palerider wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 9:06pm:


Your statement that the polygraph is 97% accurate is not supported by the literature - both pro and anti...

If supervised sex offenders never get ignored or unmonitored, wouldn't that mean that there should be no recidivism in this population because they would have no chance to reoffend? 

Do you really believe that a parole office with a caseload of 70 to 120 offenders can effectively monitor all them? 

Do you really believe that these POs would not take nondeceptive results to mean that increased supervision is unwarranted because the offender is being compliant?

Do you really believe that an offender who has a nondeceptive test is always compliant?

palerider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2007 at 6:01am:


Comparing the accuracy of polygraphs (a device that has both false positives and false negatives) with effectiveness of condoms (which either stop sperm or do not stop sperm) is simply misdirection. You better stick with your medical diagnosis analogies...

In reference to condoms, the numerical efficacy of condoms has been scientifically test and those tests are repeatable.

As far as I'm aware, in all cases where polygraphy has been subjected to scientific testing, the results have been that polygraph is about as good as a coin flip.  I feel no comfort in the fact that a sex offender has "passed" a poly. 

Please cite you source for the 97% effectiveness claim.

Quote:


You're going to rely on a study published in a polygraph newsletter to prove that accuracy is high? That's pretty funny. One would think that with those results he could've gotten into a top-tier psychology journal...

So how do you refute the National Academy of Science conclusion that "Estimates of accuracy from these 57 studies are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field. Laboratory studies tend to overestimate accuracy because laboratory conditions involve much less variation in test implementation, in the characteristics of examinees, and in the nature and context of investigations than arise in typical field applications. Observational studies of polygraph testing in the field are plagued by selection and measurement biases, such as the inclusion of tests carried out by examiners with knowledge of the evidence and of cases whose outcomes are affected by the examination. In addition, they frequently lack a clear and independent determination of truth. Due to these inherent biases, observational field studies are also highly likely to overestimate real-world polygraph accuracy."

Quote:


These are not "MY" standards, rather they are the standards set forth and accepted by the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, Nationa Institute of Justice, National Academy of Science, and countless other academic and professional organizations. Simply put, most estimates of polygraph "accuracy" fail to control for confounding, selection bias, and measurement error. They also mix studies with different outcomes and do not distinguish properly between the two types of error (false positives and negatives). Finally, they all fail to properly understand the difference between validity, reliability, and repeatability...

If these high estimates of accuracy are only accepted by the polygraph community and are roundly rejected by the larger scientific community (NSF, NIH, NAS, psych community) as absurd, what does that say about the polygraph profession?

Quote:


Then why bother posting at all? Is it merely a rebuttal to my claim that the literature does not support the notion of such an absurdly high accuracy rate? Then I stand corrected and amend my claim to say that independently peer-reviewed literature published in academic journals do not support the notion that the CQT polygraph can have any high degree of accuracy...

Quote:


Perhaps the reason you're not interested in debate or further discussion is that you know you're shoveling shit?

nonombre wrote on Mar 8^th, 2007 at 2:52am:


I chose my words carefully. I think that ridicule is the only appropriate response to one who advocates a viewpoint while refusing to discuss or debate it, as if that were somehow a virtue.