Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin

[Barry_C]

I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work.

I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree.

The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

[nopolycop]

I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work.

I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree.

The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

But, he allows his phony degree to identify him on the show?  What a scumbag poser.

And, since I am on the topic, why do so many polygraphers feel the need to bolster their credentials by claiming academic achievements they didn't earn?

[George W. Maschke]

I talked to Michael Martin.  He wanted to keep this as "real" as he could, so he told them to read up on whatever they wanted.  To think they didn't find this site would be a leap of faith.  He said physical CMs were attempted on the irrelvant and CQs, but they didn't work.  I would think it's safe to assume the mental CMs were attempted on both too.  They didn't work.

Barry, the producers of Mythbusters certainly knew about AntiPolygraph.org (as they contacted me, and I spoke with one of them at length well in advance of the filming date). But it's clear they didn't use The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for the show. The countermeasure instructions given to Tory and Grant are things that one would not expect to work, and that no one knowledgeable about polygraph procedure would attempt.

Note that while Martin appears to have detected Tory's movements when pricking himself in the leg with a thumbtack, there is no indication that he detected Tory's tongue-biting (misapplied as it was).

The bottom line is that Mythbusters' "Beat the Lie Detector" segment tells us nothing about 1) the efficacy of polygraph countermeasures or 2) the validity of the CQT polygraphy.

I am probably one of the most vocal opponents of phony "degrees" in any community - polygraph or otherwise.  In fairness to Michael, he discloses that it is not an earned degree.

Yet he hides the fact that his "honorary" degree is from an unaccredited diploma mill. Michael Martin is committing academic fraud by representing himself to the public even as an "honorary" Ph.D. and styling himself as "Dr. Martin" in marketing his polygraph services.

The APA does have a policy that they won't allow people with non-accredited degrees to advertise them or use the title "Doctor" in APA events and publications.  That change was made a few years ago.

But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you?

[Jesper Paten]

....In fairness to Michael, he discloses that (his phony degree) it is not an earned degree.  

Sir,
You condone Mr Martins use of a phony (false) degree, just because he disclosed to you that it is phony. Are you always so forgiving ?

If an examinee disclosed to you during a PE process that his degree was phony - would your report state "....but its okay, because in all fairness he did disclose it...?"

Somehow, I think not.

As the Administrator allude in an old post: When polygrapf examiners are dealing with one another, it becomes an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Respectfully,
JP

[Barry_C]

But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you?

I don't know that accurately reprents the APA's position, but yes, I'm on the record as stating it is unethical to do so.  When a person discloses that it's not an earned degree, then we're talking about something different.  It's a complex issue.  For example, Jim Matte's degree, which you've pointed out here, isn't from an accredited organization.  It's a legal degree in California - and you can even get licensed to practice, psychology, for example, with a CPU "degree."  However, those same "degrees" are illegal in many other states (mine included).

As far as Mythbusters goes, there's no sense in arguing here.  I predicted your spin before you wrote it.  It looks like we'll have to stick to the peer-reviewed studies that show they don't work.

[Barry_C]

an exercise in mutual masturbation

I could be wrong, but I believe 1904 used this same language, perhaps in an email, at some point back a ways....

[Jesper Paten]

Sir Barry,

Please refer you to Mr Maschke posting off 25 Oct reproduced below in response:

Reply #25 - Oct 4th, 2007, 9:56am    Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4th, 2007, 9:42am:
...Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"?...

Mr Maschke:
Polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are themselves required to submit to polygraph screening for the sake of keeping up appearances. How would it look to the rank-and-file if the polygraphers were themselves exempted?

But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but it is one that I have made before, and it is apt: polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.  

[Jesper Paten]

But the APA doesn't consider it to be an ethical violation for members to falsely pass themselves off to the public as Ph.D.s when marketing their services. Do you?

I don't know that accurately reprents the APA's position, but yes, I'm on the record as stating it is unethical to do so.  When a person discloses that it's not an earned degree, then we're talking about something different.  It's a complex issue.  For example, Jim Matte's degree, which you've pointed out here, isn't from an accredited organization.  It's a legal degree in California - and you can even get licensed to practice, psychology, for example, with a CPU "degree."  However, those same "degrees" are illegal in many other states (mine included).

As far as Mythbusters goes, there's no sense in arguing here.  I predicted your spin before you wrote it.  It looks like we'll have to stick to the peer-reviewed studies that show they don't work.

Sir,
Why is it now such a complex issue?
If a degree is not earned, then there iss no degree. Surely so.
If there is no degree, then to say that one does have a degree is complete dishonesty. It is criminal yes?
A 'degree' bought from a internet cyber university is false. The buyer know it is false.

When you provide sympathy for mr Martin, then morally you are no better than he.

Respectfully,
JP

[raymond.nelson]

When you provide sympathy for mr Martin, then morally you are no better than he.

I find this to be a very troubling, though rich, over-generalization.

As for the situation with Mr. Martin, do you think it possible that one can disagree with another, yet remain compassionate? Or is our morality contingent upon persistent antipathy?


r

[Jesper Paten]

Sir Nelson,

I agree that people can diagree with one another but should still remain compassionate. Each toward the other.

I do not agree with selectiv compassion or selectiv morality. I think that Mr Barry is applying a selectiv morality. He says that he is 'against' false credentials, but its 'okay' because Mr Martin, admitted his was false.

My first question I asked. Would Mr Barry apply that same compassion to an examinee who had false credential on his job application.

Respectfully,
JP

[raymond.nelson]

JP,

At present, I'd be more interested in a conversation regarding that your assertion re morality - that showing sympathy makes one no better than a mis-deed-doer.

We can beat a dead horse around Mr. Martin's admittedly honorary degree, or we can have an interesting conversation about a very important concept. One that has implications that extend well beyond polygraph, into how individuals and even whole cultures relate with adversaries.

Sympathy is a difficult concept for many to endorse, because of some distorted implications that have gotten attached to the concept. Would you offer the same assertion if we consider this same premise in the context of extending compassion to one's enemy or to one who has transgressed? Does sympathy or compassion make one morally "no better" than the other? What does it mean to be "no better." Would moral equivalence be desirable or undesirable?

Consider the Christmas Truce of 1914. Was that wrong? If so why? What is right (moral)? Why? Were not those soldiers enemies? Are they morally equivalent as a result of the Christmas truce? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Were then inequivalent before the truce?



r

[raymond.nelson]

Mr. Maschke,

Would you please revise the title of this topic?

At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..."

In fact, they did not.

So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic.

A more accurate topic might be

"the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...."

or, if you prefer something more neutral

"Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode."

Thank you.


r

[George W. Maschke]

Mr. Maschke,

Would you please revise the title of this topic?

At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..."

In fact, they did not.

So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic.

A more accurate topic might be

"the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...."

or, if you prefer something more neutral

"Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode."

Thank you.


r

Raymond,

The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.

[Donna.Taylor]

Mr. Maschke,

Would you please revise the title of this topic?

At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..."

In fact, they did not.

So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic.

A more accurate topic might be

"the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...."

or, if you prefer something more neutral

"Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode."

Thank you.


r

Raymond,

The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.

Clearly GM you could have stated BUSTED after the tiltle.  You have to admit when printing it on this site it appears they beat the polygraph when in fact the POLYGRAPH CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED ALL THREE INDIVIDUALS.

[George W. Maschke]

Donna,

Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."