J.B.,
This message thread began with Netnin posting the explanation he received from certain polygraphers of how they can allegedly detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. Netnin did not find the answers he received satisfying, and asked for comment.
You at first responded with a discussion of "invoked" vs. "evoked" physiological responses, without explaining how these can be distinguished from the examination of polygraph charts. I asked you to do so, and to "be specific, and support your reply with references that skeptical readers may check."
On 20 Nov. you replied:
Quote:For the questions about "self-stimulation (e.g., contracting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, thinking arousing thoughts, or manipulating one's breathing patterns) vs. those that are attributable to other factors (e.g., fear of the consequences of not being believed, anger, embarrassment, etc., etc.)?"
The sphincter contraction causes specific and notable changes in another component tracing.
Manipulating ones respiration is evident in the inhalation- exhalation ratio factor and tracing appearance.
Mental imagery is invoked at the examinee's perceived point of implementation. Invoking a response with mental imagery would then involve one hearing the question, perceiving the question to be one that they should use CM, beginning mental imagery, and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system possibly being triggered. However, a person responding to a question is different. The question and answer are reviewed prior. The person already knows if their answer will be truthful or deceptive. Hence, to process this involves hearing the question and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.
But again, you did not explain how to detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts...
On 24 Nov., you claimed that "rounded breathing is not normal" and on 27 Nov., I posted the illustrations you sent me along with your explanation of how to detect respiratory countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. Your argument was that rounded pneumo tracings are indicative of attempted countermeasures. Although you also provided an illustration showing apneas in conjunction with anal sphincter contractions, you provided no explanation of how the presence of such apneas can be correlated with attempted countermeasures. (Indeed, according to DoDPI, apneas such as those shown in your illustration are a scorable physiological reaction.)
On 28 November, I posted an illustration from Reid & Inbau's
Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique titled "Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns." Most of the pneumo tracings show rounding, which contradicts your claim that rounded breathing is indicative of attempted countermeasures.
Finally, and also on 28 November, you conceded that you are "unaware of any published or publicly available documentation or scientific study" regarding how countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts. You also stated that your argument regarding countermeasure detection "is a hypothesis not a theory" and that you are "in the infant stages of studying, researching, documenting and validating the ideas [you] have shared..."
On 29 November, I challenged you, "If you have a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts, please state it formally."
To date, you have not done so, though on 5 December you posted a non sequitur discussion of respiratory volumes. In the same post, you wrote regarding the Reid & Inbau illustration, "In the example you provided, Reid & Inbau are making a generalization of possible normal respiration tracings, which are illustrated in the form of character drawings and not true tracings." You obviously did not read the text at the top of the illustration. It states, "All of the following reproductions comprising Figures 9 through 22 are from actual case records and the tracings are the same size as the originals."
Today (11 December), you wrote regarding me and Gino, "It is your right to express your views and feelings. However, to offer them as true to fact or scientific is misleading and confusing to those coming to your site to obtain credible information and education." Our arguments in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are based on our research of the literature, and are extensively annotated with citations that the skeptical reader may check.
Addressing Gino, you wrote, "you say the accuracy of polygraph is no better then chance in field settings. I have provided you with a long list of peer reviewed studies on polygraph. None of these studies or any or all combined support a 50 percent accuracy rate. Chance is 50/50."
What Gino and I have both argued is that Control Question Test (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to operate at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. Such peer-reviewed studies as you cite apply to analog (laboratory) studies, not field studies. And it bears repeating that as CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity.
In addition, the chance level of accuracy is not necessarily 50/50. It is governed by the base rate of guilt. For example, in screening for espionage, where the base rate of guilt is quite small (less than 1%), an accuracy rate of over 99% could be obtained by ignoring the polygraph charts and arbitrarily declaring all "tested" to be truthful. However, such a methodology would not work better than chance.
With regard to Honts and Amato's survey of scientific opinion regarding polygraphy, note that the question of whether polygraphy has "utility" is different from the question of whether is has "validity." A completely invalid truth test may nonetheless have utility if it leads to confessions that would not have been made absent the "test." In a survey published in 1997 by William G. Iacono & David T. Lykken (see the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a full citation and abstract), members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research were provided with an explanation of how the CQT works and were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed. In addition, when asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions," 99% of the 96% of respondents with an opinion agreed.
You also claim in your latest post, "There is no need to keep any aspect of the polygraph a secret. A properly educated examinee is less likely to be apprehensive and more likely to be comfortable with the known."
Again I ask you, as I did on 29 November (you did not answer), "on what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, 'the lie behind the lie detector,' if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP discussion list), he declined to answer."