George W. Maschke wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:


Good. Keep it rolling. Might just add your site to my FB and be done with it.

I note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 1,186,762 times:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)

The above article is the most concise ,yet thorough advice I've seen on how to survive a polygraph.  Everyone having to take a polygraph should study it.

TC

I note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 612,293 times:

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)

Posters,

I am a senior user.  I try and be truthful in evey post.  My integrity was accused, tried, and judged by one person who had complete faith in the results of his polygraph exam.

It is a life altering experience for someone who has faith in his country and the American way to be convicted by polygraph.

Every time I see this awful situation repeated year after year, it saddens me.

I do not stay here to be important.

I stay here to encourage those who are falsely accused to believe in themselves.

Regards.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Aug 9^th, 2006 at 4:33pm:


LBCB, congratulations on hanging around long enough to be promoted to "senior user" on the forum...

To all,

I checked the link and the number of hits to this expose on anti-polygraph: 

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28-Lie-Detector-%29 ;  

text: 

This page has been accessed 252,770 times. This page was last modified 12:32, 12 October 2006. 


It is now up to over 250 K. And growing daily.  Lets see,  what are the derivations and permutations on 250K ?   Actually to huge to even bother calculating. So it appears as the polygraph use increases so does the number of people who research it.  Quite cool actually.
And they will end up here eventually too. 

Regards ...

quickfix wrote on Aug 15^th, 2006 at 9:22pm:


Quickfix,

It took me awhile to ponder your question and come up with a sufficient responce. A good question equally deserves this attention. 

1- Criminal investigations are just that, dealing with criminals. Most criminals in my opinion are lower mental life forms and are easily fooled into the aura of the polygraph being a true lie detector. When in fact its a great prop for extracting a confession. Putting the screws to a criminal is not a problem for me. This sharply contrasts its use in the employment arena, where there is definately more protections to a suspect, then to a job candidate. Also the consequences of a confession in the venue carries a much stiffer penalty. Again the suspect can always use his rights, request a lawyer and refuse any more questioning. Without any consequences. 

2-Potential employees should never be treated as criminals, or even at a minimum treated as suspect until judged worthy. No one should have their honor or integrity challeged based on a test that is inherently flawed. The reason the polygraph is used this way is because its  cheaper and easier to disqualify someone.
And in some cases the penalty for failure is grotesque, and haunts this person the rest of their lives. The FBI being the most henious offender of these agencies in that they keep the record on file for life. There is no recourse, no rights to remove this file, no way to counter the findings. Where its better to spend the time and money neccessary in a background investigation, and prove or disprove the subjects honesty. The polygraph also insulates bureaucrats should something bad happen, it allows them denial,  this person passed a polygraph and its not their fault this person went bad. Numerous heads rolled in the fallout of the Ames Case. All of them saw this and now want to protect their sorry butts.  And since this website exists and expands the public knowlege on the polygraph, more and more people know it can be beaten. Real spys know this too, and do not fear it, and the polygraph makes it easier for a real spy to slip through, because its possible to be defeated and the US relies on this device.

3-The polygraph is a culling tool used by the FEDS and LE to weed out what they deem as not desireable employees. Potential employees should be weeded out based on true proven facts, not the result of electronic rubber hose confessionals, or because one person (the polygrapher) believes this person to be less than honest. And like any employer they want the best available. To this point I do not have a problem, but let it be based on facts from real research. Proof over opinion in all cases.


Regards ....

quickfix wrote on Aug 15^th, 2006 at 9:22pm:


Quickfix,

By all accounts from individuals that were there, is that Intel folks put extreme pressure on the DOE to not get rid of the polygraph. As it would have set an example that certain agencies couldn't handle. Let alone the largest customer to the polygraph manufactures losing all that business. And to make that kind of decision would have taken someone with audacity and courage. Something that is sorely lacking by most civilian bureaucrats in the country. DOE lost many first rate scientists and engineers because of that decision. Two of the scientists that left were friends of mine and their loss was extreme  on some very neccessary projects. Which to this day are still unfinished. Most of the Engineering and Scientific community members that I have talked to are fully ready to refuse the polygraph on any level. See how far all these agencies get or are able to work without its science and engineering staff. A complete refusal by the engineers and scientists will definately get congresses attention. But this for now is a pipe dream as most who work for the government will not risk there pensions and job security. But a few have and the number keeps growing.

Regards ...

Nothing has changed.  My optimism remains the same for this profession (high), and my opinion remains the same that your assertions that polygraph screening is invalid and should be discontinued is baseless.  You speak the words of a scientist, but offer little in the way of proof (no disrespect intended).  It would explain why the Dep't of Energy went forward with their polygraph program, despite your advice to them not to.  I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena.  Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other?  Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.

Regards

Quickfix,

Once again, you know not of which you speak.  I wouldn’t even address the subject except to clarify for the good sergeant who commented on your assertion.  My testimony before the U.S. Senate was not in a hearing dealing specifically with polygraphy (in fact of the members of four testifying panels, my testimony was the only which related to polygraph screening).  The hearing in which I was subpoenaed to testify dealt with various whistleblower issues.  That which others and I testified to (i.e., bureaucrats not listening to subject matter experts) has been born out again and again since the time of that hearing.  Apparently my testimony was sufficiently compelling as to lead to the committee chairman (Charles Grassley) and the ranking member (Dick Durbin) both to write me personal letters of thanks and congratulations.  In fact the testimony regarding polygraphy was again sufficiently convincing as to lead to a request by the Senate to the then Assistant Director of the FBI’s Laboratory Division to explain the Bureau’s polygraph procedures in light of my testimony.  The fact that the Bureau did not abandon its polygraph program at the time is no reflection on the concerns rightfully held by members of the Senate regarding that program.   

What you and many readers undoubtedly do not know is that Louis Freeh (the Director of the FBI at the time and the Director who implemented the polygraph screening program for applicants) has since had a change of heart about that decision and later (2001) instructed his National Press Office to have me give interviews with the media expressing the views that I have consistently expressed regarding polygraphy.

Perhaps now, you might care to address the subject of my previous post and response to you:

Quote:


Regards...

Generally, I would agree with you;  however, in this case I believe they were correct.

quickfix wrote on Aug 12^th, 2006 at 11:50pm:

This post seems to suggest that the U.S. Senate only makes well-reasoned, nonpartisan decisions that are well grounded in logic and science, which is why (in your opinion) they dismissed Drew's arguments.

Is the decision-making ability of the Senate really the horse you want to hitch your wagon to?

retcopper wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 8:29pm:


retcopper,

Our government's reliance on such quackery as polygraphy (and voice stress analysis) for counterterrorism purposes should outrage all who know the truth about lie detectors.

The first World Trade Center bombing might well have been prevented had not the FBI, relying in part on polygraph chart readings, decided to terminate a confidential informant named Emad Salem who had penetrated the group that eventually carried out the 1993 bombing. See the message thread, FBI Polygraphing of Confidential Informants for more on this.

Moreover, America's jihadist adversaries know that the lie detector is a sham, as is made clear in a relevant section of the Encyclopedia of Jihad and a jihadist article titled, "The Myth of the Lie Detector."

retcopper wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 8:29pm:


I guess you missed where I said "Brandeis' dissenting Olmstead decision", i.e, a dissenting opinion is done by the minority...

I support all the legal tools for law enforcement that are based on science and evidence. Otherwise, let's just become fascist or totalitarian...

As for survivors of 9/11, you're appealing to emotion rather than logic and logic tells us that one of the major reasons for 9/11 was the territorialism that existed (and still exists) between our various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All the tools in the world can't overcome basic human error and hubris, including your own. The terrorists are well aware of it and rely on it...

So if you can figure out how to get LE to share information rather than engaging in territorial pissings, you'd go a long way to making the world safer...

And from this board, there certainly seems to be plenty of hubris from the polygraph community...

Digithead

I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion.  Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement"  I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.

retcopper wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 3:15pm:



A good response to you is from Justice Brandeis in his dissenting Olmstead (277 U.S. 438) opinion: 

"[i]t is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

That's basically how I, an egghead statistician, view polygraphers - zealous and well meaning but totally without understanding...

Indeed, because if they and you had understanding, they and you would realize that CQT and its variants are pseudoscience, biologically and psychologically implausible, and extremely harmful to public safety...

On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997, and the DOE two years later;  long on theory, short on proof.

quickfix wrote on Aug 12^th, 2006 at 11:15pm:


On what ground do you dismiss Drew's commentary as "nonsense?" With a doctorate in physiology and relevant training and experience in polygraphy, he knows that of which he speaks.

I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards

Quickfix,

I will repost my last post in that you apparently forgot to comment on the first paragraph:
Quote:


With regard to your last reply, you are almost totally wrong.  I am quite familiar with Sheila Reed, the circumstances surrounding her leaving DoDPI, DoDPI's shameful role in that matter, DoDPI in the early 90's, and the validation studies regarding TES.  You are wrong on all counts.  All that you are presumably correct regarding (I certainly don't know and don't dispute) is that the military is currently using the ridiculous TES format for the completely useless application of personnel screening.

This is of course the same Shiela Reed, who herself was subsequently discredited, disavowed, and thrown out of DODPI (quite literally).  Regardless, TES works quite well, has for the past 13 years, and is the test of choice in military screening.  When you yourself come up with a better solution, let us examiners know.

Quickfix,

You write:
Quote:


Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed.  The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control.  No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation.   

With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's).  The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary.  I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.

only as a last resort, which is not often.  There are other methods available.

quickfix wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 10:57pm:


Does R/I move to the top of your list / other polygraphers' list when the subject knows what PLCQT is all about?