Good Call Brandon !!

And thanks George for the great new reading material, I am sure that those of us who analyze this manual will come up with some great inputs to post here. The Army really did throw the baby out with the bath water on this one, pardon the cliche',  I wonder how many upset individuals their are right now at CID command, or even the bozo's at the 902nd MI (THey do poly's too). Their rules and engagement stategies will be very simular also. God don't you just love it when gifts from heaven just show up  !!   Good luck all   EJ

Uiop wrote:
Quote:


This is fair and balanced as you have the capability to write your viewpoint.  Simply because certain posters do not believe as you does not make this unbalanced.  Please note that I have defended neither Mr. Maschke or Dr. Richardson in this thread.  I pointed out your lack of maturity and useless barbed post, nothing more.

Also please be advised that no one has suckered me into my belief regarding polygraph.  That belief stems from an experience with polygraphy with an over zealous, unethical (by polygraphers standards), response inducing protector of truth.  False positive...oh yes.  Next time you come at me with your nickel & dime psychology I will advise you to place it in a certain bodily location.

Now, would you care to raise the level of conversation on your part.  Certainly you must be able to shed light on the inconsistencies you feel you have witnessed?

With regards to the polygraph, I think this board provides the best example of open discussion on the Internet.  People on this site may post opinions that are strongly in favor of polygraphy without fear of having their posts deleted and their membership banned.  People on this site can even, if they choose, engage in personal attacks against and name-calling directed at prominent or noted members of this site, again without having their posts deleted or their membership banned.  I don't see how that qualifies this board as one lacking open and honest discussion.

The message board at PolygraphPlace.com has no such open forum.  The message board run by the people with the motto “Dedicated to Truth” will instantly ban anyone who speaks out against polygraphy, and anyone who mentions this site.  They also have a closed section of the board where only members of their profession may enter.

For anyone upset about the lack of a fair and balanced discussion regarding the polygraph, it would seem more appropriate for them to direct their anger at the site with the carefully censored and essentially closed forum, rather than at the site with the open forum where all opinions and points of view are welcome.

The discussion on this board is also driven by many others who also feel they were misused in some way by the polygraph process from their own experiences.

I suspect from what I'm learning that the Internet and open exchange of information has a good chance of ending polygraph abuse and misuse, bringing to light the ways in which these tests are used to harm people who are fundamentally honest and not security risks by any stretch of the imagination.

uiop wrote on Aug 11^th, 2005 at 4:40am:


What do you believe to be "unfair" about this discussion? Unlike those who run the PolygraphPlace.com message board, we're not afraid of opposing viewpoints. I think you'll find no fairer and more balanced a forum for discussion of polygraph issues than this one. You are welcome to express your views here. 

You suggest that I and Dr. Richardson have not been honest, but you don't specify anything that either of us has said or written that you believe to be untrue. If you disagree with anything that either of us has posted, please explain.

Nonombre,

The issue I commented upon and that you questioned me regarding I don’t believe is a military versus civilian procedural issue.  In fact my former employer (the FBI) at one time (perhaps still) evaluated examiners in part based on the number of confessions (following DI exams) obtained in a rating period.  Obviously as would be indicated from my previous comments I find that problematic.  Even those programs that portend to have some balance (will consider NDI results) in the long run tend to favor awards for those who have participated in “big” cases, obtained DI results and were followed by a confession.  This would not be a problem if all positive results were true positive results.  We know that many positive results are in fact false positive results.  I am less concerned with those doing criminal specific exams (investigation will usually reveal polygraph errors) than I am those doing applicant exams (who presumably would be rewarded in a similar manner to their colleagues doing criminal exams) but even in the case of criminal exams we find celebrated cases in which polygraphy played a role in producing false confessions, e.g. the cases of Daniel M. King and of Abdallah Higazy.  I am not at all opposed to rewarding good work (long hours, unusual insight, development of new techniques, sustained effort, etc) but I don’t think it should in any way be tied to the specific results of what portends to be a neutral and valid diagnostic test.  As I have said before I think those polygraph formats that rely on the introduction of “themes” (to be later used during interrogation with found-to be DI examinees) prior to the administration of the diagnostic test (in-test phase) are confounded to begin with.  That, coupled with any error that might be introduced through a somewhat biased (even if very slight) evaluation/rewards system tied to specific results of a diagnostic exam, leads to a situation which is inappropriate in my view.  Regards….

Correction to a minor detail.  Let Dr. Richardson respond.

Well Brandon, if this was a fair and balanced discussion regarding the polygraph (Which I think would be VERY useful to everyone) and Mr. Maschke and Dr. Richardson were HONEST about their experiences (Which they are not and have suckered many good people including yourself onto their side)  then I would be very courteous.  Dispite my appearance of childishness, my point is anything but moot.  YOU know that.  So quit defending Mr. Maschke and let him respond.  Perhaps he will be honest after all.   

Hmmm...resorting to childish name contortions I see.  Your point is moot so long as you are unable to control yourself in a more mature manner.  If you have something to add, at least be courteous.

Not only do I doubt Drewie ever servedin the military, but I laugh about his statement about ethics.   

Ever run a real exam Drewie??????

Tell us all about Ethics Buddy..........

Quote:


Dr. Richardson,

I believe you may not be giving Army CID its due credit.  I believe the manual reads:

"Gold star recognition is used by QC personnel to recognize examiner efforts that result in the successful resolution of highly sensitive or complex issues. These include confessions, and in some cases NDI examinations..."

"and in some cases NDI examinations..."  It looks to me that CID is simply trying to recognize hard work that has resulted in the resolution of a difficult case, regardless as to whether the examinee is DI or NDI.  Obviously, CID is acting as a responsible, objective investigative agency which has a myrad of forensic applications at its disposal and is trying to reward its practioners anyway it can.

Remember, unlike your old FBI lab days, when a civilian lab worker such as yourself could receive a cash bonus for working above and beyond the call of duty, the army cannot give such bonuses to its soldiers.

So, instead, the army writes up examples of hard work/extrodinary dedication, and presents a "Gold Star" to the soldier who has gone beyond the call of duty.  In some cases, he/she might even get a medal.  It isn't money, but it's something.

Ever been in the military, Dr. Richardson?   

Nonombre

George,

Quote:


Yes, the notion that it would confuse the examinee as to the identity of the nature of the question (comparison) is a bit beyond belief.  The other potential possibility is that they are using the timing of responses as a potential counter-countermeasure.  In theory an examinee would be responding to a question in a list of questions presented in an unknown order somewhere beginning between the time period to include the beginning of the asking of the question, the ending of the asking of the question, and the answer.  There are multiple problems with associating changes in the timing of response with this type of maneuver: (1) there is way too much variation in examinee (timing of) response in the absence of such a maneuver to draw any conclusions in the presence of the maneuver; (2) one would expect a change in timing response with this sort of change in wording, (3) it is easy to vary the timing of the examinee countermeasure along the previously mentioned time frame (question beginning to question end to response) perhaps even throwing in a gratuitous half response to a relevant question at one or more points, (4) the ethics of changing the word order of a to-be scored question is quite questionable (similar to presenting an unreviewed question during the exam)--this suggests that this question/response might not be scored, (5) etc. etc.

Yes, gold stars for performance...lol.  The parallel to elementary education performance evaluation is quite remarkable.  One of the serious problems with present "lie detection" paradigms (aside from the obvious problem of not working) is the confusing of the diagnostic/forensic aspect of the test with the interrogator/adversary aspect(s) of the scenario.  In addition to the obvious ethical conflict of interest of rewarding certain outcomes to the exclusion of other possible outcomes, by doing this sort of thing, a bad situation is made worse in another way.  It is bad enough that the diagnostician is already playing advocate (interrogator) before he administers his exam (during the pre-test phase in which "themes" are being introduced), but if added to this mess is the consideration of possible rewarded behavior for certain outcomes, it becomes altogether unethical and further detracts (if possible) from the validity of the diagnostic aspect of the examination.


 

Drew,

The notion, expressed in Section 6.1.f (at p. 33 of the PDF) that moving a time/place bar to the end of a comparison ("control") question somehow "address[es] the use of potential countermeasures" indeed seems odd:

Quote:


On another topic, if memory serves, you've previously noted that the practice of evaluating polygraph examiners on the basis of case outcomes runs counter to the ethical standards that apply to forensic testing. But as stated in Section 11.6 (at p. 56 of the PDF):

Quote:


Awarding "gold stars" based on case outcomes might be appropriate if polygraphers are, in fact, simply interrogators using the polygraph as a prop to get admissions/confessions. But it seems to me that such a practice would be inappropriate for practitioners of a genuine forensic test.

Quote:


Fascinating.  Inasmuch as Army CID has been the heart and soul of teaching at what was formerly the U.S. Army's School of Military Police (DoDPI's predecessor) and now at The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) for the last several decades, this likely represents the bulk of current doctrine for all those who attend this federal training.  The document clearly merits  considerable review.  A quick glance at the section on countermeasures (procedures and reporting forms (last appendix)) largely confirms the guessing nature of this exercise and the need for confirmatory admissions and confessions (even the nomenclature would suggest no confession, no confirmation).  Note the counter-countermeasure instruction in Chapter 6 (Section 1).  Although reasonably simple-minded (will an examinee really be confused by moving the time bar from the beginning to the ending of a comparison/control question?), we do see something about the state of the art of countermeasure detection here.  Again, this document merits some considerable review and analysis.  As always, nice job of investigative work and reporting , George.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division's "Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD) Policy and Procedure Manual," effective 21 February 2005, may be downloaded as a 328kb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cid-polygraph-manual-2005.pdf