[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Jackie and Terry :) This message is to long... Hi Jackie, I am responding to what I got from Kathy. >> I have snipped and am responding to the pertinent parts of your post. First, >> I gather that unless you can provide a site off the Internet then the cites I >> provided in the very beginning weren't enough. I gave you a list of the >> books I was summarizing the information from. But here goes >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > Do you have these studies? Can we look at them? >> Lykkens address can probably be gotten from the APA but of course that is the >> psychological association.The Patrick and Iacono study of police file is in >> the Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, Vol 76. "Validity of the control >> question polygraph test, The problem of sampling bias." Iacono, BTW, is >> often cited by psychophysiologists (the association, I believe, that >> submitted the amicus brief?) That's nice, Jackie. Do you have any response to the surveys cited by Honts, which I am sure you read carefully :-}, of members of the Psychophysiologists Association which found agreement with Honts as well his specification of fraudulent claims by Lykken and Iacono claiming agreement with them by surveying those who had the least knowledge of the subject? Would you like me to repost it? :-} I found one paper (which was rejected by the Psychophysiologists Association) that looked at the controversy directly. You can find it at http://truth.idbsu.edu/jcaawp/9601/9601.html The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology 1997, Vol. 1, No. 1, 4-8 Published by the Department of Psychology of Boise State University On Furedy's (1993) Call for Abolition of Research and Practice With the Control Question Test J. Peter Rosenfeld, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University On Furedy's (1993) Call for Abolition of Research and Practice with the Control Question Test* The two paradigms for detection of deception--the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) and Control Question Test (CQT) -- have been the source of acrimonious disagreement in the psychophysiology community for many years. Furedy (1993) and Honts, Kircher & Raskin (1995) are the most recent examples of the two sides of this dispute and provide its full bibliographic details. In Furedy (1993) the attack on the CQT lead to an extraordinary, proposed final solution to what he calls the "polygrapher's dilemma;" a call "for all practitioners and researchers to abandon the CQT." A much more fully developed set of related anti-CQT arguments had been presented in Ben-Shakhar and Furedy (1990). Honts et al. (1995) responded to Furedy's (1993) attack by attempting to point out logical and factual flaws in his critique of the CQT. Their arguments may be judged on their merits. One of the points they made, however, appears on reflection to bear more emphasis and illustration than actually given by Honts et al. (1995). This point is that Furedy's (1993) attack, though not always represented as such, is mostly on the faulty practices of some polygraph professionals, rather than on the basic principles of control question testing. Indeed a careful reading of Furedy's own co-authored book (Ben-Shakhar & Furedy, 1990) provides much evidence that the CQT could be given in such a way that even more theoretically-based objections to the CQT (e.g., the lack of true "control" items) are remediable. (Of course, much of the book by Ben-Shakhar and Furedy (1990) is a critique of the principles of an early form of CQT utilized in North America.) [Etc.] You will be glad to know Lykken was cited. Mr. Rosenfeld, however, disagreed with him. :-} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One of the problems with the GKT championed by Lykken and Iacono is that it is unusable in practice. Their complaints about the subjective nature of the CQT are buttressed by poorly trained polygraphers and abuse of the polygraph. If you believe in the democratic nature of the science of psychology you should note the experts agreed with Honts. >> > It is true that if you are psychotic enough to convince yourself of a lie >> > you can pass. I doubt Doc is that psychotic to fool herself with a >> > competent operator. There are countermeasures for one who is trained to >> > fool a lie detector. Rankin was criticized for using such a method with >> > Fuhrman. >> Sorry but I don't think psychotics are aware they are lying so they do not >> have to convince themselves they are lying. Exactly my point. >> To lie I believe means you have to be based in reality to begin with. Thank you for pinpointing Doc's problem precisely. >> > I am not likely to look in "my" DSM. What is given is a list of symptoms >> > that presumably define an illness. A real oddity is that some of this is >> > arrived at by majority vote such as that which declared homosexuality is no >> > longer a mental defect. I am not arguing about homosexuality but the >> > dubious nature of the "science" of psychology. >> LOL--The dubious nature of the "science" of psychology? I hate to break this to you, Jackie, but not everybody finds psychology has the same status as physics or chemistry. Some even look at observational sciences like geology, astronomy, or biology with a somewhat jaundiced eye by comparison. The nebulous nature of psychological studies is not always accepted as on quite the same plane. >> What in the heck do you think pyschophysiologists are??? Psychophysiologists >> study the psychological process by observing physiological functioning. So >> we should believe the amicus bried you cited written by pyschophysiologists >> more than professor Lykkens One should believe that which is supported by the better data. >>(but it gets better). >> > I gave you a cite, Jackie, which footnotes the most recent studies. You >> > have given me two references with no cite and a professor who does indeed >> > write a lot but is not regarded by everybody as a prophet >> It is interesting that this ame professor sat on the same committees of the >> psychophysiologists that were the authors of your brief. I hope the table did not suffer too much damage. >> > . I would be >> > delighted to see any forum with competing claims - oh, like the Supreme >> > Court for example where areas of dispute could be aired. >> > If you would like to see where there are competing claims of the accuracy >> > and validity of polygraphs and the CQT as a method of us to question >> > subjects, take the time to read the enclosed attachment which was written >> > by a psychophysiologist for the Journal of Psychophysioloy in which he goes >> > into great detail on why the current polygraph detecter is not what people >> > think it is--it goes against the tenants of the "scientific" community of >> > psychophysiologists. Curious then isn't it that the majority agree with the like of Honts and Raskin? How do you explain that? >> > The author has testified against polygraphers and the polygraph in criminal >> > trials. Could that be why the Supreme Court and most states still see the >> > polygraph as a dubious instrument to be used outside the area in which it >> > is used in a strictly, controlled laboratory environment for the most >> > part?? Uhhh, Jackie, the lie detector is used extensively by the Defense Department, the CIA, police agencies and is used by both prosecution and defense lawyers. How can you call that a laboratory environment? That is not to mention the use of the lie detector in courts in New Mexico as well as in the military. Certainly obstructionists like Lykken and Iacono have played on the prejudices of the uninitiated. And why would you think that lawyers would hate lie detectors. :-} >> Happy reading >> >> jackief Ditto. Thanks for the paper BTW. But it is hardly a dispassionate look at the controversy. I have read much the same thing before. >> > >I don't judge people for where they live.. I lived in a trailer >> > >court for over 6 years and I don't consider myself trash so why would I >> > >consider her trash. >> > >> > Because she never lived in a trailer court? She didn't you know. People >> > believe without questioning. >> > >> > OK. But people have not explained why they do not believe the evidence >> > except that they just don't. Like with lie detectors. I note that Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
