Well in my situation i told the truth on a post conviction Polygraph and they said i flat out lied. So after that I had to do SO classes yuck so my lawyer told me to go with the flow and I did I didn't know about this website but I figured If i was telling the truth originally then i would start lying on future polygraphs hell I didnt change anything had computers when I wasn't supposed to saw hookers porn did what I pleased but i was careful so then when it came time for the polygraph I simply went in and flat out lied on every question except for the control questions and i went on to pass 8 straight polygraphs. Then I finished up the class and I was released from classes and probation so long story short I was convicted of a he said she said situation and it was my fault as far as going to the cops telling my side and got screwed over royally now I don't trust cops nor will i ever help them I despise them. Oh and the polygraphs are nothing more then a witchhunt and moneymaker i don't care what anyone says whether your a SO or not this system is useless it doesn't help anyone!!

Dan,

Almost a decade and half ago, on this blog, George Maschke and I engaged in a rather extensive and protracted discussion with J.B. (Jamie) McCloughan regarding polygraph validity (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1011498360/0). ; Perhaps you might want to review that thread and propose that you and he revisit/update the issue(s) addressed as a part of your proposed candidate's debate.

IEx Member wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 2:06am:



Indeed.

There are many APA members -- including president Walt Goodson -- who feel that a 500-word statement alone is insufficient for voters to get a sense of what a given candidate is all about. 

An interactive debate on the world's largest and most authoritative polygraph web site --- www.antipolygraph.org -- would go a long way in remedying that informational shortcoming.

Later today I will start a separate thread under the "announcements" section of this forum, and again invite Mr McCloughan to join me here to debate the issues. I will also post my 500-word candidate statement as it appears in the current APA magazine.

Next month's APA elections could result in a watershed outcome. APA members have a right to know who is "dedicated to truth" (as the organization's motto goes), and who is not. 

A candid and vigorous debate will shed some much-needed light on that key aspect of APA politics.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 12:52am:

That's a great idea. I've tried to bring a sense of moderation to A-P. In the past, the polarization accomplished very little beyond unproductive vitriol. The debate would be healthy and good for all concerned.

Ark, I don't know why only two members are running for APA president-elect. Evidently, no one else was nominated.

As for the countermeasure challenge, it's contained in my candidate statement. Look at point two of my platform...

2. Open-book research, including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series integral to APA seminars, designed to reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose the wide variations in examiner competence

By the way, yesterday I invited my esteemed opponent, APA Director Jamie McCloughan, to debate the issues with me right here on A-P. 

I have yet to hear from Mr. McCloughan, although my proposal has been condemned by at least two of the APA politicos who I copied on my email to Mr. McCloughan.

Let the games begin.

Okay, I looked over your write up. Although it's a slightly tamer version of the Dan Mangan we know here, it's still quite provocative. I think it will shake some foundations. 

Why are only 2 people running?

Why no mention of the countermeasure challenge?

Yes, I have it. I'll take a look. This is good news.

I'm in, Ark. Haven't any of your harem members shared the latest APA magazine with you yet?

Dan, if this is true, then they are rotten to the core. There is no research supporting this practice. All the more reason for you to toss your hat in. You are sorely needed in the APA.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:


That's the theory, but in practice, polygraph operators routinely make split calls --irrespective of "model policy." This is a big problem, especially in PCSOT.

Quote:

The polygraph technique does not allow for failing individual questions. A decision can only be rendered on the entire exam.

@ Chuckles

Hello I tool a polygraph and was so nervous my anxiety was over the top. They ask me three questions that I knew I didn't do. I failed two and I'm devastated I tried so hard but my anxiety level and the polygraph pumping my arm made my heart rate jump.

stefano

Thanks, I look forward to that.  I am sure I will learn a great deal from your book.  I am saving a spot in my library between A Tremor in the Blood and my unbound copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector Test.

I would suggest a study using a format similar to that in the Otter-Henderson/Honts/Amato study.  Rather than only looking at truth and deception, look at countermeasures.  The examiners would be told the examinations were for employment purposes.   

I believe this was published in about 2003.

pailryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:

Thanks. You're going to love my book even more when it's published. I'll give you a signed copy.

pailryder wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

The study that you refer to involved 80 college students who were instructed to apply both physical and mental countermeasures when the control questions were asked. This usually amounted to tongue biting and counting backwards from 100. They found that the physical and mental countermeasures were equally effective with 50% of the participants able to erroneously pass the polygraph. This in itself shows the difficulty an examiner faces when dealing with potential countermeasures. These were college students probably getting 10 bucks a piece to participate and most certainly didn't practice hours beforehand. How much more effective would the countermeasures have been if Dr. Honts had allowed me to personally train the students weeks in advance?

stefano

Love that new avatar!  Not bad for an old guy.  Haven't seen one that grandiose since Lethe and EosJupiter were retired.

Bill_Brown

How would a study such as you suggested be structured?

Sergeant1107

Of course I agree that proper training can increase a persons chances of influencing the results.  I have no direct knowledge but, with the growing international use of polygraph, I assume our government provides that type of instruction to our agents that need it.

stefano

Again you miss, or choose to ignore, the point.  Honts study did not prove that cm's are detectable, but that use of cm's may produce deceptive charts.

I think we really went off the original topic.   

My original wording on detection of countermeasures. 
 
"An individual that has scientific knowledge of polygraph may be able to defeat polygraph, there are no scientific studies that support or defeat your supposition.  Possibly you would be willing to engage such a study?"   

pixkbi wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:21am:

I'm well informed, just getting old. I should have said Boise State, thanks for keeping me in line. This seems to be a strategy with polygraphists in this forum. They will pick out one discrepancy in someone's post with the attempt to discredit it in its entirety. I make many mistakes, but it doesn't change the objective facts at hand. Perhaps you have some meaningful contribution to the discussion?

You cant be too well informed, Honts hasn't been at the University of Utah for over a decade

Bill_Brown wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:

Yes I am quite familiar with all of these studies. They used college students and the testing was in a lab environment. If Dr. Honts could prove that countermeasures are detectable, he could make a lot more money than the university of Utah pays him. Again, if you believe countermeasures are detectable, take the countermeasure challenge.

pailryder wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:24am:

Are you suggesting that there is no level of intelligence, training, or proficiency attained through practice that would allow a person to use countermeasures and not be detected?

That seems a bit unlikely to me.  The OP was not suggesting that all countermeasures have no chance of detection, only that countermeasures used intelligently and after hours of practice do.

I think it is far more logical that polygraph operators, by definition, have no idea who is successfully using countermeasures.  I think it is far more likely that polygraph operators are aware that skillful use of countermeasures are virtually undetectable but, for obvious reasons, they continue to deny that fact.