Talk:Statement analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've no idea how do do this but I think this article absolutely should be deleted, it is really terrible. My guess is this is a complete pseudoscience, and maybe a smaller article breifly describing what SA claims to do along with some criticism would be appropriate. Liam1564 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This page reads like a paraphrase from Mark McClish's "Statement Analysis" web site. There is no pro or con information provided in the article. Troublingly, McClish's web site only has cases that show people are guilty. Why are there no cases that show people are not guilty? The thing seems a lot like voodoo.

Statement Analysis is a passive investigative technique. In the application of All DOD techniques or technologies, the reality is that some 95% of subjects being 'tested' are innocent, or Not Deceptive. i.e Truthful. But the stories about people 'passing' these tests does not make for good reading. (ie boring) That is why the public generally only get to hear stories about the few (5%) failures. Statement Analysis is certainly not voodoo. It is far more accurate than polygraph or cvsa. Statement Analysts (examiners) obtain far more confessions than do examiners using only hardware. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are no 'cons'. A person is either telling the truth, or they aren't. Ctka 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Ctka

I looked up this Wiki article after discovering McClish's website, which was already mentioned by the Anon poster above. I too wondered if it was just a lot of voodoo. I must say, it is an intriging subject...But, some questions that might improve this Wiki article are:

1) How old is this technique? (his website suggests the 1990s).

2) Does it have the support of any behavioral science fields? (I don't know the exact field it falls under - Psychology maybe?). And are there any independent studies or peer reviews available?

3) How does the wording of a question impact the answer? (ex: do Yes or No questions that result in a flag carry more weight than a more complicated question?). McClish talks about answers, but doesn't address the questions side of these communications...

I know a few "nervous" type people that I believe would have a difficult time answering even very direct questions about anything serious, let alone a murder they were never involved in - heck, they get nervous in casual social conversations. They'd be absolute wrecks answering the sort of questions in the examples on McClish's website or this Wiki article. Then there are the camera shy types. I also know wishy-washy people who "talk in circles" all the time; they're constantly saying "well, actually...", "well, you know, really..." - all kinds of filler phrases, backpedalling and grammar errors. It takes them a paragraph to answer Yes or No regardless of the ques (Q: "Is the Pope a Catholic?" A: "Well, basically his family background is..." etc etc). Its just how they learned to communicate. But then again, maybe truly wishy-washy people don't commit the kinds of crimes we're interested in for the purposes of Statement Analysis anyway.

Also, if you want to hear re-direction, avoidance and obfuscation, listen to politicians. We hear that stuff on a daily basis and it becomes a cultural habit - sort of like all the legalese that people who know nothing about the law like to use. People use it because they think it sounds sophisticated.

I don't think anyone being asked if he/she committed a murder is going to answer with a flat No and just stop. The person will surely want (need) to say more. But they won't have the time to think through their answer. Surely this will lead to some stumbling...In education, there is something known as "the effects of testing" whereby an otherwise good student does poorly on a major exam. They know their stuff, but they clutch when they're tested, especially in a timed environment. In conversation, silence is always deadly - when asked a question, we all feel the heat (pressure) to answer. Is this phenom considered in Statement Anaylsis? If so, how?

This is an intriguing topic, and a good one for Wikipedia. But as Anon says, it is incomplete. Does it need a more obvious "Controversies" paragraph, versus the "Misconceptions" para (which, as titled, clearly intends to deflect criticism of Statement Analysis)? Otherwise, echoing Anon, it appears to be a paraphrasing of McClish's website. I must add that that smacks of advertising... And at least a few cases that also show truthfull statements would be helpful, even if they are boring... Engr105th 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, more info...the Statement Analysis website mentioned above has a Biographical Information tab. This shows a single author (Mark McClish) whose credentials are a BA degree (the lowest undergrad degree awarded in the US) in Physical Education, followed by approx 2 yrs with the Secret Service, and the remainder in the US Marshall Service (a number of yrs as an Instructor)....All good, practical and presumably honorable experience - but not the advanced education one might expect in a scientific topic like this. In fact, nothing in the Bio suggests experience in this specific field at all.

There are three external links in the Wiki article. One goes to McClish's site. Another is titled "Scientific Content Analysis" and goes nowhere - the page "has been removed, changed, or is unavailable"....The only other link is to a South African firm, "The Truth Verification Centre SA". It references the US DOD in passing, but is in no way a US gov't site or endorsed as such. This has a lot of verbose info (IMHO) and appears geared to selling a service...Engr105th 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick update. I'm finding several sources for SA, but they seem to be "touting the virtues" as well as offering courses on it (and services). Still don't see anything in the way of critical or scientific reviews. If anyone has sources for that, please post. Thanks. Engr105th (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Statement (Veracity) Analysis is not new. It was developed in the early 30's by various criminal psychologists and clinical psychologists. The techniques are peer-reviewed to death. Volumes, nay, Libraries of works iro SVA have been written. Try works by Prof Udo Undeutsch (Koln University)or Prof Aldert Vrij of Plymouth University. Statement Analysis can be taken as subjects for Psych majors at the 2 mentioned uni's (amongst others).

Avinoam Sapir (whom by now probably has PhD's in both psychology and criminology)refined the SVA techniques some 20 years ago. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctka (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, SA seems quite intriguing. But I'm playing the devil's advocate - partly because I'm a bit suspicious of SA, and partly because this Wiki article seems too one sided...Anyway, I looked at the Skeptical Inquirer website, and they have a past article on the topic. http://csicop.org/si/9905. It is the Volume 23, Number 3, May-June edition of the magazine. (I found it by entering "statement analysis" in the search block. It gives an issue that includes Bigfoot as a cover story). I've ordered this backissue since they don't post the whole articles on-line. But they do post a very short subject description, which suggests the "Theoretical and research support for the advertised "scientific" techniques is practically nonexistent" for SA. If this cites legitimate references, as SI often does, that SA is indeed a questionable 'science', then this Wiki article ought to reflect that. Engr105th (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)