AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - False identification of GKT with POT

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › The Lie Behind the Lie Detector › False identification of GKT with POT

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Add Poll

Send Topic

False identification of GKT with POT (Read 2889 times)

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6211 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	False identification of GKT with POT Aug 29^th, 2003 at 4:31pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Professor John J. Furedy of the University of Toronto has sent us the following constructive criticism regarding the 3rd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. While the problems he points out will be corrected in the 4th edition, with his permission, we're making his comments available here now: Quote: I just managed to print off your excellent 3rd edition, but have come to a problem on p. 114 where, under the major heading of Other polygraph formats, your first sub head is Peak of Tension (POT) or Guilty Knowledge Test, and in a sentence spanning pages 114-5 you cite Lykken and give the impression that the POT is based on sounder principles than the CQT. In fact the rationales underlying the CQT and POT are different, but they are both nonsensical for detecting even guilt, let alone deception. The POT may have been what led Lykken to propose the GKT in 1959, but that's really the only connection. See my discussion of the difference between the CQT and GKT in my 1996 article on the North American polygraph (see the table 1 especially). Among the differences between the GKT (as it is now common used in the field for criminal investigations only in Japan) and the POT are the following: 1. The term "control" is has scientific sense only in the GKT and not the POT. 2. A statistically adequate GKT (that permits one to detect guilt reliably, say, 19 times out of 20 (the usual group inferential statistical level of p = .05 level of significance) requires about 5 topics repeated about 3 times, where each topic has one critical question (for the guilty suspect) and four or five control questions. The POT usually just has one topic with 5 items, so no statiscal-inference based conclusion is possible just on grounds of reliability alone. 3. The GKT requires that only the suspect and the police know details of the crime, so one necessary condition is that such details be kept from the public. The POT like the CQT, is applicable, like snake oil, under all conditions. 4. North American polygraphers (especially APA-approved practitioners) don't use the GKT (except for the numbers test, which is not employed for the detection of guilt), whereas they do use the POT. These assertions on my part are not mere pedantry. Polygraphers have recently made use of this confusion between the GKT and POT, and have referred to Lykken as if he supported the POT which, of course, he has not....

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Pages: 1

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

False identification of GKT with POT

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.