• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"More Polygraph Nonsense"

Steven Howard said:
In 1986, the CBS television program 60 Minutes carried out the following experiment:

The editor of the CBS-owned magazine Popular Photography contacted four professional polygraph examiners, chosen at random from the phone book, and told them that more than $500 worth of camera equipment had been stolen from the magazine's office, almost certainly by an employee. The examiners did not know that other companies had also been contacted and conducted their examinations separately. Each examiner was told that four employees had access to the room from which the equipment was supposedly stolen, but that one of them was the most likely suspect. A different "most likely suspect" was pointed out to each examiner. In fact, there had been no theft and the four "suspects" were all innocent.

In each case, the person who'd been previously named the most likely suspect "failed" the polygraph test and was found to be deceptive. Each polygrapher tried to intimidate his* chosen suspect into confessing to a crime that hadn't even been committed. No one confessed, since the four "suspects" were in on the sting and knew nothing had actually been stolen.


*I don't recall, but I'm pretty sure they were all men.
Click to expand...
"What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves."
 
Rodney said:
First, according to polygraph expert Jerry Lewis, there was only one clear error in the more than 1,000 polygraph exams in which he was involved.
Click to expand...
Really? I've never made any errors in my entire career. I also get laid every night by totally hot women. I'm totally awesome. :rolleyes:
Rodney said:
So, should we eliminate breast cancer screening, as well as polygraph exams?
Click to expand...
Breast cancer screening doesn't impact any official's subjective impression the examined. Breast cancer screening doesn't lead to job loss or criminal prosecution. Breast cancer screening can be administered again without bias if necessary.
 
JoeEllison said:
Expected Woo Answers:

If they'd chosen a fifth polygraph guy, it would have worked!

The cheating vibrations and/or auras threw the tests off.

Polygraphs don't work near skeptics.
Click to expand...

My Answer:

From the account given, it appears that this was a highly unethical and biased attempt to discredit polygraphs. A polygrapher should never be told who "the most likely suspect" is -- that's laughable on the face of it. Further, the job of a polygrapher is not to intimidate anyone -- he's supposed to be objectively trying to determine whether the subject is telling the truth or lying. And did the geniuses who concocted this "experiment" give any consideration to using known polygraph experts, instead of picking names of polygraphers out of the phone book?

I'm still looking for someone whose career was ruined by an erroneous polygraph test.
 
Rodney said:
So how about the name of someone who lost his/her job or who was prosecuted because of an erroneous polygraph test?
Click to expand...

I sent you to antipolygraph.org, did you not read any of the material there?

Since you seem to place a great deal of emphasis on anecdotal evidence, here's the link to 30 personal statements on antipolygraph.org that discuss how the polygraph destroyed their respective careers and lives:

http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

George Maschke's (the founder of antipolygraph.org) statement is pretty compelling. He was a decorated U.S. Army officer fluent in Arabic languages who had a career in anti-terrorism destroyed because of a false positive on a polygraph where he was accused of being a drug dealer and spy...

Again, the polygraph as a lie detector has no validity, reliability or scientific underpinnings. It is merely an interrogation prop useful for eliciting confessions from the gullible...
 
If it's of any solace, polygraph tests doesn't carry any legal weight in Sweden. I'm not sure about other european countries, but I think it's somehting similar.
 
digithead said:
I sent you to antipolygraph.org, did you not read any of the material there?

Since you seem to place a great deal of emphasis on anecdotal evidence, here's the link to 30 personal statements on antipolygraph.org that discuss how the polygraph destroyed their respective careers and lives:

http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

George Maschke's (the founder of antipolygraph.org) statement is pretty compelling. He was a decorated U.S. Army officer fluent in Arabic languages who had a career in anti-terrorism destroyed because of a false positive on a polygraph where he was accused of being a drug dealer and spy...

Again, the polygraph as a lie detector has no validity, reliability or scientific underpinnings. It is merely an interrogation prop useful for eliciting confessions from the gullible...
Click to expand...
The problem with these anecdotes is that we don't know whether they're accurate. Also, I note Mr. Maschke repeats the erroneous mantra that "in all its history, the polygraph has not detected one single spy. Ever. It is batting .000." What is needed is an objective assessment of these anecdotes by a third party who does not have an agenda.
 
Rodney said:
The problem with these anecdotes is that we don't know whether they're accurate.
Click to expand...
They're no stronger evidence than the anecdotes you've posted, and there's a hell of a lot more of these. If you're throwing out anecdotes as evidence, then you're left with the studies. You can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately, the studies are nowhere near clear in favor of the polygraph. In fact, some have been quite damning. While I think these machines have some use, we clearly put too much faith in them. The side of the equation we haven't even really discussed yet is the false sense of security they provide. "He passed his poly, so he's not a murderer."

First hand experience with these machines shatters a lot of illusions. While I'm obligated not to discuss specific questions, I can say that there were questions I raised a flag on specifically because I was afraid nobody would believe what a goody two shoes I've been. Being grilled about my evil ways was a huge waste of government money (I was flown back for a second poly and put up in a hotel.)
 
delphi_ote said:
They're no stronger evidence than the anecdotes you've posted, and there's a hell of a lot more of these. If you're throwing out anecdotes as evidence, then you're left with the studies. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Don't you think that someone like polygraph examiner Lewis has more credibility than people who claim polygraphs ruined their careers?

delphi_ote said:
Unfortunately, the studies are nowhere near clear in favor of the polygraph. In fact, some have been quite damning. While I think these machines have some use, we clearly put too much faith in them. The side of the equation we haven't even really discussed yet is the false sense of security they provide. "He passed his poly, so he's not a murderer."
Click to expand...
I've consistently said, and I think reputable polygraph examiners agree, that the polygraph should be only one tool used to determine truthfulness.

delphi_ote said:
First hand experience with these machines shatters a lot of illusions. While I'm obligated not to discuss specific questions, I can say that there were questions I raised a flag on specifically because I was afraid nobody would believe what a goody two shoes I've been.
Click to expand...
You denied you were involved in 9/11? ;)

delphi_ote said:
Being grilled about my evil ways was a huge waste of government money (I was flown back for a second poly and put up in a hotel.)
Click to expand...
Did you find the process biased against you?
 
Rodney said:
Don't you think that someone like polygraph examiner Lewis has more credibility than people who claim polygraphs ruined their careers?
Click to expand...
No. They all have reasons to be biased, because the subject on either side amounts to their careers. In the end, the only way to get at the truth is through scientific study of the techniques used. Those have not been favorable for the polygraph. This is an unfortunate reality we must account for.
Rodney said:
Did you find the process biased against you?
Click to expand...
The first examiner was highly biased against me once she decided I wasn't passing. She was trying to get a confession. The whole, "I'm going to shut off the machine. There's something you're not telling me..." routine.
 
Rodney said:
The June 22, 2007 Swift has an article with this title, and quotes a reader as follows: "Dr. [Robert] Park states that '[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'"

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraphs -- "The polygraph is more often used as a deterrant to espionage rather than detection. One exception to this was the case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995, Nicholson had undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a strong probability of deception on questions regarding relationships with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph test later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction."

I wrote Dr. Park about this apparent discrepancy five days ago, but he hasn't responded.
Click to expand...
I followed up with another e-mail to Dr. Park in August. Still no response.
 
Rodney said:
I followed up with another e-mail to Dr. Park in August. Still no response.
Click to expand...
Randi refers to Dr. Park in this week's commentary as "irrepressible." But the irrepressible one apparently still hasn't had time to respond to my question.
 
Rodney said:
Randi refers to Dr. Park in this week's commentary as "irrepressible." But the irrepressible one apparently still hasn't had time to respond to my question.
Click to expand...
I do not know why, but to demonstrate that there are no sacred cows in skepticism, it is irresponsible of Dr. Park not to address this assuming the situation is as you have presented it. I'm not suggesting anything untoward on your part, Rodney, as I have no reason to doubt you, but I am emphasizing the possibility that you are mistaken or Dr. Park is aware of information you are not. One of those things that might give him pause before responding is the fact that your source is wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Garrette said:
I do not know why, but to demonstrate that there are no sacred cows in skepticism, it is irresponsible of Dr. Park not to address this assuming the situation is as you have presented it. I'm not suggesting anything untoward on your part, Rodney, as I have no reason to doubt you, but I am emphasizing the possibility that you are mistaken or Dr. Park is aware of information you are not. One of those things that might give him pause before responding is the fact that your source is wikipedia.
Click to expand...
So why doesn't he set the record straight? In Post #15 on this thread, dated July 1, 2007, I posted the text of my June 23 e-mail to Dr. Park. I sent that e-mail both to bob@bobpark.org and to whatsnew@bobpark.org. On August 10, I then followed up by forwarding that e-mail to the same two addresses with the question: "Have you had a chance to consider the below questions?"
 
Rodney said:
So why doesn't he set the record straight? In Post #15 on this thread, dated July 1, 2007, I posted the text of my June 23 e-mail to Dr. Park. I sent that e-mail both to bob@bobpark.org and to whatsnew@bobpark.org. On August 10, I then followed up by forwarding that e-mail to the same two addresses with the question: "Have you had a chance to consider the below questions?"
Click to expand...
I don't know.

But just as I did not conclude from Nancy Orlen Weber's failure to respond to my several emails that she is lying or afraid to face me, you should not conclude anything negative about Dr. Park's failure to respond to you.
 
With all due respect, I'm not sure I'd consider Bob Park 'in the loop' on matters outside of his field just because he is a member of skeptical movement clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom