I just took a poly recently that was quite different then what I expected. The polygrapher and I chatted for a bit about the area we are both from and the politics of the small city. We both seem to agree on quite a few things and we got along quite well. After that, he went over the questionaire which had approx. 6 parts(sex, work history, crime, phq, drugs, and credit). He then attached all the instruments to me and began the questions(7 total questions) which were quite simple. The first question was "Is your last name XXX?". The other six questions were "Did you lie in section 1(sex)?" and so on until the last question. After that he told me I was done and said I did very well and that was it. Is the first question where he asked me for my last name the control question? What do you make of this test? Thanks guys.

The six other questions were about whether or not I lied on each of the six part questionnaire which I replied "No". Just wanted to clarify that part. Thanks

It seems that your polygrapher administered a "peak of tension" test. In this technique, reactions to the various relevant questions are compared against each other. Had your polygrapher judged that you responded strongly to one or more of the relevant questions, he might have interrogated you regarding the corresponding part(s) of your pre-polygraph questionnaire. The peak of tension test is briefly described in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

It would seem that this type of test would be preferable for polygraphers, because countermeasures like those in TLBTLD would not be effective due to the lack of control questions.  Or are there indeed countermeasures for this type of test?

A countermeasure approach for the peak of tension test is to produce a reaction to one or two different questions during each chart collection, so that no one question consistently stands out.

Yes, but wouldn't the polygrapher interpret two or three contrived reactions to mean deception for the respective questions?  That would be the most logical conclusion, in my opinion.

Unless I'm overlooking something, attempting countermeasures for this type of test would be shooting yourself in the foot, since each question is a "relevant" question, so to speak.

Stealth,

You raise a very good point. The approach of creating responses to one or two different relevant questions during each chart collection would only have some advantage if the polygrapher were using an objective scoring standard.

It is quite possible (and perhaps likely) that alwazracin's polygrapher was using the so-called "clinical" approach to polygraphy. This approach was described by Anonymous in the message thread Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique? as "a polygrapher's euphemism for arriving at any conclusions/opinions that he cares to see/render based on any or no considerations he chooses to employ."

If the polygrapher is using this "clinical" method, then producing any reaction to any relevant question would likely be, as you put it, "shooting yourself in the foot."

Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious, but it seems to me that a polygrapher would detect a "lie" by comparing a strong physiological reaction on one question to a series of weak reactions on the rest of the questions.  For example, if the following five questions were asked:

#1 - Did you lie in describing your prior employment?
#2 - Did you lie in describing your prior drug use?
#3 - Did you lie about any thefts?
#4 - Did you lie about any serious crimes you may have committed?
#5 - Did you lie about violating anyone's civil rights while in your custody?

And a subject had been truthful with all information except his prior drug use, it would stand to reason that his response to question two would stand out on the chart ("peak of tension") compared to the rest of the questions.  Therefore the "control" is the baseline established by the other four questions.  And it would be expected that regardless of how many times these questions were asked of the subject, the results would likely be the same.

Now if a subject is asked this series of questions two times, your suggested countermeasures include producing a deceptive response (i.e. using countermeasures, "puckering", etc.) to one or two other questions.  Lets say round one went like this:

#1 - no countermeasure
#2 - lie
#3 - countermeasure
#4 - no countermeasure
#5 - countermeasure

and round two went like this:

#1 - countermeasure
#2 - lie
#3 - countermeasure
#4 - no countermeasure
#5 - no countermeasure

Then couldn't a polygrapher say that the subject was deceptive on all questions except question 4?  Certainly deception would be easy to discern with regards to the drug use question (question #2).  Using countermeasures as you've described for this "peak-of-tension" test really just relies on trying to confuse the examiner (by producing false-positives), but if it's really that subjective, couldn't he say that the subject showed deception on all but one question, and that he consistently showed deception about drug use?

I've never taken a polygraph, but I will be taking one soon.  I really don't have anything to hide, so I haven't decided whether or not I'll use countermeasures.  I have confidence the use of countermeasures in the control-relevant examination.  But I am unconvinced that countermeasures can be reliably used in the peak-of-tension test.  I don't trust polygraphy 100% either, but I don't see why polygraphers don't use the peak-of-tension test to combat countermeasures more than they do.

Stealth wrote on Aug 18^th, 2002 at 10:49pm:

Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious, but it seems to me that a polygrapher would detect a "lie" by comparing a strong physiological reaction on one question to a series of weak reactions on the rest of the questions.  For example, if the following five questions were asked: #1 - Did you lie in describing your prior employment? #2 - Did you lie in describing your prior drug use? #3 - Did you lie about any thefts? #4 - Did you lie about any serious crimes you may have committed? #5 - Did you lie about violating anyone's civil rights while in your custody? And a subject had been truthful with all information except his prior drug use, it would stand to reason that his response to question two would stand out on the chart ("peak of tension") compared to the rest of the questions.  Therefore the "control" is the baseline established by the other four questions.  And it would be expected that regardless of how many times these questions were asked of the subject, the results would likely be the same.

Your inference that lack of truthfulness on question two will produce a consistently greater response than on the others is speculative.  It might, and then again, it might not.


Quote:

Now if a subject is asked this series of questions two times, your suggested countermeasures include producing a deceptive response (i.e. using countermeasures, "puckering", etc.) to one or two other questions.  Lets say round one went like this: #1 - no countermeasure #2 - lie #3 - countermeasure #4 - no countermeasure #5 - countermeasure and round two went like this: #1 - countermeasure #2 - lie #3 - countermeasure #4 - no countermeasure #5 - no countermeasure Then couldn't a polygrapher say that the subject was deceptive on all questions except question 4?  Certainly deception would be easy to discern with regards to the drug use question (question #2).  Using countermeasures as you've described for this "peak-of-tension" test really just relies on trying to confuse the examiner (by producing false-positives), but if it's really that subjective, couldn't he say that the subject showed deception on all but one question, and that he consistently showed deception about drug use?

Actually, I believe deception might be inferred, in this case, on questions 2 and 3 only (assuming, of course, that the "lie" actually produces a response).

The results on all other questions would not be consistent from round to round, and would likely be ignored.

An easy solution to all of this, of course, is to simply countermeasure every question equally (so there's no consistent "peak of tension" to be found).  Additionally, it might be advisable to produce an even stronger augmentation on any irrelevant, sacrifice relevant, or "concealed control" questions ("have you lied to me about anything today" or "do you intend to be truthful in all your answers today?") for good measure.


Quote:

I've never taken a polygraph, but I will be taking one soon.  I really don't have anything to hide, so I haven't decided whether or not I'll use countermeasures.

If you have nothing to hide, IMHO you have even more incentive to use countermeasures to make sure the correct result is obtained.  


Quote:

I have confidence the use of countermeasures in the control-relevant examination.  But I am unconvinced that countermeasures can be reliably used in the peak-of-tension test.  I don't trust polygraphy 100% either, but I don't see why polygraphers don't use the peak-of-tension test to combat countermeasures more than they do.

I believe the test can be easily countermeasured.  As long as no consistent or comparably significant response is found, no deception should be inferred.

Skeptic

It appears plausible to me that only a person withholding information would wantonly countermeasure this format, considering it was properly constructed and administered.

When the test is properly constructed and administered, it may be scored in a manor that could prevent, if not eliminate, any countermeasure attempts.

George and Skeptic,

You refer to this test as a peak of tension.  A peak of tension test is constructed such that the deceptive person is lying to one and only one item.  

In this case, however, a person might be deceptive to one, several, or all relevant questions.  It is actually a form of relevant/irrelevant test and should be evaluated that way.  That is, any consistent, significant reaction to any specific question – in the absence of any plausible explanation which has been verified by additional testing – would indicate deception.  It’s a tough test to beat.

Peace,

Gordon

wrote on Aug 19^th, 2002 at 4:47am:

George and Skeptic, You refer to this test as a peak of tension.  A peak of tension test is constructed such that the deceptive person is lying to one and only one item.   In this case, however, a person might be deceptive to one, several, or all relevant questions.  It is actually a form of relevant/irrelevant test and should be evaluated that way.  That is, any consistent, significant reaction to any specific question – in the absence of any plausible explanation which has been verified by additional testing – would indicate deception.  It’s a tough test to beat.

Dr. Barland,
Aren't you on record as saying methodology exists to detect the countermeasures taught in TLBTLD?  If so, you'll pardon my skepticism of your current comments, as I have personal experience regarding the accuracy of those prior statements.

I'm almost curious as to how much the R/I's "toughness" depends upon you telling everyone it's a "tough test to beat".

Regardless, as you point out, reactions to specific questions is one criteria for further inquiry.  Clearly, equal reactions employed on all questions would not only result in a chart that failed to meet this standard -- it would also make judgement regarding what is "significant" rather difficult, as well.

Skeptic

wrote on Aug 19^th, 2002 at 4:47am:

George and Skeptic, You refer to this test as a peak of tension.  A peak of tension test is constructed such that the deceptive person is lying to one and only one item.   In this case, however, a person might be deceptive to one, several, or all relevant questions.  It is actually a form of relevant/irrelevant test and should be evaluated that way.  That is, any consistent, significant reaction to any specific question – in the absence of any plausible explanation which has been verified by additional testing – would indicate deception.  It’s a tough test to beat. Peace, Gordon

Gordon,

Thank you for correcting me on the proper nomenclature for the procedure alwazracin has described. It would appear then that it's a variant of the Relevant/Irrelevant technique, but with the irrelevant questions discarded (except for the initial question).

How does one determine whether a subject's explanation for a consistent, significant reaction to any specific question is plausible? And how can the plausibility or non-plausibility of that explanation be determined through additional "testing?"

Say for example, alwazracin had reacted strongly to the question, "Did you lie in section 1 (sex)?" each time it was asked. He explains this by saying that he has been truthful, but he simply feels uncomfortable at any mention of sexual matters. Is this explanation plausible? How would one make that determination through further "testing?"

You conclude saying, "It's a tough test to beat." Perhaps. Especially if the polygrapher is using the clinical approach and "arriving at any conclusions/opinions that he cares to see/render based on any or no considerations he chooses to employ."

But does the Relevant/Irrelevant technique have any validity?  More than a year ago now, in the message thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent (which you initiated), you suggested this technique as one that could be used with subjects who admit to their knowledge of how the "Control" Question "Test" really works ("the lie behind the lie detector" if you will).

In response, I asked you:


Quote:

...if you would use the relevant/irrelevant format with sophisticated subjects (i.e., those who understand the polygraph procedure), then on what scientific basis do you expect to be able to distinguish truth from deception using this (thoroughly discredited) technique? For the informed, truthful subject who heeds your advice and does not employ countermeasures but instead admits to his/her knowledge of the trickery on which "control" question "test" polygraphy depends, the promise of being treated to a relevant/irrelevant "test" instead is hardly reassuring.

More than a year has passed, and you have not yet responded to this simple question. I hope you might care to do so now.

I'd also be interested in any answer you may have to the following question, which I raised in the message thread, Peer-Review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique:


Quote:

Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!

More than two months have passed since I posed this question, and no one has cited a single such study.

George,

I am in agreement that the use of polygraphs should be prohibited as a hiring practice.  I base this on the fact that polygraphs are not 100% accurate, and any margin of error could exclude a qualified candidate, or allow an unqualified person to get hired.  However, in my discussions with people that have undergone polygraphs, it is my unscientific opinion that polygraphs are generally accurate (more than 50%).  Of course there are always cases where polygraphs are dismally wrong.

The fact is that even though you and I, and others may feel that the polygraph is woefully unjust, inaccurate, and dehumanizing, polygraphy is a here for the time being, and any applicant such as myself must submit to it in order to secure the job of his choosing.  While your book is thorough with regards to discussion of the control/relevant test.  It is sparse with information for this type of test (Irrelevant/Relevant, peak-of-tension, or whatever), particularly in discussing possible counter-measures.  While your critique is primarily that this type of test has not had significant peer review or other academic scrutiny, again, the reality remains that this test is something that an applicant could realistically face.  And it seems to me that Dr. Barland is correct in his statement that this test is tough to beat.

Perhaps there is no effective way to employ countermeasures in this type of test.  In which case, you've done an outstanding job of research and discussion of countermeasures for the control/relevant test.  But if there is a way to sucessfully employ countermeasures for this type of test, please enlighten us.  I know that it is not your job to help others in this way, but you have obviously spent considerable time and effort researching polygraphy, and I and others look to you for information.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Stealth,


Quote:

...However, in my discussions with people that have undergone polygraphs, it is my unscientific opinion that polygraphs are generally accurate (more than 50%).

Note that a correct decision rate of greater than 50% is not necessarily indicative of greater than chance accuracy. For example, in the Department of Defense's counterintelligence-scope screening program, for the past two fiscal years, everyone who did not make "substantive admissions" passed (which is nearly everyone). Certainly, very few of those polygraphed are likely to have been spies, and it could be argued that the accuracy of this program is in the high 90th percentile. But similar "accuracy" could be achieved by the chance-accuracy method of arbitrarily deciding that everyone passes.


Quote:

While your book is thorough with regards to discussion of the control/relevant test.  It is sparse with information for this type of test (Irrelevant/Relevant, peak-of-tension, or whatever), particularly in discussing possible counter-measures.

You're right. Our discussion of the Relevant/Irrelevant technique is brief not just because it's less-commonly used, but also because it's not as well documented in the polygraph literature. For example, polygrapher James Allan Matte barely mentions the technique in his 800-page volume, Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph. Perhaps this is because the R/I technique is largely discredited, even within the polygraph community.

As for countermeasures to the R/I technique, I don't presently have anything to add to what we've included in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, except to note, as I did above, that if the polygrapher is using the "clinical" method of scoring, then I agree that producing any reaction to any relevant question would likely be "shooting yourself in the foot."

A few quotes on the R/I "technque":

"The relevant/irrelevant technique has been determined by researchers to produce an unacceptably high number of 'false positive' errors (because even an innocent subject will recognize the significance of the relevant question and may react to it) and has generally been discarded in favor of other techniques that have been shown to have a higher degree of reliability."
-- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, U.S. vs. Gilliard.  


"The relevant/irrelevant technique has been conclusively shown to be an invalid technique in published scientific research...the relevant/irrelevant technique is known to produce a large number (80+%) of false positive errors (the truthful fail the test). A failed RI test should be given no weight for any purpose." [emphasis added]
-- Dr. Charles Honts

So, Dr. Barland, if your objective is simply to produce a "tough test to beat" with countermeasures, why not just get a six-sided die, and declare everyone who doesn't roll a 1 deceptive?  I challenge anyone to countermeasure the test, you can give it over and over, you save the taxpayers a hell of a lot of money, and the chances of a false positive are on par with those of the R/I "technique".

Skeptic

George,

In reference to my silence on the R/I test, you wrote:

Quote:

More than a year has passed, and you have not yet responded to this simple question. I hope you might care to do so now.

The R/I test is used to protect our national security, yet you seek ways to circumvent this security procedure.  The Government has requested that I not discuss the R/I test in public.  I am obliged to honor that request.   I could not respond to your request a year ago, nor can I now.

Peace.

Gordon

wrote on Aug 21^st, 2002 at 5:03pm:

George, The R/I test is used to protect our national security, yet you seek ways to circumvent this security procedure.  The Government has requested that I not discuss the R/I test in public.  I am obliged to honor that request.   I could not respond to your request a year ago, nor can I now.

Dr. Barland,

If I may ask:

What government agency has requested that you not discuss the R/I format?

Beech Trees,

     The identity of the organization is not secret, but neither is it to be bandied about.  There are a number of foreign intelligence services which wish to keep abreast of which test formats are used by specific U.S. agencies.  The less they know, the harder it is for them to penetrate those agencies.

George,

     You ask why a technique with forensic applications should be kept out of the public domain.  I would argue that one reason for doing so is because it is also used for security purposes.  Let me give you an analogy.  Intrusion detection systems are unclassified, off-the-shelf items.  Yet it is a prudent practice for any homeowner, corporation, or government agency to withhold information about which specific alarm systems and devices they are using to safeguard their possessions.  This greatly increases the difficulty of trying to penetrate the defenses to access that which must be protected.

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

You write:


Quote:

...Intrusion detection systems are unclassified, off-the-shelf items.  Yet it is a prudent practice for any homeowner, corporation, or government agency to withhold information about which specific alarm systems and devices they are using to safeguard their possessions.  This greatly increases the difficulty of trying to penetrate the defenses to access that which must be protected...

Quite true.  However, these groups (manufacturers and users of security devices) have not sought membership and active participation in the forensic science academic community based on these efforts.  I believe your suggested analogy is a poor one.  Perhaps you might care to suggest a recognized discipline within the American Academy of Forensic Sciences whose procedures and practices depend upon deception, misrepresentation, and the need for a  universally ignorant public.  I am not aware of any.

Gordon,

How could answering the following question I put to you conceivably undermine national security in any way?!


Quote:

...if you would use the relevant/irrelevant format with sophisticated subjects (i.e., those who understand the polygraph procedure), then on what scientific basis do you expect to be able to distinguish truth from deception using this (thoroughly discredited) technique? For the informed, truthful subject who heeds your advice and does not employ countermeasures but instead admits to his/her knowledge of the trickery on which "control" question "test" polygraphy depends, the promise of being treated to a relevant/irrelevant "test" instead is hardly reassuring.

Is even the theoretical basis of the Relevant/Irrelevant technique a state secret?!

The former head of the National Security Agency's polygraph program, the late Raymond J. Weir, Jr., has described the technique in detail in two articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph ("In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant Polygraph Test," Vol. 3 [1974], No. 2, pp. 119-166 and "Some Principles of Question Selection and Sequencing for Relevant-Irrelevant Testing," Vol. 5 [1976], No. 3, pp. 207-222). For more than 25 years, these rather detailed articles describing the R/I technique then (and perhaps still) used by NSA have been readily available for review by any foreign intelligence service that might be interested in penetrating the NSA. But the retired head of the NSA polygraph program (and Polygraph's then editor, Norm Ansley, who was also at NSA) didn't seem to think that publication of these articles would harm national security.

When you, allegedly at the request of a government agency that you decline to name, assert that you cannot explain why the polygraph subject who admits to his polygrapher that he  understands how the "Control" Question "Test" works (and doesn't) should have any confidence whatsoever in the Relevant/Irrelevant technique, then either you, the un-named agency, or both are being intellectually dishonest.

And how could answering the following question undermine national securtity in any conceivable way?


Quote:

Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!

Why not just cite the research, or take the intellectually honest approach and acknowledge the obvious: there is none!

wrote on Aug 21^st, 2002 at 7:17pm:

Beech Trees,      The identity of the organization is not secret, but neither is it to be bandied about.  There are a number of foreign intelligence services which wish to keep abreast of which test formats are used by specific U.S. agencies.  The less they know, the harder it is for them to penetrate those agencies. George,      You ask why a technique with forensic applications should be kept out of the public domain.  I would argue that one reason for doing so is because it is also used for security purposes.  Let me give you an analogy.  Intrusion detection systems are unclassified, off-the-shelf items.  Yet it is a prudent practice for any homeowner, corporation, or government agency to withhold information about which specific alarm systems and devices they are using to safeguard their possessions.  This greatly increases the difficulty of trying to penetrate the defenses to access that which must be protected.

There is debate, even now, over the efficacy of "security through obscurity".  Encryption algorithms are a prime example:  although a case can be made that keeping algorithms secret provides an additional layer of protection, no cryptographer worth his or her salt would ever base the security of an algorithm on this principle.  In fact, good cryptographic design is completely dependent upon the algorithm being secure even if all details about it are public knowledge.  The same should be the case for physical security of a premesis -- which is where your analogy falls apart.

There are at least two devastating arguments against the "security through obscurity" principle.  The first is that details almost always come out one way or another.  The second is that more scrutiny leads to the plugging of holes in security, not to its compromise.

Frankly, your entire premise smells fishy to me.  Given your track record of misleading the public on the topic of polygraphy, I rather think the point of refusing to discuss R/I screening when the tough questions are asked (and if you look at your posting history, you will find that you have frequently discussed the subject otherwise) is "saving face" rather than "saving national security."

Skeptic

Skeptic,

You write in part:


Quote:

There are at least two devastating arguments against the "security through obscurity" principle.  The first is that details almost always come out one way or another.  The second is that more scrutiny leads to the plugging of holes in security, not to its compromise.

You make an astute observation here. With regard to polygraphy, for example, note that during the Cold War at least one U.S. Government polygrapher defected to the Communists. Retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan mentions this at p. 235 of his book, Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers Vietnam (University Press of Kansas, 2002):


Quote:

During my tour with the [U.S. Army] 513th Military Intelligence Group in Germany from January 1965 until July 1967, one of our polygraph examiners, S. Sgt. Glen Rohrer, defected to Czechoslovakia. While investigating his defection, we learned that the Czechs ran a polygraph countermeasures program and that the head of that program was a Dr. Miroslav Dufek.

Presumably, anything of importance that Glen Rohrer knew about polygraphy also became known to Eastern Bloc intelligence services (if it was not already known to them).

wrote on Aug 21^st, 2002 at 7:17pm:

The identity of the organization is not secret, but neither is it to be bandied about.  There are a number of foreign intelligence services which wish to keep abreast of which test formats are used by specific U.S. agencies.  The less they know, the harder it is for them to penetrate those agencies.

I see.

Was this a signed formal agreement of non-disclosure concerning the R/I interrogation format? If so, I'm having difficulty understanding your sudden announcement and recalcitrance to comment considering you've posted here semi-regularly for quite some time, this past year included. You've even originated threads of discussion centering on the R/I format.

Perhaps your non-disclosure agreement was carefully crafted so that you are allowed to make gratuitous assertions concerning polygraphy and the R/I format, but may hide behind the cloak of 'government security' when asked to clarify/support/prove your assertions? Regardless, it's a puzzling turn of events when contrasted with your previous statements such as:


Quote:

Now this is exactly the type of discussion I had hoped for, on a topic dear to my heart.  I will give you my views in the coming days and weeks, but wish to clear up some of the back log first.

and


Quote:

my next substantive postings on AntiPolygraph will probably be discussing the scientific research supporting the accuracy of the polygraph

and


Quote:

I will get to all of your questions in time; typically one post per day.  See you tomorrow!

alwazracin:

What were your "results"?  Do you know?

Dr. Barland,

Welcome to the WWF Tag Team Championships.  As you are well aware, nothing you say in either defense of yourself or of polygraph will ever be good enough.  That should be the heading on this sites Home Page, NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT OR PRO-POLYGRAPH OPINIONS ACCEPTED HERE!  

It is interesting to see how your posting brought out a lot of the little kreepy things that crawl around in the dark.  It's kind of like kicking an ant hill!

Batman

I feel your pain, Batman!   It helps to be a masochist when defending the polygraph here.

Peace.

Gordon

Batman wrote on Sep 1^st, 2002 at 11:10pm:

Dr. Barland, Welcome to the WWF Tag Team Championships.  As you are well aware, nothing you say in either defense of yourself or of polygraph will ever be good enough.  That should be the heading on this sites Home Page, NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT OR PRO-POLYGRAPH OPINIONS ACCEPTED HERE!

Batman,

If-- and I choose that word carefully in lieu of the word 'when', which I find to be overly-optimistic in matters dealing with your posts-- you ever have an actual independent thought, please feel free to alert us all, as that will be a remarkable day indeed.

Do you agree or disagree that jumping in and responding to pointed questions to Dr. Barland is hypocritical, considering your constant whiny laments that we of the reasoned side of the polygraph debate do exactly the same? As far as I can see, the only difference is that when we do so, it is with rational, reasoned discourse whereas your retorts are puerile tripe put forth for no other purpose except to taunt those people who do not agree with you.

Batman,

You wrote in part to Gordon:


Quote:

As you are well aware, nothing you say in either defense of yourself or of polygraph will ever be good enough.  That should be the heading on this sites Home Page, NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT OR PRO-POLYGRAPH OPINIONS ACCEPTED HERE!

On the contrary, independent thought and pro-polygraph opinions are always welcome here. All points of views are invited, and this board is not censored: you'll find that none of your posts have been deleted or otherwise censored because of their content. By contrast, on the message board of the pro-polygraph website PolygraphPlace.com, posts by polygraph opponents are deleted. And the American Polygraph Association website offers no public forum like this message board.

wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2002 at 12:36am:

I feel your pain, Batman!   It helps to be a masochist when defending the polygraph here. Peace. Gordon

Gordon,

It's good to see you're still here. Perhaps you'd care to respond substantively to the questions I put to you in this thread on 21 August, and to Skeptic's commentary on the shortcomings of "security through obscurity?"

???

Batman,

You write:


Quote:

...That should be the heading on this sites Home Page, NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT OR PRO-POLYGRAPH OPINIONS ACCEPTED HERE...

As best I can tell (and observe) this site will allow YOU personally to post an unlimited number of meaningless, erroneous, and trite posts per day.  How would you describe a site that is truly censored like PolygraphPlace.com??

Skeptic,

You said:

Quote:

There is debate, even now, over the efficacy of "security through obscurity".  Encryption algorithms are a prime example:  although a case can be made that keeping algorithms secret provides an additional layer of protection, no cryptographer worth his or her salt would ever base the security of an algorithm on this principle.  In fact, good cryptographic design is completely dependent upon the algorithm being secure even if all details about it are public knowledge.  The same should be the case for physical security of a premesis -- which is where your analogy falls apart.

I certainly agree with you when it comes to encryption.  However, psychological tests are a different matter.  Most psychological tests, be they personality tests such as the MMPI-2 or forensic tests, were developed on populations of naive test takers.  Once the tests have been developed, attempts are made to safeguard against those trying to fake good or otherwise manipulate or invalidate them.  The MMPI-2, for example, contains a Lie scale and a Frequency scale, among others, to alert the examiner to such attempts.  

But if someone were to purchase the test booklets, scoring protocols, and analysis books; if they knew which questions belong to which scales and how they are answered in the normal or deviant manner; if they were to plan what type of profile they wish to project and studied sufficiently well, then the psychologist's task at determining their true psychological profile would be more difficult.  This is why the psychological community tries to prevent the dissemination of that type of information to the potential test takers.

Is the information classified?  No; certainly not by the Government.  But it just common sense that to disseminate that type of information to the test taker is not in society's best interest.  Hence, the efforts of the psychological community to restrict the information to the scientific community.  

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying.  Obviously the tests undergo extensive validation testing, studies are conducted to determine how naive and not-so-naive subjects attempt to manipulate the results, articles are published, textbooks are written, and the information is generally in the public domain.  Nonetheless, many psychological tests assume that the average person taking the test is relatively naive about the details of the test and precisely how it is interpreted.  To the extent that assumption is not met, the validity of the test may decrease.

Does it mean that if the person taking the test were extremely knowledgeable, he'd be able to mislead the psychologist?  I would think it would shift the odds, but would not guarantee success.  A lot would depend upon the forensic psycholgist's skill at administering and evaluating the test, his knowledge of the case facts, his knowledge of the subject's background, and his clinical impression of the subject himself, and his interviewing skills.  

I haven't touched upon the ethics of teaching someone how to manipulate a forensic test.

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

Skeptic's remarks with regard to the shortcomings of "security through obscurity" have direct relevance to the issue of polygraph security screening. Even if the public at large knows little about polygraphy (just as it knows little about cryptology), it is not safe to suppose that these matters are unknown to foreign intelligence services.

You also write in part:


Quote:

I haven't touched upon the ethics of teaching someone how to manipulate a forensic test.

Is it your position that the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique is a "forensic test?" If so, perhaps you could provide us with other examples of forensic tests whose validity (like that of the R/I "test") is completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever?

Perhaps you could also tell us what the sensitivity and specificity of the R/I "test" is for the detection of deception? If you can't, then perhaps you could give us examples of other forensic tests that have unknown sensitivity and specificity?

???

wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2002 at 12:36am:

I feel your pain, Batman!   It helps to be a masochist when defending the polygraph here. Peace. Gordon

Your defense of the polygraph here might be better helped if you were to bring intellectual honesty, critical thought, and reasoned argument to the debate, rather than dodging the substantive questions put to you.

George,

When anyone does attempt to "bring intellectual honesty, critical thought, and reasoned argument to the debate" guys like Beech Trees and yourself pull small quotes out of context and then demand that justification be given for what was said.  After awhile this gets tiresome.  It is always easy to go on the attack and demand that every word be clearly defined and validated but it takes away from the true debate.  Also, when you have rabid dogs like Beech Trees, Anonymous, and on ocassion Gino ripping at peoples throats it tends to make one shy away from the actual debate itself.  

Sooooo, I have decided to leave the debate about polygraph and simply comment on those individuals who post on this site, claiming to have been wronged by some accuser (ie" Joseph, Bnicknell, & Friendtoall), and are seeking ways to beat the system.  On ocassion I will also poke the perverbial stick at the mad dog, Beech Trees.

Dr. Barland may have the where-with-all to attempt to continue to debate on the accuracy of polygraph, however I have got to believe even he will grow tired of the continual nipping at the heels by the likes of such INDEPENDENT THINKERS as Beech Trees.  

Beech, if it wasn't for the Wizard of Anti-Polygraph Oz, George himself, you wouldn't have a brain, and you wouldn't know an independent thought if it came round and bit you in the butt.  Hows that for "puerile tripe"?

Batman

Batman,

You write:


Quote:

...Sooooo, I have decided to leave the debate about polygraph...

No problem, Bat...and don't worry about any fingerprints you may have left--no evidence you were ever there to begin with...


Quote:

...Anonymous, if Beech Trees is accurate in diagnosing my mental illness then yes I have seen 3-4 educated, articulate people in the same room at one time, problem is, they've all been me...

No argument with you, Bat, but appears the great Beech is only half right...I think he missed the psychosis...   ;)

Batman wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2002 at 5:43pm:

George, When anyone does attempt to "bring intellectual honesty, critical thought, and reasoned argument to the debate" guys like Beech Trees and yourself pull small quotes out of context and then demand that justification be given for what was said.

Before you pretend to leave in a huff, would you cite an example of me quoting someone 'out of context'?


Quote:

After awhile this gets tiresome.  It is always easy to go on the attack and demand that every word be clearly defined and validated but it takes away from the true debate.

B.m.--

Where on this message board have I ever asked you to define a word?  Where on this message board have I ever asked you to validate a word? When have you ever sought to debate anything? When asked to back up gratuitous assertions, you decline to respond, or make childish retorts wholey unsuited to an alleged public servant.


Quote:

Also, when you have rabid dogs like Beech Trees, Anonymous, and on ocassion Gino ripping at peoples throats it tends to make one shy away from the actual debate itself.

I'm all about the debate, b.m. Speaking of tiresome, I personally grow weary of attempting to draw you into a serious debate, only to have you post yet another puerile taunt.


Quote:

Sooooo, I have decided to leave the debate about polygraph and simply comment on those individuals who post on this site, claiming to have been wronged by some accuser (ie" Joseph, Bnicknell, & Friendtoall), and are seeking ways to beat the system.  On ocassion I will also poke the perverbial stick at the mad dog, Beech Trees.

And this would differ from your previous modus operandi in what fashion...?


Quote:

Dr. Barland may have the where-with-all to attempt to continue to debate on the accuracy of polygraph, however I have got to believe even he will grow tired of the continual nipping at the heels by the likes of such INDEPENDENT THINKERS as Beech Trees.

I suppose, if one were recalcitrant or simply unable to back up their gratuitous assertions here, it would grow tiresome to read repeated requests to do so-- perhaps you're correct there b.m.


Quote:

Beech, if it wasn't for the Wizard of Anti-Polygraph Oz, George himself, you wouldn't have a brain, and you wouldn't know an independent thought if it came round and bit you in the butt.  Hows that for "puerile tripe"?

I'd say it's some of your best puerile tripe yet, b.m. The only way in which it, and everything else you've posted to date here, could be held in lower regard is if it was composed and posted on taxpayer's time.

wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2002 at 7:09am:

Skeptic, You said: I certainly agree with you when it comes to encryption.  However, psychological tests are a different matter.  Most psychological tests, be they personality tests such as the MMPI-2 or forensic tests, were developed on populations of naive test takers.  Once the tests have been developed, attempts are made to safeguard against those trying to fake good or otherwise manipulate or invalidate them.  The MMPI-2, for example, contains a Lie scale and a Frequency scale, among others, to alert the examiner to such attempts.   But if someone were to purchase the test booklets, scoring protocols, and analysis books; if they knew which questions belong to which scales and how they are answered in the normal or deviant manner; if they were to plan what type of profile they wish to project and studied sufficiently well, then the psychologist's task at determining their true psychological profile would be more difficult.  This is why the psychological community tries to prevent the dissemination of that type of information to the potential test takers.

You have, of course, subtly changed the subject with the above.  We were talking about security screening proceedures, and in order to make your point, you have now widened the scope to general psychological testing.

While I'll not dispute that widespread dissemination of information regarding the MMPI-2 does serve to compromise the test, you've ironically hurt your own case with the anology.  Aside from individuals and corporations that have financial interest in using the MMPI-2 for employment screening, most psychologists I'm aware of consider such purposes an abuse of the test.  It wasn't designed for employment or security screening, nor has it been validated for such.  Further, its proper use involves it being only one facet of a thorough psychological profile and assessment.  Thus, I believe your analogy to polygraphy is a better one than you intended.  

An important distinction, Oof course, is that anyone who wants to read up on the validity and theory behind the MMPI-2 can easily do so, through the peer-reviewed psychological literature.  Can you claim the same for R/I testing?  If so, would you care to point us to references?

Skepti

Batman,

You said, "Sooooo, I have decided to leave the debate about polygraph and simply comment on those individuals who post on this site, claiming to have been wronged by some accuser (ie" Joseph, Bnicknell, & Friendtoall), and are seeking ways to beat the system.  On ocassion I will also poke the perverbial stick at the mad dog, Beech Trees."

I take offense to this.  I am not "seeking ways to beat the system" as you have claimed!  I am trying to understand why I failed both a polygraph and a CVSA exam even though I was not lying.  I think it was you in a previous post who advised anyone facing a poly to tell the truth and you will pass.  Well, I did just that and did not pass, not just once but twice!

My only purpose in posting to this site is get some possible answers to this question.  I am not trying to "beat" anything!

Skeptic,

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.  I thought you were talking about the polygraph generally.  On several occasions George has raised the issue of whether any accepted forensic test can in any way depend upon secrecy for its effectiveness.  I had that in mind when I brought up psychological tests.  I was thinking of forensic applications of tests (both psychological and polygraphic), not security screening.  The point I was intending to make is that both the CQT and many psychological tests were originally designed for use with relatively naive subjects.

I presume that the validity of both the CQT and a number of forensic psychological tests would be inversely proportional to the subject's knowledge of the tests' construction, what items belong to which scales, the scoring systems, etc., and directly proportional to the examiners' knowledgeability, experience, and skill in detecting countermeasures, access to collateral and background information, etc.

Peace,

Gordon

George,

You wrote:

Quote:

Even if the public at large knows little about polygraphy (just as it knows little about cryptology), it is not safe to suppose that these matters are unknown to foreign intelligence services.

Of course foreign intelligence services know about polygraph technology and procedures.  In some cases, they have gone through schools here in America.  In others, American schools have held courses overseas for a variety of governments and their police and intelligence services.  In most of the many cases of which I am aware, the intelligence services have been those of countries which are our friends and allies, or which pose no realistic threat to us.  In a number of cases, they are using the polygraph to help protect the intelligence which we share with them.

On the other hand, information posted on the Internet can be accessed by every intelligence service in the world, including those who would do us the greatest harm possible.  Instead of having to devote a great deal of manpower and money to acquire knowledge of our security screening programs and procedures and how to circumvent them, you would present them with all that information, and keep them updated on all changes that occur.  And you want me to cooperate in this endeavor??

In another post, you pointed out that a couple of decades ago Ray Weir and Norman Ansley published details of the R/I test.  You cited this to suggest either I or the Government were being hypocritical or disingenous at not discussing it now.  

Times change.  Administrations change.  Personnel change.  Policies change.  Polygraph testing evolves.  Formats and procedures are modified.  Countermeasures are employed, and counter-countermeasures are developed.  Do you think that just because some details were published more than a quarter century ago, the Government ought to keep you (and hence every intelligence service worldwide) updated on every change as it occurs?

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

You write:


Quote:

Of course foreign intelligence services know about polygraph technology and procedures.  In some cases, they have gone through schools here in America.  In others, American schools have held courses overseas for a variety of governments and their police and intelligence services.  In most of the many cases of which I am aware, the intelligence services have been those of countries which are our friends and allies, or which pose no realistic threat to us.  In a number of cases, they are using the polygraph to help protect the intelligence which we share with them.

Foreign intelligence services' knowledge of polygraph technology and procedures is not dependent upon any cooperative agreement with the U.S. Government, or arrangements with U.S. polygraph schools. A great deal of information has been published about polygraphy, and that open source information is available not only to friends and allies, or countries that pose no realistic threat to the U.S., but to any government or organization. (And polygraph instruments can be readily obtained, despite U.S. export controls.)


Quote:

On the other hand, information posted on the Internet can be accessed by every intelligence service in the world, including those who would do us the greatest harm possible.  Instead of having to devote a great deal of manpower and money to acquire knowledge of our security screening programs and procedures and how to circumvent them, you would present them with all that information, and keep them updated on all changes that occur.  And you want me to cooperate in this endeavor??

Gordon, every article you've ever written for Polygraph is also readily accessed by any intelligence agency in the world. The American Polygraph Association has recently made it cheaper and easier by making the first 30 volumes available on CD-ROM.

I haven't asked you to cooperate in an endeavor to present foreign intelligence services with "knowledge of our security screening programs and procedures and how to circumvent them." I've asked you general questions related to the scientific basis for CQT and R/I polygraphy. I don't see any legitimate security concern that would prevent you from addressing, for example, the following questions (which you've thus far dodged):

• ...if you would use the relevant/irrelevant format with sophisticated subjects (i.e., those who understand the polygraph procedure), then on what scientific basis do you expect to be able to distinguish truth from deception using this (thoroughly discredited) technique? For the informed, truthful subject who heeds your advice and does not employ countermeasures but instead admits to his/her knowledge of the trickery on which "control" question "test" polygraphy depends, the promise of being treated to a relevant/ irrelevant "test" instead is hardly reassuring.
  
  
• Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!
  
  
• Is it your position that the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique is a "forensic test?" If so, perhaps you could provide us with other examples of forensic tests whose validity (like that of the R/I "test") is completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever?
  
  
• Perhaps you could also tell us what the sensitivity and specificity of the R/I "test" is for the detection of deception? If you can't, then perhaps you could give us examples of other forensic tests that have unknown sensitivity and specificity?

There is no national security concern that prevents you from addressing these questions, Gordon. I think it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest that such is the case. It is increasingly apparent that the reason you won't substantively address these questions is that the answers would cause embarrassment to you and the polygraph community.


Quote:

In another post, you pointed out that a couple of decades ago Ray Weir and Norman Ansley published details of the R/I test.  You cited this to suggest either I or the Government were being hypocritical or disingenous at not discussing it now.   Times change.  Administrations change.  Personnel change.  Policies change.  Polygraph testing evolves.  Formats and procedures are modified.  Countermeasures are employed, and counter-countermeasures are developed.  Do you think that just because some details were published more than a quarter century ago, the Government ought to keep you (and hence every intelligence service worldwide) updated on every change as it occurs?

What has changed since Weir wrote -- and Ansley published -- articles detailing the polygraph screening procedure then in use by the NSA? That information became immediately available to anyone who cared to peruse Polygraph, including the intelligence services of Cold War adversaries. Has information about the R/I technique (and even its theoretical basis) become more sensitive now that the Cold War is over?

In a sense, perhaps it has. Nowadays, the polygraph community seems to be much more concerned about the American people learning about polygraphy than it ever was about foreign intelligence services learning about it.

Gordon, you say that polygraph testing "evolves." With regard to the Relevant/Irrelevant screening "test," it appears that any "evolution" has occurred in the absence of any new federal research. The Defense Security Service's answer to a Freedom of Information Act request I filed for all DoDPI information on the Relevant/Irrelevant screening "test" indicates that DoDPI has done no research whatsoever on this technique. (See the message thread DSS Withholds R/I Screening Documentation.)

Gordon, forgive me if your final question was merely a rhetorical one. I'm going to address it. You asked, "Do you think that just because some details were published more than a quarter century ago, the Government ought to keep you (and hence every intelligence service worldwide) updated on every change as it occurs?"

I think that if applicants for federal employment (as well as current employees) are going to have their honesty and integrity assessed on the basis of the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique (or any other polygraph technique, for that matter), and the U.S. Government is to take adverse action in whole or in part on the basis thereof (as it routinely does), then due process requires that those against whom adverse action is taken be provided access to the methodology that was used by the U.S. Government to stigmatize them, and to challenge that methodology, whether in an administrative hearing, or in a court of law.

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 9:22am:

Gordon, "...if you would use the relevant/irrelevant format with sophisticated subjects (i.e., those who understand the polygraph procedure), then on what scientific basis do you expect to be able to distinguish truth from deception using this (thoroughly discredited) technique..."

George, this is now the 2nd or 3rd time you have either used the term "thoroughly discredited technique."  or something along the lines of "Discredited by the polygraph community itself."  when discussing the R&I procedure.  Now, please forgive me if I do not get the quote exactly as it appeared, but my question is:

Exactly who are you quoting within the polygraph comunity when you claim the R&I to be a "thoroughly discredited' methodology?

PDD-Fed

PDD-Fed,

When I describe the Relevant/Irrelevant technique as a "thoroughly discredited" methodology, I am not quoting any individual, but summarizing what I've observed. The R/I technique is completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever, and to the best of my knowledge, has no defenders in the scientific community. The polygraph community itself has largely abandoned the R/I technique in favor of the CQT. John Reid and Fred Inbau exclude the R/I technique from their classic book, The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique and James Allan Matte similarly excludes it from his more recent reference work, Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph. And over the past thirty years, the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph has published only a few articles on the R/I technique. (I believe they can be counted on one hand.) The most important of these articles is Raymond J. Weir's 1974 article, "In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant Polygraph Test" (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 119-166). That Weir felt the need to write an apology for the R/I technique is an indication of the low regard in which it was held within the polygraph community even 28 years ago.

PDD-Fed,

Courtesy of Skeptic, the following was previously posted:


Quote:

..."The relevant/irrelevant technique has been determined by researchers to produce an unacceptably high number of 'false positive' errors (because even an innocent subject will recognize the significance of the relevant question and may react to it) and has generally been discarded in favor of other techniques that have been shown to have a higher degree of reliability." -- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, U.S. vs. Gilliard.   "The relevant/irrelevant technique has been conclusively shown to be an invalid technique in published scientific research...the relevant/irrelevant technique is known to produce a large number (80+%) of false positive errors (the truthful fail the test). A failed RI test should be given no weight for any purpose." [emphasis added] -- Dr. Charles Honts...

This commentary, particularly that coming from Honts, one of the few polygraphers with any serious psychophysiological credentials and no particular friend of the antipolygraph community, is particularly damning.  Since Gordon Barland seems unable to do so, perhaps you might like to offer any contradictory evidence or statement from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological scientific literature that you are aware of.  Until you do, this nonsense remains, as George as indicated, completely discredited.  You should be embarrassed to reveal that it is even still considered yet utilized by the federal government.  

You are of course at a complete loss as to what to do...your previously heralded control question test (created to compensate for the glaring theoretical flaws with RI testing) is now so easily defeated that you are considering switching back to a previously shunned exam.  Oh my, what's a poor polygrapher to do?!?!  Because there are NO counter-countermeasures for CQT testing, the polygraph community has been forced to adopt the only, albeit insane "lie-detection" one, left to it...RI testing.  

Perhaps it is time to come out of the polygraph suites, really investigate cases, collect and protect information, and run the only sane option for you...information-based tests.  This, of course, will be the death knell for the abhorrent fishing expeditions we have come to know as polygraph screening.  But perhaps the good news for you (in addition to being involved in meaningful and productive work) is that at that point this site may have served its purpose and fade away too...

George,

I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah and Drew Richardson are now the only regular contributors here who avoid verbal brick bats.

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

One thing I haven't been able to figure out.  You know how to research the literature.  You have access to research libraries, both in the Netherlands and at UCLA.  You are single-minded in your quest for information on the polygraph.  You had no trouble finding Ray Weir's articles in an obscure publication found in few libraries.  

Are you really serious when you claim there are no articles about the RI test in peer reviewed journals?

Peace,

Gordon

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 2:58pm:

PDD-Fed, When I describe the Relevant/Irrelevant technique as a "thoroughly discredited" methodology, I am not quoting any individual, but summarizing what I've observed....John Reid and Fred Inbau exclude the R/I technique from their classic book, The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique and James Allan Matte similarly excludes it from his more recent reference work, Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph. And over the past thirty years, the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph has published only a few articles on the R/I technique. (I believe they can be counted on one hand.) The most important of these articles is Raymond J. Weir's 1974 article, "In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant Polygraph Test" (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 119-166). That Weir felt the need to write an apology for the R/I technique is an indication of the low regard in which it was held within the polygraph community even 28 years ago.

George, I guess what I have an issue with is your phraseology.  Since when does the lack on inclusion in a book, the use of one procedure more frequently than another, or a practioner defending a particular testing technique, mean the procedure is "thoroughly discredited?"  I have not seen a  single article in ANY polygraph journel indicating the R&I should NOT be used.  Not one single word against its utilization, yet you have repeated claimed it is "thoroughly discredited."

Heck, even mammograms, which have had several articles come out recently seriously questioning its utility in early detection of breast cancer, would not be described as "thoroughly discredited."  Please watch how fast you banter particular words around.  Some might describe your choice of words as "spin." ;)

This leads me to another point I would like to comment on.  In a recent string between you and Polycop, in which he desribed the academic association between DoDPI and Argosy University, you described Argosy as a "for profit outfit."  I have no doubt you chose those words carefully for their full spin effect..

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

Next, the term, "outfit," immediately brings to mind a business concern instead of an academic institution.  Is the University of Alabama or Nova University, an "outfit?"

Of course I expect anti-polygraph spin on any site called, "anti-polygraph.org.  It is that sometimes it is so obvious as to need pointing out... ::)

Regards...

PDD-Fed

Gordon,

You write:


Quote:

...I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life...

Clearly, both you and PDD-Fed and as well as others have the right to answer and avoid answering any questions you might care to.  No one has denied that.  But when you both spend inordinately more time posting replies than it would take to do that which you have refused to do--simply answer the question/provide any support (even one cite)  from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature to suggest that RI testing is valid, the reason for such omission becomes glaringly apparent.  The notion of scientific support so scared PDD-Fed that he has run from the subject and now gone off on a tangent regarding Argosy University (who really cares??)

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 4:07pm:

Gordon, simply answer the question/provide any support (even one cite)  from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature to suggest that RI testing is valid, the reason for such omission becomes glaringly apparent.  The notion of scientific support so scared PDD-Fed that he has run from the subject and now gone off on a tangent regarding Argosy University (who really cares??)

Scared?

OK, let me settle this.

First of all, I know of no peer reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."

Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour.  This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.  Yet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site...

Am I wrong in this assumption?

PDD-Fed

Gordon,

You write:


Quote:

I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah is now the only regular contributor here who avoids verbal bric-bracs.

I think that intellectual honesty is important to the discussion we are having here; your invocation of supposed national security reasons for not answering even the simplest of questions regarding the science (if any) behind R/I polygraphy is, in my opinion, simply not credible, Gordon, and I'm calling you on it.


Quote:

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

Of course, you are under no obligation to answer any questions I and others have put to you here, but your refusal to answer the questions in my earlier post speaks directly to your credibility. As Anonymous has pointed out, your avoidance of these simple (but clearly embarrassing to the polygraph community) questions -- even as you address numerous others -- belies any claim that "other priorities in life" prevent you from addressing them.

Finally, you write:


Quote:

One thing I haven't been able to figure out.  You know how to research the literature.  You have access to research libraries, both in the Netherlands and at UCLA.  You are single-minded in your quest for information on the polygraph.  You had no trouble finding Ray Weir's articles in an obscure publication found in few libraries. Are you really serious when you claim there are no articles about the RI test in peer reviewed journals?

The only peer-reviewed studies of the R/I technique that I'm familiar with are those mentioned by David Lykken in A Tremor in the Blood and cited in the notes to the excerpt we provide in our discussion of the R/I technique in Chapter 3 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. That literature provides no grounds for confidence in the validity of R/I polygraphy.

If anyone can direct me to any other peer-reviewed research supporting the validity of R/I polygraphy that I may have missed, I would be grateful.

PDD-Fed,

You write:


Quote:

...I know of no peer-reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."...

First of all--thank you very much for your honesty.  I am glad this matter has finally been laid to rest.  With regard to Daubert considerations, yes, peer-reviewed publication is a component.  These components (evaluated areas) are generally considered to be the following:

Tested and proven
Peer reviewed and published
Accurate, and
Accepted in the scientific community

The RI format would fail on all counts, and I would be extremely surprised to ever find it passing muster via Daubert.  If it did it would most certainly be a perversion of the present system…

With regard to your question, no, Polygraph is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is a trade publication of a trade organization, the American Polygraph Association.  Even if it were a peer-reviewed scientific journal it would not be the correct one to submit to.  Remember you are PDD-Fed, yes? ;) --The appropriate one would be one of many in the area of psychophysiology.  If your theoretical three members of APA with suitable backgrounds in psychophysiology were to publish in the appropriate journals, then any evidence of validity offered would be worthy of consideration at that point.

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 5:13pm:

PDD-Fed, With regard to your question, no, Polygraph is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is a trade publication of a trade organization, the American Polygraph Association.  Even if it were a peer-reviewed scientific journal it would not be the correct one to submit to.

I appreciate your response.  And I will leave you with a question.  Who is it who desides when a "Scientific Journal" is a "Scientific Journal?"  I would suggest that if the APA (polygraph) journal were to become "Peer reviewed," and were to be properly managed in that regard, then like it or not, research published within would fulfill the "peer review" requirment...

PDD-Fed...:)

PDD-Fed,

With regard to what would be an acceptable peer-reviewed scientific journal in the area of psychophysiology, I believe that would be determined by a consensus of scientists in that area (psychophysiology).  With regard to the hypothetical you pose regarding the trade journal Polygraph, all I can offer is the analogy if apples were oranges and pigs could fly....

Management is not what Polygraph lacks (no opinion from this quarter on that subject) but scientific credibility within the relevant scientific community (psychophysiology).  And if you recall from the previous discussion of Daubert, that is an important consideration.  In fact, largely because the CQT has little acceptance in the scientific community (even though it, as opposed to the RI,  has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature), it is generally excluded from trial court testimony via Daubert hearings.

PDD-Fed,

I'm not sure why you bring up Argosy University, with which DoDPI has formed a relationship, in this thread. Perhaps to change the subject? You ask:


Quote:

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

You conflate the concepts of "private" and "for-profit." Private universities are usually operated as non-profit organizations. For-profit businesses like Argosy University are the exception in higher education.

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 3:40pm:

George, I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah and Drew Richardson are now the only regular contributors here who avoid verbal brick bats.

In general, "ad hominem" refers to the use of personal attacks to discredit in lieu of logical argumentation.  Since George has already made a logical case and used it to conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest, I don't believe his statement meets the definition.


Quote:

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

No one says you have to answer anything, Dr. Barland.  Of course, others are completely free to draw conclusions regarding your reasons for such refusals, as well as the implications for your position in any debate.  Welcome to internet discussions :)

As for your "other priorities", my own inference, based upon your frequent posts, is that it is not lack of time which drives your non-answers.

Peace, indeed,
Skeptic

Skeptic,

Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message.  The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not.  I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

I have to say that I find it strange, and discordant, that on the one hand you value civilized discourse (as do I, and thanks for recognizing that, though I didn't find George's comments to you vituperative or non-substantive), yet on the other, you advocate a technique that in practice is often characterized by the polygraph examiner's abuse, distortion of the subject's words, arrogance, deception, crassness, vitriol, intimidation, and puffery.  

If it were just a pure diagnostic tool, that would be one thing, but the polygraph is used as a cudgel.  How do you reconcile this?  

Gordon,

You concluded one of your replies to Skeptic earlier in this message thread:


Quote:

I haven't touched upon the ethics of teaching someone how to manipulate a forensic test.

I (and no doubt others) would be interested in a discussion of this topic. Perhaps you might initiate such with a new message thread?

Mark,

I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.  

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

Earlier in this thread I asked you the following:


Quote:

...Perhaps you might care to suggest a recognized discipline within the American Academy of Forensic Sciences whose procedures and practices depend upon deception, misrepresentation, and the need for a  universally ignorant public.  I am not aware of any...

George has asked you to revisit the notion of ethics and forensic test manipulation (presumably a reference to polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures and something you further made reference to with Skeptic).  Before we launch off into the world of ethics again, I think, in order to avoid getting the cart before the horse, we need to establish what is a forensic test.  Nothing about polygraphy suggests to me that it is currently deserving of inclusion in such a grouping.  A substantive answer from you citing example(s) (again I realize that, as was the case for which you were asked to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature establishing RI validity, you are not compelled to do so) would go a long way towards resolving this matter.  PDD-Fed, if you are there, perhaps you might care to help Gordon out again if you are so able...

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 4:33pm:

Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour.  This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.

You mean like this one?

Psychologists Surveyed On Lie Detectors Say Most Are Not Valid...Not Scientifically Sound and Can Be Easily Deceived. 'The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion,' by W.G. Iacono, Ph.D., and D.T. Lykken, Ph.D.,University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.82, No. 3.

The press release can be read by clicking the above hyperlink or here

Take note the R/I test is not even considered worthy of inclusion in the survey.


Quote:

Yet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site... Am I wrong in this assumption?

Graduate degrees in what field? The 'journel' of the American Polygraph Association is not considered a peer-reviewed journal.

PDD-Fed,

Although I should have mentioned the following in our discussion yesterday, since my good friend, Beech, raised the issue of peer-reviewed journals once again, I will take the liberty of revisiting the subject once more.

With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ;) ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

Quote:

Mark, I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.

Polygraph in general.

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2002 at 4:49pm:

PDD-Fed, ...With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ;) ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

I understand and appreciate your points.  However, if I am not mistaken, the APA (polygraph) organization has two publications.  One is indeed a "newsletter" and is named as such.  It carries things like adds for instrument manufacturers, help wanted ads, etc.  The other publication is an actual jounal, which addresses operational and legal issues, research methodology, actual research studies, etc.  It compares at least in its structure and format, to scientific journals such as the AAFS and JAMA journals.

In fact, I would argue that JAMA, the journal of that American Medical Association, is a trade publication, not much unlike the Journal of the APA.  It serves not only as an outlet for medical research, But as a "trade" publication (furthering the position of its members).  In fact, the medical community has long used JAMA as a mouthpiece for defending its position on many commercial and political issues.  How is that unlike the APA Journal?  What am I not understanding here?

PDD-Fed,

The major difference (there are many) between JAMA and Polygraph is that one is a peer-reviewed publication of an association that universally is accepted as meriting professional recognition.  The latter is neither peer-reviewed (by relevant science professionals) nor is the publication of a recognized professional organization.  Polygraphy must first become a profession (currently a trade organization) and then publish and associate with other professional groups (ala the present attempt to commingle with the forensic science community).  The reverse is getting the cart before the horse at best.  

With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable.  Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right ;) .  I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability.  I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2002 at 8:15pm:

PDD-Fed, ...With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable.  Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right ;) .  I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability.  I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.

Now c'mon.  I didn't ask for insults... :'(  I simply made the comparison that like JAMA, the APA journal presents relevant research as well as fowards the interests of the community it serves.  In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications, you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal.

Chow...

PDD-Fed

PDD-Fed,

You invite scorn when you make such ridiculous comparisons.

You write:


Quote:

...In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications [Sic], you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal...

...and considerably more respected too.  The problem with Polygraph is not that it contains advertisements from polygraph manufacturers, but that it contains little of substance and nothing that could be trusted to be anything other than polygraph-community filtered pabulum.  JAMA is cited internationally on an almost daily basis in the media and is read by countless individuals other than those in the medical profession.  This is because it is considered to be both informative and authoritative.  Polygraph is considered a joke even by the few serious psychophysiologists involved in polygraphy.  As you said, "Now c'mon."  Let's get real.  This comparison is about as phony as can possibly be...sorry if the truth hurts...

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2002 at 7:13am:

Skeptic, Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message.  The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not.  I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.

The above definition is essentially the one I already presented (please see Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem).  In order to demonstrate an argument is "ad hominem", one must show that it is irrelevant to the point at hand.  Since your evasions and the reasons behind them are very much the point (indeed, you made them the point), your intellectual honesty is most certainly relevant to the discussion.

As for polemics, weren't you the one who ducked under the umbrella of "national security" and cried "ad hominem" (easily the most common term in internet debate after "Hitler" and "nazis") when your motives for such were reasonably questioned?  Are we now to accept your lack of argument as an argument?  At least for me, that simply won't fly -- I've seen "I know but can't tell you how" used in lieu of real argumentation too many times to give such smoke-and-mirror games any credence.

Logical and serious points have been raised regarding R/I efficacy and implications not only for national security but individual fairness and due process, as well.  Reasonable questions have been put to you that could be answered with no conceivable harm to national security.  Either respond in kind or you have lost this debate.

Skeptic

Dr, Barland:

You talkie, talkie say nothing. Dr Drew Richardson has made very strong aguments that CQT testing poses grave threats to our National Security because:

1) They can be easily beaten by countermeasures
2) They can not determine whether someone is reacting out of fear of consequence or fear of detection or any other strong emotion such as anger etc.... So your guessing.

Do you feel his assertions are false? if so please explain. Surely by doing so would not threaten National Security any more than the polygraph itself.

>:(