Send a Note to ABCNews.com

[George W. Maschke]

ABCNews.com has published an article titled "Polygraph Q & A":
 
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/polygraphfaq.html
  
Unfortunately, this article appears to have been based entirely on what two prominent polygraphers, Frank Horvath and Nate Gordon, told ABC News, and the article only helps to perpetuate public misinformation regarding polygraphy. I encourage all to read the above article and then send your comments to ABCNews.com using the following contact form:
 
http://abcnews.go.com/service/Help/abccontactform.html
 
You might consider mentioning AntiPolygraph.org in your message. Below you'll find the remarks I sent:

I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a website dedicated to exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. ABC News did a poor job explaining polygraphy in its Polygraph Q&A. Perhaps your biggest mistake was basing your article solely on what you were told by people who depend on polygraph testing for a living.

For example, you quote polygrapher Frank Horvath as saying that polygraph critics say polygraphy is 70% accurate. But in reality, polygraph critics are more likely to argue that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis at all! See, for example, Professor William G. Iacono's recent article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml

Regrettably, your Polygraph Q&A completely failed to explain how truth vs. deception is actually inferred during a polygraph interrogation. No doubt, the polygraphers you interviewed didn't tell you. The dirty little secret of the polygraph trade is that the "test" actually depends on trickery: the polygrapher must lie to and other otherwise deceive the person being "tested" about the nature of the procedure.

The key deception is that the polygrapher, while admonishing the examinee to answer all questions truthfully, secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful.

One commonly used control question is, "Did you ever intentionally hurt someone?" The polygrapher deliberately steers the examinee into a denial by suggesting, for example, that the kind of person who would intentionally hurt someone is the kind of person who would commit the crime under investigation.

The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological reactions to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you cause your daughter's death?" If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. This simplistic methodology has no grounding in the scientific method.

Investigators value the polygraph because naive and gullible examinees sometimes make damaging admissions. But many truthful persons are falsely accused in the process. Perversely, the test is biased against the truthful because the more honestly one answers the control questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail.

Conversely, liars who understand the trickery behind the test can easily beat it by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the control questions. This can be done by constricting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, or merely thinking exciting thoughts. These techniques are explained in detail in AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which may be downloaded as a PDF file at:

http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

No reliance whatsoever should be placed on the outcome of pseudoscientific polygraph "tests."

I also appended my personal contact information.

[beech trees]

Here is what I wrote:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you in order to express my concern at the rather
egregious errors of fact contained within the online report titled,
'Polygraph Q & A:
Lie Detector Tests Remain Mostly Unchanged and Controversial'. By
relying upon members of the polygraph community as your sole sources of
information-- people who's income and power stem from the general
acceptance of the polygraph as a legitimate scientific tool-- you have
allowed those members to help perpetuate many of the myths of
polygraphy, which is at best a pseudo-science akin to phrenology and
tarot card reading, and at worst a destructive force that has ruined the
lives of many Americans.

Your polygraphers deceived you, just as they deceive those people whom
they interrogate. Polygraphy is not science and has never been found to
be more accurate than chance (i.e., a simple flip of the coin) in any
peer-reviewed scientific literature. John Larson himself, whom you
mention in your article as the polygraph's inventor, wrote:

"I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become a
legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more than a
racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing more than a
psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions as the old
physical beatings were. At times Im sorry I ever had any part in its
development."

Finally, despite what your polygraphers told you, polygraphs are easily
beaten through simple physical and mental countermeasures. To learn how,
as well as to learn more about the lies behind the lie detector and the
heinous ways in which polygraphers have helped ruin our national
security, you can visit http://www.antipolygraph.org. Thank you for your
time,