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.