Quote:


Indeed, quickfix is known for his profound, articulate and thought provoking arguments. The two of you make quite a pair.

Yes, 1st4th5thand6th, that is exactly what I am saying.

To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement, hence my primary role in the so-called trade, as it were, is that of polygraph consultant.

In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.

You and I have been at this for a while now...  Are you finally starting to get the distinction?

1st4th5thand6th, I kindly ask that you pay closer attention to my posts. Meanwhile, I'll break it down for you...

I never said polygraph has no scientific basis. Rather, I agree with NAS in that there is the strong suggestion that polygraph works in incident-specific applications, but the exact scientific basis has yet to be confidently identified.

There are parallels in the drug industry. If you read the voluminous disclaimers that come with certain medicines, you will sometimes see the phrase "mechanism of action is unknown." In other words, the stuff works, but the drug makers don't know exactly why. The same applies to polygraph. Remember what the research eggheads say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, I concede the error rate is likely huge, compared to pro-polygraph claims.

As to why I do polygraph exams and consulting, it's all supply and demand just like most other businesses. But my approach is different in that I EDUCATE THE CONSUMER FIRST, or at least I try to. Most potential clients, once they learn that polygraph is a very risky crapshoot, elect to avoid taking the "test" -- at least with me. (Sometimes, the polygraph-exam shopper ignores my advice only to be convinced by another examiner, often to ill effect.) The remainder of my clients are either required to take a polygraph, or are just hopelessly caught up in the allure. 

In some cases, it's just like a car salesman telling a Corvette buyer who's on a budget that the bargain-priced model he's looking at was flooded and is being sold as-is. The guy hears the warning, but all he wants is that shiny 'vette for a bargain price. He signs the disclaimers. Consenting adults are allowed to do dumb things.

You mentioned "moral courage." Here's a true story: A couple of years ago I refused to polygraph an inmate at the state prison I worked at (as a state employee) because I felt it would be an abuse of both the prisoner and the polygraph function for which I was hired. My immediate boss was OK with my decision, but the fact that I privately queried the state AG on my obligations must have riled some brass at the DOC. Seems the higher-ups didn't like my end run, which I thought was simply due diligence. Anyway, I was doomed. My position was cut "for budgetary reasons" a couple of months later. Coincidence?

I see no conflict with being both a polygraph examiner and a consultant. Why must it be all or nothing? Such a dual role is common in many fields. As a consultant, I advise people on the pros and cons of the "test,", review exams conducted by other polygraphers, and occasionally give a talk. 

Once more, with feeling... My approach is completely open-book. No one is being duped, unless by themselves via expectations or biases they can't shed. Those folks I caution quite sternly.

Finally, over the past ten years I've turned down hundreds of exams, most commonly because I caught a scent of potential domestic violence or other form of abuse that could be a by-product of the "test."

By the way, since I became somewhat of an activist in the past couple of years I've received several inquiries from people claiming to be seeking what I'll characterize as "special help." I find the timing of such inquiries to be most interesting.

"If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?"

Prior to prospective clients sending the requisite 50% deposit, I tell them the following:

• Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable
  >The alleged science behind the test is largely BS (Belief System) driven
  >Any polygraph test is a crapshoot, i.e., it's a gamble with an uncertain outcome
  >Polygraph "testing" seems to be biased against the innocent
  >Polygraph tests can be beaten
  >Any polygraph test result is far, far below a reasonable doubt
  >So-called fidelity "tests" are usually a waste of time and money
  >caveat emptor