Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
Rather than looking at the debate between the psychophysiologists, I
looked at some other areas. I thought you might enjoy the implications
of these.
Paragon investigations: www.paragon-pi.com/polyfaq.html
Those who should not take a polygraph:
If you:
1. are forced
2. have a serious heart condition unless doctor approval is given
3. are pregnant
4. mentally incompetent
5. have a respiratory illness or cold
6. have nerve damage or paralysis
7. have had a stroke or are an epileptic
8. are in pain (ex: toothach, headache, recent injury)
9. are extremely fatigued.
Antidepressants (Lithium, Prozac, Xanthax, etc.) may or may not affect
the test. It is up to the expert to determine which effect the
antidepressant may have. Now that is excellent objective criteria and
really measureable.
This information is from an organization that defends its use.
The following are interesting tidbits which leads me to say: Hmmm, such
an accurate instrument. These I pulled up when I went on the SNAP
browser (Infoseek)
Supreme Court (don't know the decision outcome--happened last
year--maybe someone else knows). U.S. vrs Scheffer--this is a military
case--Two amicus briefs were introduced--one supporting the view that
the lie detector should be admissible; the second brief outlining why it
shouldn't. Sounds very similiar to an expert witness situation to me.
And vested interest plays a role. The brief submitted to support the
use was by the Polygraph Association. The informatiion can be accurate,
but it naturally will be evidence that supports their view. When one
examines the sociology of science, one understands that scientists
provide objective evidence, but they still have a bias in designing the
study. The bias shows up in the questions asked, the topic the
scientist chooses to study, etc. Scientists are not valuefree
personally. People in the scientific community recognize this. That is
why the debates, even in the sciences that you post have a higher
status--you should listen to physicists debate the so-called "laws of
nature." But back to the case.
The defendent passed a lie detector case when questioned about his use
of drugs. He denied using drugs. His drug tests came back positive for
methamphetamines. He wants the lie detector used to prove that he was
not lying.
This is an excellent case of arguing the accuracy of drug testing (false
positives) vrs the accuracy of polygraphs (false positives). I imagine
the crux of the case would get lost in the shuffle if he was awarded a
new trial.
Second case is in CA: man pulled over and 600 lbs of cocaine are found
in boxes in the back of his vehicle. He passed a lie detector test when
he denied having knowledge of the cocaine in back. He wants his lie
detector introduced because he claims he is truthful.
Third case: Louise Woodward passed the lie detector test well over the
margin of error--90% accuracy for those who are guilty of the crime,
according to the proponents of the polygraph. Guess she didn't do it,
then.
Now you stated that combined with other evidence, the polygraph is the
most effective way of determining the truth. Here we have three cases
(recent ones) where there is contradiction. Of course, all three must
be innocent, as the polygraph is the most effective way of determining
the truth.
In case 1, the argument will probably be that the drug test detected
the use of cough medication or something--sorry my book is at school
that identifies false positives for methamp. Maybe Sue knows.
Case 2--those boxes must have been put in his vehicle by someone else as
he passed the polygraph and didn't know about it.
Case 3--Louise must be innocent of any wrong doing in the death of the
Eppen (sp?) baby.
And yes, the polygraph is used by government more and more--that does
not make it any more accurate, just because government agencies or
lawyers use them. Sounds like the "Westinghouse Seal of Approval" type
thinking to me.
LOL--obstructionists like Lykken and Iacono. What are they
obstructing--the wholesale use of an instrument that has 90% accuracy
among the guilty subjects and a 40 to 50 % accuracy among innocent
subjects. I guess I wouldn't call that obstructing, I would call that
safeguarding the wholesale adoption of a "quick fix" because it is
scientific technology and therefore should be used, no matter the margin
of error. The probability is not a high enough standard for me. That
means the instrument is right 9 out of 10 times if you are guilty and
only 5 to 6 times if you are innocent. (Russian Roulette for the
innocent, IMO). Scientists, I believe, in running experiments (both
natural and social scientists) have a higher standard than that (.05 or
.01 in the medical field comes to mind). Now, if someone want to settle
for a .10 or higher probability of having an accurate test, he/she can
be my guest. I guess I would prefer something a little more precise
than that.
But of course anyone who doesn't support a particular view could be
called an obstructionist--I prefer the term healthy skepticism myself.
BTW--the majority of who support Honts and Raskin? Opponents for the
polygraph? I have contacted Dr. Iacono and requested information on the
stuff you have sent. His address is on the APA's site, so I will see if
he responds. But, I can respond at face value to what you sent to
question the Lykken and Iacono survey without reading the complete
studies of Honts and Raskin vrs Lykken and Iacono. (Sorry the stuff you
sent came all in symbols, no text). First of all the cover
letter--writing a letter spelling out the context in which to answer
questions is I do not believe a methodological flaw in a study. The
majority of cover letters in survey research provide a context in which
to answer the questions to explain what information they want to know
and why. One would have to see the cover letter to determine further.
You answer questions (all people do) from a frame of mind that tends to
be situation specific. It sounds like they simply asked the scientists
to answer the questions within the framework of the legal system.
Scientists would naturally answer differently if asked the accuracy of
the polygraph in conducting an experimental test vrs a field test.
Also, the polygraph used mainly in the cj field I believe is the Keller
polygraph, which is only one form of the polygraph. This may have been
in the cover letter and why they set the context.
Second, random sampling is not the only way scientists sample a
population. One would have to read the section on methodology to
determine what sampling procedure they used and why they used it. Were
they replicating the Honts survey or not?? Did they claim it was a
random sample? If not, no fraudulent findings. In developing the
sampling procedure they may have eliminated all well-known experts on
both sides of the debate and only sent the survey to those scientists
who have not focused entirely on the polygraph so eliminating Honts and
Raskin would be reasonable. This would be explained in the study, I
would imagine. I have sent for the study from the APA and may find the
answers when and if I receive it.
Cut-off distribution points are arbitrary points usually so the only
problem would be in comparison which you mentioned. However, what was
the standard deviation?? What was the basis of the cut-off points if
not std?? Footnotes do not give me that information.
Here I am making an assumption. I imagine that the Lykken study was
conducted as a rebuttal to Honts original study and perhaps pointed out
flaws in Honts study. The reply back to identify flaws in Lykken's
study is SOP procedure. That is what makes science so interesting. It
is just like any other study. There will also be those that do not
support a study.
As to why they had not released their data for reanalysis, I do not
know. But, they are well respected in the field for other studies not
just the polygraph and I tend to believe that they must be ethical in
their work or they would not still be active in the field. I could be
wrong.
jackief
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
