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?