Psychology's opinion of Polygraph

[notguilty1]

Here is a link to the APA's site and what they say about polygraph, doctors, not some examiner with less training than a barber.
Glad I'm in good company with my "opinion" of polygraph!

http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html

[Sergeant1107]

May I predict a response from the pro-polygraph crowd?

Probably something along the lines of:  "The only people qualified to form an opinion regarding the accuracy of the polygraph are polygraph examiners, since they are the only ones with sufficient training in the polygraph."

If the National Academy of Sciences' opinion can be discounted I doubt any pro-polygraph people will listen attentively to a psychologist.

[SanchoPanza]

Actually it wouldn't be necessary for them to be an examiner to form an opinion, but the research literature review used to form the opinion linked above is pretty thin by anyone's standards. Of the five references at the end of the article only three are actually cited in the article, two of which had a common author and only one of which was used in the NAS study. It seems like the names of Lykken and the NAS were added to lend name recognition to the article.

The author didn't even put his name on it. No indication that he even read any part of Lykken's book or the NAS study; much less anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article.  I wouldn't be suprised to find out that even Notguilty1 has read more of the NAS study than the author of this article.

Regarding it being what "they" say about polygraph there is nothing in this article to indicate that it in any way represents the position of the American Psychological Association. As to  whether or not the author is a Doctor, since there is no attribution from the author one really can't tell whether the author has a Phd or 2 years short of high school diploma, which also fits the requirements for a level of  membership in the organization.

So as long as people who don't know what they are talking about refrain from giving the article more credit than it really deserves. I don't think Polygraphers will have too much more to  say about it than I did.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Actually it wouldn't be necessary for them to be an examiner to form an opinion, but the research literature review used to form the opinion linked above is pretty thin by anyone's standards. Of the five references at the end of the article only three are actually cited in the article, two of which had a common author and only one of which was used in the NAS study. It seems like the names of Lykken and the NAS were added to lend name recognition to the article.

The author didn't even put his name on it. No indication that he even read any part of Lykken's book or the NAS study; much less anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article.  I wouldn't be suprised to find out that even Notguilty1 has read more of the NAS study than the author of this article.

Regarding it being what "they" say about polygraph there is nothing in this article to indicate that it in any way represents the position of the American Psychological Association. As to  whether or not the author is a Doctor, since there is no attribution from the author one really can't tell whether the author has a Phd or 2 years short of high school diploma, which also fits the requirements for a level of  membership in the organization.

So as long as people who don't know what they are talking about refrain from giving the article more credit than it really deserves. I don't think Polygraphers will have too much more to  say about it than I did.

Sancho Panza

As usual you fail to READ!

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

Now, I can say that there is a coffee pot that circles the earth that know that you are lying. It cannot be seen or proven not to be there.
The only validity to my "test" is that I have convinced enough people that many times I get a confession.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COFFE POT IS THERE!!

Your self serving slant on everything is so evident.
What is so thin about ?
"There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious."
Seems clear to me and many others that have been victims of your scam not to mention respected people in law, medicine and government.

[T.M. Cullen]

You are both missing the point.

The whole point of a polygraph is to EXTRACT information, admissions...etc.  So it is really doesn't matter if the machine detects deception.  As with any other interrogation technique, the only thing that matters is if the examiner is able to get the examinee to talk.  

Most people know that a magician's trick is not really "magic".  The whole point is if the magician is able to get the audience to fall for the "illusion", and get an ovation.

TC

[G Scalabr]

You are both missing the point.

The whole point of a polygraph is to EXTRACT information, admissions...etc.  So it is really doesn't matter if the machine detects deception.  As with any other interrogation technique, the only thing that matters is if the examiner is able to get the examinee to talk.  

TC

As much as I would like to see the EPPA amended, I have always been less than optimistic that this will happen. Twenty years ago, polygraphy was outlawed for use on a majority of the general public. There are so few people left subject to it that this issue is not likely to generate much traction among elected officials.

I think the way we will ultimately be successful in the destruction of polygraphy is through exposing the trickery behind this pseudoscientific fraud, destroying its value in extracting confessions.

As you pointed out, the only real utility of polygraphy is that it is very effective in making those ignorant of the procedure volunteer information that they would otherwise conceal.

With AntiPolygraph.org occupying the #1 spot with Google searches for polygraph for a vast majority of the past five years, I think that it's fair to speculate that our message on polygraphy is being delivered.

Moreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS.
     
Whether they refuse to submit to the "test," pass (with CM or without) or fail, the best way anyone faced with a polygraph can hasten the destruction of this fraud is to deny the process its primary utility by not volunteering any information.

The ability to extract admissions comprises two of the three legs in that table under the polygraph house of cards. Once removed, the cards will come crashing to the floor, as the poor track record of polygraphy with regard to detect deception will leave it unlikely to persevere with this as its only purported benefit.

[T.M. Cullen]

With AntiPolygraph.org occupying the #1 spot with Google searches for polygraph for a vast majority of the past five years, I think that it's fair to speculate that our message on polygraphy is being delivered.

Moreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS.

The key is going to be getting the MEDIA to understand the truth about the polygraph.  The majority of people coming to this board are either going to take the test, might be taking the test, or know someone in that boat.  The general public, however, will remain ignorant unless the media (including shows targeted toward the lowest common denominator of viewer) picks up on it.

Prior to the internet, getting the truth out about the polygraph meant writing a book, or producing word-of-mouth.   The information revolution has been a real boon!

Hopefully, the truth will become widespread, and our names cleared prior to our departure from this earthly existence.  And our national security no longer jeopardized, I might add!

TC

[George W. Maschke]

Sancho Panza, who has recently lied to us about the existence of published studies on polygraph countermeasure detection, now complains that the American Psychological Association's article on lie detectors lacks "anything that might provide an opposing point of view to add a semblance of balance to the article."

But in point of fact, the article is not unbalanced. The authors of all of the sources referenced are scientists at arm's length from polygraphy. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy is to psychology as intelligent design is to biology. Sancho Panza might as well bemoan the fact that an article on evolutionary biology fails to include an opposing point of view from a clergyman.

[SanchoPanza]

Dr. George Maschke, endorses lying whenever it suits his purpose and has even been caught by one government agency lying about his contacts with foreign intelligence services as well as  unauthorized release of classified information.  He was subsequently caught by another government agency attempting to cheat on a  polygraph by using countermeasures.

Dr. Maschke, of course, maintains his innocence but, paradoxically, he also endorses lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.

He recently decided to label me a liar because I refused to do countermeasure research for Dr. Maschke by directing him to studies that show that not only are countermeasures detectable; honest people who attempt countermeasures increase the probability of producing deceptive reactions during polygraph examinations.  

This occurred after I challenged him to produce a single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are undetectable and (b) cited his book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for undetectable countermeasures. As of this date he has failed to produce any such study.

Sancho Panza

[getrealalready]

S.P.  
You write in part:

...Dr. George Maschke, endorses lying whenever it suits his purpose and has even been caught by one government agency lying about his contacts with foreign intelligence services as well asunauthorized release of classified information.He was subsequently caught by another government agency attempting to cheat on apolygraph by using countermeasures....  

Have you completely lost your mind? Are you really defining "caught" as being found deceptive on a polygraph examination?  Unless you have independent corroborative evidence related to your aforementioned assertions, you are not only without reason, but a slandering fool.  Only a fool would suggest to the hundreds of victims of false positive polygraph results who view this site that a deceptive result on a polygraph exam is equivalent to being caught. Yes, get real already!

[pailryder]

Moreover, I also think that it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of those who read the information here are following our advice to MAKE NO ADMISSIONS

Mr. Scalabrini

You are free to assume whatever you wish, but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions.

[George W. Maschke]

Dr. George Maschke, endorses lying whenever it suits his purpose and has even been caught by one government agency lying about his contacts with foreign intelligence services as well as  unauthorized release of classified information.  He was subsequently caught by another government agency attempting to cheat on a  polygraph by using countermeasures.

This is slander. I was never "caught" lying or using countermeasures by any government agency. I wrongly failed an FBI polygraph despite telling the truth and was falsely accused of using countermeasures by an LAPD polygrapher. Any who are interested can read more in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."

Dr. Maschke, of course, maintains his innocence but, paradoxically, he also endorses lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.

I have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.

He recently decided to label me a liar because I refused to do countermeasure research for Dr. Maschke by directing him to studies that show that not only are countermeasures detectable; honest people who attempt countermeasures increase the probability of producing deceptive reactions during polygraph examinations.

No. I've labeled you a liar because you lied about the existence of "published studies as late as 2007 that countermeasures are detectable..." No such studies have been published.

This occurred after I challenged him to produce a single research study that both (a) proved that the countermeasures he teaches are undetectable and (b) cited his book TLBTLD as the source of the advice or training for undetectable countermeasures. As of this date he has failed to produce any such study.

As I pointed out earlier:

That polygraph operators cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is supported by peer-reviewed research cited, with full abstracts, therein. Skeptical readers are welcome (and encouraged) to examine that evidence and draw their own conclusions.

[pailryder]

I have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.

Dr Maschke

A true statement, as far as it goes, but you certainly do endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.  And, although you always deny responsibility, if you were completely truthful, you would admit that the information, which is, after all, called how to beat a polygraph (not how to pass if truthful) is used more often by liars than by truthfuls.

[George W. Maschke]

I have never encouraged anyone to answer relevant questions in a polygraph examination with anything less than complete honesty.

Dr Maschke

A true statement, as far as it goes, but you certainly do endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations.

I certainly endorse the use of polygraph countermeasures by truthful persons to protect themselves against the all-too-serious risk of a false positive outcome. And I'm in good company. As the late Professor David T. Lykken observed:

...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT administered under adversarial circumstances, and those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette. (A Tremor in The Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998, p. 277)

You continue:

And, although you always deny responsibility, if you were completely truthful, you would admit that the information, which is, after all, called how to beat a polygraph (not how to pass if truthful) is used more often by liars than by truthfuls.

Not so. The truth of the matter is that I do not know whether the information provided here on AntiPolygraph.org is used more often by liars or by truthful persons.

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

You write in part:

...but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions....

You didn't know 20 years ago what percentage of crimes were confessed to following a polygraph examination; you likewise do not know any more about that statistic with today's crimes and polygraph-related confessions.

By definition my assertion is true with unsolved crimes.  I believe it to be particularly true with the fishing expedition we know as polygraph screening for which ground truth is frequently never established.