posted 10-20-2012 06:10 PM            

The answer, of course is no. Much scientific research is conducted with deceit, after concluding the benefits outweigh the potential harms. Moreover, look at medical science. They both diagnose and heal using deceit. Neither is without its critics, but it still occurs. I understand the concept behind diagnosing non-epileptic seizures by injecting saline into a patient and telling him or her it will cause seizures (a placebo), but something about that does sound eerie to me. I don't get that feeling with polygraph. After all, the examiner-client relationship is different from the doctor-patient relationship, or is it?

I had a medical evaluation after a work-related injury many years ago. The doctor was moving my fingers doing some type of test, and I asked what he was doing. He said he'd tell me when he was finished. (Had I not asked, would he have told me?) He wanted to know if I had nerve damage, and to be sure, he didn't want me to know the secret of his test so that I didn't cheat. Was he required to give me full disclosure up front? It's not identical, but the issue overlaps.

posted 10-21-2012 11:59 AM         

At first, this struck me as an apples-to-oranges comparison, mainly because the stakes are arguably a lot higher in polygraph testing.

But looking at the medical science examples you provided got me to thinking...

Would knowledge of how these tests "work" affect the outcomes?

If the answer is "yes," than should it be any different for polygraph?

Dan

posted 10-22-2012 09:35 AM            

We don't know if deception is necessary in this example. My guess is that it's necessary, but they didn't test that issue. There was a study done in which people were told they were taking a placebo (sugar pill), the point of which was to learn if deception is necessary in medical testing. Even knowing the pill had no chemical ability to heal, people still reported improvement.

posted 10-22-2012 01:16 PM         

quote:

---

In polygraph, we have data that answers the question for us: knowledge of how the test works doesn't matter.

---

Well, I'm glad that's settled!

posted 10-26-2012 02:43 PM            

I had a teacher who would test us on books we were supposed to have read and then one or two of the questions on the test would ask for our opinion of the actions of a character that wasn’t even in the book to see if we really read the book.

I just can’t get too wired up about getting an examinee to say "no" to a question that he would probably answer "yes" to if he were being totally truthful when the purpose of that subterfuge is to help the examinee pass the test and be cleared of an allegation.

Medical researchers routinely give placebos to control groups and others in research when the actual drug may be medically effective for that person and the placebo is certainly not. Sure they might get the drug at some point but they are surely being deceived while receiving the placebo.

I see nothing sinister about deceiving an examinee to help them succeed in proving their innocence. I see a lot wrong with the open book method that might result in an examinee failing a test or the test being deemed inconclusive to assuage the examiner's sense of right and wrong or personal misgivings.

If one is truly disturbed by the probable lie comparison test then why not use questions such as

“Would you steal something valuable if you absolutely knew you wouldn’t be caught?”

“Would you cheat on your significant other if you were convinced they would never find out?”

“Would you tell the whole truth about an indecretion to a loved if you knew that they would lose trust in you as a result?”