- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 28, 2003, 04:49 AMSkeptic,
DoD or, more specifically, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD C3I), which prepares DoD's annual polygraph report to Congress, is relying on the following conclusion of the NAS report, which appears at pp. 8-4 to 8-5:
Section V of DoD's polygraph report to Congress for FY 2002, which discusses the NAS report notes, "...The NRC [research arm of the NAS] also concluded that no alternative technique has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph technique." While this is an accurate statement, the DoD completely ignores the NAS's damning findings regarding polygraphy in general and polygraph screening in particular.
Note, however, ASD C3I John P. Stenbit clearly misrepresented the NAS's findings in a memorandum dated 5 Nov. 2002 circulated to senior DoD officials. Stenbit wrote, "...I believe it is important to remember that the National Research Council Report determined that the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception."
The NAS's conclusion that no alternative "has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph" is not tantamount to a finding that "the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception." Indeed, the NAS also concluded that "[t]here 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" (p. 8-2).
One wonders whether Assitant Secretary of Defense Stenbit actually reviewed the NAS report, or whether he delegated the drafting of his response to an underling. Stenbit's on-line biography indicates that in 1999, he was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). His support of continued, and even expanded reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy should be an embarrassment to both the NAE and DoD.
DoD or, more specifically, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD C3I), which prepares DoD's annual polygraph report to Congress, is relying on the following conclusion of the NAS report, which appears at pp. 8-4 to 8-5:
QuoteAlternative Techniques Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term. Some potential alternatives maybe useful as supplements, though the necessary research to explore that potential has not been done. Some, particularly techniques based on measurement of brain activity through electrical and imaging studies, have good potential on grounds of basic theory. However, research is at a very early stage with the most promising techniques, and many methodological, theoretical, and practical problems would have to be solved for these techniques to yield improvements on the polygraph. Not enough is known to tell whether it will ever be possible in practice to identify deception in real time through brain measurements.
Section V of DoD's polygraph report to Congress for FY 2002, which discusses the NAS report notes, "...The NRC [research arm of the NAS] also concluded that no alternative technique has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph technique." While this is an accurate statement, the DoD completely ignores the NAS's damning findings regarding polygraphy in general and polygraph screening in particular.
Note, however, ASD C3I John P. Stenbit clearly misrepresented the NAS's findings in a memorandum dated 5 Nov. 2002 circulated to senior DoD officials. Stenbit wrote, "...I believe it is important to remember that the National Research Council Report determined that the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception."
The NAS's conclusion that no alternative "has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph" is not tantamount to a finding that "the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to detect deception." Indeed, the NAS also concluded that "[t]here 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" (p. 8-2).
One wonders whether Assitant Secretary of Defense Stenbit actually reviewed the NAS report, or whether he delegated the drafting of his response to an underling. Stenbit's on-line biography indicates that in 1999, he was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). His support of continued, and even expanded reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy should be an embarrassment to both the NAE and DoD.
Posted by Skeptic
- Mar 28, 2003, 03:15 AMQuote from: orolan on Mar 26, 2003, 03:09 PMInteresting article on polygraphs and possible increased usage by the US government.
Pseudoscience applied to scientists
US government agencies still using discredited polygraphy in security checks. | By Peg Brickley
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030326/01/
"Fienberg led a panel appointed by the National Academies of Science to evaluate the worth of polygraphy. Released in October, their report concluded that almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."
You know, my read of the NAS report indicates to me that DoD's quote regarding there being "nothing better to detect deception" (also quoted on this site's message boards by polygraphers) is out-of-context and incorrect. That phrase refers to techniques used to determine whether someone is sitting across from you and telling lies, not techniques for verifying information in general. That's why the NAS report specifically noted that the polygraph adds no incremental value to a background investigation.
In other words, the DoD is misreading the report. It doesn't claim there's no better way to verify information or conduct a security screen; in fact, it concludes precisely the opposite.
Skeptic
Posted by steincj
- Mar 27, 2003, 06:41 AMQuote from: Seeker on Mar 27, 2003, 02:52 AMIt amazes me at the utter stupidity displayed by the DoD!There's a shot!!! You know, not all MI involves the polygraph. Actually, it is a very small portion . . .
Then again, I once heard that military intelligence is an oxymoron.
QuoteI do not advocate the removal of the polygraph from the tool box for investigators seeking to obtain concealed knowledge, but for screening purposes it is simply insane to rely on such nonsense!So true, Seeker. It all depends on the test. The Guilty Knowledge Test or Concealed Knowledge test (GKT, CKT) are proven as useful investigative tools. The Probable Lie Comaprison Question Test is the issue. It is extremely unreliable, and many pro-poly's here on this site have even stated their displeasure in the test. Why any agency relies on it is beyond me . . .
QuoteI am further amused how the NAS's report has been skillfully misrepresented, and I would think it to be the responsibility of those reputable scientists to clarify these misrepresentations of their work and set the record straight. It appears this is in fact what Mr. Feinburg has attempted to do.
Shame shame shame on the DoD!
I think the blame list is much longer than just the DoD . . .
Chris
Posted by Seeker
- Mar 27, 2003, 02:52 AMIt amazes me at the utter stupidity displayed by the DoD!
Then again, I once heard that military intelligence is an oxymoron.
I do not advocate the removal of the polygraph from the tool box for investigators seeking to obtain concealed knowledge, but for screening purposes it is simply insane to rely on such nonsense!
I am further amused how the NAS's report has been skillfully misrepresented, and I would think it to be the responsibility of those reputable scientists to clarify these misrepresentations of their work and set the record straight. It appears this is in fact what Mr. Feinburg has attempted to do.
Shame shame shame on the DoD!
Regards,
Then again, I once heard that military intelligence is an oxymoron.
I do not advocate the removal of the polygraph from the tool box for investigators seeking to obtain concealed knowledge, but for screening purposes it is simply insane to rely on such nonsense!
I am further amused how the NAS's report has been skillfully misrepresented, and I would think it to be the responsibility of those reputable scientists to clarify these misrepresentations of their work and set the record straight. It appears this is in fact what Mr. Feinburg has attempted to do.
Shame shame shame on the DoD!
Regards,
Posted by triple x
- Mar 26, 2003, 09:24 PMOrolan,
Very interesting article, good post.
[Report states]
That's all the DoD needs is "more" polygraph testing... There is no doubt, that if this is carried out, many honest and innocent DoD employees will "fall victim" to false positive results.
Regards,
triple x
Very interesting article, good post.
[Report states]
QuoteSo Fienberg was surprised to find his panel's report cited in favor of potentially raising the number of lie detector tests the Department of Defense (DOD) is allowed to administer.
That's all the DoD needs is "more" polygraph testing... There is no doubt, that if this is carried out, many honest and innocent DoD employees will "fall victim" to false positive results.
Regards,
triple x
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 26, 2003, 04:05 PMGreat article! Thanks for posting the link.
Posted by orolan
- Mar 26, 2003, 03:09 PMInteresting article on polygraphs and possible increased usage by the US government.
Pseudoscience applied to scientists
US government agencies still using discredited polygraphy in security checks. | By Peg Brickley
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030326/01/
"Fienberg led a panel appointed by the National Academies of Science to evaluate the worth of polygraphy. Released in October, their report concluded that almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."
Pseudoscience applied to scientists
US government agencies still using discredited polygraphy in security checks. | By Peg Brickley
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030326/01/
"Fienberg led a panel appointed by the National Academies of Science to evaluate the worth of polygraphy. Released in October, their report concluded that almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."