TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

Hi Digithead,   Everybody needs a day off or two, and I took mine.  I was however quite surprised to see your posting here.  Your position on the NAS report would appear to be one charged with emotion coupled with the best information you know.

I'm not emotional about anything. I've never taken a polygraph, I'm merely a criminal justice researcher who examines and evaluates sex offender supervision techniques. My interest in the polygraph arose from that and the bulk of research that I've read indicates to me that there is both utility (i.e. bogus pipeline) and futility (i.e. the base rate problem and low specificity) in CQT polygraph testing. I've also come to the conclusion that the futility outweighs the utility. I do, however, believe that testing grounded in cognition such as the GKT/concealed information testing has promise and would not only be utile but useful in PCSOT.


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

However, can we both agree that since the NAS scientists DID NOT do any of their own research, can we really cotinue to call it peer review ?  I think it is rather more a book report at best with bias given that their very community is subject to these very tests for their current or prior jobs.

Not that it matters to you but a literature review is research. I would also call their efforts a meta-analysis. One needn't do statistical analyses to do meta-analysis...

Additionally, the NAS committee was tasked to review the research on the polygraph and reach a conclusion from the currect state of research. As a polygrapher, your efforts to undermine their conclusions by calling them biased are more emotionally based than anything I've done...

Again, you make the claim that the people on the NAS committee were subject to polygraph testing and you've been provided evidence that none were, are, or will be. Rather than claim bias, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, it's ad hominem and sounds like sour grapes on your part because you don't like their conclusions...


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

Despite their position, actual real studies are ongoing at DACA by your tax dollars and mine.  Progress moves forward, and not the other direction, and so your collective wishing away this computer instrumentation is not consistent with the government meeting it's goals.

If you actually read the report, the NAS called for more research into polygraph and lie detection but they, and I think correctly, called for the research to be performed by those without any vested interest in polygraphy. The DACA hardly qualify as a body without any vested interest in polygraphy as they make their living from it. If you think the NAS is biased, do you really believe that the DACA are unbiased?


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

Again, when some new tool comes along that does it better, such sales will be made.

There is a better test, it's call the guilty knowledge test. Why don't you guys use it instead?


TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 5:23am:

The world is not always like Burger King where you get to "Have it Your Way" !!!!  Do I really need to repeate the false sense of entitlement thing again ?

To quote the late Richard Feynman: "Reality should take precedence over public relations because Nature cannot be fooled."

Regards...