- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 16, 2002, 02:04 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 16, 2002, 01:30 AM
As for polygraphers polygraphing other polygraphers, I would imagine most polygraphers do actually believe the polygraph detects deception with some reliability, thanks to confirmation bias.
I don't see how polygraphers can believe this since they understand full well what a PLT (most common CQT) involves and it's essence is getting the subject to lie AND feel threatened by it.
Group think is a dangerous thing yet it has it's value as each of us only has so much time to sift through info. BTW, I heard Cialdini (Referred to often in the Polygraph Handbook) at a skeptic's lecture at Caltech. He was quite impressive and I have found his text on persuasion, er, compelling. He was called the leading authority in "compliance psychology", apparently a key component to polygraphy.
"The Truth Shall Set You Free"
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 16, 2002, 01:30 AMQuote from: Marty on Sep 16, 2002, 01:06 AM
True, but I was extending it to "fear of consequences", which impacts both the guilty and innocent alike. My guess is that if the suspect knew that the polygrapher could conclude he lied but that there was no consequence the suspect's reaction would be quite attenuated. OTOH, if one was accused of rape one is likely nearly as concerned about "fear of consequences" whether guillty or innocent - unless there is other evidence of guilt/innocence extant. Many criminals don't feel guilty about their crimes but are very concerned about consequences. Innocent people are also concerned. I guess one of the "arts" of the polygrapher is to properly condition the examinee to actually believe the instrument will detect deception. How they do that or try to do that with people who understand polygraphy (such as other polygraphers) is something I have been unable to learn. My personal distaste is that I don't like being lied to so I find the process distasteful and feel for innocent others that are exposed to it. OTOH, I wish there was a reliable way to detect deception ....
Actually, I think we're discussing the same thing. I consider "fear of consequences" to be a significant confound of the polygraph process, as well. The fact that such fear would not be present in Mills' test should not be a factor, were the polygraph actually a lie detector. I think we agree that it would be a factor (among others) and hence Mills' challenge would demonstrate the inefficacy of the polygraph at lie detection.
As for polygraphers polygraphing other polygraphers, I would imagine most polygraphers do actually believe the polygraph detects deception with some reliability, thanks to confirmation bias. Much the same phenomenon is found in astrology.
I'll have to post my own experience with "fear of consequences" sometime.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 16, 2002, 01:06 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 15, 2002, 09:54 PM
Actually, I think "fear of detection" is the predominant theory in polygraphy -- the idea that one doesn't want to be caught in a lie, period. Introduce the idea that "fear of consequences" is the major determinant, and you largely confound the process.
True, but I was extending it to "fear of consequences", which impacts both the guilty and innocent alike. My guess is that if the suspect knew that the polygrapher could conclude he lied but that there was no consequence the suspect's reaction would be quite attenuated. OTOH, if one was accused of rape one is likely nearly as concerned about "fear of consequences" whether guillty or innocent - unless there is other evidence of guilt/innocence extant. Many criminals don't feel guilty about their crimes but are very concerned about consequences. Innocent people are also concerned. I guess one of the "arts" of the polygrapher is to properly condition the examinee to actually believe the instrument will detect deception. How they do that or try to do that with people who understand polygraphy (such as other polygraphers) is something I have been unable to learn. My personal distaste is that I don't like being lied to so I find the process distasteful and feel for innocent others that are exposed to it. OTOH, I wish there was a reliable way to detect deception ....
BTW. In Japan criminal investigation, the GKT is dominant. So dominant that 40% of polygraphers in Japan have never given a CQT (M. Nakayama, 2002) . Yet the CQT is so ingrained that there seems to be little effort/interest in changing in spite of widely acknowledged deficiencies.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 15, 2002, 09:54 PMQuote from: Marty on Sep 15, 2002, 08:37 PM
To be fair, polygraphers don't claim to detect truth or lies (apart from the "stim" test -lol), rather some form of stress associated with lies of consequence. The only obvious form of stress here would be the fear that the polygrapher could be shown to be wrong. Far better to stick to questions that can't be proven hence can't cast doubt on the process. Try going to a psychic and asking them to prove themselves by answering those questions. The only thing they will show you is the door.
What would be needed is some way to provide the stress factor from consequences then one could more easily validate or invalidate the process.
-Marty
Actually, I think "fear of detection" is the predominant theory in polygraphy -- the idea that one doesn't want to be caught in a lie, period. Introduce the idea that "fear of consequences" is the major determinant, and you largely confound the process.
And I believe most polygraphers do associate the polygraph with lie detection. Why else conduct the "tests"?
As for psychics refusing to answer the same questions, I completely agree with you. To me, this simply points out that polygraphy rests on similar footing.
If most polygraphers would refute the "lie detector" nickname of polygraphs and acknowledge they cannot detect lies with any certainty using their equipment, the world would be a better place. They would also be out of business very quickly.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 15, 2002, 08:37 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 15, 2002, 04:22 PM
OTOH, no valid psychological test would have any trouble with such a procedure.
To be fair, polygraphers don't claim to detect truth or lies (apart from the "stim" test -lol), rather some form of stress associated with lies of consequence. The only obvious form of stress here would be the fear that the polygrapher could be shown to be wrong. Far better to stick to questions that can't be proven hence can't cast doubt on the process. Try going to a psychic and asking them to prove themselves by answering those questions. The only thing they will show you is the door.
What would be needed is some way to provide the stress factor from consequences then one could more easily validate or invalidate the process.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 15, 2002, 04:22 PMQuote from: Bruce Burgess on Sep 15, 2002, 02:57 PM
David e-mail me in england I will reply with reasons why any competent polygrapher could not run a test as you ask
Bruce Burgess
OTOH, no valid psychological test would have any trouble with such a procedure. It's about as close to a double blind testing procedure as you could ask for polygraphy, which is standard fare in legitimate science.
Perhaps not knowing the answers gets in the way of polygraphers contacting the spirits?
Skeptic
Posted by Bruce Burgess
- Sep 15, 2002, 02:57 PMDavid e-mail me in england I will reply with reasons why any competent polygrapher could not run a test as you ask
Bruce Burgess
Bruce Burgess
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 01, 2002, 06:52 AMIn his book Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, David Mills describes an experiment he attempted in 1995:
QuoteIn point of fact, there is a verifiable method of determining the accuracy of a polygraph examination -- a method which I myself desperately sought to pursue in 1995. I had been extremely skeptical for some years about the scientific basis of these tests; so I attempted to conduct my own experiment by undergoing several polygraph examinations myself. I sent the following letter to fourteen different businesses which advertised themselves in the Yellow Pages or on the Internet as "Polygraph Examiners":
"Dear Sir:
"I understand that you conduct polygraph examinations for hire. At your convenience, I wish to schedule such an appointment. I am researching the scientific validity of the polygraph device and want to undergo the examination myself. My intention is to incorporate your test results into an anonymous statistical analysis, along with results submitted by other polygraph examiners. I wish your examiner to report whether, during my examination, I truthfully answer each of the following 25 questions:
1. Did your father serve in World War II?
2. Was your first car a Volkswagen?
3. Do you live in a brick house?
4. Is your middle name Allen?
5. Do you have two brothers?
6. Did you wear braces on your teeth as a teenager?
7. Is your shoe size 10?
8. Have you ever broken a bone in your body?
9. Did your mother attend high school with Soupy Sales?
10. Did you vote for Walter Mondale in 1984?
11. Do you frequently watch Zorro on the Disney Channel?
12. Are both of your wife's parents deceased?
13. Is your second cousin Gene Cernan?
14. Did you ever shake hands with Princess Diana?
15. Have you ever tasted coleslaw?
16. Is your daughter's hair brown?
17. Do you live on a one-way street?
18. Have you visited the State of Michigan?
19. Were you married in Poland?
20. Do you currently own a Japanese car?
21. Does your mother-in-law live on Staten Island?
22. Are you a graduate of Ohio University?
23. Have you ever smoked a pipe?
24. Do you have diabetes?
25. Did you ever ride a motorcycle?"
Because of the ubiquitous sloth, discourtesy, and inefficiency of the American business community, I fully expected that some of my written appeals to the polygraphers would go unanswered. That is why I sent out fourteen letters when my actual intention was to undergo only four or five examinations. Even I was surprised, however, when none of the fourteen polygraph consultants agreed to examine me. Only one of the fourteen bothered to contact me at all, writing that "We prefer to deal with group contracts rather than individuals."
While I hesitate to play "mind reader," I think it's fairly clear that the primary reason that the polygraph examiners refused my money was that I would obviously know damn well whether I was lying or telling the truth in answer to my own self-written questions. The person actually being tested, therefore, would not be me, but the polygraph examiner and the polygraph device itself. Apparently, none of these fourteen businesses had enough confidence in their nervousness-detecting gizmo to accept my money and to be held accountable -- even anonymously! -- for the accuracy of their tests.