For my 500th post, which should make me a God Member, most befitting for an angel, it seemed that I should pause and measure the field. I envy Doc Richardson for having had the fortune to interact with David T. Lykken. It would have been such an enlightening experience to speak with him, despite the required patience on his part regarding my sophomoric insight into psychology. In his book “Tremor in the Blood”, he writes about the “Truth Verifier.” He ponders that if such a device existed, it could change the course of mankind forever; trials by jury, would be obsolete—even so for judges, as a computer would be capable of calculating a just and unbiased sentence. The veracity of every politicians' utterances could be immediately determined, so would world leaders' commitments to treaties, leading to verifiable disarmament agreements. But, would this new course of mankind be something better? Will relinquishing our private domain of attitudes and prejudices make us more or less human? Maybe it is better to abandon the quest for the Truth Verifier? Since its inception, the polygraph was the craft of investigators and lawyers, with minuscule scientific interest for a half a century. Are investigators good at detecting deception? Astonishingly, most of the police manuals' cues of deception are contrary to research by Aldert Vrij and Bella DePaulo. It appears that even seasoned police officers are unable to detect deception better than laymen. So, from the onset, the CQT, although having face validity, has lacked construct validity. It's true that most people are uncomfortable telling lies and this discomfort can be measured via psychophysiological indices. The problem put simply is: there are other things that make us feel uncomfortable, not just lying. Sorting out the nebulous reasons for such discomfort would be impossible. Enter the Utah group. While I respect these fellows significantly, David Raskins' enlightenment regarding the polygraph was more of a downgraded “Road to Damascus” episode after 6 weeks with Cleve Backster, rather than a career spanning evolution. Before anyone becomes too impressed, let's use Cleve's plants and Raskins' rats as a reality check for our perspectives. Fortunately, we have the likes of William Iacono to balance the scales. So what about all this antipolygraph stuff? What's the beef? From what I've read over the years in this forum, it is twofold: 1. The CQT should not be used in crucial areas of hiring and monitoring because it lacks construct validity. 2. Endeavoring to find out what is in somebody's mind is ethically wrong, regardless of the accuracy. This would include both the CQT and the GKT. George's position is that the truth about polygraphy and countermeasures cannot be made public without simultaneously providing it to those with nefarious intentions. On one side, having the tools to avoid a false positive would be ethical, but circumventing monitoring during sex offender treatment which could inhibit their recovery would be ethically questionable. I suppose the argument could be made that polygraphy should not be used in PCSOT and monitoring of parolees—that another way should be found. Are we on the threshold of finding a Lykken's Truth Verifier? The research into the neurocognitive approach to PDD is nascent and immature. However, I believe that it may eventually be possible by combining the temporal data from ERP and the spatial information from hemodynamic imaging, combined with the power of a super computer. Moreover, it could be possible to make such a procedure impervious to countermeasures by focusing on the primordial parts of the brain such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) which cannot be manipulated. Do we want a Truth Verifier? Will it serve mankind or open a Pandora's box? First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think. Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star, I've miles And miles Of files Pretty files of your forefather's fruit and now to suit our great computer, You're magnetic ink. First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be. Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles And piles Of trials With smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave And keep on thinking free. Moody Blues, On the Threshold of a Dream.
|