"More Polygraph Nonsense"

[Rodney]

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.

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Rodney]

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

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."

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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?

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

 

[BillyJoe]

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?

It seems Bob Park will be surprised to hear it, if it's true.

 

[Rodney]

So mixed in among the false-negatives and the false-positives there are accounts of one or two positive-positives?

Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

Why should this surprise anybody?

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?

 

[digithead]

Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

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...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Do you have statistics on the combined number of polygraph false-negatives and false-positives relative to the number of positive-positives?

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?

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.

 

[BillyJoe]

Is Bob Parks correct? -- Yes.

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?

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

 

[Rodney]

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...

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.

Let me say that 80% accuracy used by the NAS is a number not supported by the research,

Quite right, anymore than their other numbers are supported by 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...

And your source for these assertions is . . .?

If you want a great resource on the nonsense of polygraph, go to antipolygraph.org...

I have a feeling Dr. Park may be relying on this same "great resource."

 

[Rodney]

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?

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.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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?

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.

 

[Rodney]

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.

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?

 

[digithead]

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."

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...

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

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.

 

[BillyJoe]

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...

No, I wasn't thinking it was insulting letter.
(I know you better than that )

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.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

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.

 

[Rodney]

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...

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.