"More Polygraph Nonsense"

[Rodney]

The June 22, 2007 Swift has an article with this title, and quotes a reader as follows: "Dr. [Robert] Park states that '[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'"

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraphs -- "The polygraph is more often used as a deterrant to espionage rather than detection. One exception to this was the case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995, Nicholson had undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a strong probability of deception on questions regarding relationships with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph test later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction."

I wrote Dr. Park about this apparent discrepancy five days ago, but he hasn't responded.

[BillyJoe]

Maybe he would respond if you reseached this and provided him with material more reliable and more extensive than that obtained in the Wikipedia areticle. I am not saying the Wikipedia entry wrong, just that you should put in a bit of effort if you expect some else to do the same. After all, Bob Park would not be able to provide you will a response without first researching this himself.


Here is a start:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/news/pr111896.html



The CIA and FBI have implemented a number of reforms and new procedures at the CIA that are designed to detect the slightest of early warning signs of espionage. As a direct result of these reforms, anomalies were detected that ultimately led to the identification of Nicholson and his alleged espionage activities. These reforms include:

The Chief of CIA's Counterespionage Group is a senior FBI official who has full access to CIA's most sensitive counterintelligence data and is thus in a position to fully coordinate the joint efforts of both organizations.
The Chief of CIA's Counterespionage Group is assisted by deputies from both the security and operational disciplines at CIA and has at least one FBI Special Agent on the Counterespionage Group staff full-time.
Section 811 of the Fiscal Year 1995 Intelligence Authorization Act requires immediate notification to the FBI whenever there are indications that classified information may have been disclosed without authorization to a foreign power.
The position of Associate Deputy Director of Operations/Counterintelligence was created to ensure high-level focus on the Agency's counterintelligence and counterespionage effort. The Associate Deputy Director of Operations/Counterintelligence's duties include full-time coordination with the FBI, currently including weekly meetings with senior FBI officials in the FBI's National Security Division.
New training initiatives to enhance and improve counterespionge efforts have been undertaken.
Congress has provided increased resources for joint counterespionage efforts.

Nowhere does it specifically mention polygraphs in the above list.
Further down it does mention polygraph test, but nowhere does it say the tests were the crucial factor in uncovering the espionage activity. In fact the results seem to have been rather ambiguous:

On or about October 16, 1995 and thereafter, Nicholson underwent a series of polygraph examinations administered by the CIA as part of a routine security update. An analysis of those polygraphs raised unresolved questions about unauthorized contacts with foreign intelligence services.




Here is another link which seems to support the view that suspicion and investigation was initiated as a result of the polygraph test, although there is no unequivocal statement linking the two:

http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/nich-aff.html

10. On or about October 16, 1995, and October 20, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent polygraph examinations administered by CIA polygraphers as part of his routine security update. A computerized review the examination results indicated a .97 (out of 1.0) probability of deception on two questions: (1) Are you hiding involvement with a Foreign Intelligence Service? and (2) Have you had unauthorized contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service? During one of the examinations, a CIA polygrapher deemed NICHOLSON's response "inconclusive" to the following question: "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?"

11. On or about December 4, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent a third polygraph examination administered by a CIA polygrapher. A computerized review of the examination revealed an .88 probability of deception on the following questions: (1) Since 1990, have you had contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service that you are trying to hide from the CIA? and (2) Are you trying to hide any contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service since 1990? The CIA examiner noted that NICHOLSON appeared to be trying to manipulate the test by taking deep breaths on the control questions, which stopped after a verbal warning.


So....

Do your research, collate evidence for your hypothesis, and I'm sure you will generate a response from our friend Bob Park.


regards,
BillyJoe

[Rodney]

Maybe he would respond if you reseached this and provided him with material more reliable and more extensive than that obtained in the Wikipedia areticle. I am not saying the Wikipedia entry wrong, just that you should put in a bit of effort if you expect some else to do the same. After all, Bob Park would not be able to provide you will a response without first researching this himself.

Here is a start:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/news/pr111896.html

[/LIST]

Nowhere does it specifically mention polygraphs in the above list.
Further down it does mention polygraph test, but nowhere does it say the tests were the crucial factor in uncovering the espionage activity. In fact the results seem to have been rather ambiguous:

Here is another link which seems to support the view that suspicion and investigation was initiated as a result of the polygraph test, although there is no unequivocal statement linking the two:

http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/nich-aff.html

Quote:
10. On or about October 16, 1995, and October 20, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent polygraph examinations administered by CIA polygraphers as part of his routine security update. A computerized review the examination results indicated a .97 (out of 1.0) probability of deception on two questions: (1) Are you hiding involvement with a Foreign Intelligence Service? and (2) Have you had unauthorized contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service? During one of the examinations, a CIA polygrapher deemed NICHOLSON's response "inconclusive" to the following question: "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?"

11. On or about December 4, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent a third polygraph examination administered by a CIA polygrapher. A computerized review of the examination revealed an .88 probability of deception on the following questions: (1) Since 1990, have you had contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service that you are trying to hide from the CIA? and (2) Are you trying to hide any contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service since 1990? The CIA examiner noted that NICHOLSON appeared to be trying to manipulate the test by taking deep breaths on the control questions, which stopped after a verbal warning.

So....

Do your research, collate evidence for your hypothesis, and I'm sure you will generate a response from our friend Bob Park.

regards,
BillyJoe

First, what is the basis for your friend's opinion that "the polygraph has never uncovered a single spy?" It seems to have been lifted from Dr. Kathryn Laskey, who directed a 2002 National Academies of Sciences study of polygraphs. But, according to John Sullivan, a CIA polygraph examiner for 31 years, Dr. Laskey told him: "As soon as those words were out of my mouth, I wanted to take them back." See http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html

Second, the affidavit that you cite makes clear that a routine polygraph is indeed what led to the investigation of Nicholson: "On or about October 16, 1995, and October 20, 1995, Nicholson underwent polygraph examinations administered by CIA polygraphers as part of his routine security update. A computerized review the examination results indicated a .97 (out of 1.0) probability of deception on two questions: (1) Are you hiding involvement with a Foreign Intelligence Service? and (2) Have you had unauthorized contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service?"

Third, John Sullivan states: "I advised Dr. Laskey that incidents in which spies have been caught through polygraph are a matter of public record, specifically, Sharon Scranage and Jim Nicholson. There are others, but those two were featured in The Washington Post stories." Sullivan, by the way, states that he is "not a rabid proponent of polygraph and know, better than most, its limitations, but there is another side to the polygraph story which, in all fairness, deserves a hearing."

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So mixed in among the false-negatives and the false-positives there are accounts of one or two positive-positives? Why should this surprise anybody?

[BillyJoe]

Rodney,

It should be clear that I'm not arguing with you, just explaining why you may not have received a reply from Bob Park.

BillyJoe.

[BillyJoe]

So mixed in among the false-negatives and the false-positives there are accounts of one or two positive-positives? Why should this surprise anybody?


It seems Bob Park will be surprised to hear it, if it's true.

[Rodney]

So mixed in among the false-negatives and the false-positives there are accounts of one or two positive-positives?
Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

Why should this surprise anybody?
The issue is whether Bob Park is correct when he contends that the polygraph has never uncovered a single spy. If you agree that he is incorrect, would you also agree that he should retract his assertion?

[digithead]

Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

Why does it seem that everyone has to do your research for you? If you google "national academies" and polygraph you will find the 2003 NAS study:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/

To answer your question, the NAS concluded that if the polygraph had 80% accuracy and there were 10,000 people being polygraphed with 10 spies within that sample that it would catch 8 spies but an additional 1,598 would be falsely accused of being a spy. In this scenario, two spies would go undetected...

Let me say that 80% accuracy used by the NAS is a number not supported by the research, they merely used it as an illustration of its folly. The polygraph has no real accuracy due to the fact that each subject serves as a their own baseline. Its only utility is in extracting confessions from the gullible...

If you want a great resource on the nonsense of polygraph, go to antipolygraph.org...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

Nope. But I would expect there has been at least one of each. Do you agree?

The issue is whether Bob Park is correct when he contends that the polygraph has never uncovered a single spy. If you agree that he is incorrect, would you also agree that he should retract his assertion?

If there were such a thing as a flugalometer that had random flashing lights and identified every single person it was used on as a lier, it too, would identify a actual spy or two. So what?

Is Bob Parks correct? -- Yes.

A stopped clock is right at least once a day.

[BillyJoe]

Is Bob Parks correct? -- Yes.


Well, Bob Park said:


'[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'"



If Harold James Nicholson was a spy and if he was detected initially by means of the polygraph, that statement would be false wouldn't it?

[BillyJoe]

Rodney,

I wonder if you have further researched this, confirmed that the polygraph test did, in fact, unequivocally, draw Nicholson to their attention and sent off amother letter to Bob Park.

[Rodney]

Why does it seem that everyone has to do your research for you? If you google "national academies" and polygraph you will find the 2003 NAS study:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/

To answer your question, the NAS concluded that if the polygraph had 80% accuracy and there were 10,000 people being polygraphed with 10 spies within that sample that it would catch 8 spies but an additional 1,598 would be falsely accused of being a spy. In this scenario, two spies would go undetected...
My question was: "Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?" I was looking for real-world numbers, not made-up ones.

Let me say that 80% accuracy used by the NAS is a number not supported by the research,
Quite right, anymore than their other numbers are supported by research.

they merely used it as an illustration of its folly. The polygraph has no real accuracy due to the fact that each subject serves as a their own baseline. Its only utility is in extracting confessions from the gullible...
And your source for these assertions is . . .?

If you want a great resource on the nonsense of polygraph, go to antipolygraph.org...
I have a feeling Dr. Park may be relying on this same "great resource." ;)

[Rodney]

Well, Bob Park said:

"[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy."

If Harold James Nicholson was a spy and if he was detected initially by means of the polygraph, that statement would be false wouldn't it?
You and I evidently took the same elementary logic course, Billy Joe, but apparently some of the other folks here were out sick that semester. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, Bob Park said:




If Harold James Nicholson was a spy and if he was detected initially by means of the polygraph, that statement would be false wouldn't it?

Once upon a time I saw on TV one of those "Stupid Things that Criminals Do" shows and it had a piece where the cops convinced a suspect that the office copier was a "Lie Detector" by preprinting words on the paper. They said to the suspect, "the machine shows you are lying," whereupon he confessed. Is the statement that "Copy machines have at least once detected a criminal," true?

Notice the word "detected". Answer carefully. :boggled:

[Rodney]

Rodney,

I wonder if you have further researched this, confirmed that the polygraph test did, in fact, unequivocally, draw Nicholson to their attention and sent off amother letter to Bob Park.
I don't see any need to send another e-mail to Bob Park until he answers my first one. If you are assuming that my-email to him was insulting, here is what it said:

Greetings,

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraphs -- "Noted
pseudoscience debunker Bob Park recently commented, 'The polygraph, in
fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'"

However, that same Wikipedia article states: "The polygraph is more
often used as a deterrant to espionage rather than detection. One
exception to this was the case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA
employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995, Nicholson had
undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a
strong probability of deception on questions regarding relationships
with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph test later launched
an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and
conviction."

Do you dispute the Wikipedia account regarding Harold James Nicholson?
If so, how is it inaccurate?
__________________________________________________ ______________

In terms of the evidence that a routine polygraph was what precipitated the investigation of Nicholson, that's certainly what the affidavit filed by FBI Michael Lonergan agent said, and CIA polygraph examiner John Sullivan and the Wikipedia article concur. I also find it revealing that the NAS study, as far as I can determine, never even mentions Nicholson. Considering how negative the authors of that study were toward polygraphs, don't you think they would have attempted to debunk the role that the polygraph played in the Nicholson case, if they could have?

[digithead]

My question was: "Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?" I was looking for real-world numbers, not made-up ones.


Quite right, anymore than their other numbers are supported by research.


And your source for these assertions is . . .?


I have a feeling Dr. Park may be relying on this same "great resource." ;)

Did you actually read the NAS report or at least the executive summary before you blithely dismissed it? Because I wasn't aware that the National Academy of Science was in the habit of yanking things out of their rear end. Their numbers are illustrative because there is no convincing research done by reputable scientists in peer-reviewed journals that shows that the types of polygraph tests used by industry can have any high degree of accuracy nor does it have any theoretical basis for their use...

As for my sources for asserting that the polygraph is psuedoscience, start with this:

Iacono, W.G. 2001. Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 1(1):75-86.


Then when you get done with that, try this:

Lykken, D.T. 1998. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd Edition. NY: Perseus Publishing.


Then see this about the polygraph becoming more "accurate" if subjects actually believe it works, note that they hooked people up to a non-functioning machine and got them to admit to more racist attitudes if they were convinced that the machine detected deception:

Jones, E.E. & H. Sigall. 1971. The Bogus Pipeline: A New Paradigm for Measuring Affect and Attitude. Psychological Bulletin 76:349-64.


Let me know when you get done with the reading...

[BillyJoe]

Once upon a time I saw on TV one of those "Stupid Things that Criminals Do" shows and it had a piece where the cops convinced a suspect that the office copier was a "Lie Detector" by preprinting words on the paper. They said to the suspect, "the machine shows you are lying," whereupon he confessed. Is the statement that "Copy machines have at least once detected a criminal," true?

Notice the word "detected". Answer carefully. :boggled:


Not sure what trick you have in mind with that concentration of the word "detected"

But I think your analogy is not valid.

If the story about Nicholson is correct we have the following:
- Nicholson makes contact with foreign nationals.
- Nicholson has two polygraph tests.
- First polygraph: Nicholson's response is "inconclusive" to the following question: "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?"
- Second polygraph: Nicholson appeared to be trying to manipulate the test by taking deep breaths on the control questions, which stopped after a verbal warning.
- These results led investigators to investigate Nicholson.
- Evidence form these investigations were sufficient to prove that Nicholson made contact with foreign nationals.

I fail to see many points of analogy with your example.
I don't even know if Nicholson even confessed to his crime.
Certainly (if the above story is true) it was the evidence obtained after suspicion fell on him as a result ot the polygraph test that convicted him.

[BillyJoe]

I don't see any need to send another e-mail to Bob Park until he answers my first one. If you are assuming that my-email to him was insulting, here is what it said...


No, I wasn't thinking it was insulting letter.
(I know you better than that :D )

But, seriously, he must receive more emails than he is ever capable of responding to. If you show that you have put some effort, yourself, into proving the case for (at least) a single conviction arising out of the use of the polygraph, he would have to pay attention wouldn't he?

So, yes, I would try again using something more convincing than a Wikipedia article, like links and quotes from source documents.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not sure what trick you have in mind with that concentration of the word "detected"

But I think your analogy is not valid.

If the story about Nicholson is correct we have the following:
- Nicholson makes contact with foreign nationals.
- Nicholson has two polygraph tests.
- First polygraph: Nicholson's response is "inconclusive" to the following question: "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?"
- Second polygraph: Nicholson appeared to be trying to manipulate the test by taking deep breaths on the control questions, which stopped after a verbal warning.
- These results led investigators to investigate Nicholson.
- Evidence form these investigations were sufficient to prove that Nicholson made contact with foreign nationals.

I fail to see many points of analogy with your example.
I don't even know if Nicholson even confessed to his crime.
Certainly (if the above story is true) it was the evidence obtained after suspicion fell on him as a result ot the polygraph test that convicted him.

I'm sorry. If your summary is correct, then all it proves that Nicholson believed that polygraphs actually work and gave himself away by try to "beat" it. Not that polygraphy per se had anything to do with it or that it worked.

[Rodney]

Did you actually read the NAS report or at least the executive summary before you blithely dismissed it? Because I wasn't aware that the National Academy of Science was in the habit of yanking things out of their rear end. Their numbers are illustrative because there is no convincing research done by reputable scientists in peer-reviewed journals that shows that the types of polygraph tests used by industry can have any high degree of accuracy nor does it have any theoretical basis for their use...

As for my sources for asserting that the polygraph is psuedoscience, start with this:

Iacono, W.G. 2001. Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 1(1):75-86.


Then when you get done with that, try this:

Lykken, D.T. 1998. A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd Edition. NY: Perseus Publishing.


Then see this about the polygraph becoming more "accurate" if subjects actually believe it works, note that they hooked people up to a non-functioning machine and got them to admit to more racist attitudes if they were convinced that the machine detected deception:

Jones, E.E. & H. Sigall. 1971. The Bogus Pipeline: A New Paradigm for Measuring Affect and Attitude. Psychological Bulletin 76:349-64.


Let me know when you get done with the reading...
I haven't done all the reading, but I find the first sentence in the conclusion of the Iacono article interesting:

"Although the CQT may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test."

What Dr. Iacono does not seem to appreciate is that a polygraph is only one of many tools available to investigate someone, and if it is "useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions", that's a huge plus. A polygraph should never be the only tool, but it can be a major deterrent to criminal behavior and -- in some cases, such as Nicholson's -- it can actually expose criminal behavior.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I haven't done all the reading, but I find the first sentence in the conclusion of the Iacono article interesting:

"Although the CQT may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test."

What Dr. Iacono does not seem to appreciate is that a polygraph is only one of many tools available to investigate someone, and if it is "useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions", that's a huge plus. A polygraph should never be the only tool, but it can be a major deterrent to criminal behavior and -- in some cases, such as Nicholson's -- it can actually expose criminal behavior.
(Bolding added.)


Only as long as the person being tested believes that it works! OTW it is simply the tester making guesses.

[Rodney]

Only as long as the person being tested believes that it works! OTW it is simply the tester making guesses. According to former CIA polygraph expert John Sullivan: "I knew and worked with [convicted spy Aldrich] Ames. In my book Of Spies and Lies, I cite a test that I did for him in which I caught a Czech double agent who had been trained to beat the polygraph. I tested and identified another of Ames' agents who turned out to be a double agent. In the book, I also cite a test in which one of my colleagues caught a Bloc agent who had applied to work for the CIA." See -- http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html -- So, if Sullivan is right, you're wrong.

[digithead]

I haven't done all the reading, but I find the first sentence in the conclusion of the Iacono article interesting:

"Although the CQT may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test."

What Dr. Iacono does not seem to appreciate is that a polygraph is only one of many tools available to investigate someone, and if it is "useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions", that's a huge plus. A polygraph should never be the only tool, but it can be a major deterrent to criminal behavior and -- in some cases, such as Nicholson's -- it can actually expose criminal behavior.


So do you think the results from a polygraph in the absence of a confession should be used for any decision-making given that it is not a "scientifically credible test"?

Additionally, I don't Dr. Iacono's statement means that he precludes the polygraph from being used an interrogation prop to induce confessions from the gullible. Iacono is one of the preeminent experts on the polygraph and its uses and abuses, how do you know what he appreciates about it?

According to former CIA polygraph expert John Sullivan: "I knew and worked with [convicted spy Aldrich] Ames. In my book Of Spies and Lies, I cite a test that I did for him in which I caught a Czech double agent who had been trained to beat the polygraph. I tested and identified another of Ames' agents who turned out to be a double agent. In the book, I also cite a test in which one of my colleagues caught a Bloc agent who had applied to work for the CIA." See -- http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html -- So, if Sullivan is right, you're wrong.


And yet again you rely on anecdotes. In the same book you cite, Sullivan also states that unless a confession is obtained, the results are what are called a "scientific wild ass guess."



In any event, let's assume that Nicholson was caught by the polygraph (which I think is revisionist history), given the laws of probability, it is inevitable that if you run enough polygraphs, you will be correct a certain percentage of the time even if it had no accuracy. It's a simple function of the base rate of deception and Bayes Law. If you read the NAS paper, you would discover this to be true. Additionally, even if the polygraph was "correct" in Nicholson's case, it does not change the fact that the polygraph cannot detect deception and is psuedoscientific flapdoodle...

[Rodney]

So do you think the results from a polygraph in the absence of a confession should be used for any decision-making given that it is not a "scientifically credible test"?
Why is a confession necessary, if an investigation reveals conclusively the guilt of someone? I'm not saying that, if a person fails a polygraph, decision-making should be based on that fact alone, but that failure should lead to a more in-depth investigation, which may, as in Nicholson's case, establish guilt conclusively.

Additionally, I don't Dr. Iacono's statement means that he precludes the polygraph from being used an interrogation prop to induce confessions from the gullible. Iacono is one of the preeminent experts on the polygraph and its uses and abuses, how do you know what he appreciates about it?
It seems to me that Iacono's perspective is more that of an academic than a real-world polygraph practitioner such as John Sullivan.

And yet again you rely on anecdotes. In the same book you cite, Sullivan also states that unless a confession is obtained, the results are what are called a "scientific wild ass guess."
I believe that what Sullivan actually said was: "Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently a guess.” See http://antipolygraph.org/documents/myth-of-the-lie-detector.shtml

In any event, let's assume that Nicholson was caught by the polygraph (which I think is revisionist history), Revisionist? Was there ever a different version of events?

given the laws of probability, it is inevitable that if you run enough polygraphs, you will be correct a certain percentage of the time even if it had no accuracy. It's a simple function of the base rate of deception and Bayes Law. If you read the NAS paper, you would discover this to be true. Additionally, even if the polygraph was "correct" in Nicholson's case, it does not change the fact that the polygraph cannot detect deception and is psuedoscientific flapdoodle...
The NAS study was hardly objective. If it had been, it would not have ignored the Nicholson case.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

According to former CIA polygraph expert John Sullivan: "I knew and worked with [convicted spy Aldrich] Ames. In my book Of Spies and Lies, I cite a test that I did for him in which I caught a Czech double agent who had been trained to beat the polygraph. I tested and identified another of Ames' agents who turned out to be a double agent. In the book, I also cite a test in which one of my colleagues caught a Bloc agent who had applied to work for the CIA." See -- http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html -- So, if Sullivan is right, you're wrong.

Did you miss the part where I said "OTW it is simply the tester making guesses."?

[Rodney]

Did you miss the part where I said "OTW it is simply the tester making guesses."?
No. I agree with John Sullivan that a polygraph is more art than science, but I disagree that "it is simply the tester making guesses." There are many gradations between wild guesses and certain knowledge, and IMO polygraph examinations fall at least halfway between the two extremes, if not closer to the latter.

[BillyJoe]

I'm sorry. If your summary is correct, then all it proves that Nicholson believed that polygraphs actually work and gave himself away by try to "beat" it.


Not necessarily.

Nicholson would very likely know that the polygraph test is designed to throw the suspicion of lying on someone whose physiological responses change in a certain way when asked a question. He would know that, if his pulse rate and respiratory rate went up when he answered "No" to the question "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?", that he would be suspected of lying. Therefore he would try to prevent his pulse rate and respiratory rate from rising when asked that question.

This would be true whether or not polygraphs actually work.


Not that polygraphy per se had anything to do with it...


I don't know whether the polygraph results* prompted the offficials to investigate him or not. I'm saying that, if it did, then Bob Parks would be in error when he said that the polygraph never uncovered a single spy.


*Actually, it just occurred to me that we don't even know the results of the polygraph tests. All we are told is that the testers suspected him of trying to manipulate the test, not that the tests were positive.

[Rodney]

I don't know whether the polygraph results* prompted the offficials to investigate him or not. I'm saying that, if it did, then Bob Parks would be in error when he said that the polygraph never uncovered a single spy.

*Actually, it just occurred to me that we don't even know the results of the polygraph tests. All we are told is that the testers suspected him of trying to manipulate the test, not that the tests were positive.
BillyJoe, no less an authority than you posted the following (Post #2 on this thread):

http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/nich-aff.html

Quote:
10. On or about October 16, 1995, and October 20, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent polygraph examinations administered by CIA polygraphers as part of his routine security update. A computerized review the examination results indicated a .97 (out of 1.0) probability of deception on two questions: (1) Are you hiding involvement with a Foreign Intelligence Service? and (2) Have you had unauthorized contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service? During one of the examinations, a CIA polygrapher deemed NICHOLSON's response "inconclusive" to the following question: "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?"

11. On or about December 4, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent a third polygraph examination administered by a CIA polygrapher. A computerized review of the examination revealed an .88 probability of deception on the following questions: (1) Since 1990, have you had contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service that you are trying to hide from the CIA? and (2) Are you trying to hide any contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service since 1990? The CIA examiner noted that NICHOLSON appeared to be trying to manipulate the test by taking deep breaths on the control questions, which stopped after a verbal warning.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

*Actually, it just occurred to me that we don't even know the results of the polygraph tests. All we are told is that the testers suspected him of trying to manipulate the test, not that the tests were positive.

Err. Exactly! That has been my point all along!

:boggled:

[digithead]

Why is a confession necessary, if an investigation reveals conclusively the guilt of someone? I'm not saying that, if a person fails a polygraph, decision-making should be based on that fact alone, but that failure should lead to a more in-depth investigation, which may, as in Nicholson's case, establish guilt conclusively.
So simply failing a polygraph should raise flags? Hmm, I wonder how you would feel if you were one of the false positives who had their life torn apart (losing their jobs, always being eyed suspiciously) based on pseudoscience...

It seems to me that Iacono's perspective is more that of an academic than a real-world polygraph practitioner such as John Sullivan.Yes, if only those pesky know-it-all academics would keep their noses out of practical matters in criminal justice then life would be grand. By the way, have you read Iacono's CV? It's a shame that he wasted all those years as a clinical psychologist when he could've been doing something practical in the real world...

I believe that what Sullivan actually said was: "Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently a guess.” See http://antipolygraph.org/documents/myth-of-the-lie-detector.shtmlUm, I hate to point it out but your link is to an Al Qaeda memo about the polygraph translated in English in which they paraphrase Sullivan. There probably isn't an Arabic idiomatic equivalent of "wild ass guess." I don't have Sullivan's book handy but the quote I gave you is verbatim from his book...

Revisionist? Was there ever a different version of events?Having reviewed quite a bit of the pro-polygraph literature, they seem to have the market cornered on confirmation bias. Although you seem to have a fair share of it yourself...

The NAS study was hardly objective. If it had been, it would not have ignored the Nicholson case.Huh? The NAS was not tasked to review individual cases; they reviewed the research evidence on the polygraph and found that the bulk did not support its use in screening applications. Your objection is baseless...

Quite simply, Rodney, a polygraph exam consists of four physiological measures (heart rate, respiration, breathing, and sweating) and certain ways of asking questions (the test itself). It then makes the supposition that changes in those measures are caused by anxiety from lying in response to those questions. However, nature did not equip us with a Pinocchio's nose and while there is correlation between physiological changes and lying for some individuals, there is not a one-to-one correlation between lying and changes in those measures for all individuals because anger, embarassment, disease, situational contexts and other conditions also cause those changes. Ergo, standard polygraph tests cannot distinguish between the anxious but guilty and the anxious but innocent. In fact, most research shows that the polygraph is biased against the innocent. Indeed, there are even studies that show that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph...

Basically, since most polygraph tests rely on emotional response, they can never be reliable in determining deception, only nervousness. However, there is some research into using the polygraph machine to test guilty knowledge which is based on cognitive response because there is evidence to show that we all have physiological reactions to things we know (event related potential). But these tests are still far from perfect but they are getting better in terms of technology (e.g. fMRI, etc.)...

Anyhow, my interest in the polygraph stems from its use in sex offender treatment which I feel poses a different danger to society due to the risk of false negatives. If an offender can use countermeasures to fool the polygraph, then he can continue to engage in further victimization. Hopefully with my research, I'll be able to stop its use in this arena...

But then you probably think I should keep my nose out of it since I'm one of those pesky ivory tower types...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So simply failing a polygraph should raise flags? Hmm, I wonder how you would feel if you were one of the false positives who had their life torn apart (losing their jobs, always being eyed suspiciously) based on pseudoscience...

Yes, if only those pesky know-it-all academics would keep their noses out of practical matters in criminal justice then life would be grand. By the way, have you read Iacono's CV? It's a shame that he wasted all those years as a clinical psychologist when he could've been doing something practical in the real world...

Um, I hate to point it out but your link is to an Al Qaeda memo about the polygraph translated in English in which they paraphrase Sullivan. There probably isn't an Arabic idiomatic equivalent of "wild ass guess." I don't have Sullivan's book handy but the quote I gave you is verbatim from his book...

Having reviewed quite a bit of the pro-polygraph literature, they seem to have the market cornered on confirmation bias. Although you seem to have a fair share of it yourself...

Huh? The NAS was not tasked to review individual cases; they reviewed the research evidence on the polygraph and found that the bulk did not support its use in screening applications. Your objection is baseless...

Quite simply, Rodney, a polygraph exam consists of four physiological measures (heart rate, respiration, breathing, and sweating) and certain ways of asking questions (the test itself). It then makes the supposition that changes in those measures are caused by anxiety from lying in response to those questions. However, nature did not equip us with a Pinocchio's nose and while there is correlation between physiological changes and lying for some individuals, there is not a one-to-one correlation between lying and changes in those measures for all individuals because anger, embarassment, disease, situational contexts and other conditions also cause those changes. Ergo, standard polygraph tests cannot distinguish between the anxious but guilty and the anxious but innocent. In fact, most research shows that the polygraph is biased against the innocent. Indeed, there are even studies that show that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph...

Basically, since most polygraph tests rely on emotional response, they can never be reliable in determining deception, only nervousness. However, there is some research into using the polygraph machine to test guilty knowledge which is based on cognitive response because there is evidence to show that we all have physiological reactions to things we know (event related potential). But these tests are still far from perfect but they are getting better in terms of technology (e.g. fMRI, etc.)...

Anyhow, my interest in the polygraph stems from its use in sex offender treatment which I feel poses a different danger to society due to the risk of false negatives. If an offender can use countermeasures to fool the polygraph, then he can continue to engage in further victimization. Hopefully with my research, I'll be able to stop its use in this arena...

But then you probably think I should keep my nose out of it since I'm one of those pesky ivory tower types...

Thank you.

I am now leaving this thread, There is no point in staying any longer.

[BillyJoe]

Oops...

BillyJoe, no less an authority than you posted the following (Post #2 on this thread):

http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/nich-aff.html

Quote:
10. On or about October 16, 1995, and October 20, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent polygraph examinations administered by CIA polygraphers as part of his routine security update. A computerized review the examination results indicated a .97 (out of 1.0) probability of deception on two questions: (1) Are you hiding involvement with a Foreign Intelligence Service? and (2) Have you had unauthorized contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service? During one of the examinations, a CIA polygrapher deemed NICHOLSON's response "inconclusive" to the following question: "Are you concealing contact with any Foreign Nationals?"

11. On or about December 4, 1995, NICHOLSON underwent a third polygraph examination administered by a CIA polygrapher. A computerized review of the examination revealed an .88 probability of deception on the following questions: (1) Since 1990, have you had contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service that you are trying to hide from the CIA? and (2) Are you trying to hide any contact with a Foreign Intelligence Service since 1990? The CIA examiner noted that NICHOLSON appeared to be trying to manipulate the test by taking deep breaths on the control questions, which stopped after a verbal warning.


My own quotes as well. :o

I have highlighted and underlined the relevant bits for GIT (Gord_in_Toronto) :D

But I see he has gone. :(

[BillyJoe]

Err. Exactly! That has been my point all along!


Then it seems your point was mistaken. ;)

[Rodney]

So simply failing a polygraph should raise flags? Hmm, I wonder how you would feel if you were one of the false positives who had their life torn apart (losing their jobs, always being eyed suspiciously) based on pseudoscience...
Of course failing a polygraph should raise suspicions -- otherwise, what would be the point of giving one? However, it should not be treated as more than one piece of the puzzle. To the extent that someone's life is torn apart by a false positive, the investigation was not properly done. But how many times have lives actually been torn apart by false positives? Can you document any cases?

Yes, if only those pesky know-it-all academics would keep their noses out of practical matters in criminal justice then life would be grand. By the way, have you read Iacono's CV? It's a shame that he wasted all those years as a clinical psychologist when he could've been doing something practical in the real world...
Practical experience is the greatest teacher.

Um, I hate to point it out but your link is to an Al Qaeda memo about the polygraph translated in English in which they paraphrase Sullivan. There probably isn't an Arabic idiomatic equivalent of "wild ass guess." I don't have Sullivan's book handy but the quote I gave you is verbatim from his book...
But clearly Sullivan has far more belief in polygraphs than Iacono.

Huh? The NAS was not tasked to review individual cases; they reviewed the research evidence on the polygraph and found that the bulk did not support its use in screening applications. Your objection is baseless...
So why an entire appendix on Wen Ho Lee? I recognize that the claim is made that the appendix "illuminates the background of this study", but I would think that exploring the Nicholson case would be equally illuminating.

Quite simply, Rodney, a polygraph exam consists of four physiological measures (heart rate, respiration, breathing, and sweating) and certain ways of asking questions (the test itself). It then makes the supposition that changes in those measures are caused by anxiety from lying in response to those questions. However, nature did not equip us with a Pinocchio's nose and while there is correlation between physiological changes and lying for some individuals, there is not a one-to-one correlation between lying and changes in those measures for all individuals because anger, embarassment, disease, situational contexts and other conditions also cause those changes. Ergo, standard polygraph tests cannot distinguish between the anxious but guilty and the anxious but innocent. In fact, most research shows that the polygraph is biased against the innocent. Indeed, there are even studies that show that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph...

Basically, since most polygraph tests rely on emotional response, they can never be reliable in determining deception, only nervousness. However, there is some research into using the polygraph machine to test guilty knowledge which is based on cognitive response because there is evidence to show that we all have physiological reactions to things we know (event related potential). But these tests are still far from perfect but they are getting better in terms of technology (e.g. fMRI, etc.)...
I agree that there is no such thing as an absolute lie detector test, but what are you basing your assertions on? For example, do you have specific statistics showing that the polygraph is biased against the innocent?

Anyhow, my interest in the polygraph stems from its use in sex offender treatment which I feel poses a different danger to society due to the risk of false negatives. If an offender can use countermeasures to fool the polygraph, then he can continue to engage in further victimization. Hopefully with my research, I'll be able to stop its use in this arena...
Why do you want to stop its use in this arena, as opposed to simply pointing out its limitations?

But then you probably think I should keep my nose out of it since I'm one of those pesky ivory tower types...
No, the more the merrier. :)

[Rodney]

Of course failing a polygraph should raise suspicions -- otherwise, what would be the point of giving one?
According to the NBC Nightly News this evening (July 5, 2007), the current investigation of an alleged massacre in Iraq stemmed from a polygraph test that was given to a U.S. Marine applicant for a Secret Service job. See "U.S. troops linked to Iraqi prisoner deaths" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/

[Kevin_Lowe]

People treated with homeopathy sometimes get better too, and people who call themselves "experts on homeopathy" will tell you it works wonderfully.

Testimonials from woo-peddlers and anecdotes aren't evidence.

The onus is on peddlers of woo to prove their magic lie detecting machines work, and to show exactly how often and how well they work. Not on skeptics to explain every false positive.

[T'ai Chi]

Park is knowledgable in physics. That's about it AFAIK, so I wouldn't listen to him on anything else besides physics.

[BillyJoe]

I missed it!
Where did Bob Park come into the discussion?

[delphi_ote]

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, has anyone in this thread actually been through a polygraph? If so, what did you think of the experience?

[Rodney]

I missed it!
Where did Bob Park come into the discussion?
I initiated this thread by stating: '"The June 22, 2007 Swift has an article with this title [More Polygraph Nonsense], and quotes a reader as follows: "Dr. [Robert] Park states that '[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'" . . . I wrote Dr. Park about this apparent discrepancy five days ago, but he hasn't responded."'

It's now been 15 days, and I still haven't heard back from Dr. Park.

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, sorry, wrong thread. :blush:

[JoeTheJuggler]

At best, Rodney, it sounds like you're quibbling over the meaning of the word "detect".

If polygraph testing flags a lot of people as being suspicious (possibly lying or covering up something), and the ensuing investigations of those people turns up evidence of espionage in one case, can you really say that the polygraph detected the espionage?

I think not.

[Rodney]

At best, Rodney, it sounds like you're quibbling over the meaning of the word "detect".

If polygraph testing flags a lot of people as being suspicious (possibly lying or covering up something), and the ensuing investigations of those people turns up evidence of espionage in one case, can you really say that the polygraph detected the espionage?

I think not.
First of all, you're ignoring what Dr. Park said, which was: "The polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy." Was that statement accurate or inaccurate? Second, according to New Jersey polygraph expert Jerry Lewis: "The polygraph is geared to helping the innocent person more than catching the liar. The real value of the polygraph is to clear the truthful people. It is much worse to call a truthful person a liar than it is to let a liar go. Therefore the test is weighted so that every once in a while, when a mistake is made, it will hopefully be made where a liar is not caught rather than a truthful person being branded a liar." If you believe Mr. Lewis is in error, please supply evidence of truthful individuals being branded liars by the polygraph.

[delphi_ote]

First of all, you're ignoring what Dr. Park said, which was: "The polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy." Was that statement accurate or inaccurate? Second, according to New Jersey polygraph expert Jerry Lewis: "The polygraph is geared to helping the innocent person more than catching the liar. The real value of the polygraph is to clear the truthful people. It is much worse to call a truthful person a liar than it is to let a liar go. Therefore the test is weighted so that every once in a while, when a mistake is made, it will hopefully be made where a liar is not caught rather than a truthful person being branded a liar." If you believe Mr. Lewis is in error, please supply evidence of truthful individuals being branded liars by the polygraph.
Mr. Lewis' own biography contradicts this: "Due to his success in obtaining confessions, in 1988 he developed a five-day Interview and Interrogation Course, which is presented several times per year at the New Jersey State Police Academy." His great professional success wasn't clearing people's names. It was getting them to confess. Just because someone confesses to a crime does not mean they are guilty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition).

Also, Mr. Lewis isn't exactly an unbiased, critical source, either:
Because every human being’s brain works the same way as it processes information and makes decisions. We can tap into that if we know what to look and listen for. If you understand how you lie, when you lie, or why you lie, then you can understand everyone else. Whether it is a basically honest person just padding his insurance claim a little or a serial killer denying his guilt, the signs are the same.

Even if you know nothing about the case, the person you are talking to knows whether he/she is lying – so should you! No experience is needed. These techniques are so simple, you can even use them over the phone!

Jerry will use examples from New Jersey cases, personal experiences, and nationally recognized cases to illustrate his points. Forget about fidgeting fingers, poor eye contact, or signs of nervousness. Come and see if this common sense approach doesn’t help you solve some of the mysteries in your life.
His website advertises "The Tactical Interviewing Program® with Psycho Logic® ". "Psycho Logic reveals what one factor must be present before anyone will confess. In fact, this is probably what is missing each time an investigator knows he/she has the right person but can not get them to admit the truth. Once this major tenet of interviewing is explained, students will understand that there is only one way to conduct any interview, be it a road stop, a field interview, or a pre-planned interrogation."

He claims he "He identified the killer of Megan Kanka (Megan’s Law) after being read a witness's statement over the phone."

That is not the prose of a cautious scientific mind.

[Father Dagon]

The June 22, 2007 Swift has an article with this title, and quotes a reader as follows: "Dr. [Robert] Park states that '[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'"

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraphs -- "The polygraph is more often used as a deterrant to espionage rather than detection. One exception to this was the case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995, Nicholson had undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a strong probability of deception on questions regarding relationships with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph test later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction."

I wrote Dr. Park about this apparent discrepancy five days ago, but he hasn't responded.Deterrence rather than detection - that reminds me of the old tribal customs where you put heads from enemy tribes at a stake outside your village. Horrorshow but not really saying anything about which tribe who's the strongest.

As seen in Ocean's 13, polygraphs can be manipulated. But you don't have to put a thumbtack in your shoe. You can rise the blood pressure by squeezing your anal sphincter really hard. And you can always train the muscle to be stronger by just squeezing regulary. I guess that if you use a butt plug, the squeezing effect will be even greater. But if you use it as the manufactures intended, it could easily be detected during a frisking. And tampons has every fertile woman in her handbag without anyone batting an eye, they could be used as a improvised butt plug and are harder to detect if the frisking is not. Or why not if she inserts something in her vagina? And finally there's the most natural option - eating a lot of green peas so that you have a really big log in the rectum.

So a research project about the use of polygraphs should include these two questions: Was the interrogated throughoutly frisked for pain instruments and/or foreing objects in orifices? Did the interrogated defecate before the polygraph test?

[Rodney]

Mr. Lewis' own biography contradicts this: "Due to his success in obtaining confessions, in 1988 he developed a five-day Interview and Interrogation Course, which is presented several times per year at the New Jersey State Police Academy." His great professional success wasn't clearing people's names. It was getting them to confess. Just because someone confesses to a crime does not mean they are guilty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition).
True, but the question is how many people have falsely confessed to a crime because they failed a polygraph?

Also, Mr. Lewis isn't exactly an unbiased, critical source, either:

His website advertises "The Tactical Interviewing Program® with Psycho Logic® ". "Psycho Logic reveals what one factor must be present before anyone will confess. In fact, this is probably what is missing each time an investigator knows he/she has the right person but can not get them to admit the truth. Once this major tenet of interviewing is explained, students will understand that there is only one way to conduct any interview, be it a road stop, a field interview, or a pre-planned interrogation."

He claims he "He identified the killer of Megan Kanka (Megan’s Law) after being read a witness's statement over the phone."

That is not the prose of a cautious scientific mind.
Mr. Lewis clearly wants to sell his service, but that doesn't mean that polygraphs are not a useful tool in determining veracity.

[Rodney]

Deterrence rather than detection - that reminds me of the old tribal customs where you put heads from enemy tribes at a stake outside your village. Horrorshow but not really saying anything about which tribe who's the strongest.

As seen in Ocean's 13, polygraphs can be manipulated. But you don't have to put a thumbtack in your shoe. You can rise the blood pressure by squeezing your anal sphincter really hard. And you can always train the muscle to be stronger by just squeezing regulary. I guess that if you use a butt plug, the squeezing effect will be even greater. But if you use it as the manufactures intended, it could easily be detected during a frisking. And tampons has every fertile woman in her handbag without anyone batting an eye, they could be used as a improvised butt plug and are harder to detect if the frisking is not. Or why not if she inserts something in her vagina? And finally there's the most natural option - eating a lot of green peas so that you have a really big log in the rectum.

So a research project about the use of polygraphs should include these two questions: Was the interrogated throughoutly frisked for pain instruments and/or foreing objects in orifices? Did the interrogated defecate before the polygraph test?
No, the research project should be about determining the accuracy of polygraphs. Someone writing to Randi and claiming that his career was ruined because a polygraph produced erroneous results doesn't mean anything unless an investigation reveals that the results were, in fact, erroneous.

[Skeptical Greg]

The real value of the polygraph is to clear the truthful people. WTF ?

Now you are saying a polygraph can detect the truth ...

What is the difference between detecting lies or the truth ?

[Rodney]

WTF ?

Now you are saying a polygraph can detect the truth ...

What is the difference between detecting lies or the truth ?
First of all, the quote you referenced was from polygraph expert Jerry Lewis, as I noted in post #43 of this thread. It is Lewis's opinion that the polygraph "is weighted so that every once in a while, when a mistake is made, it will hopefully be made where a liar is not caught rather than a truthful person being branded a liar."

Second, no one that I am aware of believes the polygraph is infallible in either direction. However, there seems to be a perception among civil libertarians that countless careers have been ruined by erroneous polygraph tests. I'm still looking for evidence that this perception is accurate.

[Vorticity]

Of course failing a polygraph should raise suspicions -- otherwise, what would be the point of giving one? However, it should not be treated as more than one piece of the puzzle. To the extent that someone's life is torn apart by a false positive, the investigation was not properly done. But how many times have lives actually been torn apart by false positives? Can you document any cases?
Wen Ho Lee.

[Skeptical Greg]

First of all, the quote you referenced was from polygraph expert Jerry Lewis, as I noted in post #43 of this thread. It is Lewis's opinion that the polygraph "is weighted so that every once in a while, when a mistake is made, it will hopefully be made where a liar is not caught rather than a truthful person being branded a liar."
Hopefully ? That makes me feel better ...

Second, no one that I am aware of believes the polygraph is infallible in either direction. However, there seems to be a perception among civil libertarians that countless careers have been ruined by erroneous polygraph tests. I'm still looking for evidence that this perception is accurate.

If it's not infallible then it is useless in the obtaining of evidence..

Why would it be O.K. if just one career was ruined ?

There remains the problem of ' refusing to take a polygraph ' being an indication of guilt ...

[Rodney]

Wen Ho Lee.
The Lee case is complex, but it doesn't prove your point. According to Wikipedia:

"Lee was polygraphed by the Department of Energy, and gave indicators of deception regarding questions about providing individuals with classified information. Lee was then polygraphed by the FBI, and gave indicators of deception regarding providing classified information to individuals, as well as providing information regarding the W-88 to individuals not authorized to receive it.

"The examination of Lee's computer determined that he had taken classified work documents, deleted the security classification headers, and then transferred these files from a system used for processing classified data onto another protected but unclassified network. After the FBI discovered Lee's transfer, they revoked his badge access and clearance, including his ability to access the data from the unclassified but secure network. Lee then requested from a colleague in another part of Los Alamos that he be allowed to use his computer, at which time he transferred the data to a third unclassified computer network. FBI analysts later examined the unclassified computer and noted that the files that Lee had transferred had been accessed from a computer at the Student Union of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) on over forty occasions. Because of the vast number of users who used the computers at the UCLA Student Union and the lack of logs of users, the FBI was unable to determine which entity gained access to the Los Alamos data. A damage assessment by the FBI later determined that Lee's actions had caused the U.S. government to lose control over classified information regarding every single missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including the highly advanced W-88.

"Lee was arrested in December 1999 and held without bail in solitary confinement for 278 days until September 13, 2000, when he accepted a plea bargain from the federal government.

"Wen Ho Lee pleaded guilty to one felony count of improperly downloading Restricted Data. In return, the government released him from jail and dropped the other 58 counts of illegally downloading classified data from the computers at the Los Alamos weapons lab, of which 39 counts would have carried a life sentence for violating the Atomic Energy Act and for stealing nuclear secrets with the intent of harming the U.S. Judge James A. Parker offered an apology to Lee for what he called 'abuse of power' by the federal government in its prosecution of its case, while reiterating that Lee did plead guilty to a 'serious crime.'" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_ho_lee

Further, according to the January 8, 2000 Washington Post:

"FBI agents misled physicist Wen Ho Lee into believing that he had failed a Department of Energy polygraph test as they pressed him during a lengthy interrogation last March to confess to passing nuclear weapons secrets to China.

"Lee insisted throughout the tape-recorded session that he was telling the truth, unaware that polygraph examiners actually had given him an extremely high score for honesty." See http://www.crimelynx.com/fbilie.html

[Rodney]

Hopefully ? That makes me feel better ...

If it's not infallible then it is useless in the obtaining of evidence..

Why would it be O.K. if just one career was ruined ?

There remains the problem of ' refusing to take a polygraph ' being an indication of guilt ...
The salient point is that polygraphs are just one tool, and no one's career should be ruined solely because he failed a polygraph. However, abandoning use of that tool would likely lead to increased duplicity and -- in at least one documented case -- the failure to expose a double agent. So, why abandon it simply because some individuals claim that it produced erroneous results with respect to them?

[delphi_ote]

So, why abandon it simply because some individuals claim that it produced erroneous results with respect to them?
"If we look at laboratory-based studies, false-positive errors occur somewhat more often than false-negative errors." - Dr. Frank Horvath

"We have people in the scientific community who look at the same research that I look at and they reach a conclusion that is quite different," Horvath said. "From their point of view, they allege that polygraph testing is probably only around 70 percent accurate, and it has a great bias against truthful people. Then, what the proponents say, looking at the same research, they reach a quite different conclusion, and that is that polygraph testing is around 90 percent accurate." - Dr. Frank Horvath

"In settings in which large numbers of employees are screened to determine whether they are spies, the polygraph produces results that are extremely problematic, according to a comprehensive 2002 review by a federal panel of distinguished scientists. The study found that if polygraphs were administered to a group of 10,000 people that included 10 spies, nearly 1,600 innocent people would fail the test -- and two of the spies would pass.

"Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies," the panel concluded." - NY Times

[Skeptical Greg]

........ So, why abandon it simply because some individuals claim that it produced erroneous results with respect to them?

Removing superfluous text gives us:

" Why abandon it because it produced erroneous results ? "


Sounds like saying a broken clock is useful because it's correct twice a day ...

[Rodney]

"If we look at laboratory-based studies, false-positive errors occur somewhat more often than false-negative errors." - Dr. Frank Horvath

"We have people in the scientific community who look at the same research that I look at and they reach a conclusion that is quite different," Horvath said. "From their point of view, they allege that polygraph testing is probably only around 70 percent accurate, and it has a great bias against truthful people. Then, what the proponents say, looking at the same research, they reach a quite different conclusion, and that is that polygraph testing is around 90 percent accurate." - Dr. Frank Horvath

"In settings in which large numbers of employees are screened to determine whether they are spies, the polygraph produces results that are extremely problematic, according to a comprehensive 2002 review by a federal panel of distinguished scientists. The study found that if polygraphs were administered to a group of 10,000 people that included 10 spies, nearly 1,600 innocent people would fail the test -- and two of the spies would pass.

"Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies," the panel concluded." - NY Times
First, according to polygraph expert Jerry Lewis, there was only one clear error in the more than 1,000 polygraph exams in which he was involved. Second, why are false positives such a big deal, if the polygraph is used properly as just one tool in assessing truthfulness, rather than as an infallible indicator?

To put this issue in better perspective, consider breast cancer screening in the United States. According to the Wikipedia article: "One consequence of the high false positive rate in the US is that, in any 10 year period, half of the American women screened receive a false positive mammogram. False positive mammograms are costly, with over $100 million spent annually in the US on follow-up testing and treatment. They also cause women unneeded anxiety. As a result of the high false positive rate in the US, as many as 90-95% of women who get a positive mammogram do not have the condition." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive

So, should we eliminate breast cancer screening, as well as polygraph exams?

[Father Dagon]

No, the research project should be about determining the accuracy of polygraphs. Someone writing to Randi and claiming that his career was ruined because a polygraph produced erroneous results doesn't mean anything unless an investigation reveals that the results were, in fact, erroneous.But isn't science about eliminating sources of faulty data?

[Steven Howard]

If you believe Mr. Lewis is in error, please supply evidence of truthful individuals being branded liars by the polygraph.

In 1986, the CBS television program 60 Minutes carried out the following experiment:

The editor of the CBS-owned magazine Popular Photography contacted four professional polygraph examiners, chosen at random from the phone book, and told them that more than $500 worth of camera equipment had been stolen from the magazine's office, almost certainly by an employee. The examiners did not know that other companies had also been contacted and conducted their examinations separately. Each examiner was told that four employees had access to the room from which the equipment was supposedly stolen, but that one of them was the most likely suspect. A different "most likely suspect" was pointed out to each examiner. In fact, there had been no theft and the four "suspects" were all innocent.

In each case, the person who'd been previously named the most likely suspect "failed" the polygraph test and was found to be deceptive. Each polygrapher tried to intimidate his* chosen suspect into confessing to a crime that hadn't even been committed. No one confessed, since the four "suspects" were in on the sting and knew nothing had actually been stolen.


*I don't recall, but I'm pretty sure they were all men.

[JoeEllison]

In 1986, the CBS television program 60 Minutes carried out the following experiment:

The editor of the CBS-owned magazine Popular Photography contacted four professional polygraph examiners, chosen at random from the phone book, and told them that more than $500 worth of camera equipment had been stolen from the magazine's office, almost certainly by an employee. The examiners did not know that other companies had also been contacted and conducted their examinations separately. Each examiner was told that four employees had access to the room from which the equipment was supposedly stolen, but that one of them was the most likely suspect. A different "most likely suspect" was pointed out to each examiner. In fact, there had been no theft and the four "suspects" were all innocent.

In each case, the person who'd been previously named the most likely suspect "failed" the polygraph test and was found to be deceptive. Each polygrapher tried to intimidate his* chosen suspect into confessing to a crime that hadn't even been committed. No one confessed, since the four "suspects" were in on the sting and knew nothing had actually been stolen.


*I don't recall, but I'm pretty sure they were all men.

Expected Woo Answers:

If they'd chosen a fifth polygraph guy, it would have worked!

The cheating vibrations and/or auras threw the tests off.

Polygraphs don't work near skeptics.

[JoeEllison]

Second, why are false positives such a big deal?

Read this again:"In settings in which large numbers of employees are screened to determine whether they are spies, the polygraph produces results that are extremely problematic, according to a comprehensive 2002 review by a federal panel of distinguished scientists. The study found that if polygraphs were administered to a group of 10,000 people that included 10 spies, nearly 1,600 innocent people would fail the test -- and two of the spies would pass.

"Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies," the panel concluded." - NY Times

How can that NOT be a big deal?

[Father Dagon]

In 1986, the CBS television program 60 Minutes carried out the following experiment:

The editor of the CBS-owned magazine Popular Photography contacted four professional polygraph examiners, chosen at random from the phone book, and told them that more than $500 worth of camera equipment had been stolen from the magazine's office, almost certainly by an employee. The examiners did not know that other companies had also been contacted and conducted their examinations separately. Each examiner was told that four employees had access to the room from which the equipment was supposedly stolen, but that one of them was the most likely suspect. A different "most likely suspect" was pointed out to each examiner. In fact, there had been no theft and the four "suspects" were all innocent.

In each case, the person who'd been previously named the most likely suspect "failed" the polygraph test and was found to be deceptive. Each polygrapher tried to intimidate his* chosen suspect into confessing to a crime that hadn't even been committed. No one confessed, since the four "suspects" were in on the sting and knew nothing had actually been stolen.


*I don't recall, but I'm pretty sure they were all men."What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves."

[delphi_ote]

First, according to polygraph expert Jerry Lewis, there was only one clear error in the more than 1,000 polygraph exams in which he was involved.
Really? I've never made any errors in my entire career. I also get laid every night by totally hot women. I'm totally awesome. :rolleyes:
So, should we eliminate breast cancer screening, as well as polygraph exams?
Breast cancer screening doesn't impact any official's subjective impression the examined. Breast cancer screening doesn't lead to job loss or criminal prosecution. Breast cancer screening can be administered again without bias if necessary.

[Rodney]

Expected Woo Answers:

If they'd chosen a fifth polygraph guy, it would have worked!

The cheating vibrations and/or auras threw the tests off.

Polygraphs don't work near skeptics.

My Answer:

From the account given, it appears that this was a highly unethical and biased attempt to discredit polygraphs. A polygrapher should never be told who "the most likely suspect" is -- that's laughable on the face of it. Further, the job of a polygrapher is not to intimidate anyone -- he's supposed to be objectively trying to determine whether the subject is telling the truth or lying. And did the geniuses who concocted this "experiment" give any consideration to using known polygraph experts, instead of picking names of polygraphers out of the phone book?

I'm still looking for someone whose career was ruined by an erroneous polygraph test.

[Rodney]

Breast cancer screening doesn't lead to job loss or criminal prosecution.
So how about the name of someone who lost his/her job or who was prosecuted because of an erroneous polygraph test?

[digithead]

So how about the name of someone who lost his/her job or who was prosecuted because of an erroneous polygraph test?

I sent you to antipolygraph.org, did you not read any of the material there?

Since you seem to place a great deal of emphasis on anecdotal evidence, here's the link to 30 personal statements on antipolygraph.org that discuss how the polygraph destroyed their respective careers and lives:

http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

George Maschke's (the founder of antipolygraph.org) statement is pretty compelling. He was a decorated U.S. Army officer fluent in Arabic languages who had a career in anti-terrorism destroyed because of a false positive on a polygraph where he was accused of being a drug dealer and spy...

Again, the polygraph as a lie detector has no validity, reliability or scientific underpinnings. It is merely an interrogation prop useful for eliciting confessions from the gullible...

[JoeEllison]

So how about the name of someone who lost his/her job or who was prosecuted because of an erroneous polygraph test?Didn't you already get one?

[delphi_ote]

Didn't you already get one?
He's been provided with a few now. What do you have to say about these, Rodney?

Also, have you ever been subjected to a polygraph, Rodney?

[Father Dagon]

If it's of any solace, polygraph tests doesn't carry any legal weight in Sweden. I'm not sure about other european countries, but I think it's somehting similar.

[Rodney]

I sent you to antipolygraph.org, did you not read any of the material there?

Since you seem to place a great deal of emphasis on anecdotal evidence, here's the link to 30 personal statements on antipolygraph.org that discuss how the polygraph destroyed their respective careers and lives:

http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

George Maschke's (the founder of antipolygraph.org) statement is pretty compelling. He was a decorated U.S. Army officer fluent in Arabic languages who had a career in anti-terrorism destroyed because of a false positive on a polygraph where he was accused of being a drug dealer and spy...

Again, the polygraph as a lie detector has no validity, reliability or scientific underpinnings. It is merely an interrogation prop useful for eliciting confessions from the gullible...
The problem with these anecdotes is that we don't know whether they're accurate. Also, I note Mr. Maschke repeats the erroneous mantra that "in all its history, the polygraph has not detected one single spy. Ever. It is batting .000." What is needed is an objective assessment of these anecdotes by a third party who does not have an agenda.

[Rodney]

He's been provided with a few now. What do you have to say about these, Rodney?
I just answered that.

Also, have you ever been subjected to a polygraph, Rodney?
No, everyone knows I'm honest. ;)

[delphi_ote]

The problem with these anecdotes is that we don't know whether they're accurate.
They're no stronger evidence than the anecdotes you've posted, and there's a hell of a lot more of these. If you're throwing out anecdotes as evidence, then you're left with the studies. You can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately, the studies are nowhere near clear in favor of the polygraph. In fact, some have been quite damning. While I think these machines have some use, we clearly put too much faith in them. The side of the equation we haven't even really discussed yet is the false sense of security they provide. "He passed his poly, so he's not a murderer."

First hand experience with these machines shatters a lot of illusions. While I'm obligated not to discuss specific questions, I can say that there were questions I raised a flag on specifically because I was afraid nobody would believe what a goody two shoes I've been. Being grilled about my evil ways was a huge waste of government money (I was flown back for a second poly and put up in a hotel.)

[Rodney]

They're no stronger evidence than the anecdotes you've posted, and there's a hell of a lot more of these. If you're throwing out anecdotes as evidence, then you're left with the studies. You can't have it both ways.
Don't you think that someone like polygraph examiner Lewis has more credibility than people who claim polygraphs ruined their careers?

Unfortunately, the studies are nowhere near clear in favor of the polygraph. In fact, some have been quite damning. While I think these machines have some use, we clearly put too much faith in them. The side of the equation we haven't even really discussed yet is the false sense of security they provide. "He passed his poly, so he's not a murderer."
I've consistently said, and I think reputable polygraph examiners agree, that the polygraph should be only one tool used to determine truthfulness.

First hand experience with these machines shatters a lot of illusions. While I'm obligated not to discuss specific questions, I can say that there were questions I raised a flag on specifically because I was afraid nobody would believe what a goody two shoes I've been.
You denied you were involved in 9/11? ;)

Being grilled about my evil ways was a huge waste of government money (I was flown back for a second poly and put up in a hotel.)
Did you find the process biased against you?

[delphi_ote]

Don't you think that someone like polygraph examiner Lewis has more credibility than people who claim polygraphs ruined their careers?
No. They all have reasons to be biased, because the subject on either side amounts to their careers. In the end, the only way to get at the truth is through scientific study of the techniques used. Those have not been favorable for the polygraph. This is an unfortunate reality we must account for.
Did you find the process biased against you?
The first examiner was highly biased against me once she decided I wasn't passing. She was trying to get a confession. The whole, "I'm going to shut off the machine. There's something you're not telling me..." routine.

[timhau]

Don't you think that someone like polygraph examiner Lewis has more credibility than people who claim polygraphs ruined their careers?


A guy whose livelihood depends on polygraphs defends them as accurate? Now there's a surprise.

[Rodney]

The June 22, 2007 Swift has an article with this title, and quotes a reader as follows: "Dr. [Robert] Park states that '[t]he polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers, but never uncovered a single spy.'"

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraphs -- "The polygraph is more often used as a deterrant to espionage rather than detection. One exception to this was the case of Harold James Nicholson, a CIA employee later convicted of spying for Russia. In 1995, Nicholson had undergone his periodic five year reinvestigation where he showed a strong probability of deception on questions regarding relationships with a foreign intelligence unit. This polygraph test later launched an investigation which resulted in his eventual arrest and conviction."

I wrote Dr. Park about this apparent discrepancy five days ago, but he hasn't responded.
I followed up with another e-mail to Dr. Park in August. Still no response.

[Rodney]

I followed up with another e-mail to Dr. Park in August. Still no response.
Randi refers to Dr. Park in this week's commentary as "irrepressible." But the irrepressible one apparently still hasn't had time to respond to my question.

[Garrette]

Randi refers to Dr. Park in this week's commentary as "irrepressible." But the irrepressible one apparently still hasn't had time to respond to my question.I do not know why, but to demonstrate that there are no sacred cows in skepticism, it is irresponsible of Dr. Park not to address this assuming the situation is as you have presented it. I'm not suggesting anything untoward on your part, Rodney, as I have no reason to doubt you, but I am emphasizing the possibility that you are mistaken or Dr. Park is aware of information you are not. One of those things that might give him pause before responding is the fact that your source is wikipedia.

[Rodney]

I do not know why, but to demonstrate that there are no sacred cows in skepticism, it is irresponsible of Dr. Park not to address this assuming the situation is as you have presented it. I'm not suggesting anything untoward on your part, Rodney, as I have no reason to doubt you, but I am emphasizing the possibility that you are mistaken or Dr. Park is aware of information you are not. One of those things that might give him pause before responding is the fact that your source is wikipedia.
So why doesn't he set the record straight? In Post #15 on this thread, dated July 1, 2007, I posted the text of my June 23 e-mail to Dr. Park. I sent that e-mail both to bob@bobpark.org and to whatsnew@bobpark.org. On August 10, I then followed up by forwarding that e-mail to the same two addresses with the question: "Have you had a chance to consider the below questions?"

[Garrette]

So why doesn't he set the record straight? In Post #15 on this thread, dated July 1, 2007, I posted the text of my June 23 e-mail to Dr. Park. I sent that e-mail both to bob@bobpark.org and to whatsnew@bobpark.org. On August 10, I then followed up by forwarding that e-mail to the same two addresses with the question: "Have you had a chance to consider the below questions?"I don't know.

But just as I did not conclude from Nancy Orlen Weber's failure to respond to my several emails that she is lying or afraid to face me, you should not conclude anything negative about Dr. Park's failure to respond to you.

[T'ai Chi]

With all due respect, I'm not sure I'd consider Bob Park 'in the loop' on matters outside of his field just because he is a member of skeptical movement clubs.

[bjb]

Here's how I look at it. Since so many polygraph tests given, many will give false 'positive' results, leading to investigations. Eventually, one of these false positive results will lead to an investigation of someone who really is guilty of spying.

This may sound like a convenient explanation, but so far, all but one spy was able to beat the polygraph. Many other spies have been caught but the polygraph was of no use in those cases.

[Psiload]

My Answer:

From the account given, it appears that this was a highly unethical and biased attempt to discredit polygraphs. A polygrapher should never be told who "the most likely suspect" is -- that's laughable on the face of it.

This statement is laughable. When police departments utilize polygraphs, who else but "the most likely suspect" would they be applying them to?

Further, the job of a polygrapher is not to intimidate anyone

Puh-lease. Polygraphs, as used during police interrogations, are primarily a tool of intimidation... even the cops will admit this.

-- he's supposed to be objectively trying to determine whether the subject is telling the truth or lying.

Yeah... and in the land of gumdrops and lollipops this might even be true.

And did the geniuses who concocted this "experiment" give any consideration to using known polygraph experts, instead of picking names of polygraphers out of the phone book?

What constitutes a "know polygraph expert"? A guy with a diploma mill Ph D? Or how about the guy who cleared Aldrich Ames... twice! While you're looking for a known polygraph expert, you might also want to see if you can locate a "genuine qualified homeopath"... and maybe Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny while you're at it.

I'm still looking for someone whose career was ruined by an erroneous polygraph test.

How about 300,000 of them?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp28.htm



Aclu Briefing Paper Number 4 Lie Detector Testing

During the past decade, more than two million private sector
employees each year were asked to take a "lie detector" test. Based
on these tests, approximately 300,000 workers annually were branded
liars and fired, disciplined or not hired as a result.

[Psiload]

***snip***

I'm still looking for someone whose career was ruined by an erroneous polygraph test.

If you'd like a specific example...

http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-008.shtml

-I had always wanted to be an FBI agent. With that singular goal in mind...

-Finally, I was selected to be interviewed in Kansas City in July of 1996. Seven of us in our region were selected to go, but only two of us passed the interview process. Myself and another girl. I was on top of the world, knowing that I was about to realize my dream.

-The polygraph exam was next, August 7, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. I knew I had nothing to worry about, since I had never violated the FBI's drug policy and I had not lied on my application.

-After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief.

-I wrote the Director several more times to no avail, my application was terminated in November of that year. My dreams were shattered.

-I am a licensed attorney, professional pilot, have law enforcement experience and with top scores but I was not competitive? Obviously I had been "black balled" by the erroneous polygraph results from the FBI.

-I will probably always be effected by the injustice of what happened.

-It is a shame, since all I wanted to do was to have a chance to serve my country and make my family proud.

Sincerely,

Mark C. Doyal

[Rodney]

If you'd like a specific example...

http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-008.shtml
Mark Doyal's story is unlikely. He claims:

"The polygraph exam was next, August 7, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. I knew I had nothing to worry about, since I had never violated the FBI's drug policy and I had not lied on my application. The agent administering the polygraph noted during the pre-polygraph interview that I had attended a university that he believed was a 'party school' and that I needed to tell him what drugs I used when I went there. I stated that I had taken none, that I didn't live on campus, I lived in another city, and that I was an older student and wasn't influenced to do such things. He repeated that that couldn't be the case and told me again to tell him what illegal drugs I had done. I countered again that that just wasn't the case and that I was telling the truth. This went back and forth for about 10 minutes and he seemed to be getting upset that I wouldn't admit to taking drugs. Finally he stated that if I was lying he was about to find out. I was upset at the unbelievable accusations he was making. Up until that point I had been treated with the utmost professionalism by the FBI staff, now I was being treated like an accused criminal. After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief.

"I wrote several letters to FBI Director Freeh, and in October of 1996 I was polygraphed again, by another agent with the first agent who polygraphed me present. The results were the same, he told me I had failed. I just could not believe it. I had not lied on the polygraph. Even the first agent that had polygraphed me told me as I was leaving that he now believed me, that I was telling the truth. I wrote the Director several more times to no avail, my application was terminated in November of that year. My dreams were shattered."

The behavior he attributes to the first polygrapher would have been unprofessional in the extreme. I can understand why that polygrapher might have thrown out the "party school" comment, but it would have made little sense for him to insist that Doyal must have used drugs there. Obviously, even at a "party school", many students would not have been drug users. So, I doubt if the polygrapher would have behaved in such an illogical manner. However, if he did and Doyal wrote even one letter to FBI Director Freeh about this, it's likely that Freeh would have launched an investigation of the polygrapher. At an absolute minimum, if Freeh thought that Doyal deserved another polygraph, why would Freeh have permitted the original polygrapher to be present for the second polygraph? And if was there and told Doyal he now believed Doyal, why did Doyal fail the second exam?

So, I suspect that there is far more to the story than Doyal is admitting. However, in the unlikely event that his story is accurate, it would indicate a highly flawed FBI process, as opposed to the polygraph itself being flawed.

[BillyJoe]

...in the unlikely event that his story is accurate, it would indicate a highly flawed FBI process, as opposed to the polygraph itself being flawed.


Well, then, maybe we should let the polygraph ask it's own questions. :cool:

[Psiload]

Mark Doyal's story is unlikely. He claims:

"The polygraph exam was next, August 7, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. I knew I had nothing to worry about, since I had never violated the FBI's drug policy and I had not lied on my application. The agent administering the polygraph noted during the pre-polygraph interview that I had attended a university that he believed was a 'party school' and that I needed to tell him what drugs I used when I went there. I stated that I had taken none, that I didn't live on campus, I lived in another city, and that I was an older student and wasn't influenced to do such things. He repeated that that couldn't be the case and told me again to tell him what illegal drugs I had done. I countered again that that just wasn't the case and that I was telling the truth. This went back and forth for about 10 minutes and he seemed to be getting upset that I wouldn't admit to taking drugs. Finally he stated that if I was lying he was about to find out. I was upset at the unbelievable accusations he was making. Up until that point I had been treated with the utmost professionalism by the FBI staff, now I was being treated like an accused criminal. After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief.

"I wrote several letters to FBI Director Freeh, and in October of 1996 I was polygraphed again, by another agent with the first agent who polygraphed me present. The results were the same, he told me I had failed. I just could not believe it. I had not lied on the polygraph. Even the first agent that had polygraphed me told me as I was leaving that he now believed me, that I was telling the truth. I wrote the Director several more times to no avail, my application was terminated in November of that year. My dreams were shattered."

The behavior he attributes to the first polygrapher would have been unprofessional in the extreme. I can understand why that polygrapher might have thrown out the "party school" comment, but it would have made little sense for him to insist that Doyal must have used drugs there. Obviously, even at a "party school", many students would not have been drug users. So, I doubt if the polygrapher would have behaved in such an illogical manner. However, if he did and Doyal wrote even one letter to FBI Director Freeh about this, it's likely that Freeh would have launched an investigation of the polygrapher. At an absolute minimum, if Freeh thought that Doyal deserved another polygraph, why would Freeh have permitted the original polygrapher to be present for the second polygraph? And if was there and told Doyal he now believed Doyal, why did Doyal fail the second exam?

So, I suspect that there is far more to the story than Doyal is admitting. However, in the unlikely event that his story is accurate, it would indicate a highly flawed FBI process, as opposed to the polygraph itself being flawed.Woosh!

And the point sails right over your head.

Don't you get it? You just hit the nail right on the head. The polygraph is only as good as the "process" in which it is used. You can't separate the polygraph from the polygrapher... a human being. Like all human beings... prone to confirmation bias, wishful thinking, prejudice, pride, recrimination, anger, revenge, etc... etc... ad nauseum. That such an inherently flawed process would eventually result in ruined careers and miscarriages of justice isn't just a possibility... it's a given.

How about these testimonials?

http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

Are they all equally as "unlikely"? Should I bother offering any more examples, or are you going to dismiss every testimonial with a "No true Scotsman"?

[Rodney]

Woosh!

And the point sails right over your head.

Don't you get it? You just hit the nail right on the head. The polygraph is only as good as the "process" in which it is used. You can't separate the polygraph from the polygrapher... a human being. Like all human beings... prone to confirmation bias, wishful thinking, prejudice, pride, recrimination, anger, revenge, etc... etc... ad nauseum. That such an inherently flawed process would eventually result in ruined careers and miscarriages of justice isn't just a possibility... it's a given.

How about these testimonials?

http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

Are they all equally as "unlikely"? Should I bother offering any more examples, or are you going to dismiss every testimonial with a "No true Scotsman"?
All of these testimonials are from individuals who failed polygraph tests. Do you accept testimonials from individuals who claim they have seen flying saucers? In both cases, what is needed is an objective investigation of the claims.

[Garrette]

With all due respect, I'm not sure I'd consider Bob Park 'in the loop' on matters outside of his field just because he is a member of skeptical movement clubs.With all due respect, I'm not sure I'd consider you 'in the loop' on what Bob Park is 'in the loop' on just because you call yourself a skeptic.

[Locknar]

Mark Doyal's story is unlikely. He claims:

"The polygraph exam was next, August 7, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. I knew I had nothing to worry about, since I had never violated the FBI's drug policy and I had not lied on my application. The agent administering the polygraph noted during the pre-polygraph interview that I had attended a university that he believed was a 'party school' and that I needed to tell him what drugs I used when I went there. I stated that I had taken none, that I didn't live on campus, I lived in another city, and that I was an older student and wasn't influenced to do such things. He repeated that that couldn't be the case and told me again to tell him what illegal drugs I had done. I countered again that that just wasn't the case and that I was telling the truth. This went back and forth for about 10 minutes and he seemed to be getting upset that I wouldn't admit to taking drugs. Finally he stated that if I was lying he was about to find out. I was upset at the unbelievable accusations he was making. Up until that point I had been treated with the utmost professionalism by the FBI staff, now I was being treated like an accused criminal. After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief.

<snip>

So, I suspect that there is far more to the story than Doyal is admitting. However, in the unlikely event that his story is accurate, it would indicate a highly flawed FBI process, as opposed to the polygraph itself being flawed.
I'll go one step further, Doyal's story is total make-believe. Sure, this is how its done on TV...but anyone that has been through the process knows just how false this story is.

[Biff Starbuck]

All of these testimonials are from individuals who failed polygraph tests. Do you accept testimonials from individuals who claim they have seen flying saucers? In both cases, what is needed is an objective investigation of the claims.

I have taken and passed polygraphs. One previous employer told nearly everyone they had failed, as a psychological billy club. The polygrapher would pound on an issue to see if you changed your answer and admitted to a new indiscretion. If you did, you failed. If you insisted you had told the truth, you were offered the job, but never actually told you had "passed" the test. Later at work, it was fun to go around the lunch table and discover all of us had been falsely accused of lying.

I have spoken to an FBI polygrapher who was insistent applicants not research the polygraph on the internet before the test. After my previous experience, of course I had researched it. It had floored me to have been falsely accused of lying during the application for my dream job. IMHO, some of the polygraphers start to believe they can actually detect lies with 100 percent accuracy. To me his insistence smacked of the Wizard of Oz and not wanting people to look behind the curtain to see the secret of his beloved device.

Polygraphs work primarily as a psychological tool to intimidate people into telling the truth. They are somewhat effective as a tool for detecting deception on a specific act, eg: did you steal the car? But even the scientist who developed the test used by most US government agencies said in an interview on 60 Minutes that the test was not effective as a broad screening tool, eg: have you committed a crime, or are you a spy?

As I mentioned in another thread, I find it deliciously ironic that the polygrapher LIES to the testee about which is the control question and the testee does better if they LIE at one point on the test. The real control question is not lying about your name or which number you picked, it is something like if you have ever driven drunk. They assume everyone lies about that, so compare all of your other answers to that "lie." If you actually have never driven drunk, all of your honest answers match that "lie."

The recent case of the Lebanese woman who illegally gained US citizenship and then joined the FBI and CIA after passing their polygraphs also illustrates the possibility of false negative in addition to false positive results that keep otherwise qualified applicants out of jobs.

[Mark C Doyal]

Mark Doyal's story is unlikely. He claims:

"The polygraph exam was next, August 7, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. I knew I had nothing to worry about, since I had never violated the FBI's drug policy and I had not lied on my application. The agent administering the polygraph noted during the pre-polygraph interview that I had attended a university that he believed was a 'party school' and that I needed to tell him what drugs I used when I went there. I stated that I had taken none, that I didn't live on campus, I lived in another city, and that I was an older student and wasn't influenced to do such things. He repeated that that couldn't be the case and told me again to tell him what illegal drugs I had done. I countered again that that just wasn't the case and that I was telling the truth. This went back and forth for about 10 minutes and he seemed to be getting upset that I wouldn't admit to taking drugs. Finally he stated that if I was lying he was about to find out. I was upset at the unbelievable accusations he was making. Up until that point I had been treated with the utmost professionalism by the FBI staff, now I was being treated like an accused criminal. After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief.

"I wrote several letters to FBI Director Freeh, and in October of 1996 I was polygraphed again, by another agent with the first agent who polygraphed me present. The results were the same, he told me I had failed. I just could not believe it. I had not lied on the polygraph. Even the first agent that had polygraphed me told me as I was leaving that he now believed me, that I was telling the truth. I wrote the Director several more times to no avail, my application was terminated in November of that year. My dreams were shattered."

The behavior he attributes to the first polygrapher would have been unprofessional in the extreme. I can understand why that polygrapher might have thrown out the "party school" comment, but it would have made little sense for him to insist that Doyal must have used drugs there. Obviously, even at a "party school", many students would not have been drug users. So, I doubt if the polygrapher would have behaved in such an illogical manner. However, if he did and Doyal wrote even one letter to FBI Director Freeh about this, it's likely that Freeh would have launched an investigation of the polygrapher. At an absolute minimum, if Freeh thought that Doyal deserved another polygraph, why would Freeh have permitted the original polygrapher to be present for the second polygraph? And if was there and told Doyal he now believed Doyal, why did Doyal fail the second exam?

So, I suspect that there is far more to the story than Doyal is admitting. However, in the unlikely event that his story is accurate, it would indicate a highly flawed FBI process, as opposed to the polygraph itself being flawed.

I'll go one step further, Doyal's story is total make-believe. Sure, this is how its done on TV...but anyone that has been through the process knows just how false this story is.

Hello everyone. I'm Mark C. Doyal, and I wrote that statement back in the late 90's.

I know I'm very late to this party here, this thread is 4 years old (it's amazing what a google search will give you).

As far as the statement goes, it is 100% accurate. I did not embellish or over exaggerate anything. The first individual that gave me the polygraph was somewhat hostile to me during the pre questioning session (you are told in advance what the questions are). During this pre-question discussion, he apparently thought he was doing me a favor by trying to get me to confess any "sins" before he hooked me up. Since I was already telling the truth, he was somewhat agitated when I didn't change my story. I believe his words were as he was hooking me up were "Well, we're about to find out if you are lying".

Another part of the story that I did not include was the baseline question. A baseline question is a question that they know you will lie about, or want you to lie about, then measure your response. Once the polygraph starts, any "response" that exceeds that baseline response is a lie, anything that doesn't is the truth. The baseline question he asked me concerned my speeding. He knew what kind of car I drove (300ZX Twin Turbo). The question he asked was "Do you habitually violate traffic laws?" I gave him an honest answer: Yes. I remember him looking at me and asking it again, which I replied "Yes" again. After the 3rd repetition of this question, I finally understood he wanted me to say "No", as by answering truthfully he thought he wasn't getting a good baseline "lie".

So, based on his very strong "hint", I changed my answer to "No". I wasn't in a position at that moment to understand what he was doing, and I wanted to please him, and I trusted he was doing the right thing. At the time I thought it was some sort of joke. But the baseline question is supposed to be something that will trigger a nice "lie" response.

And that baseline answer apparently didn't register very high on his machine. We continued the Q&A, then repeated it. After it was over he told me I had failed.

A few months later I was given a second chance. They brought in a new agent who told me Director Freeh had personally directed him to fly to SA and administer the polygraph. The first polygraph administrator was present during this second polygraph. I was told that I was showing deception on all answers now.

That was along time ago and I have moved on. But, after reading the two above quotes I wanted it to be known that was exactly how it happened. The polygraph has some uses, but how it's being used in prescreening applicants is wrong and tragic.

Mark C. Doyal

[KingMerv00]

That was along time ago and I have moved on. But, after reading the two above quotes I wanted it to be known that was exactly how it happened. The polygraph has some uses, but how it's being used in prescreening applicants is wrong and tragic.

Mark C. Doyal

I have no idea whether you are telling the truth or not. If only there was a machine that could do it for me...:D

Whatever happened, I agree with your assessment of polygraphs. Their only real use is to frighten suspects into admitting the truth.

Just thought I'd say hi and welcome to the forum. Hope you stick around.