Ludovico wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 6:39pm:


For evidence of the effectiveness of mental countermeasures, see:

Honts, Charles R., David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher. "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 (1994), No. 2, pp. 252-59.

You'll find the abstract cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Websters 9th.

Fraud 3. Any deceit, trickery or humbug.

Mr, Drew Richardson having been chosen as an expert witness (Superior expert) to debunk polygraph while he was allegedly a poor acedemic performer at DODPI and is alleged to have been placed in research due seemingly for default reasons rather than working further in toxicology (his actual specialty)-----AND having the alleged worst understanding of polygraph in a senior agent's history of viewing other examiner's work------is a "fraud". 

I am not levying the label of "fraud" on to Mr. Richardson per se, but I will call his testifying against polygraph a fraud. Similarly,  in the case of FEMA's former director, Mr. Brown ("Brownie") was not a fraud---he was merely a man who was appointed to head up FEMA. His appointment and his job---as he was only a horse training and breeding association administrator -----left him ill-equiped to handle Katrina---as Brownie was just a guy who rather "fell into reluctantly" the job----much the same stated manner for which Drew "became a reluctant activist."  And so we can now say that Brownie's appointment and job was a fraud------as it was frought with deceit, trickery, or humbug----and in the case of Katrina, Brownie was out of his league and could only master some catch phrases and some protocol in order to appear up to the task of heading up FEMA. Maybe we should call Drew "Drewie".
I hear Drew is now working in fMRI (P300) for the purposes of lie detection----and I wish him the best as he is no doubt a bright individual....er....in toxicology. I am not sure how Drew "fell into fMRI without being a Neurological/neurologist/endocrinologist/neurolinguisticist technician or CT/MR scan tech. I do hope that as he studies and educates himself about the status of fMRI and the human brain, he pays attention, does his homework, and isn't classified by a supervising peer as being the worst fMRI technician ever seen. 

mod-slapped!

boy I bet that felt good

The fact seems that Drewie has misrepresented his "expertise" in polygraphy.

Paradiddle has pointed out and provided evidence that Drewie's "expertise" in polygraphy is suspicious at best, and that he has misrepresented his expertise in this community and other places.

If Dr. Richardson had testified regarding the inaccuracy of phrenology, would there be an outcry from phrenologists about his credentials?

Would practicing phrenologists claim he doesn't know what he is talking about, because he has not conducted a sufficient number of phrenological exams?   


It seems to me that George already showed, by quoting direct testimony, that Dr. Richardson did not misrepresent himself.

How about a cease and desist on the ad hominem attacks in exchange for resuming the ongoing debate regarding the validity of the polygraph?

If certain people are intent on continuing the personal attacks, it certainly seems fair to me that they state their name and their credentials, so that the rest of us can compare and contrast them with Dr. Richardson's.

Perhaps I have seen it and don't remember, but I don't think Dr. Richardson ever identified himself as an "expert polygraph examiner."

He has said he has been involved in polygraph research.

Any evidence anyone has that he has not done any research on the polygraph would be illuminating.  The repeated accusations that he has not conducted enough examinations nor shown sufficient skill as an examiner are irrelevant.

My reference to phrenology was apparently too subtle.  Dr. Richardson has written that he does not believe the polygraph is a valid scientific test.  Most people do not believe phrenology is a valid science, either.   

What does it matter if a person does not have sufficient experience conducting invalid tests?  Or has not shown sufficient skill in conducting invalid tests?  It is sufficient if he has the expertise to recognize and explain why those tests are invalid.

day2day:
Quote:


Well, you see its like this. When I was younger... I just can't talk about it... maybe if I got to know you a little first, its just so hard to trust people, you see. I know you see, because you are the only person who truly understands. I really feel like we have a deep personal connection, and it pains me that you think negatively of me. Why must you be so disapproving. Can't you try to be just a little more positive - a little more approving. I'm sorry for babbling like this, but your such a good listener. You understand, don't you. Please say you understand.


Quote:


OK. So what research has he done?

Quote:


Hey. This is just a circus. This isn't any kind of empirical forum. If people's objectives were to investigate questions, then they wouldn't be fartin' around with a forum/circus like this, they'd be suggesting and conducting actual experiments - not some silly media challenge.