American Polygraph Association president Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. appeared with Doug Williams, author of "How to Sting the Polygraph" on ABC News' Sam Show webcast on Friday, 2 March 2001. To view the half-hour show, go to http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/dailynews/samdonaldson_index.html. You will need RealPlayer to view the show.

President Webb has previously declined to state how polygraph examiners should handle subjects who understand the trickery on which polygraph "testing" depends (See my questions and his replies at http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects)

During the course of the Sam Show, President Webb made several dubious claims, and I challenge him to either support or retract them here (I will notify Mr. Webb of this challenge by e-mail):

Quote:


Challenge to APA President Skip Webb: list all studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that purport to establish the validity of the control/comparison question technique under field conditions. (Hint: as of 1998, there were only four, and they do not establish that the procedure works at better than chance levels of accuracy. See Chapter 8 of David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd edition, pp. 133-35.)

Quote:


Skip Webb failed to mention that in the pre-test, the explanation of the procedure provided to the examinee is false and misleading. (See pp. 42-44 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.)

Challenge to APA President Skip Webb: Prove that the pre-test procedure you described prevents polygraph examiners from "reading as lies" physiological reactions arising from causes other than deception. Cite peer-reviewed scientific research to support your arguments.

Quote:


Mr. Webb's claim that "no adverse action is ever taken on anyone based simply on the results of a polygraph" is untrue. Applicants for employment with federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency are routinely denied employment based simply on a "failed" polygraph "test." Eleven plaintiffs have pending lawsuits  against the government for this very reason. (See filings in Croddy et al. v. FBI et al. and John Doe #6 et al. v. FBI et al. at http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#litigation)

In addition, the FBI launched a massive espionage investigation against former Special Agent Mark  E. Mallah based solely on a "failed" polygraph "test," ruining his career, even though he was eventually cleared. (See his statement:  http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-002.shtml.) And hundreds of  CIA employees have reportedly had their careers put on hold because they "failed" a polygraph "test."

Challenge to APA President Skip Webb: The American Polygraph Association motto is "Dedicated to Truth." Your assertion that no adverse action is ever taken against anyone based simply on the results of a polygraph is untrue, and you know it. Show your dedication to truth by contacting Sam Donaldson of ABC News to correct yourself. (Whether or not you choose to do so, you can rest assured that I will be contacting him.)

Last modification: George Maschke - 03/05/01 at 15:01:20

FP,

I concur completely.  Polygraphers currently enjoy insulation from oversight that is unparalleled in our society.   

Basically, the only available outlet for complaints is to contact polygraph boards.  Since membership in these groups is almost exclusively limited to polygraphers, one can see how they tend not to be the most objective of bodies.

Hopefully, the media will eventually pick up on this.   

Dear George
I sent a post re: this interview, as you know my first response was sent to you via e-mail.
I later sent a reply (the same note as the e-mail)
to this forum.  Did I send that one incorrectly also.  Did you receive it? what did I do wrong.

Rat Latimer 
a proud NTC graduate

Anon,

Excellent point.  You found out the hard way that it does little good to complain to Polygraphers' Associations about erroneous results or misconduct.  I think "Wild Bill" put it very well when he said that the polygraphers associations amount little more than "the farmer with the shotgun guarding the turkeys" when it comes to complaints against members. 

And yes, it does seem that there is at least tacit acceptance of behavior in the polygraph community that would be considered unprofessional to say the least in almost any other realm.

Lastly, I could not help but notice that Mr. Webb chose to make personal attacks against George Maschke in his December 15thresponse to a letter Mr. Maschke sent requesting clarification of the APA's position on an issue.  The response attacked Mr. Maschke's background and stated that "It appears that [Mr. Maschke's] intense
interest in polygraph stems from [his] inability to pass a polygraph!"  Meanwhile, Mr. Webb made a dodgy response when actually fielding the question posed to him.  It is truly unfortunate that he has chosen to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of adding to the open discussion of polygraph policy.

I recently seen a video of the Sam Donaldson Interview.  What a shame!  Mr. williams allowed himself to be introduced as a former White House employee who conducted polygraph examinations on all types of Federal Agents, he claims to have conducted over 6000 and he allowed Mr. Donaldson to believe that he, Mr. Williams, had conducted research on the validity and reliability of the polygraph instrument.  I do not know Mr. Williams and I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not he conducted and research/studies or how many exams he conducted. I did observe however that when the president of the APA refuted these "facts", Mr. Williams hdid not defend himself.  I was surprised to hear that Mr. Williams was a police officer and a polygraph examiner for"almost" 5 years and that in that short time he had administered over 6000 polygraph examinations.  Why, I wonder did it take Mr. Williams "almost"5 years and over 6000 polygraph examinations to come to the conclusion that he could "no longer condone the abuse of personal freedom and the violation of the right to privacy" that he was engaging in by administering Polygraph examinations.  He must be a slow learner.  I am glad that he didn't go to medical school.  I am sure that he is making a lot more money now, peddling his pamphlet.
Why would one have to read a book(?) on how to"beat" something that doesn't work?  I sent Mr. Williams an e-mail sometime ago asking this same question and I never received an answer.
I was recently given a copy of his pamphlet.  I took the full 10 minutes required to read it thoroughly and I immediately felt a sense of relief.  If thsi is the best there is, polygraphists should have no fear.  At the risk of being accused of making ad hominem attacks, I can agree with one "fact" inthe "ABOUT THE AUTHOR" blip on the back cover of Mr. William's pamphlet, I am quite sure that he holds a B---S--- degree.  Nuff said!!
I also read the download from this forum, and I must say that it is well written and much more informative and well worth the cost- ZERO!

Ray Latimer

Aproud NTC graduate

Hi George,
A quick reply.  Since I have no idea as to what a "Standardized psychometric test" is, I cannot comment on the answer that you were "happy" to give.  Yes! I was referring to "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector"  and my criticism, I thought, was somewhat complimentary.  I am going to read this book again, this time I will highlight that, which in my opinion, is untrue.  When I have completed this task i will do my best, with my limited time and resources, to put together an intelligent rebuttal.  I drive a car every day and yet I am neither an automotive engineer nor a mechanic.  I know for a fact that my car starts when I turn the key and it gets me to the office.  As long as maintain the car, obey the traffic rules and use common sense the car performs as it was designed to do.  My neighbor has a different make of auto and he spends (wastes) a lot of time telling me how surprised he is that my car works.  He referrs me to all kinds of consumer reports,user complaints and criticisms etc. and offers these as reasons why my 10 year old car is unreliable and dangerous  and should not get me the office every day.  Not being an engineer or a mechanic, I can only reply that it works for me.  I suppose that I could spend some time investigating and reading manuals etc. and that I could probably come up with some logical and persuaive explanations as to why my car works.  However no matter what I come up with, I know that I will never convince Frank that my car is safe and reliable.  I hope that you can recognize the anology that I am trying to make.  I recognize the fact that I am leaving myself open here to a rash of pseudo intellectual comments.  (this is not a reference to you, I find your remarks and statements to be well thought out and courteously delivered)  On a final not, I did not address the challenge put to Skip Webb, because I believe that Mr. Webb should respond to it.  Thanx for your patience and help in getting my posts on this forum.

Ray L. 
 

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote about polygraphy in a 14 July 2001 column titled, "Truth is elusive in debate over lie detectors":

http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/zorn/ 

Zorn spoke with both Doug Williams, author of "How to Sting the Polygraph" and American Polygraph Association President Skip Webb. Zorn writes in part:

Quote:


Challenge to Skip Webb: cite any research supporting your contention that the methods Williams describes in "How to Sting the Polygraph" are "outdated" and that his customers have the same chance as anyone else of fooling a polygraph examiner. If you're truly "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto), you should be able to support your statements to Mr. Zahn, whom I will notify by e-mail of this challenge.

A peer-reviewed laboratory study by Charles R. Honts, David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher titled "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests" and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 79 [1994], No. 2, pp. 252-59) showed that about 50% of test subjects who received no more than 30 minutes of training in how to beat the polygraph were successful in doing so. And similar results were obtained in an earlier experiment by Honts, Robert L. Hodes, and Raskin: "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the  Physiological Detection of Deception," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 (1985), No. 1, pp. 177-87. Abstracts of both articles are included in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Given the usually articulate responses I see on this site I was very distressed to see how inaccurately the results of the two Honts studies quoted by Mr Maschke were portrayed.  I would suggest that anyone truely interested in the findings and conclusions of these studies obtain them for themselves and read them.  Those conclusions are protrayed in a VERY misleading way by Mr Maschke.