- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 16, 2003, 11:40 PMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 16, 2003, 09:59 PMRead, skimmed, what's the difference! Examiner's tend to lose interest as soon as they see the bias involved. Not really brave, just a good dose of reality.
What bias? You keep making a claim that the NAS' findings were biased, but you've provided nothing to support that claim except stating that it "could be" biased because of some cooky conspiracy theory that the NAS and DOE were in league together to destroy polygraphy. While I can appreciate such a goal, I don't think the members on the NAS panel are so corrupt that they would produce bogus findings for a major study.
If you know something I don't that supports your claim that the report was biased, then I would be very interesting in hearing what it is.
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 16, 2003, 09:59 PMRead, skimmed, what's the difference! Examiner's tend to lose interest as soon as they see the bias involved. Not really brave, just a good dose of reality.
Posted by anonymouse
- Jul 16, 2003, 07:37 PMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 16, 2003, 11:55 AMYou are correct, I just skimmed it. Bullshit nevertheless.
Not many men would be brave enough to admit they condemn a report they haven't actually read. Bravo polygrapher!
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 16, 2003, 04:41 PMI don't know much about Dr Drew. As I've seen on this website PhD stands for piled high and deeper. I think that was the way they characterized Mr Gelb. I haven't read anything on how Drew feels about CQT and I really don't care what he thinks. I use the technique regularly with excellent results. So in a nutshell, if Drew has a problem with it then yes, bullshit would be appropriate.
Polyscore is a bunch of crap. Great for interrogations though.
Former APA member. They really provided nothing of value.
Gotta go back to Cloud city.
Polyscore is a bunch of crap. Great for interrogations though.
Former APA member. They really provided nothing of value.
Gotta go back to Cloud city.
Posted by suethem
- Jul 16, 2003, 02:32 PMSaidme,
Is Dr. Drew Richardson's findings on the CQT bullshit too?
Your still here right? The mother ship hasn't scooped you up yet has it ?
What about polyscore? Are you a polyscore man?
Are you a APA guy as well?
Is Dr. Drew Richardson's findings on the CQT bullshit too?
Your still here right? The mother ship hasn't scooped you up yet has it ?
What about polyscore? Are you a polyscore man?
Are you a APA guy as well?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 16, 2003, 11:55 AMYou are correct, I just skimmed it. Bullshit nevertheless.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 16, 2003, 10:38 AMSaidme,
DoDPI (and DOE) were represented at all of the public meetings held by the NAS's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, and a number of Committee members also visited DoDPI (as well the DOE's test center in Albuquerque and the CIA's polygraph division). Representatives of other federal polygraph programs also attended the Committee's public meetings and participated in the discussions that were held. Your mistaken belief that DoDPI was not consulted suggests that you have not even bothered to read the report (The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that you so casually dismiss as "bullshit."
DoDPI (and DOE) were represented at all of the public meetings held by the NAS's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, and a number of Committee members also visited DoDPI (as well the DOE's test center in Albuquerque and the CIA's polygraph division). Representatives of other federal polygraph programs also attended the Committee's public meetings and participated in the discussions that were held. Your mistaken belief that DoDPI was not consulted suggests that you have not even bothered to read the report (The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that you so casually dismiss as "bullshit."
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 16, 2003, 03:17 AMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 15, 2003, 11:43 PMOnce again I will reiterate, I'm not concerned with the scientific validity of polygraph. I know as an investigative tool it works quite well. I don't have any study to back me up but I have 20+ years of law enforcement interviews and interrogations to back it up.
I will agree easily that the polygraph is probably awesome at getting confessions out of guilty people. However, as a tool for determining lies from truth, I think it's lack of scientific validity makes it worse than worthless. If you are going to argue that for the polygraph to work well, all it needs to do is get people to confess, then yes, it does work well. But what about those examinees who do not confess, and maintain sincerely that they have not lied during their exam? Without a sound scientific basis to back up the instrument's readings, you cannot conclusively say that they were deceptive.
At best, it is a convincing prop.
Posted by orolan
- Jul 16, 2003, 01:43 AMSaidme,
Personally, I have a new "Holy Grail" regarding the validity of the polygraph, and it meets the criteria the research used by the NAS does not. It is a real-world test, not a laboratory simulation, and the consequences of being found deceptive were quite real in the minds of the participants.
What is this new "Holy Grail"? It is the ELEVEN people who failed their polygraphs in the Molly Bish investigation. This is no "slap in the face". More like "run over by a Mack truck".
Perhaps the examiner who administered these examinations doesn't have the "interrogation" skills you have :-/
What I'm waiting to hear now is that the DNA evidence doesn't finger ANY of the eleven who failed. I won't stop laughing for a week.
Personally, I have a new "Holy Grail" regarding the validity of the polygraph, and it meets the criteria the research used by the NAS does not. It is a real-world test, not a laboratory simulation, and the consequences of being found deceptive were quite real in the minds of the participants.
What is this new "Holy Grail"? It is the ELEVEN people who failed their polygraphs in the Molly Bish investigation. This is no "slap in the face". More like "run over by a Mack truck".
Perhaps the examiner who administered these examinations doesn't have the "interrogation" skills you have :-/
What I'm waiting to hear now is that the DNA evidence doesn't finger ANY of the eleven who failed. I won't stop laughing for a week.
Posted by suethem
- Jul 16, 2003, 12:34 AMSaidme,
You never answered my questions about Dr. Drew Richardson's findings about the CQT?
Was he wrong too?
Are you a polyscore man? Or do you use another system?
You never answered my questions about Dr. Drew Richardson's findings about the CQT?
Was he wrong too?
Are you a polyscore man? Or do you use another system?
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 15, 2003, 11:59 PMSaidme,
You write:
With regard to the CQT polygraph-assisted interviews that are conducted today you are quite correct...they were nearly worthless before the existence of this site and they are nearly worthless now. The goal of this site is not to change that which you have traditionallly practiced, but to end it. This has obviously not yet been accomplished, but stay tuned...
You write:
Quote...All this website does is (in my view) extend the length of the interrogation/interview but in the end we get the same results....
With regard to the CQT polygraph-assisted interviews that are conducted today you are quite correct...they were nearly worthless before the existence of this site and they are nearly worthless now. The goal of this site is not to change that which you have traditionallly practiced, but to end it. This has obviously not yet been accomplished, but stay tuned...
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 15, 2003, 11:43 PMAbout time you guys (or gals) came out in force. You get real sensitive about that coveted holy grail you call the NAS Study. I can't respond to all of you but s-X-e put a quote from the NAS Study in here that sums it all up:
"The quality of studies varies considerably, but falls far short of what is desirable. Laboratory studies suffer from lack of realism, and in the randomized controlled studies focused on specific incidents using mock crimes, the consequences associated with lying or being judged deceptive almost never mirror the seriousness of these actions in real-world settings in which the polygraph is used. Field studies have major problems with identifying the truth against which test results should be judged. In addition, they suffer from problems associated with heterogeneity and lack of control of extraneous factors and more generally, they have lower quality than could be achieved with careful study design. Moreover, most of the research, in both the laboratory and in the field, does not fully address key potential threats to validity. For these reasons, study results cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts."
This statement pretty much sums it up. You can never conduct a true validity assessment unless you use real cases. I think I've made this point with the big guy (George). Once again I will reiterate, I'm not concerned with the scientific validity of polygraph. I know as an investigative tool it works quite well. I don't have any study to back me up but I have 20+ years of law enforcement interviews and interrogations to back it up. All this website does is (in my view) extend the length of the interrogation/interview but in the end we get the same results.
"The quality of studies varies considerably, but falls far short of what is desirable. Laboratory studies suffer from lack of realism, and in the randomized controlled studies focused on specific incidents using mock crimes, the consequences associated with lying or being judged deceptive almost never mirror the seriousness of these actions in real-world settings in which the polygraph is used. Field studies have major problems with identifying the truth against which test results should be judged. In addition, they suffer from problems associated with heterogeneity and lack of control of extraneous factors and more generally, they have lower quality than could be achieved with careful study design. Moreover, most of the research, in both the laboratory and in the field, does not fully address key potential threats to validity. For these reasons, study results cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts."
This statement pretty much sums it up. You can never conduct a true validity assessment unless you use real cases. I think I've made this point with the big guy (George). Once again I will reiterate, I'm not concerned with the scientific validity of polygraph. I know as an investigative tool it works quite well. I don't have any study to back me up but I have 20+ years of law enforcement interviews and interrogations to back it up. All this website does is (in my view) extend the length of the interrogation/interview but in the end we get the same results.
Posted by orolan
- Jul 15, 2003, 10:43 PMSaidme,
See page 324 of the NAS study. You will see that they did in fact contact DoDPI as they sought research materials.
QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, the NAS did not seek any assistance from DODPI. I'm not 100% on that but I believe that to be the case. Maybe someone from DODPI could chime in on that.At least you qualified your comment
See page 324 of the NAS study. You will see that they did in fact contact DoDPI as they sought research materials.QuoteIs it your belief that no way, no how they could be biased?Absolutely. The members of the Committee which conducted the study consisted of 5 people in the Psychology/Psychiatry field, 6 in the Statistical, Cognitive and Social Sciences, 1 from the Law field, 1 from the Mathematics field, 1 Systems Engineer, 1 from the Radiology field and 1 person who is a language specialist. Quite a diverse group, and I doubt seriously they would all be sympathetic to the nuclear guys. Well, maybe the mathematician if his field is theoretical math.
QuoteWhat if the study were conducted by polygraph examiners? Would you find it flawed? Would you believe there could be bias? Of course you would.Absolutely again. But this analogy would only hold water if the NAS study had been conducted by the scientists employed by the DOE, which it was not.
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 15, 2003, 10:28 PMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 15, 2003, 03:57 PMs-X-e
You wrote:
Based on the claims of many on this website, polygraph basically has no shred of validity. Why would you rely on past information provided by pro-polygraph organizations? Wouldn't it be more prudent to start from scratch.
The NAS was charged with determining the validity of polygraphy. This requires an objective analysis of all available information. Whether or not the people here, on this board, believe that the polygraph is invalid does not automatically mean that the NAS does, and should not do a comprehensive review of the available evidence provided by both sides. Asking the NAS to conduct their own study is like asking a jury to conduct their own investigation of a crime instead of letting the defense and prosecution present their cases.
QuoteIf a research team is going to draw conclusions from their study, shouldn't it be their study?
It was their study. They did the interviews, they reviewed the research, and it was their conclusions. To say that they should have done their own experiments is almost admitting that the information provided in support of polygraphy should not have been accepted as credible.
QuoteHow could they draw conclusions on other researchers information unless they duplicated the process.
Why would you need to duplicate the process in order to review the results of someone else's experiment?
QuoteI think you guys like to use the term empirical evidence. In fact I think they (NAS) cited one of the polygraph studies as "flawed." Was it flawed because they tried to duplicate the study? Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
The executive summary of the NAS' findings state why the studies were flawed.
Quote"The quality of studies varies considerably, but falls far short of what is desirable. Laboratory studies suffer from lack of realism, and in the randomized controlled studies focused on specific incidents using mock crimes, the consequences associated with lying or being judged deceptive almost never mirror the seriousness of these actions in real-world settings in which the polygraph is used. Field studies have major problems with identifying the truth against which test results should be judged. In addition, they suffer from problems associated with heterogeneity and lack of control of extraneous factors and more generally, they have lower quality than could be achieved with careful study design. Moreover, most of the research, in both the laboratory and in the field, does not fully address key potential threats to validity. For these reasons, study results cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts."
So no, the study was not flawed because it wasn't duplicated. It was flawed because of the reasons quoted above.
QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, the NAS did not seek any assistance from DODPI. I'm not 100% on that but I believe that to be the case. Maybe someone from DODPI could chime in on that.
Andy Ryan, Chief of Research, for the DoDPI made a presentation to the NAS. I believe several people from the DOE spoke as well.
QuoteMost who fail know the answer. They were deceptive. I will concede there are a few exceptions to the rule. Nothing is 100%.
While many who fail may have been deceptive, without any scientific validity (which you claim isn't important), you can't say that they failed because they were deceptive. The conclusions drawn by the NAS seem to indicate that an unacceptable number of people still fail while being truthful (more than "a few exceptions"). Deceptive examinees who employ countermeasures may increase their chances of passing as well.
QuoteRegarding the scientists who conducted the study. Is it your belief that no way, no how they could be biased?
Sure, it could have been, but I see no evidence to indicate it was. Since when did "could be" become conclusive evidence to support that kind of claim?
QuoteWhat if the study were conducted by polygraph examiners? Would you find it flawed? Would you believe there could be bias? Of course you would.
If you are assuming that I would immediately find the study flawed simply by virtue of it being conducted by polygraph examiners, then no, that would not be correct. I would have to review their study, their methods, and the support for their conclusions before reaching that decision. As far as bias goes, I would probably be inclined to believe that studies conducted by polygraphers are more likely to be done for the purpose of validating polygraphy rather than determining its validity (whether or not I believe that might be the case however, does not mean it is true). If I were to make such a claim, I would have to support it with my own evidence.
QuoteLet's not throw rocks about speculation. There's enough of that going on from both sides.
Where did I speculate?
QuoteRegarding the study, I put no validity (there's that word again) in their findings. They didn't do any research. They regurgitated previously reported information.
Actually, they reviewed evidence provided by both sides and provided their own conclusions on it. That is hardly regurgitation. That you want them to start from makes me think maybe you yourself do not have faith in the evidence the polygraph community may have provided. If that is not the case, then why wouldn't it be OK for them to use it?
Posted by suethem
- Jul 15, 2003, 09:30 PMSaidme,
Are Dr. Drew Richardson's findings bogus too?
Since nothing is 100% , what percent of accuracy would you rate the polygraph at?
How many polygraph's have you given?
Are Dr. Drew Richardson's findings bogus too?
Since nothing is 100% , what percent of accuracy would you rate the polygraph at?
How many polygraph's have you given?