- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sie
- Feb 03, 2003, 05:46 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Feb 03, 2003, 02:26 AMThe best counter to countermeasures would be the revelation of the ability to detect them without any uncertainty. Perhaps thats why you except rather than accept the challenge here. Because our intelligence community lacks this ability. (BTW, this would be a perfect venue and such a revelation would surely bolster National Security not threaten it.)
Wow! I can't believe we've revived this old thread. Anyway, I could not resist this reply.
We do EXCEPT this challenge!! It is EXCEPTED from a list of serious concerns with which examiners, national security professionals, and law enforcement professionals have to deal each day. And, I do take EXCEPTION to such comments that examiners are afraid of this challenge. I (and many others like me) ACCEPT this challenge each day, but not in Drew or George's forum...rather in real world investigations wherein we seek to identify criminals, and eliminate the innocent, even if they try to use countermeasures!
Regards!
My Country is at war and the people who wish to harm us know our weaknesses and it appears polygraph use is one. If what this site has to say about countermeasures is true that our intelligence community is unable to detect the use of countermeasures than this window of vulnerability should be shut. Do you not agree?
Or is the perservation of the tool more important?
Posted by Skeptic
- Feb 03, 2003, 03:42 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Feb 03, 2003, 03:22 AM
Skeptic,
With, all due respect, I believe I did stick to the point. I merely took advantage of sie's word usage to re-iterate the same point that is challenged over and over again. I thought it was a creative way to add a little interest in a topic in which we should quickly lose interest (since nothing new comes out of the argument over the "challenge"). If my methodology seemed mean-spirited, then I apologize to both you and sie.
I'll save mean-spiritedness for my rebuttals of personal attacks from Beech. He seems to take it almost as well as he dishes it out.
Regards.
Actually, I'd say it's not mean-spirited so much as it violates standard "rules of engagement" for online debate. Long experience shows that such flames almost always result in the degeneration of a thread of discussion from the relevant to the irrelevant. Rather like the inevitable death of a debate after someone brings up a "Hitler" or "Nazi" comparison.
Do as you will, of course -- it was clever way to turn a phrase. Perhaps I'm just tired of so little substance in these discussions, when I believe the issue deserves more serious scrutiny.
Skeptic
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 03:22 AMSkeptic,
With, all due respect, I believe I did stick to the point. I merely took advantage of sie's word usage to re-iterate the same point that is challenged over and over again. I thought it was a creative way to add a little interest in a topic in which we should quickly lose interest (since nothing new comes out of the argument over the "challenge"). If my methodology seemed mean-spirited, then I apologize to both you and sie.
I'll save mean-spiritedness for my rebuttals of personal attacks from Beech. He seems to take it almost as well as he dishes it out.
Regards.
With, all due respect, I believe I did stick to the point. I merely took advantage of sie's word usage to re-iterate the same point that is challenged over and over again. I thought it was a creative way to add a little interest in a topic in which we should quickly lose interest (since nothing new comes out of the argument over the "challenge"). If my methodology seemed mean-spirited, then I apologize to both you and sie.
I'll save mean-spiritedness for my rebuttals of personal attacks from Beech. He seems to take it almost as well as he dishes it out.
Regards.
Posted by Skeptic
- Feb 03, 2003, 03:00 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Feb 03, 2003, 02:26 AMP.S.,
Wow! I can't believe we've revived this old thread. Anyway, I could not resist this reply.
We do EXCEPT this challenge!! It is EXCEPTED from a list of serious concerns with which examiners, national security professionals, and law enforcement professionals have to deal each day. And, I do take EXCEPTION to such comments that examiners are afraid of this challenge. I (and many others like me) ACCEPT this challenge each day, but not in Drew or George's forum...rather in real world investigations wherein we seek to identify criminals, and eliminate the innocent, even if they try to use countermeasures!
Regards!
As long as you and other polygraphers refuse to back up these claims with scientific evidence, you simply have no leg on which to stand. The "evidence" you present here is a foolish thing upon which to base both our national security and criminal investigations, as it is likely riddled with observer bias and reproducability issues. Your refusal to demonstrate these claimed abilities with scientific rigour (to say nothing of the nature of the "proof" you provide) puts you on par with psychics.
BTW, as I indicated in another post, spelling and grammar flames add very little to any debate. I'm quite capable of them myself, and deliberately pass up ridiculing obvious errors virtually every time pro-polygraph people post.
Let's stick to the point.
Skeptic
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 02:26 AMWow! I can't believe we've revived this old thread. Anyway, I could not resist this reply.
We do EXCEPT this challenge!! It is EXCEPTED from a list of serious concerns with which examiners, national security professionals, and law enforcement professionals have to deal each day. And, I do take EXCEPTION to such comments that examiners are afraid of this challenge. I (and many others like me) ACCEPT this challenge each day, but not in Drew or George's forum...rather in real world investigations wherein we seek to identify criminals, and eliminate the innocent, even if they try to use countermeasures!
Regards!
QuoteAnd hopefully, when and if your able to identify a distinctive chart pattern indicating deliberate and intentional manipulation you would except the silly challenges put forth on this site. BTW, I do not consider this challenge as silly but rather a very serious matter.
We do EXCEPT this challenge!! It is EXCEPTED from a list of serious concerns with which examiners, national security professionals, and law enforcement professionals have to deal each day. And, I do take EXCEPTION to such comments that examiners are afraid of this challenge. I (and many others like me) ACCEPT this challenge each day, but not in Drew or George's forum...rather in real world investigations wherein we seek to identify criminals, and eliminate the innocent, even if they try to use countermeasures!
Regards!
Posted by sie
- Feb 02, 2003, 10:49 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Aug 21, 2002, 12:19 PM
Drew,
And, of course, you and the purveyors of this site have provided a mission for DoDPI researchers detracting from the aforementioned -- determining the effectiveness of counter-measures, how to identify them, and developing counter-countermeasures. (With all that on their plate who has time to answer silly challenges from this web site.
Public Servant
If the purveyors of this site have caused the Federal Govenment to open there eyes and accept the fact that our enemies have been manipulating the outcome of polygraph tests, obtaining access to classified information and than using it to harm US or our agents over seas, than thats a good thing.
And hopefully, when and if your able to identify a distinctive chart pattern indicating deliberate and intentional manipulation you would except the silly challenges put forth on this site. BTW, I do not consider this challenge as silly but rather a very serious matter.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 14, 2002, 12:43 PMPublic Servant,
Thank you for your last reply. I have largely come to the same conclusion as you regarding having reached a point of diminishing return in our ongoing discussions. I will leave off with just a couple of comments stemming from your last post.
I am afraid your desire to be vigilant is no substitute for or any evidence of reliably detecting countermeasures. Additionally, polygraph countermeasures have nothing to do with "trying to conceal information" for an innocent examinee, but with his attempting to assure a correct result (no deception indicated)--something you and lie detection polygraphy can not reasonably guarantee this individual through present practices.
I believe you have overlooked an issue with associated ethical implications considerably more serious and fundamental than the one you raise, i.e., allowing individuals and our nation to be harmed through the error of a procedure (polygraph screening) that has no theoretical basis and no validity in practice. If you and your colleagues were to have the interest you claim to be lacking and to address this problem, the issue you concern yourself with would be a considerably lesser problem for you.
Have a pleasant weekend and best wishes,
Drew Richardson
Thank you for your last reply. I have largely come to the same conclusion as you regarding having reached a point of diminishing return in our ongoing discussions. I will leave off with just a couple of comments stemming from your last post.
Quote...I will answer that challenge by continuing to be alert for the students of this site (or Doug Williams', etc) when they arrive in my office trying to conceal information.. It's not a public show like you and George want, but I'd say it's meeting the challenge...
I am afraid your desire to be vigilant is no substitute for or any evidence of reliably detecting countermeasures. Additionally, polygraph countermeasures have nothing to do with "trying to conceal information" for an innocent examinee, but with his attempting to assure a correct result (no deception indicated)--something you and lie detection polygraphy can not reasonably guarantee this individual through present practices.
Quote...I have repeatedly stated that I have little interest in screening exams aside from the ethical issues raised in efforts to try to help anyone...circumvent them...
I believe you have overlooked an issue with associated ethical implications considerably more serious and fundamental than the one you raise, i.e., allowing individuals and our nation to be harmed through the error of a procedure (polygraph screening) that has no theoretical basis and no validity in practice. If you and your colleagues were to have the interest you claim to be lacking and to address this problem, the issue you concern yourself with would be a considerably lesser problem for you.
Have a pleasant weekend and best wishes,
Drew Richardson
Posted by Public Servant
- Sep 14, 2002, 10:50 AMDrew,
Let me apologize if I seemed curt with my last response. However, I have lost some of my passion for this discourse. Perhaps, that indicates we have run out of common ground or we have run our disagreements to the ground. Or maybe, my constant travel and work, and a desire to spend my spare time with family, has drained the energy with which I started posting to this thread.
I re-read your posts and noted only two other issue to which you seemed to demand response. As to any others, I will allow you to have the last word for now (as with a few other comments from other contributors to this thread to which I did not respond).
The first issue was that of proving the ability to detect countermeasures. I do not speak for the rest of the polygraph community, but I will answer that challenge by continuing to be alert for the students of this site (or Doug Williams', etc) when they arrive in my office trying to conceal information regarding a felony investigation! It's not a public show like you and George want, but I'd say it's meeting the challenge!
Secondly, you asked me to quote research regarding the validity of screening examinations. I have repeatedly stated that I have little interest in screening exams aside from the ethical issues raised in efforts to try to help anyone (even criminals, and their ilk) circumvent them. I raised that issue in general involving countermeasures to all types of exams. While I do periodically review research, and I reviewed much research when I entered polygraphy (some of it required), I do not have a personal collection of such material. I also am presently limited by time and access to resources, just by virtue of location. Sometimes I am lucky to get to access internet sites like this.
As a follow up to this request, you asked of my scientific education credentials. I must confess that my undergraduate degree was of the liberal arts genre. However I did excel at many science course (elective and required) and feel I have a knack for areas such as human physiology. I have a quite extensive resume of professional education in criminal investigation, much of it including forensic science (though mostly at the technical-or "art"-level). My formal graduate studies are limited and somewhat unfocused. However, I intend to remedy that soon and may one day be qualified to discuss the issues at your level.
Which brings me to my closing point... Though my scientific credentials are meager at best, I believe I have held my own in discussing difficult issues with a PhD. I lack mostly in that I have not conducted, nor formally reviewed scientific research. And, I have not stayed abreast of all new research as it is accomplished and reported, as I am sure you do. However, when confronted with scholarly material such as the CNS research you attached to this thread, I have no problem comprehending it and coming up with appropriate follow up. I am not an exception. I am an average DoDPI graduate examiner. I would argue that my colleagues in no way lack in intellect and the capacity for critical thought. And, DoDPI provides them sufficent insight into the science (and art) of their profession, to comprehend the strengths and weeknesses of polygraph, and how to use it effectively as a tool for objective investigation.
Though I don't demand the last word here, I feel this discussion has run its course. However, I look forward to new discussions or something that may revive my interest in this one. As always, it has been a pleasure. I'll keep an eye out for more opportunities to engage you (and others) in such discussion.
Thanks,
Public Servant
Let me apologize if I seemed curt with my last response. However, I have lost some of my passion for this discourse. Perhaps, that indicates we have run out of common ground or we have run our disagreements to the ground. Or maybe, my constant travel and work, and a desire to spend my spare time with family, has drained the energy with which I started posting to this thread.
I re-read your posts and noted only two other issue to which you seemed to demand response. As to any others, I will allow you to have the last word for now (as with a few other comments from other contributors to this thread to which I did not respond).
The first issue was that of proving the ability to detect countermeasures. I do not speak for the rest of the polygraph community, but I will answer that challenge by continuing to be alert for the students of this site (or Doug Williams', etc) when they arrive in my office trying to conceal information regarding a felony investigation! It's not a public show like you and George want, but I'd say it's meeting the challenge!
Secondly, you asked me to quote research regarding the validity of screening examinations. I have repeatedly stated that I have little interest in screening exams aside from the ethical issues raised in efforts to try to help anyone (even criminals, and their ilk) circumvent them. I raised that issue in general involving countermeasures to all types of exams. While I do periodically review research, and I reviewed much research when I entered polygraphy (some of it required), I do not have a personal collection of such material. I also am presently limited by time and access to resources, just by virtue of location. Sometimes I am lucky to get to access internet sites like this.
As a follow up to this request, you asked of my scientific education credentials. I must confess that my undergraduate degree was of the liberal arts genre. However I did excel at many science course (elective and required) and feel I have a knack for areas such as human physiology. I have a quite extensive resume of professional education in criminal investigation, much of it including forensic science (though mostly at the technical-or "art"-level). My formal graduate studies are limited and somewhat unfocused. However, I intend to remedy that soon and may one day be qualified to discuss the issues at your level.
Which brings me to my closing point... Though my scientific credentials are meager at best, I believe I have held my own in discussing difficult issues with a PhD. I lack mostly in that I have not conducted, nor formally reviewed scientific research. And, I have not stayed abreast of all new research as it is accomplished and reported, as I am sure you do. However, when confronted with scholarly material such as the CNS research you attached to this thread, I have no problem comprehending it and coming up with appropriate follow up. I am not an exception. I am an average DoDPI graduate examiner. I would argue that my colleagues in no way lack in intellect and the capacity for critical thought. And, DoDPI provides them sufficent insight into the science (and art) of their profession, to comprehend the strengths and weeknesses of polygraph, and how to use it effectively as a tool for objective investigation.
Though I don't demand the last word here, I feel this discussion has run its course. However, I look forward to new discussions or something that may revive my interest in this one. As always, it has been a pleasure. I'll keep an eye out for more opportunities to engage you (and others) in such discussion.
Thanks,
Public Servant
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 09, 2002, 10:26 AMPublic Servant,
You write:
Although I suppose I could continue this, because you say and your post would further indicate a lack of time or motivation on your part for this interaction, I believe I will let this go for now. Should you care to further address any of the outstanding questions/points from my preceding six posts (adressed to you) at some future time, please feel free to do so, and I will pick up with further commentary as appropriate. Best Wishes,
Drew Richardson
You write:
Quote...I read the posts a while back but have not found the time or motivation to reply until now...
Although I suppose I could continue this, because you say and your post would further indicate a lack of time or motivation on your part for this interaction, I believe I will let this go for now. Should you care to further address any of the outstanding questions/points from my preceding six posts (adressed to you) at some future time, please feel free to do so, and I will pick up with further commentary as appropriate. Best Wishes,
Drew Richardson
Posted by Public Servant
- Sep 09, 2002, 10:06 AMDrew,
I read the posts a while back but have not found the time or motivation to reply until now. As I am limiting my time spent in front of a computer, I will only make a few points that I feel are necessary.
First of all, I am not, nor have I ever been, a part of the DoDPI research team. I presently lack the level of formal education necessary for such a position. I am merely a field examiner and criminal investigator.
I saw the weakness in my analogy to X-ray techs when I wrote the last post. However, I'd make two points. First, I know many techs who can make a good diagnosis (though it is obviously not official) just from experience. And, I'd argue, those with doctorates who have developed polygraph methodologies have come up with a standardized method to analyze the data collected. While a firm understanding of the physiology/psychology at work would be ideal (which I'd argue a graduate of DoDPI would possess regardless of preceeding or subsequent formal education), the simple matematical equation does not necessitate a PhD to determine if the examination had DI, Inc, or NDI indications. While skill at diagnosis is a necessary trait, it takes the intuition of a skilled, experienced investigator to determine which way an inconclusive should have gone or if false + or - has occurred -- not necessrily a psychologist or physiologist. And while researchers and instructors should always possess formal education and mastery of statistical analysis, empirical research, etc, a field examiner can do a great job with the basics. He only needs these if he wishes to scientifically evaluate for himself if his profession is based on solid research. And when you do this for a living, while posessing integrity and an open mind, you know if what you're doing works. Your demand for all examiners to be scientists sounds a bit elitist. As if a lowly criminal investigator with a liberal arts bachelor's degree (with a rigorous 13 week course plus 40 hours continuing ed each year) can not grasp what makes an effective exam. Please. Would just any old PhD, MD, PsyD, or JD, possess the personality to make the exam work in the first place? No. It takes a certain personality with some extra education and intellect, or a highly educated person with some very specific personality traits.
Which leads me to an aside about the system the bureau used in hiring you to be a scientist via being a special agent first. I am not saying that scientists (or other professionals) can not be good investigators but... The bureau seemed to pack their ranks with attorneys, accountants, scientists, etc, for a while, at the loss of experienced cops/detectives applying at the same time. I'll turn the table on your argument and say that perhaps the many black eyes the bureau has received over the last few years or so (to include the one this site seeks to produce) may stem from this investigative organization being run by attorneys, accountants, and scientists, instead of those with talents and experience in investigation. Just a thought.
I've run the course on my thoughts from your posts at this point. I'm a bit tired and busy so, I'll end it here. If I have not addressed all that you wished, feel free to list the questions you spoke of, or pose new ones.
Thanks,
Public Servant
I read the posts a while back but have not found the time or motivation to reply until now. As I am limiting my time spent in front of a computer, I will only make a few points that I feel are necessary.
First of all, I am not, nor have I ever been, a part of the DoDPI research team. I presently lack the level of formal education necessary for such a position. I am merely a field examiner and criminal investigator.
I saw the weakness in my analogy to X-ray techs when I wrote the last post. However, I'd make two points. First, I know many techs who can make a good diagnosis (though it is obviously not official) just from experience. And, I'd argue, those with doctorates who have developed polygraph methodologies have come up with a standardized method to analyze the data collected. While a firm understanding of the physiology/psychology at work would be ideal (which I'd argue a graduate of DoDPI would possess regardless of preceeding or subsequent formal education), the simple matematical equation does not necessitate a PhD to determine if the examination had DI, Inc, or NDI indications. While skill at diagnosis is a necessary trait, it takes the intuition of a skilled, experienced investigator to determine which way an inconclusive should have gone or if false + or - has occurred -- not necessrily a psychologist or physiologist. And while researchers and instructors should always possess formal education and mastery of statistical analysis, empirical research, etc, a field examiner can do a great job with the basics. He only needs these if he wishes to scientifically evaluate for himself if his profession is based on solid research. And when you do this for a living, while posessing integrity and an open mind, you know if what you're doing works. Your demand for all examiners to be scientists sounds a bit elitist. As if a lowly criminal investigator with a liberal arts bachelor's degree (with a rigorous 13 week course plus 40 hours continuing ed each year) can not grasp what makes an effective exam. Please. Would just any old PhD, MD, PsyD, or JD, possess the personality to make the exam work in the first place? No. It takes a certain personality with some extra education and intellect, or a highly educated person with some very specific personality traits.
Which leads me to an aside about the system the bureau used in hiring you to be a scientist via being a special agent first. I am not saying that scientists (or other professionals) can not be good investigators but... The bureau seemed to pack their ranks with attorneys, accountants, scientists, etc, for a while, at the loss of experienced cops/detectives applying at the same time. I'll turn the table on your argument and say that perhaps the many black eyes the bureau has received over the last few years or so (to include the one this site seeks to produce) may stem from this investigative organization being run by attorneys, accountants, and scientists, instead of those with talents and experience in investigation. Just a thought.
I've run the course on my thoughts from your posts at this point. I'm a bit tired and busy so, I'll end it here. If I have not addressed all that you wished, feel free to list the questions you spoke of, or pose new ones.
Thanks,
Public Servant
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 29, 2002, 12:43 PMPublic Servant,
I believe this is my sixth (and final) in a series of responses to you regarding your last post to me. I hope in addition to any comments you might care to offer, that you will answer my various questions contained throughout these posts. If it should be necessary or even helpful, I would be glad to extract and list those questions for you.
You write:
In my case, I arrived at that juncture (polygraph research) having taken several professional twists and turns following the time I received an undergraduate degree in chemistry from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Having worked for approximately 3 years as an organic chemist for a pharmaceutical company I was recruited by the FBI in connection with its "science program"-hiring category for Special Agents. At that time (and as far as I know this is still the case) all agents, including those who were hired with various future specialty assignments in mind, e.g. attorneys who would eventually be in the Office of General Counsel, accountants who might be in the Finance Division, and scientists in the FBI Laboratory, etc., served at least one initial field investigative assignment following new agent training at the FBI Academy in Quantico. The notion, which I believe to be well founded and which dated back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, was that one who would ultimately serve as a specialist would be more productive in that role if he/she had some prior field experience with the overall general product (law enforcement) of the parent organization. In my case, I served an initial assignment in the Bureau's Field Office in Chicago and was involved in general criminal work, organized crime investigations, and a brief assignment involving foreign counterintelligence matters.
Following that assignment I was assigned to the Laboratory Division and served as an examiner in the Chemistry Toxicology Unit. A few years later I was requested by the Bureau's Polygraph Unit on several occasions to conduct various toxicological examinations directed towards determining whether an examinee had used drugs in an effort to manipulate the results of a polygraph examination. In subsequent years, along with having maintained various personal contacts within the Polygraph Unit, and at a time I was involved in two doctoral programs (completed the coursework requirements for a Ph.D. degree in pharmacology and later the overall degree requirements for a Ph.D. degree in physiology), my research interests eventually led me to become involved in the Laboratory's polygraph research program at Quantico.
Your further write:
This is probably a good point for me to both end these series of posts and to reinforce the absolute need for a scientific background if one is to engage in procedures that purport to involve meaningful diagnosis. Although a confession by a guilty subject following a deceptive polygraph exam may anecdotally be quite useful to a case agent, the criminal justice system, and society in general, it has absolutely nothing to do with determining overall validity of a diagnostic procedure, e.g., polygraphy. Validity is not a function of and is not determined via good interviews, interrogations, or criminal investigations (although all of these things serve vital functions) but is soundly grounded and defined by principles of science. The problem with tying notions of validity to confessions is largely twofold: (1) Even a confession following a true positive polygraph exam is at best anecdotal and not suggestive of overall accuracy and validity, and as we know from various high profile recent (e.g., Daniel King) and other ongoing matters (e.g., Higazy?) that not all confessions are necessarily associated with guilt (The examiners involved, no doubt, believed the confessions obtained validated their respective tests, right?), and (2) More importantly, in the absence of a confession, a polygraph examiner with deceptive charts will most frequently not know (and certainly not know based on the "reading" of his charts) whether a guilty examinee has not "fessed up" or whether he is dealing with a false positive exam result and a subsequently falsely accused but completely innocent examinee. It is precisely this phenomenon (and trying to associate validity with confessions) that will of necessity lead polygraph examiners to underestimate the number of errors (false positives) that they make during any given time period.
Again, I believe there is no more appropriate way for me to close than with this subject and with what I believe to be a very clear example of why a science background and a statistical approach to evaluating evidence is not only desirable but essential if one is to be involved in assessing validity and other parameters of a diagnostic procedure. As always, best regards, and I will look forward to your various comments and answers to my questions,
Drew Richardson
I believe this is my sixth (and final) in a series of responses to you regarding your last post to me. I hope in addition to any comments you might care to offer, that you will answer my various questions contained throughout these posts. If it should be necessary or even helpful, I would be glad to extract and list those questions for you.
You write:
Quote...How does a person with a chemistry background end up in the polygraph field?...Why did the FBI hire you as a scientist, but place you in the field as a special agent first?...What type of work did you do with the bureau before going into the lab and poly?...
In my case, I arrived at that juncture (polygraph research) having taken several professional twists and turns following the time I received an undergraduate degree in chemistry from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Having worked for approximately 3 years as an organic chemist for a pharmaceutical company I was recruited by the FBI in connection with its "science program"-hiring category for Special Agents. At that time (and as far as I know this is still the case) all agents, including those who were hired with various future specialty assignments in mind, e.g. attorneys who would eventually be in the Office of General Counsel, accountants who might be in the Finance Division, and scientists in the FBI Laboratory, etc., served at least one initial field investigative assignment following new agent training at the FBI Academy in Quantico. The notion, which I believe to be well founded and which dated back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, was that one who would ultimately serve as a specialist would be more productive in that role if he/she had some prior field experience with the overall general product (law enforcement) of the parent organization. In my case, I served an initial assignment in the Bureau's Field Office in Chicago and was involved in general criminal work, organized crime investigations, and a brief assignment involving foreign counterintelligence matters.
Following that assignment I was assigned to the Laboratory Division and served as an examiner in the Chemistry Toxicology Unit. A few years later I was requested by the Bureau's Polygraph Unit on several occasions to conduct various toxicological examinations directed towards determining whether an examinee had used drugs in an effort to manipulate the results of a polygraph examination. In subsequent years, along with having maintained various personal contacts within the Polygraph Unit, and at a time I was involved in two doctoral programs (completed the coursework requirements for a Ph.D. degree in pharmacology and later the overall degree requirements for a Ph.D. degree in physiology), my research interests eventually led me to become involved in the Laboratory's polygraph research program at Quantico.
Your further write:
QuoteI have seen persons...question the validity of the exam because they are not successful at validating their results with admissions/confessions...
This is probably a good point for me to both end these series of posts and to reinforce the absolute need for a scientific background if one is to engage in procedures that purport to involve meaningful diagnosis. Although a confession by a guilty subject following a deceptive polygraph exam may anecdotally be quite useful to a case agent, the criminal justice system, and society in general, it has absolutely nothing to do with determining overall validity of a diagnostic procedure, e.g., polygraphy. Validity is not a function of and is not determined via good interviews, interrogations, or criminal investigations (although all of these things serve vital functions) but is soundly grounded and defined by principles of science. The problem with tying notions of validity to confessions is largely twofold: (1) Even a confession following a true positive polygraph exam is at best anecdotal and not suggestive of overall accuracy and validity, and as we know from various high profile recent (e.g., Daniel King) and other ongoing matters (e.g., Higazy?) that not all confessions are necessarily associated with guilt (The examiners involved, no doubt, believed the confessions obtained validated their respective tests, right?), and (2) More importantly, in the absence of a confession, a polygraph examiner with deceptive charts will most frequently not know (and certainly not know based on the "reading" of his charts) whether a guilty examinee has not "fessed up" or whether he is dealing with a false positive exam result and a subsequently falsely accused but completely innocent examinee. It is precisely this phenomenon (and trying to associate validity with confessions) that will of necessity lead polygraph examiners to underestimate the number of errors (false positives) that they make during any given time period.
Again, I believe there is no more appropriate way for me to close than with this subject and with what I believe to be a very clear example of why a science background and a statistical approach to evaluating evidence is not only desirable but essential if one is to be involved in assessing validity and other parameters of a diagnostic procedure. As always, best regards, and I will look forward to your various comments and answers to my questions,
Drew Richardson
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 28, 2002, 12:57 PMYankeedog,
You write (and I completely agree with-- both your assertions and your stated personal practice):
If our fellow classmates, their agencies, and the balance of your colleagues in the world of polygraphy adhered to that which you apparently (based on the material quoted above) believe and practice, I suspect this site would not exist and any need for me and others to expose wrongful and invalid practices would be substantially, if not altogether, reduced.
However, if you are suggesting to me that you believe polygraph-screening examinations, as generally administered to applicants, are "investigative tools", I'm afraid I must beg to differ. These exams could in theory more accurately be described as investigative tools if preceded by background investigations, allowing the focus of the exam to center on surfaced problem areas (the exam then becoming a specific issue test and potentially amenable to more sound information-based testing formats). The situation which largely exists and is comprised of either an exam which is done in the absence of a background investigation or one done prior to an investigation can hardly be described as investigation oriented or driven and is really nothing but a fishing expedition.
I, in turn, wish there were no reason for innocent examinees to have to consider, let alone employ countermeasures. As long as examinees are being victimized by the gross error associated with pre-employment polygraph screening (you might care to read the personal statements on this site if you have not already done so), I cannot in good conscience abstain from helping those who seek to help themselves. Of course, I would not, and have not, suggested to any who might care to employ countermeasures that they admit having done so to you or anyone else, and, as you may further realize from your reading of this site, I do not believe you or any of your colleagues can meaningfully detect (absent admissions) polygraph countermeasures.
Although we have discussed some areas of apparent agreement and disagreement, I largely believe that if all examiners agreed (and practiced accordingly) with you on the areas that you and I apparently share common ground, the points of disagreement would become largely moot.
Best Wishes (please extend to any other former classmates you may have remained in contact with),
Drew
You write (and I completely agree with-- both your assertions and your stated personal practice):
Quote...it would appear that there are some government agencies that make final decisions based SOLEY on the results of a polygraph examination... we DO NOT deny employment based solely on a "DI" polygraph test... Polygraph examiners should not be evaluated based on their admissions/confessions. That is where the door is open for them to "overstate" the admission/confession...
If our fellow classmates, their agencies, and the balance of your colleagues in the world of polygraphy adhered to that which you apparently (based on the material quoted above) believe and practice, I suspect this site would not exist and any need for me and others to expose wrongful and invalid practices would be substantially, if not altogether, reduced.
However, if you are suggesting to me that you believe polygraph-screening examinations, as generally administered to applicants, are "investigative tools", I'm afraid I must beg to differ. These exams could in theory more accurately be described as investigative tools if preceded by background investigations, allowing the focus of the exam to center on surfaced problem areas (the exam then becoming a specific issue test and potentially amenable to more sound information-based testing formats). The situation which largely exists and is comprised of either an exam which is done in the absence of a background investigation or one done prior to an investigation can hardly be described as investigation oriented or driven and is really nothing but a fishing expedition.
Quote...I just wish you wouldn't encourage the honest examinee to use countermeasures in a pre-employment test...The ones that have admitted to countermeasures to me have been eliminated from the employment process because of the actions...
I, in turn, wish there were no reason for innocent examinees to have to consider, let alone employ countermeasures. As long as examinees are being victimized by the gross error associated with pre-employment polygraph screening (you might care to read the personal statements on this site if you have not already done so), I cannot in good conscience abstain from helping those who seek to help themselves. Of course, I would not, and have not, suggested to any who might care to employ countermeasures that they admit having done so to you or anyone else, and, as you may further realize from your reading of this site, I do not believe you or any of your colleagues can meaningfully detect (absent admissions) polygraph countermeasures.
Although we have discussed some areas of apparent agreement and disagreement, I largely believe that if all examiners agreed (and practiced accordingly) with you on the areas that you and I apparently share common ground, the points of disagreement would become largely moot.
Best Wishes (please extend to any other former classmates you may have remained in contact with),
Drew
Posted by yankeedog
- Aug 28, 2002, 10:57 AMDrew,
I've read many of the posts on this web site. Some of what you say I totally agree with. I may be wrong, but it would appear that there are some government agencies that make final decisions based SOLEY on the results of a polygraph examination. I've been an examiner since 8 Nov 1991 (that date should be familiar to you Drew). I learned very early on in my polygraph career (long before I became an examiner)that it is ONLY AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL. It is not an absolute, but MOST of the time, if used properly, it can assist in, and not replace, an aggressive, thorough investigation. And that is exactly how I approach it, and it is how other agencies should approach it. I have since retired from Federal service and secured work doing the same thing, but now I can ensure that the police officers and police administration are fully aware of the limits of the polygraph. And I think we have been fairly successful. In fact, when I prepare my reports, I specifically note that the results of a polygraph examination should not be used as the sole basis to obtain an arrest warrant. When someone is "DI" on a test, there is a reason, and sometimes you just don't know why. And I don't pretend to know what is important to the examinee or read their mind. All I can do is try to figure out why the charts "indicate deception" and move on from there. And as for pre-employment screening, very few actually are "DI" to the test. I attribute that to a detailed "pre-test" to get everything out in the open. And well over 95% of the "DI" tests, provide an explanation (call it an admission or confession, I don't care) that satisfies me. But we DO NOT deny employment based soley on a "DI" polygraph test. I'll keep reading this site because I'm interested in the work you are doing. I'm open minded enough to look at making a better mouse trap. Polygraph examiners should not be evaluated based on their admissions/confessions. That is where the door is open for them to "overstate" the admission/confession. But it isn't just polygraph examiners that do it, law enforcement as a whole has this problem, but only with those who lack the integrity to report the facts. And I think a majority (I hope) of law enforcement officers do have that integrity. I just wish you wouldn't encourage the honest examinee to use countermeasures in a pre-employment test. I think it only hurts them. The ones that have admitted to countermeasures to me have been eliminated from the employment process because of the actions.
Talk to you later Drew
I've read many of the posts on this web site. Some of what you say I totally agree with. I may be wrong, but it would appear that there are some government agencies that make final decisions based SOLEY on the results of a polygraph examination. I've been an examiner since 8 Nov 1991 (that date should be familiar to you Drew). I learned very early on in my polygraph career (long before I became an examiner)that it is ONLY AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL. It is not an absolute, but MOST of the time, if used properly, it can assist in, and not replace, an aggressive, thorough investigation. And that is exactly how I approach it, and it is how other agencies should approach it. I have since retired from Federal service and secured work doing the same thing, but now I can ensure that the police officers and police administration are fully aware of the limits of the polygraph. And I think we have been fairly successful. In fact, when I prepare my reports, I specifically note that the results of a polygraph examination should not be used as the sole basis to obtain an arrest warrant. When someone is "DI" on a test, there is a reason, and sometimes you just don't know why. And I don't pretend to know what is important to the examinee or read their mind. All I can do is try to figure out why the charts "indicate deception" and move on from there. And as for pre-employment screening, very few actually are "DI" to the test. I attribute that to a detailed "pre-test" to get everything out in the open. And well over 95% of the "DI" tests, provide an explanation (call it an admission or confession, I don't care) that satisfies me. But we DO NOT deny employment based soley on a "DI" polygraph test. I'll keep reading this site because I'm interested in the work you are doing. I'm open minded enough to look at making a better mouse trap. Polygraph examiners should not be evaluated based on their admissions/confessions. That is where the door is open for them to "overstate" the admission/confession. But it isn't just polygraph examiners that do it, law enforcement as a whole has this problem, but only with those who lack the integrity to report the facts. And I think a majority (I hope) of law enforcement officers do have that integrity. I just wish you wouldn't encourage the honest examinee to use countermeasures in a pre-employment test. I think it only hurts them. The ones that have admitted to countermeasures to me have been eliminated from the employment process because of the actions.
Talk to you later Drew
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 27, 2002, 10:46 AMPublic Servant,
You write:
I don't believe the problem exists on that end of the spectrum. The problem is that a student is not required to have any specific scientific background.
If the polygraph exam were not intended (or at least represented as being ) to serve as a valid diagnostic technique (i.e. and not simply an interview/interrogation adjunct/prop), I would probably agree with you. However, one cannot be a weekend wonder with regard to the scientific underpinnings of polygraphy (all that a good comprehension of the basic psychology/physiology involved might imply (or require) to many examiners) and be a skilled diagnostician.
The most serious drawback to this lack of required formal education is that most examiners do not have the requisite background to understand why a technique/format and/or application is or is not valid in the first place. If they did, there would be no general polygraph screening programs in existence as well as the associated problems that have directly led to the creation of this web site. As I have said before, this type of exam is nothing but a fishing expedition with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice. I believe it to be accurate to say, not a single Ph.D. scientist in the country (outside of those who have been on the polygraph community payroll) would say that there is any validity whatsover to present polygraph screening programs. In fact, a few well known polygraph researchers who were previously employed in the federal polygraph research community, e.g., Charles Honts and Shelia Reed, have repeatedly condemned these techniques following their departure from government service.
I would like to believe that you understand and appreciate these validity considerations as well, but I am not sure. If you do not, I see no reason (from our previous exchanges) to believe that you are anything but genuine in your commentary, but likely lacking in the formal scientific education that would make these things readily apparent to you. Perhaps, as you and others have asked of me, you might share your thoughts regarding the validity of polygraph screening as A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL as well as to provide/list/discuss the components of your science education that are the basis for any conclusions you might have arrived at.
You write:
Quote...And why should it be required that an applicant to DoDPI has an extensive scientific background...
I don't believe the problem exists on that end of the spectrum. The problem is that a student is not required to have any specific scientific background.
Quote...To me it takes a good cop, with good interview skills, and above average intelligence (with good comprehension of the basic psychology/physiology involved) to run an effective exam....
If the polygraph exam were not intended (or at least represented as being ) to serve as a valid diagnostic technique (i.e. and not simply an interview/interrogation adjunct/prop), I would probably agree with you. However, one cannot be a weekend wonder with regard to the scientific underpinnings of polygraphy (all that a good comprehension of the basic psychology/physiology involved might imply (or require) to many examiners) and be a skilled diagnostician.
The most serious drawback to this lack of required formal education is that most examiners do not have the requisite background to understand why a technique/format and/or application is or is not valid in the first place. If they did, there would be no general polygraph screening programs in existence as well as the associated problems that have directly led to the creation of this web site. As I have said before, this type of exam is nothing but a fishing expedition with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice. I believe it to be accurate to say, not a single Ph.D. scientist in the country (outside of those who have been on the polygraph community payroll) would say that there is any validity whatsover to present polygraph screening programs. In fact, a few well known polygraph researchers who were previously employed in the federal polygraph research community, e.g., Charles Honts and Shelia Reed, have repeatedly condemned these techniques following their departure from government service.
I would like to believe that you understand and appreciate these validity considerations as well, but I am not sure. If you do not, I see no reason (from our previous exchanges) to believe that you are anything but genuine in your commentary, but likely lacking in the formal scientific education that would make these things readily apparent to you. Perhaps, as you and others have asked of me, you might share your thoughts regarding the validity of polygraph screening as A DIAGNOSTIC TOOL as well as to provide/list/discuss the components of your science education that are the basis for any conclusions you might have arrived at.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 26, 2002, 11:38 AMPublic Servant,
Taking up where we left off last week...
You write:
I have no idea what DoDPI's 500 level teaching refers to. The only way to evaluate DoDPI's program is not to look at course offerings/coursework descriptions/numeric levels in its academic handbook, but to have a paid outside and independent expert review the video tapes of the last one or two Basic Examiner's Course psychology and physiology courses (to include any student participation) and to examine all corresponding forms of coursework evaluation and examination.
The situation that existed at the time I went through DoDPI's program some years ago was as follows. The individual teaching psychology and physiology was more than qualified and credentialed to teach these courses at a master's level. (By the way, are these courses currently taught by Ph.D. level faculty? They were at that time). The problem that existed was not that the primary instructor could not teach, but that the students did not have the requisite background to learn at an appropriate level. This led to two absurdities. The instruction, of necessity, had to begin at a ridiculously low level (this is how a drop of blood traverses the circulatory system, etc. etc.) and the examination process was meaningless. The students were given all the questions (and corresponding answers) that they might be expected to answer on the various examinations. The only thing unknown to students was which subset of the totality of these questions might occur on any given examination.
If the background of current students is similar (i.e., if matriculation requirements are the same), the program will now be equally weak. There are a variety of ways to hide these weaknesses in the form of a an academic shell game, i.e., within any weaknesses that might exist in the instructor's credentials and background, the coursework taught (beginning level/depth of consideration), the evaluation process, etc., but one can be assured if student backgrounds are weak, the overall instructional program will be weak. Again, a review of the DoDPI academic handbook is a poor substitute for a rigorous analysis of any program you might care to evaluate.
I am glad you raised this analogy. I have seen it raised several times before, but I have not had the opportunity to critique it before. I believe you have missed the significance of your own analogy with regard to the following basic consideration. A radiology tech is simply that—one who using standard and easily documented and repeated techniques obtains one of several forms of raw data, e.g. a chest radiograph. This individual does not perform diagnosis, i.e., examine the radiograph for the purpose of identifying (or eliminating) various pathologies that might be suggested through this preliminary/screening medical technology. I believe you to be correct in your assessing a radiology tech's education to be appropriate for the task(s) he/she performs. If a polygraph examiner did nothing but collect raw data (for future analysis by a skilled diagnostician), I would have no problem with your analogy, and would agree that a polygraph examiner might well be suitably trained with comparable technical education. BUT, a polygraph examiner attempts/pretends to perform diagnosis as well, i.e. to make determinations about the presence or absence of deception based on his analysis of the raw data. This puts him in the situation of performing the analogous functions of both the radiology tech and the radiologist (educated with undergraduate degree, four year medical degree, internship, and residency specialty). If you are to follow your analogy to a logical conclusion, if the polygraph examiner is to perform both analogous functions, he should have an educational background corresponding to the sum of the educations of both the technician and the diagnostician.
Regards,
Drew Richardson
Taking up where we left off last week...
You write:
QuoteIf you re-examined the DoDPI curriculum, I believe you would see the psychology and physiology (and basic scientific research) are quite demanding and taught at the 500 level...
I have no idea what DoDPI's 500 level teaching refers to. The only way to evaluate DoDPI's program is not to look at course offerings/coursework descriptions/numeric levels in its academic handbook, but to have a paid outside and independent expert review the video tapes of the last one or two Basic Examiner's Course psychology and physiology courses (to include any student participation) and to examine all corresponding forms of coursework evaluation and examination.
The situation that existed at the time I went through DoDPI's program some years ago was as follows. The individual teaching psychology and physiology was more than qualified and credentialed to teach these courses at a master's level. (By the way, are these courses currently taught by Ph.D. level faculty? They were at that time). The problem that existed was not that the primary instructor could not teach, but that the students did not have the requisite background to learn at an appropriate level. This led to two absurdities. The instruction, of necessity, had to begin at a ridiculously low level (this is how a drop of blood traverses the circulatory system, etc. etc.) and the examination process was meaningless. The students were given all the questions (and corresponding answers) that they might be expected to answer on the various examinations. The only thing unknown to students was which subset of the totality of these questions might occur on any given examination.
If the background of current students is similar (i.e., if matriculation requirements are the same), the program will now be equally weak. There are a variety of ways to hide these weaknesses in the form of a an academic shell game, i.e., within any weaknesses that might exist in the instructor's credentials and background, the coursework taught (beginning level/depth of consideration), the evaluation process, etc., but one can be assured if student backgrounds are weak, the overall instructional program will be weak. Again, a review of the DoDPI academic handbook is a poor substitute for a rigorous analysis of any program you might care to evaluate.
Quote...I think your scientific background lends some bias to your opinions regarding what academic background an examiner in the field needs. He is a technician...Like the radiology tech who does just fine (often with a two year degree), taking X-rays without the radiologist (MD) being present....
I am glad you raised this analogy. I have seen it raised several times before, but I have not had the opportunity to critique it before. I believe you have missed the significance of your own analogy with regard to the following basic consideration. A radiology tech is simply that—one who using standard and easily documented and repeated techniques obtains one of several forms of raw data, e.g. a chest radiograph. This individual does not perform diagnosis, i.e., examine the radiograph for the purpose of identifying (or eliminating) various pathologies that might be suggested through this preliminary/screening medical technology. I believe you to be correct in your assessing a radiology tech's education to be appropriate for the task(s) he/she performs. If a polygraph examiner did nothing but collect raw data (for future analysis by a skilled diagnostician), I would have no problem with your analogy, and would agree that a polygraph examiner might well be suitably trained with comparable technical education. BUT, a polygraph examiner attempts/pretends to perform diagnosis as well, i.e. to make determinations about the presence or absence of deception based on his analysis of the raw data. This puts him in the situation of performing the analogous functions of both the radiology tech and the radiologist (educated with undergraduate degree, four year medical degree, internship, and residency specialty). If you are to follow your analogy to a logical conclusion, if the polygraph examiner is to perform both analogous functions, he should have an educational background corresponding to the sum of the educations of both the technician and the diagnostician.
Regards,
Drew Richardson