This thread was hijacked in a big manner!   

Regarding the original post topic... It is VERY unlikely that anybody knows you posted here.  Unless they confiscated your personal computer or something.

Lienot,

DLCQ’s do in fact sidestep some of the problems with PLCQ's, but present some additional ones of their own.  On the positive side, as you indicate, (1) the DLCQT does not require setting (beyond basic description and purpose) of the chosen DLQ's and further avoids the accompanying examiner deception/misrepresentation of the PLCQT as relates to the description of PLCQ's in the pre-test, (2) avoids some of the serious deficiencies of the PLCQT quality control process as outlined in my last response in this thread to LieBabyCryBaby, and (3) avoids some of the unnecessary trauma that innocent/non-deceptive examinees are subjected to and that occurs as a result of common practices that occur in both the pre-test and post-test phases of the PLQCT for even deemed to be NDI examinees.

The down side to the DLCQT relates basically to two issues: (1) countermeasures and (2) what I believe is the basic mechanism for ANS response for lie tests in general.   

With regard to countermeasures, the would-be applicant of such procedures in a PLCQT is given but two tasks: (1) identify relevant and control questions, and (2) covertly produce appropriate responses to the latter.  The first task is eliminated with the use of the DLCQT making the overall process that much easier for such an examinee.

The second and what I believe to be a fatal flaw relates to what I further believe is the underlying mechanism of polygraph question response in a lie test, that being fear of the consequences of having been found deceptive with regard to some important issue on the test.  This is not to be confused with fear of being caught in a lie—this is really an academic issue—the real practical issue and concern for the examinee are the consequences of being thought to be deceptive (regardless of whether he/she actually is) to important issues.  This, of course, is a relative issue as it relates to the inter-compared and scored relevant and control issues/questions.  As I have stated many times in many places, I believe the relevant and control issues of a PLCQT are clearly distinguishable by the average examinee and that furthermore then consequences of being found deceptive to PLCQ's are both obvious and much less than the consequences of having been found deceptive to the relevant material in such a test.  This consideration which would explain what I believe is the large occurrence of false positive exam results (particularly in a screening context) is only magnified in the DLCQT, in which the DLCQ's are intentionally made known to the examinee and for which the examinee is only following the instructions of the examiner who asks the examinee to lie to these questions (leading to the absence of any real or perceived consequences for the directed deception that occurs). It is for this latter reason that I believe all current paradigms for lie detection are flawed and highly recommend concealed information testing as an alternative.

Drew Richardson, 


What is your opinion on the DLQ developed by the Utah group.  There is not deception by the examiner, only from the examinee.   

I do agree that QC should be done by an individual that does not know the original examiner or examiee, is not a member of the organization the examiner belongs to and only the data should be reviewed to avoid any possible knowledge of the case.  Just a review of the data using the new DODPI rules for scoring?

LBCB:  your points are well-taken;  however, in a properly-conducted quality control procedure, one QC examiner alone cannot overcall a field evaluation, and further, should not even know who the examiner was.  A proper QC review is an analysis of the data without any accompanying paperwork with the examiner's name, only a record or file number.  If the first qc reviewer does not concur, it goes to a second look by another reviewer;  the second reviewer does not know it was already reviewed and non-concurred with;  he is evaluating the data as if he was the first look;  if the second review non-concurs, then the exam is nont supported;  if he does concur, it goes to a third review which in effect break the tie.  Interestingly, if the first qc reviewer concurs with the field examiner that the examinee passed, case closed, which is actually a process favorable to the examinee.  And yes, when DODPI scoring criteria changes, qc must follow suit and comply.  I don't know what your program's qc process is like, but within DOD, that's how it's done.  And when there's a perception that a qc reviewer doesn't like a particular examiner, a statistic review of how many times that qc person did not concur with that particular examiner, compared to other qc reviewers/examiners/etc, will bear that out.  No program manager should tolerate a qc reviewer's bias toward an examiner he doesn't like;  the only one who suffers is the examinee.

LieBabyCryBaby,

You write:
Quote:


This and your immediately previous post on the subject/thread are perhaps the best posts of any polygrapher in the seven years of this message board's existence.  Review of scoring by a second polygrapher is a straw-man activity.  Polygraph chart scoring is fairly reliable (unless, as you point out, the community changes the rules midstream with new and better chart scoring criteria) and can be readily done by a third week polygraph student at DoDPI (at least when I was there).  

The weak link as it were with control question test (CQT) polygraphy lies with the underlying theory and with what goes on during the pre-test setting of control questions, etc.  Quite frankly, the polygraph community has no serious notion of what is the theoretical basis for the activity that they are engaged in which leaves it both collectively and individually with no objective measure of what they are trying to do with the setting of control questions and any real notion of when this might or might not be accomplished.  Furthermore quality control groups with agencies such as the FBI (that do not audio/videotape their exams) are obviously relieved of such headaches (review of pre-test activity as well as meaningful review of allegations of impropriety, etc.) but are largely left with being engaged in such meaningless activity as to be embarrassing to any with a mind to reason and eyes to see.

You mention the notion of quality control review bias.  As I mentioned before, I consider the present majority acitivity (chart rescoring) as an exercise of majoring on the minor.  This is further made even more absurd with various biases that exist within quality control groups.  In the mid 90's I was told that the Bureau's QC program was much more hesitant to overturn a DI call by the original examiner than a NDI opinion.  As you can see and have pointed out, the combination of largely meaningless activity and bias leads to anything but quality control.  Again, congratulations on your posts and shared insight.  Regards...

quickfix wrote on Jan 26^th, 2007 at 1:35am:


Sorry, but Digithead is right on this one. "Quality Control" in polygraph is an exaggeration of what is done when one polygrapher takes a second look at the first polygrapher's charts. This isn't true "QC."  It is merely giving one polygrapher--who is often no more skilled at data analysis than the other--the power to say whether the first polygrapher's data analysis was correct. It might serve as a CYA (cover your ass) for the polygrapher who conducted the test because he/she can always claim that someone else (the "QC") made the final call, but it isn't true quality control.

When I have conducted "quality control," I have always tried to be as objective as possible, but I have seen instances where other "QC" people are much more subjective. Sometimes there are egos involved. Sometimes the "QC" might not like the polygrapher who conducted the exam. I have seen instances where the "QC" went to a different polygraph school than the conducting polygrapher, or when the "QC" was taught a particular set of testing criteria and the conducting polygrapher was taught another, and they argued over how the data should be analyzed. Just recently, as George Maschke pointed out on this forum, the Dept. of Defense Polygrapher Institute recently changed its data analysis criteria, eliminating or revising various criteria. Now isn't that interesting? What do you suppose might happen when a newly graduated polygrapher, trained in the new criteria, goes up against a "QC" who was trained with the old criteria? 

When "QC" is given the power to advise and to suggest, that is probably a good thing. But when "QC" is given the power to override, sometimes it may not be a good thing at all. I have witnessed extremely close calls on polygraph exams where the conducting polygrapher gave the benefit of the doubt to the examinee, only to have the "QC" then turn around and be much more picky and take that benefit of the doubt away. I have also seen conducting polygraphers fail an examinee, only to have the "QC" then turn around and give the examinee the benefit of the doubt.  

You think that watching a video of the exam and then critiquing the performance is "quality control"? Perhaps.  But perhaps it is simply one polygrapher watching another polygrapher's performance and subjectively deciding if he/she likes it. If the polygrapher's performance conforms well enough to what the "QC" does in his or her own exams, then approval is probably granted. But if the "QC" just doesn't like the polygrapher's style, what do you think might happen? How objective do you think this process is?

The point is, when you have this type of "QC," you don't really have quality control.  You simply have two subjective viewpoints, with the "QC" being given the power to override the conducting polygrapher based not on the entirety of the exam, but simply on the chart analysis.  Who do you think is apt to be more blind in this case--the polygrapher who conducted the entire process and THEN analyzed the data, or the "QC" who wasn't there and analyzes only the data? One might say that the "QC" won't be biased by the polygrapher/examinee interaction that took place during the exam, but one might also say that the "QC" won't benefit from a complete picture.

My point is not to ridicule the so-called "quality control" process conducted in the polygraph community, but rather to show that it isn't quality control at all.

quickfix wrote on Jan 26^th, 2007 at 1:35am:


Again, what you're stating is still within the purview of auditing and uniformity of process, not true QA/QC that occurs in engineering and science because you have no way of establishing ground truth and every subject serves as their own baseline. Hence, there are no standards on which to determine if someone's physiological responses are really indicative of deception. Ergo, true QA/QC can never be attained in a polygraph beyond uniformity of process...

Not to beat a dead horse, but quality control offices (for those programs that have one), do more than conduct blind analysis.  The responsibilities also include monitoring examiner performance, either live or reviewing audio/video tapes, and looking into complaints of misconduct against examiners.  I have sat on several decertification boards (unfortunately) where my office has revoked the polygraph certification of incompetant or unethical examiners.

Digithead is correct: The term "quality control" is actually a misnomer for the "second look" that is conducted by another polygrapher in many agencies. The polygraph "quality control" is nothing more than a second examiner scoring the same polygraph data a second time to make sure the first examiner's analysis is correct and his/her test was conducted within the acceptable measurement peramiters.

The polygraph process is often touted by insiders as a "scientific" process, and no doubt there is much science involved. There is also much theory involved, and there is an "art" to conducting a good polygraph exam. Therefore, using terms such as "quality control," "scientific process," and "art" to describe the polygraph process are a bit of a stretch if you define those terms by their true definitions, or even by their generally accepted definitions.  

Digithead,

Not to argue with you, but does not the polygraph industry and supporters tout the machine and its process as a science. If this is true, then it should be able to implement and pass true GC / IV&V scrutiny.
This is just another example of the polygraph not being able to standup to true scientific/engineering rigor. A toaster can pass this scrutiny, a polygraph cannot, with the exception of it passing the manufacturers operational test. Much success to you.   

Regards  EJ ...

EosJupiter wrote on Jan 25^th, 2007 at 2:35am:


Eos,

Not to defend LBCB, but I think he's using QC in a different sense than what you're probably used to.

QC in this instance is basically an audit in that they have another examiner review a polygraph to simply ensure that the first examiner did what is required by their methodology. Also, with their schools and manuals they are attempting to solely get a "uniformity of process" rather than establishing that the machine is actually detecting lies based on an established sample.

This is different from a lab QA/QC process when you use NIST samples or other standards to make sure that the instrument is working correctly in addition to using a wide range of samples to ensure that the process works correctly between its detection limits. It is also different from manufacturing QA/QC where you sample from production lines to test if your products are conforming to standards.

I've seen other disciplines such as accounting and human resources misuse the term QC from what it originally meant in engineering/science. 

Regards,

-digithead

LBCB, 

Quality Control on an inaccurate and subjective set of data (artifacts). Not to belittle the point, but QC on a polygraph is not even possible, if you know anything about QC and IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) the premise of both techniques requires a known (proven process & stable data) result set with which to work against. Show me where in your polygraph process that is even possible. Not that I doubt your experience or judgement, no matter what you pro people say, your QC controls are no more than another smoke screen at trying to validate your process.

Regards ...

As I said, "Certified schools and quality control prorams are in place to try to minimize these weaknesses in the polygraph process."

These schools and quality control programs were set up to address the weaknesses I talked about in the polygraph process. If conducting the process in the optimal manner were easy, and if everyone who learned how to operate a polygraph machine could conduct the process with the same proficiency, then there would be no need for either of these things. The fact that they exist--to use a hackneyed phrase from this forum--"speaks volumes," don't you think?

Hey LieBaby,

How can we make sure our examiner is skilled at what he is doing?

Art in polygraph, as I am talking about, has to do with conducting the entire process with precision, finesse, and expertise. I'm not talking about being creative here. Creative art is something entirely different. The polygraph process IS scientific, in that there are certain scientific principles involved, and the data being monitored, measured and compared is certainly scientific data. However, there is also an "art" involved, and that is the art of interview/interrogation, as well as the art--or perhaps a better word would be skill--with which the polygrapher conducts the entire process, from greeting the examinee to writing good reports.

Don't assume that I don't know the weaknesses and limitations of the polygraph PROCESS. Because there are elements of skill, insight and, yes, intuition (oooh, there's a word that will definitely get a backlash from the anti- people) involved, the science can be affected by an examiner lacking in these elements. Also, I am well aware that innocent people may be hurt--as some of you claim to be--by a poorly conducted polygraph. But where YOU say it is "junk science," I would say it is simply a poorly conducted scientific process.

The problems with the polygraph, which I readily admit, are the following:

Polygraphers and examinees are of widely varying personalities, among other difficult-to-control factors such as education level, experience, expectations, etc.

Polygraphers vary in skill, i.e., "artistic ability."

The questions used on an exam, and the emphasis placed on each question by both the polygrapher and the examinee, vary. And I believe that in many cases an examinee can be oversensitized to particular questions, especially when he/she reads information found on this website and from other sources that tell the examinee that only certain issues (relevant issues) matter to the examiner.

And finally, the human mind and body are in a constant state of flux, which can create many other uncontrollable variables.

I admit all of these as weaknesses of the polygraph. Yet I can still be an advocate of the polygraph IF it is conducted by an "artful" and "scientific" examiner. Certified schools and quality control prorams are in place to try to minimize these weaknesses in the polygraph process, and I think these things work for the most part. If the conditions are right--which I believe they usually are because I have seen this through experience--the polygraph works almost all of the time.

You see, I understand all of these things because of my experience, not simply because I read some questionable lab study or obtain some secondhand knowledge from inexperienced sources. The polygraph works. Yes, it does. But without the "art" the science is questionable. But then you might say this about many other more scientific processes. If the person conducting the process isn't sufficiently skilled, and the conditions of the tools and the subject are not optimal, many scientific processes will fail or at least be hindered.

I think this art and science argument is silly. If Polygraphy is art mixed with science, we have nothing more than wishful thinking that we can "detect" lies. Mixing the two categories will cause bizarre results.

Art:
Oil painting
Singing
Guitar playing
Dance
Sculpture
Astrology

Science:
Astronomy
Physics
Genetics
Chemistry
Biology

Where does Polygraphy fall? If it is art then it is interpretive in a subjective way. If it is science, it is the measurement of objective events. If the machine measures in a "scientific way" (observing physiological responses) and then the measurements are interpreted in an "artistic way," (discerning a lie from truth, nervousness or irrational response) then it is not science at all. It would be as astrology is used today. A scientific measurement (objective) of stars and planets interpreted (subjective) as to their affects upon our lives here on Earth. In fact, interpretation of the information produced by the polygraph is not art at all. It is nothing more than supposition. You suppose a certain response indicates truth or fiction. What happens when you are wrong? To rely upon such an odd pairing of science and art (and I am hesitant to say Polygraphy is art like Picasso or Beethoven’s art is art) is to put in jeopardy an innocent man's reputation and our nation's security!

Biology, Chemistry and Physics don't need "art" to practice them successfully. Skill is necessary, but not artistic skills. To be a great artist requires no science. Beautiful music needs no scientific measurement. What about polygraphs? Do they function to detect a lie without subjective or artistic discernment? Sounds like astrology to me. I hope the person who reads the results of my test can paint like a master or I'm in big trouble with this artistic science!   

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 12^th, 2007 at 3:29pm:


Thank you for the well wishes.  I'm glad I trusted my instincts to just be honest and didn't play into the fear I caused myself as a result of surfing the net!  Whether or not this site is more damaging that helpful is not a determination I'm comfortable making.  So far, I've experienced both the positive & negative ripple effects this site can potentially have upon a reader...

sudeva,

Congratulations on passing the polygraph, and I wish you all the best as you embark on your new career! With the polygraph now behind you, by all means do go ahead and look further into polygraphy. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is a good start (and is readily available). I would also recommend the late David T. Lykken's seminal work on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998).

And a note to sudeva's polygraph examiner, should he read this and recognize himself: kudos for not retaliating against this applicant for having posted here, and please consider joining the discussions here yourself! Your participation would be welcome!

congrats on passing so that you may now pursue your career ambitions

Sudeva,

The anti-polygraphites on this forum might expect me to come back here and gloat because of your newfound "come to Jesus" feelings about the polygraph process. However, I intend to do no such thing. As an experienced polygrapher, I know that the polygraph works when in the hands of a polygrapher who knows how to combine the art and science of the polygraph process so that the science works almost all of the time. But that doesn't mean that the polygrapher can't make a mistake and adversely affect someone's life. I have come to believe--and I hope I am not wrong--that George Maschke and some of the others on this forum were actually innocent victims of polygraphs gone wrong. As your examiner explained, it is not a perfect process by any means, but simply the best thing we have at this point in time.

I'm glad you had the benefit of a good, experienced and, might I say, fatherly type of polygrapher to help you through the process despite your possibly having been contaminated by the "knowledge" found on this website. I do commend you for listening to the advice of a polygrapher rather than many of the false "experts" on this website. And I wish you a long, successful career. God bless, and be safe out there.

Hello guys!

I've been meaning to come back here but my DSL was down.   

Anyway...

Boy has this thread grown!

I'm happy to report that I took and passed my polygraph!  I could not have asked for a better examiner.   He is top notch in the polygraph community.  I'm sure some of you polygraphers on this site know him. (He knows you!)  I was completely forthcoming with him about coming to this site, and others. 

George, we discussed you and your book.  He said it was an "interesting read."  I haven’t read it but I may check it out later…

My examiner already knew when he asked me if I had researched the internet re: the polygraph, because later in the exam he showed me printouts of MY posts!!  But, it was ALL GOOD because I hadn't posted anything negative or incriminating.   

He admitted being suspicious about knowing I had been here but after we talked he "vindicated" me.  Because I was so forthcoming and had just passed an extremely extensive background investigation, he told me that he didn’t believe I was trying to hide anything or that my intention was to be deception or beat the box.  He even reworded questions for me that I told him I wasn’t comfortable answering with certainty.  He also admitted that the polygraph exam is not 100% but because he’s being doing it longer than I’ve been alive (almost 30 years) he knows how to weed out bad candidates for the test.  He gave the box a 95-98% accuracy rating. 

Because I'm such a knowledge junkie, the examiner taking the time to explain to me the polygraph process in GREAT AND LENGTHY DETAIL, caused me to fear the process less and less.  He explained to me how the test works, each part of the machine itself, and how he’s spent almost 30 years reading examinees’ body language, handwriting, voice tension, facial expressions, etc. (also that’s been trained significantly in all of the above).   

He SHOWED me my results after the test and how I reacted to each question.  The responses measured and how there are recorded is quite amazing.  I remembered one question that reeved me up (because I realized I forgot to tell him something during our conversation before the test...but it was okay because it was information I had already disclosed in my application, during the oral board, and with my background investigator) and I could see, ON THE CHART, how I spiked!!!!!!!

Ironically, when asked about countermeasures, I didn't spike at all, but I did spike on other questions.  He explained to me that what "saved" me was that all of my charts were different.  The only thing that was consistent was me showing no response to the countermeasures line of questioning. 

After experiencing this process, my conclusion is that someone has to be psychotic to successfully "beat the box" with a veteran examiner!!

LieBabyCryBaby is right about the process being "an art" and "2 fold" (the science of the machine itself and the examiner's role).  He is also right about the possibility that ignorance, in this case, is a better guarantee to passing than knowing about the test.   
Another officer told someone told him not to look up the polygraph on the internet for the same reason.  He passed his as well.  If ever in a position to do so, I will certainly caution anyone interested in becoming a police officer for an agency that does polygraph, to NOT research the exam until after he/she takes it!!
For those of you thinking you WANT to employ countermeasures in order to get hired as a police officer because you DO have something to hide, please choose another profession!  I don’t want you getting me killed! And, for those of you who have bought into the notion that you HAVE to employ countermeasures because telling the truth will cause you to fail, DON’T DO IT!   

My overall opinion about the polygraph is that although the science is not 100% accurate, the interrogation aspect of it IS 100% effective. If you are being completely honest, regardless if it’s pre-employment, criminal interrogation, or whatever, you’re screwed if you’re a liar and you’re more than likely okay if you’re trustworthy.   

By the way, I got my start date!!!  I’m an official rookie that is now academy bound!!!!  

In closing, I'd like to THANK LieBabyCryBaby for his candid replies and everyone else who stayed on topic.

I am "allowed" to use whichever format I feel is best. I don't care for R/I, though, to be honest. I believe directed-lie comparison tests are a much better alternative to R/I. Your question is very valid. In some agencies even knowledgable polygraphers have to take a polygraph. It is my understanding that to be admitted to the Dept. of Defense Polygraph Institute, all students, even experienced former polygraphers, must take and pass a polygraph. I would not want to be the one conducting their polygraphs, that's for sure!

What are your thoughts about using R/I on the informed exmainee?  Do you think PLCQT is still more reliable in that situation? Or are you not allowed to use anything but PLCQT where you work?, something else?

Onesimus wrote on Jan 11^th, 2007 at 9:47pm:


Sorry about that, Onesimus! Sometimes when we all post at the same time we step on eachother's toes.

You do understand my point, Onesimus, and I appreciate that very much, since I know you are in opposition to the polygraph.

Yes, who is to blame? That's a very good question. But the polygraph, whether you believe in it or not, will continue to be used--that's a given, at least within the next decade or so. And people will have to undergo polygraph exams to get certain jobs. Therefore, it's a shame, regardless of who is to blame, that some of those people will fail due to the good intentions of others like George Maschke.

Oh, adieu, Ecchasta.  Nice to have made your acquaintance.

Per LBCB
"Ecchasta, 
Are you really that dense, or is it all an act? "

It's true!  I'm so dense that I am unable to read people's minds and determine whether or not they are lying.  But I'm not so dense as to believe that a person's (or machine's) ability to detect lies can not be verified through scientifically repeatable testing.

I stumbled across this website after watching a Dr. Phil show where Dr. Phil used polygraph results to implicitly conclude that a father was molesting his daughter.  After seeing the show I was curious about the claims of the polygrapher that studies show that polygraph results were 90% accurate.  I had no idea.  (dense you know)

My entire goal here is to find such a study.  In fact, all the studies that I have come across have concluded that polygraphy is nothing more than an interrogation. The instrumentation is superfluous.

I have never been polygraphed, nor am I aware of anyone who has.  I have no bone to pick.  You, LBCB, (or anyone else for that matter) has had ample opportunity to present credible scientific evidence validating polygraphic lie detection.  You haven't.  My search ends.  Adieu.