LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 21^st, 2006 at 10:47pm:


Why should I or anyone else accept your (anonymous) anecdotal accounts over peer-reviewed research?

Quote:


Do you believe that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph discounted studies that did not "conform to their wishes or personal agenda?" If so, please explain.

Because the peer-reviewed research you are always citing can not be accurately applied to the real-world, George, as even the NAS admits.

Digithead,

Whether a polygraph is conducted in the lab with mock crimes and let's-just-pretend scenarios and disinterested examinees OR in the real world, the conditions should be the same. Unless you are conducting your real-world exam under the take-off/landing area of an airport, for example, the environment should be similar. The difference, as the NAS admits, is that the lab setting can not accurately imitate the real world incentives or fears that an examinee faces in the real world. I see the real world all the time, not the lab world, so I base my knowledge on what I see, as well as studies that support what I see every day.

LBCB,

I have sat back and watched this thread develop for a few days and noted the key point that your experience is the discriminator by which you judge all things. I do not diminish your experience as by far your one of the few polygraphers to actually come in here and debate and openly support your beliefs. This being said, I believe that  you have not come up against someone of intellect, gile and audacity. Maybe you have, and they just caved in and went along with the program. But by my estimates, inconclusive after inconclusive is as good as a pass. Because the law of dimishing return kicks in after about 3 polygraphs. The shock and fear are gone, and if they have researched the polygraph coming in, it is greatly reduced. And like in chess, stalemate works. THe reason this works is the more polygraphs taken the more familiar to the box you become. And from experience, once you have lost the fear, the only outcome is inconclusive. This forces the decision to be made outside of the polygraph suite. Because no matter how many polygraphs a person is given, inconclusive defeats it. Eventually a decision has to be made and it won't be made by the polygrapher. Which removes any of the power that you may have had. Inconclusives reflect badly on the examiner, not the examinee. I would think that by the time a 3rd polygraph is inconclusive you would suspect that its not going to work for this subject.  And if it doesn't work, it is effectively defeated, with no ramifications to the examinee.  You should look up Neutralization theory. I highly suggest it. But then again a pass could happen too. There is no downside on this scenario, except for frustrating the polygrapher, which could be highly entertaining. 

Regards ....

LBCB,

In regards to your remark about "opinions" of the validity of the polygraph, this is not really an area that is simply subject to one's opinion. For any sort of procedure that purports to be scientific, it must have some sort of internal validity. Given the fact that so much of the polygraph results can be affected by the set of control questions the polygrapher devises, the background and psychological issues of the testee, it is not possible to control for these variables from one test to the next. For this reason, the test has no validity. This is simply not a matter of opinion.

As for the anecdotal evidence of real world polygraphers, I think part of the issue here is one of selection bias. By the time a person is subjected to a polygraph in an actual investigation, they are in a very small pool of people,1 of whom is most likely guilty. I bet if for every crime you rounded up 100 random people, you would have a very hard time picking out the guilty one via polygraph testing alone. Contrast that with DNA testing for example. If i had DNA evidence I bet I could pick out the guilty party from 100 people time after time. Why? Because the DNA test has validity. It isnt affected by the testee's childhood experience, what he read on the internet, how skillful the tester is in jacking up the emotional state of the testee, and so on.

Tell me, LBCB, for any given crime where you get a polygrpah induced confession, how many people on average do you polygraph to find the guilty party?

Correct grammar and spelling is appreciated Idiot.

But can i call you "G"?

LieBabyCryBaby stated the following in an earlier post:

"When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph... "

Will he please cite any scientifically valid double blind study to support that statement?  I've been searching for weeks.  Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.