Anti-Polygraph States

[Wow...]

Pailryder...

You're a polygrapher... Or at least that's what I've read skimming through these posts. The polygraph is the brainchild of a CIA scientist who believed that we could communicate with plants. Telepathically.

Given the history of polygraphs, I have a hard time taking you (or any polygrapher for that matter) seriously.

[stefano]

Wow,

Although you are replying to a post which is a couple of years old, Pailryder's comments are valid except where he is under the illusion that a digital instrument is superior to an analog which is simply not true.

Also, I don't go along with the idea that Mr. Reid's experiments with plants are pure balderdash. Plants have shown to alter their chemical states when harmed or even threatened. This is actually more scientific than assuming physiological responses have a predictable correlation to deception.

[pailryder]

stefano

You have confused John Reid and Cleve Backster.

[pailryder]

The polygraph is the brainchild of a CIA scientist 

Wow

Simply not true.  Poly predates the CIA.  Backster added a numercial scoring system to an existing technique.

[pailryder]

he is under the illusion that a digital instrument is superior to an analog which is simply not true

As a data collection system, the digital is vastly superior to the analog in every respect.  Ask the man who owns one.

[stefano]

As a data collection system, the digital is vastly superior to the analog in every respect.Ask the man who owns one.

Wrong, they collect the same data and produce the same charts. Computerized versions simply make the polygrapher feel fancy. And by pure definition, analog instruments capture more data as the digital only samples the analog signal. Yes, I meant Backster, thanks for the correction.

[stefano]

As a followup, I would say that digital instruments, along with their "chart scoring for dummies" software, would probably have more utility in conducting studies where many sample sets must be scored and to reduce examiner bias.

Perhaps at one time, having a "computerized" polygraph may have stiffened the rubber hose. However, now that our world has gone digital and laptops are ubiquitous, I'd think that an analog intstrument would be more intimidating. So, the only REAL advantage of a digital instrument is to make the polygrapher feel he is somehow on the "cutting edge"; which is pure folly.

[brianmanhgf]

I've heard  hat oregon has lifted its ban on polygraph's.  Any truth to this. Thanks

[Twoblock]

stefano

I read a post here a few years ago by a polygrapher and he said that he preferred an analog because the computerized version has too much background noise.

A question though: Doesn't the computerized version have an analog machine hooked into a computer? If so, they are still using the analog machine. So what's the fancy of a computer?