posted 09-29-2008 07:47 PM            

Since I have been regularly scanning all the polygraph articles that land each day, there is a common theme of misinformation either in the article itself or in the comments that follow.

In one form or another, quotes and stories have become the reality to most in the public rather than facts.

For example, every single moment maschke gets a chance, his mantra is 'Consensus amongst scientists is that there is no basis in science for the CQ polygraph.'

Most regular folks repeat the usual...

How good could they be since they aren't allowed in court?

or as Repairman Jack responded to a recent online article....

Polgraphs - isn't the jury still out on their reliability?

That article is here if you want to read it:
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/3702525.Would_I_lie_to_you_/#commentsform

So what is my point? It is important to do the small things to advance a professional message with facts.

And at least one way would be to post positive and corrective information in the 'comments' areas at the end of all these articles.

It doesn't need to be an army. One person could help the collective profession by making it their mission to daily read the polygraph related articles and 1. Correct misinformation in the articles and 2. Post intelligent, fact based replies to naive commenters.

I have the motivation and energy to do this, but not the time. Its little things like this that could make a difference in public opinion in the long run, especially because authors tend to quote other authors and that is how the misinformation continues to spread.

I was going to put this in the newsletter, but why tip our hand to GM, who would probably be there like stink on shit to dig up a fight if he knew there was an actual plan. A Covert fighter would be a much better option...at least until he catches on and then we will at least be giving another opinion to the masses than just his.

Any Takers? Hmmm, not to put you on the spot Jim, but isn't this what you hoped to do at AP? I'd rather fight on neutral territory than on GM's ground.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 09-29-2008 07:56 PM            

1. We need a person to take this on as their task for the sake of the profession and the public.

2. We need to develop a standard set of quotes, statistics and counter-points this person can use to making posting easy and the message consistent.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 09-29-2008 08:01 PM            

First, get an email address just for that purpose. You've usually got to register at these sites, and then you get lots of junk from them.

Secondly, have a couple (or several) short answers to many of the common false claims so you only need to cut-and-paste those into your comments. For example, "polygraph isn't admissible in court" always comes up, and the response is always the same.

posted 09-29-2008 09:41 PM            

Here is a response concerning admissability that was posted on AP.org It seems too long to qualify as a quick response. but someone might trim it down a bit and ad some info on paired testing.

Actually current general standard is that Judges are given discretion on whether or not to admit polygraph.

Ohio v. Sharma (Case No. CR 06-09-3248),
Hovenden v. State of Indiana, 92A03-9903-CR-10

and the following is excerpted from United States of America, v. Julio Piccinonna, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. - 885 F.2d 1529

Quote:
"the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and the Court of Military Appeals permit admission of polygraph evidence even in the absence of a stipulation when special circumstances exist. The Third and Seventh Circuits permit polygraph evidence to be introduced for the purpose of rebutting a claim by the defendant that his confession was the result of coercion. United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 923 (3rd Cir.1987); United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1245 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980). The Tenth Circuit has permitted the government to introduce the fact that the defendant failed a polygraph test to explain why the police detective had not conducted a more thorough investigation. United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1986). In its attempt to mitigate the potential problems with polygraph evidence, the Sixth Circuit has promulgated a two-step approach to admission. Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988). "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Id. at 972. The Ninth Circuit holds polygraph evidence admissible only in instances narrowly tailored to limit the prejudicial impact of the evidence. United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1989). The Miller court, in considering prior Ninth Circuit cases on this issue, noted that polygraph evidence might be admissible if it is "introduced for a limited purpose that is unrelated to the substantive correctness of the results of the polygraph examination." Id. at 1261. In United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1988), the court held that if "the polygraph evidence is being introduced because it is relevant that a polygraph examination was given, regardless of the result, then it may be admissible"

Regarding Mashke's Mantra 'Consensus amongst scientists is that there is no basis in science for the CQ polygraph. We should know and point our that NAS panel does not constitute all of the scientists in the world. Not even the best or most qualified scientists and that other scientists that have actually conducted polygraph research say that it works.

We also need to combat the litany of "Aldrich Ames, Theodore Griebl et al passed their polygraph tests. I think we need to direct people away from the pass/fail idea. The issue of Ames polygraph should be that his reactions indicated deception at relevant issues in both his 1986 and 1991 polygraphs.

When they bring up a Gary Ridgeway we should counter with a response concerning how many more times polygraph has worked than it has failed. You ahouldn't measure something soley by its errors, you have to measure the successes.

As for GM directly, maybe we should point out that common sense dictates that people should question the credibility of someone who teaches people how to lie.

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

posted 09-30-2008 12:02 AM            

This might be a good time to suggest or reiterate the need to the APA that a mentoring program be started in this area, as I seem to remember this topic being discussed at the last APA seminar. This would allow past individuals of this capacity to provide newer individuals who have the aptitude to carry out such tasks with the experience and knowledge they have gained.

I think that Ralph's idea of compiling information on topics is a good one. In addition, those taking on such a task should have some ability to be reserved in their responses but still answer candidly (in other words, answer with a genuine message but not answering for answering sakes).

posted 09-30-2008 10:59 PM            

------------------
Hól vagytok székelyek, e földet biztam rátok.
Elvették töletek,másé lett hazátok.

posted 09-30-2008 11:07 PM            

With that in mind, I'd like to sign up for the diplomacy and social skills lessons that JB mentioned.

.012

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

posted 10-01-2008 08:28 AM         

Is that a train I hear or perhaps it's a "railroad"?

posted 10-01-2008 12:26 PM            

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 10-02-2008 02:29 PM            

you forget I am a simple and humble practitioner of the polygraph science/arts.

All of this research and statistics hurts my head... I'm flattered that you think enough of me; or, more perhaps, dumb enough to take this on, but I truly do not feel qualified.

On a side note, I have not returned to the AP site due to several suggestions and opinions (albeit polite and sincere) garnered at the APA seminar.

posted 10-03-2008 11:29 AM            

Let me first say that the following is just my personal opinion, and should not be misconstrued as being an APA position nor necessarily especially wise counsel. It is simply how I've come to see our exchanges with George.

I have long held the view that we should not post on the AP site. I came to this conclusions from what I know about the facts on the ground. First, the site is a refuge for zealots, and as zealots they are immune to information that challenge their beliefs. They are impervious to facts, logic, data, or evidence. So we must first acknowledge that our contribution in that regard will not be useful. We have yet to convince any of them of the sins of their ways. Second, it seems apparent that the site owner thrives on the attention he receives when we post there. Far from being taken aback by our brilliantly crafted counterpoints, he derives gratification when people, anyone, acknowledge him. The more you post, the happier he gets. Third, when we hold a moritorium on posting, as you all did recently, the zealots end up feeding on each other. If they don't receive gratification from others, they do it to themselves (insert favorite joke here). This causes their postings be become more frenzied, more extreme, and ultimately to reveal to all the world how out of the mainstream their thinking is. And finally, the AP posters seem to have all the time in the world. Who here can post a response 24 hours a day? It is clear that we can't exhaust them because we have other work, truly important work, to get done.

It seems a more adaptive response to set up a separate site with pro and balanced information on polygraphy. It need not be like the AP site, where everyone with a keyboard can send whatever he wants. Rather, it could simply be an informational site that remains static except for updates by the administrator. I would argue that this should not be undertaken by the APA, since there is an assumption of bias. Also, many of the folks here are not APA members, and they should be able to assist in this effort.

Here are some of the potential benefits of this new site. One: it gets our message out. Two: it doesn't tie us down answering postings from radicals. Three: it might tie up the radicals on their site trying to respond to all of the good information on our site.

Regardless of whether this new site idea gets off the ground, let me repeat that our time spent posting on the AP site has come to naught and that we are better served by focusing on solutions instead of detractors. Let me just end with an open question: where are our energies best spent?

posted 10-03-2008 01:56 PM            

"Never get into a mud wrestling match with a pig. you'll both get dirty but the pig loves it."

posted 10-03-2008 04:57 PM            

I couldn't agree with you more on both accounts. Just in case there was any confusion, what I am talking about is not posting at AP, I'm thoroughly on board to leave it alone, but I do think we should respond to the articles written by professional journalists that contain misinformation that is read over and over and over by the public to the point that perception has become the reality.

As for a separate info site, I've pondered this often and think it would be a great idea to have a consortium answer all the relevant FAQ's related to polygraph in well thought out layman's terms.

I'd be willing to offer the bandwidth (hosting) for the site, but there would need to be a team to write and post content, etc. I've taken on more than I can handle already, so other than backend support, I'd want to be rather hands off, at least for now.

So if this idea pulls together, just let me know how I can help.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 10-03-2008 06:41 PM            

Anti-Anti-Polygraph.org

posted 10-03-2008 07:44 PM            

The Lie behind the lie behind the lie detector

DKraphol has a point, As Sancho Panza stated the other day, ignorance can be cured, but STUPID is another story.
------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 10-08-2008 12:48 PM            

Ralph has handed us a challenge, and an opportunity. What Ralph says is certainly true, that we need to be more aggressive in responding to misinformation in the media. Let me add my voice to his in seeking volunteers to do some writing and speaking. As luck would have it, APA President Gougler assigned me as chair of the Public Relations and Information Committee (PRIC, and yes, I've already heard the one about being the head PRIC). I would like to take a proactive approach to our problems in the media. One is to have our positive press placed on the APA website (done). Another is to have volunteer polygraph examiners make presentations before interest groups that we want to influence: judges, lawyers, treatment providers, etc. The APA already has a PowerPoint presentation and script ready to go for speaking to the legal profession, and one is being drafted right now for PCSOT. What we don't have are volunteers who will take our message to these groups. So, this is a call for anyone who wants to do his part on the PR front. Send me an e-mail at APAkrapohl@aol.com and we'll get you set up. And you don't have to be a member of APA to help spread the good word.

To address the misinformation on the polygraph, I need volunteers willing and able to write well. There are several of you Hemingways right here on this site. Once misinformation is identified, you would be responsible for crafting the response and correcting the error. If you want to give it a shot, send me an e-mail.

Finally, on the website suggestion I made earlier, I submit that good ideas are always cheap, but implementation is the hard part. If Ralph is serious about sharing bandwidth, and we have a volunteer to gather and write content, this idea could work. It won't be too easy, but someone with a few hours of free time each week could do it. If you're out there, let me know.

Don

posted 10-09-2008 02:15 PM            

Two things:

1. If you will write up an announcement for me in this regard, I'm sending out an RI newsletter Saturday and I will include it.

2. For the website, I thought of a domain polygraphwhitepaper.org or something similar that could be a place for clear, factual information on polygraph. I like the idea of gathering an independent group of examiners with no necessary loyalty to any one group, but rather they all have loyalty to the accurate presentation of polygraph, its benefits and limitations.

Of course, I have ideas all day long, but on this one, I know it needs the energies of someone other than myself to pull it together. If YOU (whoever you are) end up feeling the fire inside for this, just tell me what you need from a tech/web perspective and I'll do my best to provide that.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com