Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 18th, 2008 at 4:06pm
  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 17th, 2008 at 8:24am:
Sackett,

Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems.  Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.

They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart).  I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing.  They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".

I can not speak of a particular test of which I was not involved.

So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"?  Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.

No.  I suppose a diagnosable mental disorder could also explain it...

You kind of glossed over that one.

No, I didn't give the answer you were looking for.

Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.


Sackett
Posted by: EJohnson
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 1:14pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 8:24am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sackett,

Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems.  Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.

They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart).  I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing.  They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".

So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"?  Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.

You kind of glossed over that one.

Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 8:14am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Ejohnson,

Let me guess.  You're a polygrapher.

Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.


Like your post above?

"Federal government type"?  I'm a military retiree, and have been running my own business (real estate) for the last 10 years.

Sorry for the duplicate post, hit the wrong button.

Al
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 8:09am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Ejohnson,

Let me guess.  You're a polygrapher.

Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.


Like your post above?

Al
Posted by: EJohnson
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 5:03am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
My fingers are too tired to continue this!


Great! Because you have deposited more methane gas than a herd of long horns. 
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster. 


Al: I am king s____ and I deserve the jobs and all of the clams, and I only did some unauthorized translating for a foreign national behind the backs of the most paranoid, strict, national security agency on planet earth.....and WAH WAH WAH! They (sob) moved their chair close to me and started to yell at me. I almost had an asthma attack, had I not had the inhaler (you get the picture).

Sackett; Yeah, polygraph works very well and..

Al; It's all an interrogation! I started to doubt my own truthfulness after so much questioning. You'd think I was working for an organization of buttoned-up, hard-on government paranoid types...er...say...I was working for those types of people. Come to think about it, those people were aweful serious bout stuff.

EJ; Hey Aldrich, wake up and smell the glue. Get a job working with people who don't care if you do some side work and who don't polygraph their staff. Life is too short to be such a whiney, sourpuss. Why are you federal government types so gaddamn self-deserving of jobs? I know a postal worker who thinks he deserves to be postmaster general because he has never been late for work. Woopty do. In the real world, you get no assurances just because "it's your specialty" or "I worked so doggone hard." 

Jesus, I have spoken to Holocaust survivors with far less righteous indignation. Move on brother. 
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 5:02am
  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 17th, 2008 at 4:27am:
Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue.  Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana.  You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.

Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying.  You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL.  All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".

I have already addressed this.  It is up to the readers to decide.

That is exactly why polygraph is used.  There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not.  Hense the applicability of polygraph... 


You are talking in circles.  You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.  

No, don't think so.  I never said polygraph was a lie detector...

So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?

Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.

FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations.  Yes, I was scared.  Yes, I was nervous.  Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.


FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth).  So what does that prove:

You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.

But not when withholding information.

No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!

First they they went over  my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test.  Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question.  Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it.  Turned the player piano on again and did it again.  Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days!  Each time trying to get more info.

Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity.  IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.

"maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me" doesn't sound like you were completely truthful.  I'm not suggesting you were lying, but if there is any chance you withheld, then you would naturally have problems on the testing.

This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.

I have seen the same shows, movies, etc.  I will tell you for me, I have never taken a false confession, ever!

No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to).  By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.  


A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding.  It just means the question is consistently bothering them. 

I've already discussed this.

In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with.  Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth.  And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.

What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read:  "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..."   But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question.  I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.

Further, inter-chart interviewing concerning a specific subject is inappropriate at best.  But I can not speak to your experience, I wasn't there, nor was I responsible for your test.

Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.

Nepotism, buddy considerations, friends of friends, dynastic desires, etc, that's the "scuttlebutt" at every dept.

Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!

I know many federal examiners and yes, it should make the nation feel more secure.

I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination. 


Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?   Roll Eyes

No.  Wouldn't want testing information to be misused, manipulated, falsely misrepresented, etc before the truth can come out...

I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process.  I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.

Oh please!  Doesn't work the other way around, huh?. 

No, it doesn't!  I've explained that.

Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.   Grin   Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.  

Do not believe everything you see on TV, or the internet for that matter...

The  point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION.  The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate.  If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful.  Ya got nothing to hide of fear":  You can GET SCREWED!

Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems.  Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.

Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful.  TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!

My fingers are too tired to continue this!


me too, have a nice night...

Sackett
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 4:44am
  Mark & Quote
OK, you believe what you will.   But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well,

What I am suggesting, is that a polygrapher does NOT WANT a "reaction" on the chart, without an admission from the subject he/she can use to account for that "reaction" to justify a "failure".  So they try to con the subject into believing there is just no way you can lie without the machine picking up on it.  So they keep hammering the subject until he tells them something that might explain why he's reacting (if it's bad enough, you fail, if not you get through), OR they get desensitized and stop reacting.

It's "bogus" anyway, because a "reaction" IS NOT EQUAL to a lie.   

The whole thing is a pathetic game!

Lingenfelter (my tester) went as far as to draw a pie chart.  He marked a small part of the chart representing 1%.  He said:  "See that 1%?  That's the percent chance you have of the machine not registering a LIE!"

Yeah buddy, only at the INSTITUTE of BIZARRE STUDIES!

No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board.


Only lack of understanding I have is why I failed my test when I was telling the truth.

This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source..

Shit son!  We put forth the findings of the NAS, but you didn't like the source.   

Otay, so show us a valid ACADEMIC study concluding that polygraphs are reliable.  And not something published by a phoney Ph"d working in the industry!

Explain to us why polygraphs ARE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE IN COURTS.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 4:27am
  Mark & Quote
Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue.  Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana.  You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.

Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying.  You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL.  All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".

That is exactly why polygraph is used.  There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not.  Hense the applicability of polygraph... 


You are talking in circles.  You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.   

So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?

Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.

FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations.  Yes, I was scared.  Yes, I was nervous.  Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.


FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth).  So what does that prove:

You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.

No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!

First they they went over  my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test.  Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question.  Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it.  Turned the player piano on again and did it again.  Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days!  Each time trying to get more info.

Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity.  IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.

This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.

No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to).  By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.   


A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding.  It just means the question is consistently bothering them. 

In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with.  Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth.  And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.

What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read:  "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..."   But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question.  I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.

Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.

Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!

I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination. 


Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?   Roll Eyes

I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process.  I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.

Oh please!  Doesn't work the other way around, huh?. Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.   Grin   Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.   

The  point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION.  The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate.  If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful.  Ya got nothing to hide of fear":  You can GET SCREWED!

Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful.  TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!

My fingers are too tired to continue this!
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 3:36am
  Mark & Quote
Twoblock,

no pissing contest here! Smiley

However, it IS fair for me to suggest that a proposition of impropriety is the same as a charge equal to an accusation.  Regardless of how you twist the English language, this is an adversarial board.  When you make veiled allegations in support of your assumptions, I do not think it is written in the sense of balance or simple inquisition.  You had an agenda to (try and) present.

It would be like me letting you work at my store, but to ask you what would keep "the likes" of you from stealing from me?  If you don't see that as an accusation, then, Okedokey!

BTW, you further accused me (maybe it was not an accusation but an allegation, I guess) of not answering "intelligent questions?"  I have answered almost every question presented here.  I believe it is fair to those who read this board (not just post their opinions on it) to understand there is another side of polygraph.   

I previously stated that I reserved the right not to answer some questions, so this is not a matter of deceipt as I have been forthright and honest.  Maybe that concept coming from a simple and silly polygraph examiner is difficult for you to grasp, but I do understand...


Sackett

P.S.  There has been no time in which I have demanded anyone "back up or prove" what they post, though it has been demanded of me.  This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source..  I''m just trying to round off the edges a little bit with the truth from the "other side." 

Like I have said, you have yours and I have mine.
Posted by: Twoblock
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 2:05am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sackett

What rediculous accusation? I made no accusations whatsoever. I asked questions and made a statement. I was not trying to bait you. But, when polygraphers like you and nonombre will not answer intelligent questions to which we all know you have the answers, makes you all look simple and silly. You guys wear your feelings on your sleeve cuffs.

As to my statement about if I was an honest polyghrpher and your answer was "No you wouldn't" -- Bud, you don't know my propensity for honesty and integrety which would preclude me from ever being a polygrapher. I, also, know more about the polygraph than you think, but I refuse to get in a pissing contest. We all have our ideas and opinions so I will leave this discussion alone except to say - don't ever get the notion that I won't/can"t back up what I say.
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 17th, 2008 at 1:16am
  Mark & Quote
twoblock,

after I made my posting, I figured that someone would make some ridiculous accusation to that effect.  OK, you believe what you will.   But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well, that's OK, your opinion has been expressed.  BTW, how come we never talk on this board about those people that honestly passed their examinations...? Anyway,

Contrary to your's and apprently others' belief, examiners do not have a personal interest or agenda in the outcome of any examination; THE EXAMINEE DOES!.  Secondly, the reputation, social and professional standing and future business of a private examiner rests in their ability and integrity.  If we get a subpoena or law suit filed, the last thing we would do is risk jail or losing our business by altering evidence.  Besides, no examiner with the propensity to lie, cheat and/or alter evidence of an examination would even allow recordings of their exams for the very fear of their discovery...An issue we are trying to correct within the polygraph community.

Further, you wrote:

"You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?"

You already know that law enforcement is allowed (by law) to lie to people during investigations (there are exceptions, but this is not a law class).   You are attempting to bait me on this subject by mixing apples and oranges.  It makes you look simple and silly.

You wrote:

"If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. ."

No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board.  Besides, while your suggestion concerning punishments of unethical people is a noble one, it has little effect on the law as it currently stands.  If you do not like the current law, then I suggest you run for office and get elected.  I hear there could be an opening in Illinois or Arizona soon...

Sackett
Posted by: Twoblock
Posted on: Feb 16th, 2008 at 10:12pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sackett

What's to prevent polygraphers to cut and paste their tapes? Wouldn't the fair way be for each to tape the test. Then, if the tapes don't jibe, the ruling body can determine who altered their tapes. An alteration on a tape can be detected if one is armed with that technology.
 
You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?

If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. What's wrong with this scenario?

Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 16th, 2008 at 6:38pm
  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 16th, 2008 at 8:24am:
".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "

For certain?  I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.

that's because you do not understand the entire process.  You understand the mechanics of the testing, but not all the principals.  It is easy to apply a small amount of information to a process then attack what you do not understand.  It's ALL about that which is withheld, not necessarily lied to.

That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't.  They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free.  They just couldn't believe it.  Thought I was passing secrets or something.

I can't answer for anything that is outside my control or knowledge.

Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.  

Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue.  Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana.  You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.  B/I's can't find anyone in your past that can establish it one way or another, so your word alone should be the deciding factor?  Sorry, I disagree.  That is exactly why polygraph is used.  There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not.  Hense the applicability of polygraph...

Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?

No!  I want an investigator conducting my background check and a polygraph examiner conducting my polygraph examination.  FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations.  Yes, I was scared.  Yes, I was nervous.  Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.

I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest".  That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing,  is where people screw themselves.  

No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!

So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION?  My polygrapher did the following:

Let out a big sign when looking at the chart.  Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.

What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters")  keeps showing up.

I talk with them and try to figure out the problem.  Almost everytime we find it, retest and they pass.  It's really an amazing and accurate process, when done right.

Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying.  Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST.  I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated!  Angry

No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to).  By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.  In that case, no amount of preparation can prepare them.

Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records.  If it's all on the "up and up", that is.   Grin

I have taped every test I have conducted since 2000, for my protection and theirs.  I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.  You've seen the press cut and paste interviews to intentionally sway the viewing audience?!  

I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process.  I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.


Sackett
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Feb 16th, 2008 at 8:24am
  Mark & Quote
".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "

For certain?  I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.

That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't.  They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free.  They just couldn't believe it.  Thought I was passing secrets or something.

Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.   

Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?

I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest".  That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing,  is where people screw themselves.  They want you to open up and tell them your life story.  Which they will use against you later, whether you're truthful or not, if they have to (e.g. if there is an "unacceptable" squiggle mark they have to account for).

So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION?  My polygrapher did the following:

Let out a big sign when looking at the chart.  Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.

What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters")  keeps showing up.

Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying.  Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST.  I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated!  Angry

Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records.  If it's all on the "up and up", that is.   Grin
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 16th, 2008 at 1:27am
  Mark & Quote
n.p.c.,

if you decide to hand me my ass on a plate, please ensure you have assistance.  I woud not want you to get a hernia or throw out your back... Grin

You asked:

1)  Can you for certain tell if a person is lying?

A]  no, but I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant.  On that note, I would also like to clarify that polygraph is NOT a lie detector.  It is a medicological instrument collecting biological data influenced by the physiological activity of the ANS, nothing more.  Stop trying to make it some mystical, esoteric process, all too easily attacked through disbelief and misunderstanding.

2)  Can you for certain tell if a person is using countermeasures, and if so, which ones can you for certain detect?

A]  Yes.  However, I will not discuss the what I can detect and/or how I can detect them.  Lets call it a "trade" secret (for the lack of a better term). 

3)  What is the accuracy rate of polygraph, and how can one be certain that accuracy rate is valid?"

A]  I don't know.  I'm not a researcher, I am a practitioner.  It seems to work very well when I apply the procedure and protocol in a proper manner as I was instructed.

Also, be aware, while I am not willing to discuss anything and everything about polygraph, I am willing to answer most questions about the polygraph testing process and profession.  Just remember, for me and others like me, this is a (semi) hostile board.  I reserve the right not to answer some questons or inquiries for a variety of reasons.  These reasons are mine alone and not for debate. 

See you upon your return

Sackett

Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 9:11pm
  Mark & Quote
Sackett:

I am, unfortunately for the extension of this conversation, going to be tied up for the next couple of weeks.  But, to finish my part of this thread, regarding you leaving, I have no opinion of whether or not you should leave here, but most other polygraphers who have come here do so with an agenda, then when they get their asses handed to them on a plate with logical argument, decide they are better off playing with themselves over at PolygraphPlace.  I find it amusing.

Frankly, honest discussion of polygraph with polygraphers would be refreshing.  Let's start with you answering a few honest questions.  A yes or no, (you may expand upon your answer, of course).

1)  Can you for certain tell if a person is lying?

2)  Can you for certain tell if a person is using countermeasures, and if so, which ones can you for certain detect?

3)  What is the accuracy rate of polygraph, and how can one be certain that accuracy rate is valid?

Please give these a stab, but I will have to let others continue this thread if they are so inclined, as I do have to take care of business.

BTW, I don't apologize for my sarcasm, it is one of the better things I do!
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 5:38pm
  Mark & Quote
nopolycop wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 3:32pm:
Sackett:

I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.

I explained why in my previous posting.  I thought I was clear.

One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins.  I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic.  THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.

Of course we're thin skinned.  People on this board are attacking our profession without having any more than a cursory understanding of the sciences that go into polygraph, what would you expect?  BTW, my sarcasm was addressed for the purposes of my analogy since I did not want to assume anything about you.  Therefore, I used the car wash analogy as it is innocuous and non-offensive example.  I didn't mean to insult, but didn't want to really insult by assuming anything.

Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website.  But, because  you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.

n.p.c., I haven't tried to discredit anything, just open eyes of those who would read this board and blindly believe everything written here.  Then, believing what they read, enter an examination room like mine and screw themselves out of a job or their freedom, then wonder what happened... 

Why would I go away?  Most have been respectful and as long as that remains I fear nothing written here.  I must admit though, it is sort of like a debate between the democrats and the republicans. Each side has their opinions and there is little chance either side will change.  I am not here for you or the rest of the "usualy suspects", I am here for the curious and to present an alternate understanding of the process where I believe it is best applied.  Com'mon, do you really want me to go away...?


For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph.  That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.

Polygraph requires an examinee to be mentally and physically healthy at the time of the examination.  Accusations, false or not, are naturally stressful; however, they are not abnormally so and would not prevent an examination.  Nice try at extending the conversation.  Of course, if these type of allegations were causal to abnormality, then no examination would ever take place since every examinee would be abnormally distracted.  And, no examinee would ever pass, since they would be abnormal, right?  Then why do many examinee's pass?  It is certainly not that they implemented the techniques outlined in TLBTLD!  But then again the extinction of polygraph IS the purpose of this board, right?!
 
Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.

Your opinion and certainly entitled to it.

Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves.  I am not going away.


Wow!  Return sarcasm?  At least I apologized for mine in advance...

Talk with you soon,


Sackett
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 3:32pm
  Mark & Quote
Sackett:

I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.

One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins.  I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic.  THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.

Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website.  But, because  you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.

For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph.  That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.

Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.

Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves.  I am not going away.
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 4:41am
  Mark & Quote
"n.p.c.",

First off, Richardson nor anyone else on this board is qualified to proffer such a challenge.  It would be akin to me challenging you to come to where I am and wash my car.  OH YEAH!  It's been XX days and you haven't washed my car.  Chicken?  Can't handle it?  Don't know how to wash a car???  See everybody, n.p.c. doesn't know how to wash a car...  Now,  disprove my hypothesis.  IT HAS BEEN 763 DAYS AND N.P.C. HASN'T PROVEN TO US THAT HE KNOWS HOW TO WASH A CAR!!!  Do you really know how to wash a car??? If you did, you'd accept my challenge, huh?!  Nope!  You missed the rims and antenna, see you have failed in proving to my satisfaction that you know how to wash a car...

Be realistic, no examiner will take up on the challenge.  Not out of fear.  Not out of inability, but because no method or means of CM identification would ever satisfy the fanatical idiology of those who boast their effectiveness.  Professing to be fair and impartial to such a challenge coming from an "anti" board is no more than grand-standing to the audience.  But, like I said, it's an open board.

You keep your opinions and I'll keep mine.  We can agree to disagree, in a civilized manner and share them openly.  Let those who read this board figure out who is accurate, believable and professional.

BTW, sorry for the sarcasm before but I am tired.  


Sackett
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 3:14am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:29am:

 Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing" 

BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway. Grin

Sackett  


Sackett:

If you are as good as you say, why don't you take Drew Richardson up on his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge?  You could singlehandedly put this countermeasure foolishness to rest.
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:29am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
digithead,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave your (fairly) applied logic as the basis of your opinion and give you the last word.

I, on the other hand, will apply my knowledge and experience to opine that many of the statements on this board (not specifically yours) are wonderful examples of why a little bit of knowledge and an emotional agenda are a dangerous thing.  Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing" 

BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway. Grin

Sackett
Posted by: digithead
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:06am
  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
digithead,

I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process.  But, many are!  Name one?  There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such.  Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.


Except that none of the authors of the report are subjected to polygraph screening which is your implication. I think the NAS was quite aware of the appearance of bias and went out of its way to select people uninvolved with polygraphy beyond the requisite knowledge of physiology, psychology, statistics, engineering and law. To claim that this group was biased against the polygraph is sheer nonsense...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
Just because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist).


You seriously think this? Wow, so that explains how polygraph people suppress their cognitive dissonance they get when they read this report, it was all an inside job designed to discredit polygraphy from the get-go...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
You have your opinion.  Fine.  As an examiner, I have mine.  I know it works well.  Pefectly, no.  BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...

I never ask anyone to take me at my word, there is plenty of research out there to support my position that CQT polygraphy is fatally flawed, the NAS report to wit...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
The research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap."  However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."

Yes, it's crap. If it can't qualify for NSF or NIH funding it means that there are serious flaws in the research methods. How else would you translate the NAS description of the state of polygraph research, especially since you agree that most of it is "crap?"

Additionally, qualifying for funding is different than actually getting funding because of the fierce competition for research dollars. Just because the research design is well-done doesn't mean it will actually get funded. Their conclusion is that the research methods were so poor in the ones that they excluded that they wouldn't even be considered for funding...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
I believe you have your right to your opinion.  I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me.  Your opinion would change.


No, my opinion wouldn't change because I would be roundly shouted down if I asked any questions that challenged conventional polygraph practice, especially when it comes to CQT...

I do think that GKT is promising however because it resides on a cognitive basis rather than the emotional basis of CQT...
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am
  Mark & Quote
digithead,

I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process.  But, many are!  Name one?  There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such.  Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.

Just because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist).   

You have your opinion.  Fine.  As an examiner, I have mine.  I know it works well.  Pefectly, no.  BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...

The research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap."  However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."

I believe you have your right to your opinion.  I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me.  Your opinion would change.

Sackett

Posted by: digithead
Posted on: Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:06pm
  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on Feb 13th, 2008 at 9:30pm:
Al,

would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis?  Was this the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment and periodic security screening tests they were condemning?  The very same NAS members (not all of course) who when the DOE abated screening tests as a result of that report resulted in multiple security violations through laziness, misconduct and/or negligence to such a degree the program had to be reinstituted?  

A slight conflict of interest, I believe.  I (personally) see their report as I would fat people writing a report condemning McDonald's for selling fat filled products while they hold their convention at the local Burger King and receiving BK stock options in exchange... These minor details conveniently ommitted when citing their findings.

BTW, I am all for finding a better "mousetrap."  Some thought CVSA was it, it is not...  Got any suggestions? Then invent it!  But for now, polygraph is the best we have.

Sackett

P.S.  BTW, how's the food at Leavenworth?


I gotta chime in here even though I need to be working on my dissertation which why I've been absent from this board...

Anyhow, "the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment"?!?! Really? You claim that the NAS report was done by people who work for the national labs and the DOE and are being screened by the polygraph? Baloney!

The main authors, Feinberg and Faigman, are from Carnegie Mellon and UC-Hastings respectively. The rest of the committee are from other universities or research organizations like RAND and the Cleveland Clinic. Not one is listed as working for a national lab and the committee is made up of statisticians, physicians, psychologists, and lawyers who I would argue are eminently qualified to examine the evidence on polygraph and render an opinion. Name one person on the list of authors of the NAS study who is employed by a national lab or is subject to polygraph screening. 

Here's the link in case you have trouble finding it: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=375

Your implication is misdirection at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst. The NAS selected the 57 studies because the excluded studies were, as they put it, "below the quality level typically needed for funding by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health." That's academic speak for saying the majority of research on the polygraph is crap.

I can understand that you feel the need to attack their conclusions but if all you can offer is an attack on their credentials then you don't have much of an argument...
 
  Top