Polycop,

With reference to your remarks to Public Servant:

Quote:


What is it that you, Public Servant, and others in your "group" have that we ("the anti-poly folks") want but don't have?

Polycop,

You write:

Quote:


Quite to the contrary, the utter disdain I note in beech tree's posts regarding polygraph screening appears to be quite sincerely expressed and would indicate to me that the last place he would want to be is in your shoes, i.e., on the inside looking out.  It appears to me that he is not only content with his role of critic-at-large on the outside looking in, but that he would welcome legions of others providing independent oversight (also from vantage point of from the outside looking in) to clean up and likely dismantle the world of polygraph screening.  Am I wrong, beech??

Public Servant wrote on Jul 30^th, 2002 at 3:03pm:


Public Servant,

I don't know about you, but I have decided Beech Trees is just about the most entertaining guy I have ever read.  I log into the site every day just to view the latest repetition of ignorance spewing forth from his keyboard.  He makes me smile, he truly does...

As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in.  They will always be outsiders looking in.  This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy.  Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period.  They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.

I just feel really sorry for the innocents they take with them and I truly hope their damage continues to be limited.  Guys like BeechTrees are a lost cause and I do not know if I would continue to feed their delusions....

Polycop...

Public Servant wrote on Jul 30^th, 2002 at 3:03pm:


Glad I could answer your questions about the famous Gadsden Flag then. The fact that those questions were couched in a sly affront at my patriotism rather color your insults later on in this post. If you don't like terse, tell-it-like-it-is replies, perhaps you should do a bit of reflection on your own writing style. In addition, in the future I hope you won't be surprised when, after insulting someone's knowledge of American history and their patriotism, you are met with a certain amount of tight-lipped invective in the response.

Quote:


I don't recall engaging in name calling in any of my posts. I do recall pointing out your ad hominem arguments and gratuitous assertions. I do recall describing the pseudo-science of polygraphy (and by necessity then, polygraphers in general)  as 'hucksterism' and 'hucksters'. I do recall your compatriots comparing this website and George Maschke to neo-Nazi racist skinhead hate groups. So, lie about the nature of this discussion all you wish, and fall back on your tried-and-true method of misrepresenting, finger-pointing, and just plain whining-- the posts are here for all to see and make their own conclusions. At the end of the day, the facts remain the same: 

1. You lie to polygraph examinees, and in return expect blind obeisance and faith in the process and your ability to divine truth from falsehood based on a brief interview, and on-the-spot creation of questions, and the scratchings from a polygraph. (Except of course in those cases where one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee fail to trust, or are too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable').... ad infinitum

2. You have failed to prove your gratuitous assertions that you can and have caught examinees using countermeasures.

3. In lieu of (2), you have failed to accept Dr. Richardson's countermeasures challenge.

4. You vacillate between a. exhorting potential polygraph examinees *not* to use countermeasures because you can catch them doing so and b. blaming George for threatening national security and the sanctity of ongoing criminal investigations because--why? When arguing from this latter viewpoint you validate the notion that countermeasures DO work and you are unable to detect them. You've left more than one person scratching their head with this little dichotomy.

Quote:


Oh, ok

Quote:


Ironic and slightly hypocritical of you when you asked me about the nature and origins of the flag seen in my posts. Rather thankless as well. In the future, I will remember that you use replies to off-topic questions as ammunition to insult the poster.

And, to reiterate, I have repeatedly tried to engage in you in intelligent discourse, asking you to back up your gratuitous assertions here. I should have known when, in your very first post, you wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here Quote:


Very successful I'd say.  However, you are the champ at trivia.  While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag. 

I'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling.  I'd say this thread has run its course.  If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.  

Quote:
Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies Quote:


With your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.

And if you believe it is not ad hominem to call someone names based on generalizations, or a person's beliefs, than you will forgive this assessment:

You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm.   Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem.  However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts.  You stand alone on this one.

Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.

Public Servant wrote on Jul 29^th, 2002 at 3:46pm:


Rejoice in your hollow victory, servant of The People. I knew what you did and why you did it, thus any 'button pushing' was fruitless and really transparent-- which is why (as I have already pointed out) I chose to answer your question as to the legitimacy of the Gadsden Flag seen in my posts.

You had no 'argument' with regard to the Gadsden Flad, only a misguided notion that it would somehow be offensive to those with a 'patriotic soul'. If ignorance of our nation's rich history and the importance of the Gadsden Flag can be characterized as an 'argument' on your part, then certainly it can be further characterized as a stupid, uneducated one by me.

Public Servant wrote on Jul 29^th, 2002 at 12:39pm:


You really don't have a clue what an ad hominem argument is, do you? Even after definitions and links about ad hominem arguments were posted you continue to make this meritless attack on me? 

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." 

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Thus, I post the assertion that polygraphy is a pseudo-scientific fraud with no basis in science, and is worthless as a screening tool as it is wholey lacking in validity-- I back up my assertion by pointing to the *lack* of evidence to the contrary, in this case the total absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that polygraphy is any more accurate than chance (this among many other pieces of evidence bolstering my assertion). I am met with accusations that I am a felon and salacious personal inquiries about my motivations to post my assertion. THAT is an argument ad hominem.

Calling the purveyors of a fraud 'hucksters' is not an ad hominem argument, it is a careful and accurate choice of word that deftly describes polygraphers. A huckster is one who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. I cannot think of a more accurate label for polygraphers, especially when considering the pre-test interview and the Stim Test, and any post-test interrogations.

Quote:


I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here. Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies. You are not the first to mention 'hostility', but in my opinion you are confusing aggressive skepticism with hostility. When I am met with gratuitous assertions and ad hominem arguments, I reply with fervor, pointing out the ludicrousness of your side's tactics-- all to illustrate to the disinterested third parties or readers straddling the fence on the issue of polygraphy just how insane it is to trust people like you-- polygraphers-- with determining any part of the hiring process, the screening process, and in many cases the post-conviction process. Perhaps others in your aquaintance would meet the accusation of being a felon meekly and with little argument-- but not I. Perhaps others would cave when met with bluff and bluster about detecting countermeasures. Perhaps others would sit back and accept the inflammatory, worthless accusations from your side that George and the anti-polygraph movement are somehow akin to racist, neo-Nazi hate groups or that this board is a clearinghouse of information for pedophiles and other sex-offenders. Not me.

As an aside I do have to make the observation that I had no idea that members of the law enforcement community had such delicate feelings.

Quote:


And then I pointed out the absurdity that those cited externalizations should have any bearing on a scientifically grounded examination. It is also important to note that should an examinee cite any of those as reasons to question the validity of his or her impending polygraph he would in almost every instance be met with suspicion and accusations of guilt from the polygrapher. Can you imagine what a polygrapher would do or say if, as the bp cuff is about to be applied, the examinee said, "I'm sorry, I'm stopping the exam because I don't feel this test will yield a valid result owing to the fact that you the polygrapher have failed to establish a suitable rapport with me the examinee"?

If it is acceptable for YOU to make the assertion that failure to establish rapport will affect the validity of the test, then why is it not acceptable for the examinee to make the exact same claim?

I'll address your specious 'polygraphy is like a medical biopsy' simile in another post. Thus far polygraphy is like a metal detector, like a counseling session, and now like a medical biopsy. Sure it is.

Ah, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke!  Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons.  At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.

Public Servant wrote on Jul 28^th, 2002 at 2:18pm:


Sorry, I'm just now reading this part of your response. You were no doubt expecting a scathing response because your prior inquiry about the Gadsden Flag insinuated--what? Cowardice or unpatriotic impropriety on my part, because the field for the Gadsden Flag is yellow? You wrote:

Quote:


Since your innuendo and smarmy attempt to attack my patriotism was argued from a point of total stupidity and lack of education on the subject, you received a pass, not a rebuke. Contrary to your assertion that such a question would raise my blood pressure, it merely reaffirmed for me and for other readers where your camp resides, and who guards it.

You of all people should know it is I, not you, who controls my blood pressure, as well as three other channels of physiological responses.

Mark,

I'm glad we can find some common ground -- even if it is the slightest isthmus.  This is vital for constructive discussion.

Most of my examinees endure a thorough investigation as well.  However, by the time they get to me it is coming to a close, and this is their opportunity to bring it to an end, one way or another.  And in my opinion, this is how it should be.  

I also eagerly await the initiation of discussion on specific issue testing by Drew in response to my earlier post.  I think we will ultimately find more agreement on the usefulness in this application and will possibly agree that validity / reliability is much greater than mere chance.  Hopefully, some other persons with knowledge and expertise in this area will contribute as well.  I am the first to admit I am challenged in the area of citing and evaluating research, both by circumstance and education.

I'll save further comment for the next thread on this topic.

Drew,

Just a few quick comments regarding your last post.  I don't know if I would use the word malpractice, but I think that all the issues cited, to include those stemming from the examinee, should have been cited and handled by the examiner, for the sake of the examinee.  Of course, it's easy for me to play Monday Morning QB.

Quote:
The examiner associated with that error is someone touted as a role model not only by his own former agency, but by other agency(s) as well.  If he is guilty of any degree of malpractice, then heaven help the rest of the cadre and, more importantly, their associated examinees. Quote:


Careful how you generalize just because this person was considered the elite (never heard of him myself but that's neither here nor there).  I have a tendency to shy away from those proclaimed elite -- both persons and organizations.  For my money, I'll go with the ordinary Joe slugging it out with no more desire than to do the right thing.  These are the ordinary persons doing extraordinary work -- in any field--not the poster boys and girls.

George,

I will assume then that you accept the apology.  I will cite the exerpt utilizing the pseudonym in the future.  And without your verification, I can not say for sure whether this was your exam or not.  The identity of the author is obviously not important in using the piece for discussion.

Beech Trees,

When you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George.  When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you.  Your insistance on continuing to use this technique results in few of either side lending much credence to your posts.  And despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.

In your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen.  Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination.  Let's say we were talking about biopsies, and I was a pathologist explaining possible reasons why you were given a false positive result (they happen, you know).  I cited error by the physician collecting the sample, the lab techs in applying the science, and some abnormalities of the patient.  All of this would be noted in order to ensure we reduce future false diagnoses.   Would you then call all persons involved in obtaining and analyzing biopsies, hucksters, based on my assessment?  Again see my earlier post about the pitfalls of arguing from the specific to the general.

Oh, and, surely you know that there are limits to access of public records, when it comes to personal privacy, regardless if the investigation is on-going or not.  The chances of getting someone who was investigated in a felony investigation (and may likely have legal counsel at this point) to agree to the use of their identity, are as likely as getting you to write a fair minded response to something written by myself or poly cop.

Public Servant,

You wrote:

Quote:


I think the above principles you cite are sound and unarguable.  I also agree with you that in my case, the cart was put before the horse.

The underlying issue of course is whether CQT polygraphy (either in the screening context or specific issue context) is a valid procedure.  If it is, then then the quality controls you cite are important in refining and advancing the procedure for increased accuracy.

If a testing procedure is invalid to begin with (e.g. phrenology), then no amount of quality controls will be enough.  I have tried to remove my own personal experience from this judgment (it could, theoretically, be an aberration, an isolated example, and/or caused by poor examiners) Based on my reading of Lykken, Raskin, Honts, and what Drew and George have cited and argued, I believe that polygraph screenings fall into this category of invalid procedure.

As to specific issue exams, I think polygraphy has some value (whereas I believe screenings should be abolished to the ash heap of history, immediately), but I'm not convinced of its validity overall, based on my reading.  For my money, I'm anxious to see full fleged focused debate and discussion on just this topic (excluding screenings), and eagerly await Drew's comments and follow up reaction.  I am sure you can produce success stories; maybe under the right conditions, with the right examiner, and with full knowledge of the WEIGHT which should be accorded the results, the specific issue exam is a valuable law enforcement tool.  The question is whether the procedure has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, and from what I have seen so far it has not, though as I say, there are successes (confessions) within this category, and I suspect that it's possible to carve out a domain in which it is very valuable, even if we arrive at the place where we acknowledge it to be more art than science.

My sense is that many, if not most guilty people will react more strongly to the relevant question, though as George has pointed out, that still remains to be proven rigorously.  However, I also believe that many innocent people will also react more strongly to the relevant question, and there's no way to tell the difference between the two groups.

I can't add anything to Drew's and George's very articulate points, but for what it is worth, I underwent several polygraphs with 5 different examiners.  The only one I "passed" was my FBI applicant screening, but that was later rechacterized as me failing.  So I failed every single polygraph I took (one was inconclusive), despite having told the truth.  My examiner at FBIHQ was selected because, they told me, he was so experienced and able.

With this history, I thought there must be something physiologically or psychologically wrong with me that was causing me to fail when I told the truth.  After I read Lykken, and discovered George and many others, my beliefs about polygraph changed dramatically.  

So based on my own personal experience with several examiners, and all the literature I've read, and the discussions here, I have to conclude that it was not the individual examiners in my cases, but something about the method itself.

I realize you are only hearing my side of the story, and appreciate that.  I too always want to get the other side(s) and think it's important to do so.  But again, for what it is worth, despite lengthy and intense investigation in which I extended my complete cooperation and in which I was, essentially, an open book, none of the accusations leveled against me, and which I was found to be deceptive on the polygraph (drugs and espionage) were ever corroborated in the slightest way.  If they had been, I am sure I would have been fired.  I was exonerated and resigned, totally on my own initiative, without any prompting or encouragement from the FBI, with a clean record.

Regards...

Mark

Public Servant wrote on Jul 28^th, 2002 at 2:18pm:


I guess I've been labouring under the false impression for quite some time that arrests, trials, and convictions are all a matter of public record. Thanks for setting me straight on that one. 

No one said you had to violate the sanctity of an ongoing investigation-- but that's an excellent way to weasel out of my challenge that you lend validity to your claims that you can and have repeatedly detected countermeasures such as those recommended and discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. Should you have been motivated to prove your gratuitous assertions, you could have simply contacted any of the examinees whom you caught using countermeasures and asked permission to post the specifics of their polygraph, you could have urged any of the examinees whom you thought amendable to such a notion to simply stop by here and tell how they were caught, or you could be like George Maschke's polygraph interrogator and simply gossip about the test and the results, as several from the pro-polygraph side have reported has occurred.

Quote:


The polygraphers here are simply ripe with excuses when it comes to the individual anecdotes of abuse here recorded. The polygrapher administered the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chose the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher failed to establish 'rapport' (failed to dupe the examinee, you mean?)... the polygraph wasn't reviewed by 'quality control' strenuously enough.... blah blah blah.

Quote:


So now we have to add 'trust' to the lengthy list of attributes an examinee must possess in order for an exam to have merit. And let's not forget the list of attributes an examinee may NOT have for a polygraph exam to have merit:

Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.

To sum up the pro-polygraph side's points to date: if one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee is too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable', the polygraph won't work. Your career is stopped dead in your tracks, or irrevocably derailed, you are now suspected of espionage, your family life and reputation are now ruined-- but hey, your polygraph counselor is there to help you friend, so step right up and buy another bottle of P.D.D.'s Finest Snakeoil-- it cures all manner of internal and external ailments! Consumed in its liquid form as a preventative and curative of all immunological and pathological disorders of the humoristic system including cancer, heart disease, flambago and rubatitis. Yeah--gee.... gimme some of that. I would love to place my entire future employment, my career, my professional or personal reputation into the hands of hucksters such as these.

Sickening and saddening that our government places trust into the hands of these men.

Public_Servant,

With regard to George's examination, I will repeat what I have said in a more general reference elsewhere:  Albeit (as far as I know) completely in error, those exam results have absolutely nothing to do with examiner error (individual malpractice), but with the overwhelming grand hucksterism that exists with the application itself.  That application has absolutely no basis in theory, fact, or otherwise.  The examiner associated with that error is someone touted as a role model not only by his own former agency, but by other agency(s) as well.  If he is guilty of any degree of malpractice, then heaven help the rest of the cadre and, more importantly, their associated examinees.

Parenthetically, although largely irrelevant and hardly satisfying, your suggestion that George's intelligence/counterintelligence background had something to do with the exam error witnessed is clearly an insufficient explanation. George has indicated in other communications that he was additionally erroneously found to be DI with regard to drug issues on the lifestyle portion of that exam.

I do not know whether George had confidence and trust in his examiner at the time of the exam in question.  This is largely a function of whether he understood then what he so clearly understands and articulates now.   EVERY examinee that understands the weaknesses, deception, etc. that accompany CQT polygraph screening is not only justified BUT INTELLECTUALLY COMPELLED TO HAVE A LACK OF TRUST IN HIS EXAMINER AND THE EXAM PROCESS IN WHICH HE IS INVOLVED.  Regards,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

Our interlocutor Polycop seems to take an impish delight in identifying me as the author of the "Captain Jones" statement, as he first did in a taunt posted to the message thread, Can a Forensic Test Be Secret? As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings, and I have decided not to make an exception with regard to Polycop's gibes.

Poly Cop,

I was familiar with which scenario was George's, but it has been a while.  I re-read it and would agree, there were problems with all three variables, examiner, examinee, and exam.

With all fairness to the examiner, I am only addressing this in reference to George's account.  I do not have the examiner's side.

The examiner seemed unable to connect with the examinee.  He was unable to build rapport, and his apparent attempts at displaying authority came across as arrogance and deceipt.  These cripled his ability to effectively apply psychological set.

I know little else about the exam except the controls and relevants as given in the account.  I don't like the the controls much, one in particualr.  I also don't like having a relevant  with "Other than.."  I believe controls are very effective when they have to be modified to this, so why would I want a control to have this.  Also don't want relevants and controls to begin with the same words.  The response could occur because the examinee was expecting the opposite question.

Lastly, the examinee was obviously difficult.  First of all, he was highly intelligent and likely made pulled no punches in letting the examiner know this.  The pre-test was probably both, the examiner and the examinee trying to out think the other.  Secondly, he was distrustful and liklely questioned everything rather than following along during crucial parts of the pre-test.  He also was somewhat familiar with CQT, and thus may have been dismissive of control material.  Lastly, this was a guy with a lot of experience in the intelligence field.  Well travelled and likely well versed in the intelligence collection.  And this brings me back to a question George posed (and though this was addressed to poly cop, this is mostly for you George). With this much contact with foreign nationals, and intelligence agents (I'm speaking of authorized contact), their was likely something associated by the examinee with the relevant questions. Perhaps not something he was withholding, but something causing true mental insight instead of just the simple thought process of saying no.  

In closing I would make two apologies. First to the examiner, in this case.  I do not do these types of tests, so I may be way off in my assessment of examiner and exam.  I also lacked his side of the story and documentation of the exam.  
Lastly, to George.  I knew which account was yours, but I avoided saying so in respect for your privacy.  However, I saw no complaint in your post following poly cop's post to me so I assumed you acquiesed in the name of discourse. If not, I apologize.

Quote:
p.s. I believe I owe you an answer regarding the use of CQT exams in connection with specific-incident investigations and with regard to my thoughts regarding concealed information tests.  Because these are both areas involving many important sub-issues, I have yet to decide how to answer the question both meaningfully and within a post of reasonable length.  Please excuse my delay while I consider how best to approach the matter... Quote:


Drew,

This was a question posed on of one of my posts.  I look forward to your input.  I would suggest starting a new thread.  I will look for one started by you on this topic.  I have no doubts, you will find the appropriate approach to initiate good, intellectual conversation.

Mark,

I went back and read your account again (it's been about a year since I last did so).  Again having only your side of the story, and not knowing what caused your section to suddenly be asked to submit to examination, I would definitely say the cart was put before the horse.  As some of our previous posts discussed, we agree (I think), that the polygraph is more suited when the issue is very specific.  Thus, thorough investigation should be done first.  In your account, it seems a test was given just for peace of mind, then they launch a "major" investigation.  Perhaps there were some indicators that someone was leaking information (as we now know there was a spy within the FBI at the time), but if it was a random exam then I do not agree with the methodology.  To me, even a pre-employment exam should follow a thorough background investigation.  Updating Clearance Exams, should follow updated background investigations.  Of course, some in the screening business would argue the deterent value of random exams for those holding a clearance.  They also would disagree with my version of the degree of specificity necessary.  I know a lot of good screeners and I'd leave that to them to argue.

Your case seems to fall along the lines of supporting proper oversight and appropiate utilization.  Many within the polygraph community would agree with that.  As Poly Cop said, Quote:
We may have created this monster.... Quote:
Those of us within polygraph know that poor exams, poor examiners, and poor utilization bring disredit on polygraph as a whole.  We also know that some agencies do a good job at ensuring polygraph is used properly, others do not.

Quote:


What members of the 'counseling' field (be it social service, psychology, psychiatry, etc.) would be unleashed upon their patients after eight weeks of education? What counselor would, upon being taken at their word that the contents of discussions is sacrosanct, run gleefully to their employer with uncorroborated, potentially damaging admissions? 

I know counselors. Some of my best friends are counselors. You, polycop, are no counselor. Delude yourself as you see fit, but you insult the integrity of those fields I mention above when you bloviate that a polygrapher is like a counselor.

Quote:


Another mischaracterization of me-- congratulations. I don't hate the term 'polygraph lab' as much as I (knowing the truth about yon carpetbagging flim-flamming hucksters) hold the term up for derisive laughter, scorn, and ridicule. Just like a scam artist, you seek to cloak your profession in an air of scientific validity that it will never possess otherwise.

Quote:


One thing is certain, polycop: When the truly prepared examinees stroll through your door and into your polygraph lab, you won't have a bloody clue about it.

Beech Trees,

Your choice of icon for your posts was obviously well researched and I assume has some personal meaning to you (either by association with the person, state, or organization).  I consider myself somewhat of a history buff, and while I have seen many versions of the "Don't tread on me" banner, I had never seen this color scheme.  I was expecting another scathing response but you disappointed me.  The point I was going to make is; you deliver your message much better when you leave the emotion out.

Quote:
Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career?
Quote:


First of all, as I have said repeatedly, it would obviously be counterproductive for me to inform anyone how I recognize countermeasures (see numerous previous posts on this thread).  And you want me to name persons?!  Ye who claims he is championing the rights of the downtrodden polygraph examinee, wants me to violate their confidentiality.  Violating the confidentiality of an investigation and the privacy of the examinee would be the only threat to my career here.  See my earlier post (perhaps the one that started this thread) to see if I believe my career rises and falls with polygraph.  I am a law enforcement officer -- a damned good one I might add-- and could continue to be such with or without my present duties.  Oh, and Power?!  Ha!  He thinks I seek power.  I'd say my pseudonym here should surely show that no one in my position has power.  Next you'll be suggesting I am wealthy!  I will borrow from a post by my colleague on another thread...that is funny, Beech Trees.

Polycop,

You wrote:

Quote:


I think your analogy of polygraphy to counseling (you didn't specify what kind) is a poor one: polygraphy lays claim to being a science-based diagnostic test; counseling does not. And although you and other polygraphers may earnestly attempt to learn from your mistakes, no amount of such endeavor can compensate for CQT (or R/I) polygraphy's complete lack of any genuine diagnostic value whatsoever.

How can you know whether a subject has the requisite faith in the polygraph process? The inescapable truth is, you can't. This is just one of many uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables that may affect the outcome of a polygraph chart reading.

You say that polygraphy is "an imperfect (and quote soft) science." But the truth is that it is not a science at all, for the reasons explained at greater length in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Addressing Mark you wrote:

Quote:


Perhaps it is not any "Vilification" (with a capital "V") of polygraphers that leads truthful examinees to trust neither their polygrapher nor the process, but the fact (increasingly understood by those subjected to polygraph screening) that CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested."

I think the argument is well-taken that all polygraph screening examinations are administered in bad faith, as they involve the polygrapher knowingly misrepresenting the procedure to the subject. This being the case, how can the subject who knows how the "test" actually "works" have any faith in either the polygrapher or the polygraph process?

Polycop,

In your last reply to Mark Mallah you write:

Quote:


I would suggest that if you conducted no exam at all and passed/cleared all your examinees that: (1) you would likely be thanked by more people, and (2) you would have adopted a procedure which has no less diagnostic value than the one you are currently using (assuming you are screening applicants with  either a CQT or RI test).  

For all practical purposes, as opposed to the daily nightmare that exists for applicants, I believe my suggested scenario is what basically happens with the federal government's counterintelligence screening of on-board employees and contractors.  Because of the high probability of false positives and grave and immediate consequences to polygraph examiners who would routinely and wrongly condemn their coworkers, I believe otherwise deceptive exam results are largely overlooked with employee-examinees.    Mr. Mallah, although the exception, was one of the few whose results were not overlooked.  Please note this important distinction: I can easily believe that the examiners involved in Mr. Mallah's examination(s) and the accompanying “quality control” review correctly (according to industry standards) scored his polygraph exam charts.  The problem lies not in the scoring but in the fact that this application is so completely lacking in  validity that his exam results had no bearing on truth and reality.  

The only difference between Mr. Mallah’s (and similar cases) versus the great number of ignored employee-examinee results is that his examiners likely threw the standard caution to the wind because their agency was looking for a spy at the time.  Unfortunately, those examiners involved with Mr. Mallah's examination likely overlooked the fact that a change in the exigency of the circumstances is NOT, and I repeat is NOT, accompanied by a  change in the validity of the diagnosis.  Regards,

Drew Richardson

p.s. I believe I owe you an answer regarding the use of CQT exams in connection with specific-incident investigations and with regard to my thoughts regarding concealed information tests.  Because these are both areas involving many important sub-issues, I have yet to decide how to answer the question both meaningfully and within a post of reasonable length.  Please excuse my delay while I consider how best to approach the matter...