posted 10-25-2002 07:45 PM            

1. It could allow us to collaborate on the best conceivable answers to certain questions that arise there and may be in future more important settings.
2. It could allow us to plan actions or counter-actions for perceived future ventures they may be planning or have announced.
3. It may equip us with the best countermeasure information. Often discussions contain information on countermeasures, even when the topic is not of that area.

Those who have ever participated in discussions or discourses on the aforementioned sited have most likely been subject to a barrage of questions and challenges to assertions that seem almost rehearsed. It is my belief that it seems this way because the dialogue is often just that on the anti-polygraph side, rehearsed. Maschke has quite an elaborate backdoor discussion group. Topics are collaboratively discussed in these groups. Other posters on antipolygraph collaborate to attempt to draw discussion or discourse on a topic. The fact is that the main characters on the antipolygraph are well educated, articulate, and organized.

posted 10-26-2002 07:09 PM            

On http://www.antipolygraph.orgGeorge Maschke wrote:

quote:

---

Re: NAS Polygraph Report
« Reply #41 on: 10/10/02 at 04:44:07 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph Testing

The following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the NAS polygraph report (p. 168 of the HTML version):

Quote:Estimate of Accuracy Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

Note that:

1) This estimate of accuracy does not specify what kind of polygraph tests, e.g., CQT vs. R/I vs. GKT "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance."

2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet.

3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless.

4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures." It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth.

5) The last sentence of the above-cited paragraph is the key one with regard to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it.

« Last Edit: 10/11/02 at 05:57:11 by George W. Maschke » Logged

---

posted 10-29-2002 12:06 AM            

1. Considering the wealth of research is found in specific issue testing using a Control/Comparison Question Test format and the focus of this study uses the same question format, one could quite easily infer that the NAS was generalizing about the polygraph when used in a SIT and using a CQT format.

2. The authors’ conclusions on that the polygraph "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is made only in reference with those conditional variables present in the accepted studies reviewed. Being that the preponderance of the reviewed analog studies were conducted with college students, the polygraph research could indicate that the instrument and its procedures have well above chance accuracy with individuals of average and above average intelligence. Also, because the socialethnic diversity within these settings is considerably more than that which is found in an normal SIT field application, the polygraph might not diminish in its accuracy throughout the spectrum of cultures.

3. Although algorithms are in their infancy and perceivably will mature and evolve, such computer analysis of the vast amounts of confirmed chart data that has been collected in available research may provide useful insight into how polygraph can achieve greater accuracy. This task might also aid researchers in their establishment of a quantitative estimate of accuracy, through the collection of objective, quantifiable data under experimentally controlled conditions.

4. The NAS indicates that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures." This has become dually noted by the polygraph profession within the past five or so years, absent any outside analytical review. With the recent developments of information flow on countermeasures and other polygraph related material that was otherwise nonexistent in the past, new questions have come to light on how certain variables, that were rather unessential to those examiners outside the scope of the counterespionage realm, could possibly be effecting polygraph as a whole. Agreeably, only further research on this topic will provide any meaningful answers.

5. The NAS said, "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." This could be mistaken in a negative connotation and purportedly prescribed as Mr. Maschke says, "What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector." Given the fact that the NAS also made statements indicative of the opposite, such as "The polygraph is the best-known technique for the psychological detection of deception.", I would fathom this as nothing more then wishful ideate.

posted 10-29-2002 08:03 AM            

Due to lack of time I will try to give my input on your last post later.

posted 10-30-2002 12:52 AM            

I agree with ed it seems the only arguments that will be taken seriously by the powers that be are those made by people qualified to do so. Phd's etc in the polygraph community are the ones that will be heard Matte,Honts,Raskin etc have done this in the past to combat the Lykkens and currently Iacano (lykkens student) ideas.

Although people like Drew Richardson on anti polygraph when pressed on the issue of specific incident testing do agree it has value (unlike lykken), while the Maschkies like to portray absolute 0 validity with screening and specifics.

So there is some disagreement amoung the posters on the anti site. Who has more credibility Richardson and ex FBI polygraph researcher or maschke an anti polygraph web site host. The same logic applies to us.

I did post at length on no polygraph and started again on anti polygraph and proved that not all the stories posted on that site are factual (see my conversation with beechtrees). But at the end of the day nothing changes.

However as far as the NAS findings go that is were our focus should be. Providing solid answers to the questions they raise by those qualified to do so.

posted 10-30-2002 08:56 AM            

Think about this. The studies I have read about counter measures seem to indicate that a subject with good instruction and access to a polygraph instrument for practice can make it difficult for an examiner to detect. We would do considerable harm to our profession if we failed the challenge. I think we have much more to lose.

Now if you want to send Don Krapohl to accept the challenge and perform a guilty knowledge test it might open some eyes. At this point I think the negatives might outweigh the positives.

posted 10-30-2002 09:08 AM         

This "challenge" is posted on the anti site at this address --
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc&action=display&num=10122364 18

(I hope that works, I'm new to posting links).

Youre right of course it would be very bad if it didn't work, but why shouldn't it? Just to be safe, an in house practice test could be done before saying a word in public.

No, I'm not in ASTM, but I applaud your efforts. Unfortunately my work makes any such associations problematic at best until I retire, but I'm very grateful to Mr. Hilliard for making this private forum available to us and wish to contribute what I can.

posted 10-30-2002 11:28 PM            

Doug Williams surely had no such credentials when he spearheaded what we have come to know as the OTA report of 1983. This is a man who by no means is as educated or articulate as George Maschke. He did not have as an astute cornerstone club aiding his cause either.

Then there is George Maschke. He has a masters in foreign language and is working on his doctoral dissertation in Persian. Maschke’s oral arguments against polygraph screening are available on the NAS site as well as his own. If you have not already listened to them, I suggest you listen to them. If you have listened to them, listen to them closely again. He is very much as articulate as Richardson on the topic. The NAS seemingly gave much credence to his assertions. He sits at a virtual round table with the likes of David Lykken, John Furedy, Bill Iacono, Drew Richardson, Gershon BenShaker, etc…

I do not think it is who we send to debate but how and what we choose to debate that will immanently shape the outcome. Arguments of authority, like those that are based on one’s academic credentials or personal experiences, have little to no value when pitted against research data that supports otherwise. It is true that one most certainly can make research data what they want to make of it. However, the NAS review panel was comprised of highly renowned individuals from every field of relativity and that had no stake in the results of the findings. The promulgation of logistic and deductive reasoning that is supported by valid research is what I believe the whole of the sums is in its simplest of form. That is how I see us enabling ourselves to further any positive stance we may have.

posted 01-23-2003 08:12 AM         

There is a new discussion on the anti site that insinuates that Dr. Ed Gelb's PhD is from a diploma mill. I don't want to cast any stones, but it's looking more and more believable that this is the case.

I posted a message about this a few days ago, hoping that someone who knows Dr. Gelb (I know him only by reputation) would come to his defense. So far, only one examiner has, but she didn't lay the questions to rest. Worse still, an examiner who styles himself as "Batman" viciously attacked Dr. Gelb.

What I think is important to do is:

1 - to get to the truth of the matter about Dr. Gelb's degree

2 - if he has been falsely accused, to set the record straight

3 - if the accusations are true, to decide how best to respond. Dr. Gelb is an APA past president, and the antis will be trying to make hay out of this if true

posted 01-23-2003 04:45 PM            

I personally am not sure that we have to defend or try to prove or disprove everything said by the "anti's"

Jack

posted 01-24-2003 10:20 AM         

I fully agree with you that there's no need to respond to everything put out by the anti's. But look at the new attack on the anti site main page, and read the posts on the link with Dr. Gelb's picture.I think some kind of response would probably be best in this particular case. Dr. Gelb?

posted 01-24-2003 11:16 AM            

I do not think that this is something that we need to respond to the anti site about. They are rather efficient at attempting to goad people into responding. We just add fuel to their fire.

I am most certain that Ed will respond when and where he deems it appropriate and beneficial.

posted 01-24-2003 12:00 PM            

I think what you said here hit the heart of the issue. The anti site folks don't really care about right and wrong, just that they stir controversy. They are nothing more than the Jerry Springer of Polygraph.

In my opinion, If someone is specifically concerned about Ed's credentials, email him and ask him, his email address is posted here. Just click on the little little icon of the face with a question mark beside his post and his email is there.

I do however like mirroring the discussions. One tip. When you break from the topic of discussion, such as when Polyops posted the info about Ed on anti site. Put that in a new topic so it is easier to get to rather than scrolling down through all the old postings.

posted 01-24-2003 12:24 PM         

I agree that the anti's are looking to stir up controversy. And I fully agree that Dr. Gelb will know best how to respond to this. But I am concerned because the questions about Dr. Gelb's credentials seem plausible, and Dr. Gelb's silence doesn't portend well. If his PhD is legit, why not simply say so? This would take the wind out of the antis' sails. Most importantly, I am concerned that we as a community may end up with egg on our face if no effective response is made.

------------------
It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it.