Quote:Marty,
Great info you provided on GKT analysis. However, statistical analysis and error rate were not part of my assertion here. I do not refute the advantages of a well planned and executed GKT, nor the promise of CNS methodology advocated by Drew.
My point was merely that GKT depends on the same physiological response as CQT, POT, R/I, etc. For this physiological response to be a valid indicator of guilty knowledge, there must be a psychological process initiating the response to given stimuli. Thus GKT also relies on the existence of a lie response, deception response, fear of detection...whatever you want to call it. This contrasts with the argument (often asserted by George) that no such response exists (or is it that this response can not be proven to exist beyond a doubt in every case, so we must assume it does not exist).
The point is: GKT is based on the same psychology-physiology connection, so for this phenomenon to exist for GKT, it has to exist for other formats as well. What is monitored is not different, only the type and format of stimuli is changed.
.....
Public Servant,
I certainly don't believe there is no response associated with lies, fear of consequences, etc. In fact, I think the GKT itself can be used to better establish this. There are issues with controls and it is remarkably easy for well meaning people (and I do believe the vast majority of polygraphers are well meaning) to insert bias but the GKT lends itself to a properly done, double blind, test protocol. So why isn't this happening?
BTW, just got Ian Rowland's "Full Facts of Cold Reading", which illuminates the ways of psychics, palmreaders, etc. Much of what he discusses has application to both interrogation and establishing "setting" in compliance situations
Fascinating insight about an active group of fraudsters as well as vulnerabilities we all share.
-Marty