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.