I am not sure if this is the right forum for this post but, here goes anyway.

Having little technical knowledge of the polygraph, I have a few questions for the propolygraph posters:

1. Since LE personnel possess a punitive mentality (not knocking LE), do any of you honestly know any polygraphers who are shy of this trait? Doesn't this trait preclude an honest test?

2. Since specific issue (criminal) polygraphs cannot be required and lawyers advise their clients not to submit to one, why do you think criminals would volunteer to take one?

3. Do you think an innocent person can be jacked up (your term "stimulated") to a point where it is impossible for them to pass a polygraph? Isn't this part of the game you play?

4. Since 12 of Batman's idiots occasionally screw up, do you think you are singularly qualified to hold a person's life or livelyhood in your hands? This is a big problem for me.

5. Have ANY of you ever decided deception/non-deception before you administer the actual test? If so, do you think that test is fair?

Be completely honest now because I personally know of #3 and #5 to have happened.

My personal opinion is that even the specific issue polygraph is going by the way of the doo-doo bird (wrong terminology - these birds still exist) dodo bird. Because of the media attention being given the NAS report, criminals will refuse to be polygraphed

David Lykken mentions Robert McFarlane's polygraph unpleasantness in Chapter 15 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector:

Quote:

Now, after engaging in useless banter on other threads, back to some serious (or at least semi serious) discussion.  I will first address George’s so boldly emblazoned post: 

First of all, if you review most of my posts on previous threads, you’ll see the main theme of my assertions was that criminal investigative, specific issue exams were reliable at levels much greater than chance.  I also said it was not perfect (few things in this world, even in more scientifically accepted forensic sciences).  I even engaged in discussion on possible causes of false positive results.  Clearly the quote you posted is not far off from my assertions on reliability.  It just scores points for you here because of the added questioning of validity.

Secondly, my take is that the Exec Summary does not say research shows SI polygraph is invalid; rather it says the research does not prove validity.  Again it restates my previous assertions (albeit in a much more scholarly manner) that ground truth is nearly impossible to establish in field studies, and realism equally difficult to produce in the lab.  In regards to reliability if a Missourian said show me, that I could do – my hundreds of successes in obtaining corroborated NDI or DI results.  If a scientist said show me, empirically, I don’t know that a study could ever be created that could prove validity, either way.   

It is ironic that you sharply criticize computerized algorithms.  Near the end of the Exec Summary, they are touted as one of the possible mechanisms to improvement.  Equally ironic, is that most poly program supervisors consider them experimental and do not allow them to be used in final decision-making.  So you agree with the poly program heads on this issue; while I believe that since JHU was a major contributor to at least one of the algorithms, it likely has promise, and thus agree with the NAS report on this point.

It is amazing how close the assertions of the NAS report were to most of what Drew has asserted on this site.  I’d almost believe he was a co-author.  If you look back at my discussions with Drew, you will likely see that we were not far separated on many issues.  Mostly contentions on whether my successes (and those of my peers) really indicated reliability and other issues over art, science, etc.  Clearly Drew and I are the centrists on opposite sides of the aisle.  Thus I am not shocked by the contents of this report.

I will concede that this report has dealt a serious blow to polygraphy as a whole, though mostly to screening.  However, the report even concedes that there is a need for some type of screening tool.  It says polygraph could be used as a pre-screening tool (note the allusion to less reliable pre-screening medical diagnosis methods) or part of what would be a more holistic screening approach.  That combined with the slowness of government agencies to change, don’t expect any form of polygraph to just go away.  There will likely be initial changes in how it is used in screening and less use in making final determinations in the screening area, just as the NAS report suggests.

But this might be the beginning of the end for polygraph in all areas, as you say.  This does not concern me for my profession, as my assignment as an examiner is just a sidebar to my continuing career as a criminal investigator.  My overall concern is this, bottom line:   

The polygraph, as it is used by many investigative agencies, has resolved many investigations.  Many a mere suspect has been identified as the actual perpetrator of felony offenses.  Often, a confession may have otherwise not been obtained, and often the confession was necessary (or the key evidence) in conviction.  Likewise, many a person, falsely accused has been vindicated by examination, where it was their word against that of another with little other evidence to assist them. All in voluntary exams wherein the exam itself could not be used against them.  The loss of such an investigative tool will surely hinder efforts of law enforcement to serve justice effectively. 

This is the sole reason I am a polygraph proponent and why I feel we must work to improve this tool (or come up with alternatives) before we surgically remove it.

Twoblock,

Wow, you're line of questioning really shows a distrust for law enforcement.  Not offended, since TV shows, news, and perhaps your own experiences with the wrong person, could perpetrate such views.  I'll try to address al of your questions.

Quote:


I hope we are all free of a punitive mentality -- not just in poly but as investigators.  Perhaps I am a poor misguided idealist but I stil believe that effective LE demands you are a neutral seeker of truth.  Seeking punitive action is for prosecutors, judges, and juries to handle.  I'd cause myself undue stress and become a cynic if I worried about what punishment came as a result of my investigation.  Only rookies get upset if a perp gets a light sentence or gets off.  You do your job and move on.  But, yes, someone with such a personality wherein they saw themselves as the punisher may lead to bias against all prospective examinees.

Quote:


Actually lawyers often ask me to perform exams on their clients.  Exculpatory in nature, the attorney would not allow a post exam interview if other than DI results occur.  Perpetrators often volunteer, hence my gainful employment with many DI exams.  Some may think agreeing to an exam is enough to end it, others, thinking it won't work, come in thinking they can be calm and get by undetected.  I think this also answers your final assertion that I will have no business. Additionally, I have yet to see much attention to the NAS report in the pop media (I saw a little blurb on CNN HN, nothing else, even on TV news websites I found nothing--of course I am isolated from much of our U.S. news media) 

Quote:


The only pretest stimulation I work on is for the person who is truthful to the relevant issue.  The perpetrators who committed the relevant offense, need no assistance in being stimulated to that issue.  Which brings me to another point.  Many outh there seem to think LE tries to trick anyone into being impicated so they can solve a case.  Take the DC area sniper as an example.  Lots of pressure to solve it, but would LE have anything to gain by framing someone to get a solve.  The next incident would just create more discrediting of the agency.  LE has a great amount of motivation to get it right, in regards to polygraph or otherwise.

Quote:


I am neither judge or jury and would never want to be.  I would probably resign before I would allow someone to make me such.  The exam is vountary, the results are inadmissible, and regardless of what I collect as a result, the suspect is entitled to due process.  I am sworn to be a defender of the constitution and the rights of all, not just the victims of crime.

Quote:


I may have had some ideas, but I still give everyone the same test.  There is no manipulation, psychologically or otherwise, to get the result I may expect.  I have been surprised by NDIs and after the exam treated the examinee just like the innocents who I believed from the start.  That has also worked in reverse on numerous occasions, often a more difficult situation for me personally.  I can only speak for myself.  Contrary to popular belief examiners are individuals.  And, I am quite isolated from other examiners, being the only one supprting a large geographic area.

Hope these answers were helpful.

Public Servant,

With regard to my post on "What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph Testing" you write:

Quote:


Actually, my post was not in direct response to anything you've posted here. But a careful reading of the NAS report's conclusions indicates that the panel members did not conclude that specific-incident polygraph examinations are reliable at levels much greater than chance, as you have asserted. What the NAS concluded was this:

"...we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection."

A population of examinees naive as to polygraph procedure and untrained in countermeasures is assumed. This is a very important caveat that you seem to ignore. In practice, a polygrapher cannot really know whether this condition applies with regard to any particular examinee. The panel apparently says nothing to support the notion that the results of specific-incident CQT or R/I polygraph results are "reliable" (or imbued with any predictive value) to any knowable extent under field conditions.

Quote:


In the absence of proof, there is no reason to assume validity. Again, I call your attention to the panel's finding that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.

Quote:


My criticism of computerized algorithms is not per se. What I'm pointing out is that it follows directly from the NAS panel's conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." that these algorithms' calculations of the probability that a particular person was telling the truth or not (stated as a percentage) are completely bogus.

Public Servant,

There is much I would like to comment upon (how the ethics equation will change for countermeasure assistance with the demise of polygraph screening, future mechanisms and personal involvement in research, etc)  in your last notes to me, but because I will be traveling shortly and over the next few days, I thought I would limit present commentary to just one issue.  I will pick up next week with other thoughts upon my return.  Till then have a pleasant holiday weekend,  Drew

You write in part:

Quote:
 

I suspect that you are correct.  The downside to this is that an uneducated lay public seeking the truth on various matters cannot trust the APA to put forward reliable and trustworthy  public service information of any kind if it cannot trust the whole of what it puts forth.  If the APA is, as often claimed by detractors, nothing but a trade union blindly supporting any and every position of every constituency, then both it and the public are shortchanged through any mutual interaction.  This is both sad and unfortunate--both deserve better.  

The APA (and other similar groups) is well positioned at this critical juncture in time and circumstance (NAS polygraph report release) and has the perfect opportunity to establish/restore the trust needed to merit the reputation of an organization that earnestly seeks to provide a public service in addition to whatever business opportunities and financial gains are merited for its members.  The world will be watching in the near future.  It/they will either clean its house, sift the grain from the chaff, i.e., separate polygraph screening from its midst and remaining worthwhile specific-issue testing or it will be reduced to nothing but a meaningless and irrelevant entity from the public’s perspective.  Organized polygraphy either provides a public service or it provides no service and no value at all.

Drew,

It appears we were posting at the same time.  I look forward to your further comments and your reply to the one I just posted, especially since it expounded upon an issue I just re-addressed.

Enjoy your travel and holiday as well. I may be out of the loop for a while as well.  'til then...

Public Servant,

The point I've been trying to make is that the NAS report does not support the validity of CQT polygraphy as a diagnostic tool, even with regard to specific incidents in event-specific investigations.

In response to my statement that in the absence of proof, there is no reason to assume validity, you reply, "Nor is there reason to assume absence of validity." Respectfully, I think you miss the point. Absent any convincing proof, there is no more reason to believe that polygraphers can detect deception using CQT polygraphy than there is to believe that self-styled clairvoyants can communicate with the dead. (That it has not been proven that clairvoyants can't communicate with the dead lends no credibility to the notion that they can.)

You write:

Quote:


What do you mean when you say I posted the American Polygraph Association statement "out of context?" I didn't post any excerpt from it, out-of-context or otherwise: I posted it's title with a direct link to it. Here it is again: "Statement of the American Polygraph Association Pertaining to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report on the Use of the Polygraph".

Quote:


The responsible response would be for the American Polygraph Association, as an organization that professes to be "Dedicated to Truth," to renounce polygraph screening forthwith.

Quote:


I agree with you that CQT polygraphy has had some utility in obtaining confessions and admissions. (On the other hand, reliance on polygraph results has led to the misdirection of many investigations, causing great harm to innocent persons.) But such utility does not lend any validity to the procedure. After more than 50 years, and "more than 1,000 research studies" (as the American Polygraph Association claims), the National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."

This being the case, I support immediate reliance on "other methods" instead of the pseudoscientific fraud that is CQT polygraphy.