After repeatedly visiting this site over the last year or so, I finally decided to put in my two cents.  You will obviously infer that I am one of practitioners of polygraph, so often labeled as evil on this site.  Which brings me to my first point.  The most passionate contributors to this site often throw around the word ad hominem to describe the pro-polygraph views posted.  By no means am I defending most of these posts -- in fact I usually cringe when reading them, knowing full well that they will do nothing but fuel the passions of a Beech Trees, per se.  However, surely, anyone can see the irony in this assertion.  This site (not only the message posts) is filled with personal attacks and unsubstantiated generalizations.  Polygraph examiners are called uneducated, dishonest, greedy, authoritarian, unethical, idiotic...   So, this finger pointing using latin  learned in pre-law 101 is equal to:
Kettle this is Pot, message over.
Pot this is kettle, send message, over.
You're black, out.

Secondly, while we are discussing the rules of intellectual argument...you argue from the general to the specific to prove a point, not specific to general.  That is called stereotyping, or just plain prejudice.  My point is that the assertion that "my polygrapher did me wrong so they must all be a bunch of boorish pigs," is not a valid argument.

I'm basically telling you to can the fingerpointing BS and get on to the substance and thus I will do the same.  I will try to stick to mere facts or my own personal beliefs of such.

There are three factors in the success of any examination:  the examiner, the examination, and the examinee.

A word first about examiners.  There are three categories, Federal, State/Local, Private.  Within them there are those that deal with screeening, criminal investigations, counter-intelligence, or a combination of all.  Different jurisdictions have different requirements.  However, most in the Federal system are working on or possess graduate degrees, and many in the other areas have moved from the Federal arena.  The vast majority are experienced law enforcement or counter intel agents.  These are people who passed stringent tests to prove their integrity and have devoted themselves to their country.  They could make much more, no doubt outside, and could live much more comfortably.  And contrary to a post I read, most would not only have jobs if not for polygraph, many would be special agents in charge, chiefs of police, etc.  I don't doubt that you may have run into a dolt, or an unethical purveyor of this profession.  I have met them and sought to weed them out.  But do not question the integrity or patriotism of the whole just because of your experience.  Do you condemn all police officers when you see videos of apparent excessive force?  Separate emotion from fact.  The fact is, examiners have nothing to gain from your passing or failing.  A false positive is what I least want since I would not get a confession from an innocent person (I'm good, but not that good) and thus would be unable to reolve a felony investigation.  This is why we work so hard to ensure proper results, an effort you most criticize here (ie the pre-test).

The examination.  This will get you licking your lips I'm sure.  Sorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here.  I'll just say it's much better than chance.  Keep in mind that I only deal with felony investigations, so you'll never see me at your application interview.  It's an investigative tool and the results alone are only used if it's NDI (usually NDI results eliminates the examinee as a suspect -- any ethical concerns if what this site claims is true? ???) A DI without confession is useless and I don't mind that.  Ultimately all evidence types are less than 100%--DNA shows the subject was present, but does it prove he pulled trigger or that sex was forcible?  Video can be altered or omit important preceding/proceding events.  And they are used in court!!!  My goodness -- www.antiDNA.com!!!! ;  

Lastly the examinee.  Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically. But overall, the problem one has with passing is withholding information he feels is relevant.  Many an inconclusive exam has turned into an NDI on second series, after an admission of some small tidbit is revealed.  I took an exam and was bordering on the feelings of this site, angered that I would have to reveal transgressions of my youth.  But I did it, and as you know, some of the things the examiner did not want to know, but I made him suffer through it.  The nicest thing he did was to "lie" to me and ensure I could be seen as not being a criminal or a spy.

Finally, rather than spending the vast resources of intellect and funds many of the contributors to this site exhibit, on bashing polygraph, why not spend them on trying to find something better. Or at least push your government to find something better.  In these times your government is not going to eliminate its tools.  So why not help those in our profession (LE and intelligence) get better tools to protect your nation and your communities.

Enough said here and don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of your responses -- I know I'll never convince most of the die hard contributors to this site regarding the usefulness of polygraph.  However, I will continue to enjoy reading the discussion on this site and will chime in if it gets interesting.

Public Servant,

Please do not take any offense by this, but it is suprising (and suspect) that a person of your position and stature has yet to gain a satisfactory command of the English language, both in form and substance.

Latin 101,

OK, you are absolutely correct.  I tend to ramble, my typing and grammar may need some work (especially at the hour I wrote that post) and I improperly used "per se."

However, with your obvious mastery of linguistics, you surely realized you were providing an example of ad hominem argument for me.   

No offense taken, by the way.  I'll try to proof read from now on.   Does neatness count?

Public Servant wrote on Jul 16^th, 2002 at 1:14pm:


As someone with a psychology background, let me point out that the above is a non sequitur: yes, psychology is one of the "soft" sciences, but it is still a science, complete with falsifiable hypotheses/theories and non-confounded evidence.  In fact, it is on the grounds of psychological standards for testing (validity and reliability) that the most devastating critiques of polygraphy "testing" are made: polygraphy has all the validity and reliability of a good Tarot card reading.

Quote:


I'm sure none of us would want any of the above criminals to go free.  It should be noted, though, that torture also produces sometimes accurate confessions to the above crimes, as well.  Clearly, the ends do not necessarily justify the means.

Quote:


Which is wonderful.  Too bad that a failed polygraph alone, even without corroborative evidence, is frequently enough to damage or destroy someone's career, relationships, and other parts of their lives.

George, I have a few comments about a recent post you made.  You said,

Quote:


George,

Disregarding for the moment any arguement regarding the probability of success in the use of countermeasures, I have a fundlemental problem with your repeated implications that this site does not knowingly assist criminals to avoid detection.

I do not have the time to research the entire message board right now, but I know that in the last several months I have read many posts by people who have openly admitted to having committed all sorts of criminal acts and were writing to you and others on this site to help them "beat" the polygraph in order to avoid detection and prosecution.  You and others on this site responded in each and every case. by helping these criminals.
 
In fact, at this very moment at least one of the message boards on this site has been completely taken over by registered sex offenders who are using this site to discuss stratigies to keep their ongoing exploitation of others (to include innocent children) beyond the abilities of the authorities to detect and deal with.

You distance yourself from these goings on by claiming "Our purpose was certainly not to help criminals to get away with their crimes..."  That is much like the statements made by the leader of a well known white racist hate group, who after one of his most faithful followers killed numerous minorities said, "The church ...neither condones violence or unlawful activities, nor do we promote or incite them.” Yet that is EXACTLY what this leader condones and encourages.  He believes that by making that statement, he absolves himself of any liability.

George, you are distancing yourself from the criminals your site draws, much like Hale does, but you are still KNOWINGLY providing tools that you and your followers BELIEVE will assist the GUILTY in escaping prosecution.

You justify your behavior by saying, "...the countermeasure information we provide here can only help criminals to the extent that government places any reliance on these pseudoscientific "tests.""

Your arguement therefore is, if a criminal (such as a sex offender) were to be able to successfully use your methods to escape detection and thereby be able to victimize others, you would feel no guilt or responsibility, because it was the government's "fault" for relying on the polygraph (that otherwise would have perhaps caught this criminal and prevented more victimization if it were not for the methods YOU taught him).

George, one thing that you and I are in agreement about is that the Internet is indeed a powerful information tool.  As you know, there are websites dedicated to all sorts of things.  In fact, just last night, I found websites that taught me how to "beat" a urinaylsis test.  The position of the folks on that site is that the urinaylsis test is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and therefore they are "justified" in providing that information.  (Remember that, next time you get on an airplane wondering if the pilot "beat" his urinaylsis test.)

I found web sites that taught me how to ruin someone's credit, build a bomb, acquire guns, seduce small children, and get away with all these things.  In EVERY case, the sites completely justified their activities, much as you and your followers do.

George, I am no lawyer, but I must believe there is civil and criminal case law out there that addresses injury caused by individuals who provide information that enables one to engage in, or escape detection from criminal activity that has victimized others.  In fact, I can think of several scenerios that would apply to the information provided on this site.

Anyway, just a little "food for thought."

Polycop

Ref,

Taking for granted that you do have the background you profess, I would not challenge your assertions regarding psychology as a whole.  My own credentials in psychological theory and research at this time are meager at best.  

However my assertion in my previous post is that the difficulty in proving the validity of polygraph is that we can not always know what the truth is. Likewise, in a controlled environment where ground truth is known, the degree of effectiveness is diminished by the lack of realism to the subjects.  

I suppose a better comparison to psychology would be the therapist feeling he has located the cause of a patient's problems.  How does he know absolutely that he has found the issue that triggered the problem.  There is no way of telling what ground truth is here.  All he or she can do is base their work on the best of their training and ability.  Thankfully usually they are successful.  However, if therapists of differing psychological philosophies saw the same patient they may have completely different ideas regarding the root of the problem.  Since even the patient likely may not know the true cause, only the therapist with the best treatment results could actually claim to have the problem identified.

And, yes many of the opponents of polygraph are Phd's and PsyD.'s.  They have good perspective in the inability to establish ground truth in such research.  However, many of the strongest proponents of polygraph have are psychology professionals.  They also have good perspective on what good psychological research is in comparison to say physics research.  And they see the success it has had over the years.  The word most often used is robust.  And the practice has been around for the better part of a century and continues to develop based on sound research.  

The difficulty in establishing ground truth may be the reason why results of polygraph research are open for personal interpretation, and often you see the same researchers always reporting new research with results supporting the views they established in previous research.  If you follow poly studies, the same people seem to always have results discrediting polygraph, while some might seem to consistently report the opposing result. 

The argument that this practice of polygraph much stop because a few people may be adversely affected is like saying we must not enforce laws because we risk arresting the wrong person.  Or we need to end our national defense program because we risk hurting persons other than our enemies.  We live in a less than perfect world -- at least at this time -- so we must prioritize and do the best we can.

Polycop,

I think what George is trying to say is that he does not necessarily want to help criminals (I hope not anyway).  However, in their quest to discredit polygraph they are attempting two (seemingly incompatible) assertions. 

First they are asserting that it could be difficult for someone to be truthful and pass.  Then they are saying it is easy for a deceptive person to pass.  Since they have not proven the former to anyone (and may bring suspicion on themselves), they hope to compile some list of persons claiming to have beaten the polygraph.  They do the latter under the guise of helping those claiming to be affected by the first assertion, hoping to justify the possible uses by socially unacceptable types.

Fortunately, I doubt there will be much success from either front of attack.  


George,

Nothing personal intended.  I am sure you and your colleagues have differing reasons for your crusade -- be it some true moral belief or a bad experience.  However, if you were to look outside this site for opinion, I am sure you would find a vast majority (not just polygraphers!) who would question your assertions, your methods and your justification.  As Polycop said, it may be a victim's rights lawyer.  I wouldn't rest everything on your quoted precedence.  This is much more specific and could by a skilled attorney be exposed as accessory to a crime.  Besides, in a civil case the standards for proof are much less than in criminal court.  In other words someone may go after your assumingly hard earned dollars.  (Seems with all of your time and effort here, you must have plenty -- must not have needed that job with the bureau or whomever.)  But we are working hard to ensure no victim is further victimized as a result of countermeasures utilized by a criminal, so in that vein, we are helping you avoid repurcussions!

Polycop/Public Servant:

There is something wrong with a law enforcement tool (be it polygraphy or anything else) that victimizes ten innocent people for every guilty one caught, such as, say, physical torture.  Assuming you agree with that statement in principle, that is why ultimately, the main issue here is the accuracy of the polygraph.

If we are correct in our assertion that many (hard to say exactly how many, but it's too many) innocent people are victimized for every one guilty person caught, then I believe you have to abandon polygraphy and focus on other investigative tools.

And the innocent people victimized deserve better--countermeasures are one way to protect them.

If the polygraph people are correct that the true accuracy rate (absent countermeasures) is akin to a urine test, a DNA test, or the like, then you are correct that countermeasures should not be promoted, just as we would not teach a druggie how to beat a urine test.  If I knew that my experience (see my personal statement http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-002.shtml) was an aberration, and that criminals, spies, and terrorists were also caught using the polygraph, thus protecting myself and my family in the long run, I could accept my misfortune.  But because I know that Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and others passed the polygraph (Ames without any sophisticated countermeasures), I remain outraged that I and others were victimized for no good reason at all.

As George has pointed out, the polygraph has never been proven to work at better than chance levels.  Until the polygraph profession can prove otherwise, it should be abandoned.

I do not agree that a criminal passing a polygraph by using countermeasures learned on this site is tantamount to us enabling him to go free.  The polygraph is not the only method of interrogation.  Other interrogational methods yield confessions too, without risking false positives.  In addition, the indictment and conviction of any criminal depends on physical, testimonial, and/or documentary evidence, of which a polygraph interrogation would only be one part.  If criminals are going free because they are passing polygraphs by using countermeasures, that is a very poor reflection of that particular investigation.  And, convictions can be had without a confession.  My guess is that most are.  As you know, the jails are full of people professing their innocence.