Quote:


Lloyd,

After reading your attachment, I can understand your polygraph position. The upside of you being here is, their is not a polygrapher who can could even match you in discourse. Nor do I think any would even try. Some of the Phd polygraphers might, but I even doubt that too. You should contact a Dr. Alan Zelicoff, Link: http://www.zelicoff.com

You and he will have many great conversations, he is another great scientist and doctor that is strongly antipolygraph. He has some great papers on the subject too.

Welcome again and regards .....

I am he Sir.

The attached file reveals why I feel strongly about the misuse of stress responses.

Lloyd Ploense

Attachment deleted at poster's request -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Quote:


InnocentWithPTSD,

Are you the same Lloyd Ploense that did the research work on "Spectroscopic promoted alkene isomerizations".
A very interesting read, and if it is,  some great work.
Another trained mind joins the fight.

Best Regards ....

Twoblock wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2007 at 3:44pm:



I agree. I read it 30  mins ago and I'm still laughing my ass off.

Never wake a sleeping giant.

InnocentWithPTSD

Boy, you boggled his brain with that one. He may/may not get back to you in a month or two after he gets someone to explain, in detail, your post. He might even try to use it as a positive for polygraphy.

Hello nonombre:

I am not ashamed of my name, it is Lloyd Ploense and I have nothing to hide from anyone.

You seem to be infected with fervor for divination in an almost religious manner.  Do you recall one Reverend Jim Jones?

As a scientist, I recognize that cold scientific instruments present many false positives and negatives.  To utilize the results of such devices one must demonstrate reasonable correlation coefficients.  Also, hypothesis testing must be performed where the statistical significance of the results are evaluated against standards, spikes and blanks.

In the case of mass spectroscopy, only a great fool would assert that detection of a peak at 28 AMU confirmed the presence of nitrogen.  We know “cold scientific instruments” have both positive and negative interferences.  Through what religion do you claim the capacity to interpret human stress responses as falsehood?

Today I met a polygraphist who told me that in his/her opinion, VSA is total BS, but that she/he was
going to acquire that technology as he/she discovered a huge, regular demand for that service.

Isn't that just so hypocritical of all us Lie-Detectors....?

We know/knew that we are/were dabbling with smoke and mirrors, yet we allowed nothing to stop us.

We justified what we did. We quoted the scientific research of our church, the APA.
We ruined lives, families and society. But we were unstoppable.

Maybe if we repent now, heaven will still let us into the room reserved for INC's.

Kalex wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 3:01pm:


KALEX,

Whether or not I judge the person as a "Doctor of Philosophy" or a Piled Higher and Deeper type, boils down to the level and quality of research produced. Not the volume of worthless research that seems to be prevelent and done by many of the DOD (self deemed) elite. DOE is also now suffering from this same affliction, many of the great minds and scientists are bailing and going elsewhere. Soon like DOD, the best and brightest will only be 40 watt bulbs. The only saving grace are our men/women in uniform who have to execute and produce, These folks are the true national assets. But again, the best and brightest leave, leaving mainly non-performers and ticket punchers, when we need combat commanders and combat leaders, who don't give a damn about political correctness or expediency.

Regards ....

EosJupiter wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2007 at 10:12pm:



Hi EOS,

I have the names of 5 examiners who qualified 'there' over the years, but who were not actually able to go out and test anybody, without remediation from colleagues.
They were happy to dish the dirt to myself and others, but not keen to tackle the Instructors and maybe put their 'accreditation' on the line.
Ditto for some of 'The truth doctor' courses. Seems like the Marston syndrome was a festering sore all this time.

APA Accreditation is as worthless as the Phd's of some the leading lights in the DOD industry.

Sincerely,

Kalex,

When its possible post what you can. The biggest fear the polygraph industry hides is MASS non-acceptance or belief in their process and methods.  They have spent 70 years building up this fassad, it will take time for the public to fully realize that they are being lied too. But once the mass majority of average citizens disbelieves and says so, the polygraph will cease to exit. Polygraphers fear an informed, intelligent, well read subject, that is not afraid to speak the truth and tell them what a crock their polygraph and process are. And so inclined audacious, skilled, and intelligent individuals armed with countermeasures, are even a bigger fear and threat. It all depends to what level your willing to take the struggle too. Using a lie to catch a liar is a fools errand.
The polygraph industry is always trying to find new venues to exercise the trade, an example are fishing tournaments and other types of events where they can sow suspicion and fear that a contestant might cheat. Cheaters, like liars, and other lower life forms always get caught, what they are selling is just a theory of quicker self gradification.

Regards ..

Dear EOS,

I spoke to the persons concerned. (note the use of persons instead of people)
They are scared to become embroiled and ultimately to have their identities known.
The American International bunch may find reasons to revoke training certiticates...

So unfortunately, that saga wont go much further for now ( later,,,, maybe )

The one that offered the choices (Results R' Us ) might be an easier one to finger
as the 3 have become 2 / and as you may well know, when the bones are bare,
the hyenas turn upon themselves.

I will keep you informed of new developments.

Rgds,

Kalex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2007 at 9:23am:


Kalex,

If you have artifacts to post, then send them to George, he has various means to acquire them. It would be good to see them, and be disputed by our resident polygraphers. But on the same note, as is true of most "trade schools - ACICS accredited, don't you know !!", this includes DACA (formerly DODPI), and of course the highly and academically respected, American Polygraph Association (yes, this is satire), if your breathing and have money, guess what your in, no brains required.  Just flash the cash and wahlah !!! Your a certified polygrapher, or any other one liners you care to add.  So it really does not surprize me from your statements. Its not much of a leap from asking "Are the lights on in the room", (obvious irrelevent question), to "Would you like that supersized with fries". And I have more respect for the laters ability to get the order right. Thanks for a highly entertaining post, I haven't had the chance to do satire in a while.

Regards ....

I found your reference to the American International School Of Polygraph to be an interesting choice. This week I met 2 persons that have qualified from that school and neither can score
charts properly or at all; neither can formulate proper Relevant Questions and neither can identify basic, overt countermeasures.

A third person, also having 'qualified' from that great institution, offered a client the choice
of rendering an NDI or DI - wichever the client would prefer.

Otherwise they're all in good shape and ready to wreck careers and lives.

I found you reference to the American International School Of Polygraph to be an interesting choice. This week I met 2 persons that have qualified from that school and neither can score
charts properly or at all; neither can formulate proper Relevant Questions and neither can identify basic, overt countermeasures.

A third person, also having 'qualified' from that great institution, offered a client the choice
of rendering an NDI or DI - wichever the client would prefer.

Otherwise they're all in good shape and ready to wreck careers and lives.

Palerider, polygraphers ... etc.

It does make it more difficult for you as the truth we post, your training academies provide. In reference:

American International Institute for Polygraph - Morrow, GA.  
Link: http://www.polygraphschool.com/catalog.htm

about 3/4's of the way down the page.

Quote:


So what part of being able to reduce the fear and anxiety which learning and becoming versed in the polygraph procedure isn't understood ? If you can't get the adrenal levels high enough it doesn't work. It will be inconclusive everytime. Knowlege is power and the more the examinee has, the less pressure you can apply. And I don't give a damn about how much experience you may have with Reids or Honts techniques. So my 3 rules above apply and have proven validation thanks to this polygraph school. Its way too easy when your adversaries provide you with the ammunition.  And I know I got you cold !!!

Regards ....

[quote author=nonombre link=1181580290/15#18 date=1182983500  I do believe that polygraph examiners are concerned that PLC procedural information provided by this and other "anti" polygraph sites as a  "public service" has in fact "served" to do nothing more than make it more difficult for innocent examinees to get through the test (I argue strongly this information has HURT a lot more folks than he has helped).

Regards,

Nonombre [/quote]

Whew. That is the biggest crock of horse manure I have read in a long time.
If you sincerely believe that this site and TLBLD has actually made it more difficult
for innocent subjects to pass a p/g examination, then you are seriously deluded and
are definitely No Friend of anyone who visits here for advice.

Wow. The scary thing is that you may even believe this rubbish that you posted.

No. I dont think you believe your own ramblings. You're just stuck in a rut with no
alternative but to wallow in it long-term.

How sad. Just at a point where I thought you had some real life in you.
0/10 for the BS
But 10/10 for effort.

I will conjure up your image in my mind and send you peace and blessings.

Lethe,

First off let me say welcome and its good to have another highly trained mind on the board.  I have enjoyed the discourse !!

What your going to find from these two resident polygraphers (JB and Nonombre inparticular), is that they will on most occasions to the best of there ability answer your questions. I will caveat that with,  the information will not cross into the antipolygraph realm, as both are true believers in their chosen profession.  But from my experience over the last few years and even before I came to find this board. Which is a great amount of fun especially for debating, which I do cherish as a fun passtime. Is that  detailed/indepth polygraph knowlege does greatly effect the polygraphs outcome. I have tutored many in the last few years on the polygraph and its process. I direct them to this website and have them read everything they can get on the polygraph. Then we go to work on how to dissect the polygraphers process, and how to mentally counter each point in the process. Not one has had DI (Deception Indicated) or SR (Significant Response) since I began. All have either passed, or had Inconclusive. The reason for this, is that once the fear and anxiety levels are reduced significantly, the end result has to be the two latter outcomes. What I have done is simplify the requirements for a successful polygraph exam, (This is what the polygrapher must have in place to be successful), you alluded to them in your posts.

These 3 requirements are strictly my perspective to the problem:

1. The subject must have and maintain a level of fear and anxiety: Accomplished with the early notification of the exam and enhanced with the pretest song and dance, finished off with the acquaintance test (stim test).

2. Subject must believe that the polygraph really can detect deception: Part 1 and polygraphers ability to get you to buy into the show. Also other ploys during the in-test phase about breathing and stopping the polygraph to get things off your chest. Its all a show.

3. Subject believes that there are consequences for failure: Loss of job, or not getting a job. This enhances the fear and anxiety level. But once they fully understand, they relax and this fear goes away too. The realization that not getting this job because of being subjected to this process may not be really worth it. those that think independently and have cognitive abilities actually see it for what it is. And some have walked away. Some of my folks basically just stopped the job process because they disliked being deceived by a potential employer.

Also with the addition in some cases of SA (Statement Analysis) & KA (Kinesic Analysis) also thrown into the mix, which is done without the subjects knowlege, it adds to the point that they (polygraphers)  believe they are unbeatable. The bottom line is that the great minds who take nothing at face value will always find away to get around totalitarian systems. But if the attempt is tried by someone not cognitively equipped, the polygrapher will always win. Bottom line is they like stupid, naive, and unread.

Any one of these requirements not met by the polygrapher, effects its outcome. Mostly to the inconclusive side of the decision. And if countermeasures are used, it heavily sways the decision to the subject.  

Our resident polygraphers will not respond to this as it would violate their rules and they must always defend their machine and process.
And them giving in would make this no fun at all !!

Again Welcome and Regards ....

J.B. I stand by my analysis of your posts, which you've done nothing to refute.  When put into plain language, they really are that vacuous.  But, I know, the answer to all my questions is always in the next article or book.  Well, here's an article for you to read: Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell.

Lethe,

I find no rationalization to continue to engage in discourse with you, as you appear to be pressed to make this into a flippant debate.  If you are indeed an educated audience rather than that which you latter purposed, the answer to your question lies within my answer and the research/reading you have yet to do.

Drew,

I would think that we can both agree that a lie is not necessarily what is measured or deception necessary in a procedure of testing for deception.  In fact, concealing information is in itself a form of deception.  Although I do believe that conditioning is a part of the procedure (e.g. orienting response is a form of conditioning), it needn’t be “contorted”.

I am not sure what it is that you were trying to accomplish with your last thought of the examiner and the critic but I personally have had many personal discussions with David Lykken, some with Bill Iacono, and some with John Furedy (some of the harshest opponents of CQT polygraph).  In fact, I corresponded with David up until a day or two before he passed away.  I neither agree nor subscribe to the ideology that one should isolate themselves from someone just because they do not agree with you or have different beliefs than you.

J.B. I hardly know what to say.  I mean... this is the conversation we're having:

Lethe: Why do some polygraphers deceive their subjects?
J.B.: Some don't.
Lethe: Alright.  But what about the ones that do?
J.B.: They've always done it that way.
Lethe: Uh... okay.  But why have they always done it that way?

There are two possibilities, J.B.  Either you think that you're providing valid answers or you don't.  If you do think that, you're a fool.  If you know that these answers are invalid and simply efforts in obfuscation, you're a deceiver.  And, I think, that furthermore makes you a fool anyway for thinking that I'll accept that line.  Maybe others do, but you need to know your audience. And I don't eat bullshit for breakfast.

Yes, it would be more than a bit much to draw close parallels between polygraphers and Nazis, and I don't think that I do that in the above post.  I try to follow this rule of thumb: If someone isn’t advocating the murder of millions of people in gas chambers and a global Reich for the White Man I don't assume he’s a Nazi because it’s pretty damn evil to call him one.

However, totalitarians do like to eliminate critical thought and get people to take things purely on their authority and "just follow orders" (the defense given by many concentration camp guards when tried at Nuremburg).  Polygraphers don't set out to do that, but that is an incidental side effect of what they do.  People who go out and get information, instead of just taking what is grudgingly given to them, and who then apply their own rationality to said data, instead of simply accepting the proffered explanations, are--as you admit--at a disadvantage on the polygraph.  Thus, we can expect to have fewer of those sorts of people at a polygraphing agency than we expect to find there if it were a nonpolygraphing agency.  I don't see how that conclusion can be escaped.  Do you find it valid?  If so, I'm guessing that you find it deplorable but you think the benefits still outweigh even that cost (which I think is pretty high).

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the NAS review, the executive summary of which says the polygraph detects deception "well above chance, though well below perfection."  I think that George and I differ a lot in that I believe that under ideal conditions it might be possible that the polygraph could obtain the 90% accuracy levels that polygraphers like to cite.  The ideal circumstance requires many things under the tester's control: environment of exam, well-trained polygrapher, good equipment, adequate background info, etc.  But it also includes one major element that cannot be easily controlled by the tester: the examinee's knowledge of the exam.  You will be right far less than 90 times if you put 100 people who know how the polygraph works and doubt its accuracy.  My guess would be that the accuracy in that circumstance--with examinees furthermore hostile to the examiners who have been lying to them and insulting their intelligence--will be little better than chance. 

The problem is not that examinees are not told how the test works.  The problem is that those examinees who find out how it works are at a huge disadvantage--and they're precisely the sorts of people that we most want in the sorts of jobs that we feel we have to polygraph for.

One solution is just to keep everyone ignorant.  If you can do that with total success, you can return to the 90% success rate.  But, if the method for keeping people ignorant has other negative drawbacks you need to run through the cost-benefits analysis again.  And how are you going to get people to think critically about everything except this one little thing that they can never question or look into?  I don't think it's possible; either everything is fair game for skeptical inquiry or you must muzzle critical thinking.  Otherwise, eventually it'll start asking "Why is it that this one thing we can never think about?  What is so special about it that we must never question it, even though we are told to think rationally about everything else?"  And at that point you must either banish the voice of reason or embrace it.  Woe to those who send it away.

Again, I can provisionally accept a 90% accuracy rate for the polygraph under ideal conditions, if inconclusive results are left out. But when an inconclusive conclusion is results in the same thing for the examinee as a failure it's dishonest to pretend the polygraph didn't fail when an honest person comes up inconclusive.  To honestly debate the widespread use of the polygraph, it seems to me, we need to know the following three things:

• the accuracy rate with ignorant subjects;
• the accuracy rate with knowledgeable subjects; and
• what percentage of examinees are knowledgeable

If we don't have those three bits of information, I don't see how we can estimate what the real world accuracy rate is.  And that's what is important, not what rate some guy got in a laboratory.  It's not people who may or may not have stolen $5 out of a desk who are a danger to anyone.

It's like when you go to a car dealership and look at the stickers.  They don't just say "30 mpg."  They will indicate the car gets 30 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg in city driving.  Then you, the consumer, knowing that you do 80% of your driving in-town, can calculate what your real mileage will be (23.6 mpg, if my hasty math is correct).  Again, it is dishonest to cite the accuracy under ideal conditions if only 30% of the real world tests can be done under those conditions.

Anyway, this website is the best thing that ever happened to polygraph?  I don't think anyone should be surprised that the free exchange and competition of ideas leads to better ideas.  Personally, I'd like to see it practiced on an even wider scale.

Lethe,

In your last post you indicated that I did not answer your question of, Quote:


I purport that the answer to this question was is in my last post with this, Quote:

Lethe wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 11:56pm:


Don't you believe it to be a bit of a stretch to compare taking or giving a polygraph examination to Nazi Germany?

A bit absurd, nonetheless, I do find myself interested in the details of your arguments...Hmmm.  And how do you address the statements by the NAS that specific issue polygraph (of the PLC variety) in fact detected deception at levels FAR above chance (albiet not perfect).  

Based on your position, we should throw the tool out anyway....Why?  Because the polygraph examiner chose not to give an detailed blow by blow description to the examinee of exactly what was going on during the testing process???  Or that a group of disgruntled former examinees decided to get on the internet and "let the poverbial cat out of the bag?"

So the polygraph community, learned, adjusted, and reloaded....  Accuracy and utility still in place (if ever actually in question), now more robust then ever...

You know the truth is that this website is the best thing that ever happened to polygraph.  You all have made us better, stronger.  I am not trying to taunt you here.  You all truly made us take a look at what we were doing, much like how even a borderline successful hack by a computer hacker forces a company take a closer look at it's own security and close the open ports...

Forensic polygraph version 2.0, now available at a police department or governmental agency near you...

Regards...

Nonombre
     

That's not the response I was expecting, but it suits my purposes better than what I'd anticipated. 

J.B.'s newest comment is, like its predecessors, worthless.  When the question is basically "Why do some polygraph techniques use deception?" you cannot answer it by shrugging and saying "Well, some don't."  No further comment is necessary on his last post.

Now, nonombre, you ask if the fact that someone lied makes him a liar?  Well, yes.  By definition.  Case closed?  Nope, the discussion is just beginning at this point.  Most polygraphers seem under the impression that all people opposed to the polygraph do so on the grounds that it involves lies and, therefore, is ipso facto bad.  Maybe a few do, but most don't.  Be careful that you do not mischaracterize the arguments of your opponents; that's intellectually dishonest.

You have admitted that knowledge of how the polygraph works makes the results less accurate (at least for honest people and, I think it's safe to say it can't make it any more accurate for the dishonest subjects). 

• "the entire structure of this much maligned (by APG.org)  PLC process (to include how the nature of the examination is presented to the examinee) is actually geared toward helping the innocent/truthful examinee successfully pass the test"
• "polygraph examiners are concerned that PLC procedural information ... [does] nothing more than make it more difficult for innocent examinees to get through the test"
• "I argue strongly this information [on how the PLCQ test works] has HURT a lot more folks than he has helped."

Your pre-emptive refusal to discuss the great new relevant-sounding control questions demonstrates what all of the above quotes demonstrate: knowledge of how the PLCQ exam works makes it less accurate, hurting honest examinees. 

And I'm glad that you alluded to "certain psychological research" because it provides us another avenue to demonstrate that knowledge of the exam makes the results inaccurate.  In all of the most interesting psychology experiments, the subject was totally unaware of what was actually being tested.  Consider the well-known Milgram experiment.  Had the subject known what was going on the results would have been worthless.  Or the Stanford prison experiment.  Had the participants been told "We want to see how sadistic you become," the results would have been worthless.  The same principle applies with the polygraph.  You can't lie if you're told to lie.  That doesn't involve the intent to deceive and the fear of discovery.

You polygraphers know all of this, of course.  But, the benefits of a lie detector being good, all else being equal, you then do whatever is necessary to preserve that detection device.  I've never seen any evidence that any of you stop to reconsider if the polygraph is still good once all the lies, propaganda, and reprogramming of people is added into the equation.  My position is that it's not.  The Romans made a desert and called it peace; you take away critical thinking and call it truth.

The fact of the matter, as you now admit, is that the polygraph is biased against people who know how it works.  And people who are curious, who take the initiative, and who think for themselves are all more likely to find out how it works than people who are not those things.  And aren't those precisely the people that we should, if they are honest, most want to pass the exam?  How perverse that they are those who are least likely to do so!  We need more people who think for themselves, not less.  Nazi Germany had plenty of people who were capable of "just following orders." 

This is a problem that polygraphers have not, to my knowledge, dealt with at all.  There is a large-scale, systematic bias in the polygraph against the sorts of people that are best qualified to be entrusted with power over others.  In the long-term, that's going to cause problems for us all.  No dictator could possibly hope for a better tool.

Now, tell me, had you ever considered that before, nonombre?  Be honest now.  And, if you have, I'd give a penny for your thoughts.