posted 08-10-2010 10:04 AM            

this is why I only discuss stupid stuff; and then only in the most general of terms...

LOL

posted 08-10-2010 03:13 PM         

I am sure Maschke would claim that "Agnotology" has played a big part in the promotion and success of polygraph. How does the other side ("us") counter this theory or use "Agnatology" to our collective advantage?

posted 08-10-2010 05:28 PM            

I will be presenting a short talk at the APA, I could only acquire two hours, on the Neuroscientific basis for credibility assessment. In the last 25 years scientists in other areas have continued to work toward explaining why the human cortical structure, i.e., the brain, works the way it does. I am going to be doing more writing, and hopefully will; be joined by Lou Rovner, in throwing the gauntlet down to individuals like Maschke, Iacono and others to explain why polygraph doesn't work in light of the current knowledge we will cite.

In the last two and half years I've purchased, read and devoured no less than 15 relevant texts, and more than a hundred research articles all addressing some aspect of cognitive neuroscience, neurophilosophy, the neural correlates of deception, fMRI, the anatomy or neuropsychiatry, on and on, along with other related areas of interest. While opponents may argue that we haven't done this in the past, we have no control over yesterday, but we are doing it now and will continue to do so. What they cannot "HONESTLY" refute is the scientific evidence. They may say they do not like polygraph because it does make errors, DAH!!But any alleged scientist who rejects polygraph based on the argument that it is not perfect must look in a mirror and question themselves on their scientific ethics; there are scientists in many fields, some of which are highlighted in the agnotologic literature, who rightfully state that the term "EXACT SCIENCE" is an oxymoron. There is no exact science, we do science because we want to contribute to the body of knowledge, which is never complete, but science there is good science related to what we do. We must now begin writing about it and explaining the relationships, and then challenge opponents to identify...and explain, what genetic mutation within the human cortical structure exists that suddenly causes the human brain to function differently when a person is subjected to a polygraph examination versus, P300 testing or assessment by fMRI....

posted 08-11-2010 10:51 AM            

I appreciate and respect anyone who is willing to conduct additional analysis of polygraph, nuerological and psychological research.

The belief that this will have any impact on the anti's out there, expecially Maschke and his ilk, is as realistic as believing the North Korean leadership will soon admit they've ben lying to their people for the past 60 years...

George is like the crack dealer who get's caught with drugs in his pocket and claims it's not his, he's wearing his brother's pants... No matter what you present, post or say; he's not gunna change his tune.

In the past, several of us have spent months on george's site trying to argue the positive and effective use of polygraph at all levels, from scientifc to social. I think many of us hoped to have an impact on the ignorant, rather than the hardcore detractors, all to no avail. None of those positive postings are left; mysteriously deleted.

posted 08-11-2010 12:49 PM         

When we discuss other aspects of what John was referring to, such as the theoretical foundation of polygraph, there have been a significant number of theories introduced, which was specified in the NRC (2003) reports, including Conflict theory (Davis, 1961); Conditioned response theory (Davis, 1961); Psychological set (Barland, 1981); Threat-of-punishment theory (Davis, 1961); Arousal theory (Ben-Shakhar, Lieblich, and Kugelmass, 1970; Prokasy and Raskin, 1973); Dichotomization theory (Ben-Shakhar, 1977); Orienting theory (Lykken, 1959, 1998; Sokolov, 1963); etc. However, as noted in several widely circulated publications, polygraph research has frequently been atheoretical and data driven. Further, often times expert opinions have been presented and discussed as fact, with no evidence/data to support the opinion. In science, we call this an untested hypothesis.

I’ve personally engaged in numerous conversations with influential individuals who are not in support of the use of polygraph. During these discussions, it is often identified that many of their concerns are based upon these concepts and the lack of understanding regarding the underlying theory and test characteristics. In other fields of testing (e.g. psychological), the accurate representation of this information is required among professional standards and ethics by those who administer tests. When we engage in discussions regarding things, such as the known limitations and lack of representativeness is some populations, there can be a significant change in attitude during the discussion. These individuals understand that the polygraph is a test and no test is perfect. However, these individuals will not likely change their attitudes based on one conversation or one publication; rather, there must be a systemic change. This systemic change is hopefully at the forefront with these discussions, the NRC (2009) report regarding the forensic sciences, and the future response by the polygraph community.

Marty