Dr. Phil's Polygraph Episode

[voidx]

Thats more what I was trying to say. You just said it better . Thanks.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I find that very odd. Here is Dr. Phil basically claiming to have just outted a child molestor, and what are going to be the consequences for this kid? One would think they would need to be very serious and clear-cut if he's so flatly guilty as its being made out. Did Phil have any suggestions or comments on what should happen next as a result of the polygraph and the admission from the kid? Sorry about all the questions, I've been busy and unfortunately missed both episodes. I'm not really a regular viewer of Dr. Phil, or TV in general.

Dr. Phil is going to get him therapy, but as far as I know, there won't be legal consequences

Well this is kind of the catch-22 as I understand it. The process itself is scientific, from the equipment, to what it measures. However, the problem is in the results of that process. They are far to open to error and poor reliability to really say anything. Real science would deem the results to unreliable or inconclusive to make the process valid.

The test was run by Jamie Skeeters, director of CAPE. According to Dr. Phil, one of only 50 polygraph examiners in the US licensed to give polygraphs to sex offenders. I was thinking perhaps Dr. Phil didn't really believe in the scientific validity of polygraph and was using the results to bully the young man into confessing. But later, he confirmed with the examiner that it's absolutely scientific.

That was one of my main concerns too. What are the parents thinking? I can't see how this can be helpful to them to air this kind of dirty laundry on national TV. What about the little girl? While I don't think these kind of problems should be hidden behind closed doors, they should be out in the open within a family so they can be dealt with. I don't think out in the open being national TV is really a very good idea. The only one that truly benefits from this is Dr. Phil and better ratings.

The little girl's name was bleeped and her face blurred, but her entire family was on national TV, so I don't think that was much true protection. The parents said they had tried all other avenues of getting help for their son, but he was such an accomplished liar, he managed to BS his way out of any potential trouble. My problem with this excuse is that they could have hired a polygraph examiner privately to do the same thing without airing their dirty laundry on TV.

The other thing that crosses my mind is the kid now being 19. Is he not legally an adult? Could he not simply have refused to take the polygraph test? I'm not trying to defend him persay, if he really did molest his sister then that needs to be dealt with. But I don't see how Dr. Phil is helping that. If anything this whole debacle could be easy pickings for a lawsuit on the kids behalf. This really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Yes, he is legally an adult, and Dr. Phil told him he had the right to refuse. But he admitted in the second part that he thought he could bluff the polygraph. I knew he was lying just from looking at his face. But then, I've known some pretty good liars. It left a bad taste in my mouth too, and in a way, I'm sorry I watched it. My niece loves Dr. Phil and we use it as a reward for when she gets her homework done in a timely fashion. So I watch Dr. Phil sporadically, just like she does her homework.

 

[Suggestologist]

APA

What are Dr. Phil's credentials? He comes across as a hack, Like John Grey, "Ph.D"



Link to the lie detector episode


"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." Hmmm.... how to confirm this?

Yes, I wonder if the APA would find his use of polygraphy as leverage to coerce a possibly false confession problematic; from: http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmpubint3.html#22

XXII. POLYGRAPH TESTING
1. 1986

1. The conduct of polygraph tests to select employees, to ascertain the honesty of employees, and to determine the truthfulness of aspects in criminal investigations, has increased significantly in recent years. APA has great reservations about the use of polygraph tests to detect deception.

2. Despite many years of development, the use of psychophysiological indicators to infer deceptive behavior remains controversial, partly because the scientific evidence for the validity of these procedures is still unsatisfactory. Such evidence is particularly poor concerning polygraph use in employment screening and in dealing with victims of crime.

3. Those giving polygraph tests often have limited training and expertise in psychology and in the interpretation of psycholophysiological measures.

4. There is the possibility of great damage to innocent persons who must inevitably be labeled as deceptors in situations where the base rate of deception is low; an unacceptable number of false positives would occur even should the validity of the testing procedures be quite high.

5. The use of polygraph tests in all applied settings should be based on adequate psychological training and sophistication. Their use by psychologists must be consistent with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and the Ethical Principles of Psychologists. They should be used only when such use is justified by the existence of sufficient date on their reliability and validity for the specific population, context, and purpose."

 

[voidx]

Yes, he is legally an adult, and Dr. Phil told him he had the right to refuse. But he admitted in the second part that he thought he could bluff the polygraph. I knew he was lying just from looking at his face. But then, I've known some pretty good liars.

First, thanks for the recap on the episodes. Looking at the links listed above this part was interesting. They gave some examples that truly habitual liars seemed to have no problem deceiving the polygraph test. Now its pretty likely they also had a pretty good grasp of how the polygraph worked. But if this kid really was such an accomplished liar as his parents make it, one would assume he'd not have "failed" so horribly on the polygraph.

 

[Suggestologist]

Skeeters

In case anyone missed this on Dr. Phil's site:

In response to the healthy debate on the message boards about Mikai taking a polygraph test, Jamie Skeeters, president of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners, would like to clarify:

Here:

http://www.drphil.com/show/show.jhtml?contentId=3210_skeeters.xml

Where much misinformation from skeeters is to be found, such as:

Mr. Skeeters says. "Yes, it can be beat. DNA and fingerprints are not 100 percent perfect either .... nor is brain surgery." People should not think polygraph is the absolute truth; it's not. But research has proven it to be accurate 90 plus percent of the time."

 

[zakur]

Dr. Phil is at it again with polygraphs. In this episode about the Natalee Holloway disappearance, they use a polygraph in questioning an alleged witness. About the polygraph, Dr. Phil says:

They are extremely scientific.

 

[delphi_ote]

Dr. Phil is at it again with polygraphs. In this episode about the Natalee Holloway disappearance, they use a polygraph in questioning an alleged witness. About the polygraph, Dr. Phil says:

He's a doctor AND he's on TV. How dare you question his grasp of science?

 

[-42-]

Almost as bad as the Polygraph examiner on "Texas Justice". The Judge does say he can choose to not consider the 'evidence' of the polygraph, but I can't think in one instance where he ruled against it -- except in cases where the Law prevailed and it didn't matter if they "lied" or not.

One particular quote from the Polygraph examiner, I find very, very funny - when asked about how sure he was on a percentage scale from 0-100%

The answer? 110%

....lol.. great scientific answer there.... Perhaps he also used his remote viewing machine and saw them do what they said they didn't... at a 10% accuracy rate??? err..??



Though, Polygraph does seem 'useful' in many applications. Especially in ones where those being tested have a belief that it works exactly as perscribed. For those, you can get a confession. In the instance of police work, this could be invaluable.

The real harm comes into play for those who believe it to be real, and produce a false-positive. Or for those who know it to be fake, and produce a false-negative. Or those who know it to be malarky and do not opt to take it, and are seen as those with 'something to hide'.

That's an awfully lot of "OR"s, but if you were a police officer, why not ask? Perhaps you will get a confession either before, during or after a test - regardless of 'false-positives'.


The same as if palm reading was commonly beleived to be able to detect guilt or innocence.... Honestly, even as a skeptic and if I knew it to be 'bogus', I'd probably still ask and see if I got a confession before or after it. .... If I was a police officer.... The result wouldn't matter much, more how they reacted to it. If they just denied it, well... oh well, but if they said OK OK I did it... Well...

All that said, I disagree with Dr.Phil (and many others) referring to it as "very scientific" and the like. However, on the other hand, I also hold no problems with people using it trying to illicit a confession.... It's really pretty understandable. The problem with that comes with 'the media' and that so-and-so 'failed' their test - and the people on Jury (or those judging) have belief in it... :/

.. On that note - and I'm just talking out of my ass, I don't really know for sure -- isn't the results totally inadmissable into criminal court? (ie: Jury/Judge never even hears it?) Again, not sure in the least, but isn't that the case?...... And that they're really fishing for confession?


I mean it seems to me it's pretty obvious it's not "science" or "exact" or "possible to know". If it was, How about we do the following: Interview every single person in prison with a lie detector and say "DID YOU DO IT"? YES OR NO???

The ones who pass go free! yay! I think even the average person knows, at least, that it's 'unreliable'

 

[casebro]

Polygraph means "Many Lines"

Polygraphs measure only one thing, the subjects stress level.

Psychological interpretation would be required to convert that knowledge into "lie detection".

I am a nervous person. When I worked for a large outfit that required polygraphs, the boss skipped me- he was pretty canny, and knew my stress would be high, even if asked 'baseline' questions.
Soo, not all subjects are apropriate.

But in comparison of palmistry to polygraph, Madame Starshine might compare favorably. If she picks up sweating palms, tempurature changes, breathing variations, iris fluctuations. Boy, I'll bet Skeeter could sure do a good cold reading.

 

[casebro]

Dr. Phil's bio

Dr. Phil quit his one-on-one clinical practice to specialise in "Large Group Awareness Programs", or LGAPs. Like "The Forum", but he did a smaller scale. Lots of patients builds lots of reputation, quickly. Talk about Woo piled high, do some Googling of LGAP's, the history, the mechanics, the mass hypnosis. Did you know the boredom of a long sermon or lecture opens up your mind to suggestions? That "Mass hypnosis" was discovered by an American puritanical preacher in the earl 19th centruy- seems you don't need a swinging watch to get "sleepy, very sleepy". My limited exposure to LGAPs tells me that they do more of telling you how much good they are doing, then actully doing you good. Scientology uses lots of the same techniques. Dr. Phil does too?

Remember Dr. Phil's disclaimer 'this show is meant for entertainment only' ? Gotta wonder: Was the 19 year old child molester a paid actor? Did the polygrapher get paid per "screen actors guild" scale? Or did they both just know that Dr. Phil wanted a good, contoversial show?

 

[jj]

Letter writing campaign anyone?

To whom? We can't get letters to all the people who Dr. Phil validated the polygraph for.

Seriously, to whom? We can certainly send letters to the show. Do you think that will do anything other than convince them that "this is a sensitive topic, we can get ratings out of it"?