The Shropshire Lad Seeks an Answer to Censorship

Dear Dr. Rovner and Mr. Hilliard,

On May 9, 2000, Cal Sutherland posted the message detailed below to your bulletin board at www.polygraphplace.com. I replied with two posts of my own (also below). I was curious as to why you decided to remove the thread before Cal could read my responses. I think it is obvious from my previous posts to your board that I am

  1. familiar with technical polygraph issues and history, and that
  2. Cal appreciated the information (whether documented or opined) that I had to offer.

Granville Hicks' quote, "a censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to," certainly seems appropriate. It appears that you don't want the public to know what you already know - polygraphy is not science, accredited scientists understand this, and given all the appropriate information, a rational person would come to understand this as well. Rest assured, I will continue to politely challenge the readers of your bulletin board - that is, if you don't censor my questions and posts as well. Since you deprived Cal in his public search of polygraph knowledge, please at the very least forward him my responses below. In the mean time, I anxiously await your explanation of the deleted thread. Thanks in advance.

The Shropshire Lad

I understand that the subject's confidence in the validity of polygraph testing is an important psychological factor that may affect the outcome, which is the rationale for the acquaintance test or stim test. A question that comes to me is, what if the subject has no confidence or belief in the validity of polygraph testing at all? The thing that brings these questions to mind is the Department of Energy's decision to start lie detectortesting for scientists. I read some of their comments from the public hearings ( see http://www.spse.org/ ),and there wasn't a single scientist (at least not asfar as I could tell) who spoke in favor of polygraph testing. Many have also read Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood, so they understand the theory behind control question tests. Some compared polygraph testing to witchcraft and tea-leaf reading. If someone like that is required to submit to a polygraph exam, how will his disbelief in the validity of the polygraph affect the validity of the procedure? Are meaningful results possible?"

Cal,

Aside from the question you raise, it should give all great pause to think that some of the most serious scientists of this country (those eligible for Nobel Prize recognition) uniformly have so little respect for polygraphy (polygraph screening in particular).These scientists are intrusted with the nuclear arsenals and security of the United States. Daily rigorous application of scientific principles and the scientific method are their lives. Is there a message here?

I know, Dr. Rovner.....pride, professionalism and the legions of polygraphers.......

Yours, Shropshire Lad

Cal,

I can not answer your question directly, because I do not believe polygraph screening is viable under any circumstances, stimulation provided leading to confidence, or otherwise. I do however, believe you deserve an answer from polygraph proponents. You present them with an interesting delimma. Either they tell you (1) the stim test and resulting derived confidence is unimportant and then are faced with explaining countless thousands of hours wasted with parlor tricks or (2) they tell you that examinee confidence is essential and are faced with explaining to you how their elementary understanding and presentation of the autonomic nervous system and accompanying card tricks to M.D., Ph.D.s at Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, etc will provide said confidence.

Best, Shropshire Lad

p.s. How am I doing Lou? I hope I haven't blown my chance to be contributor of the week (smile)

______________________________________________________________________________

Hi,

In regards to your comments, if you would be willing to give your real name in the forums, I will consider allowing you to continue posting.

Sincerely,

Ralph Hilliard

WordNet Solutions

650.349.2072

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Mr. Hilliard,

Thanks for your reply. I don't see why my real name is at issue - I value my privacy, especially on the internet. Suffice it to say, as I have mentioned to you before (and as I believe my posts illustrate), that I have valuable knowledge of polygraph issues that I would like to put forth to members of your forum for discussion and debate. (Besides, there are numerous individuals on your site who post without using their names)

I feel the real issue here is that you are preventing a valuable debate by censoring the posts; my posts have been factual, well argued and supported, and generally difficult for polygraph supporters to refute.

I believe the real reason you've censored Cals questions is that you don't like the answers I'm giving - I'm exposing the fallacy that is polygraph. It has been my professional experience, that when confronted with ALL the scientific studies and research, etc, polygraphers slink from the light because they know their arguments are designed for an uniformed public.

If you never let me post again you are in essence admitting defeat; you're putting a stop to an argument you know can't be won. Again, I'm anxious to hear why you've censored the posts - you side stepped my original question.

Shropshire Lad

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I don't have time to debate the issue. Those are myterms. Take em or leave em. Ralph

______________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Hilliard,

I can see from recent visits to the www.polygraphplace.com bulletin board that you have decided to remove several of my posts and responses dealing with the validity of polygraph.

I assume you have taken such a cowardly course of action because you do not want to present your reader with the complete set of facts regarding the "science" of polygraphy; doing so, as I mentioned in earlier correspondence, could only lead a reader to an informed opinion - something polygraphers cannot afford since their claims of accuracy or validity simply can not be supported in open debate.

I do not expect any reply from you on this matter as there isn't really anything you could say to defend your acts of censorship. However, watching you try would certainly prove humorous, so feel free if you wish. In the meantime, I'm sure I can find other forums on the web to detail my experiences with you and Polygraphplace.com. Good day.

The Shropshire Lad

______________________________________________________________________________

whatever