AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Procedure › Add Poll ( Re: question ??? )

Topic Summary - Displaying 12 post(s).

Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:01am

Mark & Quote

candy wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 9:13am:

How can anyone with a conscience still align themselves with polygraph?

Candy, it's very easy. If you're making good money without having to work too hard and have a secure job which confers a measure of prestige, it's very easy to overlook the unwashed masses and to convince yourself that they really should be more grateful for what you're doing.

As someone studying psychology, you probably know that people frequently make up their minds about a matter and only after that do they go around trying to justify it. You might find this recent NYT article interesting. It deals with morality and moral decision making and includes this statement: "People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning ... but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification."

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. A polygrapher would justify himself by saying that your brother really is a bad person after all, as revealed by the polygraph, or, more likely, that he's just one of those people that the process didn't work on, too bad, but he's got to be sacrificed for the greater good which the polygraph serves.

Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Jan 16^th, 2008 at 8:53am

Mark & Quote

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 5:10pm:

Mr. Lethe you wrote:
Quote:

A good prima facie case ... Where? If you have one present it.

Can you cite a published, peer reviewed, scientific, study that establishes, a prima facie case, that in order to produce accurate results on a polygraph, deception is needed? Are you perhaps attempting to engage in a bit of B.S. (either kind) yourself ?

Sancho Panza

Hey, Sancho Panza. I like your avatar.

Anyway, I think it's easy to establish a prima facie case that the accuracy of the polygraph suffers if the subject knows all of the lies. One way to go about it would be this:

Anyway, if the lies don't increase the accuracy of the exam, what purpose do they serve? You could largely settle the matter simply by answering that question. The fact that you don't is a piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that knowing about the lies decreases accuracy since, if it is true, you wouldn't be able to admit it without giving bad people an easy out ("Oh, you can't polygraph me, I know how it works so, as you admit, it won't be very accurate on me.") On the other hand, if what you are insinuating is the case, that knowledge of how it works doesn't impact accuracy, you have no reason to withhold the true explanation.

In any event, my hypothesis is the only game in town, since polygraphers don't see any need to disseminate truthful, accurate information about how it works.

P.S. Sancho, I have a PhD so please call me Dr. Lethe, not Mr. Lethe. "Lethe, PhD" works as well. Thanks.

Posted by: Drew Richardson
Posted on: Jan 10^th, 2008 at 5:49pm

Mark & Quote

Lethe,

I am afraid you have missed the salient point regarding deception in polygraphy (probable lie control question test). That point is not whether deception is required to conduct a test, but that it IS employed each and every time an examination is performed. The following is a previous post of mine discussing when such deception is commonly employed as well as a brief analysis of the then-raised (by a polygraph examiner) notion of the legality of deception surrounding polygraph examinations. The only outstanding question about examiner deception and polygraphy is NOT whether it exists BUT WHETHER IT IS BELIEVED.
Quote:

Examiner:

You say in part:

“…Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here…”

You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.

(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:

(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.

(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
...

Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Jan 10^th, 2008 at 5:10pm

Mark & Quote

Quote

Mr. Lethe you wrote:
Quote:

Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Jan 10^th, 2008 at 2:27pm

Mark & Quote

Quote

Do you deny that there is a good prima facie case that the deception is needed to produce accurate results? Oops, I've asked a clear yes or no question; no way that gets answered with anything but B.S.--breathtaking sophistry.

Sorry, I'm not Barry. I will answer your question with a NO answer. (end of thought process)

(new thought process)
The old term used in the polygraph community was Psychological Set. As advancements have been made the terminology has changed and methodology has changed as well. To go into a dissertation about this would take more space than available on this site I believe. It would also not be productive.

Now your question has been answered with a Yes or No answer.

Posted by: candy
Posted on: Jan 10^th, 2008 at 9:13am

Mark & Quote

Quote

I have just finished reading the NAS report on Polygraph for the second time.

Why does the polygraph industry still harp on about accuracy and reliability when clearly, the research used to back up their claims
is suspect. I remember reading conclusions such as "unscientific and unreliable" amongst others.

How can anyone with a conscience still align themselves with polygraph?

To EJohnson: I am a psychology student. No children. Lots of hobbies.
Diverse interests. My brother failed a polygraph test, despite telling the truth and despite never have broken any laws, nor having committed any misdemeanour of any kind.

Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Jan 10^th, 2008 at 8:57am

Mark & Quote

Barry_C wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 2:05am:

I've said it before, but I think this site is visited by more examiners than the general public. My fear is that some honest people are getting themselves into trouble by trying things suggested by some here.

Barry, the solution to bad information isn't less information, it's more information. If the polygraph community was really concerned with making sure people have accurate information about the polygraph all they'd have to do is provide it. That they don't, even when it's obvious that it leads to many people coming here, indicates that you don't want people to have good information, you want them to be ignorant.

And that is a further piece of evidence in support of my hypothesis that the polygraph doesn't work as well on people who know how it works and that the deception used by polygraphers (you know what I'm talking about) is necessary to the production of results that one can have confidence in. There is no evidence to support your explanation that the deception is used to... Uh... actually, you've never even pretended to explain what the deception is used for. You just want blind trust that there is a good reason and if we'd just shut up and leave the professionals (conveniently, you) to handle things, everything will be fine.

Do you deny that there is a good prima facie case that the deception is needed to produce accurate results? Oops, I've asked a clear yes or no question; no way that gets answered with anything but B.S.--breathtaking sophistry.

P.S. This idea could probably be enlarged profitably in another post, but compare the polygraph community's response to it's critics with, for instance, biologists and how they have responded to their creationist opponents. There's no creationist argument that hasn't been answered, usually countless times, in not only books, articles, and multiple places on the internet--all of them easily accessible and easy for scientists to point people to. Furthermore, there are several very excellent websites, to say nothing of many great books, that explain evolutionary biology to nonscientists of varying degrees of sophistication. The truth is on their side and they want to get it out there to defeat what is, frankly, psuedoscience (and bad theology too).

But polygraphers, contrariwise, though also claiming to have the truth about a controversial matter, don't even make the slightest attempt to explain their practice to those not a part of their guild. Why? Instead of countering their critics' arguments (which, presumably, they could do, being in the right) they try to censor them and attack those who disagree. Why? Just demonstrate how foolish the critics are, if indeed they are foolish, and let the adults make up their own minds.

Just tell us why you use the deception, Barry. That's all I'm asking and all I've been asking. Until you provide a reasonable explanation, it will be rational for someone like myself to conclude that the deception is probably used to create the correct psychophysiological reactions in the test subject.

Posted by: markus_del_marko
Posted on: Jan 4^th, 2008 at 3:58pm

Mark & Quote

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 2:34pm:

markus_del_marko wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 8:55pm:

if this site is so credible and popular, how come there aren't more people posting and more people online here daily ?

Markus,

AntiPolygraph.org is by far the most popular polygraph-related website on the Internet. However, public interest in lie detectors is not particularly great. Most people never have to take a lie detector test and few seek out information regarding the topic. But when they do, they find AntiPolygraph.org, and The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is downloaded well over a hundred times a day. But even then, less than 1% of visitors to this website register and post here on the message board. This notwithstanding, the discussion of polygraph issues is more vibrant and open here than anywhere else on the Internet.

Compare the exchange of views and information here with what you'll find on the message board of the polygrapher-owned and operated website, PolygraphPlace.com, which is heavily censored. And see what information you'll find about how polygraph "testing" actually "works" on any polygrapher-run website. You'll find precious little. Why do you suppose that is?

i didn't mean to deface or put down the site at all george. im new to all of this, i read the entire book from this site 5 times before my test. as i said my examiner did everything listed in the book. i just wish police, lawyers and prosecutors would abolish these voodoo type tests from making legal decisions. if the test were so reliable then they would be use din courts daily. my father is in the process of writing the michigan state senate, governor and such about my situation and the relivence of these coin toss tests. the prosecutor said i had till the 1st of the year to pass one or id be charged. well today is the 4th and nothing has happened. the whole situation is stupid and a mind game as far as im concerned.

Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jan 4^th, 2008 at 2:34pm

Mark & Quote

markus_del_marko wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 8:55pm:

if this site is so credible and popular, how come there aren't more people posting and more people online here daily ?

Posted by: markus_del_marko
Posted on: Jan 4^th, 2008 at 3:00am

Mark & Quote

Quote

Barry_C wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 2:05am:

i think the general public has to be fully aware of what these tests really are about. i know when i took mine after reading the sites book, every thing he did during my exam step by step was identical in nature and context.

Posted by: Barry_C Posted on: Jan 4^th, 2008 at 2:05am	Mark & Quote Quote
I've said it before, but I think this site is visited by more examiners than the general public. My fear is that some honest people are getting themselves into trouble by trying things suggested by some here.

Posted by: markus_del_marko Posted on: Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 8:55pm	Mark & Quote Quote
if this site is so credible and popular, how come there aren't more people posting and more people online here daily ?

Question:

Options:	Text	Color	Split Pie
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
Option 5:
Option 6:
Option 7:
Option 8:

Automatic End in:	days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.
Enable Guest Voting:	Check this if you want guests to be able to vote in this poll.
Hide results:	Check this if you do not want the results of this poll shown until voting has been closed.
Multiple Choice	Check this if you want to allow users to vote for more than one option.
Time limit for deleting vote:	Time in minutes users are allowed to delete their vote (0 to disable delete).
Use legends for Pie Chart	Check this to use legends instead of labels next to each pie slice.
Pie Chart Radius:	Must be a value between 100 and 200 (default 100)

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview