I PASSED THE POLY!!!!

[J.B. McCloughan]

George,

You still amaze me.  You have virtually dropped out of a debate that was started on your assertions of polygraph validity.  Too date you have never presented any credible peer-reviewed research to support any of your assertions.  You haven't even said what the current accuracy rate.

Gino,

You say chance.  What does the current peer-reviewed research say of polygraph accuracy?

[George W. Maschke]

J.B.,

You refer, of course, to the message thread, The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. My assertions regarding the validity of CQT polygraphy are that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, and that because it lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity. I think enough has been said about this in that discussion thread that critically thinking readers can draw their own conclusions about these arguments. The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate. Even if an accuracy rate could be determined for a sampling of interrogations, that rate would have no predictive validity for the opinion rendered in any particular interrogator's interrogation of any particular person on any particular day.

I'd also like to make a fine point about what Gino wrote above: it's not the case that CQT polygraphy has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be no more accurate than chance, but rather that CQT polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to be more accurate than chance (under field conditions). There is an important difference between the two propositions.

[J.B. McCloughan]

George,

The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate.

Again you skirt the issue.  There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies.  The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis.  It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better.   Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.

[Propoly]

Gino, Beech


Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information. It's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with. Therefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.

[beech trees]

Gino, Beech

Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers.

I post comments. I look and have looked for answers. Now that I have become more educated on the subject, I post answers when I feel I have them.

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information.

I guess the inference here is that neither Gino or myself are hard working nor are we honest, and that we have posted 'biased' information about the polygraph while you, Mr. 'Propoly', have not. Let's read on and see.

It's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with.

To date, Propoly, I have seen nothing from you except gratuitous assertions and personal opinion. Precious little information. None in fact.

Therefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.

Well that's a shame. I guess when your polygraph interrogation victims actually have a chance to fight back and speak their minds, as well as bring to light the incredible pantload of BUNK the travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science polygraphy is, you fold like a cheap card table and crawl back to the heavily censored bulletin boards where your particular brand of magic snake oil can be peddled free from the scrutiny of others who know all about you. Take care,

bt

[George W. Maschke]

J.B.,

Among other things, you wrote:

The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis.

With regard to the scientific community's acceptance of CQT polygraphy, I would remind you of Iacono & Lykken's survey, which is discussed at p. 22 of the 2nd ed. of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

In 1994, William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken conducted a survey of opinion of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) (Iacono & Lykken, 1997). Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed.

Moreover, SPR members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph "tests" can be beaten.

That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.

[D Ngoo]

xpmachina.  If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky.  Thatz about it.   Hope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him.  I understand why you need to make these postings.  Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.    

[JM]

Does your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.

[Twonlock]

JM

Evidently you haven't read the numerous posts on this site. If you had you wouldn't have to ask the question.

All of the "truth" devices are bovine poop including "brain wave science". I would volunteer to be a research subject for the validity/invalidity of "all" of these divices if I could be assured that the true results would be plastered in every newspaper and on every TV station in this country. The brain wave science is just another money making scam. If there was anything to this "technology" they could do so much more good turning it toward the medical profession. And make so much more money.

[beech trees]

xpmachina.  If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky.  Thatz about it.

Add me to the 'just got lucky' list you're compiling.

Hope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him.

I sat and reflected on this last passage for quite some time. After much thought, I've concluded this is the most outrageous statement I've seen yet posted to these bulletin boards.

I understand why you need to make these postings.  Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.    

To those who's voices would be stilled by your threats, I pray your chains rest lightly upon you as you lick the boots of Herr Ngoo.

As the ancient Spartans so magnificently phrased it:

Mo
lon labe

[PolyBS]

Does your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.

How about not being hired.  I'd say that's a pretty specific consequence you sanctimonious [expletive deleted].