(UTC)
Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: polytechnic
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 6:53pm 		  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on May 29th, 2008 at 1:08am:
polytechnic wrote on May 28th, 2008 at 3:36pm:
sackett wrote on May 25th, 2008 at 4:46pm:
[quote author=5F5E455644585D454800310 link=1211636068/0#7 date=1211732567][quote author=594B49414F5E5E2A0 link=1211636068/0#2 date=1211692554]

FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100%  forthcoming.  George makes a good point.  A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.

Sackett       


Sackett,

Why is it that many examiners prefer to peruse the examinees file or personal dossier prior to testing? Doesn't that behaviour sort of place in doubt your claim to be the only (or one of the few) unbiased, impartial examiners. 

Do you always trust the polygraph 'result' without a shadow of doubt ? 
Have you ever suspected that you may have called a FP ?

If the examinee is hypertensive and unknowingly displays apnoea type breathing, would you automatically suspect CM behaviour ? How would you address that situation ?

Regards,




I think it is appropriate to review the case facts so we can know what we are talking about.  Nothing sillier than an examiner trying to talk intelligently about something they know nothing of.  And, no.  I do not think it unduly prejudices an examiner.  I have tested many people where the facts were against them and they passed, and visa-versa.

I have certainly had tests where I questioned the results.  Any examiner should be able to admit it.  Remember, we're dealing with human beings, therefore, as I have stated previously, things can be "screwy" for a lot of reasons (Please don't ask me to list them, I'm tired).  If I find a mistake in my testing procedure or (or sometimes) the examinee's actions, I almost always offer a re-examination.  I stay focused on trying to obtain the truth, not a specific result.

As for false positives.  I have probably had some (statistics would be so polite to me).  However, I can not recall an examination where I called the examinee deceptive and later, evidence exonerated them. 

As for hypertension, etc, I do not automatically see apnea as CM's.  If it is the normal state of the individual, then it should be taken into consideration.  What is there to "address" if it is normal?

Sackett


Thanks,

That was a fairly balanced reply.

Regards,
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 8:27am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
"With regards to pre-employment screening for police applicants, it is not only used as a tool.  It is used as the "end all, solve all" for every applicant.  If you fail a polygraph you are removed from the application process.  There is no due process; there is nothing even remotely fair about it all.  A person you meet and talk with for an hour or two decides based on a guess if you proceed in the application process." 

From your post Sergeant.  I read what you said and responded accordingly.

I do apologize for attacking your integrity, or knowledge, it sounded like a blanket statement to me, and I see by your post it was confined to your state, not all examiners.   

Thank you for clearing up the matter for me.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 12:11am 		  Mark & Quote
Hunter wrote on Jun 2nd, 2008 at 2:28am:
You might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR)  My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings.  We realize that there are false positives and false negatives.  I am aware of other departments that have the same policy.  We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment.  Again, it is a tool.  When properly used it is a very useful tool.


Perhaps many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing "SR".  I never claimed otherwise.

There are no municipal departments in Connecticut that do such a thing.  It is hardly unreasonable for me to speak of the departments in my state (with which I am familiar) while refraining from making any claims at all about the federal and out-of-state agencies with which I am not familiar.

It is also unreasonable to expect me to refrain from offering my opinion (or for you to denigrate my "level of knowledge") because I am not familiar with the polygraph practices of every police agency in the country, or even with a majority of the police agencies in the country.

You wish to believe that the polygraph is a useful tool in pre-employment screening.  I understand.  If you were to say otherwise the one useful aspect of the polygraph, that of eliciting damaging admissions based on the examinee's belief that the polygraph will detect lies, would be diminished or even eradicated.
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 3:33pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hunter wrote on Jun 2nd, 2008 at 1:24pm:
Further discussion seems senseless,  you are convinced and facts will not change your thought processes.  I will pass on further discussion at this time.  It was educational for me, and entertaining, must return to work and divine some more truth.



And as usual when the difficult questions are aked ......... The examiners take stage left exit!!
BTW I do agree that further discussion seems sensless because TC has done a good job at discounting your claims.
Thanks TC!  Grin
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 1:24pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Further discussion seems senseless,  you are convinced and facts will not change your thought processes.  I will pass on further discussion at this time.  It was educational for me, and entertaining, must return to work and divine some more truth.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 8:21am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
It is humerous that you post U.S. v. Scheffer.


I posted an excerpt from a magazine article which cited a quote made by Justice Thomas which happened to be made in his majority opinion on that case.  The quote was:

Edited:
"there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."


Did Justice Stevens make any comment on polygraph reliability? 

I also posted:

Edited:
That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL.


So if preemployment testing is so accurate, why did congress pass a law making such test illegal in the private sector?

TC
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 7:18am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
It is humerous that you post U.S. v. Scheffer.  This case involved introduction of a polygraph that would have been exculpatory.  You post Justice Thomas's majority opinion, however you omit Justice Stevens opinion totally.  Justice Stevens suggested that it should have been admitted and had very good basis for his argument.  Read it all not part of it.  You may well be arguing that an innocent person should be punished for a crime he did not commit, when polygraph would have cleared him or aided in his defense.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 2:57am 		  Mark & Quote
Quote:
You might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR)  My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings.  We realize that there are false positives and false negatives.  I am aware of other departments that have the same policy.  We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment.
 

That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL.

TC

I'm sure that will make applicants like the guy in this story feel a whole lot better.   

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/11/ma_148_01.html

Experiences like this are quite common. 

As for accuracy of polygraph tests, the article notes:

Studies have long shown that polygraphs are remarkably unreliable, particularly for screening job applicants.  As early as 1965, a congressional committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the polygraph's validity; a 1997 survey in the Journal of Applied Psychology put the test's accuracy rate at only 61 percent. Polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in court because, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his majority opinion in the 1998 case U.S. v. Scheffer, "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."

I guess Justice Thomas needs to better educate himself.  What would he know about justice?

Also:

Indeed, the lie detector is so untrustworthy that Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988, making it illegal for private-sector employers to compel workers to take polygraph exams. Prior to the law's passage, according to Senate testimony, an estimated 400,000 workers suffered adverse consequences each year after they were wrongly flunked on polygraphs.

That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL anyway.

TC
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 2:28am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
You might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR)  My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings.  We realize that there are false positives and false negatives.  I am aware of other departments that have the same policy.  We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment.  Again, it is a tool.  When properly used it is a very useful tool.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 1:30am 		  Mark & Quote
Hunter wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 11:20pm:
86% is from a study of mixed issue testing, the 95-98% are from some studies of single issue examinations.  You may wish to read the research prior to commenting on it, it would strengthen your argument.  There are other studies from Raskin, Honts, Barland, Dutton, and many others that affirm the %'s given.  Polygraph is not a 100% accurate tool, no examiner I am associated with gives a different response.  There are false positives and false negatives, we are not perfect.  I don't advocate use of polygraph as the end all, solve all for any situation, it is an excellent TOOL, and only a tool.  


With regards to pre-employment screening for police applicants, it is not only used as a tool.  It is used as the "end all, solve all" for every applicant.  If you fail a polygraph you are removed from the application process.  There is no due process; there is nothing even remotely fair about it all.  A person you meet and talk with for an hour or two decides based on a guess if you proceed in the application process.

Perhaps in theory any "DI" score should be followed with specific issue testing to resolve the matter, but in practice that simply isn't done in any municipal police agency with which I am familiar.
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Jun 1st, 2008 at 11:20pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
86% is from a study of mixed issue testing, the 95-98% are from some studies of single issue examinations.  You may wish to read the research prior to commenting on it, it would strengthen your argument.  There are other studies from Raskin, Honts, Barland, Dutton, and many others that affirm the %'s given.  Polygraph is not a 100% accurate tool, no examiner I am associated with gives a different response.  There are false positives and false negatives, we are not perfect.  I don't advocate use of polygraph as the end all, solve all for any situation, it is an excellent TOOL, and only a tool.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 31st, 2008 at 7:19pm 		  Mark & Quote
Mr. Notguilty,

I found the following at a government website:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172188

The 80 research projects listed in this paper, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98 percent. Researchers conducted 11 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, [i]providing an average accuracy of 92 percent. Researchers conducted 41 studies that involved the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80 percent. Researchers conducted 16 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations that produced an average accuracy of 81 percent. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the references cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are mentioned. 11 tables and 67 annotated references[/i]

Maybe this is what polygraphers have based their claims.  Note it is all based on the "analysis of charts", but the charts depict physiological reactions which are not directly and unequivocally related to deception.   A fact they repeatedly ignore.

I wonder why the NAS chose to ignore the above.  Or maybe they didn't ignore it, but didn't find it to be valid reseach.   


TC
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: May 31st, 2008 at 7:03pm 		  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 31st, 2008 at 6:39pm:
Quote:
The study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion.  Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams.  The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications.  That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.


Thanks Hunter.  I am totally convinced now.


DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate.  What else are they going to report?  That the polygraph is not accurate?  Are you serious?

So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences?  And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?

Welcome to the "twilight zone"

do do do do  do do do do.....

TC


Hey TC,
Hunter and his cronies will never accept anything that is not as he puts it "peer" research meaning if it doesn't come from them it is not valid.
He metinons mine and yours and many others direct expeiences as "opinions" that I guess have no validity as does the findings of the NSA. 
It's useless to reason with these people they have a vested interest in Polygraph and they will not budge on it. 
Thankfully though with this site and the internet in general they are being held accountable for their so called "test".
As you see the accuracy rate is now, accoriding to Hunter 86% as opposed to the 95-98% we were all told. I wonder what it will be next month? Stay tuned!
Grin

Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: May 31st, 2008 at 7:01pm 		  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 31st, 2008 at 6:39pm:
Quote:
The study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion.  Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams.  The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications.  That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.


Thanks Hunter.  I am totally convinced now.


DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate.  What else are they going to report?  That the polygraph is not accurate?  Are you serious?

So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences?  And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?

Welcome to the "twilight zone"

do do do do  do do do do.....

TC

Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 31st, 2008 at 6:39pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
The study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion.  Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams.  The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications.  That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.


Thanks Hunter.  I am totally convinced now.

DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate.  What else are they going to report?  That the polygraph is not accurate?  Are you serious?

So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences?  And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?

Welcome to the "twilight zone"

do do do do  do do do do.....

TC
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 31st, 2008 at 11:59am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hunter,

Your question was, "where is the scientific research that supports your supposition?" I provided you with the references. I'm afraid I cannot help you further.
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: May 31st, 2008 at 4:09am 		  Mark & Quote
George, 

I took the time to do some reading as you suggested.  The information you provided is a recap of other research, not research itself.  I am looking for a study conducted using polygraph and finding the error rates.  I believe that Dr. Lykken actually did research, the others only reviewed studies conducted by the polygraph community and applied their own personal opinions regarding accuracy.   I am now looking at Lykken's studies myself.  You do not regard any studies conducted by the polygraph community as scientific, however, they are.

Notguilty1, 

The study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion.  Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams.  The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications.  That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: May 30th, 2008 at 9:08pm 		  Mark & Quote
Hunter wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 12:48pm:
Again, where is the scientific research that supports your supposition.  We are going every where but there.  I submitted only one piece of research, there are many.  Please post your research so I may be enlightened.  




Hunter,

I say there is a flying tea cup in outer space that controls what we do here on earth. It cannot be seen or detected by human means but.......it's there believe me. Now ............ go and prove that it's not!
ABSURD? I think so but thats what your doing with Polygraph. Just because the general public has been fooled over the years that polygraph does work at detecting deception and it is 95-98% accurate with out ANY scientific proof. ( and don't tell me about the variable gremlins ) does not mean that we have the burden of proving the test wrong just like the tea cup in space.
I know this will be over most examiners heads since they all have a stake in the continued belief by the general public that the test works as claimed.
Many have had personal proof to the contrary including myself.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 30th, 2008 at 1:02pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hunter wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 12:48pm:
Again, where is the scientific research that supports your supposition.  We are going every where but there.  I submitted only one piece of research, there are many.  Please post your research so I may be enlightened. 


For support of my position, see the sources cited in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which deals with the scientific status of polygraphy.

See also Bill Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml

And for a more thorough treatment of the subject, see the 2nd edition of David Lykken's seminal treatise on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph.
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: May 30th, 2008 at 12:48pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Again, where is the scientific research that supports your supposition.  We are going every where but there.  I submitted only one piece of research, there are many.  Please post your research so I may be enlightened.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 30th, 2008 at 10:34am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hunter wrote on May 29th, 2008 at 11:28pm:
George, 
You have  posted numerous times that polygraph is as accurate as a coin toss, now your backing up a bit.   


The only context I can recall wherein I've likened polygraph outcomes to a coin toss is with regard to the FBI's pre-employment screening program, which reportedly has roughly a 50% failure rate. Again, for the reasons I explained earlier in this thread, I don't think the coin toss analogy is generally applicable. Still, the bottom line is, as Dr. Richardson vividly put it, that polygraph examiners conducting lie tests are involved in the detection of deception to the same extent that one who leaps from a tall building is involved in flying.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: May 30th, 2008 at 10:16am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
I told the truth and didn't withhold any information on all four of my polygraph tests.  I failed the first three, for three different reasons.

In my opinion that is compelling research.  I know I was telling the truth, and I still failed three times.  The polygraph is incapable of accurately detecting deception (or lack thereof.)
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 30th, 2008 at 12:41am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
I said the polygraph is GENERALLY NOT ADMISSIBLE in court.  This is an accurate statement.  My belief has nothing to do with it, contrary or otherwise.

The results of DNA tesing generally IS ADMISSIBLE in court because has been proven to be scientifically reliable.;

TC
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: May 29th, 2008 at 11:28pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
You requested posting of a scientific study that showed validity of polygraph, the conversation went off track when I asked you to post research showing polygraph was not valid.  I have not seen your research, you have seen mine.  Now the conversation goes off track to court admissibility.   

Cullen, polygraph is admissible in many jurisdictions, contrary to your belief.  Many examiners have testified in proceedings, myself included.  New Mexico admits polygraph that meets certain standards.

Now, please post your research showing polygraph is not a valid tool for discerning truth from deception.  (I don't delude myself by thinking it is 100% accurate)  I would like to see the research.   

George, 
You have  posted numerous times that polygraph is as accurate as a coin toss, now your backing up a bit.   
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 29th, 2008 at 6:49pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
If polygraph testing is so darn accurate and scientifically proven to work, then why is it not generally admissible in court?

OTOH, DNA testing IS scientifically proven and admissible.

TC
 
  Top  

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge