Public Servant,
Quote: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.
Actually, polygraphers are not often labelled as "evil" on this site. While many of us, myself included, question the ethical standards of the polygraph profession, that is not to say that we believe that polygraphers are fundamentally bad people. I most certainly don't. Nonetheless, the actions of well-intentioned people can result in considerable "evil." Take, for example, the case of (now retired) U.S. Navy petty officer Daniel M. King and his polygraph interrogation(s) by Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Robert Hyter, which you'll find documented in Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Quote: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.
The term "ad hominem" is more a term of logic than of law. According to
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the term, which literally means "to the man," has been attested to in the English language as early as 1598 and means:
"
1 : appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to his contentions"
"Ad hominem" quite aptly characterizes many of the arguments presented here by supporters of polygraphy. For example, in response to Dr. Drew Richardson's
Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge, wherein Dr. Richardson challenged the polygraph community to demonstrate it's claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, a polygraph advocate using the monicker "the boys" posted:
Quote:Sorry, I guess we were sleeping.....just noticed that Drew Richardson is identified as "top FBI polygraph expert"....just how did he rise to such a lofty position?....I have it on good information that he conducted few polygraph examinations in the field and caused the FBI more problems then he was worth...and they ultimately removed him from his polygraph position...I think th term thatw as used was that he was considered a "pariah". Maybe you might want to consider removing his "credentials" on your homepage?
Dr. Drew C. Richardson,
Laboratory Division
The foregoing is a classic example of the
argumentum ad hominem. For more on this fallacial form of argument, see, for example
this excerpt from Robert T. Carroll's
Becoming a Critical Thinker. Certainly, polygraph advocates are not the only ones who have succumbed to the temptation to substitute ad hominem attacks for rational argument. But I think that a critical review of the debates here over polygraph validity, policy, procedure, and countermeasures would show that, with a few notable exceptions (like Dr. Gordon H. Barland, J.B., and L72cueak) the pro-polygraph side has offered little more than ad hominem arguments against our reasoned criticisms.
Quote: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 don't understand what you're saying here. Who argues from the general to the specific? And about what?
You correctly note that "my polygrapher did me wrong so they must all be a bunch of boorish pigs" is not a valid argument. (Isn't that going from the specific to the general and not the other way around?) But this is not really an argument that anyone is seriously making here.
Quote: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.
You'll find many of us here more than willing to discuss polygraph issues with you on their merits. Regrettably, this is a debate from which the polygraph community has largely shrunken.
Quote: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.
You can say that polygraphy is "much better than chance," but peer-reviewed research has yet to establish this. Because CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it is not possible to establish a meaningful validity rate for it. (This is, perhaps, a topic for a different message thread.)
Quote: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?
If the results are NDI (no deception indicated), how do you know that the subject did not simply lie and use countermeasures? Because of polygraphy's lack of proven validity and vulnerability to countermeasures, I think that there are indeed both rational concerns and ethical implications when suspects are eliminated on the basis of polygraph chart readings.
Quote:A DI without confession is useless and I don't mind that.
This candid admission seems logically inconsistent with your assertion that polygraphy is "much better than chance."
Quote:Ultimately all evidence types are less than 100%...
Our criticism of CQT polygraphy is not that it is "less than 100%," but rather that
it has no validity whatsoever as a diagnostic test. Quote: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.
The belief that the subject who fails to pass "is withholding information he feels is relevant" must be a comforting one for the polygrapher contemplating the ethics of his profession. This way, the polygrapher need never worry about the ethical implications of his having falsely accused someone of deception:
it's the subject's fault, because he must have been withholding something. But I think this sort of rationalization (through an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis) is an exercise in self-delusion.
Quote: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.
I think that our work to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse is a worthy enough goal. Real harm is being caused to individuals, public safety, and national security as a result of misplaced faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Quote: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.
Actually, you cannot know that others will never be convinced of an argument. This is something you can only know of yourself.
I, for one, am quite convinced that polygraphy can be
useful as an interrogation aid. Naive and gullible subjects sometimes confess or make admissions they might not have made absent the polygraph. But the scientific evidence for polygraphy is less than compelling.