- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Doug Williams
- Feb 17, 2013, 05:11 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Feb 16, 2013, 02:42 AMWe've had something close to the national news broadcast about polygraphy that you envisage. It was aired by CBS 60 Minutes in 1986. Two years later, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act was enacted.
To watch excerpts from this CBS 60 MINUTES program, go to my website www.polygraph.com. You can also get a free copy of my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION", and read the behind the scenes account of how I helped produce this investigative report - and the part I played in getting the EPPA enacted.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 16, 2013, 02:42 AMsomeguy00,
You raise excellent points. Historian Ken Alder has pointed out that "the lie detector cannot be killed by science, because it is not born of science." Hence we see that the pseudoscience of polygraphy has continued to flourish despite extremely negative reviews by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1983 and the National Research Council two decades later.
We've had something close to the national news broadcast about polygraphy that you envisage. It was aired by CBS 60 Minutes in 1986. Two years later, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act was enacted.
What those of us who don't have television news shows can do to hasten the end of polygraph screening is to help spread the word. If you're in a workplace where polygraph screening is mandatory, let your colleagues know about it's lack of scientific underpinnings. If you participate in other online forums, or on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, mention the shortcomings of polygraphy when the subject comes up. And if you're on a college campus or in a similar environment, consider our Campus Poster Initiative.
You raise excellent points. Historian Ken Alder has pointed out that "the lie detector cannot be killed by science, because it is not born of science." Hence we see that the pseudoscience of polygraphy has continued to flourish despite extremely negative reviews by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1983 and the National Research Council two decades later.
We've had something close to the national news broadcast about polygraphy that you envisage. It was aired by CBS 60 Minutes in 1986. Two years later, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act was enacted.
What those of us who don't have television news shows can do to hasten the end of polygraph screening is to help spread the word. If you're in a workplace where polygraph screening is mandatory, let your colleagues know about it's lack of scientific underpinnings. If you participate in other online forums, or on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, mention the shortcomings of polygraphy when the subject comes up. And if you're on a college campus or in a similar environment, consider our Campus Poster Initiative.
Posted by someguy00
- Feb 14, 2013, 09:00 PMThanks for that video, George Maschke. The reason the polygraph is still here is because of one main thing. Confessions. Somewhere in the polygraph community each agency/company has statistics on how many confessions they get. How much information that the victims...err...subjects give about themselves. As long as this statistic remains up, the poly is here to stay.
That video is completely accurate. What we need if we want to abolish polygraphy is a national news broadcast exposing it. I'm not talking about some random 3-rd party news site, Mythbusters or a Penn & Teller episode (which both weren't quite accurate). I'm mean a part in some president's (not Obama's) State of the Union speech that tells everyone how the polygraph really works, how not to make admissions/confessions, and even showing a few demos on the silly process altogether. Once the polygraph secrets are exposed nationally, the polygraph community will be ruined. Imagine then when subjects come in and don't admit anything during the "pre-test", the "in-test", or during the "post-test" interrogations. Imagine no confessions being made ever again. Polygraphers would be pissed and only have some charts that would all basically be inconclusive and useless. It would be like a magician whose tricks were revealed. A person who has been stripped naked in public. A preacher caught in a whore-house. Complete exposure and ruin.
Sadly, people still believe the polygraph works and still make disqualifying confessions during the process. People get in there and spill all there guts on little stuff that has no relevance. (I read a story recently about one guy who admitted to playing an internet game with a teenage girl. No harm. But he was probed so much on it he refused to talk anymore and got disqualified for "failure to cooperate".) We need to spread the word, maybe even get some members of congress who will put the polygraph on blast!
That video is completely accurate. What we need if we want to abolish polygraphy is a national news broadcast exposing it. I'm not talking about some random 3-rd party news site, Mythbusters or a Penn & Teller episode (which both weren't quite accurate). I'm mean a part in some president's (not Obama's) State of the Union speech that tells everyone how the polygraph really works, how not to make admissions/confessions, and even showing a few demos on the silly process altogether. Once the polygraph secrets are exposed nationally, the polygraph community will be ruined. Imagine then when subjects come in and don't admit anything during the "pre-test", the "in-test", or during the "post-test" interrogations. Imagine no confessions being made ever again. Polygraphers would be pissed and only have some charts that would all basically be inconclusive and useless. It would be like a magician whose tricks were revealed. A person who has been stripped naked in public. A preacher caught in a whore-house. Complete exposure and ruin.
Sadly, people still believe the polygraph works and still make disqualifying confessions during the process. People get in there and spill all there guts on little stuff that has no relevance. (I read a story recently about one guy who admitted to playing an internet game with a teenage girl. No harm. But he was probed so much on it he refused to talk anymore and got disqualified for "failure to cooperate".) We need to spread the word, maybe even get some members of congress who will put the polygraph on blast!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 14, 2013, 08:18 AMThe English-language Russian news channel RT recently aired a segment on polygraph screening by US federal agencies. Among those interviewed for the report is John Sullivan, a retired CIA polygraph examiner who "failed" a polygraph test for a contractor position after writing a book about the CIA polygraph program, Marisa Taylor, a McClatchy reporter who has written extensively on federal polygraph screening programs, and Stephen Fienberg, who headed the National Research Council's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycd0TQv-zkA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycd0TQv-zkA