Aside from being dumb enough to believe the results would be valid in the first place, do you really think a test is going to make you or your SO feel better about things? If you do, then you have two problems: your original one, related to the state of your relationship, and two, believing that the polygraph has any validity to begin with.

Let's say you are the one taking the test, and you have not been unfaithful, but you are scored as being deceptive. Then what? Or, put the shoe on the other foot - your SO swears up and down he/she has not been unfaithful, but the results say otherwise. 

The only person is who guaranteed to feel good about the outcome is the polygrapher, who is laughing all the way to the bank with your $200-300 you just pissed away in the name of "truth."

On so-called "fidelity" polygraphs the technique used is almost always a probable-lie CQT.

pailryder wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 4:35pm:

If you acknowledge the possibility of a false positive, that would logically include the possibility of a false negative.  So, why would someone be advised to spend money on a polygraph?

If they "pass" the polygraph, it would mean they were:
1. Truthful, or...
2. Deceptive and were a false negative.

If they "fail" the polygraph, it would mean they were:
1. Deceptive, or...
2. Truthful and were a false positive.

pailryder wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:55pm:


I think it is clearly different.  A polygraph exam purports to be a scientific test.  A jury trial is nothing more than the opinion of twelve jurors regarding the evidence presented to them and while following the judge’s instructions.  A jury trial is not supposed to be a scientific test.

If I felt sick and went to a doctor, and he said he could give me a test (that certainly wasn’t free), and that test would either come back positive (meaning I had the XYZ disease or that I was a false positive and I didn’t have the XYZ disease) or negative (meaning I didn’t have the XYZ disease or that I was a false negative and I did have the XYZ disease) I would not see any point in paying for such a test.

pailryder, 

Although malpractice occurs with some frequency in medicine it is a rarity relative to that which occurs in the polygraph suite.  If polygraphers were held to the same standards as physicians and were  routinely held responsible for their malpractice, I suggest there would be no polygraphy. 

But perhaps you disagree and would be willing for polygraphers to routinely be subject to malpractice suits?? 

getrealalready

We are routinely subjected to malpractice suits, and in some states, required to provide proof of insurance coverage for licensing.

pailryder,

Your thoughts?  Should any polygrapher (and his/her agency/department) who does not audio/video tape a routine polygraph exam be subject to a malpractice suit?  As best I can tell, most (certainly all applicant exams) ARE routine and given in normal places of business (polygraph suites)  There seems to be no excuse whatsoever for not doing so.