More Anti-polygraph literature ...

[quickfix]

What was the question?  I forgot already.

OK, now I remember.  To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying  such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods.  When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train.  Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned.  I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube;  then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel;  Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners.  Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL.  Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph.  Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads.  So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago.  But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology.  Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.  PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT.  TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services.  The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.

That's my source of optimism.

Regards

[Onesimus]

Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.

Does R/I move to the top of your list / other polygraphers' list when the subject knows what PLCQT is all about?

[quickfix]

only as a last resort, which is not often.  There are other methods available.

[Drew Richardson]

Quickfix,

You write:

What was the question?  I forgot already.

OK, now I remember.  To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying  such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods.  When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train.  Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned.  I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube;  then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel;  Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners.  Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL.  Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph.  Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads.  So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago.  But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology.  Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.  PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT.  TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services.  The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.

That's my source of optimism.

Regards

Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed.  The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control.  No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation.  

With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's).  The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary.  I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.

[quickfix]

This is of course the same Shiela Reed, who herself was subsequently discredited, disavowed, and thrown out of DODPI (quite literally).  Regardless, TES works quite well, has for the past 13 years, and is the test of choice in military screening.  When you yourself come up with a better solution, let us examiners know.

[Drew Richardson]

Quickfix,

I will repost my last post in that you apparently forgot to comment on the first paragraph:

Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed.  The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control.  No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation.  

With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's).  The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary.  I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.

With regard to your last reply, you are almost totally wrong.  I am quite familiar with Sheila Reed, the circumstances surrounding her leaving DoDPI, DoDPI's shameful role in that matter, DoDPI in the early 90's, and the validation studies regarding TES.  You are wrong on all counts.  All that you are presumably correct regarding (I certainly don't know and don't dispute) is that the military is currently using the ridiculous TES format for the completely useless application of personnel screening.

[quickfix]

I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards

[George W. Maschke]

I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards

On what ground do you dismiss Drew's commentary as "nonsense?" With a doctorate in physiology and relevant training and experience in polygraphy, he knows that of which he speaks.

[quickfix]

On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997, and the DOE two years later;  long on theory, short on proof.

[digithead]

Drew:

Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing  down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world.  

A good response to you is from Justice Brandeis in his dissenting Olmstead (277 U.S. 438) opinion:

"t is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

That's basically how I, an egghead statistician, view polygraphers - zealous and well meaning but totally without understanding...

Indeed, because if they and you had understanding, they and you would realize that CQT and its variants are pseudoscience, biologically and psychologically implausible, and extremely harmful to public safety...

[retcopper]

Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

[digithead]

Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

I guess you missed where I said "Brandeis' dissenting Olmstead decision", i.e, a dissenting opinion is done by the minority...

I support all the legal tools for law enforcement that are based on science and evidence. Otherwise, let's just become fascist or totalitarian...

As for survivors of 9/11, you're appealing to emotion rather than logic and logic tells us that one of the major reasons for 9/11 was the territorialism that existed (and still exists) between our various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All the tools in the world can't overcome basic human error and hubris, including your own. The terrorists are well aware of it and rely on it...

So if you can figure out how to get LE to share information rather than engaging in territorial pissings, you'd go a long way to making the world safer...

And from this board, there certainly seems to be plenty of hubris from the polygraph community...

[George W. Maschke]

Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

retcopper,

Our government's reliance on such quackery as polygraphy (and voice stress analysis) for counterterrorism purposes should outrage all who know the truth about lie detectors.

The first World Trade Center bombing might well have been prevented had not the FBI, relying in part on polygraph chart readings, decided to terminate a confidential informant named Emad Salem who had penetrated the group that eventually carried out the 1993 bombing. See the message thread, FBI Polygraphing of Confidential Informants for more on this.

Moreover, America's jihadist adversaries know that the lie detector is a sham, as is made clear in a relevant section of the Encyclopedia of Jihad and a jihadist article titled, "The Myth of the Lie Detector."

[Sergeant1107]

On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997...

This post seems to suggest that the U.S. Senate only makes well-reasoned, nonpartisan decisions that are well grounded in logic and science, which is why (in your opinion) they dismissed Drew's arguments.

Is the decision-making ability of the Senate really the horse you want to hitch your wagon to?

[quickfix]

Generally, I would agree with you;  however, in this case I believe they were correct.