We all know what the first two are, but what is the difference between SUBjective and OBjective? In an objective test, the result of a test is compared to a predetermined condition.  Did the lifter lift the weight (technical questions aside)?  Was the answer true or false?  Did the pole vaulter make it over the bar?  Was there illegal substances over a certain level in the sample?  These are all yes or no answers and although the testing procedure may require a high degree of education and skill, usually very little skill is needed to  interpret the result.  It is simply one object compared to another.  
    But a subjective test puts a needs a large degree of interpretation. When a cook makes a soup he tastes it for seasoning and decides if it needs salt or whatever.  But this is SUBJECT to his interpretation of what tastes right.  Another cook might think it has too much salt, based on his taste.  Bodybuilding is subject to a judges interpretation of undefined terms like size, symmetry, definition, muscle tone and so on.  Art is subject to what you like.  One mans art is anothers pile of scrap metal.  So subjective is simply that, subject to one persons opinion as to whether they agree or  disagree, or like or don't like, and this decision is not based on a set of predetermined values. There is often no tangible right or wrong on either side, simply a perception of right or wrong, good or bad.  
    So lets take a look at the polygraph in this light.  Recently an RCMP officer related to me his  
view of the polygraph, having been involved with it.  He said that the outcome of a polygraph has  
three possibilities.  The first outcome is TRUTH.  The machine says you are telling a truth and the examiner agrees, so the subject is NOT guilty.  The second is LYING, or the machine and the  
examiner again agree so the subject is now GUILTY.  The third possibility is INCONCLUSIVE.  
This means that the machine and the examiner do not agree, because the examiner has reason to believe the machine is at fault, or simply does not believe the result, instead relying on his  
experience in observation of polygraph subjects.  In order for a person to be deemed to have failed a polygraph, the machine and the examiner have to be in agreement that the subject is lying.  
    But lets take a closer look at this.  If the machine says you are lying, and the examiner also, then supposedly you must be.  So, what if the machine says you are lying but the examiner "has reason to believe" you are not?  The result is "inconclusive" so the subject is found NOT guilty.  Now the only difference in these two examples  was that the examiner "believed" you were telling the truth and your “verdict” has changed from guilty to innocent, based only on his decision. By what scientific criteria is his judgment based?  
    In a urinalysis test, the lab does not know anything about the subject, not even their name. With the polygraph it is much different.  In Truth and Deception, chapter "The Polygraph Technique", John Reid writes "it is necessary for the examiner to obtain accurate information regarding all the available facts and circumstances that form the basis for the suspicion or accusation directed against the person to be examined" and "It is also helpful for the examiner  to know as much about the subject and his background as is available".  In The Silent Witness, Chris Gugas, a polygraphist who has performed in excess of 20,000 tests, writes "A polygraph examiner needs more than the technical training...He must himself be sensitive-a keen observer, a shrewd questioner, a close listener.  He must be a psychologist in the most down to earth sense of that word.  He must know people."  
    Doesn’t  this sound like a subjective examination?.  In other words, a decision based on the  
judgment or the examiner, and not a predetermined set of values?  So to get back to our example, if the trained examiner doubted the result of his machine shouldn't we doubt it too?  Do we just accept what confirms our suspicions and reject what does not?  Does it not follow that we should doubt the validity of the “result” no matter which way the needle points?  
    In The Silent Witness, Chris Gugas says "if you get into trouble with the law, and you want to  
take a polygraph to help you prove your innocence, make sure your lawyer finds you a qualified,  
experienced examiner.  If your not sure of his credentials, and if his results are inconclusive (a  
certain percentage always are) or if his charts indicate to him that you were lying when you weren't (which can result from flaws in test questioning), then do as you would if a doctor told you that you had cancer.  Get another opinion."  
    To its credit, the polygraph has a lot of believers.  The RCMP and Edmonton City Police that I  
spoke to both felt that the polygraph was very reliable.  Many of the books available are written  
by polygraph examiners, who defend the technique strongly.  Yet in analytical study, it sometimes looks different.  In The Complete Polygraph Handbook, by Stan Abram, a compilation of studies using a variety of subjects yeilded an average of 88% accurate, 12% inaccurate.  The primary parts of the polygraph test include the CQT, or Control Question Test, in which a question is asked that is known to be a truth or known to be a lie, intended to establish a controlled result.  In Theories and Applications in the Detection of Deception by G. Ben Shakur, again with a number of studies being compiled, the following results were obtained.  In the CQT an innocent condition subject showed a 62.9 correct decision rate, 15.4 false positive, and 21.7 inconclusive.  Another large segment is the GKT, or Guilty Knowledge Test, in which the questions are relevant to the crime involved, and are meant to determine if there is any knowledge of guilt.  In the GKT an innocent condition person showed a 94.2% correct decision rate.  
    Now a correct rate between 62.9 and 94.2% may be good enough for getting through high  
school, but should we suspend someone for LIFE from CPU competition based on a test this  
subjective and with odds like this?  Perhaps if there were no knowledge of the subject, no  
questions asked other than the relevant questions, the examiner was isolated from the subject, and there was an industry standard guidebook that said “if this needle goes above this line...”, then maybe it could be viewed as an objective test.   But in Truth and Deception,  John Reid writes “In popular fancy the Polygraph is often thought of as an instrument that is supposed to ring a bell, flash a light, or produce some other quick and positive indication of a lie when one is being told. Unfortunately, however there is no instrument in existence that will detect  
deception so simply and effectively.”  
    I certainly hope that I am never in a situation were one man's decision, based on the number of beads of sweat on my forehead will determine the course of my life. 
 

Want to discuss this with other lifters?

Then click here: