- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 25, 2005, 11:59 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Feb 25, 2005, 04:01 PMA.S.,
. . . the compendium we have been discussing is not representative of serious research. It is little more than a listing of favorite and recommended readings of a trade union. Polygraphy is a business and as such I have no problem with the concept of its members being represented by a trade union and/or a fraternal association. The APA presumably serves those purpose(s) well, but a listing such as the one published and adopted by the APA is in no way or shape a research document or a meaningful compendium of research. Even the few proponents of polygraphy with serious academic credentials, e.g., David Raskin, would be taken aback with the notion of that compendium representing a meaningful contribution to research understanding. Again, first things first--once meaningful (appropriately funded, conducted, and published in a professional and unbiased manner) research is defined, then by all means, lets have more of it.
The problem with both sides of the debate is that they pick and choose what supports them. Again, this is what the APA says about their compendium of studies, both field and lab:
[It is] a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%.
Sounds pretty favorable, doesn't it? Of course it does. It's from the "pro-polygraph" people, and it sounds as biased as this website. I tend to believe those studies have more merit than AntiPolygraph.Org people would have the worried boys and girls believe.
I keep telling you, George, Gino, etc., that we can throw opposing studies at each other without "proving" anything. What I want the worried boys and girls to realize is that there is another side to the story than what they read on this one-sided website. AND, I want them to realize that the other side of the story at least has the benefit of a lot of HANDS-ON experience WITH THE POLYGRAPH to back up its claims, while the AntiPolygraph side has nothing but regurgitations of refutable LAB studies of its own.
I don't care if you, George, Gino and the other fearmongers of this website ever change your minds. George certainly won't change his because what began as a personal vendetta has now become too much of his own ego. What I do care about is that the other side of the story at least be heard on a website with the pompous title of "AntiPolygraph.Org."
I realize, and you should too, that I don't need this website like some of you do. I can quit posting at any time, and when I tire of fielding all of your pop flies, I will. Then this website can go back to simply and mindlessly dispensing its placebo to the worried boys and girls.
Something else I've thought about:
Have you ever visited other Web forums, whether they be singles forums, game forums, religious forums, etc.? The people on every one of those websites become so engrossed in their little daily exchanges that they begin to think the world revolves around them. They develop an over-inflated idea that their daily sniveling actually matters and is important to the world at large. In fact, they praise and complement each other as if their small thoughts are somehow unique and ingenious. Quite amusing, when you think about it, but that's what AntiPolygraph.Org is--it's a haven for a very tiny minority of disgruntled people focused on trying to make small things into big things.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Feb 25, 2005, 04:01 PMA.S.,
You write in part:
This is true, but not so fast. I assume that you realize (although due to your chosen anonymity I don't know what your research credentials are) the compendium we have been discussing is not representative of serious research. It is little more than a listing of favorite and recommended readings of a trade union. Polygraphy is a business and as such I have no problem with the concept of its members being represented by a trade union and/or a fraternal association. The APA presumably serves those purpose(s) well, but a listing such as the one published and adopted by the APA is in no way or shape a research document or a meaningful compendium of research. Even the few proponents of polygraphy with serious academic credentials, e.g., David Raskin, would be taken aback with the notion of that compendium representing a meaningful contribution to research understanding. Again, first things first--once meaningful (appropriately funded, conducted, and published in a professional and unbiased manner) research is defined, then by all means, lets have more of it.
You write in part:
Quote...You are right, though, about the need for additional research....
This is true, but not so fast. I assume that you realize (although due to your chosen anonymity I don't know what your research credentials are) the compendium we have been discussing is not representative of serious research. It is little more than a listing of favorite and recommended readings of a trade union. Polygraphy is a business and as such I have no problem with the concept of its members being represented by a trade union and/or a fraternal association. The APA presumably serves those purpose(s) well, but a listing such as the one published and adopted by the APA is in no way or shape a research document or a meaningful compendium of research. Even the few proponents of polygraphy with serious academic credentials, e.g., David Raskin, would be taken aback with the notion of that compendium representing a meaningful contribution to research understanding. Again, first things first--once meaningful (appropriately funded, conducted, and published in a professional and unbiased manner) research is defined, then by all means, lets have more of it.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 25, 2005, 01:36 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Feb 25, 2005, 12:58 PMA.S.,
Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses. George Maschke writes:
I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman. That having been said, George is precisely correct. Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful compendium. George's characterization of that compendium is also right on target. It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc. Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Hello again, Drew. No, I didn't miss anything. I just didn't consider that post important enough to counter. Since you point it out, though, I will say this:
Those studies are as "credible" as anything the "anti" people have available on this site. You are right, though, about the need for additional research. Right now, there is an "anti" side with its less than totally credible studies and a "pro" side with its own less than totally credible studies. At least the "pro" side has experience in using the instrument in question to add a bit more credibility to its argument.
As Gino should know by now, and as you and George should have realized yourselves, for every questionable study you can come up with and claim to be valid, the "pro" people can counter with one of their own. It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God. Neither side proves anything.
This website proves only its agenda, which is to discredit a process through easily refutable information.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Feb 25, 2005, 12:58 PMA.S.,
Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses. George Maschke writes:
I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman. That having been said, George is precisely correct. Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful compendium. George's characterization of that compendium is also right on target. It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc. Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses. George Maschke writes:
Quote...
The "compendium" to which you refer ("The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing") is a non-peer-reviewed meta-study of mostly non-peer-reviewed studies that was prepared for an interested party (the American Polygraph Association) by Norman Ansley (Forensic Research, Inc. of Severna, MD), a past president of that association. On what basis do you characterize it as "actually credible?"
PS: This meta-study was also published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. (Perhaps not surprisingly, Norm Ansley was Polygraph's editor at the time.) Those with access to a research library with a subscription to Polygraph need not pay $25 to the American Polygraph Association to obtain a copy....
I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman. That having been said, George is precisely correct. Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful compendium. George's characterization of that compendium is also right on target. It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc. Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 25, 2005, 12:51 PMQuote from: NSAreject2 on Feb 24, 2005, 07:44 PMAS,
I am surprised at your hostility; I don't know why I was
so nice to you on the other post. Again, your anger
stems from the valuable information published by this
site. You and the reset of the "actors", obvioulsy
depend on peoples' ignorance and fear; I have taken
many polygraphs at the NSA and was able to pass some
of the questions, by having my wife simply convince me,
over and over, about certain answers. Yes, the poly
shows reactions to certain questions, but that could be
for a number of reasons. The polygraph cannot tell, if
a person has a credible issue with a question. So what
does NSA, and the rest do - you're screwed.
Yes, you have been exceedingly nice to me. I especially appreciated the cookies your wife brought over the other day. She was able to convince me that you are in fact a nice person.
Actually, this site depends on "peoples' ignorance and fear." Nothing presented as factual on this site has much to back it up. That's the really funny thing about this site and the whole debate over the polygraph--a bunch of "anti" people and a bunch of "pro" people using refutable lab studies to "prove" their agendas. At least the "pro" people have some actual experience in the field. I find it humorous (when I don't find it just sad) that a tiny, tiny minority of disgruntled polygraph failures actually run a site like this to scare ignorant people about the boogeyman of polygraph.
Posted by NSAreject2
- Feb 24, 2005, 07:44 PMAS,
I am surprised at your hostility; I don't know why I was
so nice to you on the other post. Again, your anger
stems from the valuable information published by this
site. You and the reset of the "actors", obvioulsy
depend on peoples' ignorance and fear; I have taken
many polygraphs at the NSA and was able to pass some
of the questions, by having my wife simply convince me,
over and over, about certain answers. Yes, the poly
shows reactions to certain questions, but that could be
for a number of reasons. The polygraph cannot tell, if
a person has a credible issue with a question. So what
does NSA, and the rest do - you're screwed.
I am surprised at your hostility; I don't know why I was
so nice to you on the other post. Again, your anger
stems from the valuable information published by this
site. You and the reset of the "actors", obvioulsy
depend on peoples' ignorance and fear; I have taken
many polygraphs at the NSA and was able to pass some
of the questions, by having my wife simply convince me,
over and over, about certain answers. Yes, the poly
shows reactions to certain questions, but that could be
for a number of reasons. The polygraph cannot tell, if
a person has a credible issue with a question. So what
does NSA, and the rest do - you're screwed.
Posted by PG111
- Feb 24, 2005, 05:51 PM How would anybody consider the studies credible when they cant even come close to each other on accuracy rates 80-98%, lets say that they were all within a few points of each other, that still would not prove anything.
Lets face it polygraph is NOT A LIE DETECTOR
It shows that the person tested is breathing, his heart is beating, skin sweats and they may show if the anal muscle tightens. That's all not one study every done proves it to detect deception. Now anal before you blast me, I said PROVES deception.
The best way for the polygraph to die out is no one ever admit anything because of it again, 5 years down the road it would be gone.
Lets face it polygraph is NOT A LIE DETECTOR
It shows that the person tested is breathing, his heart is beating, skin sweats and they may show if the anal muscle tightens. That's all not one study every done proves it to detect deception. Now anal before you blast me, I said PROVES deception.
The best way for the polygraph to die out is no one ever admit anything because of it again, 5 years down the road it would be gone.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 24, 2005, 05:00 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 17, 2005, 06:09 PMIf any of you is willing to buy the crap dished out on this site, perhaps you'd like to get some better stuff. Here is a summary of what it is and where you can find it:
The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are also mentioned.
Spiral-bound copies of this article may be purchased for $25.00 postpaid from the American Polygraph Association:
National Office
951 Eastgate Loop, Suite 800
Chattanooga, TN 37411-5608
(423)892-3992 or 1-800-272-8037.
A.S.,
The "compendium" to which you refer ("The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing") is a non-peer-reviewed meta-study of mostly non-peer-reviewed studies that was prepared for an interested party (the American Polygraph Association) by Norman Ansley (Forensic Research, Inc. of Severna, MD), a past president of that association. On what basis do you characterize it as "actually credible?"
PS: This meta-study was also published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. (Perhaps not surprisingly, Norm Ansley was Polygraph's editor at the time.) Those with access to a research library with a subscription to Polygraph need not pay $25 to the American Polygraph Association to obtain a copy.
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 23, 2005, 08:32 PMUndrestand that I'm not seeking excessive self-disclosure, simply disclosure regarding your experience as previously mentioned. It would seem this is information you are not comfortable in providing so I will not ask again. I can appreciate that you feel this site is often hostile, which is obvious be due to the views you express. I would speculate that many that hold your views would find it to be hostile simply because of its name. Debating polygraph with those that have knowledge is most likely suited for you. However, providing information to those with limited knowledge of polygraphics(?) does not seem the case. And the circle keeps going around.
New previously mentioned category: Regurgitators
I am always interested in knowing the basis for which people become convinced of their beliefs. Nothing personal.
New previously mentioned category: Regurgitators
I am always interested in knowing the basis for which people become convinced of their beliefs. Nothing personal.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 23, 2005, 08:04 PMFor personal reasons--which have nothing to do with the possibility of lessening my credibility with the readers of this forum--I refrain from excessive self-disclosure on this often hostile site. My posts should convince anyone with knowledge of the polygraph and polygraphy that I am indeed credible. I can regurgitate information with the best regurgitators on this site, so hopefully that speaks for itself.
I appreciate your interest, though.
I appreciate your interest, though.
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 23, 2005, 07:43 PMPlease understand that I am not requesting that you reveal your identity, address, credit history etc. I am simply asking you to elaborate on the experiences you so often reference. Information such as: Are your experiences as an examiner, examinee, etc.? I wouldn't expect you to reveal anything more. I don't mind revealing my identity since I have nothing to lose or gain. That may not be your situation. It would seem that many of the people here fear some type of reprisal should they reveal specific information (quite understandable). You very well could be the leading authority on all things "poly." How do I know? It could well be that you hold more credibility than anyone on this board. This I am unable to make judgement on since I have no knowledge regarding your experiences.
Also, I have read some of your posts that mention most of the people here fit into the categories of bitchers, moaners, those that lied and failed (cannot remember specific word usage) and worriers. A couple of categories that should be added are the curious and instigators. I am sure I appropriately fit into one of them with the exception of the third designation. Anyhow, I appreciate the information you provide as you are the first I've found that provides a bit more than veiled or dodged answers. I cannot say that I have changed my decisions about polygraph validity but it provides an opportunity to view the subject from both angles.
Also, I have read some of your posts that mention most of the people here fit into the categories of bitchers, moaners, those that lied and failed (cannot remember specific word usage) and worriers. A couple of categories that should be added are the curious and instigators. I am sure I appropriately fit into one of them with the exception of the third designation. Anyhow, I appreciate the information you provide as you are the first I've found that provides a bit more than veiled or dodged answers. I cannot say that I have changed my decisions about polygraph validity but it provides an opportunity to view the subject from both angles.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 23, 2005, 03:48 PMThe fact that the studies I have referenced may be confirmed adds to my credibility. That's all that George and Co. have going for them--regurgitated studies. The fact that George and Co. welcome my viewpoint and can not effectively counterpunch a lot of what I say also should add to my credibility.
As for my personal information, I don't plan on giving out personal information on a largely "anonymous" public forum. If I've gotten enough credibility from George and Co. to be acknowledged as a welcome opposing viewpoint, and the only thing left to make me more credible in your eyes is self-disclosure, I think I've done quite well, thank you.
As for my personal information, I don't plan on giving out personal information on a largely "anonymous" public forum. If I've gotten enough credibility from George and Co. to be acknowledged as a welcome opposing viewpoint, and the only thing left to make me more credible in your eyes is self-disclosure, I think I've done quite well, thank you.
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 20, 2005, 04:35 PMI was off base in requesting you to provide your name and calling you a coward if you refused. Emotion clouds judgement. What I would like to know is what experience you have with polygraph. The reasons I give credibility to George & Gino is because they have researched polygraph for years. Both have provided background which adds to their credibility. I have very little credibility due to the fact that I have undergone one polygraph. The information I have found is only recent and online. I have no reason to doubt anything you have said. I am looking to backup your credibility. That is why I am so interested in independent scientific research. However the only indedependent scientific research I have found reflects negatively on polygraph accuracy. If I could review independent scientific research, which reflects positively on polygraph, I would be better able to compare the two and make a completely informed decision.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 19, 2005, 12:40 PMYou may not believe this, but the polygrapher's attitude and advice after the polygraph indicate to me that you did in fact pass the polygraph. You were apparently disqualified for another reason, which I can not begin to guess.
As for who I am and who I "represent," my name is not important. I represent only myself. I've never actually stated that I am a polygrapher, by the way, yet you have made that assumption. You can accept or reject my credibility; it is all the same to me. Others on this board, such as George and Gino, have apparently received your approval despite their having absolutely no experience in the subject. They are great regurgitators of rhetoric, so if rhetoric backed up with refutable regurgitations is sufficient and credible to you, then you should just as easily accept me as an "expert" in the field.
Gino and George know that I know what I'm talking about because they are experienced in fielding questions in this field, and, despite their lack of actual experience in the field, they are at least bright enough to recognize the real thing from sham.
As for who I am and who I "represent," my name is not important. I represent only myself. I've never actually stated that I am a polygrapher, by the way, yet you have made that assumption. You can accept or reject my credibility; it is all the same to me. Others on this board, such as George and Gino, have apparently received your approval despite their having absolutely no experience in the subject. They are great regurgitators of rhetoric, so if rhetoric backed up with refutable regurgitations is sufficient and credible to you, then you should just as easily accept me as an "expert" in the field.
Gino and George know that I know what I'm talking about because they are experienced in fielding questions in this field, and, despite their lack of actual experience in the field, they are at least bright enough to recognize the real thing from sham.
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 19, 2005, 05:16 AMI request that analsphinter reveal his true identiy as I will. My name is Brandon Hall. My testor's name is Paul Reger of the Glendale Police Deparement of Glendale, Arizona. If you truly believe in what you say, tell us who you are and who you represent. If you choose to not reveal yourself you must be a coward. The Glendale, AZ police department denied me application based on my polygraph examination. However, no one, even the chief, has the courtesy to explain the questions I failed or other reasons I was deemed unhirable.