Batman,
You write in part:
Quote:
...
OK George, exactly where did the NAS report discuss "naive subject populations"? ?You quote the damn report then turn it around by using your own words, then you have the balls to caution others about misrepresenting the report? ?Who are you trying to kid here, other then the likes of those that hang on every BS word you write?
The NAS report refers to "naive subject populations" where it mentions "populations of examinees
such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures" (emphasis added). The polygraph research literature relied upon by the NAS polygraph review panel involved subject populations that were assumed to be naive with regard to polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Note that in this context, "naive" has a special, restricted meaning. As defined by
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, definition 2b, "naive" means, "not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with ~ rats>..." I have been using the term "naive" precisely as it is used in the polygraph research literature.
In addition, the NAS report notes at pp. 3-27 to 3-28, "The scientific base for polygraph testing is far from what one would like for a test that carries considerable weight in national security decision making. Basic scientific knowledge of psychophysiology offers support for expecting polygraph testing to have some diagnostic value,
at least among naive examinees. However, the science indicates that there is only limited correspondence between the physiological responses measured by the polygraph and psychological and the attendant brain states believed to be associated with deception-in particular, that responses typically taken as indicating deception can have other causes." (emphasis added)
Quote:No one says that polygraph is perfect, nor 100% accurate, but what is? ?What technique, used in any field or profession is perfect or 100% accurate.
You are raising a straw man argument, Batman. (In case you're not familiar with the term,
Webster's defines it as, "a weak or imaginary opposition [as an argument or adversary] set up only to be easily confuted.") Our criticism of CQT polygraphy, and in particular polygraph screening, has never been that it is less than 100% accurate, but rather that it has no scientific basis, has an inherent bias against the truthful, and yet is easily beaten by the deceptive through the use of simple countermeasures.
Quote:Your analogy of, "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" is simply unbelievable.
Perhaps you would prefer the National Academy of Sciences' analogy comparing polygraphy with a shamanistic ritual? See the message thread
"The Cult of Polygraph." Quote:Comments like this reveal your refusal to acknowledge, in any way, the many criminal investigations that have been resolved through the skillful use of the polygraph technique coupled with interviews and other investigative techniques.
Another straw man argument, Batman. I have never refused to acknowledge the utility of polygraphy for obtaining admissions/confessions from naive subjects (i.e., those who don't understand that polygraphy is a fraud). I have no per se objection to deceptive law enforcement interrogation tactics such as CQT polygraphy. However, because of the demonstrated potential for abuse, I believe it is imperative that all interrogations (whether or not the polygraph is used) be videotaped, or, at a minimum, audiotaped.
Quote:You're so damn willing to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you believe you were wronged when you took a polygraph examination. That's a pretty self centered, and arrogant view on life George. I'm surprised you're not totally against child birth since you got your ass slapped when you were born.
In your opinion, what is the baby and what is the bath water? If you truly believe that my opposition to polygraphy (and, in particular, to polygraph screening) is based on nothing more than my personal experience, you are mistaken, Batman. If polygraphy were based on sound science, and I had unfortunately fallen within a small but unavoidable margin of error, I could accept that. But such is not the case.