Quote:


What members of the 'counseling' field (be it social service, psychology, psychiatry, etc.) would be unleashed upon their patients after eight weeks of education? What counselor would, upon being taken at their word that the contents of discussions is sacrosanct, run gleefully to their employer with uncorroborated, potentially damaging admissions? 

I know counselors. Some of my best friends are counselors. You, polycop, are no counselor. Delude yourself as you see fit, but you insult the integrity of those fields I mention above when you bloviate that a polygrapher is like a counselor.

Quote:


Another mischaracterization of me-- congratulations. I don't hate the term 'polygraph lab' as much as I (knowing the truth about yon carpetbagging flim-flamming hucksters) hold the term up for derisive laughter, scorn, and ridicule. Just like a scam artist, you seek to cloak your profession in an air of scientific validity that it will never possess otherwise.

Quote:


One thing is certain, polycop: When the truly prepared examinees stroll through your door and into your polygraph lab, you won't have a bloody clue about it.

Quote:
p.s. I believe I owe you an answer regarding the use of CQT exams in connection with specific-incident investigations and with regard to my thoughts regarding concealed information tests.  Because these are both areas involving many important sub-issues, I have yet to decide how to answer the question both meaningfully and within a post of reasonable length.  Please excuse my delay while I consider how best to approach the matter... Quote:


Drew,

This was a question posed on of one of my posts.  I look forward to your input.  I would suggest starting a new thread.  I will look for one started by you on this topic.  I have no doubts, you will find the appropriate approach to initiate good, intellectual conversation.

Public Servant,

Our interlocutor Polycop seems to take an impish delight in identifying me as the author of the "Captain Jones" statement, as he first did in a taunt posted to the message thread, Can a Forensic Test Be Secret? As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings, and I have decided not to make an exception with regard to Polycop's gibes.

Quote:


The polygraphers here are simply ripe with excuses when it comes to the individual anecdotes of abuse here recorded. The polygrapher administered the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chose the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher failed to establish 'rapport' (failed to dupe the examinee, you mean?)... the polygraph wasn't reviewed by 'quality control' strenuously enough.... blah blah blah.

Quote:


So now we have to add 'trust' to the lengthy list of attributes an examinee must possess in order for an exam to have merit. And let's not forget the list of attributes an examinee may NOT have for a polygraph exam to have merit:

Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.

To sum up the pro-polygraph side's points to date: if one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee is too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable', the polygraph won't work. Your career is stopped dead in your tracks, or irrevocably derailed, you are now suspected of espionage, your family life and reputation are now ruined-- but hey, your polygraph counselor is there to help you friend, so step right up and buy another bottle of P.D.D.'s Finest Snakeoil-- it cures all manner of internal and external ailments! Consumed in its liquid form as a preventative and curative of all immunological and pathological disorders of the humoristic system including cancer, heart disease, flambago and rubatitis. Yeah--gee.... gimme some of that. I would love to place my entire future employment, my career, my professional or personal reputation into the hands of hucksters such as these.

Sickening and saddening that our government places trust into the hands of these men.

Public Servant,

You wrote:

Quote:


I think the above principles you cite are sound and unarguable.  I also agree with you that in my case, the cart was put before the horse.

The underlying issue of course is whether CQT polygraphy (either in the screening context or specific issue context) is a valid procedure.  If it is, then then the quality controls you cite are important in refining and advancing the procedure for increased accuracy.

If a testing procedure is invalid to begin with (e.g. phrenology), then no amount of quality controls will be enough.  I have tried to remove my own personal experience from this judgment (it could, theoretically, be an aberration, an isolated example, and/or caused by poor examiners) Based on my reading of Lykken, Raskin, Honts, and what Drew and George have cited and argued, I believe that polygraph screenings fall into this category of invalid procedure.

As to specific issue exams, I think polygraphy has some value (whereas I believe screenings should be abolished to the ash heap of history, immediately), but I'm not convinced of its validity overall, based on my reading.  For my money, I'm anxious to see full fleged focused debate and discussion on just this topic (excluding screenings), and eagerly await Drew's comments and follow up reaction.  I am sure you can produce success stories; maybe under the right conditions, with the right examiner, and with full knowledge of the WEIGHT which should be accorded the results, the specific issue exam is a valuable law enforcement tool.  The question is whether the procedure has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, and from what I have seen so far it has not, though as I say, there are successes (confessions) within this category, and I suspect that it's possible to carve out a domain in which it is very valuable, even if we arrive at the place where we acknowledge it to be more art than science.

My sense is that many, if not most guilty people will react more strongly to the relevant question, though as George has pointed out, that still remains to be proven rigorously.  However, I also believe that many innocent people will also react more strongly to the relevant question, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two groups.

I can't add anything to Drew's and George's very articulate points, but for what it is worth, I underwent several polygraphs with 5 different examiners.  The only one I "passed" was my FBI applicant screening, but that was later rechacterized as me failing.  So I failed every single polygraph I took (one was inconclusive), despite having told the truth.  My examiner at FBIHQ was selected because, they told me, he was so experienced and able.

With this history, I thought there must be something physiologically or psychologically wrong with me that was causing me to fail when I told the truth.  After I read Lykken, and discovered George and many others, my beliefs about polygraph changed dramatically.  

So based on my own personal experience with several examiners, and all the literature I've read, and the discussions here, I have to conclude that it was not the individual examiners in my cases, but something about the method itself.

I realize you are only hearing my side of the story, and appreciate that.  I too always want to get the other side(s) and think it's important to do so.  But again, for what it is worth, despite lengthy and intense investigation in which I extended my complete cooperation and in which I was, essentially, an open book, none of the accusations leveled against me, and which I was found to be deceptive on the polygraph (drugs and espionage) were ever corroborated in the slightest way.  If they had been, I am sure I would have been fired.  I was exonerated and resigned, totally on my own initiative, without any prompting or encouragement from the FBI, with a clean record.

Regards...

Mark

George,

I will assume then that you accept the apology.  I will cite the exerpt utilizing the pseudonym in the future.  And without your verification, I can not say for sure whether this was your exam or not.  The identity of the author is obviously not important in using the piece for discussion.

Mark,

I'm glad we can find some common ground -- even if it is the slightest isthmus.  This is vital for constructive discussion.

Most of my examinees endure a thorough investigation as well.  However, by the time they get to me it is coming to a close, and this is their opportunity to bring it to an end, one way or another.  And in my opinion, this is how it should be.  

I also eagerly await the initiation of discussion on specific issue testing by Drew in response to my earlier post.  I think we will ultimately find more agreement on the usefulness in this application and will possibly agree that validity / reliability is much greater than mere chance.  Hopefully, some other persons with knowledge and expertise in this area will contribute as well.  I am the first to admit I am challenged in the area of citing and evaluating research, both by circumstance and education.

I'll save further comment for the next thread on this topic.

Ah, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke!  Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons.  At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.