context_title
context_text
|
Topic Summary - Displaying 16 post(s). |
Posted by: xenonman
Posted on: Jun 8th, 2013 at 5:38pm
|
Mark & Quote Quote
|
Ex Member wrote on May 6 th, 2013 at 8:50pm: Yes, I strayed a bit from the topic. The point I was trying to make is that even statistical analyses are bunko if not based on sound scientific principles.
I again, would like to hear from examinees as to whether they were given a sober assessment of the polygraph capabilities, or if claims of polygraph infallibility were used to elicit admissions. In my cases, I was told that it was accurate, but no figures were given. I was confronted a few  times by accusations that I was lying about things.
|
Posted by: xenonman
Posted on: Jun 8th, 2013 at 5:35pm
|
Mark & Quote
|
Ex Member wrote on May 4 th, 2013 at 1:56am: I doubt if most examinees would have an understanding of discriminate analysis and probability density functions. I don't think you would get many admissions by saying "the polygraph says you are probably lying."
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher? Ex Member wrote on May 4 th, 2013 at 1:56am: I doubt if most examinees would have an understanding of discriminate analysis and probability density functions. I don't think you would get many admissions by saying "the polygraph says you are probably lying."
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher? "Gentleman Polygrapher" - talk about an oxymoron!
|
Posted by: xenonman
Posted on: Jun 7th, 2013 at 3:13pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
The whole CIA employment application process, of which the polygraph is just one part, is wholly crappity smacked up.
The background check is essentially a popularity contest. As has been said numerous times here, the polygraph is merely a tool to intimidate.
I find it hilarious how many "moles" have been found in the supposedly "impenetrable" CIA security system.
|
Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: May 6th, 2013 at 8:50pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
Yes, I strayed a bit from the topic. The point I was trying to make is that even statistical analyses are bunko if not based on sound scientific principles.
I again, would like to hear from examinees as to whether they were given a sober assessment of the polygraph capabilities, or if claims of polygraph infallibility were used to elicit admissions.
|
Posted by: Bill_Brown
Posted on: May 6th, 2013 at 6:39pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
I didn't go into computer algorithms because they are not important to me at all. I hand score charts and then look at the computer analysis later. My scoring of the charts is what I go by. We were discussing examiners and their claims to accuracy.
|
Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: May 5th, 2013 at 7:32pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
Bill_Brown,
Just as the polygraph license gives false credibility to polygraph operators, so does computerization to chart scoring. Any waveform can be digitally sampled and have such samples manipulated by algorithms in just about any fashion. Having a computer score polygraph charts lends no more credence than a similar program to read astrology or tarot cards would. If the underlying principles are not scientific, then the computer is just crunching a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
|
Posted by: Bill_Brown
Posted on: May 4th, 2013 at 5:39am
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
Arkhangelsk,
You may be surprised to learn most examiners inform you in advance that polygraph is not 100% accurate. Some put high percentages on their accuracy or validity, others use the studies conducted to show the accuracy/validity and others make no claims. Very few would give anything near perfection. Examiners and polygraph schools have learned lessons from past mistakes such as claiming perfection and then being proven wrong. It is not a common practice and has not been for some time.
It appears that you may have some statistical analysis training and expertise, I'm sure you are aware of current research and standards of the polygraph industry, none of which supports 100% accuracy claims.
|
Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: May 4th, 2013 at 1:56am
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
I doubt if most examinees would have an understanding of discriminate analysis and probability density functions. I don't think you would get many admissions by saying "the polygraph says you are probably lying."
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher?
|
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: May 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
Arkhangelsk
No need to apologize for your assumptions, I agree that examiners in the past made, and some continue to make, the claim of perfection. Any thinking person knows perfection is not possible. Also, I am aware that I have personally made every EE (exmanier error) in the book. I present my results and the software scores as probabilities, not certainties.
Countermeasures are not always detected, but sometimes can be because of the Goldilocks factor. CM can't be too cold or too hot, has to be just right. Difficult to acheive without practice.
By the way, many trained interviewers can detect lies at levels greater than chance by interview alone, without collection of poly data, and so can some spouses!
|
Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: May 1st, 2013 at 5:29pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
pailryder wrote on May 1 st, 2013 at 2:59pm: I can detect lies at rates better than chance This is untrue if only for the fact that you cannot be sure if someone is using countermeasures or not. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that, during the course of your interrogations, you do not present the polygraph as being an infallible "lie detector"; this would be charlatan-like behavior. If my assumptions are wrong, then I apologize.
|
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: May 1st, 2013 at 2:59pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
Arkangelsk
I do not pass myself off as divining anything. I can detect lies at rates better than chance but less than perfection. My assessment is better with the polygraph than with an interview alone.
|
Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: May 1st, 2013 at 2:22pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
pailryder wrote on May 1 st, 2013 at 11:35am: I am a well trained and skilled interviewer/interrogrator This is the truth, this is exactly what you are. But, passing yourself off as someone who can divine truth or lies is what makes you a charlatan.
|
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: May 1st, 2013 at 11:35am
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
Dr Maschke
No one who hires me thinks I am a scientist. I do not pose, or present myself, as such. I am a well trained and skilled interviewer/interrogrator who forms an opinion based on the best currently available technology and technique. I am properly licensed in accordance with the laws of my state of residence so anyone who felt defrauded could complain to our state regulatory board, but for thirty years no one has. I fail to see how any of that makes me a charlatan.
Encouraging people to talk is a good thing and one example where the expected utility may exceed the scientific validity of the technique.
Thank you for providing this forum to us all.
|
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 30th, 2013 at 2:02pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
If polygraphy is, as polygraphers claim, a scientifically valid test for deception, then what need is there for encouraging subjects to talk?
|
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Apr 30th, 2013 at 11:12am
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
To me, that was the value of the polygraph: Encouraging the subjects to talk [/quote]
So is encouraging subjects to talk a good thing or a bad thing?
|
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 30th, 2013 at 5:55am
|
Mark & Quote
|
Former FBI and CIA intelligence analyst Christopher Lynch, now retired, shares his opinion of polygraphy in his book, The C.I. Desk: FBI and CIA Counterintelligence as Seen From My Cubicle (Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing, 2010). Describing a debriefing with three US DOJ inspectors regarding the Robert Hanssen case, Lynch writes (at p. 378): Quote:Their final questions were whether I thought the polygraph would weed out people like Hanssen. It was already obvious that was going to be one of their recommendations. The CIA routinely polygraphed new employees, and repolygraphed them periodically. The only times I had seen the FBI polygraph employees was when they were going on rotation to other agencies that required them. I'm not a particular fan of the polygraph; it detects stress, not lies, and the process of determining the cause of the stress contains more improvisation and interpretation than its advocates usually admitted. The machine readings were meaningless to me. What mattered was the interview process, and how well that was conducted. An impressive looking polygraph machine, even if it wasn't plugged in, would intimidate many subjects, who would confess before the machine "found them out." To me, that was the value of the polygraph: Encouraging the subjects to talk, rather than detecting deception. With a laugh, they agreed. We stood up to shake hands, and my fourteen hours of interviews about Bob Hanssen ended.
|
