"More Polygraph Nonsense"

Rodney

Illuminator
R
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
3,942
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...




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.
Click to expand...


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
 
BillyJoe said:
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
Click to expand...

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."
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
So mixed in among the false-negatives and the false-positives there are accounts of one or two positive-positives?
Click to expand...
Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

Gord_in_Toronto said:
Why should this surprise anybody?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Rodney said:
Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?
Click to expand...

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...
 
Rodney said:
Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.

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

digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
And your source for these assertions is . . .?

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

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:
 
BillyJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Rodney said:
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." ;)
Click to expand...

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...
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
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:
Click to expand...


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.
 
Rodney said:
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...
Click to expand...


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.
 
BillyJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...
(Bolding added.)


Only as long as the person being tested believes that it works! OTW it is simply the tester making guesses.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Only as long as the person being tested believes that it works! OTW it is simply the tester making guesses.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?

Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...


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...
 
digithead said:
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"?
Click to expand...
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.

digithead said:
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?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that Iacono's perspective is more that of an academic than a real-world polygraph practitioner such as John Sullivan.

digithead said:
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."
Click to expand...
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

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

digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
The NAS study was hardly objective. If it had been, it would not have ignored the Nicholson case.
 
Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where I said "OTW it is simply the tester making guesses."?
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Did you miss the part where I said "OTW it is simply the tester making guesses."?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.


Gord_in_Toronto said:
Not that polygraphy per se had anything to do with it...
Click to expand...


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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BillyJoe said:
<< 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.
Click to expand...

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

:boggled:
 
Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...

Rodney said:
It seems to me that Iacono's perspective is more that of an academic than a real-world polygraph practitioner such as John Sullivan.
Click to expand...
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...

Rodney said:
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
Click to expand...
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...

Rodney said:
Revisionist? Was there ever a different version of events?
Click to expand...
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...

Rodney said:
The NAS study was hardly objective. If it had been, it would not have ignored the Nicholson case.
Click to expand...
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...
 
digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...

Thank you.

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

Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...


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. :(
 
digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
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?

digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
Practical experience is the greatest teacher.

digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
But clearly Sullivan has far more belief in polygraphs than Iacono.

digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.

digithead said:
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.)...
Click to expand...
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?

digithead said:
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...
Click to expand...
Why do you want to stop its use in this arena, as opposed to simply pointing out its limitations?

digithead said:
But then you probably think I should keep my nose out of it since I'm one of those pesky ivory tower types...
Click to expand...
No, the more the merrier. :)
 
Rodney said:
Of course failing a polygraph should raise suspicions -- otherwise, what would be the point of giving one?
Click to expand...
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/
 
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.
 
Park is knowledgable in physics. That's about it AFAIK, so I wouldn't listen to him on anything else besides physics.
 
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?
 
BillyJoe said:
I missed it!
Where did Bob Park come into the discussion?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom