Am I the only one who caught the obvious here. When Polycop quoted "significantly better than chance", he should have said "well above chance", which is what the text actually says (see George's post). He also left off the latter part of the sentence, which says "though well below perfection".

Marty,

Thank you...WuzaFuzz..sounds like a bright man or woman. If this person was a police officer, probably let go for his lack of reading ability, or possible his failure to accurately pronounce names. Sounds like he or she has been hanging out too long in the teenager chat rooms.

Peter

Quote:


PeterFonda's posts are related to domestic violence. He posted NOTHING about sex crimes.

-Marty

Way to go "Peterfondle".  It out to make ole "Batshit" and "Eastpeckerwood" feel good to know that nine perverts finally passed their precious polygraph tests.

Eastwood,

As I have written, I passed and 8 friends passed after talking with me. There is nothing difficult about passing a poly. What people are failing is people skills, controlling your interogation and getting the Polygraher on your side, he needs to respect and like you if possible. His job is to trick you into confession, how you handle his tricks is the key. I have found in business that a customer is more likely to spend more money to work with a person he likes, likewise for Polygraphers.

Peter

Ah, Breeze, you should be like your name, rather than the long winded fool you are.

Before you read this, please step down from your LE pedestal you have put yourself on.  You have a knack for being condescending, and I think it's natural for you.  Maybe for a minute if you just stepped back from the situation, and took an objective look -- it's alot easier to see someone else's point of view when your head isn't plugged up your ass.

Now, remember, you love to talk about how I "failed" and you "passed" polygraphs.  Your arrogance in talking about this is unbelievable.  Failing a polygraph is like failing a blood test.  "Sorry, sir, your red blood count was too low, you fail."  I had no control over the polygraph.  I sat in the chair and did what I was told.  I answered the questions truthfully.  Just like giving blood.  You sit there and let the "professionals" do their jobs.  Sure I've had a couple rookies mangle my veins trying to take blood, but it never affects the outcome of the test.  Did I have a rookie polygrapher, or is the test itself flawed?  Again, it comes down to the question of the control that the test taker has on the test.  I did what I was told, and I failed.  It was a situation that was out of my control, and my life has been upended because of it.

I didn't fail any academic test, I didn't fail the interview, I wouldn't have failed any of the physical tests.  When it is in my control, I succeed.  But I choose not to rub that in people's faces.  Does this help you understand?

Why must you rub "passing" in our faces?  Does this make you feel good about yourself?  Do you now think you are better than those of us here who have failed?

As far as your ignorance, you missed my point.  I feel you are ignorant of our situation, not in life in general.  One thing you should have learned by reading the few posts I have made,  my insults are not backhanded.  You'll know when I'm attacking you.  Again, your ignorance lies solely in you lack of understanding of the situations of those who are part of this site.  I don't care about your wonderful LE background, just like you don't care about mine.  Nothing you can say will impress me, and nothing I say will impress you.  Check that, if I complimented a self-centered fool like you, you'd be impressed that I was able to witness your grandeur just from a message board.

Keep waiting for that compliment.

Chris

PS -- I'll update profile so you don't call me a gal again.  Kind of worries me, can't tell a man from a woman.  Wouldn't want to go out to the bars with you, Sea Breeze, that's for sure   

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 17^th, 2002 at 8:52pm:


If statistics are any indicator, then perhaps "earning respect" is the more relevant issue.

Skeptic

Dimas and Chris
I am always amazed how conclusions  are reached by certain  individuals at this site, and you two gals are no exception. OK where to start....Im an ass for pointing out that employers may not want to take everything said on an application at face value. I think your objection about knowing ones self as proof that the polygraph should not be a part of an application process is a bit of a reach, but its your story to tell.  As for me putting myself in your shoes, if by that I need to fail some applicant processes, its probably too late.  I did try to have your experience, but I just kept passing.
Your right to categorize me as ignorant based on your long and distinguished LE career, lengthy exposure to polygraph as it is used in criminal and screening formats, and your intense self awareness.
Is Fair Chance the only anti-polygraph person on this site that can generate respect?

dimas wrote on Dec 13^th, 2002 at 5:09am:


dimas,

There are several applications for the polygraph.  The machine works.  It measures blood pressure, breathing patterns, and sweat gland reactions.  That's it.  The machine is only as good as the man who tries to interperet it.

The polygraph won't always break a suspect into a confession, just maybe the really weak minded ones.  (Are there that many strong minded criminals out there?)  But it's best application is narrowing a group of suspects.  Take 10 suspects and a group of confused LE pros.  The machine will show who physiologically reacts to certain questioning, and the polygrapher, through training and experience, can let the LE pros know which 3 or 4 suspects to begin investigating.  That's effective use of the polygraph.

Now take the same polygrapher and machine, trained to elicit responses from criminals, and give tham an applicant.  The result is Antipolygraph.org and a bunch of polygraphers who truly believe they are doing their parent agencies a favor by removing druggies and spies (like me) from consideration.  And those agencies believe that it is effective use of the polygraph. 


Quote:


The_Breeze is a self-centered attention hog.  When he fails a poly, he can rejoin this site on our side, but his name should change to either "The_Whisper" or "Breaking_Wind."  He has yet to put himself in our shoes.  Do what I do -- ignore the ignorant.

Chris

I have to agree with The_Breeze in that there are several valid applications in the use of polygraphs, especially in helping obtain confessions from criminals that would otherwise have walked.  Unfortunately it seems that he himself doesn't seem to realize the damage that they can do to a persons career and/or job opportunities.  The US system of justice is a tedious and often frustrating one.  It is like that, however for a reason.  People are innocent until proven guilty and we are protecting their rights.  We do not live under Napoleonic Law.  The polygraph however assumes guilt until the person proves his innocence.  I have taken two polygraphs and received inconclusive results on both of them.  I have nothing to hide my past isn't that bad, yet somehow this polygrapher knows better?  I am currently an officer and have received various commendations as well as being the officer of the year for my department.  Yet these prior two inconclusives have often been the thorns in my side because other agencies for which I have applied view them in a negative light and use them as a means to turn me away, simply because they are convinced that I am hiding something.
The polygraph hasn't just hurt me it hurts countless other applicants who see their dreams shot down and thrown out the window.  It hurts to have your integrity called into question and I hope it never happens to The_Breeze, because then he would actually realize what an ass he has been by criticizing those of us on this site for criticizing a machine and a man who say they know us better than we know ourselves.

Quote:


Fair Chance:  "Fair" enough - Thanks for your note

Eastwood,

The reason I used the analogy I did for your little bandwagon is that it is an in-house affair even requiring an invitation.  Our bandwagon (actually courtesy of you and your ilk) is constantly growing and changing as you provide new victims. Perhaps you might care to read John Furedy's The CQT Polygraphers' Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researcher  (http://psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/poldil.htm). ;  It describes what a miserable and unsatisfactory experience a polygraph exam is for even one who is found to be non-deceptive.  Particularly with regards to polygraph screening, it is completely tantamount to being subjected to a digital rectal probe that has no diagnostic validity.  Why would any sane person voluntarily and knowingly participate in such masochistic nonsense (although I have questioned Breeze’s sanity from time to time, even his participation was likely mandated by his employment, not merely an off-season alternative activity to killing Bambi), and why would you expect anything other than what you see here—a constant stream of frustrated, hurt and ANGRY victims??

Eastwood wrote on Dec 7^th, 2002 at 5:51am:

Dear Eastwood,

You are correct when you accuse me of being on the anti-polygraphers bandwagon.  I went through the first polygraph which I felt was performed professionally even if I came back inconclusive.  The second was the polygraph from hell.  I can not understand how two "professionally experienced highly trained examiners (I would expect the Federal Bureau of Investigation to not employ anyone other than a professional) could arrive at such completely opposite conclusions.  The first examiner treated me with respect and consideration and the second was assasinating my character within two minutes of closing the examining room door.  I believe that any reliable forensic test should have repeatability which was completely lacking in my case.  I am keeping an open mind to more research regarding the validity of specific incident testing and GKT but the prescreening and screening polygraphs without investigation ARE PURELY the flip of a coin.

Thank you for indulging my opinion.  I have read and respected yours.

Regards.

Anonymous:  Are you saying that you and the other anti-polygraphers don't jump on your own bandwagon?  Gimme a break. 8)

Breeze,

Your and polycop's coming to Eastwood's rescue (being the sole participants in his polygraph is good campaign) is like two brothers steping forward to take their ugly sister to the prom...very admirable...I hope he will feel loved and you two have found purpose in life...peace

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 7^th, 2002 at 1:06am:


Dear Breeze,

Got to admire you, you come and post two or three messages and get everybody into an uproar.  You do know how to push hotbuttons.

Regards.

Quote:


Confessions are a good thing to get, and if the polygraph as stage prop gets some, then good.  I suspect this will be dwindling though as the information about them gets out.

But Breeze, the point is that absent a confession, the charts don't tell us anything useful about truth or deception, and nobody should be deluded otherwise.

The Breeze wrote:

Quote:


The explanation is rather simple. In science, the burden lies on proponents of a technique or test to prove validity, not on others to disprove validity. The members of the NAS panel are merely pointing out the obvious--that research supporting polygraphy is either non-existent or of poor quality. Due to the absence of research showing that applications of polygraphy are valid (i.e. screening), the applications are considered invalid.  

Quote:

What about when you were asked the "control" questions on your 3 polygraph "tests?" Were you completely truthful when you answered those?

Hey Eastwood
I've won 3 rolls of the dice and would not be afraid to keep rolling.  This may explain some of the angst which is demonstrated by the few habitual posters here when trying to argue with me.   
Short Resume':
Experienced LE officer, Has taken several uneventful polygraphs and told the complete truth on his applications.    ( Does think that placing a drug delivery device in the mouth is use.)  Has been involved in numerous polygraph sessions where completely unavailable information was found through use of the device alone.  Believes like most man made devices and processes, it is flawed but has merit.  Believes most commentors on the issue are inexperienced and need a crusade.  Also believes they would be equally happy protecting the fur seal, tibet, sperm whales or old growth forest.

Good luck in your quest to have George admit that there may indeed by a legitimate use for the polygraph in Law Enforcement, unrelated to its "prop" value.  Those of us that actually watch it work in conjunction with both applicants and criminal cases know the truth is complicated, as complicated as humans.  I have wondered how the NAS laments the quality (or absence) of polygraph research, esp. screening and yet can make sweeping statements about its value.  Since I myself am not a researcher, this will probably remain unexplained.
George, I've been away.  Did you answer my last post?

PolyCop,

I was referring above to CQT polygraphy in all its forms, whether in a screeing context or in interrogations regarding specific incidents. If some guilty/deceptive subjects can be successfully tricked into confessing through the use of CQT polygraphy, then certainly, it becomes possible to correctly classify subjects as truthful vs. deceptive at rates better than chance. But the underlying procedure still has no scientific basis whatsoever.

You are right that polygraph "tests" are not in all respects like a roll of the dice. The key difference is that in the latter, the odds of any particular outcome are demonstrably knowable. By contrast, in CQT polygraphy, absent a corroborable confession from the subject, the polygrapher cannot demonstrate with any knowable degree of confidence whether a particular person has or has not spoken the truth with regard to any particular relevant question.

I think it is appropriate to repeat here remarks I posted in the message thread, NAS Polygraph Report:

What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph Testing

The following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the NAS polygraph report (p. 168 of the HTML version):

Quote:


Note that:

1) This estimate of accuracy does not specify what kind of polygraph tests, e.g., CQT vs. R/I vs. GKT "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance."

2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet.

3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless.

4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."  It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth.

5) The last sentence of the above-cited paragraph is the key one with regard to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it.

Polycop,

I will accept the backhanded compliment and let it go at that.  I believe the substance of my prior comments is an accurate statement(s) of fact...

Quote:


Anonymous,

Your specific comments regarding the NAS research into specific issue testing does not negate my point.  It is clear, George's continued pronouncments that CQT polygraph has "no diagnostic value," and is no more accurate then "a spin of the dice," etc, is clearly contrary to the findings of the NAS panel.  And while your last effort to "explain" the wording of the document was a most articulate example of anti-polygraph spin, I am afraid it is spin none the less...  

Regards

PolyCop

Polycop,

As you have noted the NAS polygraph report did distinguish between polygraph screening and specific-issue testing.

As we both know and was confirmed in spades throughout the aforementioned report, polygraph screening was found to have no diagnostic validity .


What you (and others) seem to have missed regarding specific-issue testing (yes, they did comment that research would suggest that CQT specific-issue testing had diagnostic value significantly better than chance and significantly worse than perfection) was that they questioned the research surrounding it and specifically stated that there was every reason to believe that the actual diagnostic value was less than the published research would indicate (for a variety of reasons).  Another lost point is that any praise for CQT specific-issue testing is faint praise at best (only compared to the severe criticisms made of polygraph screening) and only became an issue at all (was not a part of the original mandate for this panel-validity of DOE and other federal agency screening programs was) but became a forced issue inasmuch as the research available for polygraph screening (again, its evaluation was the original mandate) was found to be so incredibly poor to non existent that they (the panel) were forced to look at specific-issue testing research to draw any conclusions at all with regard to the original mandate.

Quote:


George,

When your describe CQT polygraph as a "completely invalid diagnostic procedure," does that refer to screening polygraph or criminal specific issue testing?  I ask this because it seems to me that one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world recently described specific issue polygraph testing as being able to descriminate truthful from untruthful at rates "sigificantly better than chance."

Now, I'm no scientist, but that doesn't sound like a "roll of the dice" to me.

PolyCop

Eastwood,

It should come as no surprise to anyone that many of those participating in these forums have been the victims of the random error associated with the completely invalid diagnostic procedure that is CQT polygraphy.

Your characterization of those who post here as "those who couldn't pass" a polygraph examination carries with it the implicit notion that CQT polygraphy has some validity as a diagnostic procedure. It most assuredly does not. To say that a particular person "couldn't pass" a polygraph examination is as illogical as saying that he/she "couldn't win" a roll of the dice.