Need HELP with identifying control!!!!

[Gordon H. Barland]

George,

I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah and Drew Richardson are now the only regular contributors here who avoid verbal brick bats.

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

One thing I haven't been able to figure out.  You know how to research the literature.  You have access to research libraries, both in the Netherlands and at UCLA.  You are single-minded in your quest for information on the polygraph.  You had no trouble finding Ray Weir's articles in an obscure publication found in few libraries.  

Are you really serious when you claim there are no articles about the RI test in peer reviewed journals?

Peace,

Gordon

[Pdd-Fed]

PDD-Fed,

When I describe the Relevant/Irrelevant technique as a "thoroughly discredited" methodology, I am not quoting any individual, but summarizing what I've observed....John Reid and Fred Inbau exclude the R/I technique from their classic book, The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique and James Allan Matte similarly excludes it from his more recent reference work, Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph. And over the past thirty years, the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph has published only a few articles on the R/I technique. (I believe they can be counted on one hand.) The most important of these articles is Raymond J. Weir's 1974 article, "In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant Polygraph Test" (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 119-166). That Weir felt the need to write an apology for the R/I technique is an indication of the low regard in which it was held within the polygraph community even 28 years ago.

George, I guess what I have an issue with is your phraseology.  Since when does the lack on inclusion in a book, the use of one procedure more frequently than another, or a practioner defending a particular testing technique, mean the procedure is "thoroughly discredited?"  I have not seen a  single article in ANY polygraph journel indicating the R&I should NOT be used.  Not one single word against its utilization, yet you have repeated claimed it is "thoroughly discredited."

Heck, even mammograms, which have had several articles come out recently seriously questioning its utility in early detection of breast cancer, would not be described as "thoroughly discredited."  Please watch how fast you banter particular words around.  Some might describe your choice of words as "spin."

This leads me to another point I would like to comment on.  In a recent string between you and Polycop, in which he desribed the academic association between DoDPI and Argosy University, you described Argosy as a "for profit outfit."  I have no doubt you chose those words carefully for their full spin effect..

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

Next, the term, "outfit," immediately brings to mind a business concern instead of an academic institution.  Is the University of Alabama or Nova University, an "outfit?"

Of course I expect anti-polygraph spin on any site called, "anti-polygraph.org.  It is that sometimes it is so obvious as to need pointing out...

Regards...

PDD-Fed

[Anonymous]

Gordon,

You write:

...I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life...

Clearly, both you and PDD-Fed and as well as others have the right to answer and avoid answering any questions you might care to.  No one has denied that.  But when you both spend inordinately more time posting replies than it would take to do that which you have refused to do--simply answer the question/provide any support (even one cite)  from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature to suggest that RI testing is valid, the reason for such omission becomes glaringly apparent.  The notion of scientific support so scared PDD-Fed that he has run from the subject and now gone off on a tangent regarding Argosy University (who really cares??)

[PDD-Fed]

Gordon,

simply answer the question/provide any support (even one cite)  from the peer-reviewed psychophysiological literature to suggest that RI testing is valid, the reason for such omission becomes glaringly apparent.  The notion of scientific support so scared PDD-Fed that he has run from the subject and now gone off on a tangent regarding Argosy University (who really cares??)

Scared?

OK, let me settle this.

First of all, I know of no peer reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."

Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour.  This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.  Yet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site...

Am I wrong in this assumption?

PDD-Fed

[George W. Maschke]

Gordon,

You write:

I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah is now the only regular contributor here who avoids verbal bric-bracs.

I think that intellectual honesty is important to the discussion we are having here; your invocation of supposed national security reasons for not answering even the simplest of questions regarding the science (if any) behind R/I polygraphy is, in my opinion, simply not credible, Gordon, and I'm calling you on it.

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

Of course, you are under no obligation to answer any questions I and others have put to you here, but your refusal to answer the questions in my earlier post speaks directly to your credibility. As Anonymous has pointed out, your avoidance of these simple (but clearly embarrassing to the polygraph community) questions -- even as you address numerous others -- belies any claim that "other priorities in life" prevent you from addressing them.

Finally, you write:

One thing I haven't been able to figure out.  You know how to research the literature.  You have access to research libraries, both in the Netherlands and at UCLA.  You are single-minded in your quest for information on the polygraph.  You had no trouble finding Ray Weir's articles in an obscure publication found in few libraries.

Are you really serious when you claim there are no articles about the RI test in peer reviewed journals?

The only peer-reviewed studies of the R/I technique that I'm familiar with are those mentioned by David Lykken in A Tremor in the Blood and cited in the notes to the excerpt we provide in our discussion of the R/I technique in Chapter 3 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. That literature provides no grounds for confidence in the validity of R/I polygraphy.

If anyone can direct me to any other peer-reviewed research supporting the validity of R/I polygraphy that I may have missed, I would be grateful.

[Anonymous]

PDD-Fed,

You write:

...I know of no peer-reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."...

First of all--thank you very much for your honesty.  I am glad this matter has finally been laid to rest.  With regard to Daubert considerations, yes, peer-reviewed publication is a component.  These components (evaluated areas) are generally considered to be the following:

Tested and proven
Peer reviewed and published
Accurate, and
Accepted in the scientific community

The RI format would fail on all counts, and I would be extremely surprised to ever find it passing muster via Daubert.  If it did it would most certainly be a perversion of the present system...

With regard to your question, no, Polygraph is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is a trade publication of a trade organization, the American Polygraph Association.  Even if it were a peer-reviewed scientific journal it would not be the correct one to submit to.  Remember you are PDD-Fed, yes? --The appropriate one would be one of many in the area of psychophysiology.  If your theoretical three members of APA with suitable backgrounds in psychophysiology were to publish in the appropriate journals, then any evidence of validity offered would be worthy of consideration at that point.

[PDD-Fed]

PDD-Fed,

With regard to your question, no, Polygraph is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is a trade publication of a trade organization, the American Polygraph Association.  Even if it were a peer-reviewed scientific journal it would not be the correct one to submit to.

I appreciate your response.  And I will leave you with a question.  Who is it who desides when a "Scientific Journal" is a "Scientific Journal?"  I would suggest that if the APA (polygraph) journal were to become "Peer reviewed," and were to be properly managed in that regard, then like it or not, research published within would fulfill the "peer review" requirment...

PDD-Fed...

[Anonymous]

PDD-Fed,

With regard to what would be an acceptable peer-reviewed scientific journal in the area of psychophysiology, I believe that would be determined by a consensus of scientists in that area (psychophysiology).  With regard to the hypothetical you pose regarding the trade journal Polygraph, all I can offer is the analogy if apples were oranges and pigs could fly....

Management is not what Polygraph lacks (no opinion from this quarter on that subject) but scientific credibility within the relevant scientific community (psychophysiology).  And if you recall from the previous discussion of Daubert, that is an important consideration.  In fact, largely because the CQT has little acceptance in the scientific community (even though it, as opposed to the RI,  has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature), it is generally excluded from trial court testimony via Daubert hearings.

[George W. Maschke]

PDD-Fed,

I'm not sure why you bring up Argosy University, with which DoDPI has formed a relationship, in this thread. Perhaps to change the subject? You ask:

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

You conflate the concepts of "private" and "for-profit." Private universities are usually operated as non-profit organizations. For-profit businesses like Argosy University are the exception in higher education.

[Skeptic]

George,

I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks.  Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?"  Mark Mallah and Drew Richardson are now the only regular contributors here who avoid verbal brick bats.

In general, "ad hominem" refers to the use of personal attacks to discredit in lieu of logical argumentation.  Since George has already made a logical case and used it to conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest, I don't believe his statement meets the definition.

I was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it.  I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer.  I do have other priorities in life.

No one says you have to answer anything, Dr. Barland.  Of course, others are completely free to draw conclusions regarding your reasons for such refusals, as well as the implications for your position in any debate.  Welcome to internet discussions

As for your "other priorities", my own inference, based upon your frequent posts, is that it is not lack of time which drives your non-answers.

Peace, indeed,
Skeptic

[Gordon H. Barland]

Skeptic,

Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message.  The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not.  I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.

Peace,

Gordon

[Mark Mallah]

Gordon,

I have to say that I find it strange, and discordant, that on the one hand you value civilized discourse (as do I, and thanks for recognizing that, though I didn't find George's comments to you vituperative or non-substantive), yet on the other, you advocate a technique that in practice is often characterized by the polygraph examiner's abuse, distortion of the subject's words, arrogance, deception, crassness, vitriol, intimidation, and puffery.  

If it were just a pure diagnostic tool, that would be one thing, but the polygraph is used as a cudgel.  How do you reconcile this?  

[George W. Maschke]

Gordon,

You concluded one of your replies to Skeptic earlier in this message thread:

I haven't touched upon the ethics of teaching someone how to manipulate a forensic test.

I (and no doubt others) would be interested in a discussion of this topic. Perhaps you might initiate such with a new message thread?

[Gordon H. Barland]

Mark,

I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.  

Peace,

Gordon

[Anonymous]

Gordon,

Earlier in this thread I asked you the following:

...Perhaps you might care to suggest a recognized discipline within the American Academy of Forensic Sciences whose procedures and practices depend upon deception, misrepresentation, and the need for a  universally ignorant public.  I am not aware of any...

George has asked you to revisit the notion of ethics and forensic test manipulation (presumably a reference to polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures and something you further made reference to with Skeptic).  Before we launch off into the world of ethics again, I think, in order to avoid getting the cart before the horse, we need to establish what is a forensic test.  Nothing about polygraphy suggests to me that it is currently deserving of inclusion in such a grouping.  A substantive answer from you citing example(s) (again I realize that, as was the case for which you were asked to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature establishing RI validity, you are not compelled to do so) would go a long way towards resolving this matter.  PDD-Fed, if you are there, perhaps you might care to help Gordon out again if you are so able...