|
Author
|
Topic: Polygraph Debate and Demonstration in St. Paul, MN
|
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-24-2012 09:35 AM
 
I just received a Google Alert to this event on 10/30, at the William Mitchell College of Law... Polygraph Debate and Demonstration quote:
Is the polygraph still useful? Join the Federalist Society on Tuesday, October 30th at 12pm in room 188 as we host a debate between Professor William Iacono, University of Minnesota Psychology, and Brian Morris, a polygraph examiner. There will also be a live polygraph demonstration! Free lunch will be provided. Please join us for what will surely be a great event.
http://web.wmitchell.edu/students/2012/10/polygraph-debate-and-demonstration/ Just added @ 10:06AM ET: I see (via Google) that Mr. Morris does this type of thing all over the country. Has anyone ever seen one of these events? I'm wondering what the polygraph demo consists of...
[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-24-2012).] IP: Logged |
cpolys
Member
|
posted 10-24-2012 11:02 AM
Dan,I was unable to find a video of prior demonstrations. However, there are some pictures available of a demonstration he did for the Federalist Society at Temple University Beasley School of Law on October 1, 2012. https://www.facebook.com/TempleFederalistSociety/photos_stream Marty IP: Logged |
cpolys
Member
|
posted 10-24-2012 11:10 AM
I take that back. I found a podcast from a presentation and demonstration at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, from February 13, 2012 that includes video. You can access that here: http://lawmedia.lclark.edu/LawMedia/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?p eid=6f5b20932158401ba36cd1b2854f2fa01d [This message has been edited by cpolys (edited 10-24-2012).] IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-25-2012 10:22 AM
Thanks, Marty.I watched the video. Very interesting, especially the "blind" acquaintance test. Do you think Brian knew the number the girl had picked? His explanation of how he decided on the actual number (6) is, well... The EDA on number 6 is almost flat, but the EDA rise for number 8 looks timely and significant. Fast Forward:
Later in the video, Brian explains that the channel tracings are weighted (for scoring), with EDA getting the lion's share. Back to Brian's rationale for identifying #6:
I heard his explanation of the pneumo tracing associated with number 6. But... ...if the channels' tracings are weighted, and EDA gets the most consideration, then why would he have chosen number 6, unless he knew in advance what the key was? Please, someone tell me what I'm missing here. The acquaintance test starts at minute 24:00 of the video. Also, Brian stipulates that sociopaths can "beat" the test. Isn't this counter to the polygraph literature? Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-25-2012).] [This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-25-2012).] IP: Logged |
clambrecht
Member
|
posted 10-25-2012 08:52 PM
First, I was only able to view a small part of the video so correct me if I am wrong.
When he was referring to scoring, he may have been referring to scoring the actual charts involving the relevant issue and not the acquaintance test. ESS scoring doubles the EDA.I do see what you are talking about, #8 seems to be the obvious reaction on the chart so it is possible he cheated. I know of an examiner that listens to the sound the pencil makes as the examinee writes the number. Think about it, a "6" sounds different than an "8" when written in a quiet room. I do not use this version, I use the easier "known solution" test. As I have stated before,the official way the blind version is taught does not sit well with me. When the examiner gets it wrong, you are taught to systematically present your second guess in a way that implies you knew it all along. My main issue though is that the anti-sites ATTACK this style of acquaintance test-which I am sure the police applicants I test have thoroughly read. Why feed the critics? IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-25-2012 09:36 PM
Corey,This bothers me. I mean, it really bothers me. I think the dude cheated. It sure looks that way. Old joke:
How do you know when a lawyer is lying? Everyone knows the punch line. But why did he do it? A mock crime is a cinch to set up, is much more dramatic, and is far less risky than the stupid and inconsequential "number test." Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Brian cheated. If that's the case, then look at the damage... >>>He didn't treat the examinee "fairly" (in a blatant violation of the APA mission statement) >>>He deliberately misled a class of law school students, ostensibly to "prove" that the polygraph "works." >>>He's a high-profile lecturer -- who's also a "certified" APA primary instructor -- who resorted to trickery. I'm sorry, people, but that's just bogus. What's the difference between that medicine-show tripe and a crime-fighting psychic making a supposedly on-the-level presentation to the same kind of group with an equally rigged "demonstration"? Pogo said it best: We have met the enemy, and he is us! If I'm wrong, I apologize. I think the conventional wisdom to score actual blind stim tests -- or other forms of the PPOT/CIT -- is by relying chiefly on the EDA. Please, someone correct me if I'm mistaken. Can someone explain Brian's rationale for choosing #6? As you put it, Corey, "Why feed the critics?" Why, indeed? Dan
IP: Logged |
clambrecht
Member
|
posted 10-26-2012 12:02 AM
CITs are for sure scored using EDA only, yet these blind acquaintance tests are not a traditional CIT for various reasons ( CITs have multiple keys for starters ). This SPOT style test has an unknown key among buffers. Note that the examinee could NOT pick ANY number from 1 to 10. If it works right, you often see the examinees cardio rise until the key is spoken and then fall or level off or other similar changes. As far as him "cheating", thats too bold a claim to make just from the video isn't it? . We may be missing something.
IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-26-2012 07:22 AM
quote:
As far as him "cheating", that's too bold a claim to make just from the video isn't it? We may be missing something.
OK, then someone please jump in and tell us what it is that we're missing. Is there really a way to nail a blind stim test as Brian claims he did by relying on the pneumo, and ignoring the other tracings? If so, examiners should know about it. Ignoring those distracting EDA rises and pesky cardio trends sure would make life easier, right? Of course, there could be yet a third explanation: He has the knack.
[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-26-2012).] IP: Logged |
john fyffe
Member
|
posted 10-26-2012 09:50 AM
What I think he did was after the examinee picked her number and put it in her pocket is the examiner excused himself and went to take a pee then looked at the numbers she didn't pick. I agree 8 had the greatest reaction.IP: Logged |
wjallen
Member
|
posted 10-26-2012 04:40 PM
Never play poker with the other guy's deck. A cheap trick, imho, he will make a good lawyer.[This message has been edited by wjallen (edited 10-27-2012).] IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-27-2012 10:26 AM
Let's put this specific individual and case aside for a moment...Is trickery during a polygraph demonstration of this type -- an APA-certified primary instructor presenting at a law school -- a breach of ethics? IP: Logged |
clambrecht
Member
|
posted 10-28-2012 06:13 PM
Depends on your definition of ethics. One of the definitions from dictionary.com :
"the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics"If we agree that there is attempted trickery , then I do not believe it violates "polygraph ethics " because the end may justify the means. Just thinking aloud and have not decided upon a solid position on this.... IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-28-2012 08:33 PM
quote:
If we agree that there is attempted trickery , then I do not believe it violates "polygraph ethics " because the end may justify the means.
For the sake of our discussion -- and absent any other theories as to how Brian was drawn to the number six -- let's assume it was indeed trickery... Amid the bluster of his laying a hundred bucks on the table, the APA-certified primary instructor deliberately rigged the test -- at a law school, no less! Brian ran a test to show how the polygraph works. But the test didn't work "as advertised." So he FAKED the results. Let's revisit the prime principle of the APA's mission statement: Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons Was that law-student volunteer treated with integrity, objectivity and fairness? No, she wasn't. What about the audience? Were they treated with integrity, objectivity and fairness? No, they weren't. If, and I underscore, if he cheated, then how is it not unethical? What was the "justifiable" end?
[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-28-2012).] IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-29-2012 08:20 AM
Where are the APA bigs? No comment?IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-29-2012 05:48 PM
Dan,Give it a break!!! You take a video from the internet, attach importance to it and try to second guess the examiner. You have nothing but conjecture attached to your posts and expect persons to attach the same. What is your point??????? IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-30-2012 09:01 AM
IMHO this is not a violation of the professional ethics of the APA, as it is not a violation of any of our standards of practice.It is also not a violation of the rights of the volunteer examinee, for which nothing has changed. quote:
quote:
[quote]If we agree that there is attempted trickery , then I do not believe it violates "polygraph ethics " because the end may justify the means.[/[quote]
For the sake of our discussion -- and absent any other theories as to how Brian was drawn to the number six -- let's assume it was indeed trickery...Amid the bluster of his laying a hundred bucks on the table, the APA-certified primary instructor deliberately rigged the test -- at a law school, no less! Brian ran a test to show how the polygraph works. But the test didn't work "as advertised." So he FAKED the results. Let's revisit the prime principle of the APA's mission statement: Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons Was that law-student volunteer treated with integrity, objectivity and fairness? No, she wasn't. What about the audience? Were they treated with integrity, objectivity and fairness? No, they weren't. If, and I underscore, if he cheated, then how is it not unethical? What was the "justifiable" end?
Ethics - which is a central question in philosophy - would have us question the notion that the ends justify the means. Much of the ethical and philosophical discussion that led to the education and motivation of our Founding Fathers would have us take the position that the ends do not justify the means, and that individuals, individualism, and individual liberties are themselves the means for which our actions should be justified. A determination that the ends justify the means will first require a careful discussion of all the implications. The important discussion point here is whether the APA and the polygraph profession consider it wise and helpful to our future to promote the test - to attorneys or others - using dishonesty and trickery. I will take the position that it is not helpful, because we will look awfully silly when our deception and trickery are exposed. Furthermore, reliance on deception and trickery to promote the test in public or professional contexts will prompt us to remain complacent and negligent about the real task of learning to promote the test with evidence. And finally, promoting the test with trickery of this type may actually be less damaging to the credibility of the profession than the strange impression given by research that claims 100% perfect or near-perfect accuracy. .02
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 10-30-2012).] IP: Logged |
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 10-30-2012 12:03 PM
Positively astounding. IP: Logged |
wjallen
Member
|
posted 10-30-2012 12:35 PM
Dan,
The 'justifable' end was retention of the $100 bill and insurance against missing a call in front of a live audience. I, myself, am not without sin in the practice of pretest deception, so I cannot cast the first stone.
But, if it is ethically justifiable to fake a result in a demonstration test, we are only one small slippery step away from ethically justifying a desired result in the privacy of our polygraph suite. [This message has been edited by wjallen (edited 10-30-2012).] IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
