Lethe,

once again, circular logic seems ineviatable...

You wrote: "Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.  

But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:

sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008, 9:24pm:
Polygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work.  To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature. 

So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well.  Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph."

My point was simplistic even by my standards.  Sorry you (again) missed it!

Evaluation of the polygraph process by one specific scientific field will not satisfactorily explain all that polygraph is.  I never suggested to understand polygraph one needed to be an expert in ALL scientific fields (as you have wrongly expanded), but simply, that scientists tend to orient themselves to what they know and can prove within their own scientific field, rather than what works (like polygraph) when it contains numerous disciplines.

Sackett

I'd like to make two additional points about Sackett's claim that the National Academy of Sciences is not capable of evaluating the accuracy of the polygraph.

First, there is no reason to think that the NAS members who were on the polygraph evaluation panel were biased (at least none that anyone has brought up).  NAS scientists are chosen by their peers (other scientists) for excellence in their fields and for their professionalism and dedication to using the tools of science to discover truths about the way the world works.  They gain nothing--and indeed stand to suffer damage to their reputations--by producing an inaccurate report on the polygraph.

Polygraphers, on the other hand, are completely interested in the outcome of the study.  Their reputations, livelihoods, and, perhaps, even their sense of value to the community are tied up with the validation of the polygraph.  Unlike neutral NAS scientists, polygraphers stand to lose a lot if the polygraph is found to not be accurate enough to justify its use.

Given that, I have more confidence in the scientists to evaluate the polygraph objectively than I do in the ability of interested polygraphers to do so.

Secondly, it takes years of dedicated work in science for a person to even be considered for membership in the NAS.  All members are excellent scientists whose work has stood up to rigorous review and has garnered the respect of some of the smartest researchers and thinkers in the country.  I imagine that virtually all, if not all, have at least one doctoral degree.

By comparison, the barriers to becoming a polygrapher are much, much lower.  Polygraphers typically spend a few months in polygraph school, some time in an apprenticeship, and then the equivalent of probably a few more months of schooling staying current on the literature produced by the polygraph community.  This makes them better qualified to evaluate the accuracy of the polygraph (a technology they have a vested interest in proving useful) than someone who has spent decades in higher education and in producing research?  I don't think so.

sackett wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 2:28am:


I find these statements interesting.  Sackett seems to be saying that one major reason the polygraph isn't widely accepted by scientists is that it doesn't neatly fall into any one, single, narrowly defined scientific discipline.  Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.   

But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:

sackett wrote on May 6^th, 2008 at 1:24am:


So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well.  Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph.

In my view, this is simply special pleading to disqualify virtually everyone who says anything negative about the accuracy of the polygraph.  The only people they want saying anything about the accuracy of the polygraph are other polygraphers.  That's sort of like saying scientists can't say anything about the accuracy of psychic predictions because scientists are not psychics.  Or that science cannot comment on the validity of faith healing because scientists aren't faith healers.  It'd be like Uri Geller telling scientists that they had no basis for saying he wasn't bending spoons with his mind because those scientists couldn't bend spoons wit their minds.

Please, science is not so limited a procedure that it is helpless in the face of unusual claims, and the claims of polygraphers (we can detect deception with such-and-such percent accuracy) are not particularly complicated or difficult to understand.  In any event, the National Academy of Sciences includes members from every scientific discipline and members are the cream of the crop, the elite of American scientists.

Like others who dislike scientific findings vis-a-vis their favorite hobby horse (creationists, UFO folks, new agers, and the like), polygraphers are left positing that scientists are either dunces, incapable of doing legitimate research on their topic, or are involved in a conspiracy to cover up accurate information.  The only people, they think, able to express an opinion on the accuracy of the polygraph are those whose opinion is that it is sufficiently accurate.  How scientific.  Or Artistic?

Evan S wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 10:57pm:


Uh, truthfully...

Sackett

notguilty1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 9:10pm:


First off, it's LIAR, not lyer?!   

Yeah, sure, it's all about paying my bills.. 

Are you that that shallow or just ignorant...?

Sackett

Dr_Shakalu wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 4:35am:


OK, you're right, then why use it...?

Sackett

Oh, because they have to..

sackett wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:59pm:


So let me get this straight Mr. Sacket.  When you asked armored car drivers if they've ever thought about stealing money and they answered "no", then you knew they were lying.  Why bother using the polygraph machine then?  I guess human beings are better judges than machines.  The Doctor.

Jim:

Your comment:

Now for my real response.  I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question.  If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it.  Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes.  Sort of like suicide..


My question for you:

How do you deal with an applicant for a sensitive job (such as armored car driver) who has a strong upbringing, someone who was taught during childhood that honesty is the best policy and to love thy neighbor?  How can such an applicant show an elevated response to the control (comparison) questions?


Regards,
Evan S

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 2:00am:



Sarge! As for Sackett..... There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Here is a guy that makes a living using a machine that is supposed to detect deception (and all the other names for lying that he lists) yet even in this thread he admits ....IT DOESN'T DETECT LIES!! 
However if you fail a polygraph for what ever reason you are deemed .............A LYER. 
But Sackett and his cronies will come back here day after day to defend the use of this technology and their method of paying their bills!!

nopolycop wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 1:33pm:


Nice try!  Once again you, nopolycop, have taken my statement and twisted it to support your perverted opinions with a maniacal desire to "catch me" saying something different or in an outright lie.  I will repeat what I have said in the past, as I am CONSISTENT in my message.

Polygraph does not detect lies.  However, in the polygraph process and when discussing polygraph, the term "lie" also equates to distortions, minimizations, lies, rationalization, embellishment, avoidances, underestimating, etc, etc! The use of the term "lie" and/or non-truths, etc, are a convenient shorthand for all those processes or actions which are intentionally performed in order to avoid responsibility or detection.

I hope this repeated explanation get through to you;this time..!


Sackett

sackett wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 1:52am:


What is simple to understand, is Sackett's lying.  In this thread, he said?

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1203963165/15


Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner, in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so.  Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview.  I will assume you received that as well.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 2:00am:


Sarge,

it continues to amaze me that while I am accused of NOT READING all posts and their meaning (which is sometimes true), here you are doing the same thing...  

Your first paragraph is incorrect and you combined my statements, inappropriately.

Your second paragraph completely ignores common, human nature.  If you live in a polyanna world where everyone is good and decent, and never have improper or criminal thoughts, then OK.  But, I know, through the continuous study of human nature that if you or anyone were sitting in a mobile vehicle or room with a million dollars under your absolute and immediate control, the thought of, what if?  Would occur.  If you disagree, then.. oh well... your world is a lot better than mine.  

BTW, I never made mention of armed robbery I simply inferred taking or keeping the money would be a natural passing thought.  Not planning it out or doing it, just thinking about it.  It is sort of like being at a funeral and considering your own mortality (i.e. what will my funeral look like, who will be there, etc).  It's natural to think about it and it's not guessing, it's common sense!  

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 1:52am:


The polygraph is not purported to be a device which makes assumptions about a person's veracity based on human nature.  It is purported to detect deception via scientifically sound methodology.

If the examiner is making assumptions based on their belief that every armored car guard has thought about committing armed robbery, that can hardly be considered science.  It's simply a guess based on an assumption, which is going to wrong at least some of the time.

If you as the examiner are taking guesses what is the difference between a polygraph exam and an simple interview?  At the end of an interview I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of the subject, and I will be correct some of the time and incorrect some of the time.  You seem to be doing the exact same thing with the polygraph, but are calling it science and claiming an accuracy rate in the high nineties.

Sarge,

you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.

As for polygraph.  Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder.  Polygraph is no different.  Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.


Sackett

sackett wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:59pm:


Someone already commented on this, but I think it is an important point.

There is no possible way for you to know that the armored car drivers were lying if they said they hadn’t thought about stealing the money.  You guessed that they were lying, and you equate that with knowing.  You were almost certainly right some of the time, and almost certainly wrong some of the time.

How is that any different from the polygraph process?  You ask questions and then you make a judgment based on what you think.  You are almost certainly right some of the time, and almost certainly wrong some of the time.

Why do you believe the polygraph is any more or less scientific and/or accurate than a simple interview followed by a guess?  You could also conduct an interview and flip a coin afterwards.  You would be right some of the time and wrong some of the time, and it would be only slightly less reliable than taking a guess based on the examiner's assumptions.  Depending on the examiner, I imagine it could be even more reliable.

How many polygraph examiners make similar assumptions during pre-employment tests?  How many times do their assumptions screw over an applicant who is answering all the questions honestly?

Of the two people involved in any polygraph examination, the only one who truly knows if the answers given are truthful or not is the examinee.  The examiner can only make guesses.

It is discouraging to see how such guesses are not even recognized as such, but are rather mistaken for science.

Evan,

The polygraph machine attempts to measure FIGHT-FLIGHT-FREEZE reactions to questions asked of a test subject.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Such reactions are autonomic/subconscious, yet the test subject is asked to SPECULATE (with their conscious minds) as to what could be  causing such a reaction.  "Yo, subconscious, why you be runnin up my BP and shit?"

Maybe shrinks should simply ask patients with phobias WHY they are so afraid of (snakes, heights, clowns...etc.).  That would save hundreds of hours of psycho-therapy and save a lot of money!

The polygraphers job is to convince the testee that this subconscious reaction can ONLY MEAN DECEPTION.  You must be holding back...etc.
What better way to get the bloke to volunteer information they'd never disclose otherwise.  (See the quote at the bottom of my post).

TC

Evan S wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 2:31am:


Evan,  notwithstanding your sarcasm related to an expected answer, polygraph exminations can not be used to test state of mind issues.  Period!

This is why shows like Moment of Truth, Maury, etc, piss off the professional polygraph community because it does little to support the truth about polygraph and adds cannon fodder to boards like this who blindly want to believe any disinformative polygraph information projected and abilities falsely promoted.

Sackett

Dr_Shakalu raises an excellent question.  I have always wondered if the polygraph can distinguish between reality and fantasy.  How can this be subjected to rigorous scientific testing?

My involvement with the polygraph is that I must take and pass a periodic CSP in order to retain my security clearance.  I took two polygraph tests in 1994 and four in 2000.  When I brought up the subject of a dream (in which I dreamed the IRA wanted to hire me as a terrorist), it so unnerved the federal polygrapher that he had to excuse himself to discuss this issue with his supervisor (or so I was led into believing).  I think he had to reformulate the terrorism question (from "Have you ever committed terrorism against the United States?" to "Other than what you told me, have you ever committed terrorism against the United States?") so that I could "get through" the CSP.  It makes one wonder if these highly-trained federal polygraphers receive training in dealing with fantasies (including speculating, empathizing, and dreaming).

I expect our polygrapher friends to respond to my question by giving their official response: "A properly-trained polygrapher knows how to correctly construct the test questions."


Regards,
Evan S

George,

I'll save nothing on this board.  You may have it all, indignation and everything!

You have your opinion about the NAS review and I have mine.  But fair and unbiased, it was not.  

Additionally, hypothetically speaking (meaning that you have a supportive base in the application of polgraph), what exact science and scientists do you feel polygraph should be validated by?  Psychology? Biology? Physiology? Sociology/Criminology? Human Sciences? 

Before you answer, I submit my belief is that this is the very reason polygraph has such a difficult time being validated and verified by any group of various disciplined scientists.  Exactly which accepted discipline will do the verifying?  

Polygraph requires a little of each and yet none of the sciences truly accept the practice without some form of qualification or caviat.  Not because it doesn't work, but because the variety of disciplines being applied in the process have their own individual understanding, individual within each discipline and their own agendas, supporting their scientific belief systems. 

Sackett

T.M. Cullen wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 2:23am:


My polygrapher said 98% too and added that my research on Poly's "probably hurt me" so much for truth!!

sackett wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:59pm:


You see Doc this is the trouble with Polygraphers. They know that their technology doesn't work so they have to rely on their judgement. As you can see Sackett points out that an amoured car driver could not possibly be so honest as to never have thought of stealing the money they are transporting!! So if you answerd truthfully and had the missfortune to be examined by Sackett you would be pegged  untruthfull, even before he hooks you to his silly machine.
I always encourage Sackett to keep talking and he never fails to deliver.
SACKETT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THAT DRIVER WAS LYING IN HIS ANSWER AND NIETHER DOES HIS MACHINE!!
However, we can chalk up yet another qulification Polygrapher, Doctor now...... mind reader.
Hey Sackett you can save your agency money by just scrapping the polygraph and just let you judge!!

And compare that with what my  NSA polygrapher (Mr. Lingenfelter) said.  That the test is 98% accurate.  He was UNABLE to point to any study to back that up, and quickly changed the subject!

TC

sackett wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 6:46pm:


Save your indignation, Jim. There's no need to put "unbiased and neutral" in quotation marks in reference to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Evidence on the Polygraph. A sine qua non criterion for selection to participate on the panel was to not have a vested interest in the outcome of the research review. Names of proposed members were published in advance, and the public had every opportunity to object to the inclusion of any member. To my knowledge, no objections were made.

The panel were necessarily selective in their choice of studies to review because most of what's been published by polygraphers in trade journals like Polygraph lacks scientific rigor.

The NAS panel's conclusions regarding polygraphy, cited at pp. 212-13 of its report, are quite damning (emphasis in the original):

Quote:


That's about  as strong a condemnation one will find in a consensus scientific report. Speaking more plainly, the Commitee's chairman, Professor Stephen Feinberg stated, "Polygraph testing has been the gold standard, but it's obviously fool's gold."

Yes, do read it.  They also recommend additional research, do they not?!  

Why then, would the esteemed council of "unbiased and neutral" scientists report their findings from their selective meta-analysis and include the need for additional research; in something they (allegedly) find non-scientific, non-viable and unreliable?  Confouding and confusing, is it not?

Sackett

Doc,

Read the "lie behind the lie detector", which can be downloaded from the home page of this site.

If you think you can't fail by telling the truth, nothing but the truth so help you God, then read what the nation's top scientific researchers had to say about the polygraph:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369

They recommended doing away with preemployment polygraphs altogether.  Mandatory testing is already illegal except for LE and Fed Intelligence agencies.   

TC

P.S. Don't say anything you wouldn't want the hiring authority to know about.  Polygraphers want to see how much they can "get out of you", and they try to con you into believing they want to help you and that is the only way you will pass, and that if you react it must be because you are holding back.  That is not the case.  If you react, tell them you thought about stealing an ice cream bar at the local drug store.  NOT ROBBING A BANK!