Hi!

I've not seen this covered elsewhere on the site (great site, BTW), but perhaps I'm overlooking it. So- I thought I'd ask here.

Let's suppose for one moment that polygraphy- the analysis of certain physiological data in response to a verbal query- is a science. That implies that a trained analyst should be able to interpret those data in a manner consistent with the finding of deceptive answers, of course- the basis of the entire industry.

Science is real big on "repeatability" and in interpretation of data. This is to say, if it's a science based on interpretation, barring any ideological notions to the opposite, two interpreters should be able to derive the same answer from the same set of data. Or so it goes in forensics: if two forensic analysts examine the same set of fingerprint data, they should be able to determine if one set of prints is consistent with another set of prints.

So my question is this: if polygraphy is considered a "science," rather than the reading of tea leaves, why is it that data are interpreted by an individual, rather than a panel? When a tumor is excised via biopsy and sent to the pathology lab, a small team of experts (3-4, I believe) must come to the same conclusion as to type and degree of changes in morphology for a cancer diagnosis. The reason is quite simple: if there is an error, a life may be lost.

Surely if polygraphy were to be considered a science, the experts in the field would agree that multiple independent examiners- say a panel of three certified individuals- could come to the same conclusion based on the same set of data. Has this been considered? If polygraphy were able to be derived from voodoo, then experts being able to arrive at consensus from the same set of data would seem to be a requirement. Instead, police departments and federal agencies continue to throw money down this well, hoping that the "new and improved" form of the Spanish Inquisition will somehow allow us to divine the truth- all on the basis of techniques that (by all manner of scientific inquiry) should be derided in the same vein as phrenology.

How is it in a modern society we can accept this junk science as truth-finding if it fails independent analysis?

Quote:


First off, lets have this conversation without all the DRAMA! Polygraph is not the spanish inquisition. No one is killed or tortured. They spend money on it because its the best technology that exists at present. Because there is a yammering and drooling (drama, I know) for something better, you must be aware that everyone who can't think for themselves is vulnerable to being sold some form of snake-oil as a replacement. 

Aside from all that, many programs include a QC component - which serves the same objectives as a panel. 

Another approach in related sciences is to validate a method and then automate it, using computers (not just interns) which execute a process with theoretically perfect reliability.

Quote:


Right-e-O Chief.

By that definition every test in the social sciences (including education) is invalid.

Try again?

OK, you sure taught me. Boy-o-boy I bet that felt good to call me junior, and drag out that junk-science rubber stamp (that's a reliable conversation killer anytime it gets too deep to contend with the argument). I'll sure be going to my room now. 

Arrogance aside. 

Do you really think there is any test anywhere with perfect reliability? 

Which one? Where?

If you're going to have an intellectual conversation, then you have to do it without the rubber stamp labels. Otherwise, we might as well proceed directly to the 

Oh yeah?

Says you.

Oh yeah?

Says you.

Portion of this exchange, 'cause this is simply a chest-beating and brow-bashing forum with no real interest in discussion.

Its fun though.

Quote:


I know, I know. 

Things like theories and probabilities don't have much to do with science, now. Do they Chief?

Way to bang the drum there, Buck-o.

Its nice to see you found some productive and satisfying activity for your retirement.

Some day you'll have to do your own homework and cease being Georgie's lap-dog with the rhetorical questions about validated studies. 

That's not the kind of question that stimulates a real intellectual discussion. Its the kind of question intended to handicap a conversation.

The real concern is this:

Are there any valid theories that support the linkeage between stimulus (not emotion) and physiolgical response. The null hypothesis for which would be that there are no linkeages between stimulus and physiological response. 

Lykken is a fine start. Are you suggesting that there are no generalizable conclusions from Lykken to modern polygraph???

You can start here for some basic information about physiology, psychology and stimulus response theory

www.google.com

just experiment with different keywords, and you'll see that there is an awful lot we know about things like emotion, physiology, stimulus, response, and measurement.

You're not seriously trying to have this conversation in an anti-polygraph circus are you.

If you were serious, you'd go back to school and start proving or disproving things for real.

Your just enjoying the opportunity to be self-righteous, and appease yourself of what you view as some form of personal shame for having got involved in polygraph.

There are more productive ways of improving things.

This is fun though.

Ye-ah. Sorry Bub.

Nap time already?

Lovely, another member of the villiage people ----sans the talent. Soooooooo....wiseup, what be your analysis? Care to comment on the topic of polygraph, or are you just stopping by for the food?