ALSO I FORGOT to Say im in GEORGIA>?????

From the information given to me they are only 85-88% accurate, so whats up with the other 12-15% any answer?????????

I past the first set of question no problems, then ansked again the same set of question say time qwithin 2-3 minutes and a question show different results, then the third time the same thing.... no past no fail DRAW.... incunclusive.
First time taking test...
RICHARD

POLYSCORE wrote on Aug 11^th, 2004 at 4:07pm:


I don't bullshit or do crap, either. 
You are a polygraph examiner, hence, you are a terrorist,
because you hate freedom.

Hence, you should be dealt with as severely and harshly 
as British and American troops deal with the terrorist Taliban.

Hence, anyone who fights you
and fights for the freedom of others who are terrorized by the polygraph deserves to be honored and praised for their patriotic courage.

There is no scientific proof whatsoever that there is any harm done by the freedom of anyone who refuses to take a polygraph or who, the polygraph believes, "fails" a polygraph.

The use of poly's in the SOTP is just plain BS. While I was still on probation in Tarrant County, my ex successfully coached my oldest daughter into making an accusation  of me abusing her some 5 years back. When I walked into the polygrapher's office, the very first question he asked me was, "Do you have someone from the police department here with you?", leaving me to believe that I would immediately be arrested and charged with that offense, should I fail the poly. Well guess what. I failed it. I failed it because the entire time I sat there, all  I could think of was going to prison for the rest of my life if I failed it. I finally had to fight the probation dept. on the use of the examiner I had been using the entire time while on probation, and once I got to him, I passed. I passed because I knew this examiner was a no-BS man, and that he played by the real rules. Not the one's created in the minds of every new probation officer that thinks they can make up shit as they go along.

The original polygrapher KNEW that if he asked that kind of question before the test, he could instill fear within me that would absolutely make me fail the test. Screw Texas and their entire probation sex-offender program. The only good I got out of all of those years was the actual counseling.

Quote:


Wow, you really are in denial...

However, the fact that the NAS did not conduct any examinations is irrelevant to their conclusions. Does a physician have to suffer from a disease to be able to research it? The statisticians, engineers and psychologists on the panel had more than sufficient experience with research methods, psychophysiology, and science to deliver a sound and reasonable conclusion. It's too bad that you are so wrapped up in your delusion that you can't see it correctly...

As for their methods, they did an extensive literature review which is a perfectly acceptable method of research. Why recreate the wheel? However, from this literature review they determined that the majority of polygraph research wouldn't qualify for funding from the National Science Foundation or National Institute of Health. That's the academic equivalent of saying that most polygraph research is garbarge. Beside this conclusion they also determined that CQT polygraph lacks a plausible scientific basis and as such has no validity or reliability. Therefore, reliance on the CQT polygraph poses a clear threat to national security...

I do find it funny that polygraphers deride the NAS study by saying that it conducted no new research as if this is what is needed when 100 years of prior research has failed to come up with anything that proves polygraph works outside of eliciting confessions from the gullible...

At what point would any of you concede that CQT polygraph is pseudoscience? What evidence would convince you that nature did not equip us with a "Pinocchio nose"? That truth and deception are complex interactions of situation, emotion, cognition, and memory rather than rote physiological responses? 

How many failures with polygraph screening both in employment and sex offender supervision are needed before we toss this peculiar device onto the scrap heap?

I see we have major differences in opinon and it does not appear they will be resolved by further comments or debate.  We are both set in our opinions and will maintain our own opinions regardless of further debate.  I have enjoyed the exchange of information and will do further studies.   And no I do not accept the conclusions of the NAS report.  You must admitt they did not conduct any examinations, they used studies that were selected by the NAS only.   

Quote:

Since semantics refers to the meaning of words, expressions, and sentences then yes, I'm using semantics. So are you, it's a pointless barb... 

Pointless barbs aside, your statement is still only an anecdote and contains no proof that the subject was sensitized, only that he was upset. They are not the same thing...
 
Quote:

You and I disagree on the use of the polygraph in SOT. The only thing the polygraph should be used for is the extraction of confessions from the gullible. Its results should not be used in any decision-making regarding the offender because it is pseudoscience. The government should not employ flapdoodle in any capacity...

Quote:

Do you accept the conclusions of the NAS study? They are an impartial and eminent scientific body only concerned with doing the best possible research. The members of the polygraph panel are some of the best statisticians, engineers, and psychologists in the nation and they concluded that CQT polygraph is flapdoodle. Why doesn't that study from such an august group persuade you? 

Quote:
 
I have seen these studies and all of them fail to disentangle the treatment (e.g., cognitive behavior therapy, therapeutic communities) from use of the polygraph. Their conclusions are an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). If you can't disentangle the use of the polygraph with the type of treatment a sex offender received, you can't make the claim that the polygraph is responsible for the decrease in recidivism... 

Quote:

I have always been committed to reality and the reality is that CQT polygraph is pseudoscience and poses a threat to society...

And unlike a lot of the anti-people who post on this site, I've never been personally harmed by the polygraph. I became interested in the topic because I'm a criminal justice researcher who studies sex offending. I reached my conclusions from reading all of the literature, pro and con, and the con was definitely more persuasive... 

But since your identity is so wedded to the polygraph as a "professional lie detector", it would probably cause you significant cognitive dissonance to admit that you've been practicing pseudoscience all of these years so I doubt that you will ever come to the same conclusion as I have...

digithead wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 7:07am:


My statement that a person passed a polygraph that had he had failed on a previous examination does in fact show that not ALL PERSONS ARE SENSITIZED AND NOT ALL PERSONS FAIL A SECOND EXAM ON THE SAME ISSUE. 
It seems you are using sematics to make a point of this.  How do I know that the subject was sensitized on the case I mentioned?  He was in tears and very angry when the second examination started.  The examiner used persuasive coments to calm and resolve the issue.

We do agree that in sex offender monitoring, polygraph should not be the end all/know all of the offenders progress or truthfulness.  SOV treatment is an inclusive system with strict guidlines that SHOULD be followed.  Probation officers should not depend entirely on the polygraph, persons are known to have passed a monitoring examination while violating portions of the probation agreement. 
As mentioned in many threads, a monitoring or pre employment examination is subject to false positivies and negatives.  The reasons have been stated by polygraph examiners that post on this board, as well as persons who dislike polygraph and consider it nothing better than reading tarot cards.  

I may have different views on the validity and reliability, I agree that polygraph has no place in a court room as evidence.  My opinion of correct decisions in screening situations would be in the mid 80% range of accuracy.  This is based on my own personal opinion from experience, studies conducted by the polygraph community, and published research in polygraph journals.  

I know you disagree with this and I have no problem with your opinion.  I would personally like to see studies conducted under the supervision of persons with no intrest in the outcome of such studies.  The problem is having a qualified examiner, properly trained using approved format's, while under the supervision of persons that do not have a bias for or against polygraph.  Find that mixture and I would participate and accept the result of such a study.  

Prior to use of polygraph in SOV treatment, recidivism was over 65% in a few case studies I have seen years ago.  Once standards of treatment were established and polygraph was introduced into the system of treatment recidivism reportedly dropped to about 25%.  I don't have those studies available to me at this time and they were conducted by actual theapists treating convicted sex offenders.  I am not familiar with the manner in which they reached those conclusions, therefore I cannot and will  not state they are factural.  Anything that will reduce victimization of any persons is good.   

Thank you for a genuine conversation which has helped me look deeper at my inner self and opinion of polygraph.  And I will continue to look even deeper, will you make the same commitment?

Quote:


How does your anecdote negate my statement that a person who has become sensitized cannot pass a subsequent polygraph? 

As you said, we have no information regarding your anecdote. Was this person sensitized? We don't know. So your anecdote isn't be evidence against my claim...

However, if someone continues to fail a polygraph on topic for which they are truthful, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that this subject is now sensitized?

As for my question about false negatives, it's something I ask of all the polygraphers on this board. None have given me an answer which is troubling because in the context of this topic - sex offender monitoring - false negatives are the thing of utmost importance. These unknown or unknowable errors allow these guys to continue their victimization and pose a clear threat to society...

Sorry digithead, I missed one point.   

YOUR WORDS IN SEPERATE POSTS

'Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen? '

'And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly... '


My answer is, you needed an aggie education and your communication would have been clear.  First, how many False Negativese I've seen, Second your asking how many false negatives in my career.  Hope you can see the difference.   

My answer to how many have I seen, several.  How many have I had in my career, I don't know.  I am sure it has happened, I just don't have facts and cases that document this.  Polygraph is not 100%, nor is other procedures of this type.  MMPI is a case in fact, yet considererd very reliable to those that use it.  The Able Screen is another.   

Sorry, I am tired from a difficult day and would go further, just don't have the energy at this late hour.  Thanks for the interesting discussion and have a good night.   

very good points indeed. 

The examination which branded the subject a DI was in fact a bad examination.  QC on the examination was clear regarding this.   The second examination also had QC and the examination had been conducted properly.

Yes we had a false positive as a result of a very poorly conducted examination in which the examinee was accused of the offense by the examiner.  I would agree this was a false positive, and give you that one, no argument. 

My record of false negatives?  How would any individual know for a fact they had  a false negative?  Only confession by a second individual with cooberation would answer that question.  My answer is, I don't know.

There are false positivies and false negatives, however without a review of the facts and case, can you truly make the statement you did, prior to my posting other results?   

Aggies are Aggies, and proud as hell, so don't go there.   

Second point, I did not conduct either of the examinations.  I was allowed to QC both after they had already been QC'd by others.  This was an important case that demanded the truth be found, and it was.  The system works when worked properly.   

Just a note, the comments offered were not even connected to the last two posts!  Your original statement was to the effect that an individual would be so sensitized to the relevant question, there would be no chance of passing a second examination.  If I am not mistaken, the information regarding the case at hand demonstrates your error.   

Your post regarding the inability to conduct a second examination and pass when being truthful to both was incorrect, that was my only point.

Quote:


Let's see, where did I get false positive from? Hmm, I think it was this post you made:

Quote:


Let's parse this: First statement is that an individual showed deception on a prior polygraph. The next statement is that he showed no deception on a subsequent test for the same issue which was corroborated by documentation...

It seems perfectly reasonable to me from your statements to infer that the first test was a false positive, or did I miss something? But then I didn't go to Texas A&M, my colleges were Rutgers University, the University of Colorado and Washington State University...

And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly...

[quote author=digithead link=board=post;num=1092160731;start=60#62 date=03/22/07 at 17:49:56]

So you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at? 

Texas A&M


There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...

Correct statement

The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously... 

Your Key Word is  "COULD" my statement is 'NOT ALWAYS'

Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...

"SIGNIFICANT RISK"  Not a predetermined dynamic process.

So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?

"FALSE POSITIVE---FALSE NEGATIVE"  why are you so convinced that this is the case?  You have no knowledge of the case facts, procedures used, subject of the examination or anything else associated with this particular case.  You are attempting to prove a point without facts, therefore you are making it up as you go. 

However you do make good points regarding cognition and conditioned responses.  These can be alterred if proper procedures are utilized.  This occurs repeadly in treatment of many different situations, polygraph only being one.

Quote:


So you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at? 

There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...

The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously... 

Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...

So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?

"In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that... "  posted by digithead


I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam.  His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case.  We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good.  (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct).  The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.

Sergeant1107:

You have stated again what I believe is this website most important contribution.  Very few opinions are edited or deleted.

This site will post "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" of polygraph operations and opinions.

I challenge any "pro-polygraph" opinionated reader to refer me to a site which is dedicated to the "continued usage" of polygraph which tolerates and post opposing points of view.

Love him or hate him, George rarely censors any postings to this site unless they are just plain lazy, unthoughtful, verbally abusive or off the wall opinions given just for the sake of seeing themselves on a webpage.

Regards.

Quote:

I would just like to point out that none of the pro-polygraph posts on this board are ever edited or deleted by the moderators of this board.   

On the other hand, just try to post an antipolygraph sentiment on the message board at PolygraphPlace.com.  The people over there who are nominally "Dedicated to Truth" won't permit any sort of debate.

On George's message board anyone can post whatever opinions they like.  Plenty of people speak out in favor of the polygraph here.

It is rather ironic that a pro-polygraph person posts on this board that it is meaningless to post here unless you agree with the board's anti-polygraph philosophies.  It would truly be meaningless if any pro-polygraph sentiments were deleted as soon as they were posted, which is precisely what happens to antipolygraph postings on the PolygraphPlace.com board.

palerider,

Join the ranks of the Deluded, I've been branded with the same message.  And posting here is somewhat meaningless unless you agree with the owners and operators of "ANTIPOLYGRAPH"

Polygraphy is a sham, the "test" can be beaten by several means/techniques, and until you've faced having your freedom threatened by the results of what some quack examiner says, anyone who thinks that simply telling the truth (and the polygraph will set you free) is delusional.

Regarding the countermeasure advice----Christ that's the worst advice I've ever heard! 
The person who claims that they were violated for inconclusive tests is full of shit. He/she had already banked enough minor violations to score a violation on their local versian of the violation matrix. The team gave the guy a shot---he couldn't pass 3 polys (what are the odds?) and they bumped him. He simply isn't telling this forum the truth. Late or missing therapy, lackluster efforts to find employment, poor or contaminating group therapy performance (denial of instant offense)---there is something there that got you in the cross hairs. Enough already of your martyrdom.

Same here. Polygraphy is total bullshit. Countermeasures got me through the last two maintenance exams, which were the only two (just before the end of probation) that really mattered after seven years. I saw lots of people get an "offer" to be extended for two years if they had failed an exam just before end of supervision. Right, give me 16 hours of community service for being inconclusive. Let's see, that motivated me to do what? Figure out why I was getting screwed for telling the truth and what I needed to do to protect myself.

Pick a control question, make yourself have a feeling like you're on fire, or the feeling like you're falling or tripping (slight adrenalin rush), and you're good to go. It's all internal and those dufus polygraphers will never know the difference.

digithead wrote on Jan 24^th, 2007 at 9:02am:


HELLO and welcome to MY world - the world of repeated inconclusive results.  Wow, this scenario is SOOO familiar to me.

This is how it all starts and it only goes down hill from here.  I've seen many probationers in this situation get their lives turned upside-down, or worse, for inconclusive results.   

I made several posts addressing sensitization to polygraph tests.  You should read them dallascounty.   

I resorted to using countermeasures (out of desperation) and have been successful ever since.

 

dallascounty wrote on Jan 24^th, 2007 at 3:45am:


If you are on probation, a judge is deciding your fate, get a good attorney who can point out that the only thing you're being accused of is being inconclusive on a pseudoscientific test...

You are under what is called the "containment model." Kim English, who came up with this model, wrote in her NIJ brief (found at http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/sexoff.txt) that "polygraph data should be used in conjunction with other information when making decisions about case management of sex offenders."

I take this to mean that unless there is other corroborating evidence, sole reliance on the polygraph is unwise. However, as I argued with Kim on many occasions, probation officers will not do that because they do not have the necessary background in which to evaluate polygraph results and will fall prey to the popular belief that it is infallible. But like many people, Kim also doesn't believe that the polygraph is pseudoscience, irrespective of what the National Academy of Science says... 

In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that...

So hence, you're SOL without a good lawyer...

Sir with all do respect.  How do you know if i was not telling the truth.  I have nothing to hide.

If you would have been truthful, your results wouldn't have been inconclusive.