Drew,
First off, my feelings have nothing to do with my last post. Hearing bothersome language and being called names, not on my birth certificate, are common occurrences in my line of work. My point was we are professionals and we should keep the dialog as such.
Some of the cites in my last post were directed toward your assertion that;
Quote:
As utterly ridiculous and unsupported as this hypothesis is, it totally ignores the sympathetic cholinergic (acetyl choline) electrodermal responses that have nothing to do with the adrenal medulla.
So I quoted to that;
Quote: From:
http://www.jphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/3/633?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=1... IRSTINDEX=40&journalcode=jphysiol
The Journal of Physiology, Vol 250, Issue 3 633-649, Copyright © 1975 by The Physiological Society
RESEARCH PAPERS
Sweat gland function in isolated perfused skin
KG Johnson
??.
Injections of adrenaline into cattle skin evoked longer- lasting sweat discharges, and infusions of adrenaline elicited continuous discharges. Injections of noradrenaline and sometimes of bradykinin caused only brief sweat discharges?..
Although Acetylcholine (ACh) is the pre-ganglionic neurotransmitter for both the sympathetic and the parasympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous system, the post-ganglionic neurotransmitters are different. Norepinephrine (Ne) is the post-ganglionic neurotransmitter for the sympathetic division, which is used for emergency response. Most organs use both the sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation. There are three exceptions to the above and they are; 1. The blood vessels are only sympathetically innervated. 2. The sweat glands are only sympathetically innervated with the use of ACh as the neurotransmitter. 3. The adrenal glands are sympathetically innervated with the use of ACh as the neurotransmitter. I am assuming that this is what you were referring to. If so, I would agree with your last statement in the described neurological portion of a response. There are other factors you negated to discuss, such as the hormonal induced ones. I don't think you were suggesting that neurological functions cannot be effected by hormons.
For example:
Quote: From:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/138/12/5597?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=... h=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=endo
Endocrinology Vol. 138, No. 12 5597-5604
Copyright © 1997 by The Endocrine Society
ARTICLES
Expression of Adrenomedullin and Its Receptor in Normal and Malignant Human Skin: A Potential Pluripotent Role in the Integument
Alfredo MartÍnez, Theodore H. Elsasser, Carlos Muro-Cacho, Terry W. Moody, Mae Jean Miller, Charles J. Macri and Frank Cuttitta
Detection of AM in sweat
The presence of AM immunoreactivity in the sweat glands (Figs. 4F1F1 and 5F1F1) suggested that the peptide may be secreted into the sweat, and to test this hypothesis, we performed RIA in sweat samples and compared the values obtained with AM levels in blood serum (Fig. 13F13F13). Surprisingly, the values obtained for AM in the sweat were very variable (87.93 ± 88.48 fmol/ml) but, in general, were much higher than the values obtained in the blood samples (16.83 ± 2.52 fmol/ml). These data confirm that AM is secreted into the sweat in large amounts. The variation in AM levels may reflect differences in exertion or in sweat secretion rates.
Quote:
Perhaps you can point out to me where deception/detection of deception is discussed in any of that which you have quoted. With the exception of the Seely et al quote (idle speculative commentary (secondary source) with no reference to the scientific literature), I see none. Unless you can, it is completely irrelevant (and would be if you had downloaded a complete physiology text if unrelated to deception through references to the peer reviewed literature) to our discussions and simply more evidence of a lack of critical thinking....
I own the books I quote and they are not downloaded. I use web-based information because it is readily accessible to anyone who wishes to check my information for accuracy. I can use full text material I own but most cannot check for the accuracy of statements against those sources. Seely is a well respected figure within his field and I dare say has more knowledge of anatomy and physiology then both you and I combine. Deception is a broad term and can be associated with much of the literature available. In an earlier post I cited a book entitled "Social Psychology", which I own, and the quoted text puts the idea of deception into context for our discussion.
Quote:
It is not I who stated categorically that adrenergic hormone release was directly and proportionately related to deception, but you. Where's the proof. Absolutely none of that which you have offered in your most recent post is evidence of that...if you are going to idly speculate about such things, so be it, but please distinguish such and identify for the reader and also realize that you have offered nothing whatsoever to indicate that comparison questions in a CQT offer any form of scientific control. (I believe the original issue we were discussing)
Is the intention of your above statement to suggest that the fight or flight syndrome has nothing to do with polygraph? Are you saying that the sum of stimuli is not proportionately related to the response? Again, deception is a broad-based term that covers many facets. As for your inference to scientific control, I have given you definitions of scientific controls taken from other accepted scientific disciplines' and how the CQT uses them. I am not here to argue which is a better question format, CQT vs GKT. I believe they both have utility and are valid when used in a proper setting. I have already made it known what my thoughts are as to the use of CQT in a pre-employment screening setting.
You are correct in that the point of this debate is amiss. George made the assertions that this debate was based on. He has purported that the CQT has not been shown to be better then chance in peer-reviewed field research. This debate has meandered off course because he has changed the subject and passed the burden without first ever proving his assertions. In a separate thread I wrote;
Quote:
Again you skirt the issue. There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies. The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis. It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better. Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.
George then replied, in part, the following answer;
Quote:
That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.
I think this is what I have been saying all along. CQT polygraph used for specific criminal issue purposes is highly accurate and is scientific. However, some want GKT instead of CQT so they press for its unacceptability and in the course find their cause in the same disarray because it relies heavily on many of the core concepts. If GKT proponents and CQT proponents would simply agree that both of the methods have utility and are valid, then we would most likely have two scientifically accepted formats. More importantly, I cannot imagine the impossible force the combine effort would have in steering polygraph. Still George, you, and I all know that CQT is shown to be better than chance in the current accepted peer-reviewed field research studies.
Pages: 
The Scientific Validity of Polygraph (Read 39235 times)
