Normal Topic Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique? (Read 12766 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6199
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique?
Jun 11th, 2002 at 8:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!

It appears that the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) has not conducted any research whatsoever into the validity of the R/I technique. (See the message thread DSS Withholds R/I Screening Documentation.) Nonetheless, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, formerly of DoDPI, has suggested the R/I technique as an alternative to the "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) in instances where the subject admits to being familiar with CQT methodology. (See the message thread, Countermeasure considerations for the innocent). And "PDD-Fed" has offered the R/I technique as one that is immune to physical countermeasures. (See the message thread, Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique). PDD-Fed has further indicated that based on R/I chart readings alone, and absent any admissions from a subject, he will render an opinion of "significant response" (which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as "deception indicated," or "failing").

Now, the American Polygraph Association purports to be "Dedicated to Truth" (APA motto), and DoDPI supposedly seeks to further "Security and Justice Through Truth" (DoDPI motto).

So answer truthfully, all ye polygraphers who read this! Absent any substantive admission on the subject's part, on what rational basis can a polygrapher possibly conclude that a subject was deceptive as a result of "failing" a R/I "test?!"

If the polygraph community cannot or will not answer this question, then perhaps those polygaphers who continue to use the R/I technique (as well as the corrupt and/or incompetent DoDPI officials who sanction it) should be held personally liable in any civil and/or criminal litigation that might arise from the federal government's arbitrary and capricious misuse of this thoroughly discredited methodology.
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2002 at 9:06pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PDD-FEd
Guest


Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #1 - Jun 11th, 2002 at 10:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, you said,
Quote:
If the polygraph community cannot or will not answer this question, then perhaps those polygaphers who continue to use the R/I technique (as well as the corrupt and/or incompetent DoDPI officials who sanction it) should be held personally liable in any civil and/or criminal litigation that might arise from the federal government's arbitrary and capricious misuse of this thoroughly discredited methodology.



Well George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology."  Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way  to discredit that particular study or studies.  You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue.  You really need to be a little more open minded.... Wink

PDD-Fed

P.S.  I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night.  While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep.  I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view.... Kiss
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Anonymous
Guest


Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #2 - Jun 11th, 2002 at 11:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
PDD-Fed,

I don't know, but suspect you are correct.  Mr. Maschke probably devotes countless hours to the work connected with this web site.  Those who read this material, particularly the victims of polygraphy, and the American public are deeply indebted to him and Mr. Scalabrini.  I for one am even glad that you awakened to post your reply.  Unfortunately you forgot to address the main and boldly highlighted question put to you:


Quote:
...Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!...



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Anonymous
Guest


Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #3 - Jun 12th, 2002 at 5:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
P.S.  I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night.  While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep.  I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view.... Kiss  


With characteristic lack of attention to detail and available statistics, you failed to notice the actual pattern.  Mr. Maschke rarely posts between the hours of 17:00 and 01:00 (only about 4 of his last 50 posts).  This indicates a regular, reasonable rest period of about 7-8 hours, but jump to your own conclusions...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6199
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #4 - Jun 12th, 2002 at 10:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
George, you said,

Well George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology."  Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way  to discredit that particular study or studies.  You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue.  You really need to be a little more open minded.... Wink

PDD-Fed

P.S.  I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night.  While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep.  I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view.... Kiss   


PDD-Fed,

Ad hominem arguments that I need to be "a little more open-minded" and "get a little more sleep" do nothing to support the notion that the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique (your bread and butter, PDD-Fed) has any more validity than a tarot card reading. I expected better from someone who purports to have a master's degree...

In the message thread, Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique you protested:

Quote:
Frankly, your endless depiction of the polygraph community as a wagon train of card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies, is not only inaccurate, but is getting really, really "old."


Then please show us that you and your fellow practitioners of the R/I technique are not a "wagon train of card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies" (my apologies to card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies for the comparison to polygraphers) by directing us to any peer-reviewed research which supports the validity of your methodology.
« Last Edit: Jun 12th, 2002 at 1:23pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #5 - Jun 12th, 2002 at 7:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Well George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology."  Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way  to discredit that particular study or studies.  You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue.  You really need to be a little more open minded.... Wink

PDD-Fed

P.S.  I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night.  While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep.  I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view.... Kiss  


This represents your best effort? No wonder our federal government is in such a shambles.
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PDD-Fed
Guest


Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #6 - Jun 12th, 2002 at 10:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,
You asked:

Quote:
Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!

[/b]



I am not sure if this article from the Northwestern University School of Law is "peer reviewed", but please take a look.  According to this particular research study, the R&I was highly accurate in detecting truth/deception: Smiley

Blum R; Osterloh,W.,   The polygraph examination as a means for detecting truth and falsehood in stories presented by police informants. Journal of Criminal Law, Crime and Police Science 1968; 59; 133-137.

PDD-Fed

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6199
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #7 - Jun 12th, 2002 at 10:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
PDD-Fed,

The article you cite appeared in the Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science,
which was founded by law professor (and polygrapher) Fred E. Inbau and is hardly a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Although I don't have ready access to the text of this article, the title itself suggests that it is not a validity study.

Is this the best evidence for the validity of R/I polygraphy that you (and the polygraph community) can come up with?
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6199
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Techni
Reply #8 - Jun 25th, 2002 at 5:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The value of scientific peer-review becomes apparent when one reads the Operations Research Office's non-peer-reviewed January 1951 "Report on the Possible Uses of the Polygraph and Supplemental Report on the Examination of Korean Nationals and Communist Chinese," which advocates use of the Relevant/Irrelevant "test" for screening purposes.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique?

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X