Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) AntiPolygraph research (Read 26091 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #15 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 6:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8th, 2007 at 3:31am:
If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT study?


1) A study commissioned by an antipolygraph advocacy network would be of questionable independence, just as are studies commissioned by those with a vested interest in polygraphy (such as DoDPI/DACA);

2) No new studies are needed. The scientific underpinnings of polygraphic lie detection are weak, and the National Academy of Sciences reports that the "inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy." In plain English: you can't polish a turd;

3) No money.

Regarding your contention that I've written a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it's okay to lie, could you please cite a sample passage?
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #16 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 9:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 6:03pm:
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8th, 2007 at 3:31am:
If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT study?


1) A study commissioned by an antipolygraph advocacy network would be of questionable independence, just as are studies commissioned by those with a vested interest in polygraphy (such as DoDPI/DACA);

2) No new studies are needed. The scientific underpinnings of polygraphic lie detection are weak, and the National Academy of Sciences reports that the "inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy." In plain English: you can't polish a turd;

3) No money.

Regarding your contention that I've written a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it's okay to lie, could you please cite a sample passage?


#1 you are probably correct
#2  I disagree. I find it hard to believe that the intent of the NAS was to criticize research that has not been done. 
#3 No money?  What are you doing with your donations and the proceeds from T-shirts and refrigerator magnets?

Lastly
What I actually said was you  co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information.
Here are a few examples: To satisfy the requirements of the word repeatedly I need only two, but I have included several. 

“Your goal during any interrogation is to avoid making damaging admissions or statements that may lead the polygrapher on to un-welcome lines of questioning.”  CONCEALING INFORMATION
(Last sentence  on page 131) 

“Be polite and cordial. Answer your polygrapher’s questions directly,
but remember to make no damaging admissions! In response to the “control” questions, you may admit to some minor childhood misdeeds. But in response to the relevant questions, you should make no admissions whatsoever. Any minor admissions you make regarding the relevant questions may be spun out of all proportion by your polygrapher.”
(Last paragraph age 133) CONCEALING INFORMATION


But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org!
Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION


Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER

I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word
. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM. 

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION


Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE

MR. Mashke, I know you had your feelings hurt by failing to qualify for a security clearance but regardless of your intent, the techniques you teach are used by criminals to avoid the consequences of their actions. If just one child molester or murderer is able to escape justice because of something you teach, then the consequences of your actions are astronomically more detrimental to society than any inconvenience or embarrassment you may have suffered from your rejection.

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #17 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Regarding your contention that I've written a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it's okay to lie, could you please cite a sample passage?


George, you've got to be kidding.

Wow Sancho, that was beautiful! Roll Eyes

p.s. George, we all slip up once in a while
« Last Edit: Dec 11th, 2007 at 2:23am by EJohnson »  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #18 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 3:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:40pm:
If I may reiterate my initial post This website bases almost all of its conclusions and theories on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. If that were true, Polygraph could anecdotally bury those people who claim they were done wrong with volumes and volumes of accurate and positive outcomes. 

Sancho Panza


How exactly would “Polygraph” anecdotally bury those people who claim they were done wrong with volumes and volumes of accurate and positive outcomes?

If a person passes a polygraph exam while lying or using countermeasures, do you believe they would then be willing to come forward and admit that they should have failed?  That hardly seems reasonable.  Therefore, whatever percentage of polygraph subjects who passed while lying or using countermeasures cannot be used to speak for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the polygraph.

If a person passes a polygraph while telling the truth, there is certainly a possibility that they will be willing to speak out in support of the polygraph.  Of course, it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of people who “passed” their polygraph and are willing to speak out in support of the polygraph’s accuracy were actually lying or using countermeasures, so whatever data you get from this group would have to be suspect.

If a person fails a polygraph exam while telling the truth, do you believe they are going to speak up in support of the polygraph?  I don’t think that is reasonable, either.  Therefore, whatever percentage of people are false-positives cannot be used to speak for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the polygraph.

If a person fails the polygraph while lying or attempting countermeasures, do you think it is likely that all such people will subsequently admit to lying or using countermeasures, and will do so in order to support the accuracy of the polygraph?  I hardly think that is likely.  It seems much more likely that a significant portion of subjects who fail while using CM’s or lying will continue to protest their innocence and would not be willing to speak out in favor of the polygraph.

What you are left with is the small percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.  That small percentage of cases can in no way be said to “bury” the number of cases where the results of a polygraph test were later proven to be incorrect by the same methods.


  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #19 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 5:42am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza,

Thank you for your criticism. Our suggestions regarding countermeasures begin with the assumption that the examinee has answered the relevant questions truthfully. At p. 126 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we preface our discussion of polygraph countermeasures thus:

Quote:
We believe that the ethically preferable choice for those facing polygraphic interrogation is to either refuse to submit or to use the “complete honesty” approach (or both). If everyone who reads this book were to do so, it would force the agencies that are using polygraphy against their employees and prospective employees—as well as the elected representatives who have sanctioned it—to confront the plain truth that the lie behind the lie detector has been exposed. It would quickly spell the end for polygraphy. But we are also aware that these two choices carry with them a high “first-mover disadvantage” and may entail serious adverse consequences for those with the moral courage to adopt them.

We believe that it is not unethical for truthful persons—faced with a government that routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process—to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome.


The relevant questions being asked on the polygraph examination should have already been truthfully answered before the examinee sets foot in the polygraph suite. As I have often stated on these forums, I believe that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer relevant questions truthfully. This should be done up front, and this is a point that I think we'll be making more clearly in the next edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

But once the relevant questions have been answered truthfully, I see no ethical duty on the part of examinees to allow the polygrapher to turn the polygraph suite into a confessional booth.

Nor do I see an ethical problem with persons who have truthfully answered the relevant questions concealing their knowledge of polygraphy and possible use of countermeasures from the polygrapher, because the polygraph procedure is itself a fraud, and the examinee who admits to knowing the truth about polygraphy faces likely retaliation. Drew Richardson aptly summarized some of the key deceptions perpetrated by polygraphers in an earlier post:

Quote:
...Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.

(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #20 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mr. Mashke  You wrote "We believe that it is not unethical for truthful persons—faced with a government that routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process—to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome."

Thank you Mr. Mashke for your personal response. If you were going prove my point by quoting , from your own book, a passage where you say that it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information why did you ask me to provide samples? 

In addition, employment with the government is not a right. The government may use pretty much any criteria for employment they choose as long as it does not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, national origin, race, religion or sex (gender). For certain jobs that includes a polygraph examination in whatever form it takes. 

No- one is compelled to take a pre-employment polygraph examination. They may freely choose to withdraw their application. If they actually believe that the government routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process why would they want to work for the government? 

If they choose to submit to pre-employment polygraph then they should consider themselves prohibited from attempting to manipulate the results of the test. Likewise if they are ordered to submit to a polygraph as part of an ongoing investigation by their employer, they do not have to take the test, they can resign.  If it is merely an internal investigation and they choose to submit to the examination they are required to cooperate fully and the fifth amendment against self incrimination does not apply per Garrity. If it is a criminal investigation they enjoy full constitutional protection.

Under your logic, should a Navy Fighter Pilot decide that the vision requirements or testing procedures aren't fair then he would be perfectly justified in attempting to manipulate the testing procedure so he could maintain flight status. 

"We believe that the ethically preferable choice for those facing polygraphic interrogation is to either refuse to submit or to use the “complete honesty” approach (or both)." 
Considering the amount of space you spend encouraging people to tell the truth versus the amount of space you devote to encouraging people to lie, teaching them how to lie and trying to absolve them of any guilt feelings they might have about lying by saying that it is justified, it is very clear that the above statement is simply a contradictory disclamer that enables you to say, in discussions like these"  Hey I told everybody to tell the truth. It would also help protect you from lawsuit by someone who uses your countermeasure techniques and fails in his attempt to conceal his/her involvment in a crime.

I fully understand that you don't have an "Ethical Problem" with deceiving polygraphers. You have absolved yourself with self justification. What I don't understand is your problem with my comment that you co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. considering the content of your latest post.  
« Last Edit: Dec 11th, 2007 at 1:05pm by SanchoPanza »  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #21 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant  you wrote "What you are left with is the small percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.  That small percentage of cases can in no way be said to “bury” the number of cases where the results of a polygraph test were later proven to be incorrect by the same methods."

What in the world leads you to believe that the percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertable physical evidence is small? Good Grief most examiners probably have file cabinets full of them. 

How many of the childish "I failed my polygraph and I told the truth" rants on this website are supported by the credible confession of another party or incontroverable evidence of their innocence" This sites founder and co-author of TLBTLD does not even enjoy that distinction

Wait before you answer. For the sake of our discussion, I am more than willing to place any case that fullfills that criteria, whether or not they support polygraph, as data rather than anecdote if you are. 
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #22 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 5:17am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza,

When you wrote that I "co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information," I supposed that you meant that I've argued that it is OK to lie about relevant issues. My viewpoint has always been that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer the relevant questions truthfully. The advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to avoid admissions in response to post-test accusations of deception regarding relevant questions pre-supposes that such questions have been truthfully answered during the pre-test phase.

While government employment may not be a right, people have a natural right to be treated fairly by their government. It is patently unfair -- and downright immoral -- for government agencies to pretend to judge the honesty and integrity of applicants and employees on the basis of a scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #23 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 5:17am:
SanchoPanza,

When you wrote that I "co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information," I supposed that you meant that I've argued that it is OK to lie about relevant issues. My viewpoint has always been that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer the relevant questions truthfully. The advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to avoid admissions in response to post-test accusations of deception regarding relevant questions pre-supposes that such questions have been truthfully answered during the pre-test phase.

While government employment may not be a right, people have a natural right to be treated fairly by their government. It is patently unfair -- and downright immoral -- for government agencies to pretend to judge the honesty and integrity of applicants and employees on the basis of a scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived.


Sir, with all due respect, I have already responded to the first part of your comment in a previous post. and I would prefer not to banter the same thing back and forth absent a new point of view, but since this is YOUR forum I wil respond: In your book the following text appears at or near the locations noted. 
But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION

Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER
I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION Note  this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about

Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE
 

You might argue that these questions may have nothing to do with what you consider the "relevant" issues on a test, but I assure you every person or entity who ever administered to you  any kind of test from kindergarten all the way to your Doctorate considers cheating on a test a relevant issue and if you had done so and were caught you would have failed most school have Honor Codes that provide for expulsion for such behavior. The text FROM YOUR BOOK encourages people to LIE about cheating on the exam and even provides sample lies for an examinee to use to avoid suspicion of cheating on an exam. There is no need to argue that you think that this type of lieing is justified. I fully understand that you have justified this type of lying or you would not have included it in your book. I just happen to disagree that this is acceptable behavior. Even if you think you are being lied to, what code of ethical behavior allows you to respond with lies or unethical behavior?

As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is” patently unfair"  With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.  By the way thank you for providing the following link so visitors to your site can read the ruling for themselves. http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/zaid/opinion-29-09-2006.pdf

If you thought that you could prove your second statement, why didn't you file a lawsuit following your polygraph? Your claims of lying and unfair treatment would certainly appear tortuous if proven.

Your statement that polygraph is “scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived” is a matter of opinion. This statement certainly doesn’t appear anywhere in the findings of the NAS study. 

On a side note:  If you would prefer to be addressed as Dr. Mashke rather than Mr. Mashke, please let me know. I have no reason to believe that your doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures is anything, but legitimate and correctly bestowed. If I have offended you by failing to refer to you with your proper title I apologize.

On another side note: I notice that in your personal statement about polygraph you are very careful not to talk about certain issues surrounding the nature of your employment with the government. How can  they control what you talk about after you no longer work for them?

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #24 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:01pm:
[As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is” patently unfair"  With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.  


My reading of Croddy tells me the court found the plaintiffs did not have "standing" for the claims asserted.  Too bad, because it would have been good to get a federal court ruling on the issues.

Regarding antiPolygraph research, the problem as I see it with any polygraph research, is that the variables cannot be controlled sufficiently to make the research replicatable.  Without being able to replicate the research, it does not meet scientific scrutiny, and thus is subject to validity problems.  This is the main issue I have with the recent Honts study purporting to show that countermeasures do not help the guilty, and hurt the innocent.

When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up.  If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.


  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #25 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sancho, you remind me of the old joke about the fellow who went to a clairvoyant/fortune teller.  The first thing the clairvoyant asked is "So what can I do for you?"  He replied, "you are the clairvoyant, you tell me." Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #26 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 2:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
When I woke up this morning I had a terrible head cold. I see upon review of my last two posts that I have made some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Unfortunately I lack the energy to go back and correct them.  
Please excuse them and I will endeavor to do better the next time. 

Sancho Panza
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2007 at 3:42pm by SanchoPanza »  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #27 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 3:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nopolycop wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:24pm:
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:01pm:
[As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is” patently unfair"  With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.  


My reading of Croddy tells me the court found the plaintiffs did not have "standing" for the claims asserted.  Too bad, because it would have been good to get a federal court ruling on the issues.

Regarding antiPolygraph research, the problem as I see it with any polygraph research, is that the variables cannot be controlled sufficiently to make the research replicatable.  Without being able to replicate the research, it does not meet scientific scrutiny, and thus is subject to validity problems.  This is the main issue I have with the recent Honts study purporting to show that countermeasures do not help the guilty, and hurt the innocent.

When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up.  If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.



If you haven't maybe you should read the entire Croddy ruling. I offer as a matter of established law, that summary judgment may ONLY be granted if the judge finds  the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


If you wish to discuss HONTS qualifications and abilities as a scientific researcher, maybe you should discuss them with the Co-authors of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. They cite Honts research numerous times is support of their contention regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, Surely you wouldn't argue that research is only valid if it supports your position? Or maybe you think that the authors should not have cited his work because it is faulty, or perhaps you would like to point out the differences in methodology that support the validity of the studies that were cited versus the study, which is certainly "subsequent research" you chose to label as invalid.  Thank you for telling us you have a psychology degree I'm sure many of us would have never guessed. Your education should more than qualify you to answer these questions. 

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box raymond.nelson
User
**
Offline


If you win the rat race,
you're still a rat.

Posts: 46
Joined: Oct 22nd, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #28 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 4:17pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nopolycop wrote on Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:24pm:

<snip>
When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up.  If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.



Wow nope,

You must be a gifted researcher, to be able to comment that critically on the Hont's study. Last I recall you were having trouble understanding Hont's math. You should probably publish the study you did in college, or perhaps you already have.

Gentlemen, there you have it. Nope' is smarter than Honts. 

At the very least  Nope,'  you might do Mr. Honts the courtesy of a telephone call or email message to educate him in the inadequacies of his methods - that he might try to do better in the future. That would be very positive contribution. 

Seriously, that kind of arrogance is unbecoming, almost troll-like, in its biased, vacuous, and potentially misleading content.



r

« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2007 at 4:57pm by raymond.nelson »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #29 - Dec 12th, 2007 at 4:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
For everyone's information  Mr. Maschke has notified me by personal message that " I wish I had time to provide lengthier replies to you, but at the moment, I hard pressed for time." 

I think that everyone should be made aware that he is currently very busy and may be unable to provide complete replies to our posts currently and in the near future. I think we will all look forward to his responses when he has the time to make them. 

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
AntiPolygraph research

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X