mkyadidas,

The fact that you "quit" smoking dope a month ago isn't going to bode well with any police department that I know of in the USA.  Nothing personal, but I would venture to say that your chances of being hired are located somewhere between slim and none.  You might want to expand your job search to include other professions that are more lenient with regard to your recent drug use.   

Kona

i have a similar problem to Ryan's. I'm applying for a job as a police dispatcher.... i have had some drug use in the past, mostly marijuana, and just recently quit (about a month ago).... i don't know wether that is going to disqualify me or since i have been quiting, it'll be okay.... 

i've seen a lot of different opinions on the board.... and personally i don't know whether polygraphs tests work or not... this is my first one... so i wouldn't know how to cheat it.... i'm mostly an honest person and a bad liar so i don't think that's a good idea for me...

but is the fact that i recently quit grounds of disqualification?

Torpedo wrote on Dec 25^th, 2003 at 6:19pm:


Torpedo,

The information I pass on these boards is based on my personal experience with the polygraph.  I am not making anything up, or embellishing any stories.  I have never professed to be a polygraph expert, rather I opine on the subject based on how the polygraph experience has affected my quest for a job in Law Enforcement.  The people here can either take my advise, or leave it......it's totally up to them.   

Torpedo wrote on Dec 25^th, 2003 at 6:19pm:


Excuse me, are you insinuating that the 3 different polygraph examiners that conducted my examinations weren't quite up to snuff?  Very interesting.  All three exams were very similar, and all three examiners acted professionally.  These guys were all experienced Detectives with over 20 years on the force, and several years experience in their respective polygraph departments.   In fact, their exams were amazingly similar to the trip reports I've read here on this website.  You could have substituted a LAPD or a FBI polygraph session with mine.  They all use the same techniques, and follow the same basic pattern.   

Torpedo wrote on Dec 25^th, 2003 at 6:19pm:


I've got news for you......there is never going to be anything that is perfect for screening police recruit applicants.  Your assertion that the polygraph seems to be performing that mission now is highly debatable.  We have a fundamental difference of opinion concerning the accuracy of the polygraph, and whether countermeasures can be detected.  Again I can only speak from my personal experience that my polygraph examinations were as accurate as flipping a coin when no countermeasures were used, and I told the truth.  Also, the one and only time I used countermeasures and told the truth, worked like a champ for me......I passed with no problem.   

Good luck convincing the masses out there that you can catch a majority of people that utilize countermeasures.  I'll believe it when I see you prove it on the countermeasure challenge.   

Regards,
Kona

Quote:

Drew,

Perhaps I misread you earlier. Do you believe that all types of countermeasures are not detectable in a CQT - or only those you intend to utilize?
Quote:

I thought the purpose of the "stim" tests was psychologically conditioning the examinee to be less sensitive to the relevant (assuming "No" is truthful) and vice versa. How often (or if) that works is an open question. I'm curious about whether informed examinees who had decided not to use CM's would be disadvantaged by acquaintance tests.

-Marty

Torpedo,

Because there are others quite well qualified to offer running commentary regarding the nature of, reasons for, and the passage of time that “the challenge” has gone unanswered, my ongoing participation in the matter is rendered largely unnecessary.  That having been said, lest you think that my lack of daily commentary would indicate some disinterest on my part, let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.

With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests.  In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question.  Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow.  This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test.  Regards, Drew Richardson

Probably not. The rationale behind the "stim" test (most examiners do not like that moniker) is that it is INTENDED to demonstrate to the examinee how the test works, truth be told, for the skeptical examinee that the test in fact works.  I am not "giving anything away" (this description is readily available) In explaining the test, I will tell you that I want you to answer no to all questions about the numbers, including the one which you picked/wrote.  If you "refused" to answer as I directed, I do not care...I simply would not administer that particular test to you. The idea isn't to trick (as some would have you believe) it is used to provide an opportunity for the examinee to have some idea of the process.  It may come as a surprise to some of the anti folks, but a distinct advantage of the test is for innocent examinees when they are able to see that the test does work and that will be vindicated. I think the idea of the whole process being equated to a palor game , at least inpart, comes from the manner in which SOME examiners use a deck of playing cards to perform this test.  This manner is not exactly embraced by all for obvious reasons.

Torpedo

I am still in the learning process so here's another question for you.

Let's say you are giving me a poly. In the numbers stim test, I pick the number 5. When you ask "did you pick the number 5". I refused to lie and said yes. Would you fail me for being uncooperative for refusing to lie as you directed? Remember, you want me to be truthful and all I want to do is tell the total truth.

Skeptic, I took the time to look it up and it is identified as "circular reasoning"....not a circular argument. (as I called it)...not sure if there is a difference, but your inference of being dogmatic is correct....at least the way that I see it.

Torpedo wrote on Dec 29^th, 2003 at 12:53am:



Torpedo,
Another term for a circular argument is begging the question.  I think what you're referring to is a couple of people holding on to positions dogmatically.

Skeptic

George, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me.  When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position.  My understanding of a circular argument is:

A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument

Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments

Marty wrote on Dec 28^th, 2003 at 7:23am:


That, I would not know, as I've never done grantwriting.  I do recall, during my Psychology undergrad days, that undergrad Psych majors were required, as part of "intro to Psychology 101", to participate in ongoing Psychology studies.  This was a relatively small Psychology department, yet it had multiple studies going on the scale you seem to envision.  So I would imagine we're talking $50,000 or perhaps considerably less, mostly to fund research assistants for a year or two.  If the department wanted to set up a permanent polygraph research lab, it might cost more (for equipment and space, etc.).  An informal study with all volunteers, of course, could be done for the price of the equipment.

Of greater consideration would be the design of the study, to avoid confounds that the polygraph community would claim regarding the "reality" of the study conditions.  Since most of us seem to agree that "fear of consequences" is the main factor in the functioning of the polygraph, one would need to set up a situation in which the subjects felt concern that the detection of countermeasures would have real consequences for them.  At the same time, you'd need to tread an ethical line regarding deception of the subjects.

On the other hand, it might be interesting to compare such results with those from subjects who felt they had nothing to lose.  This second part could be considered a "baseline" for the detection of countermeasures.

You'd also need to lay out beforehand that the polygraph examiner was only allowed to judge the presence of countermeasures based upon chart recordings, not upon beating a confession out of an examinee.  No interrogations allowed -- we're looking for the actual performance of the device, after all, not for how often an examinee can be made to confess...

Skeptic

Skeptic,

Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.

TIA

-Marty

Marty wrote on Dec 28^th, 2003 at 4:50am:


Actually, I would think most psychology departments at major universities would be more than capable of setting up and carrying through such a study.  The major issues would be the study design, which would likely be rather standard psychology fare (double-blind, etc.).

Getting the results into a reputable journal would be more a matter of time than anything (assuming it's well done).

Skeptic

Skeptic,

Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.

-Marty

Marty wrote on Dec 27^th, 2003 at 8:38pm:


Marty,
I stand corrected, although I hope my light-hearted tone was taken for what it was, and not as an attempt to belittle the challenge.  Nontheless, the fact that polygraphers en masse have utterly refused to even discuss taking up a challenge that could put the issue to rest and provide a solid boost to their profession (provided detection were as easy as they claim) should be taken as speaking volumes regarding the accuracy of their boasts -- or at least, their confidence in said boasts.

Skeptic

Quote:

I think polygraphers believe in what they are doing. Newton believed in Alchemy. Exponents of Facilitated Communication believe in their technology. The medical establishment long believed ulcers could not be caused by a bacterium.

Things change.

I think polygraphers believe they can often detect CMs. It may even be true for some kinds of CMs. The issue of CM detection isn't subject to the uncertainties of base truth like the CQT. I suspect many pass using CMs but I suspect CM users are also sometimes detected. The knowledge (as opposed to use) of CMs could also be subject to the CIT, the type of test ascribed the highest (only?) validity.

-Marty

They can't take the challenge because they have doubt and fear being disproved.  Its like if somehow you find out there is no God, you start questioning your existance, maybe go into a deep depression, kill yourself, etc... It wouldn't be a pleasant experience to find out the idol of your worship was a fraud. Hell, they may actually have to find something honest to do, but probably just move on to another scheme in which they can instill fear in others by using deceit and scare tactics.

Skeptic wrote on Dec 26^th, 2003 at 7:47pm:

Skeptic,

"Fun?"  well it would be for the observers. "Easy and simple?" I don't think so. Drew's challenge, far from being the childish taunt some polygraphers have stated, is not simple and requires serious work to set up protocols that each side can agree on as providing statistically significant results - a non-trivial task. Drew's challenge would require significant resources (mostly time and thoughtful preparation) to execute.  It would be much more elucidating if funding could be arranged and experienced polygraphers recruited.

-Marty

Torpedo:

You wrote:
I recognize Drew's academic credentials, but he too has tired of the back and forth banter...that much is fairly evident to me. 

(sorry my computer skills aren't good enough to do the type of pastes George M  and other more frequent posters do).

How do you know Dr. Richardson no longer supports the polygraph challenge he made to the National Academy of Sciences? Notwithstanding your opining here, I predict he will be on this thead shortly confirming he's willing to carry out his challenge.

Torpedo,

There is no circular argument here. A circular argument is one that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument.

Rather, what we see here is your (and the polygraph community's) utter failure to support with evidence your claimed ability to detect countermeasures.

I see this as a circular argument....you will not relent, and I will not change my views.  I believe I can catch those who elect to use countermeasures....you believe otherwise....I CHOOSE not to take you up on your challenege...I recognize Drew's academic credentials, but he too has tired of the back and forth banter...that much is fairly evident to me.  My reference to adolescent challenges is the "put up or shut up"approach that your followers assume. I guess the best one can hope for is that we agree to disagree...period.

Torpedo wrote on Dec 26^th, 2003 at 10:17pm:


Torpedo,

Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge is hardly "adolescent." It is quite serious, and was first offered at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph:

http://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#challenge

You would have those who visit AntiPolygraph.org to believe that you and other polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. For example, earlier in this message thread, you wrote:

Quote:


and

Quote:


However, the fact that not just you, but no one in the polygraph community has been willing to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge (698 days and counting) suggests that you and your fellow polygraphers are not nearly as confident in your ability to detect countermeasures as you would have others believe.

The polygraph community has to date offered no evidence whatsoever that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures. Indeed, the federal polygraph community stonewalled the National Academy of Sciences with regard to purported federal countermeasure studies as it conducted its review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph. The National Academy of Sciences report notes at p. 118:

Quote:


And Paul M. Menges, who teaches the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's countermeasure course for polygraphers has gone so far as to suggest that making countermeasure information available to the public (such as AntiPolygraph.org is doing) should be outlawed:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml

So why should anyone believe you (and your fellow polygraph operators) when you claim that you can reliably detect countermeasures?

Torpedo sure knows how to push the right buttons.  He posts once and at least ten of you feel compelled to set him straight.  He is just like a rooster in a hen house - he crows once and all you hens sure do cackle.

Torpedo, I do appreciate your efforts and time that you spend with us on this site.   You seem to be a gentleman and an educated one at that.  I do not understand why you don't seem to accept the FACT that many people do routinely beat lie detector tests.  I know it is easy for someone to post on a message board about a so called experience, but I have to admit that I too know of 3 police officers who have totally beaten their polygraph exams.  Two of the officers work for the Dallas police department and one of them works for the Plano, TX p.d.   All I can say is that this is the 100% truth.  If you choose not to believe, that is your choice.  The truth often hurts.  You should read all of the testimoials on Doug Williams' site.  I seriously doubt that they are all fabrications.

...and I can't hrelp but ask.....just what is meant by "relatively irrelevant".....is that anyhing like partially pregnant?