micki wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 8:06pm:


Micki,

As Mr Mystery has so well defined  your answers I need not add to them. But the thing to point out here is I see none of our local proponent PDD examiners sticking there 2 cents worth in, backing up that the polygraph results your husband has are valid. Hence the position that the polygraph being invalid is also dangerous and allows people like your X husband to get away with vile and illegal actions. My opinion of course, but TwoBlock is also dead on also. I wish you good things for the future, and justice will prevail with your X.

Regards

Micki

As in a lot of threads the original post gets turned into a debate.

As George said, anyone can beat the poly. I haven't answered because the only suggestion I have is have your lawyer file a petition with the court to have your ex-husband's polygraph invalidated because of it's vast inaccuracy. List this website, the NAS report or anything else he can find to get the sicko's polygraph thrown out and ask the court to consider the hard evidence. Your lawyer needs to research this site. Your ex needs to be in lock-up. Not in the military. This idiot shouldn't be allowed contact with your daughter even in the presence of another adult.

micki wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 5:56pm:


1.  No. 
2. No one really knows if a polygraph can tell the truth in the first place.  People can influence the results of a polygraph.  One doesn't not need to be any of the conditions you listed above.  Sometimes it is accurate sometimes it is not.  Any research produced by outsiders (non-polygraphers) tends to indicate that the polygraph is far from perfect.
3. See #2
4. See #2
5. See #2


I'm sorry the police dropped the case on the basis of the polygraph alone.  Given the questionable accuracy it seems almost negligent.  You may try meeting with the supervisor of the investigating detectives and expressing your doubts.

"you, by definition, ignore the results of those innocent subjects who have been found deceptive and who do not confess.  In other words you would have grossly underestimated your rate of false positives through such means."


As often as this issue comes up, I am beginning to wonder if people in the polygraph field are truly this ignorant.  Or, do they just forget that people outside of their little circle posses the intelligence to see the most fundamental flaws in their logic.   

Each day that I come to this board and read another person try to defend polygraphs, the more I realize what a hoax it has become.  And of course, another day goes by without a shred of scientific validity to the voodoo that is polygraph. 

The scientific community would laugh these clowns right out of the laboratory if they attempted "valid" studies that used the actual scientific method to determine results.

Instead, polygraph people prefer to work inside their little bubble, patting each other on the back, reassuring each other that they are not the smuck of the earth, scientifically and morally.


Back on topic, there are far better way to invesitgate a person suspected of sexual abuse.  Relying on this stupid device was an insult to the victim.  I hope people wake up someday and realize that polygraphs hurt everyone.

Detector1012000,

You write:
Quote:

You have misunderstood or misrepresented the significance of my point.  I was suggesting that the lack of external validity of simulated-crime studies underestimates the weakness (not the questionable strengths) of a CQT polygraph exam under realistic conditions, i.e., because innocent subjects do not have any fear of the consequences of being found wrongfully deceptive in a simulated crime scenario, the true rate of false positive outcomes is underestimated by such studies.

Additionally, your field study assessment of accuracy is silly at best.  Because that which you refer to requires a confession/admission following a deceptive polygraph result, you, by definition, ignore the results of those innocent subjects who have been found deceptive and who do not confess.  In other words you would have grossly underestimated your rate of false positives through such means.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 3:57am:


Oh yeah, according to NSA polygraph divsion's technical directory, the polygraph doesn't detect lies in the first place.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 3:57am:


The point is that you have no idea if the information obtained was the reason why they failed the question.

I have given out information in post-test interrogations that I would have given out in the pre-test if I had not been cut-off.  I would have gladly given out the same information without a polygraph test at all.  By my count, polygraphers at my most recent agency are 0 for 5 on failed questions for me.

Onesimus, thanks for the verification that admissions are made when deception, for what ever cause, is detected.

Mr. Mystery, 

I cannot cite "Scientific" studies, they are all Laboratory studies.  Real Life studies are flawed also because we do not know what ground truth is.   

When we use laboratory studies, we have no fear of detection, therefore we have very little reason for reaction on "relevant" issues, therefore the study is not a scientific study, only a WAG study.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 12:22am:


Laboratory research has no scientific validity? Huh? In almost every instance, reliability worsens when you go from lab to field studies because you can't control conditions as well you can as in a lab...

Your "field studies" are prime examples of "cargo cult science" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science and, as the NAS stated, "lack scientific rigor"...

Your statement is also used by people defending ESP when lab studies show no effect beyond chance. It's the omnipresent white lab coat effect...

But what is more amazing in your statement is that you cannot tell us what your false negative rate is. Think about that, you can't estimate how many you passed that were lying, be they bad cops or pedophiles. There's the true danger in your beloved polygraph...

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 12:22am:


Could you cite a field study to this effect?  Preferably one regarding screening applications.  I'd like to read it.

I've personally known people who would fail with one agency and pass at another (this would imply a false positive or false negative somewhere along the line probably the former).  This happens far too many times to support a 98% accuracy.

Besides Dr. Richardson's statement was with regards to the motivation of innocent examinees to use countermeasures.  It had nothing to do with the actuall application of countermeasure use.  In Hont's study the examineer accused approximately 15% of the innocent examinees of using mental countermeasures (and exactly ZERO of the actual utilizers).

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2006 at 12:22am:


Some of my coworkers admit to making things up when they are told they are deceptive on a question.  Others, including myself, have had their words spun into a confession when no confession was actually given.   

When you're told you'll be failed on a question if you don't give more information, most questions are quite vague, and polygraphers sometimes cut off examinees while they are answering a quesion in the pre-test phase, it's not surprising that you would find 98% willing to give more information on a failed question.

Please examine Drew Richardsons post, it clearly states the problem with the "Scientific Research" in the polygraph arena, it is all laboratory research which has no scientific validity because it is not "Real Life" research, only laboratory.  Those of us in the industry have conducted studies regarding admissions after obtaiing reactions indicitave of deception.  Those figures give us 98% correct calls on deception.  That my friend is real life.  How many pass while telling lies?  I have no idea so cannot give any reliable estimate of figure.   

Regarding concern about false positivies.  When a polygrapher detects deception, further investigation is necessary if admissions are not obtained.  (Personal Opinion not held by all departments or examiners)

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Apr 28^th, 2006 at 6:06pm:


Doesn’t this conclusion presume that an “innocent” examinee (which I am guessing means an examinee that is not being deceptive) faces no possibility of a false-positive?   

Once the possibility of a false-positive is acknowledged, regardless of what percentage of the time you believe it happens, how can you conclude that successful use of countermeasures has absolutely no effect on innocent examinees?  Especially since you wrote that a deceptive person only faces the possibility that they “may” be caught using countermeasures, not that they “will” be caught?   

What exactly is the reason why a guilty person using countermeasures to attempt to produce a false-negative has some chance of success but an innocent person using countermeasures to protect themselves from a false-positive has no such chances?

Since you wrote that countermeasures “may” result in a false-negative it would seem you have less than 100% confidence that such countermeasures are ineffective and/or easily detectable.

It seems that not even the examiners can agree on whether countermeasures are effective or ineffective, nor can they agree on whether countermeasures can be reliably detected.

LieBabyCryBaby,

Amongst other things you write and attach some importance to is the following:
Quote:


The explanation for Gershon's finding is really quite simple.  For the typical simulated-crime (laboratory) polygraph study (in the absence of examinee countermeasure application), there is little to no fear of consequences for innocent examinees which results in a diminished (relative to the real world environment) and underestimated rate of false positive results for said examinees.  Because of this there would not be expected to be much if any benefit and effect of countermeasures for these same subjects in laboratory countermeasure studies, i.e., although they might well benefit in the real world where there is a fear of consequences of being found deceptive, in the laboratory setting where there is none, no benefit would likely be expected, needed nor seen (as Gershon as indicated).

First off, thank you for actually citing a peer reviewed journal.   I've previously read the studies you have cited.  To my knowledge they all refered to giving CM instructions to guilty participants.  The first two refer to GKT polygraphs which are different than the typical CQT ones found in screening applications.  I believe none of the studies above gave CM instructions to the "innocent" examinees.  I may be incorrect in this.  I'll check when I get home this evening.

If you have a study that actually looked at CM application by innocent examinees I'd really like to read it.

Again a comprehensive public demonstration of the effects of CM use by both innocent and guilty examinees would go a long way to settling this argument and putting everyone's mind at ease.

Regards,

Edit---
I also went through and read the part covered in the Handbook of Polygraphy Testing.  Are you refering to page 114 "The Problem of Countermeasures"?

With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you.  These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-polygraph" crowd--so often relies.  I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice.  The studies I refer to are the following: 
 
Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K.  (1996)  Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281. 
 
Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108. 
 
Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247. 
 
Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees.  (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing.  Academic Press, 2002.) 
 
What does that last statement mean to this forum?  It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge, this site does absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher.  Meanwhile, it provides the guilty with knowledge that may (not will, but may) help them avoid being detected altogether.  When seen in that light, so much for this site being a service to the innocent. 
 
The "challenge" issued to polygraph examiners by people on this site is an empty challenge.  Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world.  At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis.  So what's the point?  For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time,  the "challenge" is ignored.
 

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2006 at 4:19pm:


If it is true that polygraph examiners have no trouble detecting the use of countermeasures why have so many polygraph examiners claimed that it is irresponsible of George to provide countermeasure information on this web site?

I would think that if countermeasure use is readily apparent to “trained professional” polygraph examiners it wouldn’t cause the slightest bit of concern that a website existed where people could learn such apparently useless techniques.

One particular examiner who posts on this site (Nonombre) has stated on more than one occasion that providing information on how to beat the polygraph is as irresponsible as leaving a loaded shotgun on a subway platform or in a schoolhouse.  Although I disagree with his assessment I have to wonder why he would write such things if it is in fact readily and immediately apparent whenever an examinee attempts to use countermeasures.

Logic clearly dictates that if countermeasures were ineffective and/or easily detected then there would be absolutely no cause for concern among polygraph examiners that a website exists where people can learn about countermeasures.   

What possible concern about the availability of countermeasure techniques could polygraph examiners have if countermeasures are in fact easy to detect and/or ineffective?  That a child molester might read about them and use them during a polygraph exam?  If the countermeasures are ineffective and/or easily detected why would it matter? 

Is there a concern that a police applicant with a history of disqualifying behavior might use these easily detected countermeasures on a pre-employment exam?  Why would that be a concern if his or her use of countermeasures was ineffective and easy to detect?

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2006 at 4:19pm:


If you can really detect countermeasures so well why don't you simply demonstrate it publicly.  No one is asking you to show the methods, a simple "Subject 11, 24 & 56 were using countermeasures" would probably be sufficient.

Applicants then would know that they'll get caught, and refuse to use countermeasures.  You'll benefit both the polygraph community and applicants by settling this debate once and for all.  You must realize that your statements appear to be little more than a bluff to discourage applicants.

As far as I know classified materials are exempt from FOIA request and any polygraph manufacturer or trade school's proprietary information is also.  Thus I doubt any such request would force you to divulge your methodology.  If I am incorrect in this belief please let me know.

I'm not concerned if non polygraphers "BELIEVE" or not, simply detecting the countermeasures are sufficient for disqualification.  Mental countermeasures are more difficult, physical ones are not.  There are methods to overcome mental countermeasures also, just have to be on your toes.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2006 at 4:19pm:


Polygraphers only need to support their claimed ability to detect countermeasures (which does not necessarily entail disclosing the methods) if they wish non-polygraphers to believe them.

Correct, and we don't need to support our methods of detecting countermeasures, they are abundantly clear to the trained professional.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2006 at 4:07pm:


Oh, I see. Well, impartial readers will have to judge for themselves the relative merits of the documented information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures presented in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the completely unsupported, self-serving claims of those who make a living giving polygraph tests.

There will not be any publications on countermeasures by the polygraph industry.  The reason is quite simple, you would request the documentation via FOIA and publish it here.  Countermeasures are detected on a regular basis which disqualifes the applicant from further processing.   

With regards to the research by Hont's, his research sparked examiners to do research and we now have some very good methods of deteting them.  There will be no answer too the challenge to demonstrate this.  Again the reason, we will not divulge our methods so you can find other ways to defeat polygraph while being untruthful.

detector1012000 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2006 at 6:58pm:


No. After my polygraph experience, and knowing what I now know about polygraphy, I find it hard to imagine any situation in which I would agree to subject myself to a polygraphic lie test.

But the information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not based on personal experience. It's based on well-documented research, with references to primary sources that skeptical readers may check for themselves.

By contrast, polygraphers' claims that they can detect countermeasures are completely unsupported by any published research whatsoever, nor are there any book chapters or journal articles that explain how to detect countermeasures.

And have you personally passed a polygraph examination using your methodology?  If so please cite where and when.