stefano

Not to split hairs but I thought that was Toto.

Dear pailryder,

The main concern about polygraph is as you say, "peer reviewed studies." All or most of the "peer reviewed studies" concerning polygraph are by parties that have an interest in furthering the use of polygraph.  It is like many drug companies that have sponsored "independent" studies to proclaim their drugs effective and safe. Only is it years or decades later that we find out the long term damage and the millions spent on a useless drug.

Again, any device that claims it can work to detect deception is as good as the polygraph because the polygraph is unproven except for anecdotal evidence and studies. In our present state of federal and state budgetary crisis, I see it being abandoned for the "next great thing." Unless polygraph operators can cut the cost, I see polygraph operations being cut-back. It is not even about evidence or argument, it is about money.  Polygraph is finally being found to be not economically feasible.

A computer with properly programmed parameters can come up with a fifty-fifty chance of detecting deception.  If I can convince you that it is effective, the odds go up. The polygraph is just a thinly veiled interrogation process that desperately depends on the subject's believe that it works.  Otherwise, it is ineffective. Computers are cheaper and their results are going to be the same.

Regards.

Fair Chance wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:38am:

Interesting....as long as they want a gimmick, let's give them one that costs less. I can actually see these knuckle-Draggers falling for it.

stefano

I do know some polygraph guys who hold  rather high opinions of themselves, but I have never heard them claim to have opened up anyone's soul.

Bill_Brown wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:46pm:

There is no theory which can link the precise neurological mechanisms to deception. Sympathetic arousal is indicative of fear, but extrapolation of fear to deception is pure conjecture.

Dear pailryder,

There are some good discussion points going on and you brought up a few.  I would like an independent study by qualified scientists who have no horse in the race. These studies are impossible to come by. Everyone has a horse in this race and there are no independent peer-reviewed case studies.  In just about every study, a researcher can find a bias which can skew the research both pro and con.  A truly scientific procedure should easily display its repeatability and reliability. The polygraph examiners have placed too many variables, such as the experience and quality of examiner, type of questions, pre-screening application use or specific incident use as excuses why some results are not repeatable or justifying why passed examinees should have been failed after the fact. 

When an EKG is taken according to manufacturer instructions, the technician follows a preset order of operations and procedures which can be exactly duplicated by another similarly qualified technician.  The polygraph does not have such repeatability. 

I can use a telescope for eighty years and say the sun revolved around the earth.  Everyone agrees with my statement so it must be right.  Just because something has been done for eighty years does not mean it is scientific or accurate, it just means it was a practice or urban legend passed on from generation to generation based on belief, not science. I can give you anecdotal statements that back up my theory. If I do not provide evidence to back up my theory, it is just a statement, not fact.

I believe that the best way to prove something is to disprove the negative.  Let us assume that the polygraph exam is scientific, repeatable, and 99.99% accurate.  If a theory is correct, repeatability is essential and the data should show little or no variation from the expected mean. There should not have to be collateral damage with a scientifically tested and proven technique.  There should be no false positives unless they are attributed to error associated with the machine calibration error.  Automatic laboratory testing with computers is 99.9999% accurate unless the calibration of the equipment is out of range.  There are no other excuses.

I am stating that a computer can be programmed to analyze the same readings according to existing polygraph examiner protocols and the machine should be 99.999% effective unless the protocols are incorrect or the machine is out of calibration. Why do we need an operator, let's save money.  If you tell me a machine cannot be programmed to do what you do, I am stating that you are not performing a scientific, fact based, parameter limited, repeatable test.

If the polygraph exam is scientific, a computer should be able to repeat the exam on the subject with identical results every time.  The computer injects no bias except for the bias of the programmer. It follows protocols regardless of ethnicity, age, or nervousness of the subject.  I should be able to hit the retest button every time and get the same results. 

When an examiner argues that a compute cannot do his job, I would use those exact arguments against them and state that their results are biased or flawed.  The results should be defined on preset, concrete, and repeatable parameters. Gee, it is starting to sound like an AED machine.  Read up on the research and programming that is involved in allowing a machine to make the judgment about whether a defibrillator should be used or not. They are programming a machine to perform a life or death decision .  Applying a shock when not needed will kill a living person. You cannot tell me that if you have a scientifically proven way of using polygraphs to detect deception, it is not capable of being programmed into a machine.  We should not need human operators to do the analysis or exam.  If we do need operators because the machine cannot be programmed to make the decision, then I doubt the parameters are correct or scientific.

Regards.

stefano
Quote:


stefano

What agency allows an examiner to ask those questions?

Bill_Brown wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

This is the point where science departs the scene and shamanism takes over.