To all concerned,
This is a very interesting pdf presentation on the polygraph (validity), with indepth research and accompanying numbers to support it. It is given during one of the Graduate level courses PSYCH501 at the university. It speaks for itself.
Link:
http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC501A/Lecture%204.pdf
For all of the polygraphers on board ..... Lets see some debate on this research,
Regards ...
EosJ:
Thanks for the link. It was interesting. However, the powerpoint presentation alone is a bit difficult to follow. Another case of "I guess you had to be there." While reading the presentation, I wondered about these statements (in bold):
"Counter-countermeasures" worked to detect those using countermeasures: 80% of those using countermeasures could be detected by a blind analysis of EMG recordings, BUT such counter-countermeasures means rarely used in field polygraphy.
From my own experience and the most recent countermeaures courses taught by DoDPI and other reputable polygraph schools, this sounds about right. By chart analysis alone, there is a high degree of detection for countermeasures simply because, when viewed by a competent examiner trained in the latest methods of analysis, it would be very rare to find an examinee who could perform countermeaures well enough for the data to appear natural. This is what I was trying to explain to Dr. Richardson in another thread. I agree that at this time--or at least at the time this University of Arizona presentation was conceived--most examiners in the field were either insufficiently trained or were unaware of the latest methods of "counter-countermeasures." But that is changing, and I've seen it firsthand.
Brain Fingerprinting: 100% accurate in research on FBI agents, in research of Government Agencies, and field applications.
It is unclear in the presentation whether this statement is from some kind of advertisement of a proponent of ERP methods, or whether it is the presentation's author's conclusion. But if this method is indeed 100% accurate, you "anti-" people may get your wish in the not-to-distant future with regard to the polygraph. Of course, Government agencies would most likely simply send their polygraphers to ERP training and either use this method alone or, more likely, in conjuction with the polygraph.
Procedures that focus on recognition rather than emotional reactions associated with lying:
-Are more accurate overall
-Are much less vulnerable to false positive outcome
-Create guilty verdicts almost exclusively among the guilty.
What some people don't understand is that the polygraph, no matter which testing method is used (although admittedly even more so with the GKT), actually uses recognition as much or more than emotional reactions to determine whether an examinee is being deceptive regarding a particular issue. This is why even with psychopaths, the polygraph works--the psychopath, while feeling no remorse or emotion for his crimes, nevertheless recognizes the greater significance of one issue/question over another.
These are just my thoughts as I read the presentation. Thanks for the link. Regards . . .
LBCB,
To the best of my knowledge, electromyography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromyography) (EMG), referred to in the context of the study by Honts et al. cited at p. 39 of the above-linked PDF presentation, is not used as a polygraph counter-countermeasure by any federal (or non-federal) agency.
Thanks, George. I wasn't aware of that Honts study. EMG actually has two types, one that is intra-muscular, and the other that is surface, and I think you are right that there is no Federal agency using either of them.
I think it goes without saying that the future holds something superior to the polygraph for lie detection, and I hope we see it within our lifetimes. For now, we polygraphers are stuck with our less than 100% accurate instrument as long as it's the best thing going.
LBGB,
The shortcomings of CQT polygraphy are rooted not in imperfections of the available polygraph instruments, but rather in the fact that the underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method.
George,
As I have said before, we'll probably never agree on the validity, or lack thereof, for the CQT. Theory and counter-theory, and study and counter-study could be quoted and twisted to support either side of the argument. As a polygrapher who actually uses the instrument in question AND the methods in question, I know that it works. Scientific and pseudo-scientific studies aside, the damn thing simply works almost all the time. Right now it's the best we can do, and in my experienced opinion, it's worth keeping around until a form of ERP or something else comes along to supplant it or add to it.
LBCB,
I am willing to be convinced by scientific evidence that polygraph testing "works." I have no interest in twisting facts to support arguments I have made regarding the validity of polygraphy. I'm quite willing to be shown that I am in error. It is for this reason that this message board (unlike that at PolygraphPlace.com (http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi)) is uncensored. But scientific evidence to support of the validity of polygraphic lie detection remains wanting. While I do not question your sincerity of belief, anecdotal evidence based on personal experience is ultimately unsatisfying. This is the same kind of evidence that is typically offered in support of such fantastic claims as alien abductions and faith healings.
Have you ever been abducted by aliens or seen someone abducted by aliens, George? Have you ever been the subject of faith healing or seen someone you knew personally was sick or injured healed by faith? If not, then how can you ridicule the possibilities? Why would anyone believe you when you have no experience with either? Same thing with the polygraph. You don't use it. You failed it, yes, and I hope that your claims to have undeservedly failed it are true. If so, then you are one of the tiny minority, and deserving of the apology you will probably never receive. But you haven't used it, so all you have are questionable and controversial studies that most experts would tell you can not be accurately applied to real-world field conditions. Some of those studies are overly critical of the polygraph, and some are overly supportive of the polygraph. If I were in your position, perhaps I would do what you do by running this website. However, I'm not in your position, and you aren't in mine. I use the polygraph all the time, and so I know from experience that it works almost all of the time. I can't convince you of that, but that's ok with me, just as it's probably ok with you that you can't convince me of some of your arguments either. Regards.
LBCB,
Have you ever read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World?
In chapter 10, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, Sagan writes "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might sytematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian slection among "multiple working hypotheses", has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy." (p. 210)
When I began researching the polygraph and lie detection, I didn't have a clue whether it really worked or not. Then as I began to read the literature, both pro- and anti-, the preponderance of the evidence (the NAS report was the final straw) began to fall on the anti- side and I became convinced that nature did not equip us with a singular physiological response that is associated with lying. Rather, the psychologists and physiologists were rather convincing in their detailed research that lying and its associated responses are too diffuse to adequately ever come up with a simple test for detecting deception. And as much as we would like to be able to adequately detect deception, we will never get there. You and the other polygraphers on the board hold onto your views not because you're inherently biased, but because you've invested so much of yourselves into your profession that you won't allow yourselves to "spin another hypothesis" that whatever you're seeing on the polygraph might be due to emotion, test anxiety, or illness rather than deception.
You also keep bringing up the point that with the exception of Dr. Richardson, none of the anti- folk have used a polygraph. But that is misdirection because one needn't have experience in something to be able to read and discern the research and come to a rational conclusion about it.
Your examples of aliens and faithhealing are also strawmen that support your misdirection fallacy. A better example would be if someone tells you that they have a surefire method for picking stocks, do you try the method first or do you research it? If you find that the preponderance of research shows that the method works no better than chance, would you still be willing use it? Do you need to be an economist or financier or understand econometrics to understand the basics? While it would help, not really. You just need to be able to think critically.
And when it comes down to it with CQT polygraph, the only hypothesis that survives is that it has no scientific basis on which to stand and is merely wishful thinking packaged in scientific sounding jargon sold to a credulous public.
One last thing, I've consistently been attacked on this board by polygraphers with ad hominem attacks (including you, remember the Gilligan remark?) and while I find it amusing, it does not serve you well to stoop those lengths. Please address the topic at hand as I'm not the topic, the CQT is. The only thing ad hominem attacks do is show that one cannot answer the question...
Regards,
digithead
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 20, 2006, 06:48 PMHave you ever been abducted by aliens or seen someone abducted by aliens, George?
No.
QuoteHave you ever been the subject of faith healing or seen someone you knew personally was sick or injured healed by faith?
No.
QuoteIf not, then how can you ridicule the possibilities?
I am merely pointing out that experiential claims for such purported phenomena as alien abduction (http://www.skepdic.com/aliens.html) and
faith healing (http://www.skepdic.com/faithhealing.html) are uncorroborated by independent evidence, much like polygraphers' claims that they can detect polygraph countermeasures.
Just as Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) might be real phenomena, so too might alien abductions, faith healing, and polygraph countermeasure detection. But independently corroborable evidence is lacking for all.
QuoteWhy would anyone believe you when you have no experience with either? Same thing with the polygraph. You don't use it.
The fact that I don't use polygraphs is immaterial to my assertion that there is no proof that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. If the polygraph community wants the public to believe that it can detect countermeasures, then the onus is upon it to prove that claim, and not on those who ask for proof to disprove it.
QuoteYou failed it, yes, and I hope that your claims to have undeservedly failed it are true.
They are.
QuoteIf so, then you are one of the tiny minority, and deserving of the apology you will probably never receive.
Given what is know about the unreliability of polygraphy, especially when used in a screening context, and what is known about the FBI's polygraph failure rate, which suddenly rose, as if by magic, from about 20% in the 1990s to about 50% post-9/11, the "tiny minority" of which you speak is likely considerably larger than you feel comfortable believing.
QuoteBut you haven't used it, so all you have are questionable and controversial studies that most experts would tell you can not be accurately applied to real-world field conditions. Some of those studies are overly critical of the polygraph, and some are overly supportive of the polygraph.
Specifically what studies are overly critical of the polygraph? In what way?
QuoteIf I were in your position, perhaps I would do what you do by running this website. However, I'm not in your position, and you aren't in mine. I use the polygraph all the time, and so I know from experience that it works almost all of the time. I can't convince you of that, but that's ok with me, just as it's probably ok with you that you can't convince me of some of your arguments either. Regards.
You certainly can't convince me that the polygraph "works almost all the time" without more evidence than the assertion that you know this from experience.
George,
Without wasting any further time trying to convince you or to respond to each and every statement you make, as you did with me, I simply want to thank you for the links to "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Russel's Teapot," which also led me to "The Invisible Unicorn" and articles about Richard Dawkins. I have always enjoyed religious parodies, as well as political satire, and you gave me some good laughs. :D I laughed when I read how the "believers" of The Spaghetti Monster are known as "Pastafarians" (Pasta and Rastafarians, get it?), and they end their prayers with "RAmen." Hilarious!
I recommend that other readers follow these links for some good humor, as long as they are open-minded enough to be comfortable with having their unfounded beliefs ridiculed. It's a huge stretch to compare any of this to my personal experience with the polygraph, but I appreciate the attempt.
P.S. Sorry, Digithead. I noticed your lengthy reply after I responded to George's. I totally missed it. You make some excellent points, and this is the best of your posts that I recall reading. Very cogent and well-organized. I must remind you, however, that the examples of aliens and faith healing were not mine, but George's, so they are his strawmen, not mine. Obviously I am not going to convince you of anything either by touting personal experience as a necessity when making a final judgment about the polygraph. I also can't speak for the entire profession. However, unless you've been there and used the polygraph day in and day out, you really can't give a final opinion that is completely credible. Like you, I am a very skeptical person, so I need more than simply what other people tell me to finally convince me of certain things. Experience has taught me that the polygraph, while imperfect, is a good tool in the hands of a good polygrapher, and is correct almost all of the time. Again, that was a good post, and I really appreciate you taking the time. You have finally earned a bit of respect from me, Digithead.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 12:11 PMIt's a huge stretch to compare any of this to my personal experience with the polygraph, but I appreciate the attempt.
Claims of such things as alien abductions and faith healing may indeed be more fantastic than claims of polygraph countermeasure detection, but they are similar in that the public is asked to believe without anything more than unsupported anecdotal evidence.
George,
When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph and negative studies against the polygraph, I think experience tips the scale. There is the lab, and then there is the real-world crucible where the real truth can be found. The real world of polygraph examiners has shown us things that you can not see when you accept only those studies that support your own wishes.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 04:16 PMGeorge,
When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph and negative studies against the polygraph, I think experience tips the scale. There is the lab, and then there is the real-world crucible where the real truth can be found. The real world of polygraph examiners has shown us things that you can not see when you accept only those studies that support your own wishes.
I take strong issue with your suggestion that I "accept only studies that support my own wishes" and note with satisfaction that who have examined the scientific evidence on polygraphy from arm's length, such as the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, have reached conclusions similar to my own.
Yes, George, and I take strong issue with you and your fellow "anti-" followers belittling actual experience in favor of things you've read. And I take strong issue with those who discount studies that don't conform to their wishes or personal agenda.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 05:47 PMYes, George, and I take strong issue with you and your fellow "anti-" followers belittling actual experience in favor of things you've read.
Why should I or anyone else accept your (anonymous) anecdotal accounts over peer-reviewed research?
QuoteAnd I take strong issue with those who discount studies that don't conform to their wishes or personal agenda.
Do you believe that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph discounted studies that did not "conform to their wishes or personal agenda?" If so, please explain.
Sorry, but I thought I might jump in here. George is making a particular point-namely, that the polygraph's "underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method." This is supported by the National Academy of Sciences.
LBCB, your response consists of "But I conduct polygraphs all the time, and I know they work!" That may well be so, but you are simply not responding to George's (or the NAS' for that matter) contention, namely that the polygraph's "underlying methodology lacks any grounding in the scientific method."
Because the peer-reviewed research you are always citing can not be accurately applied to the real-world, George, as even the NAS admits.
That's because in the real world, one cannot control for all of the possible confounders, problems, and interference that might exist. Whereas in the laboratory, one can potentially control for these factors. Ergo, one cannot expect the polygraph to have any more accuracy outside the laboratory than it does inside a laboratory...
Digithead,
Whether a polygraph is conducted in the lab with mock crimes and let's-just-pretend scenarios and disinterested examinees OR in the real world, the conditions should be the same. Unless you are conducting your real-world exam under the take-off/landing area of an airport, for example, the environment should be similar. The difference, as the NAS admits, is that the lab setting can not accurately imitate the real world incentives or fears that an examinee faces in the real world. I see the real world all the time, not the lab world, so I base my knowledge on what I see, as well as studies that support what I see every day.
Except that in a real world situation, all fears are accentuated both for the nervous but guilty and the nervous but innocent. How can CQT distinguish between them? And in assessing accuracy, you have no baseline on which to compare them unless they confess. I'll ask you the same as I've asked others, do you know what your false negative rate is? Until you can answer that, your assessment of your accuracy is overinflated...
LBCB,
I have sat back and watched this thread develop for a few days and noted the key point that your experience is the discriminator by which you judge all things. I do not diminish your experience as by far your one of the few polygraphers to actually come in here and debate and openly support your beliefs. This being said, I believe that you have not come up against someone of intellect, gile and audacity. Maybe you have, and they just caved in and went along with the program. But by my estimates, inconclusive after inconclusive is as good as a pass. Because the law of dimishing return kicks in after about 3 polygraphs. The shock and fear are gone, and if they have researched the polygraph coming in, it is greatly reduced. And like in chess, stalemate works. THe reason this works is the more polygraphs taken the more familiar to the box you become. And from experience, once you have lost the fear, the only outcome is inconclusive. This forces the decision to be made outside of the polygraph suite. Because no matter how many polygraphs a person is given, inconclusive defeats it. Eventually a decision has to be made and it won't be made by the polygrapher. Which removes any of the power that you may have had. Inconclusives reflect badly on the examiner, not the examinee. I would think that by the time a 3rd polygraph is inconclusive you would suspect that its not going to work for this subject. And if it doesn't work, it is effectively defeated, with no ramifications to the examinee. You should look up Neutralization theory. I highly suggest it. But then again a pass could happen too. There is no downside on this scenario, except for frustrating the polygrapher, which could be highly entertaining.
Regards ....
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 06:09 PMBecause the peer-reviewed research you are always citing can not be accurately applied to the real-world, George, as even the NAS admits.
Indeed, the executive summary (https://antipolygraph.org/nas/exec.pdf) of the NAS report notes that results of the 57 laboratory and field studies reviewed "cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts." But it goes on to note that "[e]stimates of accuracy from these 57 studies are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field."
Thus, your observation that peer-reviewed research "cannot be accurately applied to the real world" does not provide a convincing rationale for why anyone should accept your "argument from experience" that polygraph accuracy is actually
higher than what the research would suggest over this contrary conclusion of the NAS report.
LBCB,
In regards to your remark about "opinions" of the validity of the polygraph, this is not really an area that is simply subject to one's opinion. For any sort of procedure that purports to be scientific, it must have some sort of internal validity. Given the fact that so much of the polygraph results can be affected by the set of control questions the polygrapher devises, the background and psychological issues of the testee, it is not possible to control for these variables from one test to the next. For this reason, the test has no validity. This is simply not a matter of opinion.
As for the anecdotal evidence of real world polygraphers, I think part of the issue here is one of selection bias. By the time a person is subjected to a polygraph in an actual investigation, they are in a very small pool of people,1 of whom is most likely guilty. I bet if for every crime you rounded up 100 random people, you would have a very hard time picking out the guilty one via polygraph testing alone. Contrast that with DNA testing for example. If i had DNA evidence I bet I could pick out the guilty party from 100 people time after time. Why? Because the DNA test has validity. It isnt affected by the testee's childhood experience, what he read on the internet, how skillful the tester is in jacking up the emotional state of the testee, and so on.
Tell me, LBCB, for any given crime where you get a polygrpah induced confession, how many people on average do you polygraph to find the guilty party?
Ok I'm knew here so who the hell is george and why does he seem so all-knowing??
OH by the way George if you see this theres a pervert in the discarded posts section that could use your help. hes the "Scared and looking for help" or something like that.
can i call you G?
Correct grammar and spelling is appreciated Idiot.
Quote from: IDIOTSSS on Nov 23, 2006, 12:30 AMOk I'm knew here so who the hell is george and why does he seem so all-knowing??
I am one of the people who started this website and whom you -- by your own admission without even knowing who I am -- characterized as a "criminal" (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3404.msg23633#msg23633) in an earlier post.
But can i call you "G"?
Polygraph examiners (like LBCB) provide anecdotal evidence based on their own experiences to support their claims that the polygraph is accurate and useful.
Why do they feel that such anecdotal evidence is any more credible than the experiences of people like me, who told the truth during one or more polygraph examinations and were accused of deception?
Claims from people like me about telling the truth and being accused of deception are always dismissed by polygraph examiners with excuses such as, "You must have had a bad examiner." They seem to be given no weight whatsoever.
Yet these same examiners, when confronted with the NAS research study, counter with a claim that their own experiences show the polygraph is accurate and useful.
If anecdotal evidence provided by people who told the truth and failed is inadmissible into this debate of a supposedly scientific test, then so too should anecdotal evidence provided by people who administer tests that generate results with which they agree.
LieBabyCryBaby stated the following in an earlier post:
"When there exist positive studies supporting the polygraph... "
Will he please cite any scientifically valid double blind study to support that statement? I've been searching for weeks. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.