skip.webb wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 12:46pm:


Be that as it may, your very first post here asserted, in the title:
Quote:


Which is clearly an unsupported assertion when one doesn't even know what information the subject in question had, going into the tests.

Furthermore, the study itself claims:
Quote:


Which, again, is unsupported in light of not verifying what information the subjects actually had acquired.

Furthermore, as one with a background in psychology and who is familiar with the peer-reviewed reporting of studies in psychology, I can verify that detailing methodology, including measures taken to avoid confounds of the data (e.g. keeping researchers blind as to the status of subjects) is the normal manner of doing things.  If it wasn't mentioned, then to me it would raise questions as to 1) whether such measures were actually taken or 2) how detailed and careful the researchers were in other aspects of the study, if they were careless enough not to report their full methodology in the writeup.

This doesn't mean that they didn't use good methodology, but those are legitimate questions, and chiding Mr. Maschke over asking them, rather than admitting the need for further illumination on the topic, strikes me as more than a bit defensive.

Nonombre,

Skeptic is right, so I won't clutter the blogosphere by quoting your rather lame post.  What a fool you must be.  You question George Maschke's ability and educational background to analyze research.  And then you, as quickly as a fool can spout, leave no doubt about your lack of ability in such matters.  The most basic research you could have done was to search Google with George Maschke's name before offering your comments about him.  You would have immediately found his website and be informed that he possesses a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures.  Either you do not know how to do the most basic research or you are too lazy and too arrogant to appreciate your need to do so.  Perhaps next time you should make some minimum effort to utilize that small mind before opening your big mouth.   

nonombre wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 6:08pm:


I can't even discuss the dissertation subject matter, as I have no background in it.

However, if you had spent years studying the topic (as Mr. Maschke has the polygraph), I wouldn't write off your opinion just because you don't have a Ph.D in the subject.

Thank-you Sarge, I was hoping for a response directly from Mr. Webb, but I presume he is simply busy and not avoiding my question.  Until that occurs, can any other poly examiner here, who is familiar with this study answer my questions?

Thank-you.

Quote: Barry Cushman

Quote:



This gives credence to AP’s position that clean-living, truthful subjects who in fear of failing a pg exam should read TLBTLD.

Quote:



Another good reason to read TLBTLD. Lots of good information in there. 
Even Dr Lou Rovner thought so.
And Rovner surely knows better than Barry Cushman.

Quote:


Actually, the aim of AP is to eradicate pseudo-science.  If you pass, you win and they lose. AP wins nothing if you fail. 

Quote:


Mr Cushman would prefer it that you turn up knowing nothing about polygraph, but if you do use your brain and carry out a little knowledge research, then he would like it if you ignore that knowledge and listen only to the words of Barry the sincere and trustworthy examiner.


Quote:


There is no science involved in the first instance.

Quote:


This is garbled misinformation. Where the examinee may use his discretion (choice) whether or not to lie to the Comparison/Control Question it is a ‘Probable Known Lie’ type of CQ.
Only when the examinee is specifically instructed to lie to a CQ does it then become a Directed Lie CQ.

Quote:


This statement is an insult to the ordinary folk who come here for advice. It is concerning though that Barry alludes to having an inside track to AP Admin decisions and actions. 

Offhand I would say that the particular inference is a blatant lie, designed to scare off inquiring minds that visit this site.

nopolycop wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 3:34pm:


Nopoly,
Address your question to Barry C. 
The response should make for interesting, if not amusing reading.

Barry C:

Here is my original question, care to answer?

TIA





nopolycop wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 2:28pm:

I am responding here to “nopoly4me” as he has requested.  I doubt seriously that my response will have any effect on his or any other person’s opinion of polygraph or its efficacy.  I should clarify a few things about the study at question here for those who have read only the abstract.  First, the polygraph test charts were scored using the CPS (Computerized Polygraph System) scoring software, not the polygraph examiners who conducted the tests.  Therefore, being “blind” to the condition of the participants in the study would not make a difference to the computer’s decisions.  The CPS scoring software produces a posteriori or “inductive” probability of truthfulness or CPSp|t.  Those values alone were used as the primary dependent measure for analysis.  A proposition is knowable “a priori” if it is knowable independently of experience. A proposition is knowable “a posteriori” if it is knowable on the basis of experience.  In the case of the CPS scoring software, decision probabilities are derived based upon experience gained from previous polygraph test where ground truth is known.  The software is then tested against a second batch of known condition or ground truth tests to determine it's "a posteriori" ability to provide a probability accuracy.  Others here have made the argument that even with the use of the computer as the scoring mechanism, the examiners could have “swayed” test results because they knew the condition of the participant.  Such an argument has little value.

     Second, the argument is being postulated here by some, “nopoly4me” included, that this study has provided some proof concerning the accuracy or lack thereof of polygraph.  Such is not the case.  The comparisons in this study were between the participants who were given information from TLBTLD and those who were not, under both guilty and innocent conditions.  This study subjected CPSp|t to a guilt (guilty, innocent) X information (informed, naïve) ANOVA.  ANOVA allows us to compare different things and form conclusions based upon the within class differences in those things.  It provides us the significance between those differences. This study revealed that CPSp|t values for guilty participants were significantly lower than were the CPSp|t values for innocent participants.   Stated simply, when TLBTLD information was provided to innocent participants, their correct condition classification accuracy was diminished.  We can infer that that difference in classification accuracy was diminished by the introduction of TLBTLD which was the variable. Kendall’s Tau-b analysis of the data indicated a significant relationship between the guilt criterion and the decisions for both informed, tau-b =.50, p=.009 and naïve participants, tau-b=.41, p=.046.  Tau-b values range from -1 (100% negative association, or perfect inversion) to +1 (100% positive association, or perfect agreement). A value of zero indicates the absence of association.  By any measure conducted there was significance between those who had information from TLBTLD and those who did not and the significance was that those innocent participants with TLBTLD were more likely to be misclassified as guilty by the CPS scoring software.

     Finally, Sergeant 1107 (based upon his understanding of a previous posting) is incorrect in his assertion that this study provides us with a 72% correctness of classification or a 72% accuracy rate for polygraph.  Polygraph accuracy was not determined in this study, nor was it a goal of the investigators.  To make such an assumption misreads the data and makes conclusions not supported by this study.  I would suggest that anyone who has an interest in the study to obtain a copy from the publisher and read it so that you may form your own conclusion about the value of reading TLBTLD prior to your polygraph.. Based upon this study TLBLD will decrease your chances of being classified as innocent and increase you chances of being misclassified if you are actualy innocent.  If you are guilty, read on as it made no difference in classification accuracy.