- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 24, 2002, 05:13 AMGordon,
You wrote in part:
Now that the NAS report has been out for two weeks, what, if anything, do you see in it that can be "spun" in favor of polygraph screening?
You wrote in part:
QuoteSpeaking strictly for myself, I will await the NAS report to learn their official view. I suspect it will be rather complex, leaving something for all sides to put their spin on.
Now that the NAS report has been out for two weeks, what, if anything, do you see in it that can be "spun" in favor of polygraph screening?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 19, 2002, 06:43 PMGordon,
I would agree with you that Paul Ekman's expressed view is not necessarily shared by the majority of the NAS polygraph panel. Nonetheless, it may provide a hint regarding the direction in which the panel is headed. At a minimum, the scientific evidence on the polygraph reviewed by the committee appears not to have persuaded Dr. Ekman that the government's faith in the polygraph is well-placed.
You also write:
Actually, what she wrote is, "No studies have ever proven that lie detectors work" (emphasis added). In context, she seems to group polygraphs and voice stress analyzers together under the term "lie detector."
Still, I think she's right, at least with regard to the polygraph "Control" Question "Test" and the Relevant/Irrelevant "Test." Because these techniques lack both standardization and any scientifically meaningful "control" whatsoever, one cannot prove that the technique "works" (in the sense of having any diagnostic validity).
As David Lykken observed in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, "...the theory and methods of polygraphic lie detection are not rocket science, indeed, they are not science at all." And Lykken's views are shared by most of the relevant scientific community. As we note in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
And in any CQT examination, the examiner really has no way of knowing whether sophisticated countermeasures were employed or not, which is but one of the myriad uncontrolled confounding variables that prevent the CQT from having any true diagnostic validity.
I would agree with you that Paul Ekman's expressed view is not necessarily shared by the majority of the NAS polygraph panel. Nonetheless, it may provide a hint regarding the direction in which the panel is headed. At a minimum, the scientific evidence on the polygraph reviewed by the committee appears not to have persuaded Dr. Ekman that the government's faith in the polygraph is well-placed.
You also write:
QuoteThe reporter made two factual errors when describing the polygraph, the first of which was particularly egregious. She claimed no studies have proven that the polygraph works. [Perhaps she visited your site!].
Actually, what she wrote is, "No studies have ever proven that lie detectors work" (emphasis added). In context, she seems to group polygraphs and voice stress analyzers together under the term "lie detector."
Still, I think she's right, at least with regard to the polygraph "Control" Question "Test" and the Relevant/Irrelevant "Test." Because these techniques lack both standardization and any scientifically meaningful "control" whatsoever, one cannot prove that the technique "works" (in the sense of having any diagnostic validity).
As David Lykken observed in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, "...the theory and methods of polygraphic lie detection are not rocket science, indeed, they are not science at all." And Lykken's views are shared by most of the relevant scientific community. As we note in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
QuoteIn 1994, William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken conducted a survey of opinion of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) (Iacono & Lykken, 1997). Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed. Moreover, SPR members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph "tests" can be beaten.
And in any CQT examination, the examiner really has no way of knowing whether sophisticated countermeasures were employed or not, which is but one of the myriad uncontrolled confounding variables that prevent the CQT from having any true diagnostic validity.
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Aug 18, 2002, 11:11 PMGeorge,
The reporter's extract of her interview with Paul Ekman was so brief I wouldn't feel comfortable thinking he was speaking of the consensus of the panel. Perhaps he was simply expressing his own view. Similarly, the comment about interrogation left me wondering what he was referring to – training in traditional interrogation, or perhaps in the detection of micro-expressions using the system he developed. It is unfortunate the reporter didn't include more of the interview.
The reporter made two factual errors when describing the polygraph, the first of which was particularly egregious. She claimed no studies have proven that the polygraph works. [Perhaps she visited your site!]. She also stated that the Supreme Court ruled that private businesses could not use the polygraph. It was the legislative branch, not the judicial, that enacted the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
Speaking strictly for myself, I will await the NAS report to learn their official view. I suspect it will be rather complex, leaving something for all sides to put their spin on.
Peace,
Gordon
The reporter's extract of her interview with Paul Ekman was so brief I wouldn't feel comfortable thinking he was speaking of the consensus of the panel. Perhaps he was simply expressing his own view. Similarly, the comment about interrogation left me wondering what he was referring to – training in traditional interrogation, or perhaps in the detection of micro-expressions using the system he developed. It is unfortunate the reporter didn't include more of the interview.
The reporter made two factual errors when describing the polygraph, the first of which was particularly egregious. She claimed no studies have proven that the polygraph works. [Perhaps she visited your site!
]. She also stated that the Supreme Court ruled that private businesses could not use the polygraph. It was the legislative branch, not the judicial, that enacted the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.Speaking strictly for myself, I will await the NAS report to learn their official view. I suspect it will be rather complex, leaving something for all sides to put their spin on.
Peace,
Gordon
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 18, 2002, 12:54 PMAriana Cha's article,
"Lie Detecting Devices: Truth or Consequences?" in today's (18 Aug. 2002) Washington Post includes an interesting description of the views of Paul Ekman, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences'
polygraph review panel:
"Lie Detecting Devices: Truth or Consequences?" in today's (18 Aug. 2002) Washington Post includes an interesting description of the views of Paul Ekman, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences'
polygraph review panel:
QuotePaul Ekman, a psychology professor at the University of California in San Francisco, is one of the researchers studying the validity of polygraphs for national security applications for a National Academy of Sciences report due out in late fall. He said the government's faith in polygraphs is misplaced and that it should instead spend its money on better interrogation training for its agents.