Why don’t you poly and anti poly guys check into the U of Az and request studies?  The polygraph is about yrs100 old, final reporting time takes too long, can be beaten by amateurs, foreign agents train to beat it, and way too many ambient stressors involved with the poly and CVSA to be reliable.

Does U of A have any studies that support your supposition?  I would be interested in reading them. 

Why don’t you poly and anti poly guys check into the U of Az and request studies?  The polygraph is about yrs100 old, final reporting time takes too long, can be beaten by amateurs, foreign agents train to beat it, and way too many ambient stressors involved with the poly and CVSA to be reliable.   

Why do the people of the USA continue to allow the government’s ‘Gate Keepers’ to use antiquated technology that only has been proven to be 50 – 50, “Like flipping a coin.”  These facts have been known for years, going all the way back to Kubark.   

Yeah, I’m an old fart too.   

Sounds like there is too much money channeled to Lafayette Polygraph that’s encouraged by bureaucratic thinking that resists change ‘Cool Aide drinkers’.

I agree the “Charlatan” is a part of the problem with the government, financial system, and our society.  The poly allows people to get away with deception, and then the innocent are scapegoated by the same flawed technology.  Wow, what a democracy we live in.

Two Block,

Thank you for a balanced reply. I agree with your sentiments 100%.

Quote:

Can I suggest you just get a crystal ball? At least then you can wear a cool earring in one ear.

Here is both the original article that I mentioned plus the list referenced in the video.

How To Spot A Liar
POSTED: 3:15 pm CDT May 20, 2008

http://www.koco.com/news/16341919/detail.html

Original article:

http://www.koco.com/news/16343960/detail.html

Bill,

Sorry about any misquotes that I attributed to you.

Stefano, 

Thank you for your courtesy.  And you may be correct in winning me over.  I have observed several polygraph examiners that totally believe polygraph is 100% accurate.  I do not. 

I always inform persons using my services of the fallacy of taking polygraph as a "lie detector".  It does not detect lies.  We are in agreement in this area.  My personal opinion:  use it as a tool, nothing more or less.  Only a tool.

Bill_Brown,

I think it may be an exercise in futility to debate it further because it seems to unfold into an ethical issue. For myself, I firmly believe that the polygraph technique is not based on science. The only science is in the design of the instrument. Those on the other side believe that there is enough anecdotal evidence to associate response patterns to deception. 

I perceive that you have dedicated many years to this endeavor and thus feel defensive when your profession is under attack--this is normal as I would as well. Those in law enforcement and other investigative realms believe they are doing society a great service in search of the truth.

I, conversely, believe that the potential for devastating collateral damage outweighs this perceived service to society. I have met and helped people whose lives were torn apart by being labeled a liar by a technique which doesn't muster up to science.

You are a smart guy and a gentleman (compared to others who have presented themselves as the low brows that they are), and I have a hunch one day we will win you over.

Academic, 

I think you have me confused with the author of that film.  I am not him.  Sorry

From KOC.com, here is the video that I referenced. It's entitled, "FBI Agent Explains How To Spot Liars." It was uploaded to youtube on May 23, 2008.

The eyes are the windows to the sole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3PAW7zjgPw&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Stefano, 

This is not a scientific forum by any stretch of the imagination.  There are arguments being made that have scientific basis, however this is a chat forum based on "debunking" use of polygraph.   

I am not a victim by any means, I do attempt to stay civil in all postings and not engage in name calling or other infractions of the stated posting policies. 

I am familiar with the paper by Ben-Shakhar and other studies that are "anti-polygraph".  I would suggest you read the newer studies by the Department of Defense, Raskin/Kircher, Barland, and other persons involved in polygraph. 

To decide a study is not valid because it was conducted by persons involved in the use of polygraph is not valid.  Studies on affects of medications on pregnant women are conducted by doctors and drug manufactures.  Some of the studies are not good studies, many are.   

Your posts are filled with meaningful information and valid points which I consider and reflect on.  I do respect your opinions, I do not agree with many of them.  You are an educated individual and a wealth of information.   

Bill, can you recommend any (easy to read) books on how to detect liars without using the polygraph.

I saw a video of you on youtube. There you talked about watching eye movements (dependent on right or left handedness), shifting eyes, rubbing your neck, tapping fingers, looking at watch, creating barriers, leaning back in chair, keeping arms crossed, hands clasped in lap, trying to switch conversation, changing their voice, and combinations.

Question: Should polygraphees be conscious of this aspect of the polygraph.

Bill_Brown wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 7:23pm:

I don't see anything condescending in his post at all. He did not try to come off as being superior to you. He stated that the "fear parameter" is totally unscientific and it is.

When chuckles suggested that you step up to the countermeasure challenge, you stated that you don't have to prove anything to anyone and you are confident in your abilities.

Forgive me, but what I see is you taking the victim posture when your point is close to impeachment. 

This is a scientific forum in a way as the scientific method is the true way to debunk the tomfoolery. There are certain requirements for a scientific test which the polygraph technique cannot meet: Repeatability and Reproducibility. 

Reproducibility is different from repeatability, which measures the success rate in successive experiments, possibly conducted by the same experimenters. Reproducibility relates to the agreement of test results with different operators, test apparatus, and laboratory locations. It is often reported as a standard deviation.

If I may defer to Gershon Ben-Shakhar, there is also a lack of objective quantification of the physiological responses, inadequate standardization and also a severe risk of contamination and bias.

This is not condescending--just facts. 

Dear Bill_Brown,

If my posting seemed condescending, it was not my intent.  I just take exception to any type of "science" being involved when you talk polygraph exams.  I can agree with you that human action is not scientific.  You are taking purely physical reactions with a machine and there is no science involved except for the creation of the machine to measure physical reactions.

The LBTD has generalities of how reactions are "scored."  The score is not scientific, I think we agree on that (and you can correct me if you do not agree on that).  It is all subjective.  I just can not seem to fathom how anyone can say it is so accurate without valid test performed in a repeatable scientific manner.

The polygraph community just cannot make public statements about its accuracy without some type of controlled tests.  I do not believe that any quality controlled tests have been performed by an independent entity who does not have an interest in the outcome.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I absolutely think that any Voice Analyzers combined with body language analysis will have just as good an outcome in predicting deception as the polygraph. I personally would not like to have my tax money spent on either but if the computerized version was cheaper to perform without an operator, I would go for the cheapest and lowest bid.  I think Congress will think that way if they believe it to secure the borders more efficiently.

Bill_Brown wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:

Cognitive Conflict and its associated paradigms: Belief Disconfirmation, Induced-Compliance, Free-Choice and Effort-Justification surely come into play in the autonomous central nervous system and the associated psycho-physiological responses. You may want to read up on research into mental work currently being done by Aldert Vrij. However, until this research can link specific neurological mechanisms to deception, I will remain unconvinced.

Bill_Brown wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:

I would not resort to saying you are perpetuating a sham; I believe you are sincere. I was speaking figuratively to point out at what stage the scientific method is replaced by snake oil. I was not attacking the indigenous peoples of the North.

SHAMANISM
A religion practiced by indigenous peoples of far northern Europe and Siberia that is characterized by belief in an unseen world of gods, demons, and ancestral spirits responsive only to the shamans.

I have to admit that the parallelism does indeed resonate.

Stefano, 

[/quote]This is the point where science departs the scene and shamanism takes over. [/quote]

I'm impressed with the use of "shamanism".  You are truly a scholar.  I am sure that was meant to imply I am using a Sham in the common sense of the word.  It actually is a complement when understood properly.  

I do understand fear of detection is the common thought regarding how Fight/Flight activates during polygraph examinations.  I would suggest it is actually a Cognitive Conflict.   

Fair Chance, 

My postings are not designed to impress you or convince you that I am highly intelligent.  The words I use are simple and easy to understand.  This is not a scientific forum!!

You seem to have missed the last statement made regarding Cognitive Conflict.  

Your statement regarding your need for "parameters" of fear is amusing.  If you have read TLBTLD you have read the parameters and how they are established.  Please do not be condescending in your reply's to me.  You are above that.  

I don't recall stating polygraph examinations were "Scientific".  Science is involved, and human interaction is involved.  Human interaction is not scientific.

polyvsa

I believe all intelligent members of the deception detection industry will admit to collateral damage applicants (false positives). My question is: Why do the national security agencies feel it necessary to blacklist failed applicants who will never be able to get a LE job? I thought blacklisting was outlawed. Now I remember though. LE entities, especially those controlled by federal idiots, and poluted-ticians are not subject to the laws imposed on the other industries. As I've said before, it is wrong for a one person/one machine decision to ruin the imployment life of an honest person. Federal agencies should be subject to the same laws and statutes imposed on the rest of us. A one person jury cannot convict one charged with a crime.

Pailryder ( Hi Eric)

Firstly, I think you understand my sentiments iro DOD tech. 
Neither p/g nor vsa are perfect sciences.
In the hands of the unskilled, they are highly unreliable.
Attending a p/g or vsa training course does not turn anyone into a DOD expert. Conversely, many examiners, despite their many years of experience, are simply unskilled.

WRT scientific validation, the p/g industry should keep mum and fly under the radar. As you well know, the bulk of p/g research was pretty soundly thumped by the NAS study.

Anti-vsa research was funded by p/g vested interests.
So what. For every 'pro' report on either tech, one can find an 'anti' research report. Again, so what !

We dont have to throw the babies out with the bathwater.

Both technologies have proven to be useful and useless in turn. 

I support the view of the unknown cia guy who allegedly said, " We have to push 100 in the front door to get 1 out of the back door. But in view of the fact that we have nothing else ( no 100% accurate tech), that's what we have to do."

The DOD industry as a whole suffers when each takes cheap shots at the other. 

I would be happy to send you a trial version of AVSA PRO, but that wouldnt go down too well with the APA hierarchy I guess.

Keep Well.

Dear Bill_Brown,

I know that you are trying to express your view and I feel that your last statement was completely unscientific. It was a perfect example of why the polygraph is just a thinly veiled interrogation process that depends on the subject being convinced that you can use the machine to detect deception. Your last answer is really stretching thin the line of scientific testing. You have absolutely no way of knowing if you have created a scientifically acceptable and repeatable "...mindset that focuses on the fear of detection."

You are very honest in your statement but look at the statement:  You are saying that a mindset of fear of detection is necessary for successful scientific testing.  You and every other examiner have absolutely no idea of what level of fear of detection is relevant.  Your parameters are not scientific or repeatable.

Your are polite and I enjoy your talking points, but I am going to need parameters that are independent of any fear process if this test is going to be repeatable or programmable in a computer.  This is not some type of "feel good" test, people's lives and careers are being ruined by a test that depends on fear.  What a wonderful way to describe a job description for an applicant: You must be able to provide the proper fear reflex in your mind in order to get this position. All others need not apply.  For those who cannot supply the proper fear reflex, we are truly sorry but we must ruin your chances of ever getting another federal position that requires this fear attribute in your mind.

Sounds very scary, just like the movie Gattica.

I respect your sincerity that you really believe in what you are doing but I cannot accept any type of science to your statements. I need to have the proper amount of fear in my mind to pass?  What a concept in the year 2011!  It reminds me more of the Spanish Inquisition.  The tortured subject was guilty and the only way for him to save his eternal soul was to pronounce his guilt.  When he finally pronounces his guilt after extreme torture, his soul can be saved. In order to save his soul, he is sentenced to death for admitting to the accusations. The torturer has a wonderful sense of self-worth for he has sent another guilty soul to their death after justifying that death with the confession that they obtained.

It sounds so familiar, the polygraph examiner says, "Work with me, tell me what is going on and we can get through this together."  The only way for the examinees to save their employment chances are to admit to what the examiners want them to admit to.  After those admissions, the examiners feel justified in finding them guilty of the charges that they accused them of.  What a wonderful way to introduce employees to employment with the American government. 

History has a wonderful sense of repeating itself.

Regards.

Bill_Brown wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

This is the point where science departs the scene and shamanism takes over.

pailryder wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 7:25pm:

Those are excerpts from PCSOT exams which I have critiqued.

stefano
Quote:


stefano

What agency allows an examiner to ask those questions?

Quote:


Stefano, 

We are in agreement on this.  (Fight Flight to Deception is not 100% and there is a possibility of error)

The reason for an extended interview is to create a mind set that focuses on fear of detection.  Are we 100% sure we accomplished that task?  No we are not and we have an error rate.  There is a second argument regarding cognitive conflict causing reaction.  That will be for another days discussion.