Quote:

The best counter to countermeasures would be the revelation of the ability to detect them without any uncertainty. Perhaps thats why you except rather than accept the challenge here. Because our intelligence community lacks this ability. (BTW, this would be a perfect venue and such a revelation would surely bolster National Security not threaten it.)

My Country is at war and the people who wish to harm us know our weaknesses and it appears polygraph use is one. If what this site has to say about countermeasures is true that our intelligence community is unable to detect the use of countermeasures than this window of vulnerability should be shut. Do you not agree?

Or is the perservation of the tool more important? 

Quote:


Actually, I'd say it's not mean-spirited so much as it violates standard "rules of engagement" for online debate.  Long experience shows that such flames almost always result in the degeneration of a thread of discussion from the relevant to the irrelevant.  Rather like the inevitable death of a debate after someone brings up a "Hitler" or "Nazi" comparison.

Do as you will, of course -- it was clever way to turn a phrase.  Perhaps I'm just tired of so little substance in these discussions, when I believe the issue deserves more serious scrutiny.

Skeptic

Skeptic,

With, all due respect, I believe I did stick to the point. I merely took advantage of sie's word usage to re-iterate the same point that is challenged over and over again.  I thought it was a creative way to add a little interest in a topic in which we should quickly lose interest (since nothing new comes out of the argument over the "challenge").  If my methodology seemed mean-spirited, then I apologize to both you and sie.   

I'll save mean-spiritedness for my rebuttals of personal attacks from Beech.  He seems to take it almost as well as he dishes it out.

Regards.

Quote:

P.S.,
As long as you and other polygraphers refuse to back up these claims with scientific evidence, you simply have no leg on which to stand.  The "evidence" you present here is a foolish thing upon which to base both our national security and criminal investigations, as it is likely riddled with observer bias and reproducability issues.  Your refusal to demonstrate these claimed abilities with scientific rigour (to say nothing of the nature of the "proof" you provide) puts you on par with psychics.

BTW, as I indicated in another post, spelling and grammar flames add very little to any debate.  I'm quite capable of them myself, and deliberately pass up ridiculing obvious errors virtually every time pro-polygraph people post.

Let's stick to the point.

Skeptic

Wow!  I can't believe we've revived this old thread.  Anyway, I could not resist this reply.

Quote:


We do EXCEPT this challenge!!  It is EXCEPTED from a list of serious concerns with which examiners, national security professionals, and law enforcement professionals have to deal each day.  And, I do take EXCEPTION to such comments that examiners are afraid of this challenge.  I (and many others like me) ACCEPT this challenge each day, but not in Drew or George's forum...rather in real world investigations wherein we seek to identify criminals, and eliminate the innocent, even if they try to use countermeasures!

Regards!

Quote:


If the purveyors of this site have caused the Federal Govenment to open there eyes and accept the fact that our enemies have been manipulating the outcome of polygraph tests, obtaining access to classified information and than using it to harm US or our agents over seas, than thats a good thing.

And hopefully, when and if your able to identify a distinctive chart pattern indicating deliberate and intentional manipulation you would except the silly challenges put forth on this site. BTW, I do not consider this challenge as silly but rather a very serious matter. 

Public Servant,

Thank you for your last reply.  I have largely come to the same conclusion as you regarding having reached a point of diminishing return in our ongoing discussions.  I will leave off with just a couple of comments stemming from your last post.

Quote:


I am afraid your desire to be vigilant is no substitute for or any evidence of reliably detecting countermeasures.  Additionally, polygraph countermeasures have nothing to do with "trying to conceal information" for an innocent examinee, but with his attempting to assure a correct result (no deception indicated)--something you and lie detection polygraphy can not reasonably guarantee this individual through present practices.

Quote:


I believe you have overlooked an issue with associated ethical implications considerably more serious and fundamental than the one you raise, i.e., allowing individuals and our nation to be harmed through the error of a procedure (polygraph screening) that has no theoretical basis and no validity in practice.  If you and your colleagues were to have the interest you claim to be lacking and to address this problem, the issue you concern yourself with would be a considerably lesser problem for you.

Have a pleasant weekend and best wishes,

Drew Richardson

Drew,

Let me apologize if I seemed curt with my last response.  However, I have lost some of my passion for this discourse. Perhaps, that indicates we have run out of common ground or we have run our disagreements to the ground. Or maybe, my constant travel and work, and a desire to spend my spare time with family, has drained the energy with which I started posting to this thread.  

I re-read your posts and noted only two other issue to which you seemed to demand response.  As to any others, I will allow you to have  the last word for now (as with a few other comments from other contributors to this thread to which I did not respond).

The first issue was that of proving the ability to detect countermeasures.  I do not speak for the rest of the polygraph community, but I will answer that challenge by continuing to be alert for the students of this site (or Doug Williams', etc) when they arrive in my office trying to conceal information regarding a felony investigation!  It's not a public show like you and George want, but I'd say it's meeting the challenge!

Secondly, you asked me to quote research regarding the validity of screening examinations.  I have repeatedly stated that I have little interest in screening exams aside from the ethical  issues raised in efforts to try to help anyone (even criminals, and their ilk) circumvent them. I raised that issue in general involving countermeasures to all types of exams.  While I do periodically review research, and I reviewed much research when I entered polygraphy (some of it required), I do not have a personal collection of such material. I also am presently limited by time and access to resources, just by virtue of location.  Sometimes I am lucky to get to access internet sites like this. 

As a follow up to this request, you asked of my scientific education credentials.  I must confess that my undergraduate degree was of the liberal arts genre.  However I did excel at many science course (elective and required) and feel I have a knack for areas such as human physiology.  I have a quite extensive resume of professional education in criminal investigation, much of it including forensic science (though mostly at the technical-or "art"-level).  My formal graduate studies are limited and somewhat unfocused.  However, I intend to remedy that soon and may one day be qualified to discuss the issues at your level.

Which brings me to my closing point...  Though my scientific credentials are meager at best, I believe I have held my own in discussing difficult issues with a PhD.  I lack mostly in that I have not conducted, nor formally reviewed scientific research.  And, I have not stayed abreast of all new research as it is accomplished and reported, as I am sure you do.  However, when confronted with scholarly material such as the CNS research you attached to this thread, I have no problem comprehending it and coming up with appropriate follow up.  I am not an exception.  I am an average DoDPI graduate examiner.  I would argue that my colleagues in no way lack in intellect and the capacity for critical thought. And, DoDPI provides them sufficent insight into the science (and art) of their profession, to comprehend the strengths and weeknesses of polygraph, and how to use it effectively as a tool for objective investigation.

Though I don't demand the last word here, I feel this discussion has run its course.  However, I look forward to new discussions or something that may revive my interest in this one.  As always, it has been a pleasure.  I'll keep an eye out for more opportunities to engage you (and others) in such discussion.

Thanks,

Public Servant

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


Although I suppose I could continue this, because you say and your post would further indicate a lack of time or motivation on your part for this interaction, I believe I will let this go for now.  Should you care to further address any of the outstanding questions/points from my preceding six posts (adressed to you) at some future time, please feel free to do so, and I will pick up with further commentary as appropriate.  Best Wishes,

Drew Richardson

Drew,

I read the posts a while back but have not found the time or motivation to reply until now.  As I am limiting my time spent in front of a computer, I will only make a few points that I feel are necessary.  

First of all, I am not, nor have I ever been, a part of the DoDPI research team.  I presently lack the level of formal education necessary for such a position.  I am merely a field examiner and criminal investigator.

I saw the weakness in my analogy to X-ray techs when I wrote the last post.  However, I'd make two points.  First, I know many techs who can make a good diagnosis (though it is obviously not official) just from experience.  And, I'd argue, those with doctorates who have developed polygraph methodologies have come up with a standardized method to analyze the data collected.  While a firm understanding of the physiology/psychology at work would be ideal (which I'd argue a graduate of DoDPI would possess regardless of preceeding or subsequent formal education), the simple matematical equation does not necessitate a PhD to determine if the examination had DI, Inc, or NDI indications.  While skill at diagnosis is a necessary trait, it takes the intuition of a skilled, experienced investigator to determine which way an inconclusive should have gone or if false + or - has occurred -- not necessrily a psychologist or physiologist.    And while researchers and instructors should always possess formal education and mastery of statistical analysis, empirical research, etc, a field examiner can do a great job with the basics.  He only needs these if he wishes to scientifically evaluate for himself if his profession is based on solid research. And when you do this for a living, while posessing integrity and an open mind, you know if what you're doing works.  Your demand for all examiners to be scientists sounds a bit elitist.  As if a lowly criminal investigator with a liberal arts bachelor's degree (with a rigorous 13 week course plus 40 hours continuing ed each year) can not grasp what makes an effective exam.  Please.  Would just any old PhD, MD, PsyD, or JD, possess the personality to make the exam work in the first place? No.  It takes a certain personality with some extra education and intellect, or a highly educated person with some very specific personality traits.

Which leads me to an aside about the system the bureau used in hiring you to be a scientist via being a special agent first.  I am not saying that scientists (or other professionals) can not be good investigators but... The bureau seemed to pack their ranks with attorneys, accountants, scientists, etc, for a while, at the loss of experienced cops/detectives applying at the same time.  I'll turn the table on your argument and say that perhaps the many black eyes the bureau has received over the last few years or so (to include the one this site seeks to produce) may stem from this investigative organization being run by attorneys, accountants, and scientists, instead of those with talents and experience in investigation.  Just a thought.

I've run the course on my thoughts from your posts at this point.  I'm a bit tired and busy so, I'll end it here.  If I have not addressed all that you wished, feel free to list the questions you spoke of, or pose new ones.

Thanks,

Public Servant

Public Servant,

I believe this is my sixth (and final) in a series of responses to you regarding your last post to me.  I hope in addition to any comments you might care to offer, that you will answer my various questions contained throughout these posts.  If it should be necessary or even helpful, I would be glad to extract and list those questions for you.  

You write:


Quote:


In my case, I arrived at that juncture (polygraph research) having taken several professional twists and turns following the time I received an undergraduate degree in chemistry from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.  Having worked for approximately 3 years as an organic chemist for a pharmaceutical company I was recruited by the FBI in connection with its “science program”-hiring category for Special Agents.  At that time (and as far as I know this is still the case) all agents, including those who were hired with various future specialty assignments in mind, e.g. attorneys who would eventually be in the Office of General Counsel, accountants who might be in the Finance Division, and scientists in the FBI Laboratory, etc., served at least one initial field investigative assignment following new agent training at the FBI Academy in Quantico.  The notion, which I believe to be well founded and which dated back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, was that one who would ultimately serve as a specialist would be more productive in that role if he/she had some prior field experience with the overall general product (law enforcement) of the parent organization.  In my case, I served an initial assignment in the Bureau’s Field Office in Chicago and was involved in general criminal work, organized crime investigations, and a brief assignment involving foreign counterintelligence matters. 

Following that assignment I was assigned to the Laboratory Division and served as an examiner in the Chemistry Toxicology Unit.  A few years later I was requested by the Bureau’s Polygraph Unit on several occasions to conduct various toxicological examinations directed towards determining whether an examinee had used drugs in an effort to manipulate the results of a polygraph examination.  In subsequent years, along with having maintained various personal contacts within the Polygraph Unit, and at a time I was involved in two doctoral programs (completed the coursework requirements for a Ph.D. degree in pharmacology and later the overall degree requirements for a Ph.D. degree in physiology), my research interests eventually led me to become involved in the Laboratory’s polygraph research program at Quantico.

Your further write:

Quote:


This is probably a good point for me to both end these series of posts and to reinforce the absolute need for a scientific background if one is to engage in procedures that purport to involve meaningful diagnosis.  Although a confession by a guilty subject following a deceptive polygraph exam may anecdotally be quite useful to a case agent, the criminal justice system, and society in general, it has absolutely nothing to do with determining overall validity of a diagnostic procedure, e.g., polygraphy.  Validity is not a function of and is not determined via good interviews, interrogations, or criminal investigations (although all of these things serve vital functions) but is soundly grounded and defined by principles of science.  The problem with tying notions of validity to confessions is largely twofold: (1) Even a confession following a true positive polygraph exam is at best anecdotal and not suggestive of overall accuracy and validity, and as we know from various high profile recent (e.g., Daniel King) and other ongoing matters (e.g., Higazy?) that not all confessions are necessarily associated with guilt (The examiners involved, no doubt, believed the confessions obtained validated their respective tests, right?), and (2) More importantly, in the absence of a confession, a polygraph examiner with deceptive charts will most frequently not know (and certainly not know based on the “reading” of his charts) whether a guilty examinee has not “fessed up” or whether he is dealing with a false positive exam result and a subsequently falsely accused but completely innocent examinee.  It is precisely this phenomenon (and trying to associate validity with confessions) that will of necessity lead polygraph examiners to underestimate the number of errors (false positives) that they make during any given time period.

Again, I believe there is no more appropriate way for me to close than with this subject and with what I believe to be a very clear example of why a science background and a statistical approach to evaluating evidence is not only desirable but essential if one is to be involved in assessing validity and other parameters of a diagnostic procedure.  As always, best regards, and I will look forward to your various comments and answers to my questions,

Drew Richardson

Yankeedog,

You write (and I completely agree with-- both your assertions and your stated personal practice):

Quote:


If our fellow classmates, their agencies, and the balance of your colleagues in the world of polygraphy adhered to that which you apparently (based on the material quoted above) believe and practice, I suspect this site would not exist and any need for me and others to expose wrongful and invalid practices would be substantially, if not altogether, reduced.

However, if you are suggesting to me that you believe polygraph-screening examinations, as generally administered to applicants, are “investigative tools”, I’m afraid I must beg to differ.  These exams could in theory more accurately be described as investigative tools if preceded by background investigations, allowing the focus of the exam to center on surfaced problem areas (the exam then becoming a specific issue test and potentially amenable to more sound information-based testing formats).  The situation which largely exists and is comprised of either an exam which is done in the absence of a background investigation or one done prior to an investigation can hardly be described as investigation oriented or driven and is really nothing but a fishing expedition.

Quote:


I, in turn, wish there were no reason for innocent examinees to have to consider, let alone employ countermeasures.  As long as examinees are being victimized by the gross error associated with pre-employment polygraph screening (you might care to read the personal statements on this site if you have not already done so), I cannot in good conscience abstain from helping those who seek to help themselves.  Of course, I would not, and have not, suggested to any who might care to employ countermeasures that they admit having done so to you or anyone else, and, as you may further realize from your reading of this site, I do not believe you or any of your colleagues can meaningfully detect (absent admissions) polygraph countermeasures.

Although we have discussed some areas of apparent agreement and disagreement, I largely believe that if all examiners agreed (and practiced accordingly) with you on the areas that you and I apparently share common ground, the points of disagreement would become largely moot.

Best Wishes (please extend to any other former classmates you may have remained in contact with),

Drew

Drew,

I've read many of the posts on this web site.  Some of what you say I totally agree with.  I may be wrong, but it would appear that there are some government agencies that make final decisions based SOLEY on the results of a polygraph examination.  I've been an examiner since 8 Nov 1991 (that date should be familiar to you Drew).  I learned very early on in my polygraph career (long before I became an examiner)that it is ONLY AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.  It is not an absolute, but MOST of the time, if used properly, it can assist in, and not replace, an aggressive, thorough investigation.  And that is exactly how I approach it, and it is how other agencies should approach it.  I have since retired from Federal service and secured work doing the same thing, but now I can ensure that the police officers and police administration are fully aware of the limits of the polygraph.  And I think we have been fairly successful.  In fact, when I prepare my reports, I specifically note that the results of a polygraph examination should not be used as the sole basis to obtain an arrest warrant.  When someone is "DI" on a test, there is a reason, and sometimes you just don't know why.  And I don't pretend to know what is important to the examinee or read their mind.  All I can do is try to figure out why the charts "indicate deception" and move on from there.  And as for pre-employment screening, very few actually are "DI" to the test.  I attribute that to a detailed "pre-test" to get everything out in the open.  And well over 95% of the "DI" tests, provide an explanation (call it an admission or confession, I don't care) that satisfies me.  But we DO NOT deny employment based soley on a "DI" polygraph test.  I'll keep reading this site because I'm interested in the work you are doing.  I'm open minded enough to look at making a better mouse trap.  Polygraph examiners should not be evaluated based on their admissions/confessions.  That is where the door is open for them to "overstate" the admission/confession.  But it isn't just polygraph examiners that do it, law enforcement as a whole has this problem, but only with those who lack the integrity to report the facts.  And I think a majority (I hope) of law enforcement officers do have that integrity.  I just wish you wouldn't encourage the honest examinee to use countermeasures in a pre-employment test.  I think it only hurts them.  The ones that have admitted to countermeasures to me have been eliminated from the employment process because of the actions.

Talk to you later Drew

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


I don’t believe the problem exists on that end of the spectrum.  The problem is that a student is not required to have any specific scientific background.  

 
Quote:


If the polygraph exam were not intended (or at least represented as being ) to serve as a valid diagnostic technique (i.e. and not simply an interview/interrogation adjunct/prop), I would probably agree with you.  However, one cannot be a weekend wonder with regard to the scientific underpinnings of polygraphy (all that a good comprehension of the basic psychology/physiology involved might imply (or require) to many examiners) and be a skilled diagnostician.  

The most serious drawback to this lack of required formal education is that most examiners do not have the requisite background to understand why a technique/format and/or application is or is not valid in the first place.  If they did, there would be no general polygraph screening programs in existence as well as the associated problems that have directly led to the creation of this web site.  As I have said before, this type of exam is nothing but a fishing expedition with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice.  I believe it to be accurate to say, not a single Ph.D. scientist in the country (outside of those who have been on the polygraph community payroll) would say that there is any validity whatsover to present polygraph screening programs.  In fact, a few well known polygraph researchers who were previously employed in the federal polygraph research community, e.g., Charles Honts and Shelia Reed, have repeatedly condemned these techniques following their departure from government service.  

I would like to believe that you understand and appreciate these validity considerations as well, but I am not sure.  If you do not, I see no reason (from our previous exchanges) to believe that you are anything but genuine in your commentary, but likely lacking in the formal scientific education that would make these things readily apparent to you.  Perhaps, as you and others have asked of me, you might share your thoughts regarding the validity of polygraph screening as A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL as well as to provide/list/discuss the components of your science education that are the basis for any conclusions you might have arrived at.

Public Servant,

Taking up where we left off last week…

You write:

Quote:


I have no idea what DoDPI’s 500 level teaching refers to.  The only way to evaluate DoDPI’s program is not to look at course offerings/coursework descriptions/numeric levels in its academic handbook, but to have a paid outside and independent expert review the video tapes of the last one or two Basic Examiner’s Course psychology and physiology courses (to include any student participation) and to examine all corresponding forms of coursework evaluation and examination.  

The situation that existed at the time I went through DoDPI’s program some years ago was as follows.  The individual teaching psychology and physiology was more than qualified and credentialed to teach these courses at a master’s level.  (By the way, are these courses currently taught by Ph.D. level faculty?  They were at that time).  The problem that existed was not that the primary instructor could not teach, but that the students did not have the requisite background to learn at an appropriate level.  This led to two absurdities.  The instruction, of necessity, had to begin at a ridiculously low level (this is how a drop of blood traverses the circulatory system, etc. etc.) and the examination process was meaningless.  The students were given all the questions (and corresponding answers) that they might be expected to answer on the various examinations.  The only thing unknown to students was which subset of the totality of these questions might occur on any given examination.  

If the background of current students is similar (i.e., if matriculation requirements are the same), the program will now be equally weak.  There are a variety of ways to hide these weaknesses in the form of a an academic shell game, i.e., within any weaknesses that might exist in the instructor’s credentials and background, the coursework taught (beginning level/depth of consideration), the evaluation process, etc., but one can be assured if student backgrounds are weak, the overall instructional program will be weak.  Again, a review of the DoDPI academic handbook is a poor substitute for a rigorous analysis of any program you might care to evaluate.


Quote:


I am glad you raised this analogy.  I have seen it raised several times before, but I have not had the opportunity to critique it before.  I believe you have missed the significance of your own analogy with regard to the following basic consideration.  A radiology tech is simply that—one who using standard and easily documented and repeated techniques obtains one of several forms of raw data, e.g. a chest radiograph.  This individual does not perform diagnosis, i.e., examine the radiograph for the purpose of identifying (or eliminating) various pathologies that might be suggested through this preliminary/screening medical technology.  I believe you to be correct in your assessing a radiology tech’s education to be appropriate for the task(s) he/she performs.  If a polygraph examiner did nothing but collect raw data (for future analysis by a skilled diagnostician), I would have no problem with your analogy, and would agree that a polygraph examiner might well be suitably trained with comparable technical education.  BUT, a polygraph examiner attempts/pretends to perform diagnosis as well, i.e. to make determinations about the presence or absence of deception based on his analysis of the raw data.  This puts him in the situation of performing the analogous functions of both the radiology tech and the radiologist (educated with undergraduate degree, four year medical degree, internship, and residency specialty).  If you are to follow your analogy to a logical conclusion, if the polygraph examiner is to perform both analogous functions, he should have an educational background corresponding to the sum of the educations of both the technician and the diagnostician.

Regards,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


You are indicating that the polygraph community has evolved from using an imaginary title (forensic psychophysiologist) to a similarly fanciful description of activity (forensic psychophysiological detection of deception).  You are correct in describing this as an improvement, though I don't believe your rationale to be correct.  It is largely an improvement in the sense that the former requires credentials and educational background that, by and large, (as you state) do not exist within the polygraph community, but, with the latter, there is no implied requirement for successful and long-term completion of the stated activity.  CQT polygraph screeners are involved in the forensic psychophysiological detection of deception to the extent that one who jumps from a tall building is involved in flying.  Only to that extent do I believe this to be an improvement.  I believe that you have made the correct choice in referring to yourself as a polygrapher and as one who conducts polygraph exams, because this is precisely who you are and what you do---though, not because the fanciful is somewhat cumbersome but because the fanciful is fanciful.

I will pick up next week in addressing the balance of  your last post.  Have a pleasant weekend and regards,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


While Drew has addressed this point, I would just suggest that your casual dismissal his serious (and thus-far unanswered) polygraph countermeasure challenge (207 days and counting) as "silly" is nothing but a self-serving rationalization for the cowardice of the polygraph community. You will recall that Drew only restated his challenge on this website. He first presented this challenge at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences polygraph review committee. It is hardly "silly." 

A more plausible explanation for the unwillingness of anyone in the polygraph community to accept his challenge is that you (the polygraph community) privately believe that you  are not up to the task, and that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would publicly expose you as the charlatans (however well-meaning) that you are.

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


You indicate some familiarity with and/or connection to DoDPI's polygraph research.  Perhaps the taxpayers who support this research might benefit from this connection.  Might you see if you can provide a list of all the research that has been published in the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature by that group since say 1995 and the research budgets for these years.  As George pointed out in a recent post, I don't believe citing the public literature should compromise national security, but should give us some idea as to the parent scientific body's (psychophysiology) acceptance of such research.  I suspect that this list will not support any notions of general acceptability in the main nor, and most particularly, with regard to any validity whatsoever associated with polygraph screening.  

With regard to challenges, the only one I'm aware that I have issued was/is not to DoDPI's research community (though we are glad to hear that we have provided some meaning and significance to their corporate lives through our humble efforts ) but to the world of operational polygraphy to demonstrate it's oft stated ability to detect countermeasures.  I offered the challenge because I believe the claims to be little more than empty disinformation.   I believe this research will likely demonstrate the "between a rock and a hard place" position a polygraph examiner will find himself when guessing in the midst of two possible sources of error that might occur with NDI charts...a false negative regarding test issues and a false positive regarding any allegations of examinee countermeasure use.  As I have said before, I believe it will be very useful for both the NAS panel members and others to see this.  If DoDPI's research community has offered you some useful tools, I suggest there is no time like the present to demonstrate such and to prove me wrong.   In addition to the NAS participation /simulated crime scenario that I previously suggested, I'd be happy to offer some ideas for field testing of your tools as well.  

As I have indicated directly and indirectly through my challenge, I don't believe for a minute that viable polygraph counter-countermeasures exist.  But for the sake of further conversation, let's briefly assume they do and as a result of the busy beaver work you suggest we have caused at DoDPI.  In the super super secret squirel world of polygraph counter-countermeasures, clearly this information would be classified at the highest levels and the federal polygraph community would be unable to share these state secrets with its colleagues in state, local, and international governments.  But strangely enough, they too all claim to be able to detect countermeasures.  Does this mean that they are bluffing, that a leak/espionage investigation should be launched, or that the federal polygraph community and DoDPI is wasting untold resources doing what the resource-poor state and local entities have come up with on their own???  Hmmmm.....    Best Regards,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

As always, thank you for your latest reply.  Needless to say, my response to your treatise would be likewise lengthy, so I will try to break down that response by subject and largely in the order in which you presented various issues.

Quote:


If I have in any way suggested to you that I would support the continuation of general polygraph (applicant and employee) screening examinations under the guise of "research is ongoing", I have been more unclear and arcane than I previously thought possible.  Under no circumstances would I suggest citizens continue to be victimized while DoDPI (or anyone else) plays in a laboratory with these fishing expeditions.  These tests are completely without any theoretical support and should be immediately  stopped.  Once this has been done, a serious debate should take place as to what is in the interest of national security (not the same as in the interest of national security programs).  

Should further research be merited (very doubtful at this point) dealing with a process which completely lacks (and holds no particular promise for) any theoretical basis as a diagnostic tool, that research should likely be done by a group other than DoDPI (an entity which has way too heavily depended upon the existence and continuation of polygraph screening over the years to be considered sufficiently non-biased to lead such research).  Any research performed should be considered ONLY after having been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Again, first things first though...Present polygraph screening programs should immediately be stopped.  If I accomplish nothing else through this exchange, I hope that I have eliminated any confusion I might have created with regard to my position on this last point...

Regards,

Drew Richardson

Drew,

Thanks for humoring me by responding to my hypothetical question.  As I understand it, the bottom line is that you believe the bureaucracy has blocked progress and you are not sure that you could have overcome that for any meaningful change.  I'm at least glad to see that you would not have immediately initiated sweeping elimnations of whole programs upon which national security programs have relied.  Perhaps you would have advocated close research to find the most effective formats for screening (and specific issue for that matter), develop new methodologies, and maybe adjust the application and role upon exams in the screening arena.  Contrary to what is often stated on this site and message board, those processes have occurred and are ongoing at DoDPI.  And, of course, you and the purveyors of this site have provided a mission for DoDPI researchers detracting from the aforementioned -- determining the effectiveness of counter-measures, how to identify them, and developing counter-countermeasures.  (With all that on their plate who has time to answer silly challenges from this web site. )

I've read the thread placed (inappropriately I would say) under non-poly forums - military.  First of all the term forensic psychophysiologist was kicked around a few years ago, but was shot down because, for the most part, polygraphers do not hold doctorates (as anything -ologist implies).  However, Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception, though absurdly cumbersome, is accurate.  It is obviously forensic (since it is for the purpose of resolving an investigation), and the instrument monitors physiology to diagnose psychological set as it pertains to whether a person is truthful to a relevant issue.  Of course, I'll stick with polygraph examiner/examination.

If you re-examined the DoDPI curriculum, I believe you would see the psychology and physiology (and basic scientific research) are quite demanding and taught at the 500 level.  The washout rate during this period is quite high (considering the money spent by agencies to send people here). The "art" portions (please excuse my use of this term again) are also quite demanding and many who excelled in the science portions wash out here, because they lack the interpersonal skills to perform effective pre- and post-exam tasks.

I think your scientific background lends some bias to your opinions regarding what academic background an examiner in the field needs.  He is a technician (is that better than artist?).  He needs a sound understanding of the scientific basis of the exam and an expertise at the art (there I go again) that makes it effective.  But,why must he need to know how to set up good research and statistically analyze it if he is not doing research.  The PhD's provide that service and give the guidelines for the technician to follow in order to apply the most effective exams in the most effective way.  Like the radiology tech who does just fine (often with a two year degree), taking X-rays without the radiologist (MD) being present.  I would agree however, that researchers, DoDPI instructors, and perhaps agency supervisors, need advanced education in this field (and today most do).

And why should it be required that an applicant to DoDPI has an extensive scientific background.  The BS/BA is required.  The standards are set and if a student can not maintain those standards they are dropped from the course.  You could raise the standards and raise the bar on the amount of material to learn while in the course.  But like many reputable graduate programs, prior specialization in the field as an undergraduate is not required.  The person without the relevant undergraduate training will just have to work harder to attain the required level of knowledge in the field.

And lastly, I would argue that it would be more dangerous to have a scientist with no experience in investigations, run exams.  While he might better understand what processes are at work internally, he may not have the interpersonal skills necessary to ensure the examination works or amounts to anything useful (that art thing again).  To me it takes a good cop, with good interview skills, and above average intelligence (with good comprehension of the basic psychology/physiology involved) to run an effective exam.  But it does not take a PhD, MD, JD, PsyD, or even a psychophysiologist.  And as you know a scientist does not necessarily make a good cop, examiner, or supervisory special agent.

Which brings me to another question...  (Do not construe this as a personal attack, as I think I have made it clear that I do not question your credentials or abilities.)  How does a person with a chemistry background end up in the polygraph field?  Why did the FBI hire you as a scientist, but place you in the field as a special agent first?  Few labs require you to be an agent before you work as a forensic chemist.  What type of work did you do with the bureau before going into the lab and poly?  I ask, because it would seem odd to me to send you to work as an examiner if you had little experience (or success) with suspect/subject interviews.  And, I have seen persons who are not good interviewers, question the validity of the exam because they are not successful at validating their results with admissions/confessions.  I'm not saying that is the case with you.  I don't even know how many, what type, or what results came of, the exams you ran.  I'm also not saying its bad for a good investigator to not be a highly skilled in interview techniques.  Each agent brings his or her own talents to the table. Most who become examiners and question the test for the mentioned reason, do so because they were so good at investigation as a whole and could not understand any shortcomings in successful interviewing at this level (the DI ones are the ones that lied to other cops).   

Again just a few thoughts that came up in reading your post.   
Thanks once again for enduring my long-windedness.

Public Servant

Public Servant,

You pose an interesting question whose answer allows for some important distinctions.  You ask me to speculate if I were (had been) Director of DoDPI what path(s) would I envision DoDPI and the federal polygraph community might have taken.  You couch your question in a brief anecdotal story I mentioned involving Dr. Bill Yankee.  Let me answer by beginning with another featuring another well known former DoDPI employee (former Chief of Research) and occasional contributor to this message board, Dr. Gordon Barland.

The first time I met Gordon was in the mid 1980s at what I believe was then called an Advanced Polygraph Seminar.  This was a month long school, then hosted by the FBI and held at the University of Virginia at its main campus in Charlottesville, Virginia.  During that month, Gordon taught a weeklong block of instruction of psychophysiology to mid-career federal polygraph examiners.  I attended his presentation and amongst other things recall a portion of Gordon's final comments to the class.  After having been  highly complemented by one of the students regarding his teaching and subject matter knowledge, Gordon, with the rather appealing dry sense of humor and self deprecating wit that I would see many times in subsequent years, indicated that "In the valley of the blind the one-eyed man is king."  At the time I merely thought his comment to be a rather clever quick-witted response and an appropriately modest one.  Only sometime later would I consider the comment a bit more figuratively.  The valley of the blind has in years gone by come to represent to me the lack of education within one of Gordon's main valleys, the world of polygraphy.

And now back to your question.  Although I suspect you would have expected me to answer focusing on the abolishment of polygraph screening and the considerably greater use of information-based formats with specific-issue testing (clearly things I would not object to ), I think I would have been more than happy to have seen the groundwork laid for the badly needed enhancement of basic scientific education for polygraph examiners.  That enhancement would not and could not have come solely or even largely through DoDPI resources (personnel and facilities), but through the very simple but sorely needed changes in the matriculation requirements for the basic examiner course.  Because I have discussed this topic at length within other posts and specifically with regard to what I believe is necessary, I won't restate the particulars.  That particular change though, I believe, is foundational to all other meaningful change(s) that might occur and any new paths that might be undertaken.

And this leads us to one final related topic.  Perhaps I can do a favor for those at DoDPI who might not expect one and who, for obvious political considerations, are unable to openly address the issue themselves.  When I last had association with DoDPI, its Director, Dr. Bill Yankee had no less desire to see these basic educational changes than I did or do now.  The problem in attaining these goals was in no way Bill Yankee’s lack of desire or with DoDPI’s personnel (instructional staff), but that DoDPI was not sufficiently the master of its own fate.  The federal polygraph community, acting through its various program heads, both in terms of this community's formal review of DoDPI's curriculum and through the educational background of the student's sent by its  individual agencies for basic training, all but undermined any effort to make serious educational enhancements.  Although Dr. Yankee had hoped curriculum review would be performed by those with the background for such review (i.e., the celebrated academic review panel he assembled), that never really came to fruition, and as far as I know, has completely gone by the wayside in subsequent years.  That led to (from my perspective) a very untenable and unworkable situation largely blocking any real progress and almost guaranteeing maintenance of the status quo for another generation of polygraph examiners.  I don’t pretend to know if that interaction (DoDPI Director/Staff and the operational program heads of the federal agency polygraph programs) remains, but until it changes and the tail is no longer wagging the dog in the world of polygraph academics, little would have or will change.  The awarding of unearned degrees and even the real enhancement of DoDPI staff credentials will not suffice for  and eliminate the need for the aforementioned change in professional entry level requirements for polygraph examiners.

In fairness to the heads of the federal polygraph programs, I should acknowledge that they are (in part) absolutely no more able to determine the background of employees they send to DoDPI for basic examiner training than is DoDPI able to determine whom they receive.  This of course is due to the overall hiring practices of the federal agencies themselves.  I would suggest two possible alternatives to remedy this ongoing problem.   

When I was hired by the FBI as a Special Agent, it was within the scope of what was then referred to as the "Science Program."  I was hired with the notion that I would eventually work, following an initial field investigative assignment, as a forensic chemist and agent examiner in the FBI Laboratory.  As the Bureau would not consider having someone representing it as a forensic chemist who did not have a background in chemistry, I suggest that likewise any agency/bureau that has individuals acting as "forensic psychophysiologists" not do so without requisite background in psychophysiology (and that a program be created in order to fulfill this specialty hiring need).  In order to handle the immediate lack of (what I consider to be) well qualified candidates for basic polygraph examiner training, I would suggest that DoDPI require remedial training/education (what would amount to at least a full load semester of basic psychology, physiology, statistics, research design) that would be both rigorously taught and whose successful completion be requisite for matriculation into basic examiner training.  DoDPI could likely be staffed to teach such a program itself or to evaluate certification from recognized major universities with psychology, physiology, and statistics departments that might be contracted to offer such remedial education.

And finally to answer your question…  Although I don’t feel myself to be lacking in either vision or clearly defined goals, because of the structure that existed at the time, I would surmise very little would have changed due to any involvement I might have had.  In other words, I don’t believe the Director of DoDPI had the needed authority that should properly accompany the serious responsibilities that he is tasked with.  I hope this situation has or will be remedied and that someone of Dr. Yankee’s capabilities and vision will ultimately occupy the position.

Public Servant,

You wrote:

Quote:


This is of course the ideal.  However, when we admonish someone to quit smoking, we know that if they listen, their health will improve.  We don't have to offer any alternatives to replace smoking.  Same, I submit, with polygraph screening.

Drew and Skeptic,

I believe I was unclear in my last post.  I meant to commend Drew for his constructive pursuits in improving/ replacing existing investigative technology and techniques.  While I disagree with much of his criticism of the polygraph and feel the advocation of countermeasures is ethically flawed, I was commending him for actually doing something constructive.  My main criticism from the last post was directed not at Drew, but at those who seek to undermine existing technology and techniques, yet offer no suport or effort to improving available technology so it meets the needs of law enforcement and national security while further reducing the chances of false positives.

Drew, you have suggested in previous posts that, as a specific issue examiner, I should join you in calliing for the end to screening exams.  First of all, I am in no position to do so --far less so than Dr. Yankee was.  Secondly, my experience as a specific issue examiner tells me the exam is very effective (though I have acquiesed that as the issues get broader, more problems could arise).  Lastly, as I see it, you have not offered any alternative to the screening exam, as either investigative tool or deterrent.

Since I like to bring up ideas to evoke thoughtful discussion, here's a hypothetical to which I would love to hear Drew's response:  If Dr. Yankee's suggestion that you succeed him had come into fruition, what do you envision the path taken by DoDPI, and federal polygraph policy as whole, would have been?

Regards,

Public Servant

Public Servant,

Skeptic is quite correct.  One cannot meaningfully promote good/valid while ignoring bad/invalid.  It is impossible to successfully cultivate a garden in the midst of weeds, and likewise, it is impossible to restore health in the midst of festering pathology.  As I have said before, and no doubt will say again, the polygraph community must remove the cancer of polygraph screening from its midst before it can restore public trust and confidence and reap any benefits from technological/scientific advances in the realm of specific-issue polygraph testing.  Any promotion of scientific and technological change in the midst of such, is little more than scientific window dressing and glitz, a cover for the unseemly, and largely doomed to failure.

Unbeknown to most in this community, Dr. Bill Yankee in the early 1990's (certainly to the horror of those in the polygraph community now hearing such a thing for the first time) discussed with me the notion of recommending me as his successor as Director at DoDPI.  Bill realized many of the same problems with polygraphy as I do (although he was not in a position to publicly discuss these issues), but encouraged my patience as he had exercised his.  Needless to say, although remaining friends, and even later publicly debating differences through mutual respect, the aforementioned scenario did not and could not take place.  Although I had the greatest of respect for Bill and do now wish several of his efforts had proceeded more fully beyond his tenure, I could only tell him then what I would tell you now...my patience with these shortcomings is largely someone else's victimization.  I am afraid that is not something I can offer...

Public Servant wrote on Aug 16^th, 2002 at 5:12am:


P.S.,
To my mind, the two are not mutually exclusive.  One may certainly promote forms of recognition testing (useful in conjuction with decent police work, and with built-in protections for the innocent) while, at the same time, acknowledging the glaring, dangerous and harmful flaws with current polygraph screening practices--and trying to ameliorate them.

Basically, it all comes down to protecting our society through due process and scientifically valid testing.

Skeptic