Dear Bill_Brown,

I know that you are trying to express your view and I feel that your last statement was completely unscientific. It was a perfect example of why the polygraph is just a thinly veiled interrogation process that depends on the subject being convinced that you can use the machine to detect deception. Your last answer is really stretching thin the line of scientific testing. You have absolutely no way of knowing if you have created a scientifically acceptable and repeatable "...mindset that focuses on the fear of detection."

You are very honest in your statement but look at the statement:  You are saying that a mindset of fear of detection is necessary for successful scientific testing.  You and every other examiner have absolutely no idea of what level of fear of detection is relevant.  Your parameters are not scientific or repeatable.

Your are polite and I enjoy your talking points, but I am going to need parameters that are independent of any fear process if this test is going to be repeatable or programmable in a computer.  This is not some type of "feel good" test, people's lives and careers are being ruined by a test that depends on fear.  What a wonderful way to describe a job description for an applicant: You must be able to provide the proper fear reflex in your mind in order to get this position. All others need not apply.  For those who cannot supply the proper fear reflex, we are truly sorry but we must ruin your chances of ever getting another federal position that requires this fear attribute in your mind.

Sounds very scary, just like the movie Gattica.

I respect your sincerity that you really believe in what you are doing but I cannot accept any type of science to your statements. I need to have the proper amount of fear in my mind to pass?  What a concept in the year 2011!  It reminds me more of the Spanish Inquisition.  The tortured subject was guilty and the only way for him to save his eternal soul was to pronounce his guilt.  When he finally pronounces his guilt after extreme torture, his soul can be saved. In order to save his soul, he is sentenced to death for admitting to the accusations. The torturer has a wonderful sense of self-worth for he has sent another guilty soul to their death after justifying that death with the confession that they obtained.

It sounds so familiar, the polygraph examiner says, "Work with me, tell me what is going on and we can get through this together."  The only way for the examinees to save their employment chances are to admit to what the examiners want them to admit to.  After those admissions, the examiners feel justified in finding them guilty of the charges that they accused them of.  What a wonderful way to introduce employees to employment with the American government. 

History has a wonderful sense of repeating itself.

Regards.

polyvsa

I believe all intelligent members of the deception detection industry will admit to collateral damage applicants (false positives). My question is: Why do the national security agencies feel it necessary to blacklist failed applicants who will never be able to get a LE job? I thought blacklisting was outlawed. Now I remember though. LE entities, especially those controlled by federal idiots, and poluted-ticians are not subject to the laws imposed on the other industries. As I've said before, it is wrong for a one person/one machine decision to ruin the imployment life of an honest person. Federal agencies should be subject to the same laws and statutes imposed on the rest of us. A one person jury cannot convict one charged with a crime.

Stefano, 

[/quote]This is the point where science departs the scene and shamanism takes over. [/quote]

I'm impressed with the use of "shamanism".  You are truly a scholar.  I am sure that was meant to imply I am using a Sham in the common sense of the word.  It actually is a complement when understood properly.  

I do understand fear of detection is the common thought regarding how Fight/Flight activates during polygraph examinations.  I would suggest it is actually a Cognitive Conflict.   

Bill_Brown wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:

Cognitive Conflict and its associated paradigms: Belief Disconfirmation, Induced-Compliance, Free-Choice and Effort-Justification surely come into play in the autonomous central nervous system and the associated psycho-physiological responses. You may want to read up on research into mental work currently being done by Aldert Vrij. However, until this research can link specific neurological mechanisms to deception, I will remain unconvinced.

Bill_Brown wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 7:23pm:

I don't see anything condescending in his post at all. He did not try to come off as being superior to you. He stated that the "fear parameter" is totally unscientific and it is.

When chuckles suggested that you step up to the countermeasure challenge, you stated that you don't have to prove anything to anyone and you are confident in your abilities.

Forgive me, but what I see is you taking the victim posture when your point is close to impeachment. 

This is a scientific forum in a way as the scientific method is the true way to debunk the tomfoolery. There are certain requirements for a scientific test which the polygraph technique cannot meet: Repeatability and Reproducibility. 

Reproducibility is different from repeatability, which measures the success rate in successive experiments, possibly conducted by the same experimenters. Reproducibility relates to the agreement of test results with different operators, test apparatus, and laboratory locations. It is often reported as a standard deviation.

If I may defer to Gershon Ben-Shakhar, there is also a lack of objective quantification of the physiological responses, inadequate standardization and also a severe risk of contamination and bias.

This is not condescending--just facts. 

Stefano, 

This is not a scientific forum by any stretch of the imagination.  There are arguments being made that have scientific basis, however this is a chat forum based on "debunking" use of polygraph.   

I am not a victim by any means, I do attempt to stay civil in all postings and not engage in name calling or other infractions of the stated posting policies. 

I am familiar with the paper by Ben-Shakhar and other studies that are "anti-polygraph".  I would suggest you read the newer studies by the Department of Defense, Raskin/Kircher, Barland, and other persons involved in polygraph. 

To decide a study is not valid because it was conducted by persons involved in the use of polygraph is not valid.  Studies on affects of medications on pregnant women are conducted by doctors and drug manufactures.  Some of the studies are not good studies, many are.   

Your posts are filled with meaningful information and valid points which I consider and reflect on.  I do respect your opinions, I do not agree with many of them.  You are an educated individual and a wealth of information.   

Academic, 

I think you have me confused with the author of that film.  I am not him.  Sorry

Stefano, 

Thank you for your courtesy.  And you may be correct in winning me over.  I have observed several polygraph examiners that totally believe polygraph is 100% accurate.  I do not. 

I always inform persons using my services of the fallacy of taking polygraph as a "lie detector".  It does not detect lies.  We are in agreement in this area.  My personal opinion:  use it as a tool, nothing more or less.  Only a tool.