Bustamente is correct in saying that polygraphs (as used by the CIA) are "meant to identify sensitivities to certain types of questions." In the relevant/irrelevant technique used by the CIA and NSA, the polygraph operator looks for any "consistent, specific, and significant" reaction to any relevant question, and then interrogates about that.

But he seems to point to a false dichotomy wherein sensitivity to a kind of question "could be a sign of dishonesty, but it could also be a sign of vulnerability." It could also be other things.

Bustamente's discussion of beating a lie detector makes no sense to me. He says, "So when people talk about beating a lie detector, it's not that they're telling an effective lie. That's not hard. It's not hard to tell a lie to an interviewer. What -- and the interviewer doesn't care if you're being honest or not honest about a topic. What they're looking for is sensitivity. If they see no sensitivity, that's a big sign for them. That's a big sign that you're probably a pathological liar. If you show sensitivity to many things, then that's a sign that you're probably an anxious person..."

I don't know on what basis Bustamente claims that if the polygrapher sees no sensitivity, "that's a big sign that you're a pathological liar."

I note that after his brief discussion of polygraphs, he goes on to endorse the pseudoscientific Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment.

Overall, Bustamente strikes me as a self-promoting bullshit artist not unlike Tony Robbins.