"More Polygraph Nonsense"

[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!

 

[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.shtml

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...

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.

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

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.