- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ecchasta
- Dec 15, 2006, 01:23 AMLieBabyCryBaby stated the following in an earlier post:
"When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph... "
Will he please cite any scientifically valid double blind study to support that statement? I've been searching for weeks. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
"When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph... "
Will he please cite any scientifically valid double blind study to support that statement? I've been searching for weeks. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 24, 2006, 12:28 PMPolygraph examiners (like LBCB) provide anecdotal evidence based on their own experiences to support their claims that the polygraph is accurate and useful.
Why do they feel that such anecdotal evidence is any more credible than the experiences of people like me, who told the truth during one or more polygraph examinations and were accused of deception?
Claims from people like me about telling the truth and being accused of deception are always dismissed by polygraph examiners with excuses such as, "You must have had a bad examiner." They seem to be given no weight whatsoever.
Yet these same examiners, when confronted with the NAS research study, counter with a claim that their own experiences show the polygraph is accurate and useful.
If anecdotal evidence provided by people who told the truth and failed is inadmissible into this debate of a supposedly scientific test, then so too should anecdotal evidence provided by people who administer tests that generate results with which they agree.
Why do they feel that such anecdotal evidence is any more credible than the experiences of people like me, who told the truth during one or more polygraph examinations and were accused of deception?
Claims from people like me about telling the truth and being accused of deception are always dismissed by polygraph examiners with excuses such as, "You must have had a bad examiner." They seem to be given no weight whatsoever.
Yet these same examiners, when confronted with the NAS research study, counter with a claim that their own experiences show the polygraph is accurate and useful.
If anecdotal evidence provided by people who told the truth and failed is inadmissible into this debate of a supposedly scientific test, then so too should anecdotal evidence provided by people who administer tests that generate results with which they agree.
Posted by IDIOTSSS
- Nov 23, 2006, 09:26 PMBut can i call you "G"?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 23, 2006, 04:55 AMQuote from: IDIOTSSS on Nov 23, 2006, 12:30 AMOk I'm knew here so who the hell is george and why does he seem so all-knowing??
I am one of the people who started this website and whom you -- by your own admission without even knowing who I am -- characterized as a "criminal" in an earlier post.
Posted by day2day
- Nov 23, 2006, 02:11 AMCorrect grammar and spelling is appreciated Idiot.
Posted by IDIOTSSS
- Nov 23, 2006, 12:30 AMOk I'm knew here so who the hell is george and why does he seem so all-knowing??
OH by the way George if you see this theres a pervert in the discarded posts section that could use your help. hes the "Scared and looking for help" or something like that.
can i call you G?
OH by the way George if you see this theres a pervert in the discarded posts section that could use your help. hes the "Scared and looking for help" or something like that.
can i call you G?
Posted by Bill Crider
- Nov 22, 2006, 11:59 AMLBCB,
In regards to your remark about "opinions" of the validity of the polygraph, this is not really an area that is simply subject to one's opinion. For any sort of procedure that purports to be scientific, it must have some sort of internal validity. Given the fact that so much of the polygraph results can be affected by the set of control questions the polygrapher devises, the background and psychological issues of the testee, it is not possible to control for these variables from one test to the next. For this reason, the test has no validity. This is simply not a matter of opinion.
As for the anecdotal evidence of real world polygraphers, I think part of the issue here is one of selection bias. By the time a person is subjected to a polygraph in an actual investigation, they are in a very small pool of people,1 of whom is most likely guilty. I bet if for every crime you rounded up 100 random people, you would have a very hard time picking out the guilty one via polygraph testing alone. Contrast that with DNA testing for example. If i had DNA evidence I bet I could pick out the guilty party from 100 people time after time. Why? Because the DNA test has validity. It isnt affected by the testee's childhood experience, what he read on the internet, how skillful the tester is in jacking up the emotional state of the testee, and so on.
Tell me, LBCB, for any given crime where you get a polygrpah induced confession, how many people on average do you polygraph to find the guilty party?
In regards to your remark about "opinions" of the validity of the polygraph, this is not really an area that is simply subject to one's opinion. For any sort of procedure that purports to be scientific, it must have some sort of internal validity. Given the fact that so much of the polygraph results can be affected by the set of control questions the polygrapher devises, the background and psychological issues of the testee, it is not possible to control for these variables from one test to the next. For this reason, the test has no validity. This is simply not a matter of opinion.
As for the anecdotal evidence of real world polygraphers, I think part of the issue here is one of selection bias. By the time a person is subjected to a polygraph in an actual investigation, they are in a very small pool of people,1 of whom is most likely guilty. I bet if for every crime you rounded up 100 random people, you would have a very hard time picking out the guilty one via polygraph testing alone. Contrast that with DNA testing for example. If i had DNA evidence I bet I could pick out the guilty party from 100 people time after time. Why? Because the DNA test has validity. It isnt affected by the testee's childhood experience, what he read on the internet, how skillful the tester is in jacking up the emotional state of the testee, and so on.
Tell me, LBCB, for any given crime where you get a polygrpah induced confession, how many people on average do you polygraph to find the guilty party?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 22, 2006, 05:09 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 06:09 PMBecause the peer-reviewed research you are always citing can not be accurately applied to the real-world, George, as even the NAS admits.
Indeed, the executive summary of the NAS report notes that results of the 57 laboratory and field studies reviewed "cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts." But it goes on to note that "[e]stimates of accuracy from these 57 studies are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field."
Thus, your observation that peer-reviewed research "cannot be accurately applied to the real world" does not provide a convincing rationale for why anyone should accept your "argument from experience" that polygraph accuracy is actually higher than what the research would suggest over this contrary conclusion of the NAS report.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Nov 22, 2006, 01:20 AMLBCB,
I have sat back and watched this thread develop for a few days and noted the key point that your experience is the discriminator by which you judge all things. I do not diminish your experience as by far your one of the few polygraphers to actually come in here and debate and openly support your beliefs. This being said, I believe that you have not come up against someone of intellect, gile and audacity. Maybe you have, and they just caved in and went along with the program. But by my estimates, inconclusive after inconclusive is as good as a pass. Because the law of dimishing return kicks in after about 3 polygraphs. The shock and fear are gone, and if they have researched the polygraph coming in, it is greatly reduced. And like in chess, stalemate works. THe reason this works is the more polygraphs taken the more familiar to the box you become. And from experience, once you have lost the fear, the only outcome is inconclusive. This forces the decision to be made outside of the polygraph suite. Because no matter how many polygraphs a person is given, inconclusive defeats it. Eventually a decision has to be made and it won't be made by the polygrapher. Which removes any of the power that you may have had. Inconclusives reflect badly on the examiner, not the examinee. I would think that by the time a 3rd polygraph is inconclusive you would suspect that its not going to work for this subject. And if it doesn't work, it is effectively defeated, with no ramifications to the examinee. You should look up Neutralization theory. I highly suggest it. But then again a pass could happen too. There is no downside on this scenario, except for frustrating the polygrapher, which could be highly entertaining.
Regards ....
I have sat back and watched this thread develop for a few days and noted the key point that your experience is the discriminator by which you judge all things. I do not diminish your experience as by far your one of the few polygraphers to actually come in here and debate and openly support your beliefs. This being said, I believe that you have not come up against someone of intellect, gile and audacity. Maybe you have, and they just caved in and went along with the program. But by my estimates, inconclusive after inconclusive is as good as a pass. Because the law of dimishing return kicks in after about 3 polygraphs. The shock and fear are gone, and if they have researched the polygraph coming in, it is greatly reduced. And like in chess, stalemate works. THe reason this works is the more polygraphs taken the more familiar to the box you become. And from experience, once you have lost the fear, the only outcome is inconclusive. This forces the decision to be made outside of the polygraph suite. Because no matter how many polygraphs a person is given, inconclusive defeats it. Eventually a decision has to be made and it won't be made by the polygrapher. Which removes any of the power that you may have had. Inconclusives reflect badly on the examiner, not the examinee. I would think that by the time a 3rd polygraph is inconclusive you would suspect that its not going to work for this subject. And if it doesn't work, it is effectively defeated, with no ramifications to the examinee. You should look up Neutralization theory. I highly suggest it. But then again a pass could happen too. There is no downside on this scenario, except for frustrating the polygrapher, which could be highly entertaining.
Regards ....
Posted by digithead
- Nov 21, 2006, 10:42 PMExcept that in a real world situation, all fears are accentuated both for the nervous but guilty and the nervous but innocent. How can CQT distinguish between them? And in assessing accuracy, you have no baseline on which to compare them unless they confess. I'll ask you the same as I've asked others, do you know what your false negative rate is? Until you can answer that, your assessment of your accuracy is overinflated...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:23 PMDigithead,
Whether a polygraph is conducted in the lab with mock crimes and let's-just-pretend scenarios and disinterested examinees OR in the real world, the conditions should be the same. Unless you are conducting your real-world exam under the take-off/landing area of an airport, for example, the environment should be similar. The difference, as the NAS admits, is that the lab setting can not accurately imitate the real world incentives or fears that an examinee faces in the real world. I see the real world all the time, not the lab world, so I base my knowledge on what I see, as well as studies that support what I see every day.
Whether a polygraph is conducted in the lab with mock crimes and let's-just-pretend scenarios and disinterested examinees OR in the real world, the conditions should be the same. Unless you are conducting your real-world exam under the take-off/landing area of an airport, for example, the environment should be similar. The difference, as the NAS admits, is that the lab setting can not accurately imitate the real world incentives or fears that an examinee faces in the real world. I see the real world all the time, not the lab world, so I base my knowledge on what I see, as well as studies that support what I see every day.
Posted by digithead
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:18 PMThat's because in the real world, one cannot control for all of the possible confounders, problems, and interference that might exist. Whereas in the laboratory, one can potentially control for these factors. Ergo, one cannot expect the polygraph to have any more accuracy outside the laboratory than it does inside a laboratory...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:09 PMBecause the peer-reviewed research you are always citing can not be accurately applied to the real-world, George, as even the NAS admits.
Posted by Wallerstein
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:08 PMSorry, but I thought I might jump in here. George is making a particular point-namely, that the polygraph's "underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method." This is supported by the National Academy of Sciences.
LBCB, your response consists of "But I conduct polygraphs all the time, and I know they work!" That may well be so, but you are simply not responding to George's (or the NAS' for that matter) contention, namely that the polygraph's "underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method."
LBCB, your response consists of "But I conduct polygraphs all the time, and I know they work!" That may well be so, but you are simply not responding to George's (or the NAS' for that matter) contention, namely that the polygraph's "underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:05 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 05:47 PMYes, George, and I take strong issue with you and your fellow "anti-" followers belittling actual experience in favor of things you've read.
Why should I or anyone else accept your (anonymous) anecdotal accounts over peer-reviewed research?
QuoteAnd I take strong issue with those who discount studies that don't conform to their wishes or personal agenda.
Do you believe that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph discounted studies that did not "conform to their wishes or personal agenda?" If so, please explain.