VeryConfused wrote on Nov 25^th, 2007 at 4:17am:


OK. Let's "parse" this. You have engaged  in classic minimizing----the swan song of the American sex offender. Sure there are some sexual misconduct cases---but 2/3rds? BS and you know it. The vast majority of sexual offender populations throughoiut the country are incest cases. "Uncle woody cases" if you will. Barring that your treatment group is/was a "special" sexual misconduct group versus the more numerous child molest, sexually violent types of groups, than you must be stretching the truth. 
Also,---in addition to your classic---AND I MEAN CLASSIC---minimizing and distortion, you have even spoken of a "revolution." I can just see it now---a parade of sex offenders marching on Washington, burning their winnie the pooh t-shirts or throwing their rape kits "over the wall."  What are you doing on the internet? Are you still on the rope?Your disagreement with polygraph aside, your presence here online shows that you aren't serious about treatment---if you are still on supervision. Lookin at porn are you---or on swinger sights maybe? You aren't in a position to be trusted just yet you know. You need to heal man, and in case ya didn't know, revolutions aren't known for their healing potential------as people get hurt. Pardon my cool tone, but if you had cancer I'd feel very sorry for you---but since your sad tale is as a result of you molesting a child---and you are obviously inteligent based on good penmanship---you knew far better. Screw with kids, and you are F'd. You knew this at the time. Incidentally, did you know that your victim is 30 times more likely to commit suicide before age 30 than the unmolested? Why aren't you fighting for victim charities? 
answer; because you might still be in your narcissistic pattern of existance.


good luck

Well lets parse this shall we,
As a conviced sex offender that has been in large sex offense groups, i can tell you that 2/3's of them were crap..........most were people who had girlfriends who were underage by the state of West Virginia, (that would be 18, not 16) and some of these kids were just turned 18 and there girlfriends were 16.....As For me, I had a choice, plea out or possibly loose my son to the New York Foster system, at this point i had already gotten a place in west virginia and was a legal resident there, so the judge gave me the ability to go home instead of being in new york as a homeless person...I was asked if i wanted to take a polygraph to proove my innocence......I said YES PLEASE GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH, but i was never given one....Sound like railroading to you......it does to me......It's not a small group of people who have been accused and did nothing...............it's a large group........and i'm waiting for the day when that large group of LOW LEVEL Offenders and in some cases mid and high level offenders have there chance to speak out..................AND THEY WILL.......The Polygraph is just another lie, placed in the hands of this once wonderful country to create more of a police state, wile the true sex offenders get away with it daily.........I can't wait for the revolution !

Very well, I am very deluded and will in all probability remain deluded for life in your context of that word.  Thank you for your diagnoses and I will now rest.

Quote:


You are indeed deluded, to the extent that you believe, as you seemingly do, that the polygraph is capable of detecting lies or deception. As Dr. Drew Richardson has vividly put it, polygraphers who administer lie tests are involved in the detection of deception in the same way that a person who jumps from a tall building is involved in flying. See How Polygraphers Become Deluded About Accuracy for relevant observations by the late Dr. David Lykken.

Quote:


It is common knowledge that the American Polygraph Association's newsletter is a trade publication, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Neither is the APA's quarterly journal Polygraph, which also published Ansley's "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing" in Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that  Ansley was Polygraph's editor-in-chief when it published his article.

Quote:


If you wish to persuade critically thinking people that polygraphy has an accuracy rate as high as the 90th percentile, you'll have to come up with something better than the citations you provided.

Quote:


Yep...

Drew Richardson provided a great analogy a few years back, describing the situations where polygraphers control all polygraph validity studies as putting big tobacco firms in charge of lung cancer research. 

The DoD studies are a joke.

Quote:


Classic case:  fox - hen house.  8)

Ecchaste, 

The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.   

The Study referenced by Matte is in his book and can be reviewed in that manner.   

Mr. Maschke, 

I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con.  I simply referenced them.  The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%.   I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings.  When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings.  I am more comfortable with those studies.   

No where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed.  I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know?  They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings.  They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies.  They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study"  for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.   

If this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms.  I do not believe that to be the case.   We are in fact off topic of the original post.   

This forum has gotten off topic, but it is really the only topic of importance.  I for one would like to see the full study to which LIENOT refers, not simply paraphrased results.

Can LIENOT obtain a copy for review, please?

Quote:


Digithead offered thoughtful, well-reasoned counterpoints to the material you presented as "evidence" that polygraphic lie detection has an accuracy rate in the mid-to-high 90th percentile. To his criticism you responded, multiple times, saying that you have no interest in debating the matter. Why then did you even bother to post in the first place?

The reason I referred to your offering of such "evidence" as "shoveling shit" is that that both items (by Ansley and Matte) are non-peer reviewed writings by non-scientists whose livelihoods depended on public belief that polygraphy is highly accurate. Indeed, the former study was funded by the American Polygraph Association itself. If you think that these "studies" prove that polygraph results are almost always accurate, you are seriously deluded. The fact that you are unwilling to engage in any discussion of the merits of these "studies" suggests that you are willfully so.

[quote author=Lienot link=board=post;num=1135087381;start=0#19 date=03/04/07 at 13:40:01]How accurate is the polygraph?
Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist’s decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts. 

What is there to debate in this post?  Validity? Method used for the study?  It is not a published study in journals other than polygraph journals?

I did not participate in the studies, have  only read them and believe you should read them before making the statement you made. 

I really don't like debating in this format, I prefer face to face debate and deiscussion.   

I will not return your insult Mr. Maschke. Your ad hominem attack deserves no return or retribution.

nonombre wrote on Mar 8^th, 2007 at 2:52am:


I chose my words carefully. I think that ridicule is the only appropriate response to one who advocates a viewpoint while refusing to discuss or debate it, as if that were somehow a virtue.

Quote:


My, my.  Isn't that an articulate statement...

Quote:


Perhaps the reason you're not interested in debate or further discussion is that you know you're shoveling shit?

Thank you so much for your "Amendment".  Still no debate or further discussion.  That post was for information only and is only supported by proponents of Polygraph, conducted by Polygraphists, and used by polygraphists.  Thought you might find it of interest.  Sorry to have disappointed you.

Quote:


Then why bother posting at all? Is it merely a rebuttal to my claim that the literature does not support the notion of such an absurdly high accuracy rate? Then I stand corrected and amend my claim to say that independently peer-reviewed literature published in academic journals do not support the notion that the CQT polygraph can have any high degree of accuracy...

As stated before, not looking for an argument or really a discussion relating to any studies or validity of studies.  Simply posted two from the polygraph community.

Quote:


These are not "MY" standards, rather they are the standards set forth and accepted by the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, Nationa Institute of Justice, National Academy of Science, and countless other academic and professional organizations. Simply put, most estimates of polygraph "accuracy" fail to control for confounding, selection bias, and measurement error. They also mix studies with different outcomes and do not distinguish properly between the two types of error (false positives and negatives). Finally, they all fail to properly understand the difference between validity, reliability, and repeatability...

If these high estimates of accuracy are only accepted by the polygraph community and are roundly rejected by the larger scientific community (NSF, NIH, NAS, psych community) as absurd, what does that say about the polygraph profession?

Not looking for argument, simply posted two studies conducted that indicate high accuracy rates.  I'm not concerned about publishing them or seeing them published nor am I concerned about scientific validity, just responding to the prior post about studies. 

Palerider did not post them or respond.  I will however look for other studies that have been published and are in fact studies that have validity according to "YOUR" standards.

Quote:


You're going to rely on a study published in a polygraph newsletter to prove that accuracy is high? That's pretty funny. One would think that with those results he could've gotten into a top-tier psychology journal...

So how do you refute the National Academy of Science conclusion that "Estimates of accuracy from these 57 studies are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field. Laboratory studies tend to overestimate accuracy because laboratory conditions involve much less variation in test implementation, in the characteristics of examinees, and in the nature and context of investigations than arise in typical field applications. Observational studies of polygraph testing in the field are plagued by selection and measurement biases, such as the inclusion of tests carried out by examiners with knowledge of the evidence and of cases whose outcomes are affected by the examination. In addition, they frequently lack a clear and independent determination of truth. Due to these inherent biases, observational field studies are also highly likely to overestimate real-world polygraph accuracy."

How accurate is the polygraph?
In 1990, Norman Ansley1 published a report of polygraph validity from studies of real cases conducted since 1980. Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist’s decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts. According to Matte2, the algorithms that score computerized polygraph tests are correct about 95% of the time. 
References:
1. Ansley, Norman, (ed.) (1997). November-December, “The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing,” American Polygraph Association Newsletter, 30 (6): 6 
2. Matte, Ph.D., James. (1996) Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, J.A.M Publications, pp 424-425.

In reference to condoms, the numerical efficacy of condoms has been scientifically test and those tests are repeatable.

As far as I'm aware, in all cases where polygraphy has been subjected to scientific testing, the results have been that polygraph is about as good as a coin flip.  I feel no comfort in the fact that a sex offender has "passed" a poly. 

Please cite you source for the 97% effectiveness claim.

digithead,

I find it disturbing that someone so deeply deluded as to believe that polygraphic lie detection might have an accuracy rate as high as 97% has anything to do with the supervision of convicted sex offenders. And to suppose that probation and parole officers who have drunk the polygraph Kool-Aid won't make decisions based on the results is sheer lunacy.

palerider wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 9:06pm:


Your statement that the polygraph is 97% accurate is not supported by the literature - both pro and anti...

If supervised sex offenders never get ignored or unmonitored, wouldn't that mean that there should be no recidivism in this population because they would have no chance to reoffend? 

Do you really believe that a parole office with a caseload of 70 to 120 offenders can effectively monitor all them? 

Do you really believe that these POs would not take nondeceptive results to mean that increased supervision is unwarranted because the offender is being compliant?

Do you really believe that an offender who has a nondeceptive test is always compliant?

palerider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2007 at 6:01am:


Comparing the accuracy of polygraphs (a device that has both false positives and false negatives) with effectiveness of condoms (which either stop sperm or do not stop sperm) is simply misdirection. You better stick with your medical diagnosis analogies...

Condoms are not 100% effective---but good enough for me to use. But for my (probablly) sexually active teen children, I don't feel that they are effective enough. Hello------ever heard of the parental double standard? 

"No child's safety is or should be put into risk by a polygraph test that ...."

But isn't the point of follow-up polygraphs of SO's exactly that.  If you don't trust polygraphy in the case of someone that you have no reason to suspect is an offender, then what's the point of applying it to a convicted SO?  Why trust it for them?