(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 23 post(s).
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:12pm 		  Mark & Quote
Dr. Maschke

If exams were $500, you would be right and I would be retired.  But that is another big IF.  When I got into the field a polygraph was $25.00 and my first employer required a minimum of 8 each day.  Thus the big numbers and the need for EPPA.  My first year I made just over 11K.  These days I am lucky to get 100 tests a year @ $400. each.  With office expense, insurance, professional memberships, license fees and required continuing education hours, well, making a living in private practive has always been a great challenge.

Analysis of any algorithm, as you correctly assume, is not my area of expertise.

I have had a couple of false negatives who later informed me of my missed call, but do not discount the meaningful feedback when ground truth is established by confession.

If I may paraphase Ambrose Brice, certainty means mistaken at the top of one's voice.

I never claimed certainty in detecting CM's, I just pointed out the risks to the user and why I think the odds are in my favor.
Posted by: getrealalready
Posted on: Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:34pm 		  Mark & Quote
Pailryder,

To begin with, I find remarkable your productivity--more than 333 exams per year each and every year for 30 years.   If you were to be paid on average $500/exam you would have made quite a good living over that period of time.

Unless you are more educated than your average colleague, you likely do not have much basis for analyzing the scoring algorithm you utilize.  And in terms of hand scoring you are likely familiar with lists of scoreable reactions as listed in somebody's Examiner Handbook, but probably have no idea about the normal variation in those reactions, making certainty about countermeasure detection a myth and more likely a guess rather than anything approaching certainty.

And of course, in spite of your 10,000 tests conducted you don't really have a great deal of meaningful feedback.  I'm guessing that your false negatives don't go out of their way to distinguish themselves from your true negatives.  You only know what you know, which in many cases is quite void of ground truth.

But again, I do applaud your apparent concern for your examinees even though I don't believe that concern is mirrored by the accuracy of your exams.  Best wishes for a happy holiday season...
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:20pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
getrealalready

If a person is able to produce scoreable reactions  to the CQ's in a manner that the OSS3 software and I cannot detect, you are correct.  But, that is a big IF.  I have 30 years of evaluating charts, more than 10,000 tests.  I should know an artifical response when I see one.  The subject is disadvantaged because he/she has no chance to pratice.  They get one shot and it is difficult to know how much is enough, how much is just right, and how much is detectable.   

With repeted testing, as is the case with the sexual offender, there is more chance to pratice and get it right.
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:01pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Twoblock

I am 100% in agreement about the need for accountability.
Posted by: getrealalready
Posted on: Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:53pm 		  Mark & Quote
Pailryder,

I would agree with Twoblock that your behavior and demeanor on this message board has been exemplary and puts you in a class above many of your colleagues.   

And I would further commend you on SEEKING, if not finding, a format that does not require you to lie in the conduct of the examinations you perform.

That having been said, there are many lies told during the polygraph exam that do not have to do with the setting of probable lie CQT comparison questions, e.g., misrepresentations regarding the accuracy of such tests, etc. 

And even with the directed lie test, the test depends upon the examinee believing that there is some real significance (relative to the significance of lying to the relevant questions) to the area for which he/she is being directed to lie.  Here lies (no pun intended) a great potential for exaggeration, misrepresentation, etc on your part and that of your colleagues.   

And of course even with this kinder gentler form of CQT there is the little problem of validity--it's missing with this format as well as with other forms of lie tests.   

And last but not least, I suspect the test is not more widely used by your colleagues because of the greater susceptibility to countermeasures.  All an examinee has to do to successfully countermeasure any CQT is to (1) discern which are relevant and which are control/comparison questions and (2) produce greater scorable reactions  to control/comparison questions relative to relevant question reactions in a manner that is undetectable by you.  The DLCT obviously eliminates half of the task (point number 1).

Again, although we will not likely agree on this subject area, I appreciate your participation in these discussions.
Posted by: Twoblock
Posted on: Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:08pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
pailryder

I will always have a problem with your industry until it is regulated, say, with a committee of polygraphers and non-polygraphers especially in government service. I also think that there should be accountability. Too many prospective government employee's "employment" lives have been ruined by the current process and with no justice possible.

Nope, I'm not in that show. In fact I have not seen it yet. My involvement in the industry has been on the wayne the last couple of years. I think that from now on I will only be available as a consultant in the mining and refining business. My wife and I need to spend more time together. I have spent enough time in the bush and, fortunately, I don't need to work except for my health.
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 7th, 2010 at 11:27am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Twoblock

In private practice word of mouth about bad calls will remedy that problem.  In an agency he will just hang on until retirement.

Are you in the new tv show on gold mining in Alaska?
Posted by: Twoblock
Posted on: Dec 7th, 2010 at 3:34am 		  Mark & Quote
pailryder

First I will say that your stock has always been higher with me than with any other polygrapher because you straight-talk more than the others and you do not engage in slamming and name calling. I might have said this to you before and I might have made the following statement before. Hell, I turned 80 this fall and the mind is as old as the body. In my case it is older because I'm still physically strong and spry. Besides that I've been married to the same gal for 57 years and that has to work on the mind.

About three years ago there was a major crime committed and the alleged perp was polygraphed (at his insistance), I think now, by a police polygrapher. The polygrapher said he was lieing, deemed him guilty and he was arrested. About 4 days later, his Dad presented hard evidence, after traveling to another state, that his son was in that state when the crime was committed. Even then it took a week and money to get him released and another 6 weeks to get him exonerated. Why do you think he was judged guilty and, since this was one in a list of wrong calls by the polygrapher, do you think this dude should continue to be licensed?
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 6th, 2010 at 8:01pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
getrealalready

I did not develope it, but I often use the directed lie comparison question technique.  Works fine and does not require deception on the part of the examiner.  Additionally the R/I format requires no examiner deception, as there are no comparison questions in that technique, but it is out of favor since it is more subjectively scored.     
Posted by: getrealalready
Posted on: Dec 6th, 2010 at 2:11pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Pailryder,

And I am sorry to disappoint you.  The polygraph community's universal deception as displayed in virtually all paradigms excepting concealed information testing over the last century outweighs your anonymous claim of being a truthful outlier in that community.  If you have developed a paradigm which doesn't involve deception, outline it, George and others can inspect and test it.  I'm sure a simulated crime/polygraph examination scenario can be arranged with you as the examiner.  If your format does not involve deception and it is found to be valid in terms of separating truth from deception, then I will be the first to congratulate you.  But at this point you are a long ways from being congratulated or even remotely believed.  And please don't confuse polygraphy with psychophysiology.  The two are as related as astrology and astronomy.
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:37am 		  Mark & Quote
getrealalready

Sorry to disappoint you, but my last answer to Dr M is true.  I truthfully and fully answer all questions and I don't lie to the client or the subject and the techniques work just fine.  Yes, I know what is taught as standard proceedure.  I have answered all of your questions in past posts and am not inclined to repete myself.  Read my past posts and I will answer about anything that is still unclear to you.

My point to you, getreal, is that there is much more to polygraph than the government screening tests that generate so many of the complaints here.  For instance, did you know that private business testing has been regulated by federal labor law since 1988, and I have never seen a complaint on this site about even one test administered under that law.  Educate yourself about the entire field of psychophysiological detection of deception and you may find some surprises.   The one size fits all approach is yielding to a more scientific explanation that does not require lying to anyone.
Posted by: getrealalready
Posted on: Dec 6th, 2010 at 1:43am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Pailryder,

I guess you realize that your last reply (to George) is one of the most ridiculous non-answer answers given in some time.  Every polygraph examiner would say more or less the same thing about their polygraph procedure as you have yours.  You didn't answer George's basic question about deception.  Do you lie during this process?  If you use a probable lie control question test, do you lie when you introduce the control/comparison questions?  Do you try to make the examinee try to think those questions are relevant?  Do you try to make the examinee think the irrelevant questions are control questions? Let me save you the trouble of composing another non-answer answer.  Of course you lie.  Get real already!
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 6th, 2010 at 12:32am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Well, George,

I don't have a script.  I have a conversation with both the client and subject about the issue we are trying to  adress.  When we agree on the target issue and the wording of all questions, we collect the data.  I hand score, computer score, and explain my opinion of the results.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Dec 5th, 2010 at 5:31pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Pailryder,

Although we don't know each other, based on your posting history, I do respect you, and actually think of you as someone I might like to have as a friend.

And yet, standard polygraph techniques all depend in fundamental ways on examiner deception, be it the probable-lie CQT, the directed-lie CQT, or the relevant/irrelevant technique.

If you have a pre-test script that does not involve an element of deception, I'd be interested to hear it.

George
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 5th, 2010 at 4:40pm 		  Mark & Quote
Dr M

I use no slight of hand.  I am not a hustler or fraud or a cheat, and frankly, I am disappointed that you choose to continue to refer to me as such.  I don't think that a fair reading of my postings support your attacks on my character.  You continue to do to me what you banned my fellow examiners for doing to you.  I expected better.  Try to see past your ingrained stereotypes.

I am a private, not government, examiner and am not defending compelled governmental use of these techniques.  I speak only for myself, and I dare to think that I have a posting history that deserves basic respect.  

I am a working class person and have never cheated anyone.  People, businesses and agencies seek me out and pay for my opinion based on an interview/interrogation technique that includes consensual recording of physiological response when they suspect they are the target for a lie of deception.  I answer all questions and explain the technique honestly and openly to both sides.  I have nothing to hide.  I have nothing to fear from their knowledge.  The techniques work, some better than others, and do not depend on me lying to my client or the subject, although examiners often do that.
Each person, agency or business is free to decide for themselves how much to rely upon the results. 

How well I am able to do my job and how much others choose to rely on the result are two different matters.  

For myself, I caution prudence when relying on the result of any psychological test.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Dec 4th, 2010 at 6:46pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Pailryder,

Thanks for your clarification. I think that not believing in polygraphy is not the same as holding the view "that polygraph techniques could achieve a proper outcome in their case." I think that not believing in polygraphy is more at not believing that polygraph techniques can be relied upon to achieve a proper outcome.

When the examinee doesn't believe in polygraphy, the polygraph, like the Wizard of Oz unveiled, loses its mystique, and hence its ability to elicit admissions, which is its only true utility.

Getrealalready,

I think that polygraphy is more analagous to the old three shell swindle than to poker. Once you understand that it's a hustle, you don't have to personally be able to perform the trick to avoid being hustled.

Posted by: getrealalready
Posted on: Dec 4th, 2010 at 5:55pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Pailryder,

Poor analogy, my friend.  In the world of polygaphy there is no professional playing for or holding the money.  There may be an uneducated and dangerous amateur holding the money, the job, the career, the indictment, the post conviction probation status, but most assuredly there is no professional doing any of the above.
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 4th, 2010 at 1:19pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote

Dr. Maschke

Over my thirty year career as a private polygraph examiner I have interviewed many people who expressed doubts, outright scepticism, or even open hostility that polygraph techniques could achieve a proper outcome in their case. Doubt is the beginning of all wisdom, and I, myself, had those same doubts when, many years ago, long before I ever considered a career in polygraph, I was compelled to take a polygraph in a business related matter.  So that is precisely what I mean by non believers. 

By sucessful I mean simply that by the end of our session, they, the non believers, agreed that I made a proper evaluation of their situation.

getrealalready

What do you think happens to people who spend ten minutes reading the Secrets of the Poker Stars, and decide to play a professional for real money?
Posted by: getrealalready
Posted on: Dec 3rd, 2010 at 10:24pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
By "non-believers" I think we have to assume Pailryder means anyone with an IQ over 75 and/or a ten minute education courtesy of searching "polygraph" on Google.  The only missing piece is the evidence of his claimed success.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Dec 3rd, 2010 at 3:56pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Pailryder,

What precisely do you mean by having "sucessfully polygraphed many 'non believers?'"
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Dec 3rd, 2010 at 1:09pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Fair Chance

In the valley of the green, the giant is king.

Belief is not necessary.  I have sucessfully polygraphed many "non believers".  The techniques are more robust than you suspect.
Posted by: Fair Chance
Posted on: Dec 3rd, 2010 at 4:11am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
"In the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

The polygraph system is built upon convincing the "examinees" that the system works.  Using the polygraph on a "non-believer" is useless.

The agencies are trying to convince a mole that digging through the earth is dirty.  The mole knows no other life.  The mole feeds, lives, and recreates underground.  They better find another strategy or they are doomed to failure.

I think this will be the breaking point as their witch-hunt finds good people who are going to be caught-up in "McCarthyism". They will destroy so many loyal and good people in the pursuit of truth only to find that they never catch "the bad guy."

Such a sad waste of resources.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Dec 2nd, 2010 at 4:50pm 		  Mark & Quote
According to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, the NSA is presently trying to identify a spy within its ranks:

Quote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/1/inside-the-ring-843880610/

NSA mole hunt

The National Security Agency (NSA) is conducting a counterintelligence probe at its Fort Meade, Md., headquarters in a top-secret hunt for a Russian agent, according to a former intelligence official close to the agency.

The former official said the probe grew out of the case of 10 Russian "illegals," or deep-cover spies, who were uncovered last summer and sent back to Moscow after the defection of Col. Alexander Poteyev, a former SVR foreign intelligence officer who reportedly fled to the U.S. shortly before Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited here in June.

Col. Poteyev is believed to be the source who disclosed the U.S.-based agent network.

NSA counterintelligence officials suspect that members of the illegals network were used by Russia's SVR spy agency to communicate with one or more agents inside the agency, which conducts electronic intelligence gathering and code-breaking.

One sign that the probe is fairly advanced is that FBI counterintelligence agents are involved in the search.

"They are looking for one or more Russian spies that NSA is convinced reside at Fort Meade and possibly other DoD intel offices, like DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency]," the former official said. "NSA is convinced that at least one is at NSA."

Some of the 10 illegals who were posing as U.S. citizens helped service Russian agents working inside the U.S. intelligence community, the former official said.

No other details of the investigation could be learned.

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said in e-mail: "I don't have any information to provide regarding your query."

An FBI spokesman had no immediate comment.

NSA has been the victim of several damaging spy cases dating back to the 1960s, when two officials defected to the Soviet Union.

In 1985, NSA analyst Ronald Pelton was caught spying for Moscow. He had provided the Soviets with extremely damaging secrets, including details of an underwater electronic eavesdropping program on Russian military cables called "Operation Ivy Bells."


<sarcasm>But wait! How can this be? The NSA subjects all employees to polygraph testing!</sarcasm>

If there is indeed a Russian spy in the NSA, then it's very likely that the spy has fooled one or more polygraph tests. But you can bet dollars to donuts that that won't deter NSA and FBI counterintelligence officials from resorting to the pseudoscience of polygraphy in an attempt to identify said spy.
 
  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