Public Servant,
I'd like to comment on a number of things you wrote above. In your reply to "Ref" you wrote:
Quote: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 majority view amongst the relevant scientific community is that "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy is not based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory. And there is virtual unanimity amongst them that the CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's responses to the "control" questions.
That polygraphy has been around for the better part of a century does not speak to its validity: the pseudoscience of
phrenology survived well over a century.
And while you say that polygraphy "continues to develop based on sound research," the fact remains that CQT polygraphy is
completely lacking in any genuine, standardization and control, which are prerequisites for a scientifically sound diagnostic test. (As Drew mentioned, there is no comparison between a polygraph "test" and a urinalysis test in terms of underlying theory, scientific control, accuracy, and reliability, which is a point he expanded on in his
discussion of scientific control and polygraphy at the 17 October 2001 public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee.)
You also wrote to "Ref":
Quote: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.
It's more than a few people who are being adversely affected by polygraphy: it's many thousands, every year, especially applicants for law enforcement and national security positions. And I think it could be argued that the entire U.S. population is adversely affected by our government's faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy when double agents like Czech spy Karel F. Kocher, Soviet spy Aldrich H. Ames, Chinese spy Larry Wu-tai Chin, and Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes easily "pass" while innocent persons like Mark Mallah and CTR1 Daniel M. King become the targets of Kafkaesque espionage investigations simply because they "failed to pass." Our reliance on polygraphy, especially polygraph screening, is undermining, not enhancing, our national security.
Addressing me, you wrote:
Quote:I think poly cop did an excellent job of addressing the issue of ethics here. It's not that we believe you will be successful in training someone to beat us, but if you believe you can...
I'd like to believe that someone of your background and obvious education would have thought through this whole thing a little more. Enough said.
Do you really believe that Polycop's analogy comparing me with "Reverend" Matt Hale of the
"World Church of the Creator" is an apt one? After visiting that organization's website and actually listening to Hale's
latest "sermon," I find Polycop's analogy even more outrageous.
You also wrote:
Quote:I will now address your question: "If the results are NDI (no deception indicated), how do you know that the subject did not simply lie and use countermeasures?"
First of all it would be silly for anyone in the poly community to tell you how we identify countermeasures. Would anyone in the intelligence community provide an al Qaeda member information on how we collect intelligence. We adjust to the Doug Williams and George Maschke's as they arise, but to tell you how would only escalate the race. It would be ridiculous, you have countermeasures, now we develop counter-counter measures, and then you counter- counter-countermeasures and so on. We are not going to help you out. Unfortunately we are advesaries on this topic. (Perhaps we could find common ground elsewhere -- over a beer after I retire.)
When I asked how you can tell if a subject who passes used countermeasures or not, I didn't mean to ask you to reveal any trade secrets. I know the polygraph community frequently claims to have the ability to detect countermeasures of the kind described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, but there is no convincing evidence that you have any better-than-chance method for detecting such countermeasures. The fact that the American Polygraph Association quarterly,
Polygraph, in its 30-year history, has not published a single article detailing such a methodology, and that no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to step up to Drew Richardson's
polygraph countermeasure challenge (174 days and counting) strongly suggests that that community has no reliable method for detecting such countermeasures, and knows that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would expose their inability to detect countermeasures.
I'd also note that the answer to your question, "Would anyone in the intelligence community provide an al Qaeda member information on how we collect intelligence?" is, regrettably, "Yes." For example, senior NSA officials showed off NSA's electronic eavesdropping capabilities to high-ranking visitors (who had absolutely no need to know) by playing intercepts of Osama bin Ladin's satellite telephone conversations with his mother in Syria. As a result of NSA's willfull mishandling of highly classified information, news of this capability eventually leaked, and bin Ladin stopped using the satellite phone.
Of course, your point is that intelligence sources and methods should be protected. I would agree with you that there are indeed sources and methods that should legitimately be kept secret. But it's worth bearing in mind that virtually nothing about polygraphy is secret, as I pointed out recently in an
appeal of the Defense Security Service's decision not to release portions of DoDPI's polygraph handbook under the Freedom of Information Act.
It is perhaps worth noting here that
the Al Qa'idah organization has studied polygraph countermeasures.
You also wrote:
Quote:Suffice to say, there is no 100% way to know that an NDI was not resulting from countermeasures. However, I have caught them before, and I use methods to prevent, disrupt, and identify countermeasures. I've never read an account of one of my tests on this site in which someone was bragging about having "beaten" the test. In fact, I see very few of such posts in comparison to the number of visitors to this site and the number of exams conducted every day.
Not only is there no 100% way to know that an NDI was not the result of countermeasures,
there is no better-than-chance way to know this. It's not surprising that no criminals have posted to this message board bragging about having beaten the polygraph. (Why do you put "beaten" in quotation marks, as if the polygraph can't really be beaten?) Such persons would have nothing to gain from such behavior. In the vast majority of cases where a suspect beats a polygraph "test," the polygrapher will never know.
Quote:However, you might, perhaps, be good enough to get one by me. There are other methods of verifying an NDI, both by examiner and case investigator. Suffice to say that an NDI does not automatically stop an investigation and preponderence of evidence will decide what investigative findings are reported. And ultimately the prosecutor will decide if there is PC to proceed with prosecution, insufficient evidence, or reason to unfound. This will be done based on ALL evidence available. Bottom line is that nearly ALL of my NDI exams (as well as my DIs) have been supported by thorough investigation.
Which answers to your assertion that confessions delude examiners. Any good investigator (not just examiner) looks for good investigative corroboration of findings before making investigative conclusions. No piece of evidence proves anything in a vaccuum. Any good agency ensures that thorough investigation precedes and follows examinations, regardless of results. It's not questioning the validity of polygraph, it's just good police work.
You had earlier written that "usually NDI results eliminates [sic] the examinee as a suspect." Are you now acknowledging that passing a polygraph "test"
cannot reliably eliminate an examinee as a suspect? And with regard to DI (deception indicated) outcomes, what do you think of Len Harrelson's claim that without a confession, polygrams are just polygrams?
I think perhaps you've missed the point regarding how confessions mislead polygraphers regarding their ability to detect deception... It is not surprising that nearly all of your NDI exams have been "supported" by thorough investigation. If there were compelling evidence against a suspect, there would have been little need for a polygraph "test" in the first place. It's hardly surprising that most who pass the polygraph are never proven guilty.
Quote:Lastly, to believe that huge responses to certain questions slightly overtaking a nearly as significant consistent response to relevant issues will absolutely tell the examiner someone is truthful, shows only a basic understanding of analysis of CQT exams -- not a clear grasp on the theory of psychological set. Suffice to say a well trained, experienced examiner not only understands it, but knows what it looks like in its pure form. You do this enough, you usually see when something's not quite right. See the earlier portion of this post to explain why I will not expound.
The "theory of psychological set" in the context of CQT polygraphy, a notion promoted by Cleve Backster, is something that has been discussed at length in the open polygraph literature.
On a final note, I'd be interested in your views on what I think is one of the most important issues you raised. You suggested that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant. As I've explained above, I think this notion is an extremely dangerous delusion. Could you (or anyone else) explain the basis for your belief? How do you know that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant, and not simply that he is more concerned about the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than with regard to the "control" questions?