Torpedo wrote on Feb 11
th, 2004 at 5:25am:
Marty, my friend, do I detect a bit of sarcasm? The AP.O folks challenge us all of the time and hammer away at the lack of ANY scientific basis, yet when a neutral source with what I see as pretty good credentials, offers a different view, he is senselessly attacked. He made a reference to a study that was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (which by the way isn't some "rag") and even qualified his statement by saying it was his own personal "informal survey". Now, I haven't read the study...I intend to tomorrow, and I would agree with your assessment that the sample size leaves something to be desired, but I have to think that there is more to this than what appears on the surface....translated? I have difficulty believing that the JAP would publish a study that was questionable...I would think they would reject it and advise the author to conduct proper research....I may be wrong, but time will tell...perhaps you can enlighten me if you have access to and have read the full study.
Marty, you surprised me with your insult directed at Dr. Muller. It was unprofessional and unwarranted. I doubt if he collects his citations from anywhere except professional publications. I am sorry, but your attack was unwarranted and because I believe you are (or at least you sound as if you are) of above avage intellligence, you should probably tender an apology to this gentleman. Would you say the same of the study by Kircher, et al, and how about Paul Eckman who, I believe was a contributor to some of the elements of the NAS Report.
As I stated, I hadn't reviewed the other references. On the other thread I made rather positive comments about the Israeli policemen study. I believe it is more accurate than simulated studies that are most often used. I believe it could well be used as a template to do the tests NAS recommends to clarify actual polygraph reliability. The big problem was the small sample size. Muller did list it first and didn't relate the small sample size which I think highly relevant. Of course my information on the numbers is from Matte's Forensic X exam book. Since that is second hand I will retract if it turns out the sample size of liars tested wasn't 2.
Also, Muller seems to have extrapolated from specific incident polys to screening polys without stating the widely held belief by both sides that screening polys produce significantly more false positives than specific incident ones.
I also object rather strenuously to Muller's statement that the policemen were "tricked" into cheating. They were given the opportunity and covert means were deployed to detect the cheating. Hardly tricked into cheating. I find it odd he chose such terms.
Quote:I genuinely believe that Dr. Muller was merely offering a different perspective on the issue of lie detectors and was showing a different side of the science. I believe he was saying that just one source may not be the only discussion and that there are other arguments to be viewed and discussed. I will be writing Dr. Muller in the near future. I would like him to engage some folks (both pro and con) on this site and offer his perspective as a scientist and academic to this discussion.
Actually, Dr. Muller's articles is not so far off from the NAS study, at least in the percentages he uses from specific incident testing.
I do admit to a somewhat snippy response re cheating, MIT, and cold fusion. These are all areas of interest to me (I like fringe stuff) and a month or so back had come across articles on MIT's ongoing student cheating problems. Consequently, Muller's phraseology stood out.
Let me also praise MIT for it's online university courses. They lead the world in making knowledge available to everyone.
-Marty
