Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 7 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Mar 28th, 2003 at 9:49am
  Mark & Quote
Skeptic,

DoD or, more specifically, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD C3I), which prepares DoD's annual polygraph report to Congress, is relying on the following conclusion of the NAS report, which appears at pp. 8-4 to 8-5:

Quote:
Alternative Techniques Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term. Some potential alternatives maybe useful as supplements, though the necessary research to explore that potential has not been done. Some, particularly techniques based on measurement of brain activity through electrical and imaging studies, have good potential on grounds of basic theory. However, research is at a very early stage with the most promising techniques, and many methodological, theoretical, and practical problems would have to be solved for these techniques to yield improvements on the polygraph. Not enough is known to tell whether it will ever be possible in practice to identify deception in real time through brain measurements.


Section V of DoD's polygraph report to Congress for FY 2002, which discusses the NAS report notes, "...The NRC [research arm of the NAS] also concluded that no alternative technique has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph technique." While this is an accurate statement, the DoD completely ignores the NAS's damning findings regarding polygraphy in general and polygraph screening in particular.

Note, however, ASD C3I John P. Stenbit clearly misrepresented the NAS's findings in a memorandum dated 5 Nov. 2002 circulated to senior DoD officials. Stenbit wrote, "...I believe it is important to remember that the National Research Council Report determined that the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception."

The NAS's conclusion that no alternative "has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph" is not tantamount to a finding that "the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception." Indeed, the NAS also concluded  that "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods" (p. 8-2).

One wonders whether Assitant Secretary of Defense Stenbit actually reviewed the NAS report, or whether he delegated the drafting of his response to an underling. Stenbit's on-line biography indicates that in 1999, he was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). His support of continued, and even expanded reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy should be an embarrassment to both the NAE and DoD.
Posted by: Skeptic
Posted on: Mar 28th, 2003 at 8:15am
  Mark & Quote
orolan wrote on Mar 26th, 2003 at 8:09pm:
Interesting article on polygraphs and possible increased usage by the US government.

Pseudoscience applied to scientists
US government agencies still using discredited polygraphy in security checks. | By Peg Brickley

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030326/01/

"Fienberg led a panel appointed by the National Academies of Science to evaluate the worth of polygraphy. Released in October, their report concluded that almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."



You know, my read of the NAS report indicates to me that DoD's quote regarding there being "nothing better to detect deception" (also quoted on this site's message boards by polygraphers) is out-of-context and incorrect.  That phrase refers to techniques used to determine whether someone is sitting across from you and telling lies, not techniques for verifying information in general.  That's why the NAS report specifically noted that the polygraph adds no incremental value to a background investigation.

In other words, the DoD is misreading the report.  It doesn't claim there's no better way to verify information or conduct a security screen; in fact, it concludes precisely the opposite.

Skeptic
Posted by: steincj
Posted on: Mar 27th, 2003 at 11:41am
  Mark & Quote
Seeker wrote on Mar 27th, 2003 at 7:52am:
It amazes me at the utter stupidity displayed by the DoD!

Then again, I once heard that military intelligence is an oxymoron.

There's a shot!!!  You know, not all MI involves the polygraph.  Actually, it is a very small portion . . .
Quote:
I do not advocate the removal of the polygraph from the tool box for investigators seeking to obtain concealed knowledge, but for screening purposes it is simply insane to rely on such nonsense!

So true, Seeker.  It all depends on the test.  The Guilty Knowledge Test or Concealed Knowledge test (GKT, CKT) are proven as useful investigative tools.  The Probable Lie Comaprison Question Test is the issue.  It is extremely unreliable, and many pro-poly's here on this site have even stated their displeasure in the test.  Why any agency relies on it is beyond me . . . 
Quote:
I am further amused how the NAS's report has been skillfully misrepresented, and I would think it to be the responsibility of those reputable scientists to clarify these misrepresentations of their work and set the record straight.  It appears this is in fact what Mr. Feinburg has attempted to do.

Shame shame shame on the DoD!


I think the blame list is much longer than just the DoD . . .

Chris
Posted by: Seeker
Posted on: Mar 27th, 2003 at 7:52am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
It amazes me at the utter stupidity displayed by the DoD!

Then again, I once heard that military intelligence is an oxymoron.

I do not advocate the removal of the polygraph from the tool box for investigators seeking to obtain concealed knowledge, but for screening purposes it is simply insane to rely on such nonsense!

I am further amused how the NAS's report has been skillfully misrepresented, and I would think it to be the responsibility of those reputable scientists to clarify these misrepresentations of their work and set the record straight.  It appears this is in fact what Mr. Feinburg has attempted to do.

Shame shame shame on the DoD!

Regards,
Posted by: triple x
Posted on: Mar 27th, 2003 at 2:24am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Orolan,

Very interesting article, good post.

[Report states]
Quote:
So Fienberg was surprised to find his panel's report cited in favor of potentially raising the number of lie detector tests the Department of Defense (DOD) is allowed to administer.


That's all the DoD needs is "more" polygraph testing... There is no doubt, that if this is carried out, many honest and innocent DoD employees will "fall victim" to false positive results.


Regards,
triple x
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Mar 26th, 2003 at 9:05pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Great article! Thanks for posting the link.
Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Mar 26th, 2003 at 8:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Interesting article on polygraphs and possible increased usage by the US government.

Pseudoscience applied to scientists
US government agencies still using discredited polygraphy in security checks. | By Peg Brickley

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030326/01/

"Fienberg led a panel appointed by the National Academies of Science to evaluate the worth of polygraphy. Released in October, their report concluded that almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."

 
  Top