I passed - and it was still horrible....

[Saidme]

About time you guys (or gals) came out in force.  You get real sensitive about that coveted holy grail you call the NAS Study.  I can't respond to all of you but s-X-e put a quote from the NAS Study in here that sums it all up:

"The quality of studies varies considerably, but falls far short of what is desirable. Laboratory studies suffer from lack of realism, and in the randomized controlled studies focused on specific incidents using mock crimes, the consequences associated with lying or being judged deceptive almost never mirror the seriousness of these actions in real-world settings in which the polygraph is used. Field studies have major problems with identifying the truth against which test results should be judged. In addition, they suffer from problems associated with heterogeneity and lack of control of extraneous factors and more generally, they have lower quality than could be achieved with careful study design. Moreover, most of the research, in both the laboratory and in the field, does not fully address key potential threats to validity. For these reasons, study results cannot be expected to generalize to practical contexts."

This statement pretty much sums it up.  You can never conduct a true validity assessment unless you use real cases.  I think I've made this point with the big guy (George).  Once again I will reiterate, I'm not concerned with the scientific validity of polygraph.  I know as an investigative tool it works quite well.  I don't have any study to back me up but I have 20+ years of law enforcement interviews and interrogations to back it up.  All this website does is (in my view) extend the length of the interrogation/interview but in the end we get the same results.  

[Anonymous]

Saidme,

You write:

...All this website does is (in my view) extend the length of the interrogation/interview but in the end we get the same results....

With regard to the CQT polygraph-assisted interviews that are conducted today you are quite correct...they were nearly worthless before the existence of this site and they are nearly worthless now.  The goal of this site is not to change that which you have traditionallly practiced, but to end it.  This has obviously not yet been accomplished, but stay tuned...  

[suethem]

Saidme,

You never answered my questions about Dr. Drew Richardson's findings about the CQT?

Was he wrong too?  
 

Are you a polyscore man?  Or do you use another system?

[orolan]

Saidme,
Personally, I have a new "Holy Grail" regarding the validity of the polygraph, and it meets the criteria the research used by the NAS does not. It is a real-world test, not a laboratory simulation, and the consequences of being found deceptive were quite real in the minds of the participants.

What is this new "Holy Grail"? It is the ELEVEN people who failed their polygraphs in the Molly Bish investigation. This is no "slap in the face". More like "run over by a Mack truck".

Perhaps the examiner who administered these examinations doesn't have the "interrogation" skills you have :-/

What I'm waiting to hear now is that the DNA evidence doesn't finger ANY of the eleven who failed. I won't stop laughing for a week.

[s-X-e]

Once again I will reiterate, I'm not concerned with the scientific validity of polygraph.  I know as an investigative tool it works quite well.  I don't have any study to back me up but I have 20+ years of law enforcement interviews and interrogations to back it up.

I will agree easily that the polygraph is probably awesome at getting confessions out of guilty people. However, as a tool for determining lies from truth, I think it's lack of scientific validity makes it worse than worthless. If you are going to argue that for the polygraph to work well, all it needs to do is get people to confess, then yes, it does work well. But what about those examinees who do not confess, and maintain sincerely that they have not lied during their exam? Without a sound scientific basis to back up the instrument's readings, you cannot conclusively say that they were deceptive.

At best, it is a convincing prop.

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

DoDPI (and DOE) were represented at all of the public meetings held by the NAS's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, and a number of Committee members also visited DoDPI (as well the DOE's test center in Albuquerque and the CIA's polygraph division). Representatives of other federal polygraph programs also attended the Committee's public meetings and participated in the discussions that were held. Your mistaken belief that DoDPI was not consulted suggests that you have not even bothered to read the report (The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that you so casually dismiss as "bullshit."

[Saidme]

You are correct, I just skimmed it.  Bullshit nevertheless.

[suethem]

Saidme,

Is Dr. Drew Richardson's findings on the CQT bullshit too?

Your still here right?  The mother ship hasn't scooped you up yet has it ?

What about polyscore?  Are you a polyscore man?

Are you a APA guy as well?

[Saidme]

I don't know much about Dr Drew.  As I've seen on this website PhD stands for piled high and deeper.  I think that was the way they characterized Mr Gelb.  I haven't read anything on how Drew feels about CQT and I really don't care what he thinks.  I use the technique regularly with excellent results.  So in a nutshell, if Drew has a problem with it then yes, bullshit would be appropriate.
  
Polyscore is a bunch of crap.  Great for interrogations though.

Former APA member.  They really provided nothing of value.

Gotta go back to Cloud city.

[anonymouse]

You are correct, I just skimmed it.  Bullshit nevertheless.

Not many men would be brave enough to admit they condemn a report they haven't actually read. Bravo polygrapher!

[Saidme]

Read, skimmed, what's the difference!  Examiner's tend to lose interest as soon as they see the bias involved.  Not really brave, just a good dose of reality.

[s-X-e]

Read, skimmed, what's the difference!  Examiner's tend to lose interest as soon as they see the bias involved.  Not really brave, just a good dose of reality.

What bias? You keep making a claim that the NAS' findings were biased, but you've provided nothing to support that claim except stating that it "could be" biased because of some cooky conspiracy theory that the NAS and DOE were in league together to destroy polygraphy. While I can appreciate such a goal, I don't think the members on the NAS panel are so corrupt that they would produce bogus findings for a major study.

If you know something I don't that supports your claim that the report was biased, then I would be very interesting in hearing what it is.