Need HELP with identifying control!!!!

[beech trees]

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.

You mean like this one?

Psychologists Surveyed On Lie Detectors Say Most Are Not Valid ...Not Scientifically Sound and Can Be Easily Deceived. 'The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion,' by W.G. Iacono, Ph.D., and D.T. Lykken, Ph.D.,University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.82, No. 3.

The press release can be read by clicking the above hyperlink or here

Take note the R/I test is not even considered worthy of inclusion in the survey.

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?

Graduate degrees in what field? The 'journel' of the American Polygraph Association is not considered a peer-reviewed journal.

[Anonymous]

PDD-Fed,

Although I should have mentioned the following in our discussion yesterday, since my good friend, Beech, raised the issue of peer-reviewed journals once again, I will take the liberty of revisiting the subject once more.

With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

[Mark Mallah]

Mark,

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

Polygraph in general.

[PDD-Fed]

PDD-Fed,

...With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

I understand and appreciate your points.  However, if I am not mistaken, the APA (polygraph) organization has two publications.  One is indeed a "newsletter" and is named as such.  It carries things like adds for instrument manufacturers, help wanted ads, etc.  The other publication is an actual jounal, which addresses operational and legal issues, research methodology, actual research studies, etc.  It compares at least in its structure and format, to scientific journals such as the AAFS and JAMA journals.

In fact, I would argue that JAMA, the journal of that American Medical Association, is a trade publication, not much unlike the Journal of the APA.  It serves not only as an outlet for medical research, But as a "trade" publication (furthering the position of its members).  In fact, the medical community has long used JAMA as a mouthpiece for defending its position on many commercial and political issues.  How is that unlike the APA Journal?  What am I not understanding here?

[Anonymous]

PDD-Fed,

The major difference (there are many) between JAMA and Polygraph is that one is a peer-reviewed publication of an association that universally is accepted as meriting professional recognition.  The latter is neither peer-reviewed (by relevant science professionals) nor is the publication of a recognized professional organization.  Polygraphy must first become a profession (currently a trade organization) and then publish and associate with other professional groups (ala the present attempt to commingle with the forensic science community).  The reverse is getting the cart before the horse at best.  

With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable.  Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right .  I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability.  I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.

[PDD-Fed]

PDD-Fed,

...With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable.  Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right .  I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability.  I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.

Now c'mon.  I didn't ask for insults...  I simply made the comparison that like JAMA, the APA journal presents relevant research as well as fowards the interests of the community it serves.  In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications, you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal.

Chow...

PDD-Fed

[Anonymous]

PDD-Fed,

You invite scorn when you make such ridiculous comparisons.

You write:

...In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications [Sic], you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal...

...and considerably more respected too.  The problem with Polygraph is not that it contains advertisements from polygraph manufacturers, but that it contains little of substance and nothing that could be trusted to be anything other than polygraph-community filtered pabulum.  JAMA is cited internationally on an almost daily basis in the media and is read by countless individuals other than those in the medical profession.  This is because it is considered to be both informative and authoritative.  Polygraph is considered a joke even by the few serious psychophysiologists involved in polygraphy.  As you said, "Now c'mon."  Let's get real.  This comparison is about as phony as can possibly be...sorry if the truth hurts...

[Skeptic]

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.

The above definition is essentially the one I already presented (please see Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem).  In order to demonstrate an argument is "ad hominem", one must show that it is irrelevant to the point at hand.  Since your evasions and the reasons behind them are very much the point (indeed, you made them the point), your intellectual honesty is most certainly relevant to the discussion.

As for polemics, weren't you the one who ducked under the umbrella of "national security" and cried "ad hominem" (easily the most common term in internet debate after "Hitler" and "nazis") when your motives for such were reasonably questioned?  Are we now to accept your lack of argument as an argument?  At least for me, that simply won't fly -- I've seen "I know but can't tell you how" used in lieu of real argumentation too many times to give such smoke-and-mirror games any credence.

Logical and serious points have been raised regarding R/I efficacy and implications not only for national security but individual fairness and due process, as well.  Reasonable questions have been put to you that could be answered with no conceivable harm to national security.  Either respond in kind or you have lost this debate.

Skeptic

[Mriddle6 (Guest)]

Dr, Barland:

You talkie, talkie say nothing. Dr Drew Richardson has made very strong aguments that CQT testing poses grave threats to our National Security because:

1) They can be easily beaten by countermeasures
2) They can not determine whether someone is reacting out of fear of consequence or fear of detection or any other strong emotion such as anger etc.... So your guessing.

Do you feel his assertions are false? if so please explain. Surely by doing so would not threaten National Security any more than the polygraph itself.