Dr. Phil blinks

[crimresearch]

Today was a follow up show on the polygraph episode discussed here earier.

All of a sudden Dr. Phil is saying things like :
"The polygraph isn't fool proof, it's just an investigative tool',
and has shifted his focus from the polygraph proving guilt, to the subject's admission of guilt after getting the test results.

 

[Suggestologist]

Today was a follow up show on the polygraph episode discussed here earier.

All of a sudden Dr. Phil is saying things like :
"The polygraph isn't fool proof, it's just an investigative tool',
and has shifted his focus from the polygraph proving guilt, to the subject's admission of guilt after getting the test results.

I didn't get to see this. But the edited transcript summary says: "Dr. Phil makes clear that the polygraph is a sophisticated, investigative tool that has a high degree of accuracy, but it is not foolproof. In this case, Mikai also admitted to his wrongdoings."

And then: "Dr. Phil reminds Kenda that they are not only relying on the polygraph and Mikai's admission, but on what the school, the girls and his brothers have said."

Which are not very satisfactory. High degree of accuracy? Not exactly. Skeeters (the polygraphic examiner the show used) said 90% accurate; Ashcroft, in 2002, said the rate of false positives was 1 in 6 in intelligence agencies.

The second quote looks like use of lowballing and reliance on gossip.

And I still think Dr. Phil violated APA (American Psychological Association) ethics with regard to use of polygraph "lie detectors". But then, no one is sure if he's really a practicing psychologist at this point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From his website:

http://www.drphil.com/about/about_landing.jhtml

As a professional psychologist, he has published numerous scholarly articles and has practiced in the many fields of clinical psychology and behavioral medicine. Dr. Phil has a B.S, M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine. He has been a board-certified and licensed clinical psychologist since 1978.

 

[hgc]

Couple of thoughts on this...

"Not foolproof" is a term that can be applied to a lot of situations, and unless you are an absolutist by nature, it can apply to everything. So Dr. Phil's use of that term may be a weasly way of excluding the middle and still standing up for the value of using a polygraph to "prove" something.

I am conflicted on the use of the polygraph as an "investigative tool." I don't mind that police (or Dr. Phil) can elicit confessions by use of trickery, including the threat of uncovering the truth with a polygraph. On the other hand, it irks me that ignorance is the order of the day, and it's spreading.

 

[Bikewer]

Some years ago, 60 minutes set up a sort of "sting" operation to test polygraph reliability. The setup was a camera store, and four different (private) polygraph firms were brought in to investigate "thefts". (All the people "working" in the store were 60 minutes personel.)

In each case, the polygraph operator was told by the "manager" that a particular individual was the suspect. All four firms found the "suspect" to be lying.

One operator said candidly that "it's mostly operator intuition anyway."

Local police departments, including our own, have been using "voice stress analysis" of late, even though there is little evidence of any reliability, and no certifying authority.

 

[Pyrts]

From his website:

http://www.drphil.com/about/about_landing.jhtml

ARGH! He's one of ours!

Now retitled "University of North Texas", he is, indeed one of our grads. So, yeah, it's a legit degree and the university is one of the largest ones in Texas and the departments are pretty good. We do turn out the occasional loon, however.

Y'know, though, I can't find any of his papers or any citations to his papers on scholar.google.com or scirus.com

I did search on "Phillip C McGraw"

I haven't tried EBSCOHOST (I have homework due) but whatever he wrote (other than popular stuff... and there's no problem with that), he wasn't groundbreaking enough to be cited by everyone.

Now, there could be reasons for this (written 25 years ago, minor work, found out there's more money in popularizing than in academia. Guy's gotta eat, y'know.) In my quickie searches, though, I haven't found sign of any papers.

...eh, with my luck, that will be MY fate, too, 25 years hence!

 

[TruthSeeker]

I searched Medline/PubMed. Nothing.

Only thing that came up on PsychInfo was his dissertation. So, no published research.

Here's the info:

Dissertation Abstract: 1980-71481-001.

Author
McGraw, Phillip C.

Institution
North Texas State U

Title
Rheumatoid arthritis: A psychological intervention.

Source
Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 40(3-B), Sep 1979, 1377. US: Univ Microfilms International.

Key Concepts
relaxation training & biofeedback training for skin temperature control, physical & functional & psychological aspects of rheumatoid arthritis, female Ss

 

[Suggestologist]

If you saw yesterday's episode (March 23, 2005), Dr. Phil again had Skeeters on the show doing the polygraph exam. With copious qualifiers that the polygraph is not foolproof, he demonstrated how one would use a polygraph as an interrogation device -- not as a psychologist.

It seemed to put the lie to the idea that test questions are agreed upon beforehand. The interogatee was given a 3 1/2 hour interrogation, got to her hotel room, and 15 minutes later was called back for a second round with different questions.

A colleague of Skeeters "verified" the graph of the interrogation. This "verification" does not take into account the paralinguistics (and effects thereof) of the question presentation.

After being called on it for giving the interrogatee false information after the prior episode, Dr. Phil accused her of implying he was being underhanded and pointed out that he was just relating information given to him by someone else (an "investigator") -- obviously ethics preclude Dr. Phil from verifying the veracity of facts. It's her fault for questioning his ethics by pointing out he told her something that was untrue.

It's unclear whether the "information" that she did divulge in the post-polygraph post-browbeating interrogation led anywhere. But it did at least "appear" that she gave information she had not provided earlier.

I'll repeat, that Dr. Phil did highly qualify the polygraph as not incontrovertible; but he was not acting as-a-psychologist in this episode.

Today was a follow up show on the polygraph episode discussed here earier.

All of a sudden Dr. Phil is saying things like :
"The polygraph isn't fool proof, it's just an investigative tool',
and has shifted his focus from the polygraph proving guilt, to the subject's admission of guilt after getting the test results.

 

[crimresearch]

I wouldn't disagree with the notion that some experienced investigators could use the poygraph as a prop, to trick a naive subject into admitting deception, or giving up more information than they had intended.

 

[clarsct]

I have actually sent Dr. Phil an email questioning his use of the polygraph, Applied Kiniseology, as well as having a "reputable" psychic on his show without having a reputable skeptic. So far I have only received his blanket "We have received your email" back. I sent copies of these on to Randi, just in case he may be interested. I'll let you know if I receive any real response, although I wouldn't hold my breath were I you. I sent this after the Malaki episode, BTW. I just became a Forum member quite recently, so I didn't know this thread existed. I was rather dismayed at his continuing use of quackery.

 

[Suggestologist]

I have actually sent Dr. Phil an email questioning his use of the polygraph, Applied Kiniseology, as well as having a "reputable" psychic on his show without having a reputable skeptic. So far I have only received his blanket "We have received your email" back. I sent copies of these on to Randi, just in case he may be interested. I'll let you know if I receive any real response, although I wouldn't hold my breath were I you. I sent this after the Malaki episode, BTW. I just became a Forum member quite recently, so I didn't know this thread existed. I was rather dismayed at his continuing use of quackery.

I too sent an e-mail or twenty after the Mikai incident. Including my reading of APA (American Psychological Association) ethics with regard to polygraphs. I felt ethical violations had occurred on that episode. In the more recent episode, I felt that Dr. Phil was not acting as a therapeutic psychologist, so no ethical violation of the APA there.

I noted that there was a psychology student on Dr. Phil's message board with regard to episode 2 of the Mikai incident, who stated that they too wanted to use polygraphs in their psychology practice.