- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 13, 2007, 11:46 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Dec 13, 2007, 08:28 PMDo you know what they said in that case? I've read the entire opinion. They didn't say polygraph didn't work if that's what you're implying.
Of course I have read US v. Scheffer, it is required reading for any polygraph related research.
I was not implying anything, in fact that is part of the problem here at Antipolygraph.org, everyone is on edge and people read in motives and underlying meanings to everything. I was just having a little fun, that's all.
BTW, thank-you for the textbook recommendations. I'll start looking for them.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 13, 2007, 08:28 PMDo you know what they said in that case? I've read the entire opinion. They didn't say polygraph didn't work if that's what you're implying.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 13, 2007, 05:58 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Dec 12, 2007, 06:54 PM[
And the New Mexico Supreme Court used that same report to support the acceptance of polygraph in their courts.
.
Well, I'll see your New Mexico Supreme Court and raise you a U.S. Supreme Court. In U.S. v Scheffer, the court said: ... Oh hell, never mind.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 06:54 PMQuoteTo even start to be statistically valid, the number should be 20 or more.
That's not true. You just pay a higher price, statistically - so to speak - with a smaller sample. (You use a different statistic, which requires "more" evidence to make a determination that something is (statistically) significant.
The reason you break studies down like this and do ANOVAs is to avoid needing an astronomical sample size. It's very common.
I think you should write the journal editor and peer reviewers and let them know your concerns. See if your critique can pass the peer-review process.
QuoteLastly, because the results of that study indicated only about a 70 percent acccuracy rate, that also is a serious flaw in making any determination about the ability to use countermeasures, because the data itself had a 30% error rate, (approx).
You might want to read the study again. You've missed a little something.
Quote"Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science ("NAS") questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy - including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies."
And the New Mexico Supreme Court used that same report to support the acceptance of polygraph in their courts.
Let's not forget that they still found single-issue tests worked. The biggest reservations seemed to be the then believed possibility of countermeasures, and that fear appears to have very much colored the authors' conclusions and speculations, but recent research has demonstrated that fear to be unfounded.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 12, 2007, 06:40 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 12, 2007, 11:43 AMFor everyone's information Mr. Maschke has notified me by personal message that " I wish I had time to provide lengthier replies to you, but at the moment, I hard pressed for time."
I for one, can relate to that.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 12, 2007, 06:38 PMSancho:
I have read Croddy, and it is my understand the claim was dismissed because the court ruled that the applicants could not claim a constitutional violation because they had no constitutionally protected property right to employment. IN otherwords, no "standing".
Sancho and Mr. Nelson:
Regarding the Honts study, I was not criticizing Professor Honts himself nor his background or qualifications, just his work in this particular study. I fully admit I have not read all his published work.
I also fully admit I am not a math whiz, and it has been 25 years+ since my undergraduate course in psychological statistics.
The Honts study has too many variables, the worse being:
College students self-reporting that they read some or all of TLBLD. Of course, they had to say that to get extra credit. The amount of actual study of the material, or the attempt to actually decieve the polygrapher is not quantifiable, and thus unable to be replacated.
Good scientific study is by necessity, able to be replacated, in order to eliminate the possible bias of the researcher.
Additionally, each sub group tested only had 10 individuals. To even start to be statistically valid, the number should be 20 or more.
Lastly, because the results of that study indicated only about a 70 percent acccuracy rate, that also is a serious flaw in making any determination about the ability to use countermeasures, because the data itself had a 30% error rate, (approx).
If questioning the study means I am arrogant, then guilty as charged. I am in good company though, as expressed in USA v. Williams by Judge King:
"Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science ("NAS") questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy - including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies."
The entire ruling is available here:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf
I have read Croddy, and it is my understand the claim was dismissed because the court ruled that the applicants could not claim a constitutional violation because they had no constitutionally protected property right to employment. IN otherwords, no "standing".
Sancho and Mr. Nelson:
Regarding the Honts study, I was not criticizing Professor Honts himself nor his background or qualifications, just his work in this particular study. I fully admit I have not read all his published work.
I also fully admit I am not a math whiz, and it has been 25 years+ since my undergraduate course in psychological statistics.
The Honts study has too many variables, the worse being:
College students self-reporting that they read some or all of TLBLD. Of course, they had to say that to get extra credit. The amount of actual study of the material, or the attempt to actually decieve the polygrapher is not quantifiable, and thus unable to be replacated.
Good scientific study is by necessity, able to be replacated, in order to eliminate the possible bias of the researcher.
Additionally, each sub group tested only had 10 individuals. To even start to be statistically valid, the number should be 20 or more.
Lastly, because the results of that study indicated only about a 70 percent acccuracy rate, that also is a serious flaw in making any determination about the ability to use countermeasures, because the data itself had a 30% error rate, (approx).
If questioning the study means I am arrogant, then guilty as charged. I am in good company though, as expressed in USA v. Williams by Judge King:
"Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science ("NAS") questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy - including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies."
The entire ruling is available here:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 12, 2007, 11:43 AMFor everyone's information Mr. Maschke has notified me by personal message that " I wish I had time to provide lengthier replies to you, but at the moment, I hard pressed for time."
I think that everyone should be made aware that he is currently very busy and may be unable to provide complete replies to our posts currently and in the near future. I think we will all look forward to his responses when he has the time to make them.
Sancho Panza
I think that everyone should be made aware that he is currently very busy and may be unable to provide complete replies to our posts currently and in the near future. I think we will all look forward to his responses when he has the time to make them.
Sancho Panza
Posted by raymond.nelson
- Dec 12, 2007, 11:17 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 12, 2007, 08:24 AM
<snip>
When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up. If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.
Wow nope,
You must be a gifted researcher, to be able to comment that critically on the Hont's study. Last I recall you were having trouble understanding Hont's math. You should probably publish the study you did in college, or perhaps you already have.
Gentlemen, there you have it. Nope' is smarter than Honts.
At the very least Nope,' you might do Mr. Honts the courtesy of a telephone call or email message to educate him in the inadequacies of his methods - that he might try to do better in the future. That would be very positive contribution.
Seriously, that kind of arrogance is unbecoming, almost troll-like, in its biased, vacuous, and potentially misleading content.
r
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 12, 2007, 10:34 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 12, 2007, 08:24 AMIf you haven't maybe you should read the entire Croddy ruling. I offer as a matter of established law, that summary judgment may ONLY be granted if the judge finds the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 12, 2007, 08:01 AM[As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is" patently unfair" With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.
My reading of Croddy tells me the court found the plaintiffs did not have "standing" for the claims asserted. Too bad, because it would have been good to get a federal court ruling on the issues.
Regarding antiPolygraph research, the problem as I see it with any polygraph research, is that the variables cannot be controlled sufficiently to make the research replicatable. Without being able to replicate the research, it does not meet scientific scrutiny, and thus is subject to validity problems. This is the main issue I have with the recent Honts study purporting to show that countermeasures do not help the guilty, and hurt the innocent.
When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up. If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.
If you wish to discuss HONTS qualifications and abilities as a scientific researcher, maybe you should discuss them with the Co-authors of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. They cite Honts research numerous times is support of their contention regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, Surely you wouldn't argue that research is only valid if it supports your position? Or maybe you think that the authors should not have cited his work because it is faulty, or perhaps you would like to point out the differences in methodology that support the validity of the studies that were cited versus the study, which is certainly "subsequent research" you chose to label as invalid. Thank you for telling us you have a psychology degree I'm sure many of us would have never guessed. Your education should more than qualify you to answer these questions.
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 12, 2007, 09:24 AMWhen I woke up this morning I had a terrible head cold. I see upon review of my last two posts that I have made some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. Unfortunately I lack the energy to go back and correct them.
Please excuse them and I will endeavor to do better the next time.
Sancho Panza
Please excuse them and I will endeavor to do better the next time.
Sancho Panza
Posted by ecchasta
- Dec 12, 2007, 08:26 AMSancho, you remind me of the old joke about the fellow who went to a clairvoyant/fortune teller. The first thing the clairvoyant asked is "So what can I do for you?" He replied, "you are the clairvoyant, you tell me." 
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 12, 2007, 08:24 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 12, 2007, 08:01 AM[As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is" patently unfair" With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.
My reading of Croddy tells me the court found the plaintiffs did not have "standing" for the claims asserted. Too bad, because it would have been good to get a federal court ruling on the issues.
Regarding antiPolygraph research, the problem as I see it with any polygraph research, is that the variables cannot be controlled sufficiently to make the research replicatable. Without being able to replicate the research, it does not meet scientific scrutiny, and thus is subject to validity problems. This is the main issue I have with the recent Honts study purporting to show that countermeasures do not help the guilty, and hurt the innocent.
When I received my psychology degree in college, I needed to perform a study and write the study up. If I had been the one doing the Hont's study, I suspect I would have flunked the course.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 12, 2007, 08:01 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Dec 12, 2007, 12:17 AMSanchoPanza,
When you wrote that I "co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information," I supposed that you meant that I've argued that it is OK to lie about relevant issues. My viewpoint has always been that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer the relevant questions truthfully. The advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to avoid admissions in response to post-test accusations of deception regarding relevant questions pre-supposes that such questions have been truthfully answered during the pre-test phase.
While government employment may not be a right, people have a natural right to be treated fairly by their government. It is patently unfair -- and downright immoral -- for government agencies to pretend to judge the honesty and integrity of applicants and employees on the basis of a scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived.
Sir, with all due respect, I have already responded to the first part of your comment in a previous post. and I would prefer not to banter the same thing back and forth absent a new point of view, but since this is YOUR forum I wil respond: In your book the following text appears at or near the locations noted.
But don't tell your polygrapher that you've read this book or that you've done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION
Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER
I heard on T.V. that they're almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you'll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)
Whatever answer you give, don't memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM.
If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION Note this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about
Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures. Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE
You might argue that these questions may have nothing to do with what you consider the "relevant" issues on a test, but I assure you every person or entity who ever administered to you any kind of test from kindergarten all the way to your Doctorate considers cheating on a test a relevant issue and if you had done so and were caught you would have failed most school have Honor Codes that provide for expulsion for such behavior. The text FROM YOUR BOOK encourages people to LIE about cheating on the exam and even provides sample lies for an examinee to use to avoid suspicion of cheating on an exam. There is no need to argue that you think that this type of lieing is justified. I fully understand that you have justified this type of lying or you would not have included it in your book. I just happen to disagree that this is acceptable behavior. Even if you think you are being lied to, what code of ethical behavior allows you to respond with lies or unethical behavior?
As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is" patently unfair" With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court. By the way thank you for providing the following link so visitors to your site can read the ruling for themselves. http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/zaid/opinion-29-09-2006.pdf
If you thought that you could prove your second statement, why didn't you file a lawsuit following your polygraph? Your claims of lying and unfair treatment would certainly appear tortuous if proven.
Your statement that polygraph is "scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived" is a matter of opinion. This statement certainly doesn't appear anywhere in the findings of the NAS study.
On a side note: If you would prefer to be addressed as Dr. Mashke rather than Mr. Mashke, please let me know. I have no reason to believe that your doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures is anything, but legitimate and correctly bestowed. If I have offended you by failing to refer to you with your proper title I apologize.
On another side note: I notice that in your personal statement about polygraph you are very careful not to talk about certain issues surrounding the nature of your employment with the government. How can they control what you talk about after you no longer work for them?
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 12, 2007, 12:17 AMSanchoPanza,
When you wrote that I "co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information," I supposed that you meant that I've argued that it is OK to lie about relevant issues. My viewpoint has always been that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer the relevant questions truthfully. The advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to avoid admissions in response to post-test accusations of deception regarding relevant questions pre-supposes that such questions have been truthfully answered during the pre-test phase.
While government employment may not be a right, people have a natural right to be treated fairly by their government. It is patently unfair -- and downright immoral -- for government agencies to pretend to judge the honesty and integrity of applicants and employees on the basis of a scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived.
When you wrote that I "co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information," I supposed that you meant that I've argued that it is OK to lie about relevant issues. My viewpoint has always been that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer the relevant questions truthfully. The advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to avoid admissions in response to post-test accusations of deception regarding relevant questions pre-supposes that such questions have been truthfully answered during the pre-test phase.
While government employment may not be a right, people have a natural right to be treated fairly by their government. It is patently unfair -- and downright immoral -- for government agencies to pretend to judge the honesty and integrity of applicants and employees on the basis of a scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 11, 2007, 07:59 AMSergeant you wrote "What you are left with is the small percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence. That small percentage of cases can in no way be said to "bury" the number of cases where the results of a polygraph test were later proven to be incorrect by the same methods."
What in the world leads you to believe that the percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertable physical evidence is small? Good Grief most examiners probably have file cabinets full of them.
How many of the childish "I failed my polygraph and I told the truth" rants on this website are supported by the credible confession of another party or incontroverable evidence of their innocence" This sites founder and co-author of TLBTLD does not even enjoy that distinction
Wait before you answer. For the sake of our discussion, I am more than willing to place any case that fullfills that criteria, whether or not they support polygraph, as data rather than anecdote if you are.
What in the world leads you to believe that the percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertable physical evidence is small? Good Grief most examiners probably have file cabinets full of them.
How many of the childish "I failed my polygraph and I told the truth" rants on this website are supported by the credible confession of another party or incontroverable evidence of their innocence" This sites founder and co-author of TLBTLD does not even enjoy that distinction
Wait before you answer. For the sake of our discussion, I am more than willing to place any case that fullfills that criteria, whether or not they support polygraph, as data rather than anecdote if you are.