Drew Richardson wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2014 at 5:33pm:


Well said Dr. Richardson!  I am delighted that you are still pointing out the absurdity of referring to the polygraph as a "lie detector", and doing it so adroitly - as only a man with your credentials and education can do.  THANK YOU for continuing to bring your insight and wit to this forum.  You mind cuts through the bullshit put out by these pseudo scientists and shows their so-called scientific studies to be, as you so rightly say, nothing but "tomfoolery"!

Dan,

With any given subject matter, I might have an opinion as to the correctness of any assertions made or conclusions drawn, but I am unlikely to have any opinion about the underlying motivations of an individual(s) that I either do not know and/or do not interact with on a regular basis.

Dan,

Although I will be occupied with out of town guests over the next few days, I would be happy to take a look at your referenced APA "hallmark study" if you would care to send me a link to an on-line digital version.  

Perhaps more useful and time efficient for the both of us would be for you to quote various passages of interest to you and I would be happy to provide an opinion should I have one.

As to middle ground (i.e., some legitimate use for the standard polygraph instrument in a law enforcement/security context), my fairly well known views concerning concealed information testing might qualify as such to you.

I applaud you and all others who would offer full disclosure of what is involved and at risk to those who are considering being administered a polygraph exam.

Regards....

Dan,

I have not looked at the linked material yet and will likely not for a few days...

With regard to the passages about accuracy (presumably in the absence of examinee countermeasures) and reliability, here are my quick thoughts...

The problem that I have with this sort of thing is not with statistics (inferential statistics in particular) nor with any of the various tests chosen.  The problem lies in the assumptions of these tests, most of which require homogeneity amongst sample members with the exception of the condition being tested for, i.e. guilty/deceptive or innocent/truthful.  

Because of the anybody's-guess-nature as to the perceived relationship between comparison question vs relevant question material in the eyes of the examinee and the infinite number of ways a polygraph pre-test can be conducted, almost no two polygraph examinations would objectively be considered to be from an homogenous set, let alone this being deemed for all the deceptive subjects and all the truthful subjects.

This is one of the major reasons I like CIT exams...what little conversation related to the substantive issue can be minimized, scripted, and read, and the key and alternative answers (if constructed correctly) are alike in the eyes of a non-knowlegable examinee.

All of that having been said, my guess would be that CQT investigative exam results are slightly better than chance--the innocent/truthful subject exams at about random chance level and the guilty/deceptive results slightly better.  The latter are slightly better because most investigative exams are brought to an examiner by an investigator.  The investigator's opinion regarding subject guilt is relayed (creating bias) to the examiner, and because the investigator generally has some idea of subject guilt status and more times than not will bring a suspected guilty subject, the bias positively affects the outcome.

When the investigator is wrong this wrong bias is passed on too and everything goes to heck as was the case with the CBS 60 Minutes report in the 1980's (wrong false positive bias intentionally passed on for three fictitious crimes).

Accuracy would be expected to further decline in the case of general screening exams in which the examiner not only does not know guilt status of the examinee, but whether some crime or prohibited behavior has actually occurred at all.  The mind set for the examiner is completely different from a specific incident test...

I would expect the reliability of examiner scoring to be high (unrelated to accuracy/diagnostic validity).  Second or third week polygraph students in a given class pretty much end up with similar chart scores...

I hope this rambling note on the fly is somewhat helpful in elucidating not only the what I believe, but why I believe it as well....

Regards....

Dan,

I've seen some of the research that supports the directed lie format. But, stepping back and taking an intuitive approach, does it not undermine the concept of the psychological set, in the innocent subject, being oriented toward the comparison questions? Why would the innocent subjects consider them the most immediate threat to their well being if their lying has been turned somewhat innocuous by being so instructed? Would this not degrade the dichotomy, with the relevant questions now in competition?

I have launched a KICKSTARTER campaign to fund a documentary based on my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION".  Please help me get the word out.  I know there are millions of victims and others who will become victims of polygraph abuse.  This will help stop the insanity of "lie detection".  PLEASE PLEDGE NOW!  For more information, click on KICKSTARTER here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1006420907/from-cop-to-crusader-my-fight-ag...

Dr. Richardson, I completely agree with you when you say, "I do not believe general screening exams work or can properly work under any circumstances."  Yet, in all federal, state and local agencies that use the polygraph, these "general screening exams" are used extensively for just that purpose.  By far the majority of all polygraph exams are "general screening exams" - and they have been proven to be absolutely worthless!


It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for government agencies to rely on the polygraph to "test" applicants with this type of "general screening exam", especially since it has been thoroughly discredited as a reliable and accurate method to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive!  And it is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for anyone to believe they will pass their polygraph "exam" if they just tell the truth!  When you factor in all the damage done to people who are falsely branded as liars by these con men and their unconscionable conduct, this fraud of "lie detection" perpetrated by the polygraph industry should be a federal crime!  The protection provided to some people by the EPPA should be extended to protect everyone from this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!  Shame on anyone who administers these "exams" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism! 


Wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems?  One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EPPA passed into law.  But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph.  In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system".   The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass.  Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"?  Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed?  Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)?  And why do they insist on continuing to use it?


After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 21^st, 2014 at 7:50pm:


Dan...you can quote all the white papers in all the journals you want.  But the simple fact is: neither you, nor the polygraph community, the APA or the federal government can wordsmith around 1 simple irrefutable fact.

There is no correlation between a physiological response and lying.

Given this very simple, irrefutable fact.... your box is nothing more than a prop... and your polygraph process is a total con.  

And even though you sir, the polygraph community, the APA and the federal government can all hold hands together and sing otherwise...doesn't make this simple irrefutable fact UNTRUE!.....  

It doesn't go away, because you and the rest of you  DON'T LIKE IT...

You all know this....and yet you want to somehow con everyone else into believing it...for your own paychecks...

Mr Williams is the ONLY one of you, that has the courage, the conviction to stand up and admit the truth..... its a fraud, it's always been a fraud and all your wordsmithing will NEVER change that..... 

You claim you want to run for President elect of the APA?  and you claim it needs an overhaul....   That's implying that this is generally OK but needs a little cleanup....that too is False sir... 

Saying the APA needs an overhaul is like saying Jeffery Dahmers  eating disorder could be fixed with proper nutrition ..... Bullshit....