Barry_C wrote on Nov 1^st, 2007 at 7:51pm:

Would that be the real Gizmo?

Barry_C wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 10:09pm:



Sorry. I dont have time to dumb-it-down for you, my dog is urging me to throw a frisbee.

Tick...tick...tick.

Lot's of bloviating, but still no proof.   

What are some other good CMs?

Barry_C wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 8:50pm:



Your petty and demeaning statements lack any weight.
You are floundering in in your pool of contradiction.

Nice beating you.

Now hurry. Your 3rd grader wants to teach you some life lessons.

Your lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of the science of polygraph, the research literature, and how to run tests is becoming abundantly clear.  We both don't "know it" because you're making it up.  However, for those of the guilty who want to try it, go ahead and then come on in and see us.

Barry_C wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 7:42pm:


If it's your mouth, both feet.

Quote:


You just invented the 'no ability to react' part. AD does not produce perfect baselines. It significantly reduces responses to the greatest threat stimulus. Therefore it is a pretty good CM.

Quote:


Not so. I just want you to try and be honest and admit that you know perfectly well that AD does significantly reduce polygraph efficacy. I know it. You know it. The polygraph industry has never published (although they may have commissioned as much) research that negates polygraphy.
The one body of research that was not funded or commissioned by the pg industry, namely the NAS study - soundly debunked all the research that you rely on, as biased, unscientific and unreliable.

Is that one of the reasons Dr Drew Richardson is not your flavour of the month?

Quote:


The above statement is contrary to the fundamental teachings of all polygraph instructors. 
Apparently Barry_C has reinvented the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

Quote:


Probably disagree?  So you're not sure, huh? 

Tell me, which foot did you insert?

Again, unless you're looking for a INC, this doesn't make much sense.  1904 is equating this "syndrome" with no ability to react, i.e., perfect baseline - no changes.  Since polygraph (the CQT) is based on differential reactivity, this is hardly a "good" CM.  You'll note 1904 hasn't cited a single source.  Instead, he's asked me to do his research for him.   

His thinking also assumes that reactions we see are due to fight or flight.  We know fear is not necessary for polygraph to work, so that's yet another strike (albeit a small one in this instance) against his misinformation campaign.

Barry_C wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 1:27pm:


If you say so, then it must be true. Those who ACTUALLY do know would probably disagree with you.

Quote:


I thought that your ultra quick mind would have recognised sarcasm when it flapped around your face.
Maybe you're just having a slow decade.

It's not my assertion at all. Adrenal depletion and its effects on human physiology are extremely well documented. (Google: Adrenal Depletion )
Furthermore, the effects of adrenal depletion with regard to polygraphy are well known, except to you
evidently. 
Tip: Ask a real psychophysiologist. Oh dear. You don't know any do you ?

Quote:


You cared when you stated it before, but I get it, no data, so resort to "authority."  Perhaps you are intimidated by people with strong opinions, but I don't have that problem.

Quote:


I have no research to support that the majority of the posters on this site aren't pedophiles, so should I post that they are?  According to your logic, you'd have to support that one.

Quote:


I'll let the readers here decide who sounds petulant and immature (most of whom, I'm convinced, are examiners).

Barry_C wrote on Oct 30^th, 2007 at 5:30pm:


Yes. And you have no have no facts or research to dispute it either.

Quote:


The poly industry (that includes you) is well aware of the effects of adrenal depletion and pharmaceutical CM's. Wont you tell us your opinion; why do you think there has never been any Published research in respect thereof? The industry carries out silly research on TLBTLD induced CM
using students and movie tickets -- why not on the more serious and threatening CM's? 

Quote:


What in your opinion would you consider to be the best scenario for a lying subject - an Inc or a DI ?
I dont think it is clear to you after all.

Quote:


You answered / addressed this one in your previous sentence. Dont be so obtuse. For someone who professes to be highly intelligent, highly qualified and knows "a lot" about forensic science, you come
across as petulant and immature.

Quote:


Perhaps if you were more mature you would approach a debate like an adult.

Quote:


He's one of your peers. Why dont you ask him to sing from the same sheet as you?
Personally, I dont give a damn my dear.

1904,

So you concede you have no source for such an assertion.  Thank you. And I won't forget, it's not your fault: it's the APA's for not doing the research.  Moreover, you consider a potential means of getting an INC a good CM.  Okay, it's all becoming clear now.

Now if that's not the case, then I guess, you want me to believe that the person would only be subject to this "adrenal depletion" on the RQs and not the CQs or vice versa?

Quote:


An INC is an INC.  Perhaps you made bad calls with insufficient data, but that's not how it's done by those of us who know what we're doing.

Quote:


Does Nate have any data to back that up?  I know you were smart enough to ask that question weren't you?  If he's got the data, he's never shared it.  A lot of people make lots of claims about a lot of things (deep, huh?), but that doesn't make them true.

Barry_C wrote on Oct 28^th, 2007 at 10:59pm:


In one of my earlier posts on either AP or PP I stated that the APA are not known for commissioning research on aspects that would certainly highlight failings in the polygraph testing scenario.

I would therefore be surprised to find such research (iro Adrenal Depletion) but perhaps a medical definition would satisfy you..after all biology and medicine are sciences. 

PS - I remember N Gordon
(a well known Instructor with a long list of credentials ) stating that extreme adrenal depletion will most
likely produce an Inc and can produce ndi's. 

It is not only the subject that produces incon's. Inadequate examiners also produce incon's. 

If a final incon score is on the '+' side off the cutoff range, which way would you call it?
If you ran a 2nd test that was still incon as above, which way would you call it or would
you simply DQ the subject on the basis that anyone who produces an incon must surely
be practicing CM's?

Do you ever have incon's?


The Medical Definition:
The most common form of adrenal imbalance is overuse of the adrenal glands, resulting in adrenal exhaustion. This condition is often associated with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and it is implicated in a number of maladies, including hormone imbalances, poor metabolism and digestion, blood sugar imbalances, and heart disease.

Physical and emotional stress, excess use of stimulants (including caffeine), and viruses (including herpes virus 6 and Epstein-Barr virus) can all cause adrenal exhaustion.

When you have to drink more and more caffeine and artificial stimulants to get the same effects, you are on the path toward adrenal exhaustion. At first, you may experience an accelerated energy that is often “speedy” or “wired.” This is a sign of excess cortisol and other hormones activated by the adrenal glands pumping adrenaline into your system. 

When your adrenal glands are exhausted, cortisol is absent and symptoms may include:
•      Constant fatigue, no matter how much sleep you get 
•      Difficulty mustering energy for normal functions 
•      Drowsiness 
•      Light-headedness 
•      Mental cloudiness 
•      Low blood sugar 

Adrenal imbalance is, by definition, a hormone imbalance. The adrenal glands produce several hormones essential to our energy levels and our “fight or flight” reactions in case of emergency. The most important of these is cortisol, the hormone that helps us deal with stress and fear. These hormones affect other chemicals in the body, including blood sugar, sodium, potassium, and magnesium, creating a chain reaction within the body. 

Quote:


Could you quote your source?  I'd like to look that one up as it makes no sense to me, I've never heard of such a thing working, and I have a pretty good grasp on forensic polygraphy.  (If you can't react to the questions, then how would that be a CM, unless you're hoping for an INC, which won't help in most hiring exams?)

policeHopeful wrote on Oct 25^th, 2007 at 5:30pm:


You're talking about adrenal depletion. Regardless of why you would want to do that, it is an effective,
non-detectable countermeasure.

policeHopeful wrote on Oct 25^th, 2007 at 5:30pm:


Your theory is just as merited as the potential for a person to endure open heart surgery without anesthetic---by virtue of yogi-like self control. Perhaps it is possible, but such power over the mind and corresponding body is extraordinary---a word that is used too frequently and has lost it's meaning. A target-guilty examinee would have to be deluded, and completely detached from the oft times very intense experience of the test. Such detachment is nick-named "probably on mind altering drugs" and will merit such remarks on the report. Like getting caught attempting----or even mere suspicion of intentional countermeasures, such monkey business results in "cheater" labels, and such a label wraps the neck with a skunk's tail.

I actually had two types of theories, but the first has seemed to have been lost in this debate. My first one was that I have heard from a source that even using countermeasures on a few control's would be in most cases sufficient to pass a pre-employment polygraph, being that would be enough to make a camparison between R, Ir, and control. My second thought was would it be possible to take a polygraph and pass by simply knowing that neither the polygrapher nor the polygraph machine could actually detect any lies; Thus, losing all fear and little to no reaction. Also could be sleep deprived also aid in this, by zoning you out of the situation and making your reactions to the questions at hand less pronounced?
             P.S. I love this site. Intelligent people making for intelligent debates.

Good Day Raymond,

A good few interesting posts. Thank you.
But too many "what if's" for comfort.
There is no point in debating the laboratory research studies that you have detailed. They are what they are.

However, don't you think that human emotions, in fact our total psychological fabric varies significantly enough from person to person, so as to render our pdd-polygraph responses as being subjective, if not unreliable? (ie what works on one might be totally unworkable on the next...)

Do you think that you could pass a polygraph exam without effecting any physical or chemical CM's?
What factors need to be present for you to pass as per above question ?

Regards,

phoenix

raymond.nelson wrote on Oct 25^th, 2007 at 1:07am:


I didn't suggest for a moment that the polygraph can read minds. It can't. My point is that lie detection is a kind of mind-reading task. When polygraphers claim they can detect lies/deception, they are in essence claiming to be capable of a kind of mind-reading.

Quote:


The title of Professor Iacono's article is "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis." I find it mind-boggling that you could conclude that this article somehow supports the notion that polygraphy does have a scientific basis.

Quote:


Your analogy is inapt. Firefighting is not, as polygraphy purports to be, a diagnostic test. While firefighters are capable of extinguishing fires, polygraphers are not capable of detecting deception, and as I observed earlier, simply telling the truth provides no guarantee that one will pass a polygraph examination. If it did, this website would not exist.

raymond,

With all do respect... 

I think you're taking Georges' comment a little out of context. If you want to discredit George for something he posted, surely you can do better than that.


triple x

I stand corrected.

Nobody, besides Mr. Maschke, has suggested the polygraph can read minds.

Quote:


Though I disagree with him.

The polygraph, like so many other tests, is simply a test of the significance of a person's reaction to a stimulus. The stimulus is a question regarding involvement in a behavior or event.

No mindreading. No magic. Just good 'ole fashioned stimulus and response, plus a bit of math. Like so many other useful tests. I'd tell you about my fun with the Rhorschach stimulus cards today, but that would be a distraction. 

You are providing inaccurate information again, regarding the scientific basis for polygraph. That is, I believe a violation of your own posting policies. 

To suggest there is no scientific basis would mean - no scientific basis. Mr. Iacono himself discusses the scientific basis. That you or he don't like it is a distinct concern from whether there are or are not any scientific principles, constructs, or knowledge that explain how and why the polygraph works.

Scientific facts are not decided by opinion. Not by a survey of professionals. Not by the opinion of a single expert like Mr. Iacono, and not by the opinion of a person who feels he has been wronged.

Please be more careful in the future.

Quote:


OK. On the obligations of persons seeking positions of public trust - I completely concur. The other part is not quite so simple.

For example the simple presence of a Firehouse in my neighborhood is no guarantee that my house won't catch fire, or that the fire crew would arrive in time to extinguish a fire before the house burned to the ground - posing a serious health and safety risk to the occupants, as some people have experienced first hand.

Therefore, fire departments can therefore not be relied upon. 



r

raymond.nelson wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 8:59pm:


The attempt to determine whether or not a person has spoken the truth is, essentially, a kind of mind-reading task.

Quote:


This would be the best advice if polygraphy truly were a valid and reliable method of lie detection. But polygraphic lie detection has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against the truthful. While applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully, simply telling the truth provides no guarantee that one will pass a polygraph examination, as many of us have experienced first-hand.

I don't think anyone ever suggested the polygraph can read minds - so formulating a cognitive-behavioral action plan around a bit of  fearful misunderstanding might be seriously misguided.

You also have to consider the possibility that the polygraph might not be simply about fear. 

There is evidence from CIT research, that fear itself is either not necessary or incomplete as an explanation of the psychological basis for physiological responses? 

What if cognition and memory also plays an important role in the formulation of a response potential to polygraph stimuli?

What are your chances if involvement in a behavior or event in question creates a form of conditioned response potential (certainly it might very well create a memory, at least for a reasonably intelligent non-psychotic person who is in consistent contact with reality)?

And what if that conditioned response potential were accessible to some conditioned stimulus - like a question about some behavior or event? Hmmm. 

Do you really think you can 86 your intelligence (memory and all) - just on and off like a light switch - without producing data of very suspicious quality. Are you really willing to try to disconnect your rational consciousness from reality for any length of time, just to pass a polygraph test? And if you could float in and out of some complete rational awareness of your own memories and accountability for your behavior, wouldn't you have to sacrifice your own mental health and intelligence to do that? What would that say about your psychological makeup, ability to pass a LE psych eval, and suitability for police work? 

Its enough to make one wonder. 

I'd recommend against it.

If you are serious. The best advice would be to stop engaging in crazy-making, and try to avoid becoming fodder for some cause. Just tell the truth, and cooperate.

Good luck.


r

I would rethink that whole thing. In fact, I would see such a desire to cheat as indicative that I may not be a great candidate for a low paying job where instead of a boss, I have a "commander." You seem a little willfull to not be "broken" by a police force there "Mustang" Man (no insult intended, just a horseman's metaphor). Maybe self-employment might be the best choice.

2 cents

"caged like a rat" Well it doesn't really matter what pressure they plce on me, because in my mind I know they can't read my mind. So if it is my belief that they are unable to read my mind then I will show no fear thus no reaction.  Maybe I'll manipulate a reaction during the stim when they tell me to deliberately lie as to which card I chose. That way they'll think that I am highly reactive to lying, therefore all of the other questions inwhich I will show little to no reaction to will seem truthful.