Fred F, 

I am glad that I am not the only individual who feels polygraphers are overpaid.  Most of them charge as much or more than doctors and lawyers.  Yet, as you said, polygraphers often have no college education and as little as 8-10 weeks of training (as compared to the 7-10 years of formal schooling received by doctors and lawyers).   

Most private examiners charge from $250-$500 for a single issue polygraph "examination" (which usually lasts from 1-2 hours).  This works out to anywhere from $125-$1,000/hr.  The average appears to be around $350 per test, with the cost being higher in big cities.  This comes out to more than $200/hr for most "tests."

Better yet, after the initial investments, there are very few expenses (office rent, ink, paper) in the polygraph business.  The start up costs include roughly $5,000 for polygraph school and $2,000-$10,000 the instrument (the low end represents a used traditional unit and the high end a modern computerized polygraph).  They also purchase liability insurance (I have seen it offered at PolygraphPlace.com), but I can't imagine it being very expensive.  After all, as you said, it is nearly impossible to sue a polygrapher for any false accusation he levels at you. 

I am straining to think of any other job in our society where a person with no formal education can earn such a substantial living.  The only positions that immediately come to mind are those with celebrity status (athletes, actors, musicians) and criminals.

Quote:


BINGO.  It appears that you have hit the nail right on the head.  Polygraphers may claim that they are "dedicated to truth"--but judging by behavior of many of them, I feel that they harbor a more important dedication:  money.  Once the trickery behind the polygraph scam becomes better known, polygraph examiners are going to have to find a way to earn an honest living.

The financial motivation behind polygraphers manifests itself most apparently in the examiners’ attacks on lie-detection via voice stress analysis. Polygraphers would have everyone believe that the motivation for these statements against CVSA is a genuine concern for the welfare of those who might submit to these "tests."  In actuality, the “truth” is that polygraphers feel threatened by CVSA (and rightfully so), and are concerned that their tomfoolery may be eventually replaced by an equally invalid sham (leaving those who have invested in polygraphs and the required training hung out to dry).  In actuality, CVSA has numerous advantages over polygraphy—for starters, it is faster and cheaper (for both the equipment and examiner training).  More importantly, unlike polygraphy, it has not been fighting a (well-deserved) reputation for unreliability for nearly the past 100 years.  Nonetheless, neither pseudoscientific lie-detection technique has been shown to operate at better than chance levels in a peer-reviewed study conducted under field conditions.

Considering the glass house (perhaps this should be changed to "mansion" considering polygrapher salaries) in which they live, it takes tremendous audacity for polygraphers to go out and attack anything for being unreliable and invalid.  Nonetheless, this is exactly what many of them do.