Forget the NAS!

Not a very credible organization.

Personally, I find the opinions of the APA, headed by polygraphers with phoney Ph'd degrees more credible.

Hey, they livelihood DEPENDS ON THE POLYGRAPH.  Or more precisely, the MYTH of the poly.

I also get my info on crime statistics from the Gambino Family.

The report concluded that, regarding pre-employment screening anyway, the test is not accurate enough to be useful.  Too many worthy candidates (like me) get falsely accused of dishonesty.  Spies pass with flying colors (AA, Larry Wu-tai Chin)....etc.

Other than that, it's a pretty good test.

What they should do, if a candidate has significant problems on the poly, and is otherwise a superb prospect worth spending the money on, hand his/her case over to trained INVESTIGATORS, to check the guy/gal out.  Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.

Had they done that with me they would have found a military linguist who held a TS SCI for 20 years, and passed each and every 5 year update with flying colors during his career.  It's not like I was an unknown commodity in the intelligence community.

I did get a call from a FBI SA a year later.  We chatted about the area of concerns that came out in my poly.  She said she didn't see what the problem was and ended the phoncon on an apologetic note.

sackett wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 9:30pm:


I believe the NAS used a collection of 57 studies when conducting their research study.

On the APA’s web site they write:

Quote:


Are the 80 research projects they used somehow superior or more accurate than the 57 research projects the NAS used?  Is there any doubt that they used 80 studies with conclusions that backed up their own preconceived notions regarding the accuracy of polygraph testing?

Other examiners have referred to the NAS study as somehow incomplete or inadequate because it only used a portion of the available studies.  That seems hypocritical considering the APA (motto: "Dedicated to Truth") did exactly the same thing.

I think that if the NAS study was truly invalid or inadequate the APA and polygraph examiners in general wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to discredit it.

sackett wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 9:30pm:


I gotta chime in here even though I need to be working on my dissertation which why I've been absent from this board...

Anyhow, "the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment"?!?! Really? You claim that the NAS report was done by people who work for the national labs and the DOE and are being screened by the polygraph? Baloney!

The main authors, Feinberg and Faigman, are from Carnegie Mellon and UC-Hastings respectively. The rest of the committee are from other universities or research organizations like RAND and the Cleveland Clinic. Not one is listed as working for a national lab and the committee is made up of statisticians, physicians, psychologists, and lawyers who I would argue are eminently qualified to examine the evidence on polygraph and render an opinion. Name one person on the list of authors of the NAS study who is employed by a national lab or is subject to polygraph screening. 

Here's the link in case you have trouble finding it: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=375

Your implication is misdirection at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst. The NAS selected the 57 studies because the excluded studies were, as they put it, "below the quality level typically needed for funding by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health." That's academic speak for saying the majority of research on the polygraph is crap.

I can understand that you feel the need to attack their conclusions but if all you can offer is an attack on their credentials then you don't have much of an argument...

sackett wrote on Feb 15^th, 2008 at 1:01am:


Except that none of the authors of the report are subjected to polygraph screening which is your implication. I think the NAS was quite aware of the appearance of bias and went out of its way to select people uninvolved with polygraphy beyond the requisite knowledge of physiology, psychology, statistics, engineering and law. To claim that this group was biased against the polygraph is sheer nonsense...

sackett wrote on Feb 15^th, 2008 at 1:01am:


You seriously think this? Wow, so that explains how polygraph people suppress their cognitive dissonance they get when they read this report, it was all an inside job designed to discredit polygraphy from the get-go...

sackett wrote on Feb 15^th, 2008 at 1:01am:

I never ask anyone to take me at my word, there is plenty of research out there to support my position that CQT polygraphy is fatally flawed, the NAS report to wit...

sackett wrote on Feb 15^th, 2008 at 1:01am:

Yes, it's crap. If it can't qualify for NSF or NIH funding it means that there are serious flaws in the research methods. How else would you translate the NAS description of the state of polygraph research, especially since you agree that most of it is "crap?"

Additionally, qualifying for funding is different than actually getting funding because of the fierce competition for research dollars. Just because the research design is well-done doesn't mean it will actually get funded. Their conclusion is that the research methods were so poor in the ones that they excluded that they wouldn't even be considered for funding...

sackett wrote on Feb 15^th, 2008 at 1:01am:


No, my opinion wouldn't change because I would be roundly shouted down if I asked any questions that challenged conventional polygraph practice, especially when it comes to CQT...

I do think that GKT is promising however because it resides on a cognitive basis rather than the emotional basis of CQT...

sackett wrote on Feb 15^th, 2008 at 2:29am:


Sackett:

If you are as good as you say, why don't you take Drew Richardson up on his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge?  You could singlehandedly put this countermeasure foolishness to rest.

Sackett:

I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.

One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins.  I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic.  THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.

Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website.  But, because  you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.

For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph.  That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.

Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.

Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves.  I am not going away.

Sackett:

I am, unfortunately for the extension of this conversation, going to be tied up for the next couple of weeks.  But, to finish my part of this thread, regarding you leaving, I have no opinion of whether or not you should leave here, but most other polygraphers who have come here do so with an agenda, then when they get their asses handed to them on a plate with logical argument, decide they are better off playing with themselves over at PolygraphPlace.  I find it amusing.

Frankly, honest discussion of polygraph with polygraphers would be refreshing.  Let's start with you answering a few honest questions.  A yes or no, (you may expand upon your answer, of course).

1)  Can you for certain tell if a person is lying?

2)  Can you for certain tell if a person is using countermeasures, and if so, which ones can you for certain detect?

3)  What is the accuracy rate of polygraph, and how can one be certain that accuracy rate is valid?

Please give these a stab, but I will have to let others continue this thread if they are so inclined, as I do have to take care of business.

BTW, I don't apologize for my sarcasm, it is one of the better things I do!