I edited that profanity instantly after typing it. You must have been waiting with bated breath as I hadn't even a minute to flash edit spelling. Pardon the brashness. I am obviously disappointed in your demonstration of ignoring the obvious. 

Additionally, you ignored the pulp of my post.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 8:51pm:


Obviously you are incapable of having a rational discussion without throwing in personal attacks.  Before you are again admonished for such, I would respect suggest you and I simply agree to ignore each other.

Quote:


How else am I to interpret your flame baiting, high-brow condescention of a test which thousands of more qualified authorities and researchers have concluded as being a most useful tool in indicating the common physiological earmarks of deception.  Thoughtful Examiners do not call the polygraph a "lie detector." It is not a lie detector as you have stated. 

You average what, 20-25 avidly negativistic screeds regarding polygraph per day----at all times of the day. In my village, that's called hellbent. In the psychological circles, it is called fixated/ fixed attention. Whatever.

Quote:


Agreed. No one questions what you believe, with 20 posts or so a day, we get the picture. The problem is that there might be some who believe you are a criminal obstructionist. You bemoan the best investigative device for getting clues when physical evidence is out of view, and you spread negative material to thousands on this site, all because you are penniless, jobeless....oh...wait, you are a successful lawman with 30 years. You seem to be doing alright, aside from the negativistic fixation on an odd yet useful test. I would prefer to elevate the discussion, but it is difficult with even many gentle souls here who keep refering the PEER REVIEWED STUDIES  as non peer-reviewed studies. Ray Nelson tries to explain Bayesian Statistical analysis, Monte Carlo probability tools and the like, but when he does, some here get cross-eyed and claim he is obfuscating. Pseudo science? No, it is called science. There are many peer-reviewed scientific studies on polygraph. The field is so diverse that there is no one single study to cover all aspects----much like the "soft science" of psychometric testing.
Quote:

I am beginning to think that you sir, cannot "see" anything. Google "Inductive Reasoning." 
See, call me and my profession a sham, a fraud, pseudoscience, and the discussion devolves into disfunctionalism.

Quote:


Parroting with a dash of pickeled Inductive Reasoning.

Quote:

The NAS was both encouraging and critical of polygraph. You focus on only the negative (it seems)---whereas most thoughtful examiners take the good with the bad. Hasn't there been some 10 peer-reviewed studies published since that NAS 5 year old study? Apparently the scientific community and the field of polygraph has made up and kissed since then. I and others were willing to cease refering to you as an investigative obstructionist (criminal)---even though the definition is technically true, regardless of what your personal opinion is----but the world is gray, not black and white. Meaningful dialogue begins when you stop "begging the Point/Question"---a debate tactic that puts meaningful discussion into a wheelspin. Google" Begging the point"---it is a passive aggressive tactic used by folks who can't progress mentally past the stage of "stick in the mud." Polygraph isn't pseudoscience any more than any other psychological test which has scoring details not readily available to the public. Try getting the answers to the MMPIand the scoring software, or try geting the precise applicational guidelines for administering a Rorschack (sp?) ink blot test from the proifessionals who administer them. There is no obligation to reveal every detail about a test.  If I gave you a set of polygraph charts, could you score them on the 7 point scale? Could you then Rank order score them? Could you use Bayesian statistical formulas to look at a group of tests and calculate norms? No, and no one at this site cares to reveal that there are standards of chart evaluation, scoring algorythms, and cut-offs. The final call is one of math, not hunch. 

Fact is, your labels indicate that you know 2 things about polygraph. Jack and S____, and Jack left town.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:


The problem with any discussion with you is your interpretation of people's motives regarding their posts.  For example, you say that I am "hellbent" on eliminating applicant screening.   That is simply not true, but to allow it to pass would be to tacitly admit to such.  "A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth".  If I were "hellbent" on eliminating applicant polygraph testing, I certainly would not spend my time here, but instead spend my time in court, as that is where the ultimate question will be resolved.  I would recommend that you let the discussion grow a little before you catagorize people's motives.

Secondly, I am free to state my opinion of polygraphy when I so choose.  I have used the term sham, and fraud, because I believe it is.  I have never used the other terms, (well maybe BS, but I don't remember).  Again, you exaggerate my posts, which then distracts from the original question.  I believe the polygraph community in general is practicing a sham and a fraud, because the whole premise of polygraphy is that the polygraph is a "lie detector," and that the individual polygrapher can detect when a person is lying.  Until they are willing to admit that they cannot detect lies, and that on person can "pass" or "fail" a polygraph because there is no subjective standard for that "pass" or "fail", then I will continue to refer to the practice of polygraphy as a sham or a fraud, if the situation warrants.  The result of a polygraph test is simply an opinion, nothing more.  Do you not agree?

As far as pseudoscience, I can see no other label that fits more appropriately.  The studies that I have read did not possess sufficient controls to pass scientific scrutiny.  For a thorough examination of the polygraph procedure and how it applies to science, see:

The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing, at:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=65

I believe the National Academy of Science likely has a pretty good handle on scientific procedure.  Additionally, "pseudo" means in the common usage, "false" or "pretend".  Thus, if a non scientific discipline passes itself off as scientific, then that discipline would be correctly identified as "pseudoscience".  Until the poly community can either show it's procedures are "scientific" or quits referring to their procedures as scientific, then the term pseudoscience applies, and I for one will NOT voluntarily cease using the term when it aptly applies.

nopolycop wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 4:21pm:


OK then, how about some additional rules of decorum nopoly.
I believe all are keenly aware of your hellbent determination to outlaw applicant screening polygraph. So, why don't you snip the cheap shots here and now. One of the reasons why you have been ignored in the past is that you constantly refer to polygraph and polygraph examiners as a "sham, shamartist, fraud, BS, Phony, con, conartist, congame, hokus......you get the picture. If polygraph is a sham, than that makes thousands of loyal practioners "sham artists"------which infers a lower form of life. Not cool. I know that I am far more aware of polygraph, polygraph research, the history of both successes and failures, the nuances, the uses, strengths and limitations, and the personal beliefs of examiners------than you, PERIOD. So, with that, can you treat your debatees as people who are committed to good practices, ethical treatment of people, and lawful investigation? If you want to discuss the law with a lawyer, you don't constantly refer to that person as a weasel. It kinda slams the discussion, eh?



So, knowing your strongly held belief thet there is misuse of polygraph regarding applicant screening, are you capable of not refering to polygraph as pseudoscience? If so, than go ahead and add every other psych test to the "pseudo science" category, and we will agree to end what could be a more informed discussion.

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 1:17pm:


It was my understanding that you thought I was an idiot and refused to futher engage me in meaningful discussion?  Nevertheless, I am game, with the condition that you and others will answer direct questions, and if they are posed as yes or no questions, to answer yes or no, (which you will be free to explain, as is the practice in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Lastly, while I agree that personal anecdotes have limited evidentiary value, there is still a place for them, if nothing more than helping to clarify a personally held belief.  For example, I once took a polygraph where the polygrapher said that I had lied on one question regarding past criminal behavior, but yet the polygraph examiner also said I had told the truth when asked if I told the truth on the examination!  This personal experience of mine certainly helped me form the belief that polygraphy was a sham, and nothing I have read or personally experienced in subsequent pre-employment polygraphs that I have taken has changed my opinion.

I will participate in your discussion, as it frankly, is my hot button, and I would like to see others directly related to the polygraph community paticipate, but only if they will also answer direct questions posed to them, especially by those who have failed polygraphs but were being truthful.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:


Thank you for your valuable comment.
I am particularly interested in your assertion that Not Lying to the Relevant questions can provoke (produce ? ) 'hyper arousal'.
If that anomaly can and does occur, then the case for polygraph just suffered a knockout blow. I'm more determined now than ever to set up a contrived scenario and possibly get 4 different examiners to test me independently. 

If you think Mr Mashke is on a mission, wait and see. I am on a crusade.

BTW - I am impressed with your new-age domestic arrangement.

Nopolycop

Why don't we have a discussion on the Law Enforcement Hiring Process.

I'll start the thread  and just call it Police Hiring process and lay out some of the methods that agencies use to determine candidate suitability and we'll compare them to the ones your agency uses and then we'll compare them to polygraph screening.

EJ:

Why do you feel compelled to make assumptions about people, such as questioning my experience as a police officer?  I have put murderers in jail, solved spectacularly violent crimes, likely saved a few lives and scraped a lot of dead ones up off the pavement, along with scooping the remains of decomps up and into the body bag.  And no, I haven't dealt a lot with crimes against children, and frankly believe SO's cannot be rehabilitated or treated, and should simply spend the rest of their post conviction life behind bars.  Absent that perfect solution to the problem, I have no issues with a convicted SO having to under poly testing, I just wish there was a way to administer an electric shock to thier testicles when they lied.

I also do not believe that the little studies done with college kids are true indicators of the veracity of polygraph, as the physiological responses to a college kid being asked if he "stole" the envelope from the teachers desk, (after being given permission to do so) are likely to be different than the murderer being asked if he killed his wife.  If you or the other polygraphers can't see the difference, then there is no hope.

You also seem to forget that it was you who used the term "phony test", and you did so with no information as to  how this was to be structured.   

Regarding my previous mention of fools, frauds, etc. those comments were aimed at the industry as a whole, not you individually.  If you take exception, I cannot help that.  No different that you saying all cops are donut munching lazy asz skirt chasers, or similar commentary.  I would not care about that opinion of yours, and unless you are a fool or fraud, my comments should not bother you either.

Regarding conversing on a professional level, it doesn't matter if one is a psychologist, doctor, attorney, cop or even a polygrapher.  The manner of conversing on a professional level means leaving hyperbole at the door, and discussing the issues of the subject matter in question in a reasoned, honest and articulate matter, debating the subject matter, but leaving out ad hominem attacks.

Regarding polygraphers saving lives, I haven't seen a lot of discussion regarding that aspect of the profession here, but I have read a lot of instances where the poly ruined careers, and put innocent people in jail.  Also, let's not forget Gary Ridgway and the spy scandals.

Having said that, I still have no issues with a poly being given to a crime suspect, as long as it is done in a professional manner, and the opinion rendered by the polygrapher is not given too much weight.  I think they can be a good criminal investigation tool, but I see way to much reliance given to the outcomes for my comfort.  As an example, I am working a homicide case right now, where the prime suspect supposidly "passed" a poly, but as I have learned here over the past 82 days, the poly he was given was entirely suspect.  Unfortunately, there was overreliance on that test, and they guy is walking free, despite a considerable amount of evidence to the contrary.

I also don't believe the poly should be used in LE screening at all, despite the fact that I have taken and passed several in my career.  When I entered LE 30 years ago, the poly was being used sparingly, but the state of art has not advanced much since then.  False positives still haunt the pre-employment polygraph exam.   I am of the mindset that a good background investigation is sufficient, and the reliance on the poly has replaced good background checks.

Additionally, the notion that because we catch a few liars means we get to call other people liars who are not, is poor public policy.  I suspect, EJ, you have never been accused of lying when you have told the truth on the poly, like you read about every day here.  If you had, or if any of the other poly examiners have, I believe you and they would have a different attitude on the subject.

As someone who entered police work in my early 20's, all I ever wanted to be was a cop, and for people who are in the same position as I was then, to have their career hopes dashed by a false positive, and have that accusation follow them around so they never will get into police work, is unconscionable.  Sure, a few bad apples may slip into the service, but modern police work will weed them out quickly, or they will change and become good, honest cops.  There is an axiom in the law that it is better than 10 guilty people go free, than one innocent person is found guility. 

Lastly, when cop makes a mistake, it is typically done in good faith, and I would submit that the error rate for police decisions is much lower than the 10-20 percent error rate of polygraph tests.  It is when the errors are done not in good faith, but with malice, where cops get into trouble, (and rightfully so).

Polygraphers, on the other hand, accept a 10-20 percent error rate like it is simply a cost of doing business.  In my opinion, when that error rate allows serial killers to walk free, spies to undermine our national security, and wrongfully accused truthful job applicants of being drug users, thieves, or whatever the squiggly line said they did, well, that is not acceptable.

Quote:


fegetaboutit.

Quote:


Huh? That makes no sense. So a test with a greater error rate than a "high stakes polygraph test" is a phoney test....but "most tests are"....? I dunno....uh.....what?

Quote:

The poster wasn't suggesting committing a mock crime, she was suggesting attempting to defraud an examiner for the purpose of doing damage to his/her career, and the field as a whole. That's a mighty big endeavor for a person, as compared to a mock theft of a $20 bill. This sounds like a sort of bizarre mentation Nopoly, not a deductive theory. 

Quote:


I can take the barbs. I can dish them out too, and have done so with bullies who try to help criminals (other bullies) to disrupt investigations with the "weight loss pills" of forensic manipulation. Ironic that you would taunt others (again, I can take it) and call polygraph examiners "fools,  frauds, phonies" and the like. But then you become hyper-sensative to me being a little flippent of your (reread your above thread) "posted material." 

Quote:


Engage you on a "professional level"? What profession are we speaking of here? You are a cop, right? Are you a detective? Have you ever investigated any serious crimes, or have you mostly reported and recorded crimes. Ya ever interrogate a serial killer, or a serial rapist? Have you ever spent any time with a person who say, killed a child or killed several children? I think no, but who knows. So I don't believe we can discuss the nuances of testing, not because I am on a better or worse "professional level" with you, but that based on your insistance that polygraph must be as perfectly intuitive as it is bold, you are incapable of being not merely on the same "level", but on the same channel. You watch your programs, and I will watch mine---seperate channels so to speak. 

Many Cops save lives, and they deserve some level of respect.

Many Polygraph Examiners save lives, and they deserve some respect too.

Both make errors, and when they do, lives can be ruined or lost if great care is not taken.


Agreed?

EJohnson wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:


EJ:

My apologies, it wasn't my purpose to misdirect the conversation by quoting out of context, simply to winnow down the previously posted material for ease of referral.  The point is, (which I am sure MOST people reading this were able to pick up on without feeling misled), was that any test short of an actual high stakes polygraph test, (which most are), is a phony test.  If someone wants to set up a polygrapher under false pretenses and use that as proof of the falicy of polygraphy, it is not substantially different than a college professor telling a group of kids to go out and commit a controlled mock crime and then attempt to establish a link between these phony studies and real life.  That's all.

Actually, now that I have had time to thnk about it, that's not all.  Why don't you leave the personal attacks, insinuations and innuendo at the door?  It might be a fun game for you, but frankly, I don't have the time for it.  If you want to engage me on a professional level and discuss the issues, I am up for it.  Otherwise, feel free to ignore anything I may write, as others do.

Quote:


You have submitted many things that fall short of rational thought.
Quoting someone out of context is cute;

nopoly stated; Quote:


Well nopolycop, if you insist.

[quote author=0F002522243925244A0 link=1199894591/0#6 date=1199988522][Regarding staging a phony test. I suggest you think long and hard about how to present yourself in a polygraph test with a surreptitious gameplan---quote]

I would submit, that any of the "psychology student" tests where a mock crime is used as the basis of the test would fall nicely under the catagory of a "phoney test".  Afterall, the studetns didn't actually commit a crime, but instead, given permission to do whatever they are being tested about.

Quote:


I don't think nopolycop nor Hunter meant "amusing" in the literal sense. There is nothing funny about testing procedures that have error rates, even marginal ones. Read Jonathon Kozol's i.e. "Death at an Early Age"---on how inner city kids (read minorities) get the shaft by normative testing (IQ, Aptitude, Psych Eval) that was modeled by rural kids. Not exactly funny when people are left out in the rain for being peculiar or not peculiar enough as it were when undergoing important testing. Dozens of examiners in various fields are working tirelessly to close the error rate gaps.

Regarding staging a phony test. I suggest you think long and hard about how to present yourself in a polygraph test with a surreptitious gameplan---not unlike someone planning on using countermeasures----you should expect a skewed test with high levels of anomolous chart arousals and "data noise."  Peer reviewed research shows that  a deceptive game plan that may not involve lying to Relevant Questions per se can provoke "hyper arousal" to the test, and be deemed as deceptive. Might be interesting though---why not give it a whirl?

Hunter wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 2:12am:


I dont find it to be amusing at all. A frightening reality is more like it.
Frightening that a morally sound person can be subjected to an unscientific 'test of truth', only to be declared a liar !! 

Frightening and scandalous that the govt still permits the use of inaccurate and ancient technology + armchair detectives to determine 
which of us are liars.

I intend to create a scenario, then have myself tested to prove just how unreliable the entire process really is.

The polygraph does not determine credibility.  It spits out lines according to heart rate, breathing and sweat.  From these lines the polygrapher, after taking a short 10 week course, can supposedly tell if a question bothers a subject.  That is it, nothing more nothing less.  It is subjective to say the least.  At the very best it's accurate 8 out of 10 times but some will say more some say less. Counter Measures can be used, I know I've used them and passed, thus the machine is worthless once you lose the fear.

Amusing but also reality.  Polygraph will be here for a long time unless a new manner of determining credibility is found.

What I find amusing (not the only thing but one of the biggies) is that the Federal, State and Local Goverment's argue that polygraph tests are not acceptable as accurate whenever a criminal defendant has "passed" one and wants to use it in court to prove they didn't commit a crime, but on the other hand, argue it is valid for pre-employment screening, knowing that they will brand many honest applicants liars, branding them for life.

not been shown to be generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community

However is used daily by CHP in selection of candidates for positions on the CHP.  I would suggest the CHP does in fact use polygraph and the statement of this Captain does not reflect the attitude of the CHP accurately.  Just a guess.

Over at Polygraphplace.com , a pro-polygraph site run by polygraphers, someone using the identifyer "fed employee" posted the following in a thread:

"This is the reply I received from the CHP: "...in the package you submitted to the CHP, you attached the results of a polygraph examination in which your daughter was a principle. The results of the examination could not be considered as evidence because examinations have not been shown to be generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community." The letter was signed by a CHP Captain in Southern California. To this day I still have a copy of his letter. "

Assuming that the above is true, it sure speaks volumes regarding the duplicity of LE agencies and their use of the polygraph for screening purposes.

The entire thread is here:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000638.html