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 25 post(s).
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 26th, 2005 at 4:59am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
A.S.,

. . . the compendium we have been discussing is not representative of serious research.  It is little more than a listing of favorite and recommended readings of a trade union.  Polygraphy is a business and as such I have no problem with the concept of its members being represented by a trade union and/or a fraternal association.  The APA  presumably  serves those purpose(s) well, but a listing such as the one published and adopted by the APA is in no way or shape a research document or a meaningful compendium of research.  Even the few proponents of polygraphy with serious academic credentials, e.g., David Raskin, would be taken aback with the notion of that compendium representing a meaningful contribution to research understanding.  Again, first things first--once meaningful (appropriately funded, conducted, and published in a professional and unbiased manner) research is defined, then by all means, lets have more of it.


The  problem with both sides of the debate is that they pick and choose what supports them.  Again, this is what the APA says about their compendium of studies, both field and lab:

[It is] a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%.

Sounds pretty favorable, doesn't it?  Of course it does.  It's from the "pro-polygraph" people, and it sounds as biased as this website.  I tend to believe those studies have more merit than AntiPolygraph.Org people would have the worried boys and girls believe.

I keep telling you, George, Gino, etc., that we can throw opposing studies at each other without "proving" anything.  What I want the worried boys and girls to realize is that there is another side to the story than what they read on this one-sided website.  AND, I want them to realize that the other side of the story at least has the benefit of a lot of HANDS-ON experience WITH THE POLYGRAPH to back up its claims, while the AntiPolygraph side has nothing but regurgitations of refutable LAB studies of its own.

I don't care if you, George, Gino and the other fearmongers of this website ever change your minds.  George certainly won't change his because what began as a personal vendetta has now become too much of his own ego.  What I do care about is that the other side of the story at least be heard on a website with the pompous title of "AntiPolygraph.Org."

I realize, and you should too, that I don't need this website like some of you do.  I can quit posting at any time, and when I tire of fielding all of your pop flies, I will.  Then this website can go back to simply and mindlessly dispensing its placebo to the worried boys and girls.

Something else I've thought about:

Have you ever visited other Web forums, whether they be singles forums, game forums, religious forums, etc.?  The people on every one of those websites become so engrossed in their little daily exchanges that they begin to think the world revolves around them.  They develop an over-inflated idea that their daily sniveling actually matters and is important to the world at large.  In fact, they praise and complement each other as if their small thoughts are somehow unique and ingenious.  Quite amusing, when you think about it, but that's what AntiPolygraph.Org is--it's a haven for a very tiny minority of disgruntled people focused on trying to make small things into big things.


Posted by: Drew Richardson
Posted on: Feb 25th, 2005 at 9:01pm
  Mark & Quote
A.S.,

You write in part:

Quote:
...You are right, though, about the need for additional research....


This is true, but not so fast.  I assume that you realize (although due to your chosen anonymity I don't know what your research credentials are) the compendium we have been discussing is not representative of serious research.  It is little more than a listing of favorite and recommended readings of a trade union.  Polygraphy is a business and as such I have no problem with the concept of its members being represented by a trade union and/or a fraternal association.  The APA  presumably  serves those purpose(s) well, but a listing such as the one published and adopted by the APA is in no way or shape a research document or a meaningful compendium of research.  Even the few proponents of polygraphy with serious academic credentials, e.g., David Raskin, would be taken aback with the notion of that compendium representing a meaningful contribution to research understanding.  Again, first things first--once meaningful (appropriately funded, conducted, and published in a professional and unbiased manner) research is defined, then by all means, lets have more of it.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 25th, 2005 at 6:36pm
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
A.S.,

Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses.  George Maschke writes:


I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's.  I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman.  That having been said, George is precisely correct.  Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful  compendium.  George’s characterization of that compendium is also right on target.  It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc.  Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.


Hello again, Drew.  No, I didn't miss anything.  I just didn't consider that post important enough to counter.  Since you point it out, though, I will say this:

Those studies are as "credible" as anything the "anti" people have available on this site.  You are right, though, about the need for additional research.  Right now, there is an "anti" side with its less than totally credible studies and a "pro" side with its own less than totally credible studies.  At least the "pro" side has experience in using the instrument in question to add a bit more credibility to its argument.

As Gino should know by now, and as you and George should have realized yourselves, for every questionable study you can come up with and claim to be valid, the "pro" people can counter with one of their own.  It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God.  Neither side proves anything.

This website proves only its agenda, which is to discredit a process through easily refutable information.

Posted by: Drew Richardson
Posted on: Feb 25th, 2005 at 5:58pm
  Mark & Quote
A.S.,

Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses.  George Maschke writes:

Quote:
...
The "compendium" to which you refer ("The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing") is a non-peer-reviewed meta-study of mostly non-peer-reviewed studies that was prepared for an interested party (the American Polygraph Association) by Norman Ansley (Forensic Research, Inc. of Severna, MD), a past president of that association. On what basis do you characterize it as "actually credible?"
 
PS: This meta-study was also published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. (Perhaps not surprisingly, Norm Ansley was Polygraph's editor at the time.) Those with access to a research library with a subscription to Polygraph need not pay $25 to the American Polygraph Association to obtain a copy....


I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's.  I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman.  That having been said, George is precisely correct.  Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful  compendium.  George’s characterization of that compendium is also right on target.  It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc.  Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 25th, 2005 at 5:51pm
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
AS,

 I am surprised at your hostility; I don't know why I was
so nice to you on the other post.  Again, your anger 
stems from the valuable information published by this
site.  You and the reset of the "actors", obvioulsy
depend on peoples' ignorance and fear; I have taken
many polygraphs at the NSA and was able to pass some
of the questions, by having my wife simply convince me,
over and over, about certain answers.  Yes, the poly
shows reactions to certain questions, but that could be
for a number of reasons.  The polygraph cannot tell, if
a person has a credible issue with a question.  So what
does NSA, and the rest do - you're screwed.


Yes, you have been exceedingly nice to me.  I especially appreciated the cookies your wife brought over the other day.   She was able to convince me that you are in fact a nice person.   Wink

Actually, this site depends on "peoples' ignorance and fear."  Nothing presented as factual on this site has much to back it up.  That's the really funny thing about this site and the whole debate over the polygraph--a bunch of "anti" people and a bunch of "pro" people using refutable lab studies to "prove" their agendas.  At least the "pro" people have some actual experience in the field.  I find it humorous (when I don't find it just sad) that a tiny, tiny minority of disgruntled polygraph failures actually run a site like this to scare ignorant people about the boogeyman of polygraph. 
Posted by: NSAreject2 - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 25th, 2005 at 12:44am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
AS,

  I am surprised at your hostility; I don't know why I was
so nice to you on the other post.  Again, your anger 
stems from the valuable information published by this
site.  You and the reset of the "actors", obvioulsy
depend on peoples' ignorance and fear; I have taken
many polygraphs at the NSA and was able to pass some
of the questions, by having my wife simply convince me,
over and over, about certain answers.  Yes, the poly
shows reactions to certain questions, but that could be
for a number of reasons.  The polygraph cannot tell, if
a person has a credible issue with a question.  So what
does NSA, and the rest do - you're screwed.
Posted by: PG111
Posted on: Feb 24th, 2005 at 10:51pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
  How would anybody consider the studies credible when they cant even come close to each other on accuracy rates 80-98%, lets say that they were all within a few points of each other, that still would not prove anything.   

Lets face it polygraph is NOT A LIE DETECTOR

It shows that the person tested is breathing, his heart is beating, skin sweats and they may show if the anal muscle tightens. That’s all not one study every done proves it to detect deception. Now anal before you blast me, I said PROVES deception. 

The best way for the polygraph to die out is no one ever admit anything because of it again, 5 years down the road it would be gone.   
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Feb 24th, 2005 at 10:00pm
  Mark & Quote
anythingformoney wrote on Feb 17th, 2005 at 11:09pm:
If any of you is willing to buy the crap dished out on this site, perhaps you'd like to get some better stuff.  Here is a summary of what it is and where you can find it:

The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are also mentioned. 

Spiral-bound copies of this article may be purchased for $25.00 postpaid from the American Polygraph Association:

National Office
951 Eastgate Loop, Suite 800
Chattanooga, TN 37411-5608
(423)892-3992 or 1-800-272-8037. 


A.S.,

The "compendium" to which you refer ("The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing") is a non-peer-reviewed meta-study of mostly non-peer-reviewed studies that was prepared for an interested party (the American Polygraph Association) by Norman Ansley (Forensic Research, Inc. of Severna, MD), a past president of that association. On what basis do you characterize it as "actually credible?"

PS: This meta-study was also published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. (Perhaps not surprisingly, Norm Ansley was Polygraph's editor at the time.) Those with access to a research library with a subscription to Polygraph need not pay $25 to the American Polygraph Association to obtain a copy.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 24th, 2005 at 1:32am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Undrestand that I'm not seeking excessive self-disclosure, simply disclosure regarding your experience as previously mentioned.  It would seem this is information you are not comfortable in providing so I will not ask again.  I can appreciate that you feel this site is often hostile, which is obvious be due to the views you express.  I would speculate that many that hold your views would find it to be hostile simply because of its name.  Debating polygraph with those that have knowledge is most likely suited for you.  However, providing information to those with limited knowledge of polygraphics(?) does not seem the case.  And the circle keeps going around.

New previously mentioned category: Regurgitators

I am always interested in knowing the basis for which people become convinced of their beliefs.  Nothing personal.

Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 24th, 2005 at 1:04am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
For personal reasons--which have nothing to do with the possibility of lessening my credibility with the readers of this forum--I refrain from excessive self-disclosure on this often hostile site.  My posts should convince anyone with knowledge of the polygraph and polygraphy that I am indeed credible.  I can regurgitate information with the best regurgitators on this site, so hopefully that speaks for itself.

I appreciate your interest, though.   Smiley
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 24th, 2005 at 12:43am
  Mark & Quote
Please understand that I am not requesting that you reveal your identity, address, credit history etc.  I am simply asking you to elaborate on the experiences you so often reference.  Information such as: Are your experiences as an examiner, examinee, etc.?  I wouldn't expect you to reveal anything more.  I don't mind revealing my identity since I have nothing to lose or gain.  That may not be your situation.  It would seem that many of the people here fear some type of reprisal should they reveal specific information (quite understandable).    You very well could be the leading authority on all things "poly."  How do I know?  It could well be that you hold more credibility than anyone on this board.  This I am unable to make judgement on since I have no knowledge regarding your experiences. 

Also, I have read some of your posts that mention most of the people here fit into the categories of bitchers, moaners, those that lied and failed (cannot remember specific word usage) and worriers.  A couple of categories that should be added are the curious and instigators.  I am sure I appropriately fit into one of them with the exception of the third designation.  Anyhow, I appreciate the information you provide as you are the first I've found that provides a bit more than veiled or dodged answers.  I cannot say that I have changed my decisions about polygraph validity but it provides an opportunity to view the subject from both angles.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 23rd, 2005 at 8:48pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The fact that the studies I have referenced may be confirmed adds to my credibility.  That's all that George and Co. have going for them--regurgitated studies.  The fact that George and Co. welcome my viewpoint and can not effectively counterpunch a lot of what I say also should add to my credibility.

As for my personal information, I don't plan on giving out personal information on a largely "anonymous" public forum.  If I've gotten enough credibility from George and Co. to be acknowledged as a welcome opposing viewpoint, and the only thing left to make me more credible in your eyes is self-disclosure, I think I've done quite well, thank you.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 20th, 2005 at 9:35pm
  Mark & Quote
I was off base in requesting you to provide your name and calling you a coward if you refused.  Emotion clouds judgement.  What I would like to know is what experience you have with polygraph.  The reasons I give credibility to George & Gino is because they have researched polygraph for years.  Both have provided background which adds to their credibility.  I have very little credibility due to the fact that I have undergone one polygraph.  The information I have found is only recent and online.  I have no reason to doubt anything you have said.  I am looking to backup your credibility.  That is why I am so interested in independent scientific research.  However the only indedependent scientific research I have found reflects negatively on polygraph accuracy.  If I could review independent scientific research, which reflects positively on polygraph, I would be better able to compare the two and make a completely informed decision.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 19th, 2005 at 5:40pm
  Mark & Quote
You may not believe this, but the polygrapher's attitude and advice after the polygraph indicate to me that you did in fact pass the polygraph.  You were apparently disqualified for another reason, which I can not begin to guess.

As for who I am and who I "represent,"  my name is not important.  I represent only myself.  I've never actually stated that I am a polygrapher, by the way, yet you have made that assumption.  You can accept or reject my credibility; it is all the same to me.  Others on this board, such as George and Gino, have apparently received your approval despite their having absolutely no experience in the subject.  They are great regurgitators of rhetoric, so if rhetoric backed up with refutable regurgitations is sufficient and credible to you, then you should just as easily accept me as an "expert" in the field.

Gino and George know that I know what I'm talking about because they are experienced in fielding questions in this field, and, despite their lack of actual experience in the field, they are at least bright enough to recognize the real thing from sham.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 19th, 2005 at 10:16am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I request that analsphinter reveal his true identiy as I will.  My name is Brandon Hall.  My testor's name is Paul Reger of the Glendale Police Deparement of Glendale, Arizona.  If you truly believe in what you say, tell us who you are and who you represent.  If you choose to not reveal yourself you must be a coward.  The Glendale, AZ police department denied me application based on my polygraph examination.  However, no one, even the chief, has the courtesy to explain the questions I failed or other reasons I was deemed unhirable.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 19th, 2005 at 9:19am
  Mark & Quote
The exaniner was very friendly following the exam.  A completely different attititude than prior to and during the exam.  He told me to be sure to supply the requested materials that may not have been previously submitted.  This somehow was a positive response to the "test" I had just undertaken.  His demeanor following my exam was most positive.   Following the exam he answered questions I posed regarding his experience as well as employment prior to becoming an examiner.  However, two weeks later I received a letter which disqualified me.  Now the department will not even  acknowledge my requests as to the reason I was disqualified.  In Arizona I must provide any reason I was disqualified from the application process when applying for any other law enforcement postition.  Although I believe the previous examination was the disqualifying factor, this agency will not inform me.  The shrouded answer I received is simply not enough.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 19th, 2005 at 6:34am
  Mark & Quote
Something I failed to address (I can only field so many fly balls at once!   Cheesy)

Quote:

AS, are you aware that published polygraph failure rates for many law enforcement agencies including the FBI, LAPD and City of Phoenix, AZ PD are currently at or over 50%? This does not seem to square with your above contention.

How can you possibly know this? If someone "fails" and makes no damaging admissions, how can you know that they lied?

Moreover, if in your experience, those who fail are such a tiny percentage compared to those who pass, how can you be sure that a large number in the latter group are not deceptive individuals who employed countermeasures?


Gino, when you say the published failure rates for those agencies is over 50%, I know for a fact that is absolutely false if you are talking about employment screening exams.  An outright failure in a screening exam is a relatively rare event.  If you speak of failure as meaning the polygraph "failed" to produce a conclusive result, you'd be a little less than a mile off the bullseye because inconclusive results are, of course, much more common that outright failures.  In my experience, for every person who fails a screening exam, there are at least 100 who don't fail, and most of them pass the polygraph (some are inconclusive).

Now, if you are talking about criminal polygraph exams, there are other possibilities.  Again, if you mean by failure rates that a confession wasn't elicited, then 50% may be correct.   Most polygraphers would love it if 50% of all their criminal polygraph exams ended with a confession.  That batting average would make you a millions in the big league.  If you mean by failure rates that 50% of the people tested in a criminal exam fail the exam, I'd call that figure disappointingly low, since probably more than 50% of the accused defendants actually did the crime.

So you see, it all depends on your definition of failure rates.  Is it a failure on the part of the polygraph, or is it a failure on the part of the examinee?  Get your facts straight, Gino, because there is no way in hell that 50% of the job applicants tested in any of those agenices outright failed their polygraph exams.

As for how I could "know" that a person who failed a polygraph lied, I can't.  But I'd take the odds to Vegas that they did, because that is how confident I am, through experience, that the little box you all hate so much really works.

As for how do I know that a large percentage of those who passed the polygraph didn't do so through countermeasures?  Well, the research doesn't support that; in fact, remember that the research I gave you shows that countermeasures do nothing for the innocent examinee.  Ultimate truth is only known to God.  Without God's input, I'll take the next best thing, which right now is the polygraph.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 19th, 2005 at 6:12am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
A little background, I went in for my examination (I've only taken one) with the absolute intention of being truthful, which I was.  I believed that the examiner would ask questions and I would answer them.  I had no idea about techniques that would be used.  I was brow-beat, questioned repeatedly regarding the same topic, he tried to trip me up, took on an aggressive posture and raised his voice at times.  I was taken off guard.  I never expected to be treated in such a way during my application process.  All of these factors together contributed to the apprehension that overwhelmed me during my exam.  Since that time I have tried to educate myself.  Granted I have a small amount of knowledge on the topic, but I learn more everyday.  I have searched for information regarding polygraph accuracy.  Unfortunately, more information is available that reflects negatively on accuracy (and it is available free of charge).  It would seem that positive information is somewhat confidential (and never free of charge, as in the post above).  If you believe in the accuracy of this "science" that is your perogative.  However, can you please direct me to where the information you base your beleifs on can be found free of charge.  Finally, if you simply wish to assail me for my beliefs please do not reply.  From reading posts on this board it would seem pro-polygraph persons are the most aggressive and abusive (similarly to my examiner who I hope does not reflect the majority of polygraphers).


I can say that most people who come out of a polygraph exam don't feel like they just had a pleasant little chat with an old friend.  The polygraph digs deep into a person, as does the polygrapher who uses it.  That's part of the job.  Some people are "overwhelmed."  Most are simply annoyed.  Some are humbled.  Some are very defensive.  Polygraph takes advantage of our human tendency for "fight or flight."  Yours was a case of flight.  If the polygrapher was indeed abusive, he is unprofessional.  More likely, his strong attitude toward you was simply to help you get through the exam with a positive outcome.  If that's the case, you might want to thank him.  He understands his process, and hopefully there are checks and balances in his department that ensure he does the process correctly.

One question:  Did you leave the polygraph on civil, friendly terms?  If so, then it was all just part of the job and nothing personal.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2005 at 6:50pm
  Mark & Quote
A little background, I went in for my examination (I've only taken one) with the absolute intention of being truthful, which I was.  I believed that the examiner would ask questions and I would answer them.  I had no idea about techniques that would be used.  I was brow-beat, questioned repeatedly regarding the same topic, he tried to trip me up, took on an aggressive posture and raised his voice at times.  I was taken off guard.  I never expected to be treated in such a way during my application process.  All of these factors together contributed to the apprehension that overwhelmed me during my exam.  Since that time I have tried to educate myself.  Granted I have a small amount of knowledge on the topic, but I learn more everyday.  I have searched for information regarding polygraph accuracy.  Unfortunately, more information is available that reflects negatively on accuracy (and it is available free of charge).  It would seem that positive information is somewhat confidential (and never free of charge, as in the post above).  If you believe in the accuracy of this "science" that is your perogative.  However, can you please direct me to where the information you base your beleifs on can be found free of charge.  Finally, if you simply wish to assail me for my beliefs please do not reply.  From reading posts on this board it would seem pro-polygraph persons are the most aggressive and abusive (similarly to my examiner who I hope does not reflect the majority of polygraphers).
Posted by: G Scalabr
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2005 at 9:50am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
I will say again that the people on this forum who failed the polygraph--justly or unjustly--are such a tiny percentage compared to the millions of people who have passed the polygraph without difficulty.

AS, are you aware that published polygraph failure rates for many law enforcement agencies including the FBI, LAPD and City of Phoenix, AZ PD are currently at or over 50%? This does not seem to square with your above contention.

Quote:
From experience, I know that the polygraph is not difficult for most honest people to pass, and I know that to outright fail the polygraph is either the result of skeletons in the closet or an unfortunate anomaly.  Again, it's not perfect, but it's pretty darned close.  I'd take those odds in Vegas.

How can you possibly know this? If someone "fails" and makes no damaging admissions, how can you know that they lied?

Moreover, if in your experience, those who fail are such a tiny percentage compared to those who pass, how can you be sure that a large number in the latter group are not deceptive individuals who employed countermeasures?
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2005 at 9:00am
  Mark & Quote
Yes, we are back to square one, aren't we?  The impracticality and tremendous difficulty of field studies, along with opposing lab studies on both sides.  The only thing that separates us on this forum, then, is actual experience.

Must I say again what we all know?  Polygraph is not a perfect process.  I believe it's the best thing we have, though, and it gets the right answer somewhere between much better than chance and 100%, depending on whose study you believe.  As I've told Gino, Drew and others, regurgitating studies is not really useful.

I will say again that the people on this forum who failed the polygraph--justly or unjustly--are such a tiny percentage compared to the millions of people who have passed the polygraph without difficulty.  From experience, I know that the polygraph is not difficult for most honest people to pass, and I know that to outright fail the polygraph is either the result of skeletons in the closet or an unfortunate anomaly.  Again, it's not perfect, but it's pretty darned close.  I'd take those odds in Vegas.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2005 at 8:00am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Imagine that.  Polygraphers support findings in research they have conducted.  Recently I e-mailed support at polygraphplace.com.  I asked if they could provide me with information as to where I might find studies conducted which reflect both positively and negatively on polygraph testing.  The reply was that the studies exist, however they cannot direct me to any of the studies.  I have used yahoo's search engine for "polygraph research."  Amazingly, no positive studies available come from independent researchers.  However, there are many studies available from independent researchers which scientifically confirm that polygraph is akin to Punxsetawney Phil's yearly prediction in regard to Winter's conclusion.
Posted by: G Scalabr
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2005 at 6:42am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
As Drew Richardson is fond of stating, depending on polygraphers' groups for accuracy studies is like putting Phillip Morris in charge of tobacco health and safety research. 

When evaluating studies on the accuracy of polygraphy, it is wise to focus on those done in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals and conducted under field conditions—not those done by polygraphers with a vested interest in the continued viability of polygraphy and printed in industry trade journals.

As I noted in the Slate/MSN Thread, there are only four studies of CQT polygraphy that meet the above conditions. Taken together, they don't prove that CQT polygraphy works reliably at better than chance levels.
Posted by: Fair Chance
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2005 at 5:33am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Dear AnalSphincter,

I like your style and spirit.  Without dissenting opinions, the discussions lack emotions and passion.

Your point is taken.

Unfortunately, it is similar to the drug companies providing the research and conclusions to the FDA about COX inhibitor drugs.  The fox cannot be left to watch the hen house without a reasonable farmer knowing that some hens will be missing every morning without a trace.

This was the National Acadamy of Sciences' main concern.  The research was not performed within unbiased circumstances.  You cannot have a scientific opinion validated by someone who has a vested interest in the outcome.

I am not commenting on the validity of polygraphs.  I am commenting on the validity of evidence provided by the American Polygraph Association, an Association which has a vested interest in the outcome of such studies.

Regards.
Posted by: AnalSphincter - Ex Member
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2005 at 11:09pm
  Mark & Quote
If any of you is willing to buy the crap dished out on this site, perhaps you'd like to get some better stuff.  Here is a summary of what it is and where you can find it:

The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are also mentioned. 

Spiral-bound copies of this article may be purchased for $25.00 postpaid from the American Polygraph Association:

National Office
951 Eastgate Loop, Suite 800
Chattanooga, TN 37411-5608
(423)892-3992 or 1-800-272-8037. 
 
  Top