- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Feb 11, 2004, 01:20 AMQuote from: Fair Chance on Feb 11, 2004, 01:16 AMDear Marty,Fair Chance,
Like yourself, I have always let the door open to specific incident testing if the results are statistically acceptable to normal scientific review. The years have gone by since my testing but I can still remember how inaccurate and insulting my prescreening polygraph results were. I can attest that despite all of the whoopla, I am in a Top Secret, SCI position, only for the fact that I want to make this country safer for my children. Sounds corny but that is where I am at in life right now.
The agencies that use the polygraph for pre-screening employment are only deceiving themselves into a false sense of security and seeing only what they want to believe (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) instead of objectionally looking at the information with some healthy skepticism ( no insult the the "Skeptic" out there).
Regards.
Congratulations. I hope you serve long and honorably.
And let me add: Thank you for your service.
-Marty
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 11, 2004, 01:16 AMDear Marty,
Like yourself, I have always let the door open to specific incident testing if the results are statistically acceptable to normal scientific review. The years have gone by since my testing but I can still remember how inaccurate and insulting my prescreening polygraph results were. I can attest that despite all of the whoopla, I am in a Top Secret, SCI position, only for the fact that I want to make this country safer for my children. Sounds corny but that is where I am at in life right now.
The agencies that use the polygraph for pre-screening employment are only deceiving themselves into a false sense of security and seeing only what they want to believe (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) instead of objectionally looking at the information with some healthy skepticism ( no insult the the "Skeptic" out there).
Regards.
Like yourself, I have always let the door open to specific incident testing if the results are statistically acceptable to normal scientific review. The years have gone by since my testing but I can still remember how inaccurate and insulting my prescreening polygraph results were. I can attest that despite all of the whoopla, I am in a Top Secret, SCI position, only for the fact that I want to make this country safer for my children. Sounds corny but that is where I am at in life right now.
The agencies that use the polygraph for pre-screening employment are only deceiving themselves into a false sense of security and seeing only what they want to believe (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) instead of objectionally looking at the information with some healthy skepticism ( no insult the the "Skeptic" out there).
Regards.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 11, 2004, 12:51 AMQuote from: Torpedo on Feb 11, 2004, 12:25 AMMarty, my friend, do I detect a bit of sarcasm? The AP.O folks challenge us all of the time and hammer away at the lack of ANY scientific basis, yet when a neutral source with what I see as pretty good credentials, offers a different view, he is senselessly attacked. He made a reference to a study that was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (which by the way isn't some "rag") and even qualified his statement by saying it was his own personal "informal survey". Now, I haven't read the study...I intend to tomorrow, and I would agree with your assessment that the sample size leaves something to be desired, but I have to think that there is more to this than what appears on the surface....translated? I have difficulty believing that the JAP would publish a study that was questionable...I would think they would reject it and advise the author to conduct proper research....I may be wrong, but time will tell...perhaps you can enlighten me if you have access to and have read the full study.
Marty, you surprised me with your insult directed at Dr. Muller. It was unprofessional and unwarranted. I doubt if he collects his citations from anywhere except professional publications. I am sorry, but your attack was unwarranted and because I believe you are (or at least you sound as if you are) of above avage intellligence, you should probably tender an apology to this gentleman. Would you say the same of the study by Kircher, et al, and how about Paul Eckman who, I believe was a contributor to some of the elements of the NAS Report.
As I stated, I hadn't reviewed the other references. On the other thread I made rather positive comments about the Israeli policemen study. I believe it is more accurate than simulated studies that are most often used. I believe it could well be used as a template to do the tests NAS recommends to clarify actual polygraph reliability. The big problem was the small sample size. Muller did list it first and didn't relate the small sample size which I think highly relevant. Of course my information on the numbers is from Matte's Forensic X exam book. Since that is second hand I will retract if it turns out the sample size of liars tested wasn't 2.
Also, Muller seems to have extrapolated from specific incident polys to screening polys without stating the widely held belief by both sides that screening polys produce significantly more false positives than specific incident ones.
I also object rather strenuously to Muller's statement that the policemen were "tricked" into cheating. They were given the opportunity and covert means were deployed to detect the cheating. Hardly tricked into cheating. I find it odd he chose such terms.
QuoteI genuinely believe that Dr. Muller was merely offering a different perspective on the issue of lie detectors and was showing a different side of the science. I believe he was saying that just one source may not be the only discussion and that there are other arguments to be viewed and discussed. I will be writing Dr. Muller in the near future. I would like him to engage some folks (both pro and con) on this site and offer his perspective as a scientist and academic to this discussion.Actually, Dr. Muller's articles is not so far off from the NAS study, at least in the percentages he uses from specific incident testing.
I do admit to a somewhat snippy response re cheating, MIT, and cold fusion. These are all areas of interest to me (I like fringe stuff) and a month or so back had come across articles on MIT's ongoing student cheating problems. Consequently, Muller's phraseology stood out.
Let me also praise MIT for it's online university courses. They lead the world in making knowledge available to everyone.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 11, 2004, 12:45 AMTorpedo,
AntiPolygraph.org excerpted and linked Dr. Muller's article shortly after it appeared on-line:
http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-017.shtml#muller-15-08-03
Also, the Technology Review website has a forum where readers can post comments. You'll find comments on Muller's article here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=352
See, especially, the comments posted by Bernard Foy (a chemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory) and myself.
AntiPolygraph.org excerpted and linked Dr. Muller's article shortly after it appeared on-line:
http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-017.shtml#muller-15-08-03
Also, the Technology Review website has a forum where readers can post comments. You'll find comments on Muller's article here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=352
See, especially, the comments posted by Bernard Foy (a chemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory) and myself.
Posted by Torpedo
- Feb 11, 2004, 12:25 AMMarty, my friend, do I detect a bit of sarcasm? The AP.O folks challenge us all of the time and hammer away at the lack of ANY scientific basis, yet when a neutral source with what I see as pretty good credentials, offers a different view, he is senselessly attacked. He made a reference to a study that was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (which by the way isn't some "rag") and even qualified his statement by saying it was his own personal "informal survey". Now, I haven't read the study...I intend to tomorrow, and I would agree with your assessment that the sample size leaves something to be desired, but I have to think that there is more to this than what appears on the surface....translated? I have difficulty believing that the JAP would publish a study that was questionable...I would think they would reject it and advise the author to conduct proper research....I may be wrong, but time will tell...perhaps you can enlighten me if you have access to and have read the full study.
Marty, you surprised me with your insult directed at Dr. Muller. It was unprofessional and unwarranted. I doubt if he collects his citations from anywhere except professional publications. I am sorry, but your attack was unwarranted and because I believe you are (or at least you sound as if you are) of above avage intellligence, you should probably tender an apology to this gentleman. Would you say the same of the study by Kircher, et al, and how about Paul Eckman who, I believe was a contributor to some of the elements of the NAS Report.
I genuinely believe that Dr. Muller was merely offering a different perspective on the issue of lie detectors and was showing a different side of the science. I believe he was saying that just one source may not be the only discussion and that there are other arguments to be viewed and discussed. I will be writing Dr. Muller in the near future. I would like him to engage some folks (both pro and con) on this site and offer his perspective as a scientist and academic to this discussion.
Marty, you surprised me with your insult directed at Dr. Muller. It was unprofessional and unwarranted. I doubt if he collects his citations from anywhere except professional publications. I am sorry, but your attack was unwarranted and because I believe you are (or at least you sound as if you are) of above avage intellligence, you should probably tender an apology to this gentleman. Would you say the same of the study by Kircher, et al, and how about Paul Eckman who, I believe was a contributor to some of the elements of the NAS Report.
I genuinely believe that Dr. Muller was merely offering a different perspective on the issue of lie detectors and was showing a different side of the science. I believe he was saying that just one source may not be the only discussion and that there are other arguments to be viewed and discussed. I will be writing Dr. Muller in the near future. I would like him to engage some folks (both pro and con) on this site and offer his perspective as a scientist and academic to this discussion.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 10, 2004, 10:06 PMTorpedo! Congrats for citing an MIT publication. I've also rather liked their (technology review) articles on cold fusion. MIT really has a handle on these cutting edge things.
I also liked the authors's cite of an Israeli experiment. Hell, I cited it from Matte's publication in an earlier thread here. Gee, I wonder if Muller read it there? Muller says: "I was particularly impressed with an Israeli measurement (1) (they tricked their own policemen into cheating, then polygraphed them)...."
First. They didn't "trick" the Israeli cops into cheating. They simply gave them the opportunity. I guess from MIT's POV an opportunity represents an invitation. (Check out MIT's checkered history on student cheating).
Oops! I forgot. Polygraphers ASSUME students have cheated.
Second, they only selected 2 police cheaters to polygraph. This is insufficient for any meaningful statistics. I can't judge the other cites but this one is pathetic. If it was a cold fusion experiment it would have been ripped with the damning it deserves.
-Marty
I also liked the authors's cite of an Israeli experiment. Hell, I cited it from Matte's publication in an earlier thread here. Gee, I wonder if Muller read it there? Muller says: "I was particularly impressed with an Israeli measurement (1) (they tricked their own policemen into cheating, then polygraphed them)...."
First. They didn't "trick" the Israeli cops into cheating. They simply gave them the opportunity. I guess from MIT's POV an opportunity represents an invitation. (Check out MIT's checkered history on student cheating).
Oops! I forgot. Polygraphers ASSUME students have cheated.
Second, they only selected 2 police cheaters to polygraph. This is insufficient for any meaningful statistics. I can't judge the other cites but this one is pathetic. If it was a cold fusion experiment it would have been ripped with the damning it deserves.
-Marty
Posted by Torpedo
- Feb 10, 2004, 08:50 PMHello ladies and gentlemen. It is I, Torpedo back to regale you with, as Paul Harvey would say: "the rest of the story". It seems that in my endeavor to explore both sides of the question (always wanting to keep an open mind), I came across a publication entitled Technology Review, a publication originating out of no less than that hotbed of liberalism (only joking), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In their August 2003 issue, which is available on the web, (I have attempted to provide a link below- but if it does not work, type in: www.technologyreview.com and in the search window type in "Muller" - they may require you to register-but it is free), Dr. Muller takes a very different position than that espoused by the NAS. Professor Richard A. Muller is a noted writer, physicist and educator, from no less than the University of California, Berkley. Enough of my dribble. Please read what is said here and remember as many of my bretheren have said: there are two sides to every story. Here is the link...good luck!
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller081503.asp?p=1
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller081503.asp?p=1