posted 03-24-2003 07:29 AM            

It may be because he is absolutely against pre-employment testing and is very clear in articulating his opinion on this subject. I believe he feels it doesn't work and should not be used.

I don't know if this is the reason and in fact don't even know how to find out if he has been banned from this section. J. B., how did you find out? I think it might be interesting to see who is trying to get on this forum.

Jack

posted 03-24-2003 07:50 AM            

I received an e-mail from this board that stated Dr. Honts had applied for membership to this board. Ralph said he would leave it up to the current members to vote on. A follow-up e-mail stated that all but one member voted against Honts' admittance. I did not vote, as I found the message to late.

I know he has voiced his oppinion against pre-employment polygraph. I would think what he has to offer far outweighs any differences of opinion he has with those who perform pre-employment polygraph.

posted 03-24-2003 10:45 AM            

That would ruin the entire purpose of this forum... a safe place to talk about tough issues.

So I sacrificed one for the sake of many.

posted 03-24-2003 11:32 AM            

Ralph, would it be possible from time to time to post a list of those trying to access the forum? Might be interesting reading.

Jack

posted 03-24-2003 12:28 PM            

I am however distraught that someone would not feel comfortable discussing issues of polygraph solely based on a person’s opinion on one minor facet of polygraph. I would think that many of us here have varying degrees of differences on this and many other topics. Honts does not support pre-employment polygraph in its current state. My understanding is that he does support the use of polygraph in counter intelligence and specific issue testing. Lets face it, the later two of these areas are where we stand to create the greatest harm with error and I would think to be the focus of the majorities interest for the most part.

I am just wondering what reasoning is behind not wanting to openly discuss polygraph issues with Honts. Again, I am open and willing to accept any special circumstances an individual may have. I don't want anyone here to stop posting. I thoroughly enjoy everyone’s input and ideas.

posted 03-24-2003 12:42 PM            

Do you mean all those who currently have access to the private forums...a list of members?

Or did you mean something else?

posted 03-24-2003 01:24 PM            

J. B., I don't know why people did not want Dr. Honts, it was just my guess. I certainly have know problem discussing Polygraph with him.

Jack

posted 03-27-2003 05:45 PM            

If I remember correctly Dr Honts was an examiner before he was an academic. The reason should be clear to all of us.
Our profession needs to be accepted by the general scientific community and solid research by credible people in that community will help do this for us. That is why the NAS had Honts do a couple of presentations for them.

Dr Honts and previously Raskin have done a lot of good work in this area and if anyone can answer reaseach questions he can.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that examiners are objecting to Dr Honts posting here. After all the efforts and work done by him to have polygraph accepted by the courts and research and articles published in the journal polygraph (APA) and scientific journals to support our claims.

If you took Honts and Raskins work out of the literature we would have hardly anything to use against the anti's research like Iacono and Lykken that is recent.

Honts is very pro polygraph the only area that he would disagree is pre employment screening (maybe).

My vote is to let him on he would have more to offer than anyone who is objecting.

posted 03-28-2003 07:20 AM            

I have know problem with having himm post on this site.

Jack

posted 03-28-2003 09:52 AM            

Ray L.

posted 03-28-2003 05:39 PM            

If we are going to sensor one of the best polygraph researchers around what is the point of the exercise.

Just so you know Honts is regularly challenged by anti polygraph scientists in court and in the literature an example of such can be viewed in the International journal of Psychophysiology.

John Furedy an Australian psychologist that follows Lykkens school of thought got this article published in the aformentioned scientific journal.

Furedy,J.J.(1993).The "control"question "test"(CQT)polygraphers dilemma; Logico-ethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology,15,263-267.

In response to this Honts had this article published; Honts,C.R.,Kircher,J.C.,& Raskin,D.C.(1995). Polygraphers dilemma or psychologists chimaera: A reply to Furedy's logico-ethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology,20,199-207.

Another useful document the Amicus Curiae Breif to the United States Supreme Court document no 96-1133 October 1997.
Charles Honts Ph.D primary author.

We can all learn how to handle ourself under cross examination. Honts does it well and has defended the scientific integrity of specific polygraph formats on numerous occasions in court.

Most researchers could not care less about what we have to say. Honts does, says alot about his commitment to the polygraph cause.

posted 03-29-2003 02:07 AM         

And we might also ask ourselves why Honts trashed both screening and DoDPI IN FRONT OF THE NAS.

I trust Ralph's judgment one way or the other on admitting Honts to this forum, but you've got to wonder just where this guy's loyalties lie.

posted 03-30-2003 09:10 PM            

Honts worked for the Dodpi and conducted research on screening which did not show favourable results and the Dodpi shelved it and I think it led to him losing his job.

He is against most screening formats, but is a big contributor to specific issue testing as a valid and scientifically supported application of polygraph.

The fact is screening is a controversial area. I think it would be a good opportunity for those that do a lot of screening type tests to find out why the majority of polygraph researchers come to this conclusion.

Drew Richardson a former fbi polygraph researcher has to admit to similar conclusions, that is specifics have support, screening is suspect, the difference of course is that richardson is the anti polygraph sites guy. He has another motive of course his brain fingerprinting push with Dr farell and intentionally portrays screening and specifics as the same when he knows better. He is someone I would object to he has an alterior motive.$$

I think Honts is more balanced than most and has drawn conclusions on research that he feels is solid and unbiased.

If we say screening works because we do it, and we know it does, without any/little scientific support we do not have a solid argument against those who would try and squash our industry. We have to be able to support our claims with good evidence.

posted 03-31-2003 09:27 AM            

The e-mail based discussion group you speak of is CAAWP@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU . It is an open forum that does not discriminate against individuals or their views. Because it is e-mail based, once a message is posted it cannot be edited or withdrawn. There are many differentiating views posted (i.e. Furedy, Lykken, Iacono, vs Honts, Raskin, and Barland). Maschke is a subscriber to this discussion board but anything he posts and the replies to it are viewable to all subscribed to the list.

I subscribe to CAAWP@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU and have found no derogatory information from Honts toward polygraph in this.

I have personally talked with Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, Richardson, and Maschke. All but Maschke have some positive views for the use of the polygraph. Maschke has a left wing extremist view on polygraph and, because of this, the aforementioned have distanced themselves from him on some of his views.

posted 04-03-2003 07:35 AM         

Okay. I don't object to Honts joining the forum. I didn't vote originally. If I had, I would have been against it, but I accept that he might have something worthwhile to say.

Tell me, though. You said

"I have personally talked with Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, Richardson, and
Maschke. All but Maschke have some positive views for the use of the
polygraph. Maschke has a left wing extremist view on polygraph and,
because of this, the aforementioned have distanced themselves from him
on some of his views.
"

What on earth did you personally talk to these people for?! As far as I'm concerned, their all a bunch of ivory tower, rose-colored glasses wearing left wing whiners!!!

posted 04-03-2003 02:51 PM            

I talked to all but Maschke for material on the Guilty Knowledge Test, more readily known today as the Concealed Information Test. All have been instrumental in the expanded use of polygraph in Japan, Israel, and now the U.K. All but Maschke are positive toward the use of polygraph in certain areas.

posted 04-04-2003 09:09 AM         

If you look at what Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, and Richardson have said and written about polygraph, you must realize they're really not on our side. The Guilty Knowledge Test is just one small part of polygraph and is usually not an option for us. I think there agenda is not far from Maschke's. Georgie is just more open about it. I hope you'll be careful in "dealing with the devil."

posted 04-04-2003 12:15 PM            

I have read much of what Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, and Richardson have to say. Although I agree to disagree with them on some issues, I agree that the GKT is a valid, defendable test that could be utilized more. In Japan there are approximately 5000 polygraphs that are conducted each year using the GKT and the results are readily accepted in a court of law as evidence.

Inasmuch as the GKT is not taught here in the United States, it is not even viable to measure as to what part of polygraph GKT is here. In other countries it is almost the only test used. Although the GKT is much like the POT, the differences far outweigh the similarities.

From first hand experience, I can tell you that the GKT is available and would be more so available if investigators were trained not to release key evidence of the crime and its scene to the general public and in the interview/interrogation of possible suspects. This practice would not only benefit the investigators in the field who may plan to utilize the polygraph. In my opinion, a confession obtained where the suspect relays documented concealed information in his/her account of the crime is difficult to refute.

The book ’A Tremor in The Blood’ and many articles are available on the GKT. I opine the aforementioned persons’ motives will be much clearer in reading the suggested material.

posted 04-07-2003 10:19 PM            

I agree with J.B's approach we can only learn if we are willing to listen.
You've got to remember that Lykken Iacono are respected psychologists even past presidents of some professional associations in their respective fields. Lykken sides with whomever he needs to,in the past he has been prepared to be a witness for the admission of a cqt polygraph, and in a written statement to Raskin admitted that he thought cqt was 90% accurate in the hands of a skilled examiner and later retracted.
Not very convincing that he thinks polygraph has no value.
We are not talking about a Maschke who publically admits on anti poly that he only started that site because he did not get the job he wanted because he could not pass a poly.So he hates it because of that and would never had started his campaign against the use of polygraph if that never happened.
His other reasons are total rubbish.
Maschke has no qualifications in the relevant polygraph sciences Psychology ,physiology only language so that makes him good at talking B.S. he studied it.
Also the arguments they all present are purely academic as none of them have conducted cqt polygraph tests or even know how they are scored according to their own testimony in court US vs fergusson phone transcripts. Honts and Raskin are the exception they have the academic qualifications (real ones)and have the practical polygraph experience.

What works in theory does not always work in practice and v versa.
Academic arguments are just that and are not proof of anything, but if we are to be as closed minded as they are we will develop and gain little.

posted 04-08-2003 07:36 AM            

We need to keep in touch with these people if only to be better prepared. Thats one reason you read the anti-site isn't it?

Jack

posted 04-08-2003 07:51 AM         

That's very true, but I wouldn't be posting here if the antis were allowed!!!

I agree that Honts is not one of the antis, but I think some of the things he has done have been questionable to say the least.

Again, I did not originally vote on whether to let Honts in, and I will respect whatever decision Ralph may finally make on this.

posted 04-09-2003 01:55 PM            

Frankly, I've decided to leave things as they stand for now. First of all, I've already told him no. He sent me a very angry email and I expect that is the last I will hear from him. (I don't think he would join now even if I asked him).

Second, I'd like to simply give the whole issue some time to settle and possibly approach this again in six months to a year...if Honts is even interested.

Third, I don't even know the man, but I've felt very cautious about allowing him access from the moment his email request hit my inbox. Yeast tends to work its way into all the dough and for now I want to maintain the good nature of discussion here. I suspect discussion may become too focused on him.

So I'm saying no for now, but I will definitely be open to the idea again at a later date.