What about when someone is accused of a crime and 1 1/2 years later he hires a polygrapher, and he "passes"?
Should he be set free, OR would you be skeptical of him. Do you think he could read your website in advance and pass a test?
Child porn on his computer agent downloaded from it via limewire and when his house raided, low and behold he had all these pictures of a 7 yo girl on his computer and videos with kids having sex with adults. in unallocated space he had adult and child erotica and erotic stories of daddys with daughters.Trying to say he just put those used harddrives on his computer.
Now I realize this is the reverse of what most of your posters discuss.
Polygraphers chime in too!!!! ;D :-*
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 24, 2008, 09:34 AMWhat about when someone is accused of a crime and 1 1/2 years later he hires a polygrapher, and he "passes"?
Should he be set free, OR would you be skeptical of him. Do you think he could read your website in advance and pass a test?
Child porn on his computer agent downloaded from it via limewire and when his house raided, low and behold he had all these pictures of a 7 yo girl on his computer and videos with kids having sex with adults. in unallocated space he had adult and child erotica and erotic stories of daddys with daughters.Trying to say he just put those used harddrives on his computer.
Now I realize this is the reverse of what most of your posters discuss.
Polygraphers chime in too!!!! ;D :-*
Since polygraph is an inacureate test at best it is totally possible that this child molester would have a false result from a private ( or police ) polygraph. The same test, is administered and if the industry is correct should yeild at least mostly similar results. I mean a lier should still be a lier!
But....... since the test has no real scientific basis and is used mainly to extract information from an examinee that believes in the accuarcy of a polygraph the police administered polygraph would probably yeild better restults due to the questioning and interrogation that would likely follow.
"B-girl",
That is the whole purpose of this web site. Help everyone, regardless of truth, pass their polygraph test. This includes applicants, CHILD MOLESTERS, criminals, spies, everybody!!! George really does not care who he assists, though he will suppose an aire of indignation when the subject is presented.
This site is all about making polygraph illegitimate in order to do away with the polygraph process. He enlists the assistance of a few whiners who suposedly had false positives, then, Bam! There you are! "All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!
Then all the spies can get in...
Sackett
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 24, 2008, 09:34 AMWhat about when someone is accused of a crime and 1 1/2 years later he hires a polygrapher, and he "passes"?
When a person takes a polygraph under conditions of attorney-client privilege, the attorney can shop him around to polygraphers until he passes one. Then the "passed" polygraph can be trumpeted, while any "failed" ones are not mentioned.
QuoteShould he be set free, OR would you be skeptical of him.
Such pseudoscientific nonsense as polygraph "testing" should not influence decisionmaking in this regard.
QuoteDo you think he could read your website in advance and pass a test?
Yes.
Quote"All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!
We get new people coming to this board all the time claiming recent "false positive" results. Here are just two from this week alone.
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3964.msg29910#msg29910
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3962.msg29869#msg29869
In Sackett's world you have to prove you are not lying. I think it should be the other way around. If you accuse someone of lying, YOU should have to PROVE it.
TC
bimmergirl,
Between pictures and polygraph, I would choose pictures. Be extremely suspicious, and if you don't know, I am a private examiner.
It seems to me that the number of people on this board complaining about their false positive results has constantly been about 4-7, depending on the day of the week. Considering there are thousands being examined daily, this really does not seem to be a signficant sampling of reported false positives. Could some of them be truely, false positives, sure. But to over inflate the readership to bolster your claims of innacuracy is self grandiosity, nothing more. BUT, in order to sell your position, you have to promote, I guess.
As for people posting "all the time", How does anyone who reads this board know these are not the same 3-4 people posting "the same old story under different names, in order to make the it all sound legitimate? This board is hardly scientific. So the claim that there are ALL THESE FALSE POSITIVES seems self bloviating. Sort of like your inability to prove a false positive or that countermeasures taught in this on-line book could really be used by a reader.
Theory is not reality.
Sackett
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM"B-girl",
That is the whole purpose of this web site. Help everyone, regardless of truth, pass their polygraph test. This includes applicants, CHILD MOLESTERS, criminals, spies, everybody!!! George really does not care who he assists, though he will suppose an aire of indignation when the subject is presented.
This site is all about making polygraph illegitimate in order to do away with the polygraph process. He enlists the assistance of a few whiners who suposedly had false positives, then, Bam! There you are! "All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!
Then all the spies can get in...
Sackett
Sackett, In this country if you accuse some one and say they are a liars then, YOU need to prove it NOT the other way around. You should have learned that when you got your GED.
I know in your world King Sackett sits in ultimate judgement of all that come before you. Hell....... you judged me as a liar over the net and you've claimed that simply hearing someones answers to certain questions will tell you they are lying ( the armored car driver statement come to mind) without even being hooked up to a poligraph.
You continue to claim that there are only 4-5 people who have had bad experineces with polygraph ....... there are thousands of people who come here for information and get it "unfiltered" by the site.
People can make up thier own mind. Even without your nonsense.
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:22 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM"B-girl",
That is the whole purpose of this web site. Help everyone, regardless of truth, pass their polygraph test. This includes applicants, CHILD MOLESTERS, criminals, spies, everybody!!! George really does not care who he assists, though he will suppose an aire of indignation when the subject is presented.
This site is all about making polygraph illegitimate in order to do away with the polygraph process. He enlists the assistance of a few whiners who suposedly had false positives, then, Bam! There you are! "All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!
Then all the spies can get in...
Sackett
Sackett, In this country if you accuse some one and say they are a liars then, YOU need to prove it NOT the other way around. You should have learned that when you got your GED.
I know in your world King Sackett sits in ultimate judgement of all that come before you. Hell....... you judged me as a liar over the net and you've claimed that simply hearing someones answers to certain questions will tell you they are lying ( the armored car driver statement come to mind) without even being hooked up to a poligraph.
You continue to claim that there are only 4-5 people who have had bad experineces with polygraph ....... there are thousands of people who come here for information and get it "unfiltered" by the site.
People can make up thier own mind. Even without your nonsense.
Did you require proof before you assumed I only had a GED? Did Cullen require proof to call me a liar and all examiners liars during polygraph testing? Did you require proof to assume every other poster here really was telling the truth before posting as a so called false positive? When did you ever require "proof" before spouting your opinion of polygraph or endorsing the opinions of other angry posters? How much polygraph research have you really read up on, or is it just what is posted on this "anti" board that fuels your anger?
No, you are only "entitled" to presentation of proof when accused in a court of law. Does a boss need "proof" to fire you for wrongdoing? No. A simple suspicion is all that is really needed. Does a wife need "proof" or mere suspicion to accuse you of infidelity? Does a mother require "proof" or mere suspicion that a child has done something wrong? No. Does a civil court need "proof" before finding a judgement? No, only a preponderance of the presented evidence!
You see, "notguilty1", you assume too much. There is nothing that requires "proof" before a person can be considered withholding information. Polygraph adds to that suspicion and aides in indentifying the less than forthcoming.
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
As for your indignation due to your own ignorance of human nature... there is really nothing for me to say.
Sackett
QuoteHow much polygraph research have you really read up on, or is it just what is posted on this "anti" board that fuels your anger?
Sackett,
In another thread, you claimed there was all kinds of research to show the accuracy of the polygraph.
I asked you to cite some examples. You never did.
TC
P.S. The NAS reviewed what was there, and reported it's findings which you consistently ignore.
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:22 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM"B-girl",
That is the whole purpose of this web site. Help everyone, regardless of truth, pass their polygraph test. This includes applicants, CHILD MOLESTERS, criminals, spies, everybody!!! George really does not care who he assists, though he will suppose an aire of indignation when the subject is presented.
This site is all about making polygraph illegitimate in order to do away with the polygraph process. He enlists the assistance of a few whiners who suposedly had false positives, then, Bam! There you are! "All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!
Then all the spies can get in...
Sackett
Sackett, In this country if you accuse some one and say they are a liars then, YOU need to prove it NOT the other way around. You should have learned that when you got your GED.
I know in your world King Sackett sits in ultimate judgement of all that come before you. Hell....... you judged me as a liar over the net and you've claimed that simply hearing someones answers to certain questions will tell you they are lying ( the armored car driver statement come to mind) without even being hooked up to a poligraph.
You continue to claim that there are only 4-5 people who have had bad experineces with polygraph ....... there are thousands of people who come here for information and get it "unfiltered" by the site.
People can make up thier own mind. Even without your nonsense.
Did you require proof before you assumed I only had a GED? Did Cullen require proof to call me a liar and all examiners liars during polygraph testing? Did you require proof to assume every other poster here really was telling the truth before posting as a so called false positive? When did you ever require "proof" before spouting your opinion of polygraph or endorsing the opinions of other angry posters? How much polygraph research have you really read up on, or is it just what is posted on this "anti" board that fuels your anger?
No, you are only "entitled" to presentation of proof when accused in a court of law. Does a boss need "proof" to fire you for wrongdoing? No. A simple suspicion is all that is really needed. Does a wife need "proof" or mere suspicion to accuse you of infidelity? Does a mother require "proof" or mere suspicion that a child has done something wrong? No. Does a civil court need "proof" before finding a judgement? No, only a preponderance of the presented evidence!
You see, "notguilty1", you assume too much. There is nothing that requires "proof" before a person can be considered withholding information. Polygraph adds to that suspicion and aides in indentifying the less than forthcoming.
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
As for your indignation due to your own ignorance of human nature... there is really nothing for me to say.
Sackett
My assumption that you have a GED is just that due to the ignorance you display here.
As for my and TC's proof of examiners lying we have it, as the general public does. Each and every time you tell us that the test is 95-98% accurate YOU KNOW THAT IS A LIE!! and claimed to bolster the idea in the unsuspecting examinee that it is.
Also, My opinion without proof does not keep you from a job. Fortunatly the legal system has understood the BS nature of Polygraph and therefore, my false positive was just a waste of taxpayer money.
ng1
When an examiner makes the claim that polygraph accuracy is 99% he as mistaken as you are to claim 50 50 or coin toss accuracy. They overstate you understate. Have you, yourself, reviewed the latest research in order to form your own opinion? Or like Mr Cullen do you have to ask someone else where to find the information?
QuoteOr like Mr Cullen do you have to ask someone else where to find the information?
That is a little misleading.
Sackett made the CLAIM that there was a ton of research showing that the polygraph is very accurate (or words to that effect). I called him on it, and asked him to cite this alleged research. He didn't.
TC
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PM
Does a civil court need "proof" before finding a judgement? No, only a preponderance of the presented evidence!
What does a criminal court need? Only a preponderance of the presented evidence? Or does it require more?
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 03:52 PMng1
When an examiner makes the claim that polygraph accuracy is 99% he as mistaken as you are to claim 50 50 or coin toss accuracy. They overstate you understate. Have you, yourself, reviewed the latest research in order to form your own opinion? Or like Mr Cullen do you have to ask someone else where to find the information?
Fair enough, I am soley going on my experience and those similar ones one on here accually had 2 polygraphs one + and the other -
When I failed my test I cmae to the logical conclusion that if the test was supposed to be accurate and it failed (misereably) I had to assume that the result was pure chance.
Examiners and the Polygraph industry routinely claim 95-98% accuracy ad it has become basically public knowledge ( though false)
If the test is based on a process of collecting data that has not been proven to accuratly detect deception then a 50/50 accuracy is not as far off than the 95-98% that the industry claims.
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 26, 2008, 08:15 AMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PM
Does a civil court need "proof" before finding a judgement? No, only a preponderance of the presented evidence!
What does a criminal court need? Only a preponderance of the presented evidence? Or does it require more?
Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 03:52 PMng1
When an examiner makes the claim that polygraph accuracy is 99% he as mistaken as you are to claim 50 50 or coin toss accuracy. They overstate you understate. Have you, yourself, reviewed the latest research in order to form your own opinion? Or like Mr Cullen do you have to ask someone else where to find the information?
My own experiences were sufficient to convince me that the polygraph is not accurate. I told the truth on four polygraph exams and only passed once.
Between the examiner and the examinee, there is only one person in each test who knows whether the polygraph results are accurate. The examiner can make an educated guess based on their training and experience, the examinee knows for certain.
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 24, 2008, 09:34 AMWhat about when someone is accused of a crime and 1 1/2 years later he hires a polygrapher, and he "passes"?
Should he be set free, OR would you be skeptical of him. Do you think he could read your website in advance and pass a test?
Child porn on his computer agent downloaded from it via limewire and when his house raided, low and behold he had all these pictures of a 7 yo girl on his computer and videos with kids having sex with adults. in unallocated space he had adult and child erotica and erotic stories of daddys with daughters.Trying to say he just put those used harddrives on his computer.
Now I realize this is the reverse of what most of your posters discuss.
Polygraphers chime in too!!!! ;D :-*
It is most logical to believe evidence over a polygraph. If polygraphs were accurate enough to rise to the level of "evidence" they would be used as such.
Even Sackett has claimed that police don't resort to polygraphs until all other leads have been exhausted. Do you think they would wait for such a desperate circumstance if the polygraph results were accurate and held actual evidentiary value?
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 03:52 PMng1
When an examiner makes the claim that polygraph accuracy is 99% he as mistaken as you are to claim 50 50 or coin toss accuracy. They overstate you understate. Have you, yourself, reviewed the latest research in order to form your own opinion? Or like Mr Cullen do you have to ask someone else where to find the information?
Ok, what is the latest research, so we can get back on track!!! :-/ :-/
11bimmergirl
You need to request a quality control review by a second uninvolved examiner to answer your question about this particular test. Every professional private examiner expects no less. If he or his examiner balks at your request and will not provide the charts for review, you have your answer. A discussion of overall rates will not provide much guidence.
QuoteOk, what is the latest research, so we can get back on track!!! Undecided Undecided
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=213
Here is an excerpt:
"Overestimation For the reasons cited, we believe that estimates of polygraph accuracy from existing research overestimate accuracy in actual practice, even for specific-incident investigations. The evidence is insufficient to allow a quantitative estimate of the size of the overestimate.
Estimate of Accuracy Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."Note: My underlining above. The above is talking about use of polygraph when an actual crime has been committed or a specific incident has occurred and is being tested for. Rates of accuracy for employment screening is way less.
Read also http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf
which discusses:
1) Probability that a person who PASSES the test is actually telling the truth (NPV).
2) Probability that a person who FAILS the test is actually being DECEPTIVE (PPV).
Above report studied preemployment screening tests only, I believe.
TC
That is review of selected research, not research. Please post the actual research referred to in the report.
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 28, 2008, 12:20 AMThat is review of selected research, not research. Please post the actual research referred to in the report.
Selected research is still research. There were no claims made that the NAS research study used every scrap of availabe research ever done on the polygraph.
The reference material used in the NAS research study are listed here: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=232.
Quote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:22 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
Sackett
Sackett,
Why is it that many examiners prefer to peruse the examinees file or personal dossier prior to testing? Doesn't that behaviour sort of place in doubt your claim to be the only (or one of the few) unbiased, impartial examiners.
Do you always trust the polygraph 'result' without a shadow of doubt ?
Have you ever suspected that you may have called a FP ?
If the examinee is hypertensive and unknowingly displays apnoea type breathing, would you automatically suspect CM behaviour ? How would you address that situation ?
Regards,
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 28, 2008, 11:36 AMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:22 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
Sackett
Sackett,
Why is it that many examiners prefer to peruse the examinees file or personal dossier prior to testing? Doesn't that behaviour sort of place in doubt your claim to be the only (or one of the few) unbiased, impartial examiners.
Do you always trust the polygraph 'result' without a shadow of doubt ?
Have you ever suspected that you may have called a FP ?
If the examinee is hypertensive and unknowingly displays apnoea type breathing, would you automatically suspect CM behaviour ? How would you address that situation ?
Regards,
I think it is appropriate to review the case facts so we can know what we are talking about. Nothing sillier than an examiner trying to talk intelligently about something they know nothing of. And, no. I do not think it unduly prejudices an examiner. I have tested many people where the facts were against them and they passed, and visa-versa.
I have certainly had tests where I questioned the results. Any examiner should be able to admit it. Remember, we're dealing with human beings, therefore, as I have stated previously, things can be "screwy" for a lot of reasons (Please don't ask me to list them, I'm tired). If I find a mistake in my testing procedure or (or sometimes) the examinee's actions, I almost always offer a re-examination. I stay focused on trying to obtain the truth, not a specific result.
As for false positives. I have probably had some (statistics would be so polite to me). However, I can not recall an examination where I called the examinee deceptive and later, evidence exonerated them.
As for hypertension, etc, I do not automatically see apnea as CM's. If it is the normal state of the individual, then it should be taken into consideration. What is there to "address" if it is normal?
Sackett
Sergeant,
In 1990, Norman Ansley1 published a report of polygraph validity from studies of real cases conducted since 1980. Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts. According to Matte2, the algorithms that score computerized polygraph tests are correct about 95% of the time.
References:
1. Ansley, Norman, (ed.) (1997). November-December, "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing," American Polygraph Association Newsletter, 30 (6): 6
This is research, not a report of studies of research. It does report the accuracy of polygraph in one research project by Dr. Norman Ansley. Where is your research from any one source that actually conducted the research?
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 29, 2008, 09:49 AMSergeant,
In 1990, Norman Ansley1 published a report of polygraph validity from studies of real cases conducted since 1980. Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts. According to Matte2, the algorithms that score computerized polygraph tests are correct about 95% of the time.
References:
1. Ansley, Norman, (ed.) (1997). November-December, "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing," American Polygraph Association Newsletter, 30 (6): 6
This is research, not a report of studies of research. It does report the accuracy of polygraph in one research project by Dr. Norman Ansley. Where is your research from any one source that actually conducted the research?
As discussed previously (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2215.msg15931#msg15931) on this forum by myself and Dr. Richardson, the "study" to which you refer ("The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing") is a non-peer-reviewed meta-study of mostly non-peer-reviewed studies that was prepared for an interested party (the American Polygraph Association) by a past president of that association (Norm Ansley). It does not merit serious consideration by anyone seeking a science-based assessment of polygraph accuracy.
AnalSphincter
Ex Member
Re: Some Actually Credible Research
Reply #22 - Feb 25th, 2005, 1:36pm Drew Richardson wrote on Feb 25th, 2005, 12:58pm:
A.S.,
Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses. George Maschke writes:
I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman. That having been said, George is precisely correct. Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful compendium. George's characterization of that compendium is also right on target. It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc. Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Hello again, Drew. No, I didn't miss anything. I just didn't consider that post important enough to counter. Since you point it out, though, I will say this:
Those studies are as "credible" as anything the "anti" people have available on this site. You are right, though, about the need for additional research. Right now, there is an "anti" side with its less than totally credible studies and a "pro" side with its own less than totally credible studies. At least the "pro" side has experience in using the instrument in question to add a bit more credibility to its argument.
As Gino should know by now, and as you and George should have realized yourselves, for every questionable study you can come up with and claim to be valid, the "pro" people can counter with one of their own. It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God. Neither side proves anything.
This website proves only its agenda, which is to discredit a process through easily refutable information.
This post is from the one you hyperlinked George. It says accurately what I believe to be true about your quotes on research. You have no research that is peer reviewed to discredit polygraph, only quips and quotes from your own slanted view of polygraph. When actual research is submitted you dismiss it as "Non Schientific", so where is your peer reviewed reseearch? I have not seen it, please present it.
Hunter,
There simply is no body of peer-reviewed research proving that polygraphic lie tests reliably work at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. I'm not claiming that polygraphy has been proven not to work, but rather that -- in the 90 or so years since William Moulton Marston unveiled the lie detector -- it has not been proven to work.
Then your statement is "I have no peer reviewed research". Your use of the polygraph industries research is research and you may wish to attack all of the research that supports polygraph, however you have no research showing it is a coin toss. You have suppositions and innuendo that supports your position, no research. This is a circular argument that only circles, and proves nothing.
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 29, 2008, 11:02 AMAnalSphincter
Ex Member
Re: Some Actually Credible Research
Reply #22 - Feb 25th, 2005, 1:36pm Drew Richardson wrote on Feb 25th, 2005, 12:58pm:
A.S.,
Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses. George Maschke writes:
I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman. That having been said, George is precisely correct. Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful compendium. George's characterization of that compendium is also right on target. It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc. Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Hello again, Drew. No, I didn't miss anything. I just didn't consider that post important enough to counter. Since you point it out, though, I will say this:
Those studies are as "credible" as anything the "anti" people have available on this site. You are right, though, about the need for additional research. Right now, there is an "anti" side with its less than totally credible studies and a "pro" side with its own less than totally credible studies. At least the "pro" side has experience in using the instrument in question to add a bit more credibility to its argument.
As Gino should know by now, and as you and George should have realized yourselves, for every questionable study you can come up with and claim to be valid, the "pro" people can counter with one of their own. It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God. Neither side proves anything.
This website proves only its agenda, which is to discredit a process through easily refutable information.
This post is from the one you hyperlinked George. It says accurately what I believe to be true about your quotes on research. You have no research that is peer reviewed to discredit polygraph, only quips and quotes from your own slanted view of polygraph. When actual research is submitted you dismiss it as "Non Schientific", so where is your peer reviewed reseearch? I have not seen it, please present it.
It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God. Neither side proves anything.With this logic the same can apply to Santa Claus you cannot "prove" he exists or doesn't, does not negate the logical option that if you cannot prove something is or, in this case "works for the intened purpose" than it simply cannot be relied upon for that pupose no matter how you package it.
Your industry claims that this machine accuratly detects decpetion a claim incidently that is not evenly agreed on even with in your own community of examiners therefore, it is up to you to prove it does.
In my experience you'd have a better chance at convincing me of the exsistence of Santa Claus.
BTW this site does not ONLY prove its agenda it is open to all sides of the arguments and experiences.
It is always amusing to me how examiners routinly come on an "anti" site that they call nothing but propagada to discredit those of us that have direct experience that Polygraph does not detect decption.
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 29, 2008, 11:19 AMThen your statement is "I have no peer reviewed research".
There is indeed peer-reviewed research regarding polygraphy, but it doesn't support the notion that the polygraph can reliably detect deception at better than chance levels under field conditions.
QuoteYour use of the polygraph industries research is research...
Huh?
Quote...and you may wish to attack all of the research that supports polygraph, however you have no research showing it is a coin toss.
I don't claim that polygraph testing is like a coin toss. I don't think that's a good analogy at all, because the likelihood of a coin toss coming out heads our tails is knowable, and is a 50-50 proposition. Polygraph testing isn't like that. The procedure is not truly standardizable, in that polygraph "testing" is a dynamic interview situation where many uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables can influence the outcome. One of these variables -- an important one, I think -- is whether or not the subject actually believes that the polygraph can detect lies. Better-than-coin-toss results can be obtained if some suspects can be convinced that the lie detector has caught them in a lie and are persuaded that their best option is to confess. But a colander connected to a copier (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1211611661) could also achieve better-than-coin-toss results if people could be persuaded that it really worked.
As the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph concluded, "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."
QuoteYou have suppositions and innuendo that supports your position, no research. This is a circular argument that only circles, and proves nothing.
My position regarding the validity of polygraphy is similar to that taken by disinterested scientists who have examined the scientific evidence on it.
If polygraph testing is so darn accurate and scientifically proven to work, then why is it not generally admissible in court?
OTOH, DNA testing IS scientifically proven and admissible.
TC
You requested posting of a scientific study that showed validity of polygraph, the conversation went off track when I asked you to post research showing polygraph was not valid. I have not seen your research, you have seen mine. Now the conversation goes off track to court admissibility.
Cullen, polygraph is admissible in many jurisdictions, contrary to your belief. Many examiners have testified in proceedings, myself included. New Mexico admits polygraph that meets certain standards.
Now, please post your research showing polygraph is not a valid tool for discerning truth from deception. (I don't delude myself by thinking it is 100% accurate) I would like to see the research.
George,
You have posted numerous times that polygraph is as accurate as a coin toss, now your backing up a bit.
I said the polygraph is GENERALLY NOT ADMISSIBLE in court. This is an accurate statement. My belief has nothing to do with it, contrary or otherwise.
The results of DNA tesing generally IS ADMISSIBLE in court because has been proven to be scientifically reliable.;
TC
I told the truth and didn't withhold any information on all four of my polygraph tests. I failed the first three, for three different reasons.
In my opinion that is compelling research. I know I was telling the truth, and I still failed three times. The polygraph is incapable of accurately detecting deception (or lack thereof.)
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 29, 2008, 07:28 PMGeorge,
You have posted numerous times that polygraph is as accurate as a coin toss, now your backing up a bit.
The only context (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-032.shtml) I can recall wherein I've likened polygraph outcomes to a coin toss is with regard to the FBI's pre-employment screening program, which reportedly has roughly a 50% failure rate (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067). Again, for the reasons I explained earlier in this thread, I don't think the coin toss analogy is generally applicable. Still, the bottom line is, as Dr. Richardson vividly put it, that polygraph examiners conducting lie tests are involved in the detection of deception to the same extent that one who leaps from a tall building is involved in flying.
Again, where is the scientific research that supports your supposition. We are going every where but there. I submitted only one piece of research, there are many. Please post your research so I may be enlightened.
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 30, 2008, 08:48 AMAgain, where is the scientific research that supports your supposition. We are going every where but there. I submitted only one piece of research, there are many. Please post your research so I may be enlightened.
For support of my position, see the sources cited in Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), which deals with the scientific status of polygraphy.
See also Bill Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml
And for a more thorough treatment of the subject, see the 2nd edition of David Lykken's seminal treatise on polygraphy,
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph.
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 30, 2008, 08:48 AMAgain, where is the scientific research that supports your supposition. We are going every where but there. I submitted only one piece of research, there are many. Please post your research so I may be enlightened.
Hunter,
I say there is a flying tea cup in outer space that controls what we do here on earth. It cannot be seen or detected by human means but.......it's there believe me. Now ............ go and prove that it's not!
ABSURD? I think so but thats what your doing with Polygraph. Just because the general public has been fooled over the years that polygraph does work at detecting deception and it is 95-98% accurate with out ANY scientific proof. ( and don't tell me about the variable gremlins ) does not mean that we have the burden of proving the test wrong just like the tea cup in space.
I know this will be over most examiners heads since they all have a stake in the continued belief by the general public that the test works as claimed.
Many have had personal proof to the contrary including myself.
George,
I took the time to do some reading as you suggested. The information you provided is a recap of other research, not research itself. I am looking for a study conducted using polygraph and finding the error rates. I believe that Dr. Lykken actually did research, the others only reviewed studies conducted by the polygraph community and applied their own personal opinions regarding accuracy. I am now looking at Lykken's studies myself. You do not regard any studies conducted by the polygraph community as scientific, however, they are.
Notguilty1,
The study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Hunter,
Your question was, "where is the scientific research that supports your supposition?" I provided you with the references. I'm afraid I cannot help you further.
QuoteThe study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Thanks Hunter. I am totally convinced now.
DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate. What else are they going to report? That the polygraph is not accurate? Are you serious?
So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences? And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?
Welcome to the "twilight zone"
do do do do do do do do.....
TC
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 31, 2008, 02:39 PMQuoteThe study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Thanks Hunter. I am totally convinced now.
DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate. What else are they going to report? That the polygraph is not accurate? Are you serious?
So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences? And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?
Welcome to the "twilight zone"
do do do do do do do do.....
TC
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 31, 2008, 02:39 PMQuoteThe study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Thanks Hunter. I am totally convinced now.
DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate. What else are they going to report? That the polygraph is not accurate? Are you serious?
So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences? And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?
Welcome to the "twilight zone"
do do do do do do do do.....
TC
Hey TC,
Hunter and his cronies will never accept anything that is not as he puts it "peer" research meaning if it doesn't come from them it is not valid.
He metinons mine and yours and many others direct expeiences as "opinions" that I guess have no validity as does the findings of the NSA.
It's useless to reason with these people they have a vested interest in Polygraph and they will not budge on it.
Thankfully though with this site and the internet in general they are being held accountable for their so called "test".
As you see the accuracy rate is now, accoriding to Hunter 86% as opposed to the 95-98% we were all told. I wonder what it will be next month? Stay tuned!
;D
Mr. Notguilty,
I found the following at a government website:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172188
The 80 research projects listed in this paper, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98 percent. Researchers conducted 11 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92 percent. Researchers conducted 41 studies that involved the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80 percent. Researchers conducted 16 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations that produced an average accuracy of 81 percent. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the references cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are mentioned. 11 tables and 67 annotated references
Maybe this is what polygraphers have based their claims. Note it is all based on the "analysis of charts", but the charts depict physiological reactions which are not directly and unequivocally related to deception. A fact they repeatedly ignore.
I wonder why the NAS chose to ignore the above. Or maybe they didn't ignore it, but didn't find it to be valid reseach.
TC
86% is from a study of mixed issue testing, the 95-98% are from some studies of single issue examinations. You may wish to read the research prior to commenting on it, it would strengthen your argument. There are other studies from Raskin, Honts, Barland, Dutton, and many others that affirm the %'s given. Polygraph is not a 100% accurate tool, no examiner I am associated with gives a different response. There are false positives and false negatives, we are not perfect. I don't advocate use of polygraph as the end all, solve all for any situation, it is an excellent TOOL, and only a tool.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 01, 2008, 07:20 PM86% is from a study of mixed issue testing, the 95-98% are from some studies of single issue examinations. You may wish to read the research prior to commenting on it, it would strengthen your argument. There are other studies from Raskin, Honts, Barland, Dutton, and many others that affirm the %'s given. Polygraph is not a 100% accurate tool, no examiner I am associated with gives a different response. There are false positives and false negatives, we are not perfect. I don't advocate use of polygraph as the end all, solve all for any situation, it is an excellent TOOL, and only a tool.
With regards to pre-employment screening for police applicants, it is not only used as a tool. It is used as the "end all, solve all" for every applicant. If you fail a polygraph you are removed from the application process. There is no due process; there is nothing even remotely fair about it all. A person you meet and talk with for an hour or two decides based on a guess if you proceed in the application process.
Perhaps in theory any "DI" score should be followed with specific issue testing to resolve the matter, but in practice that simply isn't done in any municipal police agency with which I am familiar.
You might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR) My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings. We realize that there are false positives and false negatives. I am aware of other departments that have the same policy. We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment. Again, it is a tool. When properly used it is a very useful tool.
QuoteYou might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR) My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings. We realize that there are false positives and false negatives. I am aware of other departments that have the same policy. We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment.
That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL.
TC
I'm sure that will make applicants like the guy in this story feel a whole lot better.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/11/ma_148_01.html
Experiences like this are quite common.
As for accuracy of polygraph tests, the article notes:
Studies have long shown that polygraphs are remarkably unreliable, particularly for screening job applicants. As early as 1965, a congressional committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the polygraph's validity; a 1997 survey in the Journal of Applied Psychology put the test's accuracy rate at only 61 percent. Polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in court because, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his majority opinion in the 1998 case U.S. v. Scheffer, "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."I guess Justice Thomas needs to better educate himself. What would he know about justice?
Also:
Indeed, the lie detector is so untrustworthy that Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988, making it illegal for private-sector employers to compel workers to take polygraph exams. Prior to the law's passage, according to Senate testimony, an estimated 400,000 workers suffered adverse consequences each year after they were wrongly flunked on polygraphs.That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL anyway.
TC
It is humerous that you post U.S. v. Scheffer. This case involved introduction of a polygraph that would have been exculpatory. You post Justice Thomas's majority opinion, however you omit Justice Stevens opinion totally. Justice Stevens suggested that it should have been admitted and had very good basis for his argument. Read it all not part of it. You may well be arguing that an innocent person should be punished for a crime he did not commit, when polygraph would have cleared him or aided in his defense.
QuoteIt is humerous that you post U.S. v. Scheffer.
I posted an excerpt from a magazine article which cited a quote made by Justice Thomas which happened to be made in his majority opinion on that case. The quote was:
— "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."Did Justice Stevens make any comment on polygraph reliability?
I also posted:
— That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL.So if preemployment testing is so accurate, why did congress pass a law making such test illegal in the private sector?
TC
Further discussion seems senseless, you are convinced and facts will not change your thought processes. I will pass on further discussion at this time. It was educational for me, and entertaining, must return to work and divine some more truth.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 02, 2008, 09:24 AMFurther discussion seems senseless, you are convinced and facts will not change your thought processes. I will pass on further discussion at this time. It was educational for me, and entertaining, must return to work and divine some more truth.
And as usual when the difficult questions are aked ......... The examiners take stage left exit!!
BTW I do agree that further discussion seems sensless because TC has done a good job at discounting your claims.
Thanks TC! ;D
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 01, 2008, 10:28 PMYou might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR) My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings. We realize that there are false positives and false negatives. I am aware of other departments that have the same policy. We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment. Again, it is a tool. When properly used it is a very useful tool.
Perhaps many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing "SR". I never claimed otherwise.
There are no municipal departments in Connecticut that do such a thing. It is hardly unreasonable for me to speak of the departments in my state (with which I am familiar) while refraining from making any claims at all about the federal and out-of-state agencies with which I am not familiar.
It is also unreasonable to expect me to refrain from offering my opinion (or for you to denigrate my "level of knowledge") because I am not familiar with the polygraph practices of every police agency in the country, or even with a majority of the police agencies in the country.
You wish to believe that the polygraph is a useful tool in pre-employment screening. I understand. If you were to say otherwise the one useful aspect of the polygraph, that of eliciting damaging admissions based on the examinee's belief that the polygraph will detect lies, would be diminished or even eradicated.
"With regards to pre-employment screening for police applicants, it is not only used as a tool. It is used as the "end all, solve all" for every applicant. If you fail a polygraph you are removed from the application process. There is no due process; there is nothing even remotely fair about it all. A person you meet and talk with for an hour or two decides based on a guess if you proceed in the application process."
From your post Sergeant. I read what you said and responded accordingly.
I do apologize for attacking your integrity, or knowledge, it sounded like a blanket statement to me, and I see by your post it was confined to your state, not all examiners.
Thank you for clearing up the matter for me.
Quote from: notguilty1 on May 28, 2008, 09:08 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 28, 2008, 11:36 AMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:22 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
Sackett
Sackett,
Why is it that many examiners prefer to peruse the examinees file or personal dossier prior to testing? Doesn't that behaviour sort of place in doubt your claim to be the only (or one of the few) unbiased, impartial examiners.
Do you always trust the polygraph 'result' without a shadow of doubt ?
Have you ever suspected that you may have called a FP ?
If the examinee is hypertensive and unknowingly displays apnoea type breathing, would you automatically suspect CM behaviour ? How would you address that situation ?
Regards,
I think it is appropriate to review the case facts so we can know what we are talking about. Nothing sillier than an examiner trying to talk intelligently about something they know nothing of. And, no. I do not think it unduly prejudices an examiner. I have tested many people where the facts were against them and they passed, and visa-versa.
I have certainly had tests where I questioned the results. Any examiner should be able to admit it. Remember, we're dealing with human beings, therefore, as I have stated previously, things can be "screwy" for a lot of reasons (Please don't ask me to list them, I'm tired). If I find a mistake in my testing procedure or (or sometimes) the examinee's actions, I almost always offer a re-examination. I stay focused on trying to obtain the truth, not a specific result.
As for false positives. I have probably had some (statistics would be so polite to me). However, I can not recall an examination where I called the examinee deceptive and later, evidence exonerated them.
As for hypertension, etc, I do not automatically see apnea as CM's. If it is the normal state of the individual, then it should be taken into consideration. What is there to "address" if it is normal?
Sackett
Thanks,
That was a fairly balanced reply.
Regards,