posted 03-25-2004 10:55 AM            

EBVAN WRITES:
You must be a glass half empty kind of guy. According to your numbers 38.81% feel polygraph is reliable or extremely reliable. 69.58% feel it is better than chance. NOT SO BAD. An optimist looks at a glass and says it's half full. A pessimist says it's half empty. The logical mind looks at the same data and notes that the glass is much bigger than it needs to be.

RALPH REPLIES:
On the contrary, I consider myself a positive person. So positive, that I don't settle for 'just okay', which is how I viewed these numbers. Especially when the gap between perception and reality is pretty vast if you view these numbers in light of actual accuracy.

The more the public has this perception, the harder our jobs are.

With that said, I'm admit to being a little negative about the future of polygraph if we as a profession do not work harder at changing this perception. The days of 'mystery' in polygraph are over and this is a new day where people are getting more informed.

EBVAN REPLIES:
With Ricki Lake, Oprah (ever notice her name is HARPO spelled backwards?) and shows like Meet the Parents providing the majority of the information forming the public perception, what should we expect? This is aggravated by examiners who willingly bastardize the process in the name of showmanship. Couple that with the long held tendency for good examiners to shroud the function of polygraph with an air of mystery as well as using trick stim tests as an easy way to psychologically set their examinee, then I am somewhat surprised that we are doing so well.

I think a good examiner should be able to truthfully explain both the psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph in terms a bowl of pudding can understand. We need to strip back the cloaks of magic and mystery and really educate the public as to what we do. I wonder how many examiners are willing to tell their subjects that the polygraph doesn't detect lies, it just monitors physiological reaction. I do this in my own little section of the world 2 or 3 times a year. I teach classes to citizens police academy and Youth Police Academy as well as give them a real world demonstration in which I let class evaluate the charts. Once they have identified the bad guy, which they always have, they have a new appreciation for what polygraph is and does.

Poll that group and I'll bet you cup of coffee the survey numbers rise.

Our organizations, APA, AAPP, etc. should be doing more in the public sector to promote the accuracy and validity of polygraph, but each examiner should also be putting forth some effort in their own area to properly educate the public.

RALPH REPLIES:
Now that's the sort of passion I Appreciate. I fully admit that I don't have enough real world experience to have the full understanding of how to conduct an exam not shrouded in a bit of mystery or the ramifications of doing that, but I'm certainly willing to be educated.

As to your question about telling thhe subject that polygraph doesn't detect lies, just physiological responses, have you done that and what is the response of the examinee when you do so?

EBVAN REPLIES:
I don't know that I am looking for a particular response when I tell someone that the polygraph doesn't detect lies, but I explain it by stating ( and it will be shorter here than in my pre-test) that the psychological conscious act of telling a lie ultimately generates a measurable physical response. Generally, I further explain that there is a lie detector in the room, but it is located in the examinees mind and I simply use my instrument to detect when it has activated. This is all part of a detailed explanation of Fight, Flight, or Freeze, as the brains response to danger, its physical manifestation and how that relates to intentional deception.

PLEASE POST YOUR OWN THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN OUR DISCUSSION. THANKS.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com

posted 03-25-2004 02:37 PM            

I don’t recall the study off the top of my head, but I could probably find it. In it the researcher (I believe it was Charles Honts) concluded that knowledge of polygraph did not influence the results – DI or NDI.

In essence, I treat every examinee as if he has read all the anti-polygraph literature, and I set him up by not doing what all the producers of those publications tell him to expect. Every one of them tells people a polygraph instrument does not detect lies, which we all know is true, but they all add we will lie by saying it does. What they do fail to tell people is how impossible it is for them to control the fight-or-flight response, but, as I said, I take care of that aspect.