Have you filled out your paperwork truthfully and completely?

Other than what you've told me have you ever used illegal drugs?

So, which relevant questions did you actually lie to when you used your countermeasures, billson? Studies show that countermeasures do nothing to help the innocent pass an exam, so I assume that you were guilty to the relevant issues.  Otherwise, you're about as believable as the guy who says his lucky rabbit's foot helps him avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

I think I've been lurking here long enough...

First I have taken no less than three polygraphs for Federal Agencies.  I passed all of them using the techniques I learned here.  They used the "Butt Pad" on all of them FYI.  So mental/breathing CMs only.

My problem is I did LSD twice when I was a teen.  It's something I have to hide because it is an automatic DQ in ANY LEO position.  The Federal Government is all about avoiding blame.  So even if there is a miniscule chance of a flashback one year after LSD use they still don't want to take the chance of hiring someone like me for the sole reason of covering their collective rears.

I have seen guys hired for LEO positions that had a DUI two years before applying which I find appauling.  These people are usually in their mid twenties and should know better.

If I could be given a chance to acknowledge my mistakes with out being shut out of a career I would.   

I think polygraph examiners come on this board for the sole reason of trying to instill doubt in their future "Subjects".  Only problem with that is the test they give you is straight out of the appendix of TBTLD.

Funny how you would say that my posting on this forum subtracts from my credibility, when you have absolutely no credibility yourself, Sergeant.

I'm big enough to apologize if my strong, experienced opinion comes across as "flaming."  However, when you say that "Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack," you give yourself more credit than is due.  I don't "perceive" you to lack experience or qualifications at all; it is without question that you have none of either, and I sometimes become impatient with ignorant (and that's not a "flame" or an ad hominem attack, but simply the truth) people who make statements as if they are fact, when those people have absolutely no training or experience  to make such statements.

My reasons for coming to this forum are:

1. For entertainment. It is quite entertaining, at least for a little while, to ruffle the parrots' feathers on this forum. Sometimes the spiteful side of me enjoys baiting and hooking little fish who want to be big fish.

2. I sincerely wish to educate ignorant, naive, gullible--but sincerely concerned--future polygraph examinees so that maybe they won't screw themselves when they come to take a polygraph.  You see, I don't enjoy warning people before they take a polygraph that they should simply follow my instructions and they'll do fine, and then watching them fall into the trap they set for themselves.

3. I enjoy exchanges with intelligent, experienced people who also come here for entertainment and to enlighten others.

But you are right about something: I will grow weary of my time on this forum after a little while longer, and then I'll leave for a few days, weeks, or even months.  Then you won't have to deal with trying to put out my fires each day, and you, George et. al can go back to patting each other on the back and giving future polygraph examinees poor, ignorant advice.

Perhaps I can save a few people, but I'm not going to make it my mission to save them all.  Unlike George, I've got better things to do with my life than sit all day on a forum in an obscure website such as this.  If you don't think it's obscure, and that it's readership is going down, check out the following link: 

http://www.quantcast.com/antipolygraph.org

Half of the posts are by regulars like you and, yes, like me.  Kind of puts things into perspective, which I think you lack.

 

Perhaps the following definitions of "ad hominem" may be useful:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. 

Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack.  Civilized debate should consist of addressing the arguments or points proposed by whomever you are debating, not denigrating the debater himself.

I really don't understand why you would even come to this message board if you have no wish to be burdened by the opinions of people who are not professional polygraph operators.  There are closed boards for polygraph operators where you need never engage in what you obviously consider the mundanity of uninformed posters.  

I guess you are simply posting flame bait rather than engaging in a debate or answering questions.  Feel free to continue, if you must, but I do hope you grow weary of it before too long.  It does nothing to further any intelligent debate, but it does subtract from your credibility with each new flaming post.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 10^th, 2009 at 1:58pm:


JPW already explained what an actual ad hominem attack is, so if you don't understand it, why do you keep using the term?  It is not an ad hominem attack to disparage the credentials or qualifications of people have who none.  A spade is a spade.  An ignoramus is an ignoramus.  When you make statements about something with which you have no experience, as if your opinion is factual, then you are indeed an ignoramus, and you should be disparaged.

T.M. Cullen wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 7:29pm:

I have noticed that, too.

People arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.

If people who believe the polygraph is not accurate are wrong it should be relatively easy to prove that, logically and scientifically, if the polygraph is in fact a scientific instrument that accurately detects deception.

Any neutral reader to this board will immediately notice the plethora of personal attacks made by polygraph supporters at a large number of people who simply post their opinion that the polygraph is not an accurate method of detecting deception.  Such attacks do nothing for their cause except lower their credibility.

Quote:


He pontificates most arrogantly here, and goes on and on about his vast experience, yet he resorts to such dishonesty.  People arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.

Shameful!

TC

LieBabyCryBaby,

You write, among other things:

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 1:34am:


The NAS report does not assert that use of the countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by innocent persons results in an increased risk of their failing the polygraph. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.

Let's look at the first part of your citation. The following text appears at p. 147 of the NAS report:

Quote:


Now let's look at the second part of your citation from the NAS report, which you present as if it immediately followed the preceding text:

Quote:


However, the above portion actually appears on page 140, seven pages before the earlier cited text. And you omitted an in-text citation to the studies referenced by the foregoing passage (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001), neither of which addressed the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

It is fair to say that the NAS report questions the ease with which countermeasures can be learned. What we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is that in peer-reviewed laboratory studies by Charles Honts and collaborators, some 50% of programmed guilty examinees were able to fool the lie detector after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction, and even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect their countermeasures. It can be (and has been) argued that under field conditions, where the consequences of being judged deceptive are more serious, genuinely guilty persons would have a harder time producing strong enough reactions to the control questions to overcome any reactions to the relevant questions. On the other hand, those facing a polygraph under field conditions typically have much more than 30 minutes to prepare themselves and considerably greater motivation to do so than participants in a laboratory experiment. The ease with which countermeasures may be learned and successfully applied may also depend on the intelligence and educational background of the individual. As the NAS report correctly notes, research in this regard is wanting.

It's worth mentioning here the closest thing we have to a field study of countermeasures, which David Lykken relates in Chapter 19 (How to Beat the Lie Detector) of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998):

Quote:

Quote:


Beware of atheists who quote the bible, and beware of polygraphers who quote the NAS Report.

The NAS report also stated:

"[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

So maybe the best way to stop people from using CMs (and improve national security at the same time) would be to take the NAS advice to heart and stop using polygraphs to screen applicants and current employees.  Maybe they would have caught Aldrich Ames sooner.

Then again, using your absurd logic, the NAS had no business rendering such an opinion as they have absolutely NO EXPERIENCE conducting polygraph interrogations.

If countermeasures don't work, what are you worried about?  You seem intensely fixated on the advice given in TLBTLD, especially the part about CMs, and this website in general.  If the polygraph is so accurate, then a bunch of "bogus" information and advice provided here should not be a problem for you.  

If CMs are so easily detected, they shouldn't be that much of a problem for you, should they?  It should just make it that much easier for you to catch applicants silly enough to follow the advice on this board.  

OTOH, if CMs do work, and knowing ahead of time that the polygraph is all about INTERROGATION and applicantrs are duly forewarned to watch what they say (like a criminal suspect advised by his lawyer),  and informed that the polygraph has NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY according to the nations top scientists, that WOULD be a problem for you, and might explain your fixation with this site.  Just a thought.

BTW, what evidence do you have that you can even detect countermeasures?  

TC

Cullen, you've just revealed the fourth favorite defense that you and the "anti-" group on this website use when you're losing an argument: you throw out a meaningless post in an effort to quickly put some distance between an opponent's successful argument so that astute, perceptive readers might not go back and look at it and see what a fool you are.  In this case, JPW blew you fools out of the water, so you hope to throw up a smoke screen so that readers might not notice.

(Hint for readers: go back and read JPW's last couple of posts, and you'll find Cullen's latest idiotic attempts very amusing.)

Now, I've already stated many times that it would be foolish to take the advice posted on this website to try to "beat" the polygraph.  And I also stated that perhaps anyone who takes such advice deserves what they get when they sit in the polygraph chair and screw themselves.  However, I never EVER said that I don't care if given applicants are hired or not.  While any good polygrapher should go into the exam room with an impartial mind, not caring whether the examinee passes the exam or not, as I stated before, I always want the examinee to pass because it makes everyone happy, a good person cleared another hurdle toward getting a job he or she wants, and it makes my job easier and my day brighter.  But if an examinee chooses to ignore my instructions and attempts to implement faulty advice he or she read on a website such as this, full of ignorant, inexperienced, self-portrayed experts, THEN I definitely would NOT want such a naive, dishonest person working for my employer, and I would indeed be satisfied to thwart such a person's goal.

Of course, YOU will probably come back putting more words in my mouth because you have absolutely no knowledge, training or experience that would qualify you to make any claim whatsover about the polygraph process.

Readers might well conclude, based on the amount of time and effort you spend here, that you are in fact worried about the efficacy of the countermeasure techniques GM teaches, as well as the facts he has exposed about the true nature of the art of polygraphic interrogations.

A contrarian might well ask:  "If CMs are so ineffective, and the info about the polygraph on this website were so bogus, why is LBCB so neurotically fixated on this board.  I think GM has struck a real nerve.  Especially since banning/exposing your pal Ed Van Arsdale in Ponca City OK. (aka. Sancho Panza, Ed Earl, Phillip Queeg, Anonymous too).

You'll probably come back claiming it's because you are "concerned" about applicant's unwittingly ruining their chances for employment by following such "nonesense" advice provided here.  But you have already admitted you really don't care if given applicants are hired or not.  Which is one of the true things you've said.  Besides, you would probably dance in glee, and make it into the polygraph "Hall of Fame" if you caught an applicant "red handed" attempting the CMs listed in GM's book (which we know you can't really do anyway).  So, if you REALLY thought using GM's CMs were highly ineffective, you would probably WANT applicants to use them, so you could "catch on of GM's arrogant little punks"!  And what a great little feather that would be in your professional "cap".

TC

P.S.  But, please, don't you or JPW go away.  Keep posting.  Readers need to see just how arrogant old time polygraphers are, BEFORE being tested.  They need to get a glimse of the type of huge EGOs they will be up against.  Let's see, you know more about science than the NAS.  You know more about the human mind than Professor Zimbardo at Stanford.  I could go on and on.  A picture is worth a thousand words, so keep posting.  

JPW,

Yes, I feel the same as you when it comes to spending more than a few days posting on this forum.  As I said in a previous post, I enjoy coming here from time to time and ruffling these parrots' feathers, but then I become bored and move on to some other entertainment.  Perhaps we polygraphers shouldn't abandon naive readers to these self-portrayed experts; however, perhaps anyone who can't distinguish between actual experience and wishful thinking deserves what they get when they sit in that polygraph chair and screw themselves.  If I asked 1000 polygraph examiners whether they've seen an increase in failed polygraphs due to attempted countermeasures, I think at least 800 of them would answer in the affirmative.

I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.  And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.  Could it be any clearer than this?

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of “beating” the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. 

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will “pass” the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

What part of that don't you understand, George? I know that one of the main pillars of this website is that anyone can easily learn to beat the polygraph simply by reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and putting its lessons into practice.  In fact, one of the first links people find when they look up the word polygraph on the internet proclaims "Learn how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test." Another advises people to "download our little book" (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) and learn how to beat a polygraph test.  However, the truth, as those of us with actual experience know (and as the NAS, even without actual experience with the polygraph process, has figured out), is that the real lie is your claim, George.  Sure, there's some truth in your little book, and there's some good information, but there is also a lot of faulty information, poor advice, and outright lies.  My mom used to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "The Devil is a liar, but he doesn't get anyone to follow him through lies alone.  He sprinkles his lies with a little truth, so if someone's not careful, they'll swallow it whole." The Lie Behind the Lie Detector appears like a well-written instruction manual, and it contains just enough good information that the unsuspecting, the frightened, and the foolish will indeed swallow it whole.  And I've personally seen these people come to a polygraph exam and choke on what they swallowed.  Often it's glaringly obvious, which of course falls in line with what the NAS has said.

You're peddling lies, George.  Years ago, you didn't get hired by the FBI because you failed every relevant question on a polygraph exam, and now you're responsible, whether you can accept it or not, of causing others to do the same.

JPW, what has never ceased to amaze me since I first visited this website is how someone like George, not to mention these ignorant fools who keep him regular company on this forum and treat him like an expert, could waste so much time and effort in a worthless cause, especially when we polygraphers regularly see the damage caused when examinees take his advice.  Seriously, what a pathetic loser! George is the perfect example of someone investing so much of his time in a worthless endeavor, that he is no longer capable of seeing how worthless it is, and he just can't give it up because he's invested so much of himself and his time that quitting would be admitting that so much of his life was wasted.

LBCB thank you, for your comments. Please don't stop posting. Your posts were what inspired me to comment in the first place. Besides, I may be close to done here for a while because I find repeating myself to those who seem unable or unwilling to grasp simple mathematics or rudimentary logic an exercise in futility. 

Some of the posters here seem overly willing to proclaim success based solely on repetition of fallacious arguments gleaned by deck stacking and Ad Populum assertions. I have yet to see them come up with anything significantly different, in the last week or so, than the same stuff, they were spouting 5 or 6 years ago. So keep your pencil sharp, I may decide to leave at anytime. Of course, I would be willing to bet they trample each other in an effort to claim credit for my absence. 

I am weary, and I suspect you are as well, of the nearly psychotic behavior (secondary rather than primary) of one poster in particular who appears incapable of refraining from feeble attempts at juvenile one-upmanship in an obvious effort to compensate for his/her lack of knowledge regarding the topic of discussion.  I suspect that everyone who is familiar with this website, Pro or Anti Polygraph, may guess who I am talking about. Everyone but him of course

G.M., welcome back to our discussion. Your claim regarding the value DoD reports to Congress in estimating false positive rates associated with other polygraph programs might carry more weight if you were able to produce substantial evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you are qualified to conduct a qualitative comparison of polygraph programs utilized by different agencies. 

You also appear to be accusing the Department of Defense of lying to Congress, by reporting an artificial failure rate. If you have substantive proof that is the case, please present it. If it is simply conjecture, resulting from your inability to explain the reason behind their high accuracy rate you should identify it as opinion. 

If I get the opportunity to speak to Donald Rumsfeld in the next few weeks, I will ask him if he recalls reading your letter and let you know if your comments made any significant impact on his opinion of polygraph.  Do not expect too much though, he is an attorney and you know how they are about examining one’s credentials before acknowledging their opinion has value. 

Your statement “This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts.”  is misleading. While it is entirely probable that decisions concerning whether or not someone is placed under a full blown investigation or subsequently adjudicated are likely made based on a combination of several factors which, by the nature and subject matter of the report, include polygraph, you have presented no proof that the results of the polygraph examination itself are based on anything other than the data collected on the charts. 


If you have some substantive proof that the nature of the transgressions addressed by polygraph examinations have some effect on the results  based on some type of measurable or perceived intensity, I would be somewhat more interested in your, so far,  unsupported assertion that addressing more common transgressions than espionage have some quantifiable correlation to failure rate.

I would ask that you identify your comments regarding the scientific underpinnings of polygraph as personal opinion or conjecture unless you provide some evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you have sufficient scientific underpinnings to do otherwise. Simply voicing someone else’s’ opinion does not imbue you with their qualifications and tends to sound like you are trying to assume their expertise and represent it as your own. If only we were able to ask Dr, Lykken his opinion of your expertise regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology. Whether one agrees with him or not he often exhibited a singular ability to separate wheat from chaff,  oh well, one shouldn’t spend too much time mourning missed opportunities.

But, getting back to the topic of this thread.

The NAS report says what it says. Since the exact language they used is indisputable, I choose to characterize their comments to mean that your claims regarding the effectiveness and ease of learning and applying countermeasure were not credible because they were unsupported by scientific research. I believe that this a reasonable characterization.

In other words, I interpret the NAS to mean that the countermeasures you teach in your book and on your website lack sufficient “Scientific Underpinnings” to be considered credible when weighed against NAS perception of the several aspects of manipulation that must be accomplished simultaneously in order to successfully apply countermeasures.

Their comments regarding countermeasures increasing the likelihood of someone failing their polygraph appears based on all of the scientific research made available for their consideration. If you have anything other than your opinion, perhaps some scientific evidence, that refutes their findings, I would certainly be interested.  

You are of course perfectly entitled to interpret their comments however you wish, but for you to continue to imply expertise regarding polygraph absent a clear statement of your qualifications is intellectually questionable. 

Sargent 1107,

You leave me speechless with your fine post!  Oh the joy, oh the inspiration you afforded me with those fine words.  Expert or not, I gleefully basked in the glow of your humble eloquence.  I anxiously await the day in which I can truly fathom the depths of your wisdom.  That day might never come, but I shall endeavor to ascend to such a lofty and worthwhile goal!

Jolly good show old man!  I hope there will be more where that came from I can tell you!

TC

Quote:


And why it is EXTREMELY important those taking the CSP Polygraph at CIA/NSA/DIA or military facilities like the Kunia RSOC weigh carefully what they say.  Things they might consider unimportant or insignificant can and WILL be twisted and blown out of proportion by polygraph operators to justify/rationalize the squigley marks on their precious charts.  They know FULL WELL that a CHART ALONE is worthless.  If they get persistent "reactions", they must protect the precious "sanctity" of their chart by interrogating the naive examinee until they get something they can present to the adjudicating board  Their mistaken theory that reactions equal "deception" is at stake.  

For the examinee, the advice is simple.  Answer the test questions truthfully, and stick to your answers.  If you know you answered truthfully, ignore the bogus claims that the polygraph interrogator makes about the machine.  Reactions on the machine don't mean you are being deceptive if you are telling the truth.  Duh?

Also ignore the examiner when they say you "must have something on your mind.  What is it?  Blah, blah, blah..."   It is just an attempt to get you talking.  DO NOT FALL FOR IT!

Quote:


Like "puckering yer anus, REAL HARD", as suggested by DOD polygraph operators who posted here years ago under bogus pretenses.       

Of course using CMs at an inappropriate time, and incorrectly will hurt one's chances of passing.  That polygraphers use that to concluded that "CMs don't work and will hurt your chances..."  is lame.

TC

JPW,

The DoD reports to Congress are of little value for estimating the false positive rates associated with any other agency's polygraph program. The DoD understands that spies are rare, and thus it keeps the failure rate of its counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening program artificially low. As I pointed out in a letter to then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, virtually the only persons who "fail" the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph are those who make "substantive admissions." This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts. Incidentally, it's worth noting that the DIA's senior Cuba analyst, Ana Belen Montes, who was already a Cuban agent at the time she sought DoD employment, didn't make substantive admissions and passed her polygraph screening examinations.

Polygraph failure rates for law enforcement agencies, where the relevant questions concern much more common transgressions than espionage, are typically much higher than at DoD. Failure rates on the order of 50% are not uncommon. Given polygraphy's complete lack of scientific underpinnings, its clear that many of those failing law enforcement pre-employment polygraphs are being falsely accused of deception.

The NAS did not suggest that the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may reduce one's chances of passing a polygraph. The passage in question concerns a study on the use of so-called "spontaneous" countermeasures (things that persons unfamiliar with polygraph procedure sometimes do on their own in the [usually mistaken] belief that it might help them to pass).

Given polygraphy's shortcomings, I can only agree with the late David T. Lykken, who writes at p. 277 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards..."

For prior discussion of these issues, see the discussion thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent started by Gordon Barland.

JPW, I sincerely regret even inserting something here after you just authored another excellent post. The sayings "a tough act to follow" and "pale by comparison" come to mind. I can't say anything better than what you just did, and even though I support everything you said, your intellect when compared to most posters on this forum is, frankly, a bit intimidating. Intelligent people are a bit intimidated when confronted by someone of probably even higher intellect. In short, I appreciate your comments, and I'll step aside for now, sit back in my chair, and enjoy the show. Very, very impressive.

Sergeant, whether distinctly stated or not, you participate in a joint assertion or implication of shared expertise based upon your similar experiences and your combined/shared responses to persons who come to this board seeking advice or debate.

I can certainly understand, based on your personal experience, why you might be inclined to question a statement that the polygraph is highly accurate or that honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem. Your bias appears based upon your personal experience, bolstered by similar claims that appear on this board rather than training or expertise. I assert that this has resulted in a fallacious Ad Populum argument. 

In support of this assertion, I offer the following.

There are real statistics regarding polygraph that do not involve the NAS report, or Scientific Studies by researchers that can easily be branded as Pro-Polygraph or Anti-Polygraph by those who disagree with their findings. For example, here is one that tends to indicate this Ad Populum argument will not hold water.

There is a link on this web site that accesses another web site belonging to the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, which includes Department of Defense Annual reports to Congress regarding polygraph from 1997 to 2002. Even though the content of this website appears, in my opinion, to be somewhat slanted against polygraph, I have no reason to believe that the copies they provide are inaccurate or differ in any material way from the reports actually submitted to Congress. 

My review and compilation of these reports tend to support previous claims, including the assertions that “honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem”, “false positive outcomes are an uncommon occurrence” and polygraph, as used in this program, proved to be a highly accurate method to screen individuals and help divide them into groups of those who have committed violations and those who have not.

Regarding these reports, I would direct your attention to statistics addressing the Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph, (CSP) which is a screening type exam for security issues and violations, because they provide a reasonably detailed breakdown on exam results and share taxonomical similarities with screening type polygraph examinations applied in different situations such as pre-employment and post conviction sex offender testing. 

Over a six-year period, DoD conducted CSP exams on 48,552 persons. They reported that 47,289 displayed NO significant reactions indicative of deception. In other words, roughly 97% passed their exam without any problems. Approximately, 3% (1353) were reported as having significant reactions to relevant questions, which could be interpreted as deception by the examiner. 

The group that displayed significant reactions would arguably contain both True Positives and False Positives. Out of 1353 examinees who exhibited significant reactions, 1158 made admissions to relevant issues. I think that it would be fair to include this sub-set in the “True-Positive” Column because they displayed significant reactions on their exam AND subsequently admitted violations. Simple subtraction reduces the POTENTIAL False Positive group to 195 or four-tenths of one percent (0.4%). This potential False Positive group will likely contain both unresolved True Positive and unresolved False Positive examinees. Probably, most if not all of those have been resolved one way or another by now.

False negatives are not considered in this commentary because there were none reported and False Negative outcomes have no bearing on whether or not honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem. 

Unless you have some credible evidence that the Department of Defense lied to Congress, some statistic that establishes that a significant portion of the 97% of people who took this test and passed were actually dishonest or that the CSP has significantly different accuracy than other screening exams. I think that the statement attributed to LBCB that polygraph is highly accurate and that honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem is supported by the evidence presented.

In Summary; most (over 97%) of the people, taking the test passed it. This goes to the assertion that “Honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem.
Most (over 92%) of the people who failed the test subsequently admitted violations. This goes to accuracy of the process in doing what it claims to be able to do which is identifying persons who committed violations regarding relevant issues. 

This review of the reported statistics relating to almost 50,000 actual screening exams conducted by a changing cadre of approximately 200 trained and qualified polygraph examiners over a period of six years, certainly contrasts with an Ad Populum argument based on a comparatively small collection of limited personal experiences stemming from mostly failed exams. If you have read many polygraph studies, you should observe that based on review of the above statistics most polygraph research claims of accuracy are somewhat conservative in comparison to this “real world” application of screening exams. 

If you are interested, each report provides anecdotal information regarding the scope and nature of the violations discovered as a direct result of polygraph screening. 

Allow me to return this discussion to the subject of this thread.

I think that since the likelihood of a false positive is so small, (less than 1% based on the above information) and an opinion reached by the NAS that persons who attempt countermeasures may actually reduce their chances of passing a polygraph exam, as well as their observation that there is no credible research that someone can pass a polygraph examination using the instructional content of  this web site or associated book make countermeasure attempts a foolhardy activity. You may add to this what I regard as a lack of credible proof that the authors possess sufficient expertise, qualifications, knowledge or experience regarding the material they are attempting to teach.

While you are certainly entitled to possess your opinion, which certainly cannot be granted by nor restricted by me or anyone else, I am entitled to point out that your experience, based on your own statements, is limited to only four polygraph examinations which is a comparatively small number related to the thousands of exams conducted each year or the number of exams reviewed above. 

I would argue that while your statement is indictaive of knowledge regarding 4 exams, there is nothing in your personal experience even when combined with the alleged experiences of the several other posters on this board that would remotley qualify as a sustainable indictment of polygraph in general and that the joint assertion or implication of shared expertise based upon similar experiences and combined/shared responses to persons who come to this board seeking advice or debate is innapropriate Ad Populum argument. 

I believe for any naive individual who might come to this board and infer otherwise would be doing so at their peril.

Of course, I do not expect you or any other persona asserting a postion against Polygraph to agree.

I hardly think that posting my own personal experiences can be accurately deemed proclaiming myself an expert.

Feel free to reread my posts.  I have always written that my experience with the polygraph is limited to four pre-employment exams, of which I failed three despite telling the truth on all of them.

My posts are generally nothing more than questions, sometimes referring to my own experience.  As someone who answered all questions honestly and without holding anything back, and was subsequently told by three different examiners that it was clear I was lying, I think any reasonable person would find it easy to understand how I might be inclinded to question anyone who claims the polygraph is highly accurate or that honest people are extemely likely to pass without a problem.

The habit of some polygraph operators to impugn the posts of essentially anyone who is not a polygraph operator rather than address the content of those posts is, by definition, an ad hominem attack.  There are virtually no members on this board who author posts that begin with "I am an expert in the field of polygraph examinations, so my word is final."  The overwhelming majority of people on this board have taken one or more polygraphs and encountered some problems, and they have questions and opinions of their own.

People posting opinions on the Internet is hardly unique, and I know of no requirement that posters either remain silent about fields in which they lack some sort of professional certification, or that anyone without professional certification specify that at the beginning of every post they author.

How much credibility is given to anti-polygraph posters who respond to a polygraph operator's post with something akin to, "You polygraph operators are all evil people, so no one should listen to your opinion."?  Not too much, I should think, and justifiably so.  Such a response is nothing more than an attack upon the original poster's credentials and/or motives, and as such is no more logical or compelling than sneering, "Oh, yeah?"

Similarly, polygraph supporters who often respond to civil and polite posts that contain questions or comments with attacks on the poster's lack of expertise in the field of polygraph examinations are doing nothing more than attacking that poster's credentials and/or motives.  Such responses do nothing to address the topic at hand and do nothing to enhance the responder's credbility.

I have never claimed to be an expert and have never claimed any more extensive experience with the polygraph than four pre-employment exams, of which I failed three.  Despite that perceived shortcoming (in some people's eyes), I am free to and plan to continue posting my opinions on this board.  I always try to avoid personal attacks and hostility in general, but I am well aware I have no control over how other members choose to post.

Quote:


The above IS a ""circular argument.  Fortunately, it's NOT our argument.  Out argument is more like this:

"The polygraph doesn't work.
 How do you know?  
Because, I told the truth and failed anyway. 

 How did that happen? 
 Because a consistent reaction on the chart was falsely assumed to indicate deception. 

How do you know that?  
Because, the operator used the term "deception indicated" and told me the machine said I was lying or holding back information. This, despite the fact that there are many other possible/probable underlying causes (unrelated to veracity of my answer) for a such reactions.  

How do you know this?
Because, although the operator CAN measure physiological states of nervous arousal, he/she can NOT "read" the thoughts (conscious or unconscious) or sets of thoughts, that caused the persistent arousal so measured. 

How do you know this?  

This is the nature of the human brain/mind/autonomic nervous system, based on our current body of knowledge.

TC

I am extremely impressed, JPW.  That's one of the best explanations--about anything--that I remember reading.

Sergeant.  You said in a previous post “It seems that of the two people involved in the polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for sure if the results are accurate or inaccurate. “ While I disagree that at the conclusion of the test only the examinee knows if the results are accurate, one point is perfectly clear; of the two people involved in the polygraph, only the examinee has anything to gain by successfully altering the outcome of the test. Despite a lack of supporting evidence and not withstanding evidence to the contrary, according to the authors, countermeasures may be used to successfully lie on a polygraph test. If someone is successful, he or she might win, but EVERYONE else loses. 

Arguably, a dishonest person might have something to gain by successfully lying or using countermeasures on a polygraph test.  I do not believe honest people or society has anything to gain from someone successfully lying on the exam or the application of countermeasures. My personal opinion is that arguments to the contrary are selfish, egotistical, and morally dishonest.


Your signature line appears to tie you to a persistent “ad hominum argument” complaint. You seem to use it often. It equates ad hominum argument to intellectual bankruptcy. I suspect that you have discovered its usefulness as a red herring to toss into the fray when you are losing an argument. If someone gets agitated or frustrated by someone else’s improper argument or continued display of stubborn ignorance and mentions something remotely objectionable you trot it out like actually means something. Your accusation often appears misapplied, for even an informal forum such as this. I think you do this in order to deflect an opposing argument and goad the respondent into defending your accusation at the expense of the initial argument. Casting “Red Herrings” is improper argument. Especially when used “Tu Quoque” as they often are by some of the posters here.

However in this case LBCB is not engaging in ad hominum attack per se’. He/She has not attacked anyone’s character, just his or her qualifications. While everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion, in debate “Personal Opinion” should be clearly labeled as such. If one wishes to appear to be an authority on any subject, as many on here clearly have, then they should be able to establish, or at least claim, some reasonable qualification for that authority. Conversely, polygraph examiners, like LBCB, who reveal their qualifications, as a group, are constantly subjected to ad hominum accusations of dishonesty by posters on this board. Something you consciously and obviously choose to ignore. You also choose to ignore that some of the posters here appear to be trying to incite Ad Hominum comments from those who disagree. 

For anyone to argue that simply because several of the posters here claim similar experiences some premise has been established or refuted is simply an Ad Populum argument, which is no less fallacious than a true ad hominum attack and no less intellectually bankrupt. 

The common reasoning against polygraph that most often appears on this website divides into two predominant arguments. The first argument is inherently circular and is easily characterized as” Polygraph doesn’t work/ How do you know? Because, I told the truth and failed anyway. / How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn’t work/ How do you know? Because I told the truth and failed anyway/How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn’t work” etc. ad nauseum. I do not think this argument is capable of resolving any of the issues presently under discussion because of its circular nature. Asserting or implying expertise based primarily on failing a test is probably insufficient to sway anyone with real qualifications. This brings me to the second predominant argument. 

The second predominant argument is based on claimed expertise. A recent poster recently argued the expertise of the sites founder. To argue that the authors of a website are experts simply because they wrote a book that, while arguably published, has never been subjected to peer review is an argument from improper authority or “Ad Vercundium” argument. It makes no more sense than quoting Stephen W. Hawking on mountain climbing.

In this particular book, written curriculum vitae which might establish the level of expertise regarding qualifications, knowledge and experience or either or both of the authors regarding its subject matter is suspiciously absent. If you look at other instructional guides, I am sure you will find that a formal presentation of the author’s qualifications, knowledge and experience to teach the subject matter are never omitted. When curriculum vitae are omitted, questions regarding the author’s expertise are justifiable. When those questions are ignored, or fail to support a reasonable standard of qualification, knowledge and experience the more suspicious they become. 

Suspicion or challenge of ones qualifications is not ad hominum argument by any accepted definition other than your own. In fact, position and point of view are very relevant to any discussion in order to identify bias that may cloud ones perception. Both the content of this book and this website appear to lack any convincing endorsement indicating that anyone has successfully applied its teachings about countermeasures to insure passing a test or any supporting documentation establishing sufficient expertise or qualifications to teach the subjectmatter being taught. If one buys a cookbook, it isn't the slightest bit unreasonable to expect the author actually knows how to cook and has in fact cooked on numerous occasions

Some Antipolygraph posters also engage in a lot of “deck stacking” by selectively choosing to ignore or dismiss any studies or relevant information contained therein that does not support their position. For example, in this thread, Cullen responded to a posting by LBCB by citing William Iacono’s criticism of Matte’s field study, but he failed to acknowledge that the study facing Iacono’s criticism just happened to be one of the field studies that N.A.S. determined met their basic criteria for inclusion in their quantitative analysis. He also presents this citation in an apparent attempt to refute a claim of 100% accuracy, which LBCB never offered. Did he do this because he does not understand the material under discussion or because he was attempting to falsely, attribute a claim of 100% accuracy to LBCB? Maybe one, maybe the other, but I suspect it is a combination of both.

If you wish to complain about someone violating the “rules of argument”, perhaps you should consider cleaning your own house first.

Although I have allowed this thread to once again get off-topic, which again I must point out is one of the "anti-" crowd's favorite defensive tactics when it is losing an argument, I will indulge you one more time, Cullen.

As I stated before, polygraph is not a perfect process. A "false positive" is a slight possibility. Also, proponents of the polygraph, i.e. polygraphers and administrators of most state and federal law enforcement agencies, use laboratory studies that support not only our opinion, but our experience in what we see played out on a daily basis with real, live people, not disinterested lab subjects. As I also stated before, I respect the NAS's opinion, and I quoted it twice on this forum when it stated that countermeasures are more likely to backfire on examinees and that there is no evidence or research to even suggest otherwise. But even such a respectable body as the NAS is limited in its ability to apply a few lab studies to the field, and it has stated this, which you will find if you read the full report. In my experienced opinion, which carries much more weight than your ignorant parroting of this website's rhetoric, the polygraph process, although perhaps not as accurate as the most favorable studies, which list it as 97-98% accurate, is still much better than chance, even in the area of screening exams, which I believe this forum most opposes. Thus, you don't see me on this forum ever claiming that the polygraph is accurate in the high 90-percentile, but experience shows me that the studies putting the polygraph between 85-90% appear to be right on target.  Now, you belittle experience as if it has no meaning because experience doesn't fall in line with your biased view. You've failed three out of four polygraphs, as you previously stated.  Although I am not here to judge you since I didn't conduct your exams and I haven't seen the data, I would be more inclined to believe that YOU, not the polygraph process, are more apt to be at fault.  And you still haven't revealed whether you attempted countermeasures in at least one of your failures, perhaps because that would support the possibility that you screwed yourself.

Cullen, you, like Sergeant1107, make yourself out to be an expert in the polygraph when you claim that my experienced opinion is "jibberish" when you have none of your own.  I believe that would, in a reasonable person's opinion, make your claims that polygraph is a "pseudoscience" about as intelligent-sounding as a screeching baboon.

There, I've compared you to both a parrot and a baboon. Now, I believe it's time to hear some more about "ad hominem" attacks.