George

You wrote:  2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet. 

I disagree with that assertion.  Just because someone reads something on the internet (your stuff or anyone else's) does not make them less susceptible to responding to polygraph.  In my opinion it makes them more susceptible based on their psychological state when they enter the room.

Your wrote further:  3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless. 

I concur.  Those algorithms are garbage.

You wrote further still:  4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."  It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth. 

What a tap dance that BS is.  "Does not provide confidence".  What kind of crap is that.

And finally:  Did you write this or was this part of NAS's report?

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it. 

I was just wondering if you were putting your spin on this.

Saidme,

You write:

Quote:


Could you explain the basis for your opinion? Let's suppose someone facing a polygraph examination stops by AntiPolygraph.org, downloads TLBTLD, and reads Chapter 3. He/she now understands the trickery behind the "test," including that:

• the "stim" test is just a gimmick intended to dupe him/her into believing that the polygraph can actually detect lies;
• he/she is secretly expected to be less than truthful in answering the "control" questions;
• the irrelevant questions don't actually serve as any kind of "baseline for truth" at all, and are in fact not scored;
• the polygrapher will lie to and attempt to deceive him/her about the above points.

On what basis would you expect a truthful/innocent person so informed to react more strongly to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions?

On what basis would you expect a deceptive/guilty person so informed be "more susceptible" as a result of his/her knowledge? 

Regarding the NAS's conclusion that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures" you write:

Quote:


Your above rebuttal is less than compelling. You may honestly believe that you and other polygraphers have the ability to reliably detect countermeasures. But the scientific evidence reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences does not support any such belief. On the other hand, the evidence does suggest that polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures. The NAS report discusses countermeasures in greater detail beginning at p. 139.

You also ask:

Quote:


If you re-read my above post, I think you will find that I have made it abundantly clear which portions are quoted from the NAS report and which are my own.

I note that you chose not to comment on the 5th point of my above post (regarding the lack of any evidence regarding the incremental validity of polygraphy).