Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) More Anti-polygraph literature ... (Read 39069 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #30 - Aug 11th, 2006 at 10:57pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
What was the question?  I forgot already.

OK, now I remember.  To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying  such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods.  When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train.  Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned.  I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube;  then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel;  Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners.  Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL.  Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph.  Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads.  So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago.  But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology.  Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.  PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT.  TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services.  The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.

That's my source of optimism.

Regards
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Onesimus
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 110
Joined: May 10th, 2003
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #31 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 12:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Aug 11th, 2006 at 10:57pm:
Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.


Does R/I move to the top of your list / other polygraphers' list when the subject knows what PLCQT is all about?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #32 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 1:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
only as a last resort, which is not often.  There are other methods available.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #33 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 4:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quickfix,

You write:
Quote:
What was the question?  I forgot already.

OK, now I remember.  To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying  such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods.  When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train.  Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned.  I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube;  then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel;  Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners.  Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL.  Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph.  Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads.  So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago.  But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology.  Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.  PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT.  TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services.  The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.

That's my source of optimism.

Regards


Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed.  The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control.  No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation. 

With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's).  The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary.  I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #34 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 9:39pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
This is of course the same Shiela Reed, who herself was subsequently discredited, disavowed, and thrown out of DODPI (quite literally).  Regardless, TES works quite well, has for the past 13 years, and is the test of choice in military screening.  When you yourself come up with a better solution, let us examiners know.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #35 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 10:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quickfix,

I will repost my last post in that you apparently forgot to comment on the first paragraph:
Quote:
Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed.  The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control.  No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation.   

With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's).  The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary.  I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.


With regard to your last reply, you are almost totally wrong.  I am quite familiar with Sheila Reed, the circumstances surrounding her leaving DoDPI, DoDPI's shameful role in that matter, DoDPI in the early 90's, and the validation studies regarding TES.  You are wrong on all counts.  All that you are presumably correct regarding (I certainly don't know and don't dispute) is that the military is currently using the ridiculous TES format for the completely useless application of personnel screening.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #36 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 11:15pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5839
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #37 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 11:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Aug 12th, 2006 at 11:15pm:
I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards


On what ground do you dismiss Drew's commentary as "nonsense?" With a doctorate in physiology and relevant training and experience in polygraphy, he knows that of which he speaks.
  

George W. Maschke
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
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #38 - Aug 12th, 2006 at 11:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997, and the DOE two years later;  long on theory, short on proof.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box digithead
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 150
Joined: Apr 11th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #39 - Aug 14th, 2006 at 4:55am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Aug 11th, 2006 at 3:15pm:
Drew:

Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing †down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world. †



A good response to you is from Justice Brandeis in his dissenting Olmstead (277 U.S. 438) opinion:

"[i]t is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

That's basically how I, an egghead statistician, view polygraphers - zealous and well meaning but totally without understanding...

Indeed, because if they and you had understanding, they and you would realize that CQT and its variants are pseudoscience, biologically and psychologically implausible, and extremely harmful to public safety...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #40 - Aug 14th, 2006 at 8:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box digithead
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 150
Joined: Apr 11th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #41 - Aug 14th, 2006 at 10:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Aug 14th, 2006 at 8:29pm:
Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion. †Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement" †I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.


I guess you missed where I said "Brandeis' dissenting Olmstead decision", i.e, a dissenting opinion is done by the minority...

I support all the legal tools for law enforcement that are based on science and evidence. Otherwise, let's just become fascist or totalitarian...

As for survivors of 9/11, you're appealing to emotion rather than logic and logic tells us that one of the major reasons for 9/11 was the territorialism that existed (and still exists) between our various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All the tools in the world can't overcome basic human error and hubris, including your own. The terrorists are well aware of it and rely on it...

So if you can figure out how to get LE to share information rather than engaging in territorial pissings, you'd go a long way to making the world safer...

And from this board, there certainly seems to be plenty of hubris from the polygraph community...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5839
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #42 - Aug 15th, 2006 at 8:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Aug 14th, 2006 at 8:29pm:
Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.


retcopper,

Our government's reliance on such quackery as polygraphy (and voice stress analysis) for counterterrorism purposes should outrage all who know the truth about lie detectors.

The first World Trade Center bombing might well have been prevented had not the FBI, relying in part on polygraph chart readings, decided to terminate a confidential informant named Emad Salem who had penetrated the group that eventually carried out the 1993 bombing. See the message thread, FBI Polygraphing of Confidential Informants for more on this.

Moreover, America's jihadist adversaries know that the lie detector is a sham, as is made clear in a relevant section of the Encyclopedia of Jihad and a jihadist article titled, "The Myth of the Lie Detector."
  

George W. Maschke
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
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #43 - Aug 15th, 2006 at 9:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Aug 12th, 2006 at 11:50pm:
On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997...

This post seems to suggest that the U.S. Senate only makes well-reasoned, nonpartisan decisions that are well grounded in logic and science, which is why (in your opinion) they dismissed Drew's arguments.

Is the decision-making ability of the Senate really the horse you want to hitch your wagon to?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous Ítes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: More Anti-polygraph literature ...
Reply #44 - Aug 15th, 2006 at 3:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Generally, I would agree with you;  however, in this case I believe they were correct.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
More Anti-polygraph literature ...

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx 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:
X