Who's Using Polygraph

[Skeptic]

Twoblock,

That's the beauty of the American system brother.  There are idiots in all walks of life, in all professions, so it only makes sense that juries are made up of idiots.  Can't be anything but, seeing that we have so many.  It's just that when you get twelve of them together they're called a jury.

Lets just say, it makes life interesting.

As for the idiots you referenced, no arugement there, but you know I once heard someone say that only an idiot would get into the Law Enforcement career.  Maybe he was right.  What person in their right mind would even consider for a minute taking a bullet for John Q. Public, or walking into a domestic only to get stabbed by the supposed victim, or getting into a shootout with heavily armed bank robbers on the streets of LA.  Yup, gotta be an idiot to be willing to do that.

You know, I've found people who complain the loudest about the stupidity of others are usually in need of the most self-improvement.

Regardless, Batman, it's painfully obvious you need to find another line of work.  I would never want anyone with your level of disdain for the people he protects defending me, my family or friends.

Skeptic

[Marty]

As Dr. Barland has pointed out, certain tests such as the MMPI work best if most people know little about the test.  Fair enough.  But the MMPI is a scientifically valid test.  It has been established as such through extensive peer-reviewed double-blind research.

What about the honesty tests that are becoming widespread and are less legally limited than the polygraph?  One of the suppositions in those tests is that a thief tends to believe in a higher prevalence of thieves than someone who is not. Presumably, most thieves are not aware of this statistic.

So the question becomes: "is secrecy regarding the polygraph designed to preserve a valid test's accuracy, or is it designed to preserve ignorance and false impressions about a process that is really snakeoil?"

I think there is also universal agreement that the belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is a key component to obtaining confessions which have much higher reliability than an unconfessed DI.  From that point of view, widespread ignorance is an asset, regardless of how poor the science.

-Marty

[The_Breeze]

Gentlemen
If I read only the texts you read and adhere to, I would not think the polygraph had any diagnostic value either.  You know full well research has been conducted to support the utility of polygraph, as well as refute it.  Seek balance.
Unless you are an experienced investigator please dont make blanket statements about having to be a fool to use polygraph or referring to this device as a playtoy.  Have you ever been involved with testing in any way except when you failed (I presume) your test? Do you really know anything more than what you have read from a limited group of authors reflecting your view point?
I was not aware until you pointed it out to me that I was involved in pathetic, embarrasing, discussions at work. I thought I was working to put bad guys in jail.  What a fool I've been....  

[Anonymous]

Breeze,

My reference to "pathetic embarrassing discussions" had nothing to do with your conversations at work, but with your defense of a completely invalid procedure(s) on this message board.  I realize you may be blind to the nature of your own contributions.  You suggest your employment as an investigator is necessary, if not sufficient, to have a familiarity with the scientific literature regarding issues of diagnostic validity and a basis for an evaluation of same.  Yet your inappropriate commingling of the terms "diagnostic value" (validity) and "utility" in the first two sentences of your last post would lead one to seriously question such an assertion.

[Skeptic]

What about the honesty tests that are becoming widespread and are less legally limited than the polygraph?  One of the suppositions in those tests is that a thief tends to believe in a higher prevalence of thieves than someone who is not. Presumably, most thieves are not aware of this statistic.

In general, I'm not a big fan of the widespread, unfocused use of most tests that require ignorance on the part of the test-taker.  This is because of their potential for misuse and the ramifications of confounding conditions (such as lack of subject ignorance).  

To use the MMPI example again, this test was intended as a supplemental diagnostic tool for psychologists, and was to be used narrowly in conjunction with a general psychological evaluation.  In such a setting, the worst that could happen from lack of subject ignorance is that the subject doesn't get the best treatment.  Psychologists use a whole set of criteria for making diagnoses, anyway (please see the DSM-IV), and would not rely upon the MMPI if the results simply didn't add up (would that polygraphers, who conduct a far less reliable "test", had the same scruples).

Yet this test (in the form of the MMPI-2) is now routinely used for employment screening.  It has not been validated for this purpose.  Moreover, even the test-makers don't know why the test works to accurately measure what it measures, which means use beyond areas in which it has been specifically validated is extremely risky.

I think there is also universal agreement that the belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is a key component to obtaining confessions which have much higher reliability than an unconfessed DI.  From that point of view, widespread ignorance is an asset, regardless of how poor the science.

Of course.  But we then have an ethical question regarding whether the ends justify the means.  And if taking criminals off the streets is our absolute highest priority, then we have a bunch of constitutional rights that need rethinking.

Skeptic

[The_Breeze]

Anonymous-
That was fast, we both must not be doing anything worthwhile at this particular time...
Thanks for clarifying that I am merely pathetic on this site, I was worried that I had lost focus at work.  Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic.  My use of a phrase such as "diagnostic value" is not a technical term like validity or reliability- just a literal definition. Value to an investigation based on diagnostic features as seen on a polygraph chart. (yes some believe they do exist)
Utility means usefulness.  How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI.  This in turn led to a tearful confession and resolution.  This clearly threatens you and does not fit into your notion of the tools worthlessness, but there it is.
Do you really think calling me pathetic will change my mind about what I know to be true?  You are strong on belief alone.
Unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of other prominent posters here who think personal attack and no experience will carry the day.....

[Anonymous]

Breeze,

You write:

...Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic...

I'm sorry to evaluate you on the basis of your own words...hmmm...perhaps if you could take credit for the words of other posters on this message board you would fare better.
 

...Utility means usefulness.  How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI...

Actually you were not taken to task for associating utility with this case.  If you had (and not suggested any connection to validity) I would not only have not taken you to task, but have actually agreed with you.  In fact if you re-read your own preceding post you will see that you brought up utility not in connection with this or any other specific case but with "research" that somehow associates utility with this newly made up term of your creation, "diagnostic value."  As an investigator and law enforcement officer, I believe we can expect a bit more precision on your part, yes?  Such imprecision would never suffice with crime scene investigation or the use of firearms, yes?  

But I suppose you are right in one regard...this most recent series of exchanges would indicate underemployment on both our parts.  I'll leave you now for more productive pursuits.

[beech trees]

Anonymous-
That was fast, we both must not be doing anything worthwhile at this particular time...
Thanks for clarifying that I am merely pathetic on this site, I was worried that I had lost focus at work.  Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic.  My use of a phrase such as "diagnostic value" is not a technical term like validity or reliability- just a literal definition. Value to an investigation based on diagnostic features as seen on a polygraph chart. (yes some believe they do exist)
Utility means usefulness.  How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI.  This in turn led to a tearful confession and resolution.  This clearly threatens you and does not fit into your notion of the tools worthlessness, but there it is.
Do you really think calling me pathetic will change my mind about what I know to be true?  You are strong on belief alone.
Unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of other prominent posters here who think personal attack and no experience will carry the day.....

Congratulations, The Breeze. A scant 23 posts ago (24 really, I note you deleted your very first post-- why?) you stopped by this website in search of information about the polygraph and cvsa. Apparently, you knew so very little about either that you were unable to answer your superiors' questions concerning same and were forced to search the Internet for information to give them.

Two months later you now sit comfortably denouncing the life's work of legitimate scientists, PhD's, and researchers who categorically, in plain English, have calmy refuted every assertion you make about the validity of the polygraph.

I will now suprise you and agree with a point you almost made: The polygraph is a powerful criminal interrogation tool when your test subject is ignorant of the facts concerning polygraphy. No one disputes that fact. No one disputes that you may legally lie to a criminal subject in order to obtain a confession. No one disputes that you may use the polygraph as part of that lie.

What IS disputed is the scientific validity of drawing conclusions with regard to truth or innocence based on the scribblings produced by a polygraph machine. There are many permutations of how an interrogator could arrive at a confession. Certainly one of them is:

Guilty suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation, is polygraphed, and produces chart recordings deemed 'DI'. Guilty suspect is confronted with his charts and, believing the lie behind the lie detector, confesses. Great. That's wonderful. I'm happy for you. Here is another way it could go:

Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation, is polygraphed, and produces chart recordings deemed 'DI'. Innocent suspect is confronted with his charts, at which time he insists he is innocent. Police continue to focus on him rather than the true perpetrator. Because the investigation can go nowhere (as it must, he is, after all, innocent), they begin interrogating his friends, family, coworkers, etc. in an attempt to develop further incriminating evidence. Along the way, this person's friendships, marriage, reputation, and career are ruined. Oh well, too bad/so sad.

Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation and produces charts deemed 'NDI'. The interrogator lies to the suspect because he just KNOWS that bastard is lying. I'd be very curious how often this one occurs. Pity such statistics aren't available. But I digress...

How about this one? Guilty suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation and produces charts deemed 'NDI'. Ok, off with you laddie.

Hey, here's a fun one: Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph, is interrogated, and produces a chart deemed 'DI'. Innocent suspect is confronted with his charts and, for whatever reason, confesses. Of course now police fail to obtain from the guilty suspect a confession.

My Dad is fond of saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time." That saying applies perfectly with your guilty suspect confessing. And before your broad strokes of epithets reach my father, I will tell you that he is a retired Marine aviator, a Korean war vet, and a lifetime member of the NRA.

The police polygraphers here ont he boards are fond of boasting of the utility of their investigative tool. "Today I helped put a rapist away." I commend that. Will you now step forward and say likewise, "I helped convict an innocent man today."

"Today I helped ruin an innocent man's reputation."

"Today I extracted a false confession."

Who's first?

[Skeptic]

Dave,
Superb post.

Skeptic

[The_Breeze]

Beech Tree
You obviously are quite proud of your self, and have recieved the much needed cyber high 5 from skeptic.  You have much time to spend here but if you are going to call someone immature you may want to back off the silly references to pigs, just a thought.
My point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here.  You are merely strident when you repeat others conclusions.  Since you have no background and bring little to the table except aggressiveness, dont ask me to refute your assertions.  You have none.
When I spoke of mockery, I was thinking of Batman.  I dont mock you, I just dismiss your hysteria as unimportant and one sided. I was not aware that any of my posts had been deleted, and honestly dont know how that would be accomplished, since it concerns you and you think your on to something, talk to george.
Finally lets talk about your continual references to abuses by LE officers. Since you clearly have never conducted anything resembling an investigation, and have no idea what might be involved in a practical sense- you might as well know that your assertions are insulting.  Basing your arguements on scattered news reports that reinforce your notions may pass for open mindedness where you are, but should not be respected here.
Your father on the other hand sounds like a great guy, thanks for sharing.

[Skeptic]

Beech Tree
You obviously are quite proud of your self, and have recieved the much needed cyber high 5 from skeptic.

Judging by how long and how vociferously he's been posting here, Dave needs no such thing from me, Breeze, nor was it solicited.  I was simply expressing sincere admiration for a very good post.  Keep trying, and you may earn the same.

Stick to the issues.

Skeptic

[Skeptic]

My point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here.

One other thing -- being dependent on others' research is irrelevant.  Many well-read and knowledgable people have never done their own original research on a topic.  Your point is a specious one, and frankly you're dodging the issues.

Skeptic

[Batman (Guest)]

Skeptic, Beech Trees & Anonymous,

I have made it very obvious what I do for a living, and from the experiences upon which I form my opinions (whether they be good or bad, accepted or rejected).  I was wondering, would either of you be willing to give an indication as to what you do for a living?  No specifics, but maybe in general terms, or whatever you feel comfortable with.  Thanks,

Batman

PS: Skeptic, even though you state, "I would never want anyone with your level of disdain for the people he protects defending me, my family or friends.", regardless, if the situation ever arose, I would do my job, what is required of me, and what I have taken an oath to do.  If, after I was done defending you or your close ones, you chose to simply turn and walk away, or curse at me, or spit at me, or simply say thanks, it would make no difference.  The bottom line is, I would have done my job, and you, your family, and your friends would be protected.  After all is said and done, that's all that really matters.

[Twoblock (Guest)]

Batman

I feel very slighted. You didn't include me in "what you do for a living. Shame on you. I will include myself.

I am a 72 years young gold miner, during the summer months, in Alaska. I can still shovel 4-1/2 yds. of gravel in 4 hours. Side note: (I don't plan on serving on any more juries).

All seriousness aside - I am still opposed to the polygraph. As posted here before, I have a very big problem with one person operating one machine (who can manipulate said machine any way he wants to) holding another persons livelyhood, even their lives, in his hands.

Years ago, my daughter took an employment polygraph. It showed deception on every question. Even her age and where she lived. The operators question: "You can't tell the truth about anything, can you"? This operator can keep you from getting a job or even send you to prison?? As Stossel says "Give me a break!!

[Anonymous]

Batman,

Thank you for your kind invitation, but I think not.  You and your pro-polygraph soul mates have gotten your intellectual butts kicked (would you believe I'm a scorekeeper in real life??   ) in every debate so far (please excuse the mixed metaphor).  Why would we be inclined to change the playing field from that of relevant issues to identities or even job descriptions?  I suggest you might try redoubling your efforts and better prepare to debate the issues.  Do have a pleasant weekend.