posted 10-25-2008 09:07 PM            

Here are my notes on some of the more troubling bits from the PCSOT training in Utah, earlier this month.

First, a summary of the training material on
Accuracy and Reliability - this material seems to have been removed from the training content at MRP. That's good, because I don't think any smart folks would take it seriously.
http://raymondnelson.us/other/pcsot2008/Holden_accuracy_and_reliability_Utah_10-08.html

This is the 98% accurate stuff from the Ansley 1997 publication - co-opted for PCSOT.

And then some mangled information on containment theory.
http://raymondnelson.us/other/pcsot2008/Holden_containment_Utah_10-08.html

You can see that the PCSOT committee bungled the concepts of internal and external controls - somehow imagining that "internal control" means treatment, while "external control" means probation. Both probation and treatment are "external." Internal refers to the offenders self control and motivation - something we hope for, but don't rely on.

Then you can see some real left-field philsophizing about "global conditioning" and "local conditioning." Local conditioning is something I've never heard of, and could not find in a search at Google Scholar. Global conditioning, in the scientific literature seems to refer to something quite different than it does in these materials.

So, we have to be careful about the PCSOT committee making up new constructs and mangling existing ones.

In short, the concept of conditioning comes from behavioral learning theory. Here it refers to habituation and fear. Fear, of course, is not behavioral theory, but an emotional theory.

Why can't we have PCSOT standards that are based on sound science and not some vacuos Wizard-of-OZ type constructs?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 10-25-2008 10:35 PM            

quote:

---

So, we have to be careful about the PCSOT committee making up new constructs and mangling existing ones.

In short, the concept of conditioning comes from behavioral learning theory. Here it refers to habituation and fear. Fear, of course, is not behavioral theory, but an emotional theory.

Why can't we have PCSOT standards that are based on sound science and not some vacuos Wizard-of-OZ type constructs?

---

Could it be that unless PCSOT is billed as a "Different" kind of polygraphy then the money being spent on "special certifications for PCSOT" will disappear from certain income profiles? OR Could it be some of the same old ego stroking behavior that leads to examiners designing testing formats and then naming them after themselves? or Could it be an honest but poorly guided attempt to improve our profession by instinctual rather than scientific innovation?

Or could it be "D" all of the above?

------------------
Ex scientia veritas