Does anyone have advise on countermeasures for this test??? I have nothing to hide but i get really nervous for some reason.. If anyone has some advise please share, i really need it.. Thanks
Someone please help!!!!!!!
rcast904
If you have nothing to hide, what are you are you wanting to counter? Clumsy use of cm will fail you quicker than anything other than lying.
Read "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector", which can be downloaded from the home page.
Good Luck,
TC
pailryder,
That is the worst argument people use when others say they are afraid of the polygraph. All you need to do is read the complaints of false positives on here and at the officer.com forums to realize that many people are being incorrectly categorized as liars because of the polygraph.
The obvious answer is that rcast904 wishes to counter the poor accuracy of the polygraph.
Yeah Pailryder there are at least 9 or 10 new complaints about failed polygraphs posted each year out of the thousands of tests that are done. There is more cancer misdiagnosis nation wide each month than there are new "I failed my polygraph" complaints here each year
Anonymous
If there were anything, other than telling the truth, that rcast904 could do to improve polygraph accuracy I would be all for it!
You tell me, what would it be?
Anonymous too,
Don't make the erroneous conclusion that every person that experiences a false positive must post on this website or on officer.com. That's just illogical. Most people who take a polygraph are undoubtedly unaware of this website or officer.com. Even if they were aware of these websites, that doesn't mean they are posting on them.
pailryder,
You asked rcast904 what he wished to counter using countermeasures. I responded that he evidently wishes to counter the polygraph's accuracy, which is horrendously low for a screening method. In other words, he wishes to protect himself from becoming a victim of a false positive.
There will never be anything that increases the polygraph's accuracy to an acceptable number because the theory that the polygraph is based on is inherently incorrect. The fight or flight response is absolutely not indicative of lying, and the absence of said response is not indicative of truth. Psychologists, medical doctors and scientists alike agree: the polygraph is not valid.
My conclusion is no more egregious than your conclusion that the number of complaints of false positives on here and at the officer.com forums are evidence of some systemic problem with polygraph that renders it worthless. In fact Polygraph does quite well against medical diagnostic and screening procedures
Crewson, P.E. (2001) A Comparative Analysis of
Polygraph with Other Screening and Diagnostic Tools.
And while we're discussing erroneous conclusions, your statement that there will never be anything that increases polygraph accuracy falsely presumes that it is insufficiently accurate for the purpose which it is designed. and just because SOME psychologists, medical doctors and scientists question it's accuracy does not justify your broad statement that you deliberately structured to give the false impression that ALL psychologists, medical doctors and scientists agree that polygraph is not valid.
They don't and you should know that.
Anonymous Too,
I presented the large number of people who complain about false positives as a reason that people (like rcast904) should be concerned with the possibility of it happening to themselves. I never suggested that that in and of itself rendered the polygraph worthless. The fact that it is hardly more accurate than flipping a coin and that it is pseudoscientific makes the polygraph worthless.
Both the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association condemn the polygraph. These are the premier associations of their field. It's not just SOME psychologists or SOME medical doctors that support the notion that the polygraph is a failure, it is the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.
Anonymous Too,
By the way, the study you sourced was funded by the federal government's polygraph school and was published in a polygraphy journal. Try using a study that isn't biased from the start and that is published in a real journal peer reviewed by actual scientists.
QuoteDoes anyone have advise on countermeasures for this test??? I have nothing to hide but i get really nervous for some reason.. If anyone has some advise please share, i really need it.. Thanks
As T.M. Cullen suggested, see
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). In particular, the behavioral countermeasures discussed in Chapter 4 may be helpful with the Relevant/Irrelevant technique.
Rcast904,
You still there? Come in please, over!
TC
QuoteIf there were anything, other than telling the truth, that rcast904 could do to improve polygraph accuracy I would be all for it!
You tell me, what would it be?
How could telling the truth improve polygraph accuracy? The polygraph is suppose to detect the truth. Either it's accurate, or not.
I believe his concern is telling the truth YET failing (i.e. false positive).
Anonymous, you wrote: "the study you sourced was funded by the federal government's polygraph school and was published in a polygraphy journal"
Big Deal and So What. It was a comparative analysis of existing research. Interested parties wrote ALL the research papers used in the analysis. Doctors wrote the medical papers. Psychologists wrote the studies regarding psychological screening. Are you suggesting that in order to be fair, all should be evaluated by scientists that have no knowledge or interest in polygraph, medicine or psychology? Maybe we should have podiatrists conducting brain stem research just so it will be unbiased. Get real.
Do you have evidence that the findings of the Crewes Study are inaccurate or false or are you just attacking the source because you are unable to refute the findings?
The American Medical Association at committee level acknowledges polygraph accuracy rates as high as 97% and far from condemning the polygraph they just called for more research. The issue with varying error rates for polygraph does not come from any problem with the instrument or the process. The confusion largely comes from the fact that polygraph is not a single test or process. Polygraph consists of several different types of tests and each will have its own error rate which may or may not be different from the others.
If you submit to a drug screen urinalysis as part of your job application process, you use one urine sample, (your own if you're honest, someone elses if you believe that the process is inaccurate and you convince yourself that countermeasures are justified) and one cup, but based on the screening protocol you may be submitting to between five and seven different tests each with it's own different error rate.
Of course, if you are actually using drugs, you would use predominately the same countermeasures as the guy who was not using drugs, but feared a false positive due to error rate. If you were caught using the countermeasures you would be treated exactly the same, drug use or not and you should be. It isn't a noble protest or dissention, or an attempt to change the rules, it's cheating and its dishonest. An "truthful"person who uses polygraph countermeasures and gets caught is indistinguishable from a dishonest person using the same countermeasures and getting caught and they should be treated exactly the same. No job. No career. No way.
Besides it is foolish to presume that just because one pays dues to a professional association, like the AMA, that they OVERWHELMINGLY agree on all or any positions espoused by the association. You don't really believe they vote on positions do you? The AMA is so entrenched in medical society that many Doctors feel obligated to join whether they agree or not. I'll bet that the vast majority are unfamiliar with the AMA committee report on polygraph or its findings. Saying that Doctors overwhelmingly agree with AMA's statements about polygraph is a bit like saying Germans overwhelmingly agreed with the Holocaust in that taking a non-confrontational stance is not quite the same as an endorsement. If it were, most of the German population would have been convicted of war crimes.
QuoteDo you have evidence that the findings of the Crewes Study are inaccurate or false or are you just attacking the source because you are unable to refute the findings?
Honts was quoted extensively in that study. As a polygraph practitioner, he is among those who have a "vested, financial interest" in polygraphs. Suffice it to say that the study should be greeted with the same skepticism with which one would receive a tobacco industry study into the linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer.
The NAS report came out in the same general time frame and refutes most of the conclusions made in the study in question. The NAS report pretty much concluded the Polygraph is NOT a scientifically valid test.
TC
Oh yes the NAS "study" IMPARTIAL? NOT by any definition of the word.
I know where you're coming from though. In that often mentioned NAS "study" on page 119 it says. "Because the great bulk of polygraph research has been funded by agencies that rely on the polygraph for law enforcement or counterintelligence purposes, there is a significant potential for bias and conflict of interest in polygraph research.
If this criticism is valid then the fact that NAS study was funded by donations from scientists working for the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) as a result of the aftermath of the Wen Ho Lee situation has bearing on the same issue. These scientists formed the opinion that because of their lofty "qualifications", THEY shouldn't have to submit to the indignity of security screening while they were working on weapons of mass destruction. The fact that they bought and paid for the this NAS "Study" ALSO provides a significant potential for bias and conflict of interest on THEIR findings as well.
The NAS was paid nearly a million dollars to conduct their "study." by colleagues, some of whom were members of the association and who had a vested interest in the outcome. These people who paid for the study made no secret as to what outcome they desired.
The exalted NAS makes no official notice of the source of their funding in their final report which allows them to conceal almost a million bucks worth of potential bias and conflict of interest.
By the way, The NAS study does not refute the Crewes Study in fact their report doesn't reference the study at all.
Oh by the way, Did you know that Wen Ho Lee was cleared by polygraph?
Anonymous Too,
I am suggesting that unless research is published in a legitimate scientific journal and peer reviewed by legitimate scientists with credentials from legitimate, accredited universities, then said research has little integrity, and has no use being sourced for any point.
Here's what the American Medical Association has said:
"The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."
""Though the polygraph can recognize guilty suspects with an accuracy that is better than chance, error rates of significant size are possible."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-04-08-kantor_x.htm
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
The last two is where your quote came from. It mentions "75% to 97%," not "97%." They also strongly emphasize the high rate of false positives directly related to trying to catch a higher number of guilty suspects. I can catch 100% of guilty people if I call every person I interview a liar. They also say that the polygraph is not capable of deciding guilt or innocence alone because of its high error rates, and that it should not be used as a screening device, also because of its high error rates (which, by chance, is the subject of this thread).
1986 was just the beginning of true, skeptical research on the polygraph. Since then, a lot of research has cast more unfavorable results. I wasn't able to find any recent statements from the American Medical Association, but I would be very surprised if they still claimed the numbers they do.
How many people do you see complaining about false positives on urine analysis during the hiring process for law enforcement agencies? That should offer some insight.
My position is not based solely on the American Medical Association's 22 year old position on polygraphs. It is based on the culmination of science's overall outlook on them. If polygraphy legitimately fell under a specific science, it would be psychology, which is the scientific study of human behavior. And the American Psychological Association has a much worse, more up-to-date opinion of the polygraph.
The fundamental problem with the polygraph and why it will never be acceptably accurate is because "(t)here is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception."
http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html
This link was supposed to be one of the two duplicates listed.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=105894
Anonymous Too,
Recently, Theodor C. Caron, Jr was also "cleared" by the polygraph, then was later found by DNA evidence to have killed Pamela Brown.
Look, they make $500 a pop per polygraph. Would people pay that kind of money if the polygraph wasn't accurate?!!
Dr. Phil, a psychologist, believes the polygraph is accurate and has had polygraphic artists on his show. Including the man who tested George and busted him for being a major international drug kingpin and serial tulip bulb murderer. :'(
So I think the verdict is in as to the accuracy of the polygraph. Logic tells us this! So cite all the scientific crap you want, the polygraph is here to stay!
Anonymous
3 references to the same document does not count as 3 sources. Psychology Matters is not listed as a "Professional Journal" by the American Psychological Association. Nothing in the essay states that it is a position paper on behalf of the association. The essay you referenced there only cited four sources clearly selected for their negative stance regarding polygraph. The essay on that site about driving while talking on the cell phone cites 19 sources. Hmmmmm
The author of the USA today article you referenced describes him self as a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all. Have you read any of his other stuff like the scholarly "Pastor Roger Byrd- Ignorant Redneck" or "The Damn Lithuainians are at it again"? Somebody might get the impression you judge credibility based on whether or not someone agrees with you.
Theodore Caron's DNA wasn't the only male DNA at the crime scene. The victim had another fellows DNA on her underwear. Why don't we wait and see if Caron is convicted before we declare polygraph a failure here.
Anonymous Too,
I never intended to pretend I had more sources than I did. My only inclination was to offer you links to click on that showed you what I was talking about. If you notice, each link offers different information. I could not locate the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs article in its entirety, so I did the best I could to back up what I typed. If you check, everything I mentioned can be found in each of the links I posted, even if all the links talk about the same article. I figured this would be better than typing up a bunch of words without offering a resource.
In reference to the American Psychological Association's article, I suggest you look at the bottom where it notes both:
"American Psychological Association, August 5, 2004"
and
"© 2009 American Psychological Association"
Additionally, if you go to the American Psychological Association's website:
http://www.apa.org/
and move your cursor over "Psychological Topics" you'll see a link to psychologymatters.org.
In fact, an alternative to psychologymatters.org is
http://psychologymatters.apa.org/
Whatever Psychology Matters is, or regardless of who pays for the web site, WHAT IT IS NOT, as you are so fond of saying, a legitimate scientific journal and peer reviewed. Nor does it clam to state the official position of the organization. The essay is just an article, insufficiently researched to pass muster as a high school term paper that uses cherry picked citations and not even very many of those.
NOWHERE in your JAMA citations does it state that "The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss" that statement comes from Kantor ( The guy who doesn't like southern preachers and Lithuaninans, remember?)
But lets talk about JAMA and coins just for fun. While tossing a coin is a 50-50 proposition with a 2 sided coin, if you take the BOTTOM JAMA estimate of 75% you would need to flip a 4-sided coin with heads on 3 sides and tails on one side to get a 75% chance at heads on the flop. Have you ever been to Vegas? all of those bright lights are paid for with a median house advantage of less than a 56% chance at winning on table games, slots and video poker and that even includes sucker games like keno. But polygraph isn't chance at all even JAMA states that the process performs significantly better than chance. Just because you flip a coin 100 times and get heads 75 and tails 25, does not in anyway prove the coin is defective
But Polygraph isn't a chance proposition and testing error rate has NOTHING to do with chance.
The only thing that lends more credibility to JAMA and the American Psychological Association is that however wrong they may be on this topic it doesn't appear that someone who had a pre-stated interest in a particular outcome paid them almost a million dollars for their opinion like happened with the NAS study. I have even heard that the "Donors" didn't authorize final payment until they heard the results of the study. If this is true, the employees that funded the study managed to turn the NAS into extremely well-paid hookers only it was Polygraph that got screwed.
Anonymous Too,
The American Psychological Association uses psychologymatters.org as a means to inform people about psychological facts. It just so happens that they used this medium to inform people about the failings of lie detectors. Because the article is not presenting any new research, there is absolutely no reason for it to be in a peer reviewed journal. You don't seem to understand that the function of peer reviewed, scientific journals is to present new research. The article is merely an information piece, displaying information already established. Note that the references used are scientific journals, except for Dr. David Thoreson Lykken's (who was a very well respected professor) book, which is also well received by the psychological community, and the NAS study (which you will argue with, but it is one of the top scientific bodies in the country). But I am relatively certain that any article the American Psychological Association produces is carefully reviewed by a number of PhD's.
I already told you that I do not have the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs article in its entirety, so I had to use different links to source my info. The USA Today article served as a source for those first two quotes. If you want to go and find a transcript proving that the American Medical Association expert that testified before Congress didn't say that, go ahead. I suspect your expedition will come up fruitless. I see no reason for the columnist to fabricate such things.
I really don't care to argue the difference between the two quotes with you, notably because they are over twenty years old. There is much more recent information about the polygraph's poor accuracy from relevant, scientific sources. My point was to reveal that the American Medical Association has stated that the polygraph is not fit for pre-employment screening because of significant error rates.
Anonymous I don't know who fabricated that silly "coin toss" quote either. Lots of polygraph detractors use it but no one including you seems to be able to point to a verifiable source. They always say that some unnamed "expert" used it in an unspecified hearing on some unknown date while testifying regarding some unspecified law or investigation.
This raises justifiable doubt as to it's legitimacy.
Likewise concerning your assumption that all of the essays on that
other APA web site are reviewed by several PHD.s and even if they are that still DOES NOT carry the weight of a position paper any more than their story about cell phone use in cars means you'll never see a member of their association jabber-jawing in traffic.
What you fail to acknowledge is that there are relevant, scientific sources that verify that polygraph is a useful screening tool. No screening test of any type should be the sole determining factor in any decision making process. The purpose of a screening test in any field including medicine and psychology is to identify targets for further investigation or consideration. Women who produce questionable mammograms do not go straight to Chemotherapy they are subjected to further testing to confirm or refute mammography screening. As a screening instrument, polygraph performs as well or better than many medical or psychological screening tests as evidenced by the Crewes Study. To date no-one has successfully refuted the findings of his study.
Regardless of what examinees who fail their polygraph tests may want or choose to believe, the polygraph result hardly ever is and never should be the only reason someone is not hired. I think the American Polygraph Association Policy on pre-employment testing says as much:
" 3.3 Polygraph test results should never be used as the sole basis for the selection or rejection of a law-enforcement or public-service applicant".
http://www.polygraph.org/files/delPolicyLE-PublicServicePre-employmenttestingJan2009[2].doc
This also agrees with the content of the JAMA abstract. I have never heard of a polygraph examiner who makes the final decision regarding the hiring of any applicant.
Polygraph isn't stagnant. Polygraph procedures today are different than polygraph in 1986 When JAMA published their article. Pre-employment screening tests now generally use a successive hurdles approach to clarify the results of a questionable screening exam. However if someone is caught attempting countermeasures like the ones taught on this web site then no further testing is conducted. The assumption being if the examinee tried to cheat on his first test he will probably try to cheat on any subsequent examination. Perhaps if the successive hurdles approach was being used at the time many of the detractors here took their pre employment test the concerns might have been resolved and they might have been hired.
Polygraph detractors not only seem to want to criticize polygraph they seem hell-bent on preventing any research that could result in polygraph improvements. They certainly try to ignore any research conducted since the NAS study which specifically called for more research. What are they afraid of? They aren't paying for the research. If it shows that polygraph can't improve, and it is outlawed they win. If it shows that polygraph can be improved, and its accuracy and reliability increase, they win. The only thing they stand to lose from further research is their right to gripe.
QuoteWhat you fail to acknowledge is that there are relevant, scientific sources that verify that polygraph is a useful screening tool.
Can you quote some peer reviewed, non industry funded studies please.
QuoteNo screening test of any type should be the sole determining factor in any decision making process. The purpose of a screening test in any field including medicine and psychology is to identify targets for further investigation or consideration.
But a polygraph IS used as the sole determining factor in hiring.! If you fail a employment screening polygraph at the FBI, NSA, CIA..etc. YOU AIN'T getting hired. PERIOD!
TC
Anonymous Too,
We both agree on one thing: Unless results from a polygraph session are confirmed, they should not be grounds for any negative action. Unfortunately, this is not the case with many agencies, local, state and federal included. And many innocent people are getting burned because of this.
Cullen, can you name any peer reviewed studies about anything conducted and funded by anyone who doesn't have some stake in the outcome? Like I said before, I guess you must think that maybe we should have podiatrists conducting brain stem research just so it will be unbiased. Get real. In order to get podiatrists interested in brain stem research, you are going to have to pay them and where the money is coming from will raise the spectre of bias. The balancing weight of this potential bias is the peer review/publication process which exposes the findings to criticism.
What you fail to acknowledge that once a study is published, any person can certainly review and critique the study and if they have the necessary qualifications they can publish their own review regarding whatever flaws they feel exist. However, even with these people you will find that they have some stake in the outcome. For instance, regardless of YOUR qualifications, your critique of polygraph research is biased by your stated opinion regarding polygraph which doesn't come from an inpartial review of the research it comes from a personal experience that puts you in the position seeking what is bad about polygraph and allowing you to ignore what is good about it.
If you are correct about the FBI, NSA, CIA..etc then they aren't following the written policy of the American Polygraph Association are they? How do you know that applicants are CURRENTLY being rejected solely on polygraph results?
Anonymous, if you are right that this is not the case with many agencies, local, state and federal included, then they aren't following the written policy of the American Polygraph Association are they? How do you know that applicants are CURRENTLY being rejected solely on polygraph results?
How many people are getting burned?
What do you mean by burned? If you think that by rejecting someone for a job they were not entitled to in the first place is getting burned, could you explain why?
QuoteCullen, can you name any peer reviewed studies about anything conducted and funded by anyone who doesn't have some stake in the outcome? Like I said before, I guess you must think that maybe we should have podiatrists conducting brain stem research just so it will be unbiased. Get real. In order to get podiatrists interested in brain stem research, you are going to have to pay them and where the money is coming from will raise the spectre of bias. The balancing weight of this potential bias is the peer review/publication process which exposes the findings to criticism.
If yo can't cite any credible study concluding the polygraph to be a good screening tool, just say so. No need to go into a long and lame diatribe comparing the pseudo science of polygraphy to podiatry, radiology or any other scientific practice. It's frankly an insult to podiatrists! They actually have to go to medical school to earn a doctorate, not some 14 week polygraph school! Ditto, to those polygraphers using the term "psycho physiologist". I believe physiologist have doctorates also.
You're starting to remind me of Sancho Panza (aka Capt Phillip Queeg).
QuoteIf you are correct about the FBI, NSA, CIA..etc then they aren't following the written policy of the American Polygraph Association are they? How do you know that applicants are CURRENTLY being rejected solely on polygraph results?
If you don't pass the polygraph, you will not meet requirements and will not be hired. People are routinely presented with a conditional offers of employment at these agencies. Conditional upon passing the polygraph. They fail the polygraph and are not hired. Some letters even state that they've been rejected because their polygraph results were not "within acceptable parameters".
TC
QuoteWhat do you mean by burned? If you think that by rejecting someone for a job they were not entitled to in the first place is getting burned, could you explain why?
The testing process should be fair, and it is not. That is how people are "getting burned."
It has nothing to do with feeling entitled to the job. It has everything to do with telling the truth on a test that supposedly detects lies and being told you lied and therefore won't get the job.
If a police agency lined up all their applicants, had them count off, and then summarily removed all the even numbers from the hiring process, would you think it reasonable to argue that none of those applicants were entitled to a job in the first place, so they have no reason to complain?
Mr Cullen
Do you find it strange that considering polygraph has been around for almost one hundred years and has allegedly ruined thousands of lives, that the antipolygraph side has produced so few studies to back up their opinions? Even your beloved NAS study only looked at existing research, they did not contribute anything new. After all, there are so many of you to help with funding and if you don't do it, who will?
Cullen, I'll take that as an admission that you couldn't name any peer reviewed studies about anything conducted and funded by anyone who doesn't have some stake in the outcome.
You also don't appear to have any basis, general or specific, that applicants are currently being rejected solely on the bass of polygraph.
Why didn't you just say so?
My illustrated point, which you mislabel a diatribe was merely given to emphasize your ridiculous position that in order for research to be valid it must be conducted by disinterested parties. That never happens. Everbody involved in any study has a stake in the outcome. Otherwise they have no incentive to do the study in the first place. I'm sorry the simple logic of that statement seems to escape you. The Crewes Study is the only part of my post that makes a direct comparison to polygraph screening and medical screening and as I posted previously, to date no-one has successfully refuted the findings of his study.
"If a police agency lined up all their applicants, had them count off, and then summarily removed all the even numbers from the hiring process, would you think it reasonable to argue that none of those applicants were entitled to a job in the first place, so they have no reason to complain? "
They might have a reason to gripe but they would be laughed out of court or arbitration because whether you like it or not the procedure you described is a perfectly LEGAL way to eliminate applicants because it does not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of race, gender, religon or political beliefs. Polygraph is a perfectly legal way to eliminate applicants and it that context (and only in that context) it really doesn't matter whether it works or not.
According to the American Medical Association Polygraph performs significantly better than chance. "It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence."
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
Ask any statistician if you want to know whether or not 75% to 97% can be properly characterized as "significantly better than chance."
But once again The American Polygraph Association Policy for pre-employment testing clearly says:
"Polygraph test results should never be used as the sole basis for the selection or rejection of a law-enforcement or public-service applicant"
http://www.polygraph.org/files/delPolicyLE-PublicServicePre-employmenttestingJan2009[2].doc
It appears that the American Polygraph Association and The American Medical Association are in full agreement that polygraph results should not be used as the sole basis for a hiring decision.
It isn't very likely that polygraph will ever be eliminated from law enforcement hiring procedures. Not likely at all.
If you want to have a significant positive effect on leveling the playing field in the hiring process where polygraph is concerned, why don't you try to identify those agencies that are still using polygraph as the sole arbitor in hiring, failing to use the successive hurdles approach, or violating the American Polygraph Association Policy in any manner and encourage rejected applicants to base their appeals on APA policy violations? The APA may never publicly censure those agencies who violate their policies but neither will they voice support for anyone who fails to follow them.
The questions I would ask a rejected applicant would be along the lines of.
How many tests were you given?
A failure on a single test question series of 3 or 4 charts without a follow-up test is a strong indcation that the successive hurdles approach was not followed.
Who told you that you were rejected?
How did they tell you?
Did you get anything in writing?
This information might provide evidence of an APA policy violation.
Did you lie or omit any information before or during the test that pertained to a past criminal act or falsifying of application documents?
If they did, they were rejected because they lied and got caught. You can't help them.
Did you attempt or were you accused of countermeasures?
If someone was caught using countermeasures there isn't much you'll be able to do to help them because they got caught cheating.
If any of these questions lead you to believe that APA policy was violated refer them to the APA policy and suggest that they read it thoroughly and point out any potential policy violations in their appeal letter. You should also suggest that they sit down immediately and commit to paper every thing they can remember about the test and what was said by whom and when it was said. This will enable them to better respond to any questions raised in the appeals process.
You'll never beat them by griping about it or by using George's book.
If you want to whip them, whip them with their own switch, in this case the APA preemployment testing policy.
QuoteDo you find it strange that considering polygraph has been around for almost one hundred years and has allegedly ruined thousands of lives, that the antipolygraph side has produced so few studies to back up their opinions?
Is that how the "scienfic method" is suppose to work? One group claims they have a magic box that can distinguish lies from truth. Is the onus on THEM to prove that theory, or on some "anti" group to prove them wrong?
People assumed the world was flat for centuries. It wasn't a theory, like polygraphy, it was an unproven and largely unquestioned claim. Along came Columbus. The "anti" of his day who dared to question that dogma. And of course, no one likes to have their dogma questioned, whether it be the 15th century "flat earth" crowd, or the modern practitioners of polygraphy.
QuoteEven your beloved NAS study only looked at exsting research, they did not contribute anything new. After all, there are so many of you to help with funding and if you don't do it, who will?
It wasn't a "study". Congress tasked the NAS to REVIEW the research out there on the polygraph and assess it's scientific validity, probably reliability...etc. in light of the DOE security debacle. Remember WEN HO LEE?
They found only 56 of 1000 so called studies worth reviewing. Most lacked scienfitic rigor. They found that in many ways polygraphy doesn't even lend itself to scientific scrutiny due to it's subjectivity (even chart analysis is subjective), lack of standarization...etc.
Don't YOU find it strange that such esteemed body found so much wrong with the polygraph? For example, they concluded that employment screening polygraphs did more HARM THAN GOOD, and should be stopped.
Maybe you should point out what part of the NAS report findings you disagree with, and why. Polygrapers don't like the report findings would be more credible, and frankly appear less arrogant, if they did that. Though I understand that people who make a living off the test would not like the report, and criticize it. That is just human nature.
TC
But Mr Cullen, it should be so easy to debunk a false science. One good antipolygraph scientific study in 100 years is not asking too much, is it?
Even if NAS only found 56 valid polygraph studies, that is still 56 to 0 our way.
Wen Ho Lee? Oh yeah that was the DOE Scientist that was CLEARED BY POLYGRAPH.
Christopher Columbus. Famous for getting lost, right? Never did find what he was looking for. The "Wrongway Feldman" of his era. He first claimed that Cuba was Japan and stummbled onto San Salvador. Then in a feeble attempt to wrench success from the jaws of ineptitude he renamed the natives "Indians". He then went back to Spain and lied about his findings and was well rewarded. He then made three more tries to find India. All of them failed. Yes I guess you could say he was the "Anti" of his time. I see the similarities.
Optional history lesson ...But you're also wrong about something else. Aristotle first postulated the shape of the earth in the 3rd century BC after viewing a lunar eclipse and determining it was caused by the shadow of the earth and that if the earth was flat the shape of the shadow would change depending on the location of the sun. . By the time that Columbus made his voyage 1600 years later, only uneducated peasants believed the earth was flat and the members of the Spanish Court most certainly knew the earth was round because it had been taught in their schools for hundreds of years. Most educated and civilized people believed the earth to be round for hundreds of years before Christ even though the flat earth idea did briefly resurge during the height of the Roman Empire. The maps and charts Columbus carried with him on his first voyage while containing significant errors clearly showed that the world was round/spherical. End of History lesson.
See what happens when you get your polygraph information from George and your history from School House Rock? Errors caused by false information or unjustified beliefs may arise. Columbus was really little more than a courageous buffoon. I believe that George is sincere and courageous, but he's not a buffoon. It's just too bad he's wrong. You should really try for a more flattering comparison.
NAS Study or Review or what ever you want to call it funded by donations by the scientists scientists at DOE who formed the opinion that because of their lofty "qualifications", THEY shouldn't have to submit to the indignity of security screening while they were working on weapons of mass destruction. The fact that they bought and paid for the this NAS "Study/Review" ALSO provides a significant potential for bias and conflict of interest on THEIR findings as well.
But even then acfter their review they did state that the polygraph was the best tool currently available "ALTERNATIVES AND ENHANCEMENTS TO THE POLYGRAPH
CONCLUSION: Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term."
Chart analysis may have been largely subjective in the 70's, but now evaluation is by and large objective. (meaning that most modern examiners use objective scoring criteria) Many of the scoring criteria mentioned in George's book are no longer considered as valid by modern polygraph examiners.
The NAS Study/Review also stated that Computerized analysis of polygraph records has the potential to improve the accuracy of test results by using more information from polygraph records than is used in traditional scoring methods. Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them.
You err when you presume that the NAS Study/Review was the end of polygraph progress. Many studies have been produced since their report which address the kinds of research improvements recomended by the NAS.
Quote from: Anonymous Too on Mar 01, 2009, 06:36 PMWen Ho Lee? Oh yeah that was the DOE Scientist that was CLEARED BY POLYGRAPH.
Dr. Lee wasn't cleared by the polygraph. Although he initially passed his DOE polygraph screening examination, the FBI claims to have interpreted his charts as "inconclusive, if not deceptive," although this is contradicted by Dave Renzelman, then chief of the DOE polygraph program, who reached the conclusion that Lee's polygraph examination was "not finished" (whatever that's supposed to mean). In this regard see my 26 July 2001 "OPR Referral Regarding FBI Testimony on Wen Ho Lee." (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-017.shtml)
Note that Lee later "failed" an FBI polygraph interrogation that may well have been rigged: it was reportedly conducted in an overheated room with a painfully overtightened thumb cuff. See Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) for more on the use (and abuse) of polygraphy in the Wen Ho Lee investigation.
QuoteNAS Study or Review or what ever you want to call it funded by donations by the scientists scientists at DOE who formed the opinion that because of their lofty "qualifications", THEY shouldn't have to submit to the indignity of security screening while they were working on weapons of mass destruction. The fact that they bought and paid for the this NAS "Study/Review" ALSO provides a significant potential for bias and conflict of interest on THEIR findings as well.
Where did you get the notion that the NAS research review was funded by donations from DOE scientists?
QuoteChart analysis may have been largely subjective in the 70's, but now evaluation is by and large objective. (meaning that most modern examiners use objective scoring criteria) Many of the scoring criteria mentioned in George's book are no longer considered as valid by modern polygraph examiners.
Which scoring criteria mentioned in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (4th ed.) do you maintain are "no longer considered valid by modern polygraph examiners?"
QuoteYou err when you presume that the NAS Study/Review was the end of polygraph progress. Many studies have been produced since their report which address the kinds of research improvements recomended by the NAS.
Citations?
I'll do the first one for you, but for the rest you'll have to do your own homework. I have no intention of doing research for your next edition.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/04/national/main157220.shtml
"The polygrapher concluded that Lee was not deceptive. Two other polygraphers in the DOE's Albuquerque test center, including the manager, reviewed the charts and concurred: Lee wasn't lying.
The polygraph results were so convincing and unequivocal, that sources say the deputy director of the Los Alamos lab issued an apology to Lee, and work began to get him reinstated in the X-Division. Furthermore, sources confirm to CBS News that the local Albuquerque FBI office sent a memo to headquarters in Washington saying it appeared that Lee was not their spy.
One question at hand is how could the exact same polygraph charts be legitimately interpreted as "passing" and also "failing?" CBS News spoke to Richard Keifer, the current chairman of the American Polygraph Association, who's a former FBI agent and used to run the FBI's polygraph program.
Keifer says, "There are never enough variables to cause one person to say (a polygraph subject is) deceptive, and one to say he's non-deceptive...there should never be that kind of discrepancy on the evaluation of the same chart."
As to how it happened in the Wen Ho Lee case, Keifer thinks, "then somebody is making an error."
We asked Keifer to look at Lee's polygraph scores. He said the scores are "crystal clear." In fact, Keifer says, in all his yeas as a polygrapher, he had never been able to score anyone so high on the non-deceptive scale. He was at a loss to find any explanation for how the FBI could deem the polygraph scores as "failing.""
QuoteI'll do the first one for you, but for the rest you'll have to do your own homework. I have no intention of doingresearch for your next edition.
I've done my homework, and I can tell you that:
1) You're wrong about the NAS polygraph review having been funded by DOE scientists. It was funded by Congress.
2) The scoring criteria mentioned in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are current and based on DoDPI/DACA documentation.
3) Very little peer reviewed polygraph research has been published since the publication of the NAS report, and the shortcomings of polygraphy enumerated in that report have not been mitigated in any significant manner.
You may have done your homework but obviously not too recently
#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
#2 I see its time for you to start another FOIA request
#3 I see you agree that peer reviewed polygraph research moves forward post NAS and since NAS recommended computerized analysis,
Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them.
You see George, The reason that I don't cite studies for you is that I have seen what you do with the old ones. I don't think you even bother to read them if they happen to disagree with your preconceived notions. All you intend to do is research the persons who participated in the studies and then accuse them of bias like it is somehow wrong for a researcher to have any interest in the outcome of the study.
That is a spurious and ad hominum argument because you know, or should know, that researchers don't research anything in which they don't have an interest. The proper way to refute a study is to replicate or conduct your own research and see if it refutes the findings of the previous study. Then both sets of results can be weighed by the scientific community. But wait, you don't have the qualifications to do that and it doesn't seem like you have the ability to find someone who does, or willing to take on the project.
Whenever you read studies by polygraph researchers like Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc who are qualified to conduct polygraph research and have completed studies post NAS all you can do is cry bias because to can't refute their findings.
You make broad claims about scientists negative opinions about polygraph, but pay little attention to the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used.
You ignore that in the 80s a Gallup poll of the membership of the Society for Psychophysiological Research which indicated that approximately two-thirds of the scientists polled reported favorable opinions concerning the usefulness of polygraph tests, only one percent believed polygraph had no value. Ten years later the study was replicated by Honts and Amato with virtually the same results except they asked additional questions to separate out the respondents who reported themselves highly informed about polygraph. 83 % of this "highly informed" subset gave favorable responses towards polygraph the usefulness of polygraph.
Gallup Organization (1984). Survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinions of polygraph test interpretation Polygraph, 13, 153-165
Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22
So are you going to refute their findings or criticize the source for bias?
Quote#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
In earlier posts, you said the source of funding and peer reviewing of studies don't really matter that much. That regarding polygraph studies funded by the APA.
All of a sudden, the NAS report is biased because you claim funding came from private sources.
At any point, as I've asked pailryder, what is it precisely in the NAS report do you find to be so much in error, and why? Particularly, in the conclusion section of the report.
TC
Quote#1 No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
It is true that funding for the NAS study was not directly appropriated by Congress. The direct source was the Department of Energy (which is funded by Congress). Then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, a prominent advocate of polygraph screening, agreed to fund the polygraph review at the behest of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), a member of the Senate Energy Committee.
The bottom line is that your claim that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was biased because the panel was "funded by donations by the...scientists at DOE" is unfounded (not to mention ludicrous).
Quote#2 I see its time for you to start another FOIA request
Perhaps, but major changes in polygraph scoring criteria are not (and as a practical matter cannot) be effected in secret. And I've seen no evidence that the kind of change you suggest has occurred.
Quote#3 I see you agreethat peer reviewed polygraph research moves forward post NAS and since NAS recommended computerized analysis,
Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them.
I surmise that you're proabably referring to Objective Scoring System (http://www.oss3.info/) developed by Raymond Nelson and others. But no amount of computerization can compensate for polygraphic lie detection's lack of scientific underpinnings. As Dr. Al Zelicoff, speaking at the first public meeting of the NAS polygraph review panel, aptly put it: "From a medical and scientific standpoint, it is not sufficient to measure well that which should not be measured in the first place."
Computerization of polygraph chart readings may help to standardize the scoring of polygraph charts, but it can no more add validity to the underlying procedure than can the computerization of astrological chart readings.
QuoteYou see George, The reason that I don't cite studies for you is that I have seen what you do with the old ones....
I thought you said the reason you decline to cite studies is that you "have no intention of doing research for [my] next edition." I don't buy either explanation. When you decline to cite studies to back your claims, I think the more likely explanation is that...you can't.
Mr Maschke
How do you square your claim of a scientific consensus against polygraph with the Gallop and Amato-Hounts poll results?
Mr Cullen
I don't have any problem with the NAS report. Polygraph as a profession has nothing to fear from valid, thoughtful criticism. We get our share, much of it richly deserved. In fact, much can be learned from it. Everyone knows I visit and post often and will say again I have learned much here.
The NAS took great pains to explain that while the accuracy rates of the 56 studies it accepted as valid ranged between 70 and 90 percent, they were not really that high. But they did not cite any studies to back that conclusion.
If a technique with a long history of use has a 70 to 90 accuracy, as determined by its harshest critics, and 56 valid studies to back it up, wouldn't you like to be able to cite at least one study to support your opinion?
Cullen the point is if you presume polygraph research is inherently biased by their financial or prejudicial interest in the outcome. Then the NAS study is equally biased. Your bias argument absent proof of intentional falsification of results is neutral so you should move on.
But in George's response did you note how he carefully ignored, as you have, the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used?
Then there are the poll citations that show that your comments and his regarding how the scientific community views the polygraph wererefuted by Gallop and Amato-Honts poll results. Artfully ignored; at least until one of you figures out some way to accuse Gallup of bias.
He also seems to believe that research and changes in polygraph scoring criteria haven't occurred because nobody mailed him a copy.
If he wants to look at some of the new stuff he needs to start with the names I gave him. Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc.
I would expect that type of artless or naive reasoning from someone who thought that Columbus was the one who discovered the world was round, but George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.
Quote from: pailryder on Mar 02, 2009, 02:24 PMMr Maschke
How do you square your claim of a scientific consensus against polygraph with the Gallop and Amato-Hounts poll results?
I agree with David Lykken, who discussed these polls in Chapter 12 of
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. His key criticisms of these polls are 1) the fact that respondents were asked about the
usefulness of polygraph test interpretations, rather than their
validity, and that even those who reject the latter may concede the former, 2) that no distinction was made between the CQT and the GKT, and respondents who thought polygraph interpretations useful may have had the latter technique in mind, and 3) the Honts-Amato poll had a low response rate.
In a better constructed poll by Lykken and William G. Iacono, only 36% of SPR members and 30% of APA Division One fellows responded "yes" when asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" More than a decade has passed since that poll, and I suspect that if a new poll were conducted today, those numbers would be lower.
Polls, schmools!
Whatever happened to the "scientific method" we were all taught in school? If the theory that a polygraph machine can reliably detect lies is valid, don't take a poll, PROVE IT!
And if you CAN'T prove it, don't claim the theory is still valid just because the opposing side hasn't proved it NOT to be valid!
And that goes equally well for the theory of man-made global whining, I mean warming.
TC
The poll is just a poll, but it is a replicated poll and was not proferred for its scientific accuracy. It was proferred to refute your insipid insistance that "science" has determined that polygraph doesn't work.
Thats a false conclusion based on your own opinion not scienific study. Polygraph Works. 56 peer reviewed studies that were approved as having sufficient quality to satisfy the NAS say it works. The NAS says it works, the American Medical Association says it works and the poll by Gallup that was replicated by Amato and Honts establishes that the majority of psychophisiologogists agree that it works. Unless you can find fraud they are all still awaiting someone to refute the findings,
The issue is not whether or not polygraph works, IT DOES, It just doesn't work well enough to suit YOU and GEORGE. but just to make you guys happy research is ongoing.
Cullen I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?
I quote: "The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs has reviewed the data on the validity and accuracy of polygraphy testing as it is applied today. The use of the control question technique in criminal cases is time honored and has seen much scientific study. It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. This does not preclude using the polygraph test in criminal investigations as evidence or as another source of information to guide the investigation with full appreciation of the limitations in its use."
Link: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
Once again, Ask a mathmatician or statistician if 75% to 97% is significantly better than chance. I'll save you the time. They'll tell you that it is significantly better than chance.
QuotePolygraph Works. 56 peer reviewed studies that were approved as having sufficient quality to satisfy the NAS say it works. The NAS says it works
The NAS report did not come close to saying that 56 studies supported the validity of polygraphy. The actual language of the report stated that only 56 of roughly 1,000 printed studies were worth reviewing. Stretching that to argue that all supported the validity of polygraphy is a huge distortion. Some might even call it "deceptive."
While everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position, the bottom line conclusion of the NAS report is "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
The following excerpt from the "Conclusion and Recommendations" section of the NAS review doesn't sound like they concluded "it works", from a scientific standpoint, anyway:
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.
OTOH, they concluded the polygraph does have "utility", since many people are dumb enough to believe it is valid, and can actually detect lies. Of course, we know the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation, and interrogation techniques can be quite effective.
Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that admissions and confessions occur more readily with the polygraph than with a bogus pipeline—an interrogation accompanying the use of an inert machine that the examinee believes to be a polygraph. In the long run, evidence that a technique lacks validity will surely undercut its utility.
This is why it is important to go into the test "akamai" (informed). Reading TLBTLD at a minimum! Know beforehand that the machine DOES NOT detect lies. Read about some of the interrogation techniques that are likely to be used against you, and the real purpose of a polygraph examination.
Oh yeah, the NAS review also mentioned the high expected number of "false positives" that occur, and conclude that screening polygraphs can be expected to do more harm than good, eliminating qualified TRUTHFUL applicants from employment by falsely labeling them as "deceptive".
Cullen, I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?
Gino everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.
I KNOW I KNOW You guys do it all the time.
For example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
And you insinuate I am deceptive. Clean your own house Gino.
Do you also think Columbus discovered the Earth was round?
Quote from: Anonymous Too on Mar 03, 2009, 07:32 AMGino everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.
I KNOW I KNOW You guys do it all the time.
The line Gino cited is the take home conclusion of the NAS report. It's not cherry picked to support a conclusion that the report doesn't make, or a view that the polygraph review committee members didn't voice.
QuoteFor example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
T.M. Cullen's citation of the NAS report is not deliberately misleading in the manner you suggest. He highlighted quoted passages in blue. (It would be preferable to have used quote tags for this purpose.) The first passage cited in his last post is from pp. 212 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=212)-13 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=212) of the NAS report. The second passage, also in blue, is found at pp. 214 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=214)-15 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=215).
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
Quote...George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, never allowed myself to be erroneously characterized as such, nor have I tried to create any such impression.
Quotefor example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
"We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak." (NAS Report p 212)
Read it an weep Sancho!
QuoteFor example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
Both quotes are word for word and right out of the NAS report. Would you like the page numbers?
If you don't agree with the NAS report quotes I pasted, just say so. You'd be more credible if you did. Making false accusations just makes you appear psychotic and paranoid.
What do you have against cutting and pasting relevant quotes from scholarly sources? I didn't come unglued when you cut and pasted from JAMA.
TC