- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 25, 2002, 01:20 PMThe value of scientific peer-review becomes apparent when one reads the Operations Research Office's non-peer-reviewed January 1951 "Report on the Possible Uses of the Polygraph and Supplemental Report on the Examination of Korean Nationals and Communist Chinese," which advocates use of the Relevant/Irrelevant "test" for screening purposes.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 12, 2002, 06:28 PMPDD-Fed,
The article you cite appeared in the Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science, which was founded by law professor (and polygrapher) Fred E. Inbau and is hardly a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Although I don't have ready access to the text of this article, the title itself suggests that it is not a validity study.
Is this the best evidence for the validity of R/I polygraphy that you (and the polygraph community) can come up with?
The article you cite appeared in the Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science, which was founded by law professor (and polygrapher) Fred E. Inbau and is hardly a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Although I don't have ready access to the text of this article, the title itself suggests that it is not a validity study.
Is this the best evidence for the validity of R/I polygraphy that you (and the polygraph community) can come up with?
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Jun 12, 2002, 06:04 PMGeorge,
You asked:
I am not sure if this article from the Northwestern University School of Law is "peer reviewed", but please take a look. According to this particular research study, the R&I was highly accurate in detecting truth/deception:
Blum R; Osterloh,W., The polygraph examination as a means for detecting truth and falsehood in stories presented by police informants. Journal of Criminal Law, Crime and Police Science 1968; 59; 133-137.
PDD-Fed
You asked:
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 11, 2002, 04:30 PM
Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!
[/b]
I am not sure if this article from the Northwestern University School of Law is "peer reviewed", but please take a look. According to this particular research study, the R&I was highly accurate in detecting truth/deception:
Blum R; Osterloh,W., The polygraph examination as a means for detecting truth and falsehood in stories presented by police informants. Journal of Criminal Law, Crime and Police Science 1968; 59; 133-137.
PDD-Fed
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 12, 2002, 03:27 PMQuote from: PDD-FEd on Jun 11, 2002, 06:04 PMWell George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology." Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way to discredit that particular study or studies. You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue. You really need to be a little more open minded....
PDD-Fed
P.S. I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night. While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep. I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view....
This represents your best effort? No wonder our federal government is in such a shambles.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 12, 2002, 06:40 AMQuote from: PDD-FEd on Jun 11, 2002, 06:04 PM
George, you said,
Well George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology." Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way to discredit that particular study or studies. You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue. You really need to be a little more open minded....
PDD-Fed
P.S. I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night. While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep. I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view....
PDD-Fed,
Ad hominem arguments that I need to be "a little more open-minded" and "get a little more sleep" do nothing to support the notion that the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique (your bread and butter, PDD-Fed) has any more validity than a tarot card reading. I expected better from someone who purports to have a master's degree...
In the message thread, Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique you protested:
QuoteFrankly, your endless depiction of the polygraph community as a wagon train of card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies, is not only inaccurate, but is getting really, really "old."
Then please show us that you and your fellow practitioners of the R/I technique are not a "wagon train of card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies" (my apologies to card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies for the comparison to polygraphers) by directing us to any peer-reviewed research which supports the validity of your methodology.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 12, 2002, 01:59 AMQuote from: PDD-FEd on Jun 11, 2002, 06:04 PM
P.S. I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night. While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep. I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view....
With characteristic lack of attention to detail and available statistics, you failed to notice the actual pattern. Mr. Maschke rarely posts between the hours of 17:00 and 01:00 (only about 4 of his last 50 posts). This indicates a regular, reasonable rest period of about 7-8 hours, but jump to your own conclusions...
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 11, 2002, 07:27 PMPDD-Fed,
I don't know, but suspect you are correct. Mr. Maschke probably devotes countless hours to the work connected with this web site. Those who read this material, particularly the victims of polygraphy, and the American public are deeply indebted to him and Mr. Scalabrini. I for one am even glad that you awakened to post your reply. Unfortunately you forgot to address the main and boldly highlighted question put to you:
I don't know, but suspect you are correct. Mr. Maschke probably devotes countless hours to the work connected with this web site. Those who read this material, particularly the victims of polygraphy, and the American public are deeply indebted to him and Mr. Scalabrini. I for one am even glad that you awakened to post your reply. Unfortunately you forgot to address the main and boldly highlighted question put to you:
Quote...Can anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!...
Posted by PDD-FEd
- Jun 11, 2002, 06:04 PMGeorge, you said,
Well George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology." Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way to discredit that particular study or studies. You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue. You really need to be a little more open minded....
PDD-Fed
P.S. I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night. While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep. I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view....
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 11, 2002, 04:30 PM
If the polygraph community cannot or will not answer this question, then perhaps those polygaphers who continue to use the R/I technique (as well as the corrupt and/or incompetent DoDPI officials who sanction it) should be held personally liable in any civil and/or criminal litigation that might arise from the federal government's arbitrary and capricious misuse of this thoroughly discredited methodology.
Well George, according to you, all polygraph procedures are "thoroughly discredited methodology." Even when users of CQT's and other methods attempt to produce research (including DoDPI research), that support various polygraph methodologies, you immediately find a way to discredit that particular study or studies. You see George, although you like to project an air of concerned objectivity, you are in fact quite polarized on this issue. You really need to be a little more open minded....
PDD-Fed
P.S. I have noticed that you reply to posts on this site at all hours of the day and night. While your dedication to your cause is commendable, I strongly suggest you get a little more sleep. I am sure it will improve your disposition and more importantly a rested mind has got to be more open to all points of view....
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 11, 2002, 04:30 PMCan anyone in the polygraph community cite any peer-reviewed study whatsoever indicating that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique works any better than a coin flip, a Magic 8-Ball, or a ouija board (i.e., chance)?!
It appears that the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) has not conducted any research whatsoever into the validity of the R/I technique. (See the message thread DSS Withholds R/I Screening Documentation.) Nonetheless, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, formerly of DoDPI, has suggested the R/I technique as an alternative to the "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) in instances where the subject admits to being familiar with CQT methodology. (See the message thread, Countermeasure considerations for the innocent). And "PDD-Fed" has offered the R/I technique as one that is immune to physical countermeasures. (See the message thread, Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique). PDD-Fed has further indicated that based on R/I chart readings alone, and absent any admissions from a subject, he will render an opinion of "significant response" (which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as "deception indicated," or "failing").
Now, the American Polygraph Association purports to be "Dedicated to Truth" (APA motto), and DoDPI supposedly seeks to further "Security and Justice Through Truth" (DoDPI motto).
So answer truthfully, all ye polygraphers who read this! Absent any substantive admission on the subject's part, on what rational basis can a polygrapher possibly conclude that a subject was deceptive as a result of "failing" a R/I "test?!"
If the polygraph community cannot or will not answer this question, then perhaps those polygaphers who continue to use the R/I technique (as well as the corrupt and/or incompetent DoDPI officials who sanction it) should be held personally liable in any civil and/or criminal litigation that might arise from the federal government's arbitrary and capricious misuse of this thoroughly discredited methodology.
It appears that the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) has not conducted any research whatsoever into the validity of the R/I technique. (See the message thread DSS Withholds R/I Screening Documentation.) Nonetheless, Dr. Gordon H. Barland, formerly of DoDPI, has suggested the R/I technique as an alternative to the "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) in instances where the subject admits to being familiar with CQT methodology. (See the message thread, Countermeasure considerations for the innocent). And "PDD-Fed" has offered the R/I technique as one that is immune to physical countermeasures. (See the message thread, Ways to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique). PDD-Fed has further indicated that based on R/I chart readings alone, and absent any admissions from a subject, he will render an opinion of "significant response" (which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as "deception indicated," or "failing").
Now, the American Polygraph Association purports to be "Dedicated to Truth" (APA motto), and DoDPI supposedly seeks to further "Security and Justice Through Truth" (DoDPI motto).
So answer truthfully, all ye polygraphers who read this! Absent any substantive admission on the subject's part, on what rational basis can a polygrapher possibly conclude that a subject was deceptive as a result of "failing" a R/I "test?!"
If the polygraph community cannot or will not answer this question, then perhaps those polygaphers who continue to use the R/I technique (as well as the corrupt and/or incompetent DoDPI officials who sanction it) should be held personally liable in any civil and/or criminal litigation that might arise from the federal government's arbitrary and capricious misuse of this thoroughly discredited methodology.