Public Servant,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


While Drew has addressed this point, I would just suggest that your casual dismissal his serious (and thus-far unanswered) polygraph countermeasure challenge (207 days and counting) as "silly" is nothing but a self-serving rationalization for the cowardice of the polygraph community. You will recall that Drew only restated his challenge on this website. He first presented this challenge at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences polygraph review committee. It is hardly "silly." 

A more plausible explanation for the unwillingness of anyone in the polygraph community to accept his challenge is that you (the polygraph community) privately believe that you  are not up to the task, and that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would publicly expose you as the charlatans (however well-meaning) that you are.

Public Servant,

Taking up where we left off last week…

You write:

Quote:


I have no idea what DoDPI’s 500 level teaching refers to.  The only way to evaluate DoDPI’s program is not to look at course offerings/coursework descriptions/numeric levels in its academic handbook, but to have a paid outside and independent expert review the video tapes of the last one or two Basic Examiner’s Course psychology and physiology courses (to include any student participation) and to examine all corresponding forms of coursework evaluation and examination.  

The situation that existed at the time I went through DoDPI’s program some years ago was as follows.  The individual teaching psychology and physiology was more than qualified and credentialed to teach these courses at a master’s level.  (By the way, are these courses currently taught by Ph.D. level faculty?  They were at that time).  The problem that existed was not that the primary instructor could not teach, but that the students did not have the requisite background to learn at an appropriate level.  This led to two absurdities.  The instruction, of necessity, had to begin at a ridiculously low level (this is how a drop of blood traverses the circulatory system, etc. etc.) and the examination process was meaningless.  The students were given all the questions (and corresponding answers) that they might be expected to answer on the various examinations.  The only thing unknown to students was which subset of the totality of these questions might occur on any given examination.  

If the background of current students is similar (i.e., if matriculation requirements are the same), the program will now be equally weak.  There are a variety of ways to hide these weaknesses in the form of a an academic shell game, i.e., within any weaknesses that might exist in the instructor’s credentials and background, the coursework taught (beginning level/depth of consideration), the evaluation process, etc., but one can be assured if student backgrounds are weak, the overall instructional program will be weak.  Again, a review of the DoDPI academic handbook is a poor substitute for a rigorous analysis of any program you might care to evaluate.


Quote:


I am glad you raised this analogy.  I have seen it raised several times before, but I have not had the opportunity to critique it before.  I believe you have missed the significance of your own analogy with regard to the following basic consideration.  A radiology tech is simply that—one who using standard and easily documented and repeated techniques obtains one of several forms of raw data, e.g. a chest radiograph.  This individual does not perform diagnosis, i.e., examine the radiograph for the purpose of identifying (or eliminating) various pathologies that might be suggested through this preliminary/screening medical technology.  I believe you to be correct in your assessing a radiology tech’s education to be appropriate for the task(s) he/she performs.  If a polygraph examiner did nothing but collect raw data (for future analysis by a skilled diagnostician), I would have no problem with your analogy, and would agree that a polygraph examiner might well be suitably trained with comparable technical education.  BUT, a polygraph examiner attempts/pretends to perform diagnosis as well, i.e. to make determinations about the presence or absence of deception based on his analysis of the raw data.  This puts him in the situation of performing the analogous functions of both the radiology tech and the radiologist (educated with undergraduate degree, four year medical degree, internship, and residency specialty).  If you are to follow your analogy to a logical conclusion, if the polygraph examiner is to perform both analogous functions, he should have an educational background corresponding to the sum of the educations of both the technician and the diagnostician.

Regards,

Drew Richardson

Drew,

I've read many of the posts on this web site.  Some of what you say I totally agree with.  I may be wrong, but it would appear that there are some government agencies that make final decisions based SOLEY on the results of a polygraph examination.  I've been an examiner since 8 Nov 1991 (that date should be familiar to you Drew).  I learned very early on in my polygraph career (long before I became an examiner)that it is ONLY AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.  It is not an absolute, but MOST of the time, if used properly, it can assist in, and not replace, an aggressive, thorough investigation.  And that is exactly how I approach it, and it is how other agencies should approach it.  I have since retired from Federal service and secured work doing the same thing, but now I can ensure that the police officers and police administration are fully aware of the limits of the polygraph.  And I think we have been fairly successful.  In fact, when I prepare my reports, I specifically note that the results of a polygraph examination should not be used as the sole basis to obtain an arrest warrant.  When someone is "DI" on a test, there is a reason, and sometimes you just don't know why.  And I don't pretend to know what is important to the examinee or read their mind.  All I can do is try to figure out why the charts "indicate deception" and move on from there.  And as for pre-employment screening, very few actually are "DI" to the test.  I attribute that to a detailed "pre-test" to get everything out in the open.  And well over 95% of the "DI" tests, provide an explanation (call it an admission or confession, I don't care) that satisfies me.  But we DO NOT deny employment based soley on a "DI" polygraph test.  I'll keep reading this site because I'm interested in the work you are doing.  I'm open minded enough to look at making a better mouse trap.  Polygraph examiners should not be evaluated based on their admissions/confessions.  That is where the door is open for them to "overstate" the admission/confession.  But it isn't just polygraph examiners that do it, law enforcement as a whole has this problem, but only with those who lack the integrity to report the facts.  And I think a majority (I hope) of law enforcement officers do have that integrity.  I just wish you wouldn't encourage the honest examinee to use countermeasures in a pre-employment test.  I think it only hurts them.  The ones that have admitted to countermeasures to me have been eliminated from the employment process because of the actions.

Talk to you later Drew

Public Servant,

I believe this is my sixth (and final) in a series of responses to you regarding your last post to me.  I hope in addition to any comments you might care to offer, that you will answer my various questions contained throughout these posts.  If it should be necessary or even helpful, I would be glad to extract and list those questions for you.  

You write:


Quote:


In my case, I arrived at that juncture (polygraph research) having taken several professional twists and turns following the time I received an undergraduate degree in chemistry from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.  Having worked for approximately 3 years as an organic chemist for a pharmaceutical company I was recruited by the FBI in connection with its “science program”-hiring category for Special Agents.  At that time (and as far as I know this is still the case) all agents, including those who were hired with various future specialty assignments in mind, e.g. attorneys who would eventually be in the Office of General Counsel, accountants who might be in the Finance Division, and scientists in the FBI Laboratory, etc., served at least one initial field investigative assignment following new agent training at the FBI Academy in Quantico.  The notion, which I believe to be well founded and which dated back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, was that one who would ultimately serve as a specialist would be more productive in that role if he/she had some prior field experience with the overall general product (law enforcement) of the parent organization.  In my case, I served an initial assignment in the Bureau’s Field Office in Chicago and was involved in general criminal work, organized crime investigations, and a brief assignment involving foreign counterintelligence matters. 

Following that assignment I was assigned to the Laboratory Division and served as an examiner in the Chemistry Toxicology Unit.  A few years later I was requested by the Bureau’s Polygraph Unit on several occasions to conduct various toxicological examinations directed towards determining whether an examinee had used drugs in an effort to manipulate the results of a polygraph examination.  In subsequent years, along with having maintained various personal contacts within the Polygraph Unit, and at a time I was involved in two doctoral programs (completed the coursework requirements for a Ph.D. degree in pharmacology and later the overall degree requirements for a Ph.D. degree in physiology), my research interests eventually led me to become involved in the Laboratory’s polygraph research program at Quantico.

Your further write:

Quote:


This is probably a good point for me to both end these series of posts and to reinforce the absolute need for a scientific background if one is to engage in procedures that purport to involve meaningful diagnosis.  Although a confession by a guilty subject following a deceptive polygraph exam may anecdotally be quite useful to a case agent, the criminal justice system, and society in general, it has absolutely nothing to do with determining overall validity of a diagnostic procedure, e.g., polygraphy.  Validity is not a function of and is not determined via good interviews, interrogations, or criminal investigations (although all of these things serve vital functions) but is soundly grounded and defined by principles of science.  The problem with tying notions of validity to confessions is largely twofold: (1) Even a confession following a true positive polygraph exam is at best anecdotal and not suggestive of overall accuracy and validity, and as we know from various high profile recent (e.g., Daniel King) and other ongoing matters (e.g., Higazy?) that not all confessions are necessarily associated with guilt (The examiners involved, no doubt, believed the confessions obtained validated their respective tests, right?), and (2) More importantly, in the absence of a confession, a polygraph examiner with deceptive charts will most frequently not know (and certainly not know based on the “reading” of his charts) whether a guilty examinee has not “fessed up” or whether he is dealing with a false positive exam result and a subsequently falsely accused but completely innocent examinee.  It is precisely this phenomenon (and trying to associate validity with confessions) that will of necessity lead polygraph examiners to underestimate the number of errors (false positives) that they make during any given time period.

Again, I believe there is no more appropriate way for me to close than with this subject and with what I believe to be a very clear example of why a science background and a statistical approach to evaluating evidence is not only desirable but essential if one is to be involved in assessing validity and other parameters of a diagnostic procedure.  As always, best regards, and I will look forward to your various comments and answers to my questions,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


Although I suppose I could continue this, because you say and your post would further indicate a lack of time or motivation on your part for this interaction, I believe I will let this go for now.  Should you care to further address any of the outstanding questions/points from my preceding six posts (adressed to you) at some future time, please feel free to do so, and I will pick up with further commentary as appropriate.  Best Wishes,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

Thank you for your last reply.  I have largely come to the same conclusion as you regarding having reached a point of diminishing return in our ongoing discussions.  I will leave off with just a couple of comments stemming from your last post.

Quote:


I am afraid your desire to be vigilant is no substitute for or any evidence of reliably detecting countermeasures.  Additionally, polygraph countermeasures have nothing to do with "trying to conceal information" for an innocent examinee, but with his attempting to assure a correct result (no deception indicated)--something you and lie detection polygraphy can not reasonably guarantee this individual through present practices.

Quote:


I believe you have overlooked an issue with associated ethical implications considerably more serious and fundamental than the one you raise, i.e., allowing individuals and our nation to be harmed through the error of a procedure (polygraph screening) that has no theoretical basis and no validity in practice.  If you and your colleagues were to have the interest you claim to be lacking and to address this problem, the issue you concern yourself with would be a considerably lesser problem for you.

Have a pleasant weekend and best wishes,

Drew Richardson

Wow!  I can't believe we've revived this old thread.  Anyway, I could not resist this reply.

Quote:


We do EXCEPT this challenge!!  It is EXCEPTED from a list of serious concerns with which examiners, national security professionals, and law enforcement professionals have to deal each day.  And, I do take EXCEPTION to such comments that examiners are afraid of this challenge.  I (and many others like me) ACCEPT this challenge each day, but not in Drew or George's forum...rather in real world investigations wherein we seek to identify criminals, and eliminate the innocent, even if they try to use countermeasures!

Regards!

Skeptic,

With, all due respect, I believe I did stick to the point. I merely took advantage of sie's word usage to re-iterate the same point that is challenged over and over again.  I thought it was a creative way to add a little interest in a topic in which we should quickly lose interest (since nothing new comes out of the argument over the "challenge").  If my methodology seemed mean-spirited, then I apologize to both you and sie.   

I'll save mean-spiritedness for my rebuttals of personal attacks from Beech.  He seems to take it almost as well as he dishes it out.

Regards.