Well, hope everyone had a great weekend.  I see some of you spent a portion of your weekend posting some very interesting responses.  

So, let me delve further into the discussion.  Essentially you have agreed with my point that the machine itself isn't the issue.  So, the real delimma is whether or not a person can review the machine's output to draw a reasonable conclusion as to deception.  

Darkcobra states that the output of the machine can indicate stress.  I think we can all agree that his statement is true, at least I didn't see anyone who opposes that statement.  So, now it boils down to whether the indication of stress on the charts can be reasonably interpreted to find a person deceptive or truthful. 

So, it's time to use another analogy.  Navy submarines use sonar.  If you have ever seen the output of a sonar system, it looks much like a bunch of garbled static on a screen.  To the untrained eye, this waterfall display looks really neat, but doesn't mean a thing.  With just a "few months of training" a sonar technician can use the data on the screen to draw conclusions about the output.  What kind of contact they are seeing, man-made or natural.  Whether the contact is on the surface or submerged.  Where the contact is located, what speed and heading the contact is on.  They can use a sophisticated computer to help them identify which ship they are looking at too.  Yet, even this multi-million dollar system is not 100% accurate and the consequences of "getting it wrong" are much more dire than that of a botched polygraph exam.    

So why do I use this analogy, you ask?  Because, similar to polygraph, this interpretation of what appears to be nonsensical visual data is really more art than science.  Even though a sonar technician only has a few months of in-class training, it takes a few years of patrols for a sonar tech to truly be competent.  In other words "Experience" is needed.  Even then, some sonar technicians are horrible at the job.  They just don't have the knack for this kind of thing.  

I put forth that an examiner, even with in-class training still has to have some real world experience and must be naturally inclined to this kind of work.  I would submit that the vast majority of examiners don't fall into this category and therefore are the root cause of the problems you see with the exams.  They simply cannot use the "wavy lines" on the page to draw a reasonable conclusion, much less an accurate conclusion.  

I would submit to you that there are a few examiners out there who do have what it takes.  They have real world experience both before and after polygraph school as well as a natural inclination to "reading" people.  I don't think that kind of thing can be taught.

George, I think that you would be that kind of person. Because of your background in interrogation, you naturally know how to read people.  You would know how to prepare a subject for the exam.  You would know how to get them to focus on the relevant information.  When you saw the "stress" reaction on the chart, you would not  immediately assume the subject was lying to you, instead you would know how to properly probe for additional information to either account for or discount the reaction.  

As stated in my earlier post, the medical community does not rely on a single medical test to make a diagnosis.  One test simply becomes an indicator of something that needs to be further examined.  A series of tests may need to be conducted to finally come to a reasonable diagnosis. Even then, they are sometimes wrong too. 

In conclusion, I believe that the "machine" in the hands of the right person CAN be used to accurately detect deception.  Even then, a further examination through interrogation, background check and other resources should be used to verify a "reaction" on a chart.  

I do not advocate the use of a polygraph exam to determine someone's guilt or innocence. Also I do not advocate the use of the exam in determining someone's suitability for employment.  I do advocate the continued use of polygraph as a part of a larger process in getting to the truth.

But, that's just my opinion.  What's yours?

Mercible wrote on Oct 31^st, 2005 at 7:03pm:


I wouldn't disagree that reactions recorded by a polygraph can be indicative of stress, but reactions might also be attributable to emotions such as fear, anger, or embarrassment or they could be the result of purposeful manipulation by the examinee.

Quote:


It can't. The examiner has no way of knowing what caused a reaction. There is no "Pinnochio response" measurable by the polygraph that people produce only when they answer a question deceptively.

Quote:


Your analogy is a false one. The principles of underwater sound propagation and the variables affecting it, such as pressure, temperature, and salinity, are well understood, and logical inferences can be made based on the data collected by active and passive sonar systems. The same is not true with regard to polygraphy, where 1) the psychophysiology of human deception is not well understood and 2) there is no clear correlation between the data collected by the polygraph instrument and lying.

Attempting to infer truth or deception by examining polygraph charts is more akin to trying to assess a person's character by feeling bumps on the head (phrenology).

Quote:


It has not been established that an interrogator who consults polygraph charts makes better determinations of truth versus deception than an interrogator who doesn't.

Quote:


My experience at the poker table has given me a healthy skepticism regarding my ability to read people. And again, with regard to reactions on polygraph charts, there is simply no way of knowing what caused them. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that the absence of a reaction means the subject is telling the truth (a notion implicit in your post).

Quote:


As previously discussed, polygraph "testing" bears no semblance to medical testing. As with your sonar reference, you again make a false analogy.

Quote:


And I believe that astrological charts, in the hands of the right person CAN be used to accurately predict the future. Even then, a further examination through cold reading and other resources should be used to verify the results.

Okay, I don't really believe the foregoing. The point is, how does one identify the "right" person of whom you speak?

Sergeant1107,

You write:

Quote:


Bravo!  Excellent analysis.

Mercible,

You write in part:
Quote:


Wrong.  There is no right examiner or wrong examiner.  This is not about malpractice or the lack thereof.  This (lie detection) is about quackery.  Because there is no demonstrated relationship between the monitored physiology and deception, the other factors (although they may well affect the examination environment) become secondary at best to the lack of a primary theoretical construct for the intended experiment.

You further write:
Quote:


George's criticism and Sergeant1107's analysis regarding your sonar analogy are quite on track.  Your further comparison of  that analogy to any reference George has made to astrology again misses the mark.  Lie Detection is quackery and the parallel to astrology is much more apt than your references to sonar or the patellar reflex.  I must admit though that a representative of the astrology industry recently let me know that they take offense at being compared to polygraphy.

Dr Richardson, 

So glad to have you in on the conversation.   

You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe...    Don't you love that song? It really does sum up many of the posts I have read on this site.  You have so much common ground with those you oppose, but you fail to really see it for what it is.    

As far as the analogies I've put forward, they are there to compare and contrast.  In the end, I still give the benefit of the doubt to the polygraph community.  Why is that?

• The position of the anti-polygraph community is that polygraph is quackery and there is no scientific basis.  So What? 

   

• The position of the polygraph community is there is a scientific basis and the problems with polygraph is the examiner, possibly even the exam method.  Again, I say So What? 

 

And here I am in the middle to tell you the general public really isn't paying attention to either argument.  You can analogize, analyze, theorize, and even fantasize, but if you aren't winning the hearts and minds of the average registered voter, then you certainly aren't going to get the politicians to change a thing.   

You have your experts and the polygraph community also has their experts.  The general public doesn't have the time to take an in-depth look at the research.  Hell, half the things you say on this site go right over my head.  You may technically win the debate, but for all I know it's just a bunch of fancy lingo that  gets you nowhere with the common voter.   

Even though I disagree with many of the things you say, I am on your side when it comes to stopping the use (and abuse) of polygraph in the sole determination of guilt/innocence or even the suitability for employment.

Do you want to know why that is?  I have no stake in the game.  I'm not an examiner, I never took a polygraph, I've never been affected by one.  So why would I care about your cause?  It's the human factor.  George Maschke's story made me angry!  Not at George, but at the government.  George's story and those like his are your real ammunition.  All the psycho-babble and scientific tests mean nothing to me or the average voter.  You show me how an American patriot who has served his country well and is then dragged through the mud for no good reason and I am on your side!

The average voter will give the benefit of the doubt to the police and the government, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.   Why, well because the government and the police protect them.  Besides, they know going head-to-head with any authority is an uphill battle and best left to attorneys and politicians who have the financial wherewithal to fight those types of battles.   

If the ACLU isn't even interested in taking up the fight, the that tells you one very clear thing.  You aren't making your case very well.  You have to tell the Story, not give them scientific mumbo-jumbo.  The Story has gotten lost in all the white noise of the debate.  Remember people like a good.....      



You need publicity.  Hire a public relations firm to help you spread the Story effectively and you might actually gain some traction.

One of the many points I try to make is that demonizing the other side doesn't help your cause.  It only makes you look weak. They certainly look weak when they do it to you.  Be willing to engage the other side, not challenge them to a dual.  If they believe their cause is noble and just, then attacking them only strengthens their resolve.

So how do you get the other side to listen to your cause?  I suggest Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People."  It's an old book, but many of the lessons in that book are as true today as when it was written.  I try to read it once every couple of years to remind myself that just because I think I'm right, doesn't mean everyone else will agree.  You have to get them on your side.   

You already have a couple of examiners on your side, Darkcobra and Nonombre.  And that is despite some of the ugly attacks they have endured on this site.  They must be truly sick individuals to keep coming back for more.  But, that makes me believe they too care about those who have suffered at the hands of a bad examiner.   

Well, so long for now.  Keep the debate lively but civil!

Regards,
Mercible...




   

Mercible,

You are a little late or at least unaware regarding you most recent advisement.  Months ago Darkcobra and I began talking about our views of polygraphy.  It may be no surprise that we disagree on quite a few points, however we agree on others.  Darkcobra is quite different from many of the other examiner's I have communicated with in that there is the absence belief in the polygraph as an absolute.  This is not an admission that many a polygrapher would offer as most seem to be under the impression that this would destroy credibility on their part.

I do thing you are correct in that the general public is quite disinterested in this debate about polygraphy.  Most of the population has no actual knowledge regarding polygraph examining other than what little snippets they have read or seen in the news as well as the fictional dramas and comedies which are loosely based on real-life polygraphy.  In addition, the vast majority of the general population will never undergo a polygraph examination.  I never had an interest either way until becoming a false postive.

I agree that common ground or a least a general air of civility is needed in order to reform or do away with polygraphy.  It truly has no place in employment screening which is my largest concern with polygraphy.

darkcobra2005,

You earlier wrote that your insurance company required you to demand waiver liabilities from applicants:

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 27^th, 2005 at 10:33pm:


I still have not received from you any documentation of that claim. But I did succeed in obtaining a sample copy of the terms and conditions of the standard policy for American Polygraph Association members offered by Complete Equity Markets, Inc. of Wheeling, Illinois, who are listed on American Polygraph Association website. The conditions of that policy do not require the examiner to make the examinee sign any waiver of liability:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cem-polygraph-insurance-policy.pdf

To recap, you initially offered the implausible explanation that state laws require polygraphers to obtain a waiver of liability from examinees. When called on this, you initally refused further comment. You then adopted the position that it is insurance companies that require polygraphers to demand waivers of liability from examinees. But you wouldn't provide a copy of your insurance policy to prove it. And now we see that a major provider of polygraph liability insurance has no such requirement. Your credibility is wearing thin.

If you (and other polygraphers) truly accept responsibility for your actions and omissions, you have no excuse for demanding liability waivers from examinees.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2005 at 8:39am:

Everyone’s opinions are shaped by their experience.

Based on my own experiences with the polygraph, I would place their accuracy at 25%, since I failed three out of four tests while giving the same truthful answers on all of them.

I find it impossible to dismiss the large amount of anecdotal evidence on this site from people who, like myself, told the truth and were wrongly labeled as “deceptive.”   

I suppose it is possible that some of the people who claim to have been falsely accused of deception were truly being deceptive during their examination.  But I think it is highly unlikely that everyone (or even a significant percentage) making that claim was actually deceptive.

I also believe that the accuracy of the polygraph must include the false-positive rate.  To me, the most problematic aspect of the polygraph is the fact that false-positives happen.  The rate at which they occur is debatable, but I have yet to encounter a single examiner who claims they don’t happen at all.

As soon as you encounter a false-positive rate, the rest of the process quickly becomes meaningless.  If there were absolutely no chance that a truthful person could be labeled as “deceptive” then the rate at which polygraphs and their operators detected deception would be an actual accuracy rate.  Perhaps not all deceptive people would be detected, but at least you would know that when deception was detected it meant, with 100% certainty, that the person had been deceptive during the examination.

With an unknown rate of false-positives it becomes impossible to come to any conclusion after a polygraph, regardless of the result.  A “deception indicated” result means that the subject was deceptive, or the subject was truthful but is coming up as a false positive.  A “no deception indicated” results means that the person was truthful, or the person was deceptive but it was not detected, or that the person successfully utilized countermeasures.

In the end you have nothing but the guess, educated though that guess may be, of one person with regards to what another person was thinking.  You can achieve exactly the same results in a normal interview and I believe they would be just as accurate.  But they wouldn’t have the aura of accuracy which the polygraph promises but fails to deliver.