posted 08-25-2006 07:08 AM         

I don't find myself defending the polygraph nearly as often as I find myself explaining the polygraph to the ignorant. This includes Shrinks, Professors, Lawyers and Judges. The professor was just that-ignorant. All he knew was what they told him in "Shrink 101."

Our profession is gaining respect everyday but we need to continue to do all we can to keep polygraph in a positive light!

posted 08-25-2006 08:35 AM            

I do not think that your daughter’s professor is of the minority on his ideology of polygraph in the academic world nor is he totally incorrect. That which we measure for in polygraph is not simply lies, although lying might be present at times.

We can sometimes find ourselves arguing about and defending what we do right in our own discipline. Whether it be in the polygraph or the academic community the underlying theory of polygraph is not really known. To those employing polygraph in one of the investigative fields as a diagnostic tool, success speaks volumes. Academias on the other hand need scientific proof. They understand that a polygraph examination is doing something and that it can do so at acceptable diagnostic levels. They however do not know what that something it is doing really is.

Until we have a theory, we will not have a chance of gaining a majority acceptance in the academic communities.

posted 08-25-2006 08:35 AM            

A year or so ago I spoke to group of pre-law students at ASU about polygraph. This was not a class but a campus orqanization, the name of which, I can't recall. They had already been told by their advisor, a practicing attorney, that polyrgaph can't be used in court.

What fun I had explaining to her the error of her thinking. She was some what embarrassed. Tough luck.

We just have to keep going and keep promoting what we do and the benefits of doing it.

I have more I would like to discuss on this thread but I am limited by time right now so will get back when possible.

Jack

posted 08-25-2006 10:05 AM            

END.....

posted 08-25-2006 10:05 AM            

I get the feeling this guy was saying polygraph can't and doesn't work. That's just false, and the scientific data is overwhelming, which we all know.

When speaking to those who oppose us - based on ignorance - we need to keep it simple. Can polygraph (single-issue CQT) discriminate between truth tellers and liars? The answer is clearly yes. "Why" is a different question, and the honest answer now is that we simply don't know. We can't be passive when it comes to those who are peddlers of misinformation, but we must always remember to argue our cause gently and with respect. We are right, and most reasonable people, when approached with the evidence, will see things our way.

Before I got into polygraph I investigated it. I read all the anti-stuff because that is the most readily available info out there (sadly), and it's compelling to the ignorant. I know enough to check out both sides, and I went to the library to do my research. You know how it turned out as I am now here, and I'd like to think I'm a reasonble person like most others are.

posted 08-25-2006 10:25 AM         

We will all be awaiting the results of your mission!(Should you choose to accept it!)

Ted

posted 08-25-2006 12:31 PM            

How about we get together here and put together a presentation. This would be aimed at any people, group, class, association or organization that would like to here about Polygraph.

I am not necessarily talking about a fancy power point type deal but at least an outline with pertinent points we want to bring up and specific research that we would site. That would at least put us all on the same page when we do these lectures and talk to non-believers.

I have a pretty much standard speech but I know it lacks some spit and polish. I talk about research but may not be siting the best examples.

We need to talk about questions we might be asked and how to respond. How do we let them know about the real CVSA?

I don't just want opinions on how to do this, although I appreciate everyone's opinion but I want hard ideas of what we can come up with. Does this sound like a good idea or am I P----- in the wind.

Jack

posted 08-25-2006 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

We will all be awaiting the results of your mission!(Should you choose to accept it!)

Ted

---

you forgot the part about "this message will self-destruct in 15 seconds."

OK Jack,

Count me in.

I have a couple of thoughts, and some recent materials.

test theory http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/test_theory.swf

basic polygraph http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/basic_polygraph.swf

accuracy http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/accuracy.swf

countermeasures http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/countermeasures.swf

post-conviction polygraph http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/PCSOT.swf

suitability http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/suitability.swf

professional ethics http://www.raymondnelson.us/training/professional_ethics.swf

I have some other materials on psychological foundations, physiology, inferential statistics, and other fun stuff.

J.B. wrote this...

quote:

---

That which we measure for in polygraph is not simply lies, although lying might be present at times.

We can sometimes find ourselves arguing about and defending what we do right in our own discipline. Whether it be in the polygraph or the academic community the underlying theory of polygraph is not really known. To those employing polygraph in one of the investigative fields as a diagnostic tool, success speaks volumes. Academias on the other hand need scientific proof. They understand that a polygraph examination is doing something and that it can do so at acceptable diagnostic levels. They however do not know what that something it is doing really is.

---

I think you might not be giving the field enough credit.

We know a lot about the physiology underlying the polygraph, and a lot about various psychological mechanisms (theories) at play during the test. If you are hoping for one single and final explanation, then don't hold your breath - that's now how the social sciences work. Various theories converge and diverge to make a fuzzy construct understandable.

For example, how many different psychological theories have attempted to explain the baffling phenomena of self-destructive behavior, or, more simply - human behavior in general. You could pick from psychodynamic, developmental, social learning and other theories - none of which are "wrong" and all of which are incomplete and inadequate on their own. That is why psychotherapists with more experience tend to become more ecclectic in their theoretical approach to counseling.

Take Developmental theory - you could pick from Frued, Erickson, Piaget, Kohlberg and Harlowe, and discuss human development from a psychosexual, psychosocial, cognitive, moral, and attachment framework...

I just gave a lecture on different theories of human motivation - which I believe boil down to three primary schools of thought. Behaviorism (the jackass theory of motivation - carrot in front and stick behind) focuses on rewards and consequences. However there is a lot more to human motivation than rewards and consequences. Why do violinists practice until their fingers hurt, and why do ballet dancers dance until their feet blister? Why do Marines and other soldiers do the heroic things they do, despite the personal risk? The Marine Corps theory of motivation (the existential paradigm) tells us that people do a lot of things because of what it means to them to be something - a dancer, musician, or Marine (though perhaps some Marines don't think of themselves as existentialists), and because of what dancing, art, music, freedom, and America mean to them and to others. Again though, these theories are incomplete. Did you ever wonder about why some kids go to school and do a good job? Do they do a good job because they are thinking about the consequences, the police, or being spanked by their parents? Doubtful. They do a good job because of who they believe themselves to be, and because they are loyale to their parents who want them to do a good job. Loyalty (family loyalty, attachment, connectedness) is the third major motivational paradigm - family loyaty (the Godfather theory of motivation - says Al Pacino as Michae "Fredo, you're my older brother and I love you, but don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.")

Theories are just theories - we need lots of 'em.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 08-25-2006 02:00 PM            

Just as many of you, I've read the NAS report, and found that it makes valid points. But my daughter will no doubt find that, like all of you, it fails to answer many questions about polygraph. The study itself clearly states that the field needs a great deal of extensive research, and the study does justice to our profession in many ways. It clearly states that specific- issue testing has merit. That's good, but it still falls short of a full endorsement.

And it is truth that, when scientist can't explain why something works, it's often regarded as being invalid and/or unreliable. That, in my opinion, is called taking "scientific high road".

In the end, I believe polygraph will continue, just has it has for many years, and it will no doubt continue to improve. I've only been in the profession for four years, and it has aready undergone many changes. Hopefully, the scientific community will one day embrace polygraph testing for what it really is - science, and then general public acceptance will no doubt follow. I hope that I live lone enough to witness this for myself. We'll see!

Regards

P.S. A compaign to educate the uneducated about polygraph testing is an outstanding idea.

posted 08-26-2006 01:38 PM            

Sorry I misunderstood the statement of question. I was taking the question posed in literal terms.

It is my understanding from the available literature that polygraph examinations are not really detecting lies per se, as there is not one physiological response attributed only to lying. As I previously stated, lies might be present but not necessarily the cause of the physiological response. Hence, silent answer examinations can still produce the same diagnostic information absent the verbal response (lie).

I agree that polygraph has a robust diagnostic procedure presently in place that rivals or surpasses other diagnostic procedures in other disciplines.

Ray,

I was not trying to under credit the field.

What I was trying to say was that when it comes to theory we are still not a unified voice. Whether there is or is not a single dagger theory out there, we still should not misrepresent what the physiological responses are or the result of an examination tells us. We also should not throw out a theory as true until it has been thoroughly tested.

One way that this could be accomplished is by forming a committee to formulate a testable theory. It could be an APA committee. Then someone would need to test the theory and someone else replicates it. This takes time and money. I heard several people at the APA business meeting state that they would rather our money go toward this than a PR firm and I agree.

I too hope, as polypro wrote, that one day polygraph will be accepted as a science. There is still much work to do.

posted 08-26-2006 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

It is my understanding from the available literature that polygraph examinations are not really detecting lies per se, as there is not one physiological response attributed only to lying. As I previously stated, lies might be present but not necessarily the cause of the physiological response. Hence, silent answer examinations can still produce the same diagnostic information absent the verbal response (lie).

I agree that polygraph has a robust diagnostic procedure presently in place that rivals or surpasses other diagnostic procedures in other disciplines.

Ray,

I was not trying to under credit the field.

---

Thanks for clarifying J.B. - sorry if I was too critical.

I enjoy a good argument now and then. I also enjoy taking information to people, which is why I do a bit of training now and then despite the fact the I'm somewhat shy in public.

One of the things I do when training, is to illustrate he parallels and commonalities between polygraph and other sciences, including psychology, physiology, and measurement and statistics. I also try to illustrate the parallel ethical and policy concerns between polygraph and other sciences.

I know its semantics, but I don't wait for polygraph to be accepted as science. It is science, and I describe it as such.

In your post, as quoted here, you illustrate a central complexity to understanding the polygraph - that is doesn't measure lies per se - per se meaning "in and of themselves."

What this really means is that lies themselves are not physical things, nor do they possess material substance themselves. Lies are amorphous, or without physical substance. Lies are events not things.

To state "lies might be present" may be encourage misunderstanding as only physical things can be "present" or "absent." It might be more accurate to state "lies may have occurred."

Because there is no features of normal human functioning or normal human physiology that is uniquely correlated with anything, all of the physiological phenomena associated with lying are also associate with other human functions. That is the meaning of phrases like "not one physiological response attributed only to lying." The problem arises when people misunderstand that (in an excessively concrete interpretation) that there may be not physiological correlates of lying. There are, of course, several. None by themselves becomes diagnostic, any more than any single medical symptom is itself diagnostic. It is only through he aggregated correlational efficiency of multiple associated phenomena that normally occurring phenomena become diagnostic.

With abnormal phenomena the simple (binary 1 or 0) presence is diagnostic (like HIV or gonorrhea - any at all is bad). With normally occurring phenomena tests always depend upon simple or aggregated threshold decisions. A simple example would be “how much is too much cholesterol?” Its a threshold testing question based on a simple (single) normally occurring phenomena. For another example, take HIV and AIDS. One can be HIV positive and not have AIDS which is diagnosed by viral load thresholds and t-cell thresholds. Polygraph is simply a threshold test, that exploits multiple physiological correlates of the act of lying.

I belabor this because every week I'm confronted by some anti-polygraph skeptic (both examinees and professionals) who latch onto the phrase “no single physiological response uniquely associated with lying” as an argument to the invalidity of polygraph. In fact there is no single physiological response that is uniquely associated with anything. All normally occurring (and many non-normally occurring) human phenomena have multiple correlated functions.

The fact that lies don't “cause” the observed reactions is important, and its exactly the point where we examiners do an empirical dance. We will probably always tell the examinee that the reactions are caused by deception. However, it is also important for us to understand the common psychological mechanisms that underly observed physiological reactions, including FFF, conditioned response, and cognitive neurological explanations.

One thing to note is that professionals who conduct Penile-plethysmograph tests with sex offenders are increasingly using the exact same equipment we use – monitoring the exact same physiological responses we monitor (with the exception of a very important difference in the type of PPG gage employed). Limestone, in fact has an instrument that is both polygraph and PPG. If you read a PPG report, you'll see they commonly write things like “involvement in the behavior is not the only cause for reaction to the stimulus,” and “the PPG test cannot determine involvement ...” We polygraph examiners work with the assumption that involvement is the cause of reactions, and the test is intended to determine involvement in the stimulus issue. It wouldn't take a genius of an attorney to have some fun with this at some revocation hearing.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Peter Sellers as President Merfin Mufley in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 08-27-2006 09:58 AM            

I told my daughter that psycologist embrace written psycological testing, but many refuse to accept polygraph testing. When she asked why, I simply responded - standardization. For the most part, polygraph lacks the necessary standardization. Then I proceeded to tell her about the POT, SPOT, GKT, etc., and how standardization makes these tests more acceptable to scientist.

posted 08-27-2006 12:30 PM            

So, I think you're saying that examinees are like savy lab-rats, or semi-savy lab-rats.

polypro,

I think your right about the need for standardization, and I agree with J.B. on the need for a set of theories with construct validity that is applicable to the polygraph test.

I'm not sure we're that far off from either. We have a number of standardized comparison question tests. We cringe, however, at how much variability exists among them, and how rigidly we latch onto paint-by-numbers type standards that keep us engaged in silly arguments about whether a test is valid or invalid due to the use or non-use of things like symptomatic questions. At some point we have to both clarify and broaden our understanding of our standardized practices. In piaget's terms we have to move from concrete-operations to formal-operations.

A number of well known psychological theories apply to polygraph, its just that "psychological set" is not something that other behavioral scientists recognize - and that makes us vulnerable to criticisms about construct validity pertaining to pairs of relevant and comparison questions.

We also have construct validity problems around "truth," and what types of things can be true (or more correctly "what does it mean to say that something is 'true'.") Truth has been a philosophical construct problem for about 2300 to 2400 years (since at least the time of Socrates), and there are a handful or so of different theories of truth.

I know this sounds excessively esoteric, but we examiners step right in the middle of this mire every now and then, and these things become very real concerns.

For example:

a false negative test involving a relevant question about the behavior of someone other than the examinee - that almost resulted in three children being re-unified with parents who had been ritualistically abusing them.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060623.html

Pychological tests, while they might be standardized, are often based upon different theoretical frameworks. The MMPI, for example

(an accute recent example, as I just completed a computer scoring spreadsheet to score and chart all the 576 items and subscales, including content, suplemental, clinical, Si, and harris-lingoes scales - takes about three minutes to enter the data and print)

MMPI was initially developed, in Minnesota of course, using data obtained initially from family members of psychiatric patents and other persons who were mostly farmers. The item content was developed atheoretically, and reduced to content scales through statistical regression and factor analysis.

On the other hand, another well known personality measure, the MCMI-III, was developed from a theoretical framework that describes pathological variants of personality functioning. The development data set was primarily derived from persons in forensic settings. As a result the MCMI-III is in some ways better suited to foresic work than the MMPI, though the MMPI tends to offer better sensitivity to clinical concerns. Give the MCMI-III to an ordinary mental-health counseling patient (as if there is such a thing) or a job applicant, and it will tend to over-pathologize the person.

It is not uncommon (its quite common actually) for psychological evaluators in forensic settings to use both the MMPI and MCMI-III, and sometimes other personality measures like the CPI or Jessness. Then look at what findings converge and diverge, and put that information together with other test data, observational data, and collateral information regarding the facts of the clinical and forensic case before offering a clinical formulation about an individual's functioning and behavior (motivation, personality, etc.)

The point is that in other behavioral sciences, tests are not looked at to make decisions, they just give information. Under those circumstances, the imperfections of a test (all tests are imperfect) do not propmt such accute concerns as they do in polygraph.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Peter Sellers as President Merfin Mufley in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 08-27-2006 01:10 PM         

The old lady with 200 cats in her studio apartment:
DIAGNOSIS:"Animal Hording Disorder"

Road Rage:
DIAGNOSIS: "Intermitent Explosive
Anger Disorder"

John Karr who claims he killed JonBenet:
DiAGNOSIS:"Factual Disorder".

The list goes on and on boys! The next thing you will be hearing is some mouthpiece Attorney claiming in court:

"Your Honor, my client suffers from stick a gun in your face and take your money disorder".

I think tomorrow I just may catch a case of "I can't make it to work disorder" !

Hey...maybe I could be a Psychologist!

posted 08-27-2006 02:21 PM            

now that you brought up that old case from the Free Republic of Boulder...

I think factitious disorder is short for "kook" or "wing-nut"

I've always said that counselors are in the business of making up excuses - we just try to give them credibility by using DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 diagnostic codes.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Peter Sellers as President Merfin Mufley in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 08-27-2006 04:02 PM            

In a recent thread on Georgie's site, even Drew Richardson suggested that the results of a GKT would be interesting in the Ramsey case.

In a perfect world, the flexibility and anti-countermeasure qualities of the R/I, scoring criteria of the PLC or DLC, and the standardization of the GKT would put the profession in good scientific standing- well okay almost.

posted 08-27-2006 04:16 PM            

the caps lock thing was just me being a smart-arse

and I'm not really all that intelligent - more like and idiot savant - I'll spend too much time thinking about things that interest me, like math and philosophy - every now and then I have to jump on the motorcycle and shake the cobwebs out of my head.

like right now - I'm heading downtown. my ex-wife somehow arranged for my 14 year old to play some music at the Hard Rock Cafe - this ought to be interesting (he's smarter than I, but I never thought of him as all that talented).

peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Peter Sellers as President Merfin Mufley in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 08-27-2006 11:46 PM            

Think about the theory behind the CIT and then think about what it is that we see in the CQT, absent the question format differences.

Polypro,

I believe the lack of probing questions is what makes the CIT more attractive to the academia. People like David Lykken, John Furedy, and Bill Iacono have long denounced the CQT for the “comparison” question and its probative nature of getting into the personal background/information of individuals. However, some of the aforementioned have admitted in the past that they agree with the use of this type of format in criminal testing.

The CIT lacks the pre-test discussion of the “skeletons” of ones past, which we all know can not only be personal but somewhat embarrassing or uncomfortable when it comes to sexually related subject matter. Investigators and therapists are usually quite accustom to getting into this type of subject matter but others are not so.

CIT has subjective formatting (e.g. different keys and controls may be chosen by different examiners, the number of controls is subjective, the scoring system used is subjective). The CQT has standardization (e.g. how we progress from start to finish, the proper structure of a given format).

We often ask or at least I have, “What is the difference between X and Y?” I have come to realize that there are differences between question formats but there are also some inherent similarities. The real question for me is what if anything makes one format better than another in a given situation and, if so, why? After all, if there are similarities between the CIT and CQT, why is it that one is known to produce more false negatives and the other more false positives? Where might I be more apt to use these different formats and where should I do so with caution? Maybe I should be using more than one for correlation purposes that might optimize my ability to reduce errors? Maybe doing this might also optimize the results received? Then again, maybe adding more complexity might in fact reduce the overall accuracy or diagnostic value of the examination.

In the end, we all are conducting human testing that is laden with a seemingly endless possibility of variables. Even faced with this daunting challenge, we seem to on an aggregate beat the odds and produce good diagnostic decisions that leave many scratching their heads and asking the question, “How do they do that?”