Annuder Examiner,
Like AMM, I, too, appreciate it when polygraph examiners post their points of view on this forum.
Quote:To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!
We made it very clear on page 71 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that polygraphers would be reading the book. I thank you for reminding everyone.
Nonetheless, I fail to see how knowing about the way in which sophisticated polygraph countermeasures are performed equates to a demonstrated ability to detect them. I encourage any of the examiners reading this forum to post cites for any peer reviewed studies you know of where polygraph examiners were shown to possess the ability to detect
sophisticated polygraph countermeasures (like those described on this site) at better than chance levels. I know of only one such study, and it showed that experienced polygraph examiners were not able to detect sophisticated countermeasures at better than random levels.
Furthermore, you gentlemen may wish to explain how physiological changes caused by muscle contraction, pain, or stressful thoughts differ from those you equate with deception when recorded by the polygraph instrument. Once again, any cites (polygraph journals, etc) would be greatly appreciated.
Quote: I always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT. If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests.
I’m not following your logic here. The polygraph "test" has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably distinguish truth from deception. In other words,
it doesn’t work. If one submits to a polygraph and tells the truth, there is a still a substantial chance that this individual will fail, be denied employment, and have absolutely no recourse. More simply put, even if you are truthful,
you have something to fear. On the other hand, simple techniques exist that, if properly performed, will ensure that a truthful individual will “pass” the test and escape with his reputation unscathed. I don’t understand why you find it amazing that we suggest that truthful people may wish to manipulate the outcome of a "test" with odds worse than Russian Roulette. One can either “roll the dice” or be assured of “passing.”
And, as far as “cheating” and “rationalizing behavior in support of one’s own interests,” I am curious as to how you justify the deception and trickery by the polygrapher on which these “tests” depend. I may be misinterpreting you here—I apologize in advance if I am—but it appears that you are insinuating that employing countermeasures when truthful is unethical behavior, yet your chosen profession involves a procedure that relies on providing the person being “tested” with false and misleading explanations. Perhaps you can explain how you rationalize this dichotomy.
Pages: 
Update to poly "Time for the witch hunt to begin" (Read 13736 times)
