Nonombre,

Rather than derailing another topic, I'll start a new one.

You said previously that 

nonombre wrote on Aug 26^th, 2006 at 5:11pm:


There can never be a fresh slate because:

a) it is highly unlikely that a new examiner will be unawares of the prior polygraph...
b) and even if the new polygrapher has an "open mind",  the person being examined has been tainted by the prior polygraph both cognitively and emotionally so therefore the new polygraph is correlated with the prior polygraph and is not an independent test which increases the chance of false positive...

So unless you're able to magically erase the prior test, you're fostering the myth of a clean slate...

-digithead

No one is talking about single-blind or double-blind,  just taking another polygraph.  My experience with giving a second examination is similar to  Nonombre’s.  You have a fresh start and we realize that we do have false positives on occasion.   

The second examiner, being aware of the first exam does not taint the second exam.  In this field, we do try to help persons pass polygraph examinations, that is our task.  There are methods that enable us to be successful with a second exam, even if there were an error on the first exam, that’s why examines are afforded a second examination.   

“There will be (has to be) an innate prejudice, if for no other reason than that humans dislike change and tend to trust what they see (like a prior chart).”

“I can't imagine that any polygrapher would be desirous of changing the results of a colleague and friend.”

This may be your own thought process.  Mine is considerably different.  I don’t mind change.  I do not tend to “TRUST” simply because you or another individual has reached a conclusion.  You do come across as educated in psychology, and may accept your statement as fact rather than your own personal prejudice.   

I have on occasion been the second examiner and found the examine to be truthful on the second examination.  Usually there is an explanation and reason for the false positive. (Not necessarily deception).

You are correct in stating "no sequential polygraph can be free of the influence of the prior polygraph".  I am aware of cognative function in humans.  The process must be altered to satisfy this problem and can be in MOST cases, not all.  Polygraph is not 100%.   

" As for an examiner, they're human too so I'd figure the same things would stand for them..."   

Your opinion is valid, as is my own.  My opinion is different.

digithead wrote on Aug 28^th, 2006 at 11:34pm:


So,

According to your position:

There could never be a "second opinion" by a medical doctor...

Or a psychologist...

No need for a mediator...

Or an ombudsman...

We can close the complaint department at the local department store...

No need to ever get a "new lawyer"...

and there would be no need for judges to remove themselves from a case, since the new judge will obviously agree with the old one...

Yes, Digithead.  I guess you must be right...None of these processes have much independence, internal validity, consistency, or reliability...


Regards,

Nonombre

If a polygrapher is going to rest on the premise that CQT lie detection is scientific, then they should be prepared to defend it scientifically...

Linking it to counseling, mediation, and other human-based constructs is simply misdirection because unlike the polygraphy, the outcomes that result from these things are not based on the expectation that they're measuring some underlying truth. And while these things should be consistent in their outcome, we don't expect them to have independence, internal validity, and reliability because they are not designed for it. But one can assess if they are fair and unbiased...

And second opinions in medicine are usually scientifically based and do have independence, internal validity, reliability and consistency such as a second blood test to confirm disease presence or DNA testing...

And yes, I do have all the terminology down because I do research for a living, specifically in the criminal justice arena. Unlike the majority of people who post on this board, I have never been harmed by the polygraph. But I am reasonably educated enough so that I can understand the science (or lack thereof) behind CQT polygraphy and reasonably conclude that it's flapdoodle...

So if you have something other than ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, let's hear them...

Digithead,

You write in part:
Quote:


In addition to issues relating to independence of the exam that you have correctly identified and elucidated are issues related to independence of the (second) examiner.  In the case of a second polygraph examiner, he/she is frequently (almost always) merely a colleague of the first examiner and one chosen by the chief of the administrative unit that both work for.  This presents the obvious conflict of interest/bias associated with the possibility of finding the first examiner and parent agency wrong.  In the case of a second medical opinion, the second clinician is one most likely one chosen by the patient (not the first medical organization) and an individual who is independent of the first clinician's practice and who may not even know the first clinician.  Aside from what you correctly point out about second blood assays, there is no comparison between polygraphy and medical diagnosis in the nature of WHO is doing the second exam and how that individual is chosen to perform his/her function.  In the case of the (second) polygraph  exam, one will end up with a non-valid procedure and result largely set up to meet the government's (not the examinee's) needs and in the case of the medical exam, one will likely end up with a procedure and result of varying (but higher than that associated with the second polygraph exam) validity but one chosen by the patient to meet his/her needs.  Regards...
 

retcopper wrote on Aug 29^th, 2006 at 4:03pm:


Where did I say that scientific tests are infallible?

And what made you skeptical of the first result that made you pursure a second opinion? 

I'm glad the second test caught the cancer and you were restored you to health. Did your medical treatment consist of voodoo and prayer or was some of it scientifically based? Which do you think got rid of your cancer?

And there are people on this board who essentially became "dead" to a law enforcement career because of a one-time false positive on a polygraph and  they couldn't pursue a second opinion. What say you..

nonombre wrote on Aug 30^th, 2006 at 12:59am:


All of your examples are of human error, not the test so you're using misdirection again from the question at hand which is whether or not there really is a clean slate in polygraphy...

But I do think you make an excellent point by comparing your profession to indifferent doctors...

Medical errors are made all of the time and they are rectified (somewhat) by malpractice lawsuits, disciplinary actions and the like. How does someone rectify malpractice by a polygrapher? How does one clear one's name once they are branded a liar? 

And at least in the situation you've listed above a person will either develop or not develop cancer, the polygrapher never really knows absent a confession or other corroborative evidence whether they really have the truth or not...

So spare me the misdirection and logically fallacies and speak to the matter at hand...