PD,

No one has appointed me to be a spokesman for this board.
Where I address you in particular, it is only because you are to date the most lucid of the PP folk, although you do sometimes break the rules of common decency. (yes i have too)

I think it is fair to say most AP folk admire your unwavwering faith in the p/g system (man & box) although some will say it's blind faith and unjustified belief.

Nevertheless, it is your belief and of course you are fully entitled to uphold your beliefs with the passion you display.

But, lets cut out the mumbo jumbo, techno speak and calmly debate some of the issues that militate in favour of and against the use of the p/g system.

Firstly, i use the term 'system' because the p/g instrument is a cold instrument. it has no artificial intelligence. It measures physiological data which collection process is in the hands of sometimes skilled examiners and sometimes unskilled examiners. History tells us that there are too many unskilled examiners in this world.

Unskilled has many connotations. It refers not only to a keen eye and fine motor control. it also goes to the mind of the examiner. When past illuminaries of the APA start plastering themselves with phony
PHd's - that to me indicates an unsound intellect. A megalomaniac perhaps? The Idi Amin syndrome?
If such men rose to the top of the APA (the polygraph collective), that does not say much for the rank and file who voted these deluded (yes again) characters into office. Furthermore, how can the public
- future subjects - then be expected to trust polygraphers?

The APA likes to trot out the '98%' accuracy number, "in favour of the truthful subject". Yet from my own reading of APA journals over the years and the writings of the the anti scientists, laboratory achieved accuracy rates are closer to the order of 86-88%.

There are no validated field accuracy stats. Indeed it would be a mammoth task to undertake such an exercise, which would have to be managed closely by equally weghted numbers of Pro & Anti 'scientists'

Field Examiners have very little reliable feedback on which to base the accuracy of their Calls. Some might say " I know I'm right till proven wrong" - which is nothing more than hollow boasting.

I have also never been 'proven wrong' in a Call. In my earlier days of testing I was as gung-ho as some of your colleagues. I 'produced' a high DI Call rate. some 55% of my subjects were failing. The truth is, its extremely difficult if not impossible, for truthful subjects to PROVE that they have been given an incorrect DI Call.

I changed my mindset. changed the way I treated subjects. Ceased with the BS stim and card trick tests. Ceased with the "My p/g is now set to detect whenever you lie" BS. After that, my average DI
Call rate went down to approx 20%.

However, I still achieved the same number (%) of confessions and that opened my eyes to the fact that the p/g was merely a prop with which to obtain confessions. In truth, those that confessed usually did not require to be polygraphed. during the Pre-Test phase I encouraged subjects to talk and step by step obtained confessions. Verified confessions where subjects undertook in writing to make reparation.

NAS stated that the p/g (system) was imperfect but achieved levels of accuracy better or greater than chance. (Not a comforting reassurance surely). What is chance? where does 'level of chance' sit?

Theoretically chance is a 50-50 situation. In reality its not. Every single situation has significantly different levels of chance - ie - a level at which one could introduce an operant condition that will produce a result greater or lesser than chance for that particular situation.

Problem: Polygraphy does not have an established, verifiable level of chance. So where does it sit?
What is it? 30%, 35%, 50% ? How do we ascertain a level of chance for p/g? 

Can we establish a level of chance for p/g by the coin toss test? Would that even out at 50% ?
Well i tried it. Take a coin and mark the sides A & B. flip it 100 times then change the markings.
Do that ten times, to achieve 1000 flips. Out of 1000 flips I achieved an average of 46%. Based on the number of times each side fell facing up and then averaged the two scores.

If we play around with numbers and accept that 86% is theoretically the accuracy as achieved in laboratory mock-crime settings, then the success over 'chance' (46%) is 40%. Is that good enough?
Is that significantly good enough to prejudice 14% of the population. (100 - 86 =14 )
How many hundreds of thousands does that equate to annually?

Of the potentially incorrect 14% Calls, at least 80% of those will represent truthful people that were
prejudiced by Incorrect Calls. And that should be a major concern to society as a whole.

The FBI /CIA et al quip, "We gotta get 100 in the front door to get 1 out the back door" is very interesting and most disturbing. The inference is that 90% of the US population are liars and cheats.
I dont think so. Why anyone would want to work for organisations with that mindset is a mystery to me.

To argue that polygraph results inter alia produce some 10% of confessions is not a convincing argument in favour of p/g. Most skilled interviewers could likely achieve the same or higher rates of
confessions without incurring false confessions. 

The false polygraph induced confession rate is probably very low, (maybe 2% ?) but those are still dire consequences for that innocent 2%. One can only hope that the quality of investigators, interrogators and the justice system will one day improve to the level where skills will filterout the 2% false confessions.

It remains a fact that many thousands of people suffer the ignominy of incorrect p/g calls. To contend that it's (pg) all we got now and as we do catch some baddies its okay  -- is simply not good enough.

You in particular come across as being highly intelligent and I think that if you had opted for  main line investigation that you would have been a brilliant Investigator. I'm sure that locking away bad guys based on solid investigative results would produce a much higher degree of job satisfaction.

In the 16th Century, I'm sure the Pro & Anti torture groups had similar debates as we do today.
The Pro's, "whats wrong with torture? It works well. Dont mess with it. We apply some pain and some 90% of wicked men confess to heinous crimes. Firstly, with our scientific technique, we make them walk through a darkened tent and if they dont pull the donkeys tail, then we know they are guilty and we just
put their veggies in a vice -- and boy do they confess quick, and then we kill them. Why mess with this winner? We're taking bad guys off the streets all day long!! "
And the Anti guys would point out that 4 out of the 10 newly deceased were known by society at large to be unarguably innocent and in fact 2 of them were complete unknowns to the area, but 2 were definitely involved in the crime. So to get 2 bad guys off the street, 8 others had to be sacrificed in what is euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. And so that principle is perpetuated today by p/g.

Thats how it is with the p/g system. The collateral damage is far too high, no  matter what % you want to spin on it, or what bow tie you dress it up in.

Which is all why, a lot of truthful folk come to the AP site (along with a fair share of bad guys for sure).
They have heard and read too many horror stories of prejudice against truthful, innocent persons that were administered p/g tests and then suffered under incorrect DI Calls. So, they come here wisely, to prepare for an unscientific test.

The old BS line given to subjects to 'tell the examiner everything about your past. Dont hold back anything, not even your little transgressions, otherwise you will fail, now you dont want to fail will you, because it will go on your record forever..' - its the biggest crock of BS told in the 21st Century.

All those 'little transgressions' will go into the examiners report, making you stink and him looking like
the mouse that got all the cheese. It makes the examiner look like he's really a hot shot, getting all these juicy titbits out onto your report. Ensures his prospects of further work from the same source, but without thought for the poor otherwise normal sap that just been denied a job or promotion or loss of liberty.

So Dear Readers,
If you are an ordinary person having a less than unblemished past, like maybe trying a bit of weed in college, or driven when perhaps a bit 'under the weather' - then you have every reason to prepare for a polygraph test, because the entire system, from start to finish, is insufficiently reliable.

I have read the TLBTLD. It has many valid, helpful suggestions. Read it. It will significantly improve your chances of not receiving a False and Incorrect DI Call. I am a retired polygraphist. I did not retire due to age. I retired due to conscience. My remaining sin is that I sold my testing business and had to teach the purchaser to ply my old trade.

To The Bad guys,
Nobody actually knows who you are nor how to differentiate between yourselves and normal folk on this site, therefore AP would not know who to bar from this site. One can only hope that the justice system
is skilled enough to to weed you out and deal with you appropriately.

To '04 and others

I do not speak for any other polygraph examiners and anything I say, I speak for myself. I am sorry that polygraph has left you feeling empty and/or angry, as who hasn't felt that way about some behavior at one time or another. I too have mastered both arguments, and I secretly (until now) have been impressed with a few vehemently anti-polygraph posters----yourself included. I take no pride in the polygraph business, and my peers know me as wickedly critical of all weaknesses within our field, both the weaknesses of construct, and every thing up through some of the members of our ranks and their various intellectual and/or personal shortcomings. Hell, I might just be the most negativistic bastard anyone ever met---at least for a relatively young person anyway. If I believed polygraph were as fallible as you, I would certainly be amongst you on occasion lampooning the fools and their "jimmy boxes." Oh if it were true, life would be better, as I would be making great money in a more respected field, and I wouldn't be ashamed to tell strangers what I do for a living as they wouldn't make foolish statements and/or behave odd---like they were under investigation or something. No, if polygraph were what you and the sum of your experiences claim it to be, than I would be better off----much less all of those alleged "ruined lives." Your candor 1904, when you are done taking cheap shots and being wicked---is remarkable and very crisp. Although your contention of polygraph invalidity is purely anecdotal, it is worth a read---versus those that claim to have "passing ship" contact with the field and regurgitate endless platitudes by virtue of their brief and oft times confused perceptions. I too have read TLBTLD, and it impresses me in many parts, and not so much in other parts. TLBTLD is not a scientific document, and it is not a work of the dark arts either. It is rather, a prayer book. A book that should cause those that seek to undermine the test to pray that they aren't faced with the types of examiners that lecture and write on such countermeasures.

Paradiddle

Quote:


You sound like a rather weak and unsatisfied interviewer, who probably compensated by acting intimidating to your clients.

Now, if your overall % of confessions stayed the same, and the number of  “DI calls” was reduced to 20%, then the number of admissions would be reduced while the volume is proportionally equivalent. 

That would be hard to see anecdotally; d'you do the math on that there data? Or, d'ya just make that up?

If you have the data, then you should really write that up and publish it. Its quite interesting.

Quote:


That same statement could be said of so many other tests. Its really quite vague, if you care to think about it (not just read it.)

As for chance. That is another straw-man argument on your part, intended not to facilitate any further conversation or knowledge, but to handicap the conversation from progress.

There is a lot we don't know about base-rates. Similarly, there is a lot we do know about base rates, though not with absolute certainty. (thatsa whole 'nuther conversation)

The whole field of sex offender risk assessment struggles with this problem. Its really only an insurmountable problem if you can't comprehend anything except simplistic bayesian models. Signal detection models, for example, as used by Karl Hanson, allow us to make reasonable estimations of the accuracy of a sex offender recidivism risk assessment in the absence of clearly understood base-rates. His assessment is considered among the best, and has accuracy rates that were well above chance though well below perfection (Static 99 for example was about .77 or so).

Quote:


Dude. Go buy a book on Bayesian statistics, and go buy another on inferential stats. Absence of known base-rates is not an unaddressed or insurmountable issue – unless of course you want it to be one, because you can only engage in straw-man arguments.

Quote:


How convenient of you, now, to slip into a parametric/inferential example.

Quote:


That's not very close to how we actually calculate an example of this type, but that's another mathematical matter that would require many minutes of mulling to mediate the myriad of mindlessness in your example,

(you can start by doing a google search on the good old fashioned z-test - go to www.google.com)

but if this works for your simplistic model, well, that's probably all we're gonna achieve right now.

Quote:


And now you have conveniently flip-flopped again from at discussion about math and science to a discussion about social ethics.

Quote:


More drama. 

Please try to separate hyperbole from facts.

Otherwise, we ain't getting no-where.

Quote:


fact check please.

References?

Or is the the world according to 1904!

Quote:


You are again having a very one-sided conversation about these important ethical concerns.

Your heart is perhaps in the right place, and you might not be dumb, but this does not measure up to anything more than drama and editorializing.

Too bad too, 'cause in another context it could be a lot of fun to converse with you.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 12:33am:


Summary Reply: " Tum podem extulit horridulum"

Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:37pm:


Yes Please.  And the hat.

Rice80,

Nice editorial but you sir, are full of shit! You say that you sold your polygraph business and then trained the guy who bought it?? Even George and Gino know that this is not how the polygraph industry works. You want us to buy your story that some Schmo walked in off the street and bought your business after YOU trained him to conduct polygraph exams.....???

If there is ANY truth to your story, then you should feel as bad as you do! I for one, am not buying it.....but thanks for trying!

Regards,

MM

rice80,

My mistake...sorry about that! Thank you for correcting me.

Regards,

MM

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 9^th, 2007 at 3:30am:


And you sir, are definitely not.

Quote:


Well, just in case they don't, maybe you could enlighten the readers exactly how the p/g industry works.

Quote:


Use it. Don't use it schmuck. Which part do you find to be incredulous..?

Quote:


Tell someone who actually gives a s**t about yr whiny-assed opinion.