drugs and LEO Background Disclosure

[meangino]

Torpedo:

You wrote:
I recognize Drew's academic credentials, but he too has tired of the back and forth banter...that much is fairly evident to me.

(sorry my computer skills aren't good enough to do the type of pastes George M  and other more frequent posters do).

How do you know Dr. Richardson no longer supports the polygraph challenge he made to the National Academy of Sciences? Notwithstanding your opining here, I predict he will be on this thead shortly confirming he's willing to carry out his challenge.

[Marty]

I second this.  Torpedo, you can settle this issue of whether countermeasures can be detected right now by taking up the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge.  It's fun, it's easy and it's simple!  How about it?  Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Skeptic,

"Fun?"  well it would be for the observers. "Easy and simple?" I don't think so. Drew's challenge, far from being the childish taunt some polygraphers have stated, is not simple and requires serious work to set up protocols that each side can agree on as providing statistically significant results - a non-trivial task. Drew's challenge would require significant resources (mostly time and thoughtful preparation) to execute.  It would be much more elucidating if funding could be arranged and experienced polygraphers recruited.

-Marty

[n0mad]

They can't take the challenge because they have doubt and fear being disproved.  Its like if somehow you find out there is no God, you start questioning your existance, maybe go into a deep depression, kill yourself, etc... It wouldn't be a pleasant experience to find out the idol of your worship was a fraud. Hell, they may actually have to find something honest to do, but probably just move on to another scheme in which they can instill fear in others by using deceit and scare tactics.

[Marty]

They can't take the challenge because they have doubt and fear being disproved.  Its like if somehow you find out there is no God, you start questioning your existance, maybe go into a deep depression, kill yourself, etc... It wouldn't be a pleasant experience to find out the idol of your worship was a fraud. Hell, they may actually have to find something honest to do, but probably just move on to another scheme in which they can instill fear in others by using deceit and scare tactics.

I think polygraphers believe in what they are doing. Newton believed in Alchemy. Exponents of Facilitated Communication believe in their technology. The medical establishment long believed ulcers could not be caused by a bacterium.

Things change.

I think polygraphers believe they can often detect CMs. It may even be true for some kinds of CMs. The issue of CM detection isn't subject to the uncertainties of base truth like the CQT. I suspect many pass using CMs but I suspect CM users are also sometimes detected. The knowledge (as opposed to use) of CMs could also be subject to the CIT, the type of test ascribed the highest (only?) validity.

-Marty

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,

"Fun?"  well it would be for the observers. "Easy and simple?" I don't think so. Drew's challenge, far from being the childish taunt some polygraphers have stated, is not simple and requires serious work to set up protocols that each side can agree on as providing statistically significant results - a non-trivial task. Drew's challenge would require significant resources (mostly time and thoughtful preparation) to execute.  It would be much more elucidating if funding could be arranged and experienced polygraphers recruited.

Marty,
I stand corrected, although I hope my light-hearted tone was taken for what it was, and not as an attempt to belittle the challenge.  Nontheless, the fact that polygraphers en masse have utterly refused to even discuss taking up a challenge that could put the issue to rest and provide a solid boost to their profession (provided detection were as easy as they claim) should be taken as speaking volumes regarding the accuracy of their boasts -- or at least, their confidence in said boasts.

Skeptic

[Marty]

Skeptic,

Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.

-Marty

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,

Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.

-Marty

Actually, I would think most psychology departments at major universities would be more than capable of setting up and carrying through such a study.  The major issues would be the study design, which would likely be rather standard psychology fare (double-blind, etc.).

Getting the results into a reputable journal would be more a matter of time than anything (assuming it's well done).

Skeptic

[Marty]

Skeptic,

Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.

TIA

-Marty

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,

Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.

TIA

-Marty

That, I would not know, as I've never done grantwriting.  I do recall, during my Psychology undergrad days, that undergrad Psych majors were required, as part of "intro to Psychology 101", to participate in ongoing Psychology studies.  This was a relatively small Psychology department, yet it had multiple studies going on the scale you seem to envision.  So I would imagine we're talking $50,000 or perhaps considerably less, mostly to fund research assistants for a year or two.  If the department wanted to set up a permanent polygraph research lab, it might cost more (for equipment and space, etc.).  An informal study with all volunteers, of course, could be done for the price of the equipment.

Of greater consideration would be the design of the study, to avoid confounds that the polygraph community would claim regarding the "reality" of the study conditions.  Since most of us seem to agree that "fear of consequences" is the main factor in the functioning of the polygraph, one would need to set up a situation in which the subjects felt concern that the detection of countermeasures would have real consequences for them.  At the same time, you'd need to tread an ethical line regarding deception of the subjects.

On the other hand, it might be interesting to compare such results with those from subjects who felt they had nothing to lose.  This second part could be considered a "baseline" for the detection of countermeasures.

You'd also need to lay out beforehand that the polygraph examiner was only allowed to judge the presence of countermeasures based upon chart recordings, not upon beating a confession out of an examinee.  No interrogations allowed -- we're looking for the actual performance of the device, after all, not for how often an examinee can be made to confess...

Skeptic

[Torpedo]

George, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me.  When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position.  My understanding of a circular argument is:

A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument

Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments

[Skeptic]

George, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me.  When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position.  My understanding of a circular argument is:

A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument

Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments

Torpedo,
Another term for a circular argument is begging the question.  I think what you're referring to is a couple of people holding on to positions dogmatically.

Skeptic

[Torpedo]

Skeptic, I took the time to look it up and it is identified as "circular reasoning"....not a circular argument. (as I called it)...not sure if there is a difference, but your inference of being dogmatic is correct....at least the way that I see it.

[Twoblock]

Torpedo

I am still in the learning process so here's another question for you.

Let's say you are giving me a poly. In the numbers stim test, I pick the number 5. When you ask "did you pick the number 5". I refused to lie and said yes. Would you fail me for being uncooperative for refusing to lie as you directed? Remember, you want me to be truthful and all I want to do is tell the total truth.

[Torpedo]

Probably not. The rationale behind the "stim" test (most examiners do not like that moniker) is that it is INTENDED to demonstrate to the examinee how the test works, truth be told, for the skeptical examinee that the test in fact works.  I am not "giving anything away" (this description is readily available) In explaining the test, I will tell you that I want you to answer no to all questions about the numbers, including the one which you picked/wrote.  If you "refused" to answer as I directed, I do not care...I simply would not administer that particular test to you. The idea isn't to trick (as some would have you believe) it is used to provide an opportunity for the examinee to have some idea of the process.  It may come as a surprise to some of the anti folks, but a distinct advantage of the test is for innocent examinees when they are able to see that the test does work and that will be vindicated. I think the idea of the whole process being equated to a palor game , at least inpart, comes from the manner in which SOME examiners use a deck of playing cards to perform this test.  This manner is not exactly embraced by all for obvious reasons.

[Drew Richardson]

Torpedo,

Because there are others quite well qualified to offer running commentary regarding the nature of, reasons for, and the passage of time that "the challenge" has gone unanswered, my ongoing participation in the matter is rendered largely unnecessary.  That having been said, lest you think that my lack of daily commentary would indicate some disinterest on my part, let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.

With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests.  In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question.  Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow.  This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test.  Regards, Drew Richardson