Background check?

[CuriousSci]

Hi Sancho,
 I'm new to this site. I am a scientist (of sorts) and am interested in the science behind the polygraph. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the polygraph. I tried a google search but nothing satisfactory came up.

Thanks!

[notguilty1]

Hi Sancho,
 I'm new to this site. I am a scientist (of sorts) and am interested in the science behind the polygraph. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the polygraph. I tried a google search but nothing satisfactory came up.

Thanks!

I'd love to see tha answer to this..... Sancho??

[gary davis]

check the research publications at the Univeristy of Utah..dr raskin, kircher and dozen of others have published dozens of peer reviewed studies

gary

[SanchoPanza]

Curious Sci: I see Gary Davis has answered your question, but, in all fairness, you should also ask Dr. Maschke if he can provide you with some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the effectivness of the countermeasures he teaches in the book that he co-wrote regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Curious Sci: I see Gary Davis has answered your question, but, in all fairness, you should also ask Dr. Maschke if he can provide you with some scholarly papers (preferably peer reviewed) relating to the effectivness of the countermeasures he teaches in the book that he co-wrote regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.

Sancho Panza

Expecting useful, "scholarly papers"  that are "peer reviewed"on Polygraph is unfortunately akin to asking for "scholarly papers" that are "peer reviewed" from the Mafia on law enforcement.
Hmmmmm, I wonder if that would be unbiased?
Void of any accurate information in favor of promoting self serving information of the industry.
I mean ... why would Polygraph industry peers find any thing but positives in Polygraph? It would be self defeating.
And please don't tell me that the industry is devoted to truth.

[SanchoPanza]

Notguilty1

You obviously have very little knowledge of the definition of "peer review" or it's  process.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Notguilty1

You obviously have very little knowledge of the definition of "peer review" or it's  process.

Sancho Panza

I know Sancho your the "expert" on all things Polygraph.
So unfortunate that your own industry doesn't even have "expertise" in Polygraph since to date it is still unproven and even barred or illegal to use in many applications.

I am sure your right though, "peer review", when it come to Polygraph is probably full of assumptions, half truths and miss leading information to bolster the "validity" of the test because they have yet to show any actual "scientific" proof that it does what they say and at the accuracy rate that they claim which even most Polygraphers even here have admitted that 98% is wrong ( or a LIE in other words).

I am sure Sancho we are all waiting with baited breath for your next enlightening expert opinion on this modern day shell game.

[SanchoPanza]

Notguilty1
You are not only wrong on every point, anyone who has failed 2 polygraph tests would have exactly twice as much expertise as you regarding anything concerning polygraph.

You continue to criticize something you not only don't understand, you haven't even tried to learn.

Instead you resort to repeating the same claims over and over again and the only thing that you have to support your position is the unsubstantiated claim that you failed an exam while telling the truth.

The peer review process is not exclusive to polygraph and your continued comments about something you know so little about continues to magnify your lack of knowledge.

so keep going
SanchoPanza

[T.M. Cullen]

Instead you resort to repeating the same claims over and over again and the only thing that you have to support your position is the unsubstantiated claim that you failed an exam while telling the truth.

"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test"   (NAS Report p. 212)

[notguilty1]

Instead you resort to repeating the same claims over and over again and the only thing that you have to support your position is the unsubstantiated claim that you failed an exam while telling the truth.

"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test"   (NAS Report p. 212)

HOWS THAT FOR PEER REVIEW SANCHO??

I'll tell you what's "unsubstantiated" the results of the Polygraph since.
A) I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND TOLD I FAILED
B) I WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO SEE ANY OF THE CHARTS
C) THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE THAT YOUR MACHINE DOES ANYTHING IN THE REALM OF DETECTING DECEPTION
D) THE "TEST" EVEN IF ADMINISTERED PROPERLY WAS NO MORE THAN A INTERROGATION TOOL IN MY CASE AND SINCE I TOLD THE TRUTH THEY GOT NOTHING ELSE FROM ME THAN A "FAILED" TEST AND SUBSEQUENTLY COULD DO NOTHING WITH IT SINCE I WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. I WONDER WHY THAT WOULD BE SINCE I WAS TOLD THAT THE TEST IS 95-98 ACCURATE AND MY EXAMINER HAD 35 YRS EXPERIENCE AS A CON ARTIST. BECAUSE NO ONE INCLUDING THE POLICE PUT ANY WEIGHT ON THE POLY RESULTS IF THEY DID I WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED.

[T.M. Cullen]

Here's what  my answer would be if, while taking a polygraph as a INNOCENT criminal suspect with no REAL evidence against me, and the examiner gave me this "You've failed this test horribly, the machine indicates you are lying.....blah, blah, blah" horseshit:

"Okay then why don't you arrest me?"  Keep asking them that.  Most detectives know there are some people who are just not going to play the game, and who are ON to the game.  Ironically, usually REAL streetwise criminals.  It's the innocent, naive, and gullible ones who play along.

The only way they could hurt you with just a polygraph chart, without a confession or real evidence would be if they wrapped it around a baseball bat and clobbered you over the head with it!

How many polygraph test results make it to court based solely on the chart versus what comes out in the INTERROGATION?


TC

[SanchoPanza]

Notguilty1.   Typing in all uppercase letters does not make you any less wrong.  

You relying on Mr. Cullen coming to your aid so you could have some kind of AHA moment just proves my statement that "you continue to criticize something you not only don't understand, you haven't even tried to learn".

(a) Saying you told the truth 10,000 times doesn't prove you didn't lie, EVEN IF YOU TYPE IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
(b)If the polygraph examiner had given you the charts you would be unable to distinguish them from a letter from your maiden aunt because you don't understand, and you haven't even tried to learn.
(c) There is plenty of evidence if you would read the research
(d) See (a) and based on your earlier posts, you have never asked why you weren't charged so you are just guessing.

"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term." (NAS Report p. 217)

SanchoPanza

[T.M. Cullen]

"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term."  (NAS Report p. 217)

SanchoPanza

".....However, research is at a very early stage with the most promising techniques, and many methodological, theoretical, and practical problems would have to be solved for these techniques to yield improvements on the polygraph. Not enough is known to tell whether it will ever be possible in practice to identify deception in real time through brain measurements."  (NAS Report same para)

"Computerized analysis of polygraph records may be able, in theory, to improve test accuracy. This potential has not yet been demonstrated, however, either in research or in practice, and it is likely to be only modest." (NAS Report same page)

Back to the "here and now", and referring to the NAS report quotes I posted above, the polygraph, as is, tain't accurate nor scientific neither, Rufus!  They's still a fish'n an a burn'n dem witches!

TC

[notguilty1]

Notguilty1.   Typing in all uppercase letters does not make you any less wrong.  

You relying on Mr. Cullen coming to your aid so you could have some kind of AHA moment just proves my statement that "you continue to criticize something you not only don't understand, you haven't even tried to learn".

(a) Saying you told the truth 10,000 times doesn't prove you didn't lie, EVEN IF YOU TYPE IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
(b)If the polygraph examiner had given you the charts you would be unable to distinguish them from a letter from your maiden aunt because you don't understand, and you haven't even tried to learn.
(c) There is plenty of evidence if you would read the research
(d) See (a) and based on your earlier posts, you have never asked why you weren't charged so you are just guessing.

"Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term." (NAS Report p. 217)

SanchoPanza

Sancho you obviously are so clouded by you need to make a living you don't even understand the way our justice system works.

a) saying 10,000 times I told the truth may not prove to you I didn't lie.
However the police obviously didn't put ANY weight on the Poly or I would have been charged. Because, if they had any possibility of finding me guilty with just the Poly they would have. Truth is that you are one of few that puts any validity in the Polygraph. The police had their shot with me and their silly machine and they needed a confession which they didn't get cause I had nothing to confess.
In our country ( don't know about yours) THEY HAVE TO PROVE I LIED !! and have to do it with valid means not pseudo-scientific non-sense.

b) If I had the charts I could have had them read by some one who could. Your doctor would give you your MRI charts even though the average person would not know what they are looking at. I had no right to the charts that labeled me a lier, wonder why? maybe because the charts mean nothing or maybe because the machine wasn't even on and they just were going for what they needed a confession.

c) There are tarrot card readers, Psychics, people that talk to the dead and ghost hunters that claim that they have "evidence" too, but do I buy it ?  NOT

d) I don't care why I wasn't charged the fact is that I wasn't and that's all I am interested in.
I have been told by my attorney that I was not charged because they had NO proof I committed a crime regardless of the Poly because that's no proof. I know all you need is the machine..... how easy things must be in your little world.
I am not interested in contacting the very people who perpetrated the scam to find out why their scam didn't work. I already know why.

"Potential alternatives that show promise" but cannot out perform Polygraph does NOT mean that Polygraph is accurate or even preforms well or at all other than what it is a interrogation tool.

[SanchoPanza]

Offe, Heinz ; Offe, Susan; The Comparison Question Test: Does It Work and If So How? Law and Human Behavior, Volume 31, Number 3 / June, 2007, pp 291-303 (13)


SP

PS not included in the NAS study