posted 03-11-2003 08:23 AM         

I think that Gelb and Savastano created their own problems. In these cases, we have to do a better job policing our ranks.

But Dee Moody is different, and so are others they've slimed like Skip Webb and Frank Horvath. I posted an idea a few months ago about how to handle the antis on the countermeasure issue:

"There is one thing on the anti site that maybe we could turn around and surprise them with.
They keep making a big deal about their countermeasure "challenge." What if a working
group were put together from the APA to publicly take them up on it, using the most
experienced LE examiners? If we could do this, it would provide just the kind of media boost
we need, and put the Maschkes and Williamses of the world out of business."

My idea didn't go over very well at the time. (see discussion here http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayprivate&number=11&topic=000009). Maybe it is time to revisit this idea?

posted 03-11-2003 08:32 AM            

If there was someway to objectively evaluate the challenge that would be different, but ultimately its their word against the examiners.

posted 03-11-2003 08:52 AM         

It would be necessary to have a neutral third party involved to prevent any cheating like that. They would know in advance which test subjects were using countermeasures and which weren't. And they would get the examiners' reports to compare with. That way, the antis couldn't weasel out of anything. And fi a TV news program were to get involved, it would be great to have Maschke or Richardson squirming on camera after most if not all of their countermeasures get caught. I still think this is our best shot at shutting these people up and countering their venom.

posted 03-11-2003 09:02 AM            

I'm not an examiner, so I don't know all of the controls that would need to be in place to have an objective experiment. My guess is that it would be difficult. But maybe not.

If it were to take place and I could be of assistance in getting the word out, I'm on board.

I think this challenge needs a willing leader. Who will that be?

posted 03-11-2003 09:27 AM         

I'm an examiner, but I am not a polygraph researcher. I htink the matter of taking up the antis' "challenge" must in the end be left to the APA, which could form a committee to handle the problem.

I don't know of any practical steps that we as individuals can take to end the attacks coming from Georgie and his ilk. I just hope that most members of the public are smart enough to see through their propaganda.

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

[This message has been edited by polyops (edited 03-11-2003).]

posted 03-11-2003 10:18 AM         

Here is my advice:

LET IT GO!

If you wrestle with pigs, you only get dirty and besides that, the pigs like it!

When I worked Dope, some puke sent me a bomb in the mail at my department. Everyone was angry except me. I was proud of the fact that I did my job so well, some dirt bag was willing to go to that extreme to let me know how angry he was!

The same goes for Dee. Having your picture or story one George's site is kind of like the "Polygraph Hall of Fame". George only does this to people he sees as a real threat to his cause. I say "CONGRADULATIONS DEE" take a bow and keep up the good work!

posted 03-11-2003 10:33 AM         

I am glad that Dee Moody is taking this assault on her in stride. Maybe it's harder to see others you respect get attacked than it would be to handle such an attack against yourself...

One point though, Ted. If that bomb had gone off, you'd have been pissed, wouldn't you? Maybe even more if it was your partner who caught the shrapnel that was intended for you? As I see it, the attacks on Dee and others are "verbal bombs" that are hurting us all, though I really don't know exactly how much. Maybe we shouldn't get stresed about it. But then again, maybe something can be done.

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

posted 03-11-2003 11:34 AM         

If you look at George's site, you will see that there are less than 5-10 people posting on the site.(None other than George are even using real names) Chances are, George is responsible for more than one name and is just talking to himself! If he were a real threat to us, you would see a lot more activity.

What we CAN do, is to share with the media and public, all of the good work we do with the polygraph. When we get a confession via the polygraph and solve a case, a press release should follow immediately. The press reslease should include the fact that the polygaph was used, the suspect failed and the suspect confessed. IF each of us were only doing one a month, our numbers combined would quickly silence people like Maschke and Richardson!

posted 03-11-2003 12:43 PM            

Let me know if you have any other ideas.

posted 03-11-2003 05:23 PM            

Here is something we might be able to use. As you all know most of the anti's focus on screening exams and they are less reliable. However when someone starts taking about accuracy etc. of a pre-employment (bosses) I simply give them my go to jail file, about six inches thick. These are the people who came into take a screening test and admitted to criminal activity that may never have been caught without our screening test.

We actually have a rather large file, I am sure you all do. Lets emphasize the information we get. Pre-employments are supposed to be utility tests and we make that work for us.

We have a hard time supporting the accuracy rate of PE's. We can show without a doubt that many, many people we test should never be hired for LE, lets stick to that.

As far as the challenge, who cares? Even if they were able to show that they could beat someone it doesn't prove they could beat everyone.

I like the idea of telling people of the positive things we do but remember Georges group is pretty small in the grand scheme of things and if it wasn't counter measures we were dealing with it would be something else.

Very nice to see everyone contributing on this topic.

Jack

posted 03-12-2003 12:14 AM         

Maybe we overfocus on the anti site because its the most "visible" opposition? That doesn't mean they're worth the bother.

By the way, I didn't mean to downplay the idea of press releases by noting that some of us can't talk about our successes. I think it's an excellent idea 1) for countering the antis' propaganda and 2) for showcasing the value of our profession in general.

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

posted 03-12-2003 01:58 PM            

I personally think that your idea has merit. The only obstacles are in getting the majority of our profession to agree on who should conduct the polygraph testing and the format to be used and the anti-polygraph side to agree to us not revealing how the countermeasures were detected. If these two areas were ironed out, the challenge would lay to rest.

posted 03-13-2003 01:22 PM            

I'm not so sure that the NAS has no interest in a particular outcome of a polygraph study.

No one is completely objective, and scientists are as prejudiced and subjective as anyone else.

I think all of us have to be careful about putting our careers and reputations in the hands of strangers who we know little or nothing about.

There are easier and more surefire ways of enhancing the profession's positive image.

Lou

------------------
Louis Rovner, Ph.D.
Rovner & Associates
LouRovner@aol.com

posted 03-13-2003 10:09 PM            

I agree that there are probably some scientists who are less objective when it comes to reporting their findings, polygraph included. However, there are most certainly some qualified individuals within the NAS who objectively construct and review research. I do not believe it would be too difficult for both sides to agree on who that or those selected individual(s) would be. Although bias may always be 'inherently present' in any given research, ‘inherent bias' is far less likely to be remedied and accepted.

The utilization of the press is a great way to showcase the polygraph's utility. With law suites and lawyers aplenty these days, both companies/agencies and consumers are much to the wiser when it comes to researching and selecting the ‘product’ they are to utilize. The press has become unfettered in the way they report on and release information. In my opinion, the companies/agencies and consumers are consistently better at researching the facts behind the stories the press are releasing.

Today’s society is comprised of an idealistic state of show me individuals. If we are to truly prove that countermeasures can be detected and eliminate the possibilities of increased false results, we must do so with hard and convincing evidence. Whether it be Drew Richardson’s challenge or another polygraph research venture, we must ensure that the methodology used is sound and reviewed by a third party of which has no vested interest in the outcome. Anything short of the aforementioned would most undoubtedly prove to be a futile venture.

[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 03-13-2003).]

posted 03-14-2003 02:54 PM            

Here is why. I see it as a lose, lose situation. Assuming we could get unbiased participants, a big if, and assuming we caught them using counter measures, what then? Have we really hurt them in any significant way? Their real theme is not counter measures but that Polygraph does not work. They claim it may be somewhat effective for specific issue testing but next to useless for screening. This will always be their rallying cry , not counter measures.

We must also keep in mind, unless you have been hiding in a whole in the ground, that the our profession has determined that it is possible to use counter measures to defeat, not the test, but the examiner.

Think about it. Could you as an examiner lie on a test and get away with it if you practiced enough? I think it is possible. So do others. We all know the average examinee is not going to fool a professional examiner more than rarely but if we lost that challenge, we would have much bigger problems.

This is why I suggested that we accentuate the positive by showing the amount and quality of the information received during the process. We can not prove, with the system and current research available for pre-employment screening, a reliable accuracy rate but we can show that without the use of the Polygraph in employment screening we would be hiring thousands of unacceptable people every year to positions they should not have.

I am guessing here but I think it is safe to say that 50,000 or more pre-employment screening tests are done every year and the anti-site probably doesn't have even a thousand stories from whiners in the last several years. You do the math.

Again, when someone starts asking me about accuracy rates etc. on pre-employment screening tests I give them examples of some of the people that would have been hired had it not been for a pre-employment screening test.

Jack