|
Author
|
Topic: Zellicof paper at anti
|
rnelson
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 01:11 PM
  
In response to a question from Barry and Jamie earlier today.Zellicof has a paper at the anti-site, and make some interesting statements.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/other/article-051[1].pdf First. Perjorative tone aside, I believe he's correct that weighted averaging would be a more correct way of aggregating the data in the table from Kleiner's book. My quick estimates of his PPV/NPV example with the strep test suggests some shoot-from-the-hip math or very generous rounding, as I get figures closer to 15% and 70% while he reports <30% and >60%. Fine. I've recreated his monte-carlo, though without the same spreadsheet tool which he used. I'm not sure how he calculated those wide confidence intervals. To me, it looks like he doesn't have enough information to get those intervals. I'm working quickly, and if anyone has a suggestion, please let me know. For people who like this kind of thing, I've uploaded the very simple monte-carlo simulation to my site.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/other/Zellicof_mc_replication.xls Its not complicated, and a good way to get introduced to the simple logic of monte-carlo simulations. For those not familiar, monte-carlo models are use to study everything these days. We'd be smart to familiarize ourselves with what they can do for us - like allow us to study the variance of a spot score in a mixed issues test, and then calculate a p-value (something we will most likely never have enough good quality data to accomplish from live exams).
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964) IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 02:03 PM
I am going to get eggs thrown at me here, but I have never been a fan of the sorts of grand scope polygraph exams done at the DOE labs. From a Human Resources standpoint, it is a nightmare. The labs are privately owned and just because they are contractors does not make the polygraph modality any less controversial/ arguable. The government requires polygraph protocol, but that does not make the task of the human resources professional any easier in recruiting, morale-retention, and physical retention any less daunting. Here comes the eggs....but what Einstein decided to allow private, underpaid yet dutiful scientists to undergo large scope polygraph exams? I HATE...REPEAT HATE...to admit it, but private companies (IMHO) should not be forced to undergo routine or periodic/random tests. If you are a hard-on attempting employment with the US secret Service, then one should expect all sorts of military/ intel treatment, stress interviews and debriefings and being turned inside-out. If you are researching nuclear fusion for the DOE, but could be making more $ elsewhere, than a human resources decision needs to be made to address the issue and maybe greater care could be taken to make our pasty-skinned, light-starved scientists safe and happy without the spy treatment. I agree with the author's opinion on the fallible use of polygraph regarding the DOE. There must be a better way to do risk assessment. I get the impression (60 minutes story)that the scientists rarely if ever even leave their lab facilities ( they sleep at work many nights), and when they do, it's to go home. Not exactly intrepid stuff.
I might think differently if they ran specific issue tests based on a confirmed or substantially alleged leak. A single issue test would make beter polygraph sense---and only on people who had specific access to the allegedly leaked materials----modeled after EPPA. Or, maybe there is a bunch of secret data that would drastically change my thinking of the whole DOE testing period. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 01-09-2008).] IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 08:51 PM
Stat, I have been involved with DOE on a couple of occasions, testing for the unions Attorney rather than DOE. I will tell you, it is a nightmare. And getting information needed to conduct examinations is difficult because of the classification of materials there and work product. Those folks have mounds of classified and secret information at their disposal. I found that in conducting the examinations we were able to seal a couple of potential problems before they occurred. Of all departments of the Federal Government, I would say the DOE has some of the most secret. (Also the most damaging if released) I believe we should treat them no different than anyone else with access to this type of information. We do have spies in all sectors or maybe I'm Paranoid. IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 08:57 PM
I'm sure those scientists are hard working decent people, but just as our sex offenders should not be having lunch with 12 year-olds, or attending community social activities without approval, DOE scientist should not be having lunch with foreign scientists, or guest-lecturing at foreighn universities without approval from their superiors.There seems nothing wrong with checking on them, but field practices should would be best supported by policies that are accurately informed about the test capabilities. .02
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 08:57 PM
Thanks for that info Bill! I am aware of the level of secrecy with the DOE, but I am also aware of the fact that many government contractors work on all sorts of secret "products" which do not make their employees take polygraph tests periodically----numerous fighter jet engine and jet technology makers , space stuff, missile tech stuff---all sorts of advanced technologies.Granted, the DOE does have the crashed ET ship that they are reverse engineering, but sheesh! LOL [This message has been edited by stat (edited 01-09-2008).] IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 09:00 PM
Stat, You are definitely a LIBERAL, I'm conservative, so I see what our differences will be. And I accept them. IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 10:16 PM
It has been said that if you reach age 18 without becoming a liberal, you have no heart and if you reach age 35 without becoming a conservative you have no brain------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 11:09 PM
sooooooo, than why aren't the world's leading scientists at MIT regularly tested? The technologies of the future---the very same technologies that gain the most federal dollars in research grants ---go to MIT. No polys there.Look, my point is neither Liberal nor Conservative on this. Polygraph is a very delicate modality---subject to a range of criticisms left and right----we have to be very cautious with the device. Why, in this current administration that gives such great regard to risk assessment, did they pull the plug on the DOE modality? We can assume that there are informers, but they scaled back the Risk assessment. Riddle me that one Batman. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 01-09-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 01-09-2008 11:38 PM
I agree with Ray, if testing is to take place----and someone fails their test, they probably shouldn't be shitcanned without further notice, just so they can be the next Eosjupitor at antipolygraph.org. Proper weight must be given if we want to keep our scientists productive. We wouldn't didn't treat Einstein with such roughness and intimidation. We made him happy and productive as best as we could. More needs to be done, and the Feds should pay close attention to what the APA has to say about the matter of "proper weight" to multi-issue scope testing. I could be way off here though. Still think it is more HR and slightly less but of course important national security. This is a drawback to federal privatization. Employment Law is not about "conservative nor liberal", it has more to do with Taxation status and Liability---it is about BUSINESS.Going back to morale, I would be far more likely to recruit informants/traitors from soviet-styled scientific laboratories who are treated as captive apes than by happy, well-paid and well-respected Free (relatively speaking of course) American scientists. 2 more cents I say drug and alcohol tests and GPS with unauthorized travel restrictions and body searches (like diamond mines), and poly only when necessary. Zat enuff for you ? [This message has been edited by stat (edited 01-09-2008).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 12:16 AM
I have reached the opinion over a number of years that we probably treat our best government employed scientists like crap. How in they world can we expect them to act like patriots and give us their best efforts when we treat tham all like spies. The manhattan project maintained sufficient secrecy by simply compartmentalising the research. I think that we should, to a certain extent, give them the benefit of the doubt and then if one is caught in a traitorous act he should be summarily executed as an example to the others. I think the benifits of treating them properly could actually outweigh the potential damage they might do and if they were treated well they would be less inclined to do damage. On a slightly different subject. Has anyone else ever read a secret document and come away with the opinion that the only reason the content was classified was to reenforce the perceived authority of the person who placed it under seal? I have often wondered how common this was. IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
