- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Brettski
- Aug 16, 2007, 12:25 AMStan,
Hi, I'm Brett. I'm a 4th year accounting student. I only started reading about polygraphs about 2 months ago, after watching an episode of Dr. Phil with my sister. It was about a guy who was being accused of molesting his own daughter by his mother in law. There was a whole lot of talk about how accurate the polygraph was at detecting deception. After that, I began reading about polygraphs. I mention this only because you've reffered to memebers of this site as hysterical. I would have to admit that the first time I made a post here, I caught a whiff of the same zealotry you did. On the other hand, I found the personal statement section quite moving, and since were talking about innocent lives being ruined, strong feelings are hardly unexpected, non?
Lloyd is bang on with this point. The polygraph's accuracy can't be combined into one, all encompassing statistic because there is a disturbingly large difference between the false positive and false negative rate. False positives are the number of truthful people deemed dishonest, and false negative is rate at which dishonest people pass the test, erroneously found to be truthful.
John Furedy, a law professor at the University of Toronto, also lists compelling evidence against the use of the polygraph in any setting. He posts one study that reflects the issues of false positives. In this study [found under "The Forensic Use of the Polygraph: A Psychophyiological Analysis of Current trends and Future Prospects"]. There is one study performed by Barland and Raskin where Barland did the test, and raskin scored the charts. This test at first states that Raskin made the correct decision in 86% of the cases, and to his credit, he correctly identified 98% of the guilty subjects as deceptive. However, at the same time, he falsely classified 45% of innocent people as deceptive!
False Negative: 2%
False Positive: 45%
YIKES!!
The problem with polygraphs is that even when the overall accuracy seems high, such numbers disguise the true issue with polygraph testing: a disgustingly high false positive rate.
And for the record, 86% is not high.
DNA is correct in 1/10,000 cases, or 99.99%. As Lloyd already pointed out, this level of reliability is EXPECTED by scientiffic tests.
In one of my business classes we were shown a video discussing effiency, the host had a panel of business owners sitting in front of him. He asked if they thought 99% was a good level of effeciency, and of course they all nodded their heads and said yes, 99% would be very good. Then the host makes his point: if airports around the world all operated at 99% effeciency, there would be multiple plane crashes at every airport, every day. 99% means a failure in 1/100 cases, and there's a whole lot of planes in the sky.
Or how about Gastric Bypass surgery, a procedure intended to help the obese lose weight. We live in a society where 1/6 people are obese, and at the same time, there are girls suffering from anorexia under the media pressure to be as thin as possible. So why aren't millions singing up for Gastric-ByPass? Well, it has a survival rate of 99%: 1% of the people who get Gastric Bypass die. It's considered one of most dangerous surgeries in the world.
Small wonder the American Medical Association testified before congress to warn against the use of polygraphs: the best the APA can claim is 90%, which disguises a false positive rate, is actually quite low, and critics doubt the number is anywhere near this high.
Yikes, stan, yikes.
Hi, I'm Brett. I'm a 4th year accounting student. I only started reading about polygraphs about 2 months ago, after watching an episode of Dr. Phil with my sister. It was about a guy who was being accused of molesting his own daughter by his mother in law. There was a whole lot of talk about how accurate the polygraph was at detecting deception. After that, I began reading about polygraphs. I mention this only because you've reffered to memebers of this site as hysterical. I would have to admit that the first time I made a post here, I caught a whiff of the same zealotry you did. On the other hand, I found the personal statement section quite moving, and since were talking about innocent lives being ruined, strong feelings are hardly unexpected, non?
Quote from: Lloyd Ploense on Aug 15, 2007, 06:07 PMStan:
During my research following that strange polygraph exam, I've learned that there are actually two sets of statistics one must consider regarding the constitutionality of polygraph testing and related detection of deception "technologies". The first set considers the percent of guilty correctly detected and the second the percent of innocent correctly detected. Though I've read only 20 or so treatises in which statistics were presented, the percentage of innocent correctly detected was substantially less than the percentage of guilty properly identified.
Lloyd is bang on with this point. The polygraph's accuracy can't be combined into one, all encompassing statistic because there is a disturbingly large difference between the false positive and false negative rate. False positives are the number of truthful people deemed dishonest, and false negative is rate at which dishonest people pass the test, erroneously found to be truthful.
John Furedy, a law professor at the University of Toronto, also lists compelling evidence against the use of the polygraph in any setting. He posts one study that reflects the issues of false positives. In this study [found under "The Forensic Use of the Polygraph: A Psychophyiological Analysis of Current trends and Future Prospects"]. There is one study performed by Barland and Raskin where Barland did the test, and raskin scored the charts. This test at first states that Raskin made the correct decision in 86% of the cases, and to his credit, he correctly identified 98% of the guilty subjects as deceptive. However, at the same time, he falsely classified 45% of innocent people as deceptive!
False Negative: 2%
False Positive: 45%
YIKES!!
The problem with polygraphs is that even when the overall accuracy seems high, such numbers disguise the true issue with polygraph testing: a disgustingly high false positive rate.
And for the record, 86% is not high.
DNA is correct in 1/10,000 cases, or 99.99%. As Lloyd already pointed out, this level of reliability is EXPECTED by scientiffic tests.
In one of my business classes we were shown a video discussing effiency, the host had a panel of business owners sitting in front of him. He asked if they thought 99% was a good level of effeciency, and of course they all nodded their heads and said yes, 99% would be very good. Then the host makes his point: if airports around the world all operated at 99% effeciency, there would be multiple plane crashes at every airport, every day. 99% means a failure in 1/100 cases, and there's a whole lot of planes in the sky.
Or how about Gastric Bypass surgery, a procedure intended to help the obese lose weight. We live in a society where 1/6 people are obese, and at the same time, there are girls suffering from anorexia under the media pressure to be as thin as possible. So why aren't millions singing up for Gastric-ByPass? Well, it has a survival rate of 99%: 1% of the people who get Gastric Bypass die. It's considered one of most dangerous surgeries in the world.
Small wonder the American Medical Association testified before congress to warn against the use of polygraphs: the best the APA can claim is 90%, which disguises a false positive rate, is actually quite low, and critics doubt the number is anywhere near this high.
Yikes, stan, yikes.
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 15, 2007, 06:07 PMStan:
Thank you for your sentiment. You are certainly correct that in all circumstances I will lose. I love and cherish all of my family members. I even feel compassion for that person in CT who suffers from bipolar I that has been threatening my and my children's lives since last May. Bipolar Affective Disorder does not necessarily equate with BAD and he is receiving treatment.
During my research following that strange polygraph exam, I've learned that there are actually two sets of statistics one must consider regarding the constitutionality of polygraph testing and related detection of deception "technologies". The first set considers the percent of guilty correctly detected and the second the percent of innocent correctly detected. Though I've read only 20 or so treatises in which statistics were presented, the percentage of innocent correctly detected was substantially less than the percentage of guilty properly identified.
Now, these studies were in the most part performed with faux guilt and innocence. In the few field studies available (over the internet) where the consequences of being mislabeled as guilty are great, it is evident that the percentage of innocent persons deemed guilty by a polygraph exam is substantially larger.
So, please reconsider the usefulness of polygraph testing as a tool:
1) Would you use a hammer that smashed your thumb every second or third strike?
2) Would you use that hammer to drive in a screw?
3) Would you use a motor vehicle that injured you every couple of times you drove it?
4) Would you let your wife, mother, father or children borrow that car?
Please forgive me if I seem impertinent or disrespectful. I really do come from a different planet. In my world of chemical engineering, we must perform rigorous failure mode analysis to ensure no innocent is harmed. We must be certain to a vanishingly small percentage that no Bhopal type disaster can occur. We must not use o-rings to seal against o-rings even though NASA engineer confidence in their construction was calculated at 99.44%. We face huge legal liability if we fail in our duties, as we should.
Presently, there are no such rational constraints in the deployment of detection of detection "technologies". Could this be due to the fact that they are so unreliable?
When insurance companies underwrite the results of polygraph testing I might begin to believe they have merit.
Lloyd Ploense
Thank you for your sentiment. You are certainly correct that in all circumstances I will lose. I love and cherish all of my family members. I even feel compassion for that person in CT who suffers from bipolar I that has been threatening my and my children's lives since last May. Bipolar Affective Disorder does not necessarily equate with BAD and he is receiving treatment.
During my research following that strange polygraph exam, I've learned that there are actually two sets of statistics one must consider regarding the constitutionality of polygraph testing and related detection of deception "technologies". The first set considers the percent of guilty correctly detected and the second the percent of innocent correctly detected. Though I've read only 20 or so treatises in which statistics were presented, the percentage of innocent correctly detected was substantially less than the percentage of guilty properly identified.
Now, these studies were in the most part performed with faux guilt and innocence. In the few field studies available (over the internet) where the consequences of being mislabeled as guilty are great, it is evident that the percentage of innocent persons deemed guilty by a polygraph exam is substantially larger.
So, please reconsider the usefulness of polygraph testing as a tool:
1) Would you use a hammer that smashed your thumb every second or third strike?
2) Would you use that hammer to drive in a screw?
3) Would you use a motor vehicle that injured you every couple of times you drove it?
4) Would you let your wife, mother, father or children borrow that car?
Please forgive me if I seem impertinent or disrespectful. I really do come from a different planet. In my world of chemical engineering, we must perform rigorous failure mode analysis to ensure no innocent is harmed. We must be certain to a vanishingly small percentage that no Bhopal type disaster can occur. We must not use o-rings to seal against o-rings even though NASA engineer confidence in their construction was calculated at 99.44%. We face huge legal liability if we fail in our duties, as we should.
Presently, there are no such rational constraints in the deployment of detection of detection "technologies". Could this be due to the fact that they are so unreliable?
When insurance companies underwrite the results of polygraph testing I might begin to believe they have merit.
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 15, 2007, 04:18 PMLloyd,
I already got your link in the pm you sent me. Seems to be evidence in that report to back up both claims. Although the pshycologists, etc. that were interviewed claimed the CQT test was less accurate, the studies seem to show around an 85% accuracy.
I"m glad you're feeling better and I hope your bone marrow continues to produce those red blood cells.
BTW, if you didn't poison the cake as you claim (I tend to believe you based on your postings), who does LE believe did. I know you've given your own suspects in past postings, I was just wondering who the police think may have done it. If it's any one of the suspects you listed, I feel for you, as they all seem to be close to you in one way or another.
Stan
I already got your link in the pm you sent me. Seems to be evidence in that report to back up both claims. Although the pshycologists, etc. that were interviewed claimed the CQT test was less accurate, the studies seem to show around an 85% accuracy.
I"m glad you're feeling better and I hope your bone marrow continues to produce those red blood cells.
BTW, if you didn't poison the cake as you claim (I tend to believe you based on your postings), who does LE believe did. I know you've given your own suspects in past postings, I was just wondering who the police think may have done it. If it's any one of the suspects you listed, I feel for you, as they all seem to be close to you in one way or another.
Stan
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 15, 2007, 04:02 PMStan:
I was accused of poisoning my own leftover wedding cake during a polygraph exam. This was nonsensical since I unknowingly ate the poisoned cake and suffered severely. Here's the rub pal: Although I told the truth, the polygraph examiner told me his test revealed I lied.
1) Crime victim reports crime to police;
2) Innocent crime victim accused of committing crime during polygraph test;
3) Police claim polygraph test results reinforce false accusation;
4) Therefore, "Something is Rotten in Denmark" and the USA.
I just learned today from LE what the cake was tainted with.
A Variety Of Bad News Household Chemicals!
I need to wait 3 mo. for more testing to see if my bone marrow is still making enough red blood cells.
Good news: My equilibrium, cognition and other systems are showing improvement though I still cannot walk through a dark room without falling over.
I think the police have figured out why I "failed" the polygraph. The answer lay not in guilt but in the tendency of a polygraph to give false positives when there is great emotional context to certain questions. The link below will explain how this can be so.
http://www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=9081F97A-306E-1C7F-B65E-570A3444FF4D&ext=pdf
This is another reason why polygraph testing should be declared unconstitutional by the 4th amendment.
Peace Stan,
Lloyd
I was accused of poisoning my own leftover wedding cake during a polygraph exam. This was nonsensical since I unknowingly ate the poisoned cake and suffered severely. Here's the rub pal: Although I told the truth, the polygraph examiner told me his test revealed I lied.
1) Crime victim reports crime to police;
2) Innocent crime victim accused of committing crime during polygraph test;
3) Police claim polygraph test results reinforce false accusation;
4) Therefore, "Something is Rotten in Denmark" and the USA.
I just learned today from LE what the cake was tainted with.
A Variety Of Bad News Household Chemicals!
I need to wait 3 mo. for more testing to see if my bone marrow is still making enough red blood cells.
Good news: My equilibrium, cognition and other systems are showing improvement though I still cannot walk through a dark room without falling over.
I think the police have figured out why I "failed" the polygraph. The answer lay not in guilt but in the tendency of a polygraph to give false positives when there is great emotional context to certain questions. The link below will explain how this can be so.
http://www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=9081F97A-306E-1C7F-B65E-570A3444FF4D&ext=pdf
This is another reason why polygraph testing should be declared unconstitutional by the 4th amendment.
Peace Stan,
Lloyd
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 15, 2007, 03:22 PM" Either way, because polygraph testing is a con, there is at least a 45% chance you will be found to be deceptive. I don't consider that favorable odds. Do you? "
lloyd,
Where do you get your statistics from?
"Your belief system seems oddly skewed." Another Ad Hom attack. Typical of those without actual facts to back up their point.
"Sorry if I come off as a bit harsh. There are good reasons for this. "
And those reasons are.............?
Look Lloyd, if you are truly innocent, than God bless you, and again, I honestly hope you are exonerated of whatever crime you're being accused of. As far as trying to obtain a postion that requires a polygraph, first off, i have nothing to hide, secondly, I don't think I'd ever apply for such a position.
Stan
lloyd,
Where do you get your statistics from?
"Your belief system seems oddly skewed." Another Ad Hom attack. Typical of those without actual facts to back up their point.
"Sorry if I come off as a bit harsh. There are good reasons for this. "
And those reasons are.............?
Look Lloyd, if you are truly innocent, than God bless you, and again, I honestly hope you are exonerated of whatever crime you're being accused of. As far as trying to obtain a postion that requires a polygraph, first off, i have nothing to hide, secondly, I don't think I'd ever apply for such a position.
Stan
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 15, 2007, 02:31 PMSo Stan:
I encourage you to try obtaining a position that requires a polygraph exam. Alternatively, I would like you to be the victim of a crime and accused of committing the crime yourself in a polygraph exam. Either way, because polygraph testing is a con, there is at least a 45% chance you will be found to be deceptive. I don't consider that favorable odds. Do you?
So, before you judge me with camp homily, try walking a mile in my shoes.
BTW, I'm not your judge though I can and will dispute the content of your postings here. Your belief system seems oddly skewed. Sorry if I come off as a bit harsh. There are good reasons for this.
Lloyd Ploense
I encourage you to try obtaining a position that requires a polygraph exam. Alternatively, I would like you to be the victim of a crime and accused of committing the crime yourself in a polygraph exam. Either way, because polygraph testing is a con, there is at least a 45% chance you will be found to be deceptive. I don't consider that favorable odds. Do you?
So, before you judge me with camp homily, try walking a mile in my shoes.
BTW, I'm not your judge though I can and will dispute the content of your postings here. Your belief system seems oddly skewed. Sorry if I come off as a bit harsh. There are good reasons for this.
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 15, 2007, 02:00 PM"Please collect your wits and respond with intelligible answers to questions on this site"
You claim I am making false and bizzare accusations and then hit me with an ad hom attack.
I have read your posts and have come to the conclusion that you "doth protest too much". Again, NO, I am not a police officer. However, in purusing this sight, I have come to the conclusion (I'm sure you'll disagree) that most who post on this site blathering on about how polygraph's are a "prop con", etc., are probably guilty and using their posts here as a way to claim innocence.
Yes, I understand the polygraph is far from infailible, yet I can't help but think statistically, those truly innocent would rarely be convicted soley from a polygraph. If I am wrong, please show me some statistics to back up your claims.
Thanks Lloyd, and as I've said before, if you are truly innocent of what you are being accused of, I honestly hope you beat the wrap.
Stan
You claim I am making false and bizzare accusations and then hit me with an ad hom attack.
I have read your posts and have come to the conclusion that you "doth protest too much". Again, NO, I am not a police officer. However, in purusing this sight, I have come to the conclusion (I'm sure you'll disagree) that most who post on this site blathering on about how polygraph's are a "prop con", etc., are probably guilty and using their posts here as a way to claim innocence.
Yes, I understand the polygraph is far from infailible, yet I can't help but think statistically, those truly innocent would rarely be convicted soley from a polygraph. If I am wrong, please show me some statistics to back up your claims.
Thanks Lloyd, and as I've said before, if you are truly innocent of what you are being accused of, I honestly hope you beat the wrap.
Stan
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 15, 2007, 09:02 AMHi Stan:
You seem to believe now that you are a psychologist or psychiatrist.
In your response above you sound like one of my ex-wives: Without reason or logic, an emotional reaction is triggered and false accusations of mental instability are made. False and bizarre accusations are also a hallmark of polygraph examiners. I'm not falling for that con pal.
Please collect your wits and respond with intelligible answers to questions on this site.
I'm glad you are not (or at least claim not to be) the Union County New Jersey Police Lieutenant who interrogated me using the polygraph prop con. He reminded me too much of the sadistic criminal Clarence McCormick who tormented a large number of innocent children and myself in a similar manner during my youth.
Clarence modified and misapplied standard psychological tests such as the Bender-Gestalt to convince parents that their children had "motor development" problems and were at risk of developing learning disabilities. Clarence collected a lot of fast money from the parents of the children he tormented.
I've attached a pdf file containing statements of other prop con victims. I hope you can now grasp why I'm up in arms about the present government sanction of polygraphy.
Have a nice day Stan.
Lloyd Ploense
PS: If you really are in LE, please check the attached information with the FEDs and get back to me. I'd like to know if that creepy con man was ever brought to justice.
Attachment deleted at poster's request -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
You seem to believe now that you are a psychologist or psychiatrist.
In your response above you sound like one of my ex-wives: Without reason or logic, an emotional reaction is triggered and false accusations of mental instability are made. False and bizarre accusations are also a hallmark of polygraph examiners. I'm not falling for that con pal.
Please collect your wits and respond with intelligible answers to questions on this site.
I'm glad you are not (or at least claim not to be) the Union County New Jersey Police Lieutenant who interrogated me using the polygraph prop con. He reminded me too much of the sadistic criminal Clarence McCormick who tormented a large number of innocent children and myself in a similar manner during my youth.
Clarence modified and misapplied standard psychological tests such as the Bender-Gestalt to convince parents that their children had "motor development" problems and were at risk of developing learning disabilities. Clarence collected a lot of fast money from the parents of the children he tormented.
I've attached a pdf file containing statements of other prop con victims. I hope you can now grasp why I'm up in arms about the present government sanction of polygraphy.
Have a nice day Stan.
Lloyd Ploense
PS: If you really are in LE, please check the attached information with the FEDs and get back to me. I'd like to know if that creepy con man was ever brought to justice.
Attachment deleted at poster's request -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 12, 2007, 01:55 AMHey Lloyd,
No, I am not a police officer or polygrapher of any kind. I have read what you have written and it all seems a bit of hysterical paranoia to tell you the truth. I'll not bother you with pm's anymore, as you seem a bit unstable, to be honest. I hope, that IF you are innocent of what you are being accused of, that a polygraph does not cause you any further difficulties.
Stan
No, I am not a police officer or polygrapher of any kind. I have read what you have written and it all seems a bit of hysterical paranoia to tell you the truth. I'll not bother you with pm's anymore, as you seem a bit unstable, to be honest. I hope, that IF you are innocent of what you are being accused of, that a polygraph does not cause you any further difficulties.
Stan
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 11, 2007, 06:31 PMHi Stan:
From your PM discourse with me it seems you are a New Jersey Law Enforcement Officer. Perhaps I've met you before. Howdy.
Please do not confuse yourself on this polygraph issue. There actually are cold and hard scientific forensic tools. Fingerprints, GC/MS, dental work, fiber analysis to mention a few. Detection ot deception through polygraph testing is not one of these but a fraud our government cannot decry because of liability problems. Search the records of my postings here Stan, read and learn dude. Hey, I really am a scientist though the polygrapher who tested me (perhaps you?) could not believe that.
Have a nice day Stan.
Lloyd Ploense
From your PM discourse with me it seems you are a New Jersey Law Enforcement Officer. Perhaps I've met you before. Howdy.
Please do not confuse yourself on this polygraph issue. There actually are cold and hard scientific forensic tools. Fingerprints, GC/MS, dental work, fiber analysis to mention a few. Detection ot deception through polygraph testing is not one of these but a fraud our government cannot decry because of liability problems. Search the records of my postings here Stan, read and learn dude. Hey, I really am a scientist though the polygrapher who tested me (perhaps you?) could not believe that.
Have a nice day Stan.
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 11, 2007, 04:26 PMQuote from: Stan_Smith on Aug 11, 2007, 04:04 PMya'll are a little touchy on this subject, huh? Are you saying a polygraph is completely useless? I would think if it were, it would not still be in use. Seems to me a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.
1.
QuoteAre you saying a polygraph is completely useless?
Yes, I am saying it is useless. It only works on the naive, the unread, and those foolish
enough to put any faith in its ability to decipher the so called truth. Once you understand how and why it works, the fear and anxiety levels never even come close to being there for that polygrapher. Effectively defeating it. Knowlege is power in this case, the more you know,the bigger bain to the polygrapher you become. And if you have the courage to tell him that his machine and his process are a load, The polygraph session will effectively end. And watching a pissed off polygrapher in action is highly entertaining.
2.
QuoteSeems to me a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.
Its an effective tool to budge admissions and confessions from those not smart enough to know its a crock, a fassad, it scares those not cognitively equipped into giving up and confessing. Even to things they have never done.
So read learn and become polygraph literate. The next person in the chair could be you. And you will be mighty thankful that you have the knowlege.
Regards ....
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 11, 2007, 04:04 PMya'll are a little touchy on this subject, huh? Are you saying a polygraph is completely useless? I would think if it were, it would not still be in use. Seems to me a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by 1904
- Aug 11, 2007, 09:15 AMQuote from: Stan_Smith on Aug 10, 2007, 05:00 PMIt is my understanding that polygraph testimony is not admissable in court, but is simply used to guide law inforcement in the right direction. If so, those with nothing to hide, should have no problem with taking a polygraph. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Yes, you are wrong and require correction.
A polygraph cannot be used to guide anyone or anything in the right direction.
If those who enforce the law are so lacking in talent and skills to the effect that they require guidance from a machine, then may God help us all.
It is akin to throwing 'the bones' and then asking the bones if it will rain tomorrow.
Do you also believe in witches and fairies???
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 10, 2007, 06:51 PMQuote from: Stan_Smith on Aug 10, 2007, 05:00 PMIt is my understanding that polygraph testimony is not admissable in court, but is simply used to guide law inforcement in the right direction. If so, those with nothing to hide, should have no problem with taking a polygraph. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Stan_Smith,
As a first time poster, I will give you the benefit of the doubt to your simplistic comment. So you are corrected and your wrong, and I give you this advise to make yourself smarter about the polygraph. Download, "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" (TLBLD) EBook, from this websites main page. Read it thoroughly, then spend some time in the blog area and read about how innocent people are wrongly accused of crimes, and other assorted nasty things. The polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation prop, used to intimidate and extract confessions, real or made up. With the exception of New Mexico, the polygraph is not valid in a court of law in the US, some states allow it if both parties agree to its use. With some time and knowlege you should be able to answer your own question.
Regards .....
Posted by Stan_Smith
- Aug 10, 2007, 05:00 PMIt is my understanding that polygraph testimony is not admissable in court, but is simply used to guide law inforcement in the right direction. If so, those with nothing to hide, should have no problem with taking a polygraph. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.