Ed Earl wrote on Mar 19
th, 2009 at 10:00pm:
Gino perhaps if you had a single scrap of peer reviewed published scientific research, just one, that someone can take a copy of your book, apply the countermeasure by following your instructions and effectively aid themselves in passing a polygraph test in a field setting then perhaps you could contradict the studies by Honts, Amato et al. that indicate an honest person attempting countermeasures hurts their chances of passing.
The Honts, et al study was handicapped by serious methodological shortcomings. Most notably, the complete absence of motivation for study participants to put meaningful effort into the mastery of polygraph countermeasures. Minor rewards like free movie tickets or extra credit in an undergraduate behavioral science course are trivial compared to the motivation that someone has to defeat a real polygraph "test" when consequences are on the line.
Quote:Polygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.
If what you say is correct,
why do the seven deceptions outlined by Dr. Richardson persist within polygraphy? You have assailed his credentials, pretended that these deceptions do not exist, are rarities, etc. Still, you have not in any way meaningfully refuted Dr. Richardson's assertion that polygraphy is fraught with deception.
Let's start with just the first deception he outlined:
Quote:(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
Would you disagree with the contention that a vast majority (if not all) polygraph examinations begin with the operator providing (or attempting to provide) an explanation of the theory behind polygraphy?
It is without dispute that other stimuli besides attempts at deception can produce the physical manifestations of autonomic nervous system activity that are measured by the polygraph instrument.
Do you contend that this information is provided to subjects on a routine basis by polygraph examiners when explaining the "test?" If not, might this intentional omission be considered deception?
Note that more than FBI rejection letter has outlined "withholding information" as a reason for rejection (in addition to not being within acceptable parameters, of course).
Pages: 
Insurance Claims (Read 48895 times)
