren't theories supposed to be scientific?


I simply do not understand your scrutinizing others for using subject matter experts as means of gathering information. I suppose you get all of your information first hand? Maybe you simply are an expert in all things? Must one be a geologist to state that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old? Or a medical doctor to state that exercise is good for one's heart? Or is this merely useless parroting? Your logic is terribly flawed if you actually believe that all one's knowledge is either inaccurate or flawed unless it comes first hand. It’s strictly nonsense. 

I also don't understand why you attempt to belittle others by calling them "polygraph failures" when in reality failing a polygraph means little, given its low accuracy rate. Even you accept the fact that the polygraph is not 100% accurate and false positives are possible. Consider the reality that the polygraph is closer to 50% accurate and false positives are relatively common, and your behavior becomes even more asinine. 

I refer you to the following sources if this site has not convinced you that many innocent people fail polygraphs.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1352955&postcount=1

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357603&postcount=10

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1651463&postcount=19

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1548760&postcount=43

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1538719&postcount=1

There are MANY more of these posts. This is just barely scratching the surface. I could go on, but I fear it would take this whole thread over with examples.


You agree that the polygraph isn't a lie detector. Yet you still use phrases like, "deception indicated." I am hard pressed to believe one can be more hypocritical. What is the difference between the word “lie” and the word “deception”?

So what DOES the polygraph show going on inside people if it doesn’t show deception? And when one consistently responds to the same question many times, what is it that is “definitely” going on inside his/her head?

Anonymous: This is tha JAMA abstract you have cited several times. 75% to 97% is not only different than your previous post it indicates the AMA thinks polygraph is significantly better than a "coin toss" which implys 50%.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

Quote:
 

If you have a first hand citation from the American Medical Association that uses the phrase "Coin Toss" why don't you post it and then we can all use it to ask AMA why they have two different opinions concerning the accuracy of polygraph?  

A second hand quote from that guy who doesn't like red neck preachers and lithuanians doesn't really have much more compelling information to add to this discussion than someone who thinks Columbus discovered the earth was round. 

LieBabyCryBaby seems to be on to some thing when he said Quote:

Anonymous Too,

I thought you didn't like "cut and paste" jobs?

TC