NAS Polygraph Report

[Skeptic]

Here's a question for those with the time:
I haven't had a chance to read the whole NAS report word for word.  Can anyone discern whether the NAS combined GKT tests with specific-issue tests of the CQT variety in their conclusions regarding the efficacy of specific-issue testing?  

I know they did note the different types in the body of the report, and I think they remarked on the better false-positive characteristics of GKT's, but I'm not sure whether they differentiated between them in the conclusion nor whether they found any differences in accuracy.

Skeptic

[touche]

From the NAS report:

Background Investigation Not Good Enough to Replace the Polygraph


"Available evidence does not suggest that any direct investigation method is likely to provide a reasonable and valid alternative to the polygraph."

[George W. Maschke]

touche,

The claim "Background Investigation Not Good Enough to Replace the Polygraph" is your own; that headline does not appear in the NAS report. While the NAS report does indeed state at p. 6-17 that "[a]vailable evidence does not suggest that any direct investigation method is likely to provide a reasonable and valid alternative to the polygraph," neither does the report conclude that polygraph screening is reasonable and/or valid. Indeed, quite the opposite. The report notes with regard to polygraphy in general (and not just screening) at p. 8-2: "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."

Sorry touche, you're grasping at straws. There is no life ring for polygraph screening to be found in the NAS report.

[Skeptic]

touche,

The claim "Background Investigation Not Good Enough to Replace the Polygraph" is your own; that headline does not appear in the NAS report. While the NAS report does indeed state at p. 6-17 that "[a]vailable evidence does not suggest that any direct investigation method is likely to provide a reasonable and valid alternative to the polygraph," neither does the report conclude that polygraph screening is reasonable and/or valid. Indeed, quite the opposite. The report notes with regard to polygraphy in general (and not just screening) at p. 8-2: "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."

Actually, Touche took the quote out of context, too.  The section from which he lifted the quote was not referring to the general efficacy of BI's; rather, it was talking specifically about alternative methods of detecting deception.

Skeptic

[Fair Chance]

The polygraph proponents are trying to test some headlines on this website before putting them out on the net.  I guest they wanted to see how well the NAS report has been read.

I have to thank touche for the bad quote.  It has brought back focus to the debate.

Background investigations were the only method used for all FBI veteran employees hired before 1994.  

Would those employees want to be subjected to tests during their next five year background check?

If not, why?

Because they are a poor predictor of future behavior according to the NAS.

That is why their next five year check will be a background check and it will be acceptable to the FBI without polygraph "approval."  The background check IS an acceptable means according to FBI policy (as long as you have a job already).

Seems to be a very confusing and illogical arguement in light of mandatory employee pre-screening polygraph.

[touche]

George, this posting is primarily for your information.  I do not care to engage in any discussions with anyone else on this matter, which is why I am not detailing it here.  It would seem that you engage in considerable research and I would like to BEGIN to bring something to your attention.  I do not do this to generate any argument, rather to BEGIN to refute a statement that has been made and proliferated on this site.  I DO realize that YOU were not the one who made the statement, yet, the challenge will now be to you to acknowledge an error.  This error will become evident to you when you read the following:

"Lie Detectors - Their History and Use", ; Eugene Block; 1977, page 117-21   ISBN 0-679-50755-0

I look forward to your response.

[George W. Maschke]

touche,

Could you fax me a copy of these pages at (206) 666-4271, or perhaps e-mail me scanned images?

[touche]

Unfortunately, at this time I have neither capability.  Inasmuch as the statement at issue appears in the much vaunted NAS report AND additionally attibuted to Mr. Mallah by Mr. Park and the American Physical Society, perhaps he (Mallah) can assist you in reviewing and providing you with a copy. Remember, this is but the first one.

[George W. Maschke]

touche,

Since it may be a while before I obtain the pages you've referenced, could you post a synopsis?

[touche]

Unfortunately, no, I cannot assist. I am in an airport on a laptop and do not have the material with me.  Suggest interlibrary loan

[Mark Mallah]

Unfortunately, at this time I have neither capability.  Inasmuch as the statement at issue appears in the much vaunted NAS report AND additionally attibuted to Mr. Mallah by Mr. Park and the American Physical Society, perhaps he (Mallah) can assist you in reviewing and providing you with a copy. Remember, this is but the first one.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but I have a guess:   the statement that the polygraph has never caught a single spy in all its history.

If that is the statement you are referring to, bear in mind that none other than Ed Curran, on 60 Minutes II, said that even he was not aware of any spies caught by the polygraph.

Touche, it would really be so much easier and convenient and courteous if you facilitated discussion by summarizing the information contained within those pages.  If you do not want others to see it, you can send George and/or I a private message through this web site with that summary.  

[touche]

Mark....Now why should I do that? You and your friends would not believe me. Actually, I fully expect you to attack the authenticity of the book, when and if you ever read it. But that is okay, because many will go to the source and read it. It has nothing to do with what Curran said.  It is what you said to Park and what has been perpetuated on this site. I would appreciate it if you wouldnot lecture me on the iossue of coutesy. If you cannot keep up on the statements you make to people, perhaps you should not make them.  I merely asked you to assist your friend George because of his physical location and because I anticipated an attack should it come from anyone other than you allies. If you cannot, or will not, that is between you and him. It may take some time, but sooner of later, he will obtain it and the statement is irrefutable. I am not in a hurry, this book has been in print since 1977 and apparently neither you, George or the NAS took the time to read it or research their claims in the manner which one would expect scientists working on behalf of the government should.  I certainly hope that your readers will not think that other things you say may be less than precise?

[Skeptic]

Mark....Now why should I do that? You and your friends would not believe me. Actually, I fully expect you to attack the authenticity of the book, when and if you ever read it. But that is okay, because many will go to the source and read it. It has nothing to do with what Curran said.  It is what you said to Park and what has been perpetuated on this site. I would appreciate it if you wouldnot lecture me on the iossue of coutesy. If you cannot keep up on the statements you make to people, perhaps you should not make them.

What a silly thing to say, given that you don't even have the courage to clarify to which statement you're referring.  Are you that afraid of fair debate?

This hit-and-run argument by innuendo is, indeed, very discourteous.

I merely asked you to assist your friend George because of his physical location and because I anticipated an attack should it come from anyone other than you allies. If you cannot, or will not, that is between you and him. It may take some time, but sooner of later, he will obtain it and the statement is irrefutable.

Your clear reluctance to present it here so readers may discuss it and judge for themselves belies your claims of confidence.

I am not in a hurry, this book has been in print since 1977 and apparently neither you, George or the NAS took the time to read it or research their claims in the manner which one would expect scientists working on behalf of the government should.  I certainly hope that your readers will not think that other things you say may be less than precise?

Another comical statement, given your deliberate vagueness here.

Either present your evidence or retract your statements, Touche.  You're not going to win any debate with arguments you never make and evidence you won't provide.

Skeptic

[touche]

See George/Mark, this is exactly what I mean. I was having a discussion with the two of you, and Skeptic somehow found it necessary to horn in and offer the same kind of...what did you guys call it..."ad hominem" arguments. Skeptic: if it bothered you THAT much, the citation was there for all to obtain. George couldn't get it because of HIS physical location and I suggested thatMark provide it for him.  No offense Mark and George because I believe you read and understood my posting where I commented that given my physical location, I was unable to get my hands on the source for George's purposes. In time, I am sure you will get it and see to what I am referring. Mark, you are correct, it outlines a detailed use of the polygraph in WWII concerning the discovery of a Nazi spy.  I just wanted you to read it completely, have an opportunity to check the sources and respond.  Skeptic, mind your own business.

[Skeptic]

See George/Mark, this is exactly what I mean. I was having a discussion with the two of you, and Skeptic somehow found it necessary to horn in and offer the same kind of...what did you guys call it..."ad hominem" arguments.

Touche, if you want a private conversation on these boards you can send a direct message.  You, on the other hand, have been posting publicly.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but if you post something on a public bulletin board, by convention it's pretty much fair gaime for anyone.

Skeptic: if it bothered you THAT much, the citation was there for all to obtain.

Unfortunately, it's not.  The book appears to be out of print and not even available in my local University library (a fairly comprehensive source).  

Furthermore, it's your evidence; present it!  I simply have little wish to buy a used, out-of-print book through Amazon to read one passage.

Good Lord, man: if the evidence is "irrefutable" as you say, you should have no qualms presenting it here.

George couldn't get it because of HIS physical location and I suggested thatMark provide it for him.  No offense Mark and George because I believe you read and understood my posting where I commented that given my physical location, I was unable to get my hands on the source for George's purposes. In time, I am sure you will get it and see to what I am referring. Mark, you are correct, it outlines a detailed use of the polygraph in WWII concerning the discovery of a Nazi spy.  I just wanted you to read it completely, have an opportunity to check the sources and respond.  Skeptic, mind your own business.

I'm sorry you felt your posts were visable only to George and/or Mark.  If you post something publicly, however, you really have no reasonable expectation of a private conversation, and what you're posting is of potential interest to everyone here.

Skeptic