Dr, Barland:

You talkie, talkie say nothing. Dr Drew Richardson has made very strong aguments that CQT testing poses grave threats to our National Security because:

1) They can be easily beaten by countermeasures
2) They can not determine whether someone is reacting out of fear of consequence or fear of detection or any other strong emotion such as anger etc.... So your guessing.

Do you feel his assertions are false? if so please explain. Surely by doing so would not threaten National Security any more than the polygraph itself.

Quote:


The above definition is essentially the one I already presented (please see Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem).  In order to demonstrate an argument is "ad hominem", one must show that it is irrelevant to the point at hand.  Since your evasions and the reasons behind them are very much the point (indeed, you made them the point), your intellectual honesty is most certainly relevant to the discussion.

As for polemics, weren't you the one who ducked under the umbrella of "national security" and cried "ad hominem" (easily the most common term in internet debate after "Hitler" and "nazis") when your motives for such were reasonably questioned?  Are we now to accept your lack of argument as an argument?  At least for me, that simply won't fly -- I've seen "I know but can't tell you how" used in lieu of real argumentation too many times to give such smoke-and-mirror games any credence.

Logical and serious points have been raised regarding R/I efficacy and implications not only for national security but individual fairness and due process, as well.  Reasonable questions have been put to you that could be answered with no conceivable harm to national security.  Either respond in kind or you have lost this debate.

Skeptic

PDD-Fed,

You invite scorn when you make such ridiculous comparisons.

You write:

Quote:


...and considerably more respected too.  The problem with Polygraph is not that it contains advertisements from polygraph manufacturers, but that it contains little of substance and nothing that could be trusted to be anything other than polygraph-community filtered pabulum.  JAMA is cited internationally on an almost daily basis in the media and is read by countless individuals other than those in the medical profession.  This is because it is considered to be both informative and authoritative.  Polygraph is considered a joke even by the few serious psychophysiologists involved in polygraphy.  As you said, "Now c'mon."  Let's get real.  This comparison is about as phony as can possibly be...sorry if the truth hurts...

Quote:


Now c'mon.  I didn't ask for insults...  I simply made the comparison that like JAMA, the APA journal presents relevant research as well as fowards the interests of the community it serves.  In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications, you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal.

Chow...

PDD-Fed

PDD-Fed,

The major difference (there are many) between JAMA and Polygraph is that one is a peer-reviewed publication of an association that universally is accepted as meriting professional recognition.  The latter is neither peer-reviewed (by relevant science professionals) nor is the publication of a recognized professional organization.  Polygraphy must first become a profession (currently a trade organization) and then publish and associate with other professional groups (ala the present attempt to commingle with the forensic science community).  The reverse is getting the cart before the horse at best.   

With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable.  Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right .  I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability.  I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.

Quote:


I understand and appreciate your points.  However, if I am not mistaken, the APA (polygraph) organization has two publications.  One is indeed a "newsletter" and is named as such.  It carries things like adds for instrument manufacturers, help wanted ads, etc.  The other publication is an actual jounal, which addresses operational and legal issues, research methodology, actual research studies, etc.  It compares at least in its structure and format, to scientific journals such as the AAFS and JAMA journals.

In fact, I would argue that JAMA, the journal of that American Medical Association, is a trade publication, not much unlike the Journal of the APA.  It serves not only as an outlet for medical research, But as a "trade" publication (furthering the position of its members).  In fact, the medical community has long used JAMA as a mouthpiece for defending its position on many commercial and political issues.  How is that unlike the APA Journal?  What am I not understanding here?

Quote:


Polygraph in general.

PDD-Fed,

Although I should have mentioned the following in our discussion yesterday, since my good friend, Beech, raised the issue of peer-reviewed journals once again, I will take the liberty of revisiting the subject once more.

With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

Quote:


You mean like this one?

Psychologists Surveyed On Lie Detectors Say Most Are Not Valid...Not Scientifically Sound and Can Be Easily Deceived. 'The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion,' by W.G. Iacono, Ph.D., and D.T. Lykken, Ph.D.,University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.82, No. 3. 

The press release can be read by clicking the above hyperlink or here

Take note the R/I test is not even considered worthy of inclusion in the survey.

Quote:


Graduate degrees in what field? The 'journel' of the American Polygraph Association is not considered a peer-reviewed journal.

Gordon,

Earlier in this thread I asked you the following:

Quote:


George has asked you to revisit the notion of ethics and forensic test manipulation (presumably a reference to polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures and something you further made reference to with Skeptic).  Before we launch off into the world of ethics again, I think, in order to avoid getting the cart before the horse, we need to establish what is a forensic test.  Nothing about polygraphy suggests to me that it is currently deserving of inclusion in such a grouping.  A substantive answer from you citing example(s) (again I realize that, as was the case for which you were asked to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature establishing RI validity, you are not compelled to do so) would go a long way towards resolving this matter.  PDD-Fed, if you are there, perhaps you might care to help Gordon out again if you are so able...

Mark,

I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.   

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

You concluded one of your replies to Skeptic earlier in this message thread:

Quote:


I (and no doubt others) would be interested in a discussion of this topic. Perhaps you might initiate such with a new message thread?

Gordon,

I have to say that I find it strange, and discordant, that on the one hand you value civilized discourse (as do I, and thanks for recognizing that, though I didn't find George's comments to you vituperative or non-substantive), yet on the other, you advocate a technique that in practice is often characterized by the polygraph examiner's abuse, distortion of the subject's words, arrogance, deception, crassness, vitriol, intimidation, and puffery.   

If it were just a pure diagnostic tool, that would be one thing, but the polygraph is used as a cudgel.  How do you reconcile this?

Skeptic,

Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message.  The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not.  I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.

Peace,

Gordon

Quote:


In general, "ad hominem" refers to the use of personal attacks to discredit in lieu of logical argumentation.  Since George has already made a logical case and used it to conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest, I don't believe his statement meets the definition.

Quote:


No one says you have to answer anything, Dr. Barland.  Of course, others are completely free to draw conclusions regarding your reasons for such refusals, as well as the implications for your position in any debate.  Welcome to internet discussions

As for your "other priorities", my own inference, based upon your frequent posts, is that it is not lack of time which drives your non-answers.

Peace, indeed,
Skeptic

PDD-Fed,

I'm not sure why you bring up Argosy University, with which DoDPI has formed a relationship, in this thread. Perhaps to change the subject? You ask:

Quote:


You conflate the concepts of "private" and "for-profit." Private universities are usually operated as non-profit organizations. For-profit businesses like Argosy University are the exception in higher education.

PDD-Fed,

With regard to what would be an acceptable peer-reviewed scientific journal in the area of psychophysiology, I believe that would be determined by a consensus of scientists in that area (psychophysiology).  With regard to the hypothetical you pose regarding the trade journal Polygraph, all I can offer is the analogy if apples were oranges and pigs could fly....

Management is not what Polygraph lacks (no opinion from this quarter on that subject) but scientific credibility within the relevant scientific community (psychophysiology).  And if you recall from the previous discussion of Daubert, that is an important consideration.  In fact, largely because the CQT has little acceptance in the scientific community (even though it, as opposed to the RI,  has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature), it is generally excluded from trial court testimony via Daubert hearings.

Quote:


I appreciate your response.  And I will leave you with a question.  Who is it who desides when a "Scientific Journal" is a "Scientific Journal?"  I would suggest that if the APA (polygraph) journal were to become "Peer reviewed," and were to be properly managed in that regard, then like it or not, research published within would fulfill the "peer review" requirment...

PDD-Fed...

PDD-Fed,

You write:

Quote:


First of all--thank you very much for your honesty.  I am glad this matter has finally been laid to rest.  With regard to Daubert considerations, yes, peer-reviewed publication is a component.  These components (evaluated areas) are generally considered to be the following:

Tested and proven
Peer reviewed and published
Accurate, and
Accepted in the scientific community

The RI format would fail on all counts, and I would be extremely surprised to ever find it passing muster via Daubert.  If it did it would most certainly be a perversion of the present system…

With regard to your question, no, Polygraph is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is a trade publication of a trade organization, the American Polygraph Association.  Even if it were a peer-reviewed scientific journal it would not be the correct one to submit to.  Remember you are PDD-Fed, yes? --The appropriate one would be one of many in the area of psychophysiology.  If your theoretical three members of APA with suitable backgrounds in psychophysiology were to publish in the appropriate journals, then any evidence of validity offered would be worthy of consideration at that point.

Gordon,

You write:

Quote:


I think that intellectual honesty is important to the discussion we are having here; your invocation of supposed national security reasons for not answering even the simplest of questions regarding the science (if any) behind R/I polygraphy is, in my opinion, simply not credible, Gordon, and I'm calling you on it.

Quote:


Of course, you are under no obligation to answer any questions I and others have put to you here, but your refusal to answer the questions in my earlier post speaks directly to your credibility. As Anonymous has pointed out, your avoidance of these simple (but clearly embarrassing to the polygraph community) questions -- even as you address numerous others -- belies any claim that "other priorities in life" prevent you from addressing them.

Finally, you write:

Quote:


The only peer-reviewed studies of the R/I technique that I'm familiar with are those mentioned by David Lykken in A Tremor in the Blood and cited in the notes to the excerpt we provide in our discussion of the R/I technique in Chapter 3 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. That literature provides no grounds for confidence in the validity of R/I polygraphy.

If anyone can direct me to any other peer-reviewed research supporting the validity of R/I polygraphy that I may have missed, I would be grateful.

Quote:


Scared?

OK, let me settle this.

First of all, I know of no peer reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."

Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour.  This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.  Yet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site...

Am I wrong in this assumption?

PDD-Fed

Gordon,

You write:

Quote:


Clearly, both you and PDD-Fed and as well as others have the right to answer and avoid answering any questions you might care to.  No one has denied that.  But when you both spend inordinately more time posting replies than it would take to do that which you have refused to do--simply answer the question/provide any support (even one cite)  from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature to suggest that RI testing is valid, the reason for such omission becomes glaringly apparent.  The notion of scientific support so scared PDD-Fed that he has run from the subject and now gone off on a tangent regarding Argosy University (who really cares??)

Quote:


George, I guess what I have an issue with is your phraseology.  Since when does the lack on inclusion in a book, the use of one procedure more frequently than another, or a practioner defending a particular testing technique, mean the procedure is "thoroughly discredited?"  I have not seen a  single article in ANY polygraph journel indicating the R&I should NOT be used.  Not one single word against its utilization, yet you have repeated claimed it is "thoroughly discredited."

Heck, even mammograms, which have had several articles come out recently seriously questioning its utility in early detection of breast cancer, would not be described as "thoroughly discredited."  Please watch how fast you banter particular words around.  Some might describe your choice of words as "spin."

This leads me to another point I would like to comment on.  In a recent string between you and Polycop, in which he desribed the academic association between DoDPI and Argosy University, you described Argosy as a "for profit outfit."  I have no doubt you chose those words carefully for their full spin effect..

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

Next, the term, "outfit," immediately brings to mind a business concern instead of an academic institution.  Is the University of Alabama or Nova University, an "outfit?"

Of course I expect anti-polygraph spin on any site called, "anti-polygraph.org.  It is that sometimes it is so obvious as to need pointing out...

Regards...

PDD-Fed

George,

I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah and Drew Richardson are now the only regular contributors here who avoid verbal brick bats.

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

One thing I haven't been able to figure out.  You know how to research the literature.  You have access to research libraries, both in the Netherlands and at UCLA.  You are single-minded in your quest for information on the polygraph.  You had no trouble finding Ray Weir's articles in an obscure publication found in few libraries.  

Are you really serious when you claim there are no articles about the RI test in peer reviewed journals?

Peace,

Gordon

PDD-Fed,

Courtesy of Skeptic, the following was previously posted:

Quote:


This commentary, particularly that coming from Honts, one of the few polygraphers with any serious psychophysiological credentials and no particular friend of the antipolygraph community, is particularly damning.  Since Gordon Barland seems unable to do so, perhaps you might like to offer any contradictory evidence or statement from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological scientific literature that you are aware of.  Until you do, this nonsense remains, as George as indicated, completely discredited.  You should be embarrassed to reveal that it is even still considered yet utilized by the federal government.   

You are of course at a complete loss as to what to do...your previously heralded control question test (created to compensate for the glaring theoretical flaws with RI testing) is now so easily defeated that you are considering switching back to a previously shunned exam.  Oh my, what's a poor polygrapher to do?!?!  Because there are NO counter-countermeasures for CQT testing, the polygraph community has been forced to adopt the only, albeit insane "lie-detection" one, left to it...RI testing.   

Perhaps it is time to come out of the polygraph suites, really investigate cases, collect and protect information, and run the only sane option for you...information-based tests.  This, of course, will be the death knell for the abhorrent fishing expeditions we have come to know as polygraph screening.  But perhaps the good news for you (in addition to being involved in meaningful and productive work) is that at that point this site may have served its purpose and fade away too...