APZ wrote on Jan 24^th, 2008 at 3:54am:


Dr. Zelicoff, I presume?

Thank you for joining in on this. I read your paper. I have some thoughts, and of course some disagreements. I don't expect to change any minds either, but it might be satisfying and informative to some to engage a conversation about these important things.


r

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:



I don't expect to change any minds, but on the off chance the this writer and others really are interested in the empirical evidence, I invite you to review the analysis I have done on the no-nonsense, real-world, data published in the polygraphers' own literature which shows that reviews negative predictive value (that is calculating the probability that "if someone passes a polygraph, how likely is it that they are ACTUALLY telling the truth?" and positive predictive value (that is that is calculating the probability that "if someone FAILS a polygraph, how likely is it that they are ACTUALLY telling engaging in deception?".  

By the polygrapher's own literature, the answer is: about 55 - 60% for both questions, or, the equivalent of flipping a coin.

On this we base important national security, occasional legal and employment decisions?  The science could give no worse a grade to the theory behind and claims of the value of the CQT polygraph.

Respectfully, 

Al Z.

WJ wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 4:32pm:


Well Einstein, I am no longer a polygraph examiner, having quit the profession last Summer. What skin in the game do you have? I have 3 young children who are at the mercy of thousands of convicted sex offenders, 6% of which will reoffend-----who are sold a bill of goods from the carney herea herea herea side show countermeasure folks. Such folks give sexual predators the false idea that they can run amuck without getting caught. When they do get caught, it is too late, as another child has been victimized. Keep on ignoring my words, as your colons will certainly keep your ears warm.

WJ wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 4:32pm:


Well Einstein, I am no longer a polygraph examiner, having quit the profession last Summer. What skin in the game do you have? Me, well I have 3 young children who are at the mercy of thousands of convicted sex offenders, 6% of which will reoffend-----who are sold a bill of goods from the carney herea herea herea side show countermeasure callers. Such folks give sexual predators the false idea that they can run amuck without getting caught. When they do get caught, it is too late, as another child has been victimized. Keep on ignoring my words, as your colons will certainly keep your ears warm.

candy wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 12:52pm:

Candy,
Don't worry about him.  He is obviously grasping for straws.  He is so self concious about his "career".  If he really believed that polygraphs worked he would not be at this site trying to fool people into believing in his witchcraft.   

EJohnson, you are in the wrong trade. You should join a carnival and become a mind-reader. Oops, sorry, you are in the correct trade after all. 

You make so many inferences and assumptions. The only one  that is correct is that the examiner screwed up. ( Like you all do, all too frequently.)

Quote:


Assuming your brother had no secret knowledge of the theft or refrained from "tattle telling" on a co-worker, then that leaves two possible explanations for the error; A. The construct of the test, or B. The examiner improperly scored the charts (assigned false numerical values to things he shouldn't have.)
Your question of "shouldn't you all be on par" is proper. The answer is yes, we should. If it was examiner error, than it is the equivelent of the wrong tooth being root canaled. Inexcusable and unfortunate.
If it was construct, then it was similar to the inexplicable false positive of a Hep B test, not altogether uncommon, and an issue that keeps the researchers working tirelessly to remedy. 


Quote:


This woud be helpful to view possible examiner errors. Perhaps the examiner "crossed targets" or was too vague in writing the relevant questions? Here is a horrible relevant question as an example' Do you know who stole those watches and or money." Well, if it was a theft by a member of an especially small group (1 or 2 other suspects), then "yes", your brother did in fact "Know" who stole the goods by virtue of excluding himself, and perhaps he had the dignity and social graces to not point fingers at a fellow employee without absolute evidence. This situation is not uncommon, and a highly sensetive examiner is required to hash out those subtleties.


Quote:


Again, knowing the investigative facts would be helpful. You Candy are not an investigater and probably do not appreciate how all cases have a level of complication---some simple and some complicated regarding polygraph application. Many times when examiner question formulation is at error, it is due to examiner ignorance or a lack of consideration to potential case complications. In looking for examiner error regading test question formulation, INVESTIGATION FACTS ARE EVERYTHING.



Quote:

You claim to have researched polygraph, yet you ask such a question. hmmm. Well, if your brother suffered from some long term psychosis, short term neurosis, acute physical illness such as heart murmers, respiration illness,----and medication---such is important information. You can't even get your teeth cleaned without a dentist wanting to know those things. Silly statement Candy, bellow you.

Quote:


Not his first hand account of the test, the account of the incident and the investigation. sigh

Quote:


Well, when elderly people lose their sight, due to restricted plasticity (the brains ability to learn new things and adapt to new thought patterns), they typically develope acute Parkinson's disease, with a progressive rate that shocks. No whining here, just an analogy. So, no she wasn't raped, but due to an examiner error AND a pharmaceutical (construct) error combination, she will be dead in about a year or two. 
I am sorry that your brother suffered from one of those types of errors, or suffered the consequences of not ratting out a friend.

Quote:


Why should YOU have the charts? An APA accredited examiner carried out the bungled examination. Shouldn't you all be on par ? I understand from your remark that you 'all' aren't on par.

Quote:


Again, why? What the h*ll difference does that make. the test was a bungled, proven  f a i l u r e. What would change by you having the precise questions........??

Quote:

Again, Why ? There was no investigation other than the polygraph investigation. The facts are: Person B stole from the employer. Person A was accused by the examiner as the guilty party. A subsequent test by a CVS examiner found Person B to be guilty. Person B confessed to the theft and returned merchandise and cash. There was no prior theft.

Quote:

Again, Why? Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist? Are you inferring that something in my bothers makeup could or did affect the test and it wasn't just a case of a bungled polygraph? You amaze me with your verbal gymnastics.

Quote:

Again, what difference would it make. The first hand account goes like this: Did you steal 4 wristwatches ? - NO. Okay let me test you. Sure. You failed your test. Oh, why? Cos youre a thief and you're going to get fired unless you own up. I didnt do it. Yes you did. No. Yes. No. Tough.

Quote:


You dont say.

Quote:


Well stop whinging, its not like she got raped or anything serious.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 2:54pm:


You certainly seem to have a dismal opinion of this web site.

For someone who clearly has no regard for what others term “the debate” on this site, it is interesting that you post here more frequently than either George or I.

(as of 0230 hours on 1/18/08):
Sergeant1107 – 0.47 posts per day
George Maschke – 1.54 posts per day
EJohnson – 1.64 posts per day

If you truly believe what you wrote, then why are you here?  And why are you here so frequently?  And why do you post so often?  If you believe that the posters here have all the problems you alluded to in your post, why would you come here to taunt them?

No, Eric. I'm calling a spade a spade. You and your fellow polygraphers are the practitioners of a quack procedure that has no grounding in the scientific method, that depends on widespread public ignorance of its true nature, and that, as documented in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, serves to undermine national security and public safety.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:


Isn't that what is known as a taunt and an ad hom attack? Are you decompensating?

Eric,

As Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D. so aptly put it, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

You and your ilk are quacks preying upon an all-too-gullible public.

candy wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 4:30pm:

Very poetic. Due to us not having ;
a. The charts
b. The precise questions
c. The investigative facts
d. A physiological and psychological profile of your bro
e. Your brothrs first hand acount

....we can only look at alternatives. Sure the examiner might have really screwed up. It happens. My Mom's doctor made her permanently blind because he prescribed her the wrong medication. Aweful shit happens. She still has an albeit suspicious belief in modern medicine, but she understands that people make enormous mistakes, but that doesn't altogether impune the validity of modern medical testing. Absent facts regarding Mom's previous moron doctor's notes and testing procedures,, her second physician inquired Mom about what sorts of pre-existing conditions SHE might have had and not disclosed. It was painful for her, but she had far less righteous indignation than you people. Does this manner of analysis sound familiar Candy?

EJ, Your reply is tragic. According to you, as your post infers, the 1st examiners mistake (that nearly cost D his job) is not a big deal. But we shouldnt dare to criticise the incompetent examiner !!! Why ? Because a hopelessly wrong result is not as bad as being raped........!!
And then you have the temerity to infer that perhaps D failed because he stole something prior...........My goodness but you have a twisted and ascerbic view of life. Is that the escape alibi of all examiners? ("He must have stolen something else in the same timeframe" )
Apparently you have become so cynical in plying your trade, that the ruined lives dotting the landscape here and there is simply collateral damage. No big deal. 

Its a big deal. Believe me, its a big deal. 

candy wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:


Candy, I was not saying that I thought YOU should be tested, it's just that your story isn't in fact your story, it's your brother's story. "Trust capital" on online forums isn't handed out whilly nilly, and such is even less so when people are speaking for someone other than themselves over "ground truth."
When it comes to testing people on the issue of criminal behavior say for example theft, it is not uncommon that if an individual has stolen something within or very near the target time frame, such words as "while at Joe's, did you steal..." can have much penetrating relevance. This is one reason why I have always shyed away from certain testing modalities----for instance food workers, who "steal food" and other items in extremely high statistical numbers. It is critical that the examiner work very hard at differentiating between the relevant theft, and other recent thefts. Perhaps your cherubesque brother brought more secrets to his test than he cared to tell his "budinski", controlling, co-dependent sister.

Last night, it occurred to me what this forum is really all about for so many people. It's not about debate, discussion, or change. This site is actually a Rogerian Counseling Group for people unable to move past their life circumstances. It is a place were people come, not to develope tools to move on with their lives happily, but to bask in the pain and rehearse the Overextensionism (inability to distinguish different things from one another.) This is a place of masochism, where individuals can chew on their own mouth sores, not because it feels good, but because the pain feels good. Take a look at Mr. Maschke, a man who clings and relishes his professional setback so much, it actually makes him happy reliving the era. Sarge adds nothing of educational value here, but he , like a senior AA group member shows up, tells his story, and gains pleasure from self-perpetuating victimhood. All the times I felt that people screwed me over, or I didn't get a fair shake, could never justify such exhaustive and repeated long term self-injury. To endure a polygraph error should never be confused with being raped, any more than being discriminated against by age or race or disability (just talk with a rape victim, and you won't compare the victimology.) But I must tell you, Rape and Molest victims who have unlimited resources do not require treatment for as many years as the posters here seem to believe they need by virtue of their "formals." 

skip.webb wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:03pm:


Mr Webb, you did make the analogy in your post. An analogy is defined by an online dictionary thus: 'Analogy is the comparison of two pairs which have the same relationship'.

There is simply no relationship between polygraph and sensory tests.

I retract my my 'rant' and 'childish' comment as upon reflection, it was uncalled for and personal.

I do think that the comparisons were somewhat left field though.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 4:35pm:


EJ, It has subsequently been proven that my brother did tell the truth and was not and is not a thief. He has been fully exonerated by a follow up test; a confession made by the thief; the recovery of stolen merchandise and cash from the thiefs home.

Pray tell for what reason do you think I should be tested ?

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 5:31am:
G

I fear, George, that you speak the truth, and afterall isn't that we all of us are after, the truth?

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:


I'm afraid that several others on this forum are quite correct Raymond.
Bullshit covered in high falutin' techno-babble is still bullshit.
You can make up as many multi-sylabbled words for the polygraph as your technical dictionary allows - but ultimately that is not going to transform a con-job into a scientific test.

nopolycop,

In arguing that polygraph testing really isn't about determining whether a person has spoken the truth, Raymond (a participant in Eric Johnson's earlier trolling campaign on this message board) is putting into practice the old American adage, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 4:01am:


whatever 

nope'cop,

Please save the lawyerly indignation for the courtroom.

It's important not to confuse the values expressed in a professional mission statement with accurate description of testing constructs. 


r

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:21pm:


In light of your comments, (above) and your comments to George, I find it preposterous that a member of the American Polygraph Association, an association with a motto "Dedicated to Truth" would be making these claims.

And if that wasn't enough, the Mission Statement of the American Polygraph Association, of which you are a member, (according to their web site, makes reference to "the truth" at least three times, as indicated below:

Mission
Established in 1966, the American Polygraph Association (APA) consists of over 2500 members dedicated to providing a valid and reliable means to verify the truth and establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field. 

The American Polygraph Association continues to be the leading polygraph professional association, establishing standards of ethical practices, techniques, instrumentation, research, and advanced training and continuing educational programs.

Goals
The goal of the American Polygraph Association is to provide mankind with a valid and reliable means to verify the truth of the matter asserted by: 

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons 
Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education 
Establishing and enforcing standards for admission to membership and continued membership in the Association 
Governing the conduct of members of the Association by requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and a set of Standards and Principles of Practice 

Mr. Maschke,

I don't believe its splitting hairs to make this point. This point determines whether we are having a credible discussion about the empirical basis for polygraph testing, or simply engaging in some straw-man discussion about a mythical and inaccurate understanding of the test.

Words themselves cannot be measured (at least in the way you are implying regarding polygraph tests). Response to stimulus can be measured and understood. The term "lie detector" is simply a term of convenience, not an accurate or empirical description.

Epistemological complications aside, discussions about speaking the truth are a distraction from measurable concerns about behavior.


r

Raymond,

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and I recognize that the Silent Answer Test, which is discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, is administered without the examinee speaking a word during the in-test phase. But even in this latter case, the examinee has verbally answered the questions aloud during the pre-test phase, and the overarching objective of the "test" is still to determine whether the examinee has or has not spoken the truth. To argue otherwise is to split hairs, or in more colorful language, to pick fly shit out of pepper.