- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 05, 2009, 02:30 AMQuoteFor example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
Both quotes are word for word and right out of the NAS report. Would you like the page numbers?
If you don't agree with the NAS report quotes I pasted, just say so. You'd be more credible if you did. Making false accusations just makes you appear psychotic and paranoid.
What do you have against cutting and pasting relevant quotes from scholarly sources? I didn't come unglued when you cut and pasted from JAMA.
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 03, 2009, 01:12 PMQuotefor example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
"We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak." (NAS Report p 212)
Read it an weep Sancho!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 03, 2009, 09:10 AMQuote from: Anonymous Too on Mar 03, 2009, 07:32 AMGino everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.
I KNOW I KNOW You guys do it all the time.
The line Gino cited is the take home conclusion of the NAS report. It's not cherry picked to support a conclusion that the report doesn't make, or a view that the polygraph review committee members didn't voice.
QuoteFor example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
T.M. Cullen's citation of the NAS report is not deliberately misleading in the manner you suggest. He highlighted quoted passages in blue. (It would be preferable to have used quote tags for this purpose.) The first passage cited in his last post is from pp. 212-13 of the NAS report. The second passage, also in blue, is found at pp. 214-15.
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
Quote...George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, never allowed myself to be erroneously characterized as such, nor have I tried to create any such impression.
Posted by Anonymous Too
- Mar 03, 2009, 07:32 AMCullen, I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?
Gino everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.
I KNOW I KNOW You guys do it all the time.
For example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
And you insinuate I am deceptive. Clean your own house Gino.
Do you also think Columbus discovered the Earth was round?
Gino everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.
I KNOW I KNOW You guys do it all the time.
For example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
And you insinuate I am deceptive. Clean your own house Gino.
Do you also think Columbus discovered the Earth was round?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 02, 2009, 11:49 PMThe following excerpt from the "Conclusion and Recommendations" section of the NAS review doesn't sound like they concluded "it works", from a scientific standpoint, anyway:
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.
OTOH, they concluded the polygraph does have "utility", since many people are dumb enough to believe it is valid, and can actually detect lies. Of course, we know the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation, and interrogation techniques can be quite effective.
Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that admissions and confessions occur more readily with the polygraph than with a bogus pipeline—an interrogation accompanying the use of an inert machine that the examinee believes to be a polygraph. In the long run, evidence that a technique lacks validity will surely undercut its utility.
This is why it is important to go into the test "akamai" (informed). Reading TLBTLD at a minimum! Know beforehand that the machine DOES NOT detect lies. Read about some of the interrogation techniques that are likely to be used against you, and the real purpose of a polygraph examination.
Oh yeah, the NAS review also mentioned the high expected number of "false positives" that occur, and conclude that screening polygraphs can be expected to do more harm than good, eliminating qualified TRUTHFUL applicants from employment by falsely labeling them as "deceptive".
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.
OTOH, they concluded the polygraph does have "utility", since many people are dumb enough to believe it is valid, and can actually detect lies. Of course, we know the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation, and interrogation techniques can be quite effective.
Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that admissions and confessions occur more readily with the polygraph than with a bogus pipeline—an interrogation accompanying the use of an inert machine that the examinee believes to be a polygraph. In the long run, evidence that a technique lacks validity will surely undercut its utility.
This is why it is important to go into the test "akamai" (informed). Reading TLBTLD at a minimum! Know beforehand that the machine DOES NOT detect lies. Read about some of the interrogation techniques that are likely to be used against you, and the real purpose of a polygraph examination.
Oh yeah, the NAS review also mentioned the high expected number of "false positives" that occur, and conclude that screening polygraphs can be expected to do more harm than good, eliminating qualified TRUTHFUL applicants from employment by falsely labeling them as "deceptive".
Posted by G Scalabr
- Mar 02, 2009, 10:20 PMQuotePolygraph Works. 56 peer reviewed studies that were approved as having sufficient quality to satisfy the NAS say it works. The NAS says it worksThe NAS report did not come close to saying that 56 studies supported the validity of polygraphy. The actual language of the report stated that only 56 of roughly 1,000 printed studies were worth reviewing. Stretching that to argue that all supported the validity of polygraphy is a huge distortion. Some might even call it "deceptive."
While everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position, the bottom line conclusion of the NAS report is "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
Posted by Anonymous Too
- Mar 02, 2009, 06:59 PMThe poll is just a poll, but it is a replicated poll and was not proferred for its scientific accuracy. It was proferred to refute your insipid insistance that "science" has determined that polygraph doesn't work.
Thats a false conclusion based on your own opinion not scienific study. Polygraph Works. 56 peer reviewed studies that were approved as having sufficient quality to satisfy the NAS say it works. The NAS says it works, the American Medical Association says it works and the poll by Gallup that was replicated by Amato and Honts establishes that the majority of psychophisiologogists agree that it works. Unless you can find fraud they are all still awaiting someone to refute the findings,
The issue is not whether or not polygraph works, IT DOES, It just doesn't work well enough to suit YOU and GEORGE. but just to make you guys happy research is ongoing.
Cullen I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?
I quote: "The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs has reviewed the data on the validity and accuracy of polygraphy testing as it is applied today. The use of the control question technique in criminal cases is time honored and has seen much scientific study. It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. This does not preclude using the polygraph test in criminal investigations as evidence or as another source of information to guide the investigation with full appreciation of the limitations in its use."
Link: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
Once again, Ask a mathmatician or statistician if 75% to 97% is significantly better than chance. I'll save you the time. They'll tell you that it is significantly better than chance.
Thats a false conclusion based on your own opinion not scienific study. Polygraph Works. 56 peer reviewed studies that were approved as having sufficient quality to satisfy the NAS say it works. The NAS says it works, the American Medical Association says it works and the poll by Gallup that was replicated by Amato and Honts establishes that the majority of psychophisiologogists agree that it works. Unless you can find fraud they are all still awaiting someone to refute the findings,
The issue is not whether or not polygraph works, IT DOES, It just doesn't work well enough to suit YOU and GEORGE. but just to make you guys happy research is ongoing.
Cullen I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?
I quote: "The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs has reviewed the data on the validity and accuracy of polygraphy testing as it is applied today. The use of the control question technique in criminal cases is time honored and has seen much scientific study. It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. This does not preclude using the polygraph test in criminal investigations as evidence or as another source of information to guide the investigation with full appreciation of the limitations in its use."
Link: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
Once again, Ask a mathmatician or statistician if 75% to 97% is significantly better than chance. I'll save you the time. They'll tell you that it is significantly better than chance.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 02, 2009, 05:20 PMPolls, schmools!
Whatever happened to the "scientific method" we were all taught in school? If the theory that a polygraph machine can reliably detect lies is valid, don't take a poll, PROVE IT!
And if you CAN'T prove it, don't claim the theory is still valid just because the opposing side hasn't proved it NOT to be valid!
And that goes equally well for the theory of man-made global whining, I mean warming.
TC
Whatever happened to the "scientific method" we were all taught in school? If the theory that a polygraph machine can reliably detect lies is valid, don't take a poll, PROVE IT!
And if you CAN'T prove it, don't claim the theory is still valid just because the opposing side hasn't proved it NOT to be valid!
And that goes equally well for the theory of man-made global whining, I mean warming.
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 02, 2009, 02:56 PMQuote from: pailryder on Mar 02, 2009, 02:24 PMMr Maschke
How do you square your claim of a scientific consensus against polygraph with the Gallop and Amato-Hounts poll results?
I agree with David Lykken, who discussed these polls in Chapter 12 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. His key criticisms of these polls are 1) the fact that respondents were asked about the usefulness of polygraph test interpretations, rather than their validity, and that even those who reject the latter may concede the former, 2) that no distinction was made between the CQT and the GKT, and respondents who thought polygraph interpretations useful may have had the latter technique in mind, and 3) the Honts-Amato poll had a low response rate.
In a better constructed poll by Lykken and William G. Iacono, only 36% of SPR members and 30% of APA Division One fellows responded "yes" when asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" More than a decade has passed since that poll, and I suspect that if a new poll were conducted today, those numbers would be lower.
Posted by Anonymous.com
- Mar 02, 2009, 02:54 PMCullen the point is if you presume polygraph research is inherently biased by their financial or prejudicial interest in the outcome. Then the NAS study is equally biased. Your bias argument absent proof of intentional falsification of results is neutral so you should move on.
But in George's response did you note how he carefully ignored, as you have, the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used?
Then there are the poll citations that show that your comments and his regarding how the scientific community views the polygraph wererefuted by Gallop and Amato-Honts poll results. Artfully ignored; at least until one of you figures out some way to accuse Gallup of bias.
He also seems to believe that research and changes in polygraph scoring criteria haven't occurred because nobody mailed him a copy.
If he wants to look at some of the new stuff he needs to start with the names I gave him. Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc.
I would expect that type of artless or naive reasoning from someone who thought that Columbus was the one who discovered the world was round, but George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.
But in George's response did you note how he carefully ignored, as you have, the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used?
Then there are the poll citations that show that your comments and his regarding how the scientific community views the polygraph wererefuted by Gallop and Amato-Honts poll results. Artfully ignored; at least until one of you figures out some way to accuse Gallup of bias.
He also seems to believe that research and changes in polygraph scoring criteria haven't occurred because nobody mailed him a copy.
If he wants to look at some of the new stuff he needs to start with the names I gave him. Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc.
I would expect that type of artless or naive reasoning from someone who thought that Columbus was the one who discovered the world was round, but George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.
Posted by pailryder
- Mar 02, 2009, 02:48 PMMr Cullen
I don't have any problem with the NAS report. Polygraph as a profession has nothing to fear from valid, thoughtful criticism. We get our share, much of it richly deserved. In fact, much can be learned from it. Everyone knows I visit and post often and will say again I have learned much here.
The NAS took great pains to explain that while the accuracy rates of the 56 studies it accepted as valid ranged between 70 and 90 percent, they were not really that high. But they did not cite any studies to back that conclusion.
If a technique with a long history of use has a 70 to 90 accuracy, as determined by its harshest critics, and 56 valid studies to back it up, wouldn't you like to be able to cite at least one study to support your opinion?
I don't have any problem with the NAS report. Polygraph as a profession has nothing to fear from valid, thoughtful criticism. We get our share, much of it richly deserved. In fact, much can be learned from it. Everyone knows I visit and post often and will say again I have learned much here.
The NAS took great pains to explain that while the accuracy rates of the 56 studies it accepted as valid ranged between 70 and 90 percent, they were not really that high. But they did not cite any studies to back that conclusion.
If a technique with a long history of use has a 70 to 90 accuracy, as determined by its harshest critics, and 56 valid studies to back it up, wouldn't you like to be able to cite at least one study to support your opinion?
Posted by pailryder
- Mar 02, 2009, 02:24 PMMr Maschke
How do you square your claim of a scientific consensus against polygraph with the Gallop and Amato-Hounts poll results?
How do you square your claim of a scientific consensus against polygraph with the Gallop and Amato-Hounts poll results?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 02, 2009, 01:54 PMQuote#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
It is true that funding for the NAS study was not directly appropriated by Congress. The direct source was the Department of Energy (which is funded by Congress). Then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, a prominent advocate of polygraph screening, agreed to fund the polygraph review at the behest of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), a member of the Senate Energy Committee.
The bottom line is that your claim that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was biased because the panel was "funded by donations by the...scientists at DOE" is unfounded (not to mention ludicrous).
Quote#2 I see its time for you to start another FOIA request
Perhaps, but major changes in polygraph scoring criteria are not (and as a practical matter cannot) be effected in secret. And I've seen no evidence that the kind of change you suggest has occurred.
Quote#3 I see you agreethat peer reviewed polygraph research moves forward post NAS and since NAS recommended computerized analysis,
Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them.
I surmise that you're proabably referring to Objective Scoring System developed by Raymond Nelson and others. But no amount of computerization can compensate for polygraphic lie detection's lack of scientific underpinnings. As Dr. Al Zelicoff, speaking at the first public meeting of the NAS polygraph review panel, aptly put it: "From a medical and scientific standpoint, it is not sufficient to measure well that which should not be measured in the first place."
Computerization of polygraph chart readings may help to standardize the scoring of polygraph charts, but it can no more add validity to the underlying procedure than can the computerization of astrological chart readings.
QuoteYou see George, The reason that I don't cite studies for you is that I have seen what you do with the old ones....
I thought you said the reason you decline to cite studies is that you "have no intention of doing research for [my] next edition." I don't buy either explanation. When you decline to cite studies to back your claims, I think the more likely explanation is that...you can't.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 02, 2009, 01:37 PMQuote#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
In earlier posts, you said the source of funding and peer reviewing of studies don't really matter that much. That regarding polygraph studies funded by the APA.
All of a sudden, the NAS report is biased because you claim funding came from private sources.
At any point, as I've asked pailryder, what is it precisely in the NAS report do you find to be so much in error, and why? Particularly, in the conclusion section of the report.
TC
Posted by Anonymous Too
- Mar 02, 2009, 12:16 PMYou may have done your homework but obviously not too recently
#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
#2 I see its time for you to start another FOIA request
#3 I see you agree that peer reviewed polygraph research moves forward post NAS and since NAS recommended computerized analysis,
Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them.
You see George, The reason that I don't cite studies for you is that I have seen what you do with the old ones. I don't think you even bother to read them if they happen to disagree with your preconceived notions. All you intend to do is research the persons who participated in the studies and then accuse them of bias like it is somehow wrong for a researcher to have any interest in the outcome of the study.
That is a spurious and ad hominum argument because you know, or should know, that researchers don't research anything in which they don't have an interest. The proper way to refute a study is to replicate or conduct your own research and see if it refutes the findings of the previous study. Then both sets of results can be weighed by the scientific community. But wait, you don't have the qualifications to do that and it doesn't seem like you have the ability to find someone who does, or willing to take on the project.
Whenever you read studies by polygraph researchers like Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc who are qualified to conduct polygraph research and have completed studies post NAS all you can do is cry bias because to can't refute their findings.
You make broad claims about scientists negative opinions about polygraph, but pay little attention to the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used.
You ignore that in the 80s a Gallup poll of the membership of the Society for Psychophysiological Research which indicated that approximately two-thirds of the scientists polled reported favorable opinions concerning the usefulness of polygraph tests, only one percent believed polygraph had no value. Ten years later the study was replicated by Honts and Amato with virtually the same results except they asked additional questions to separate out the respondents who reported themselves highly informed about polygraph. 83 % of this "highly informed" subset gave favorable responses towards polygraph the usefulness of polygraph.
Gallup Organization (1984). Survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinions of polygraph test interpretation Polygraph, 13, 153-165
Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22
So are you going to refute their findings or criticize the source for bias?
#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
#2 I see its time for you to start another FOIA request
#3 I see you agree that peer reviewed polygraph research moves forward post NAS and since NAS recommended computerized analysis,
Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them.
You see George, The reason that I don't cite studies for you is that I have seen what you do with the old ones. I don't think you even bother to read them if they happen to disagree with your preconceived notions. All you intend to do is research the persons who participated in the studies and then accuse them of bias like it is somehow wrong for a researcher to have any interest in the outcome of the study.
That is a spurious and ad hominum argument because you know, or should know, that researchers don't research anything in which they don't have an interest. The proper way to refute a study is to replicate or conduct your own research and see if it refutes the findings of the previous study. Then both sets of results can be weighed by the scientific community. But wait, you don't have the qualifications to do that and it doesn't seem like you have the ability to find someone who does, or willing to take on the project.
Whenever you read studies by polygraph researchers like Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc who are qualified to conduct polygraph research and have completed studies post NAS all you can do is cry bias because to can't refute their findings.
You make broad claims about scientists negative opinions about polygraph, but pay little attention to the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used.
You ignore that in the 80s a Gallup poll of the membership of the Society for Psychophysiological Research which indicated that approximately two-thirds of the scientists polled reported favorable opinions concerning the usefulness of polygraph tests, only one percent believed polygraph had no value. Ten years later the study was replicated by Honts and Amato with virtually the same results except they asked additional questions to separate out the respondents who reported themselves highly informed about polygraph. 83 % of this "highly informed" subset gave favorable responses towards polygraph the usefulness of polygraph.
Gallup Organization (1984). Survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinions of polygraph test interpretation Polygraph, 13, 153-165
Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22
So are you going to refute their findings or criticize the source for bias?