Skip,

Now that you are a registered user of this message board, might you be willing to address the public challenge I put to you some six years ago? The questions I raised then remain relevant today.

Thanks, George I have requested copies of the two studies you mentioned so I can re-read them before I continue.  Once I have them, I'll set up the thread.

Post,

The Polygraph Procedure forum is suitable for discussion of polygraph countermeasures. To start a new thread, go to the forum in which you wish to post and click the "new thread" button, which you'll find in the upper right hand corner of the message list.

If you'd like to have the option of editing messages after you've posted them, you can register with the message board. (Note that if you choose a multiple word screen name, the message board software we're using will place underscores between words, e.g. John_Smith. By clicking on the "profile" button any time after registering, you can change this to John Smith without the underscore.)

You can also add hyperlinks and add styled text to messages you post by using UBB code, which is similar to HTML. For more on this, click on the "help" button at the top of the screen.

Well, there seems to be some interest in continuing with this discussion.  I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to do it however and I would be interested in starting a new thread for this purpose.  Can anyone give me brief instructions on how to start a new thread and which topic heading would be considered appropriate for the discussion, ie Poly policy, procedure, etc.  Also is there any way to transfer the pertinient posts from this thread, to the new thread?

Quote:


Options Open on Posting,

I never mentioned in my post anything to the extent of "labeling" you a polygrapher, I am not posting attacks, only challenges to those who won't respond to Mr. Maschkes requests for documented scientific validity for polygraph testing.

As a Forensic Psychologist you know the value of validity in any scientific research... Your profession requires a great deal of research and investigation, therefore you know that you better have the research to back your findings or they won't hold up as evidence in court.

If you interpreted my posting as a personal attack, Please don't. Like wannabe, I welcome your input and insight to this message board. 


Fred F.  

Wannabe, I apologize.  After reading your post again, you did not brand me an examiner.  I misinterpreted your first couple of sentences.  I also appreciate your clarification of your intent and the invitation to continue participating in this forum.  My wife tells me all the time that e-mail and text chat are susceptible to mistakes since the bulk of our communication processes (expressions, body language, vocal tone and inflection) are missing.  I look forward to more exchanges of substance on the topics presented here.

I wasn't aware that I branded you a polygraher, after re-reading my post several times I still don't see it, I guess it's because I am blinded by my ignorant obseesion with doing away with or severely limiting that which has and will continue to wrongly accuse and shatter the dreams of so many truthful persons.... 

Please don't stop posting, intellegent debate is very important as it helps to more fully inform the public, I apologize if I seemed to be attacking, I guess I see posts that are aggrivating because the polygraph is so very obviously, at least to me now, a threat to not the criminals in which it is supposed to protect the public from, but the truthful who wish to further protect the public. 

I do hope you will continue to use the board

Mr Maschke:

    I appreciate your expansion of these studies on the site.  While I certainly agree that you document your references well, allowing anyone who would like more information to find it, I suspect most who view this site and review your download don't bother to find the references and read them for themselves.

    As for attacking anyone, I wasn't aware I was doing that.  I merely expressed an opinion regarding the manner in which some information was presented.  I must say that wannabe's post does read like an attack to me, but I probably should have expected that from reading his previous posts and those of Fred F.

    Regarding being a polygraph examiner, I am not.  I am a Forensic Psychologist.  I have a personal interest in psychophysiology and thus interest in polygraphy, but thats the extent of it.  I do find it interesting that anyone who expresses any opinion that deviates even slightly from the crusade to abolish the evil polygraph is immediately branded an examiner.

    That said, again Mr Maschke, thanks for the platform to express my opinions.  To those others, rest assured this is my Last Post here and you can go back to your rabid rhetoric without "challenge" from me.

George,

Cudos to you on another masterful demonstration of presenting evidence to support the intentions of this site, to educate people on the pseudo-science that is polygraphy 

What still amazes me is that after all the time this site has been here is that the polygraph community has still FAILED to address the basic issues that are presented on this board. While some present intelligent and candid arguments, others attempt to debunk scientific research that does support many of the notions that polygraphy is indeed a flawed and dangerous "tool" that has destroyed many careers and prevented some from seeking careers in law enforcement, intelligence, and scientific research (Los Alamos..etc).

To the members of the polygraph community...All the members of this site would like to see you address the issues that George and Gino have challenged you to on numerous occasions.This site is educating people to the pitfalls and fallacies of polygraph testing and to assist those who have been wronged by it.

Finally to everyone who visits this site and gets educated..HAVE INTEGRITY AND BE HONEST but,remember The Lie Behind The Lie Detector


Fred F.

First Quote,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


If you go back and read the Honts countermeasures studies, you'll see that the polygraph examinations were not administered by graduate students. While the countermeasures instruction was provided by assistants, in the 1985 study (Honts, C.R., R.L. Hodes, and D.C. Raskin, "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 [1985], No. 1, 177-187) Honts himself performed all of the polygraph examinations:

Quote:


In the 1994 study (Honts, C.R., D.C. Raskin, and J.C. Kircher, "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 [1994], No. 2, 252-259), while countermeasures training was again provided by assistants, all polygraph examinations were conducted by experienced polygraphers:

Quote:


I agree with you that readers of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector should check our sources. We scrupulously annotated it for this very purpose, and in the case of the Honts studies in question, we cited the full abstracts in the annotated bibliography for the benefit of those for whom a visit to a research library might be inconvenient.

With regard to the last Honts study to which you refer (Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., and Gordon, A.K., "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test"), it was published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly Polygraph, Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, 1-9. Note that the Office of Naval Research grant which supported this research is #N00014-98-0725.

With regard to the examiners in this study, Honts et al. write:

Quote:


"Spontaneous countermeasures," the subject of this report, are untrained countermeasures: those things done by subjects who are ignorant of polygraph procedure in an attempt to increase the likelihood of their passing the "test." Spontaneous countermeasures are fundamentally different from those that were the subject of the earlier two Honts studies (and those discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) It is hardly surprising that the use of spontaneous countermeasures by innocent subjects did not help them to pass the "test." It is noteworthy, however, that in this study, highly trained examiners were unable to detect even such unsophisticated countermeasures attempts:

Quote:

from what I have read and from what I have seen posted by admitted or assumed polygraphers the only ones doing any misleading are the polygraphers themselves, which is understandable considering the polygraph itself when "properly" used relies heavily on the subject being uninformed and misled. That said, it is perfectly fine to encourage people to refer to the quoted material in order to see the whole picture, but I don't think it's appropriate to attack Mr. Maschke's statements simply because he seeks to inform people of the facts, furthermore I have read post after post of Mr. Maschke's that have provided links to the very material he quotes, and if not, it is most likely available or referenced elswhere on this site.  understand that the closer people come to finding out what the polygraph is all about and abolishing it or seriously limiting it's application, the more attacks those who seek to inform will have to endure, as the polygraph community sees it's cash cow fading away I am sure the attacks will increase in frequency and intensity. Mr. Maschke, I for one would like to thank you for your efforts, I am sure these things don't bother you much, but I am glad to show my support anyway

Essentially its your characterization that people who received no more than 30 minutes training were able to beat the polygraph.  Those studies used graduate students, who received just enough training to operate the laboratory polygraph posing as examiners.  The question is not whether or not the polygraph can be beat, but how easy is it to do so.  How easy is it to beat an unqualified student posing as an examiner, as opposed to beating an experienced, certified examiner.  I believe the way you present the information is misleading and stand by my suggestion that anyone contemplating a polygraph or utilizing the information on this or any other site should go to the source to ensure they have complete information before they decide on a course of action.  Especially since its very easy to give advice when you don't have to bear the consequences that result from that advice.

    I would also suggest that anyone really interested in this topic check Honts, Amato, and Gordon, "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test", Boise State University, Contract N00014-98-0752, a 2000 study which concluded among other things that spontaneous countermeasures were counterproductive.  In that study 45.8% of the innocent subjects employed some type of countermeasure.  The finding was "The main effect of Countermeasure Use indexed a significant difference in total numerical scores between innocent subjects who did not use countermeasures (M=4.55) and those who did use countermeasures (M=-3.91).  Thus the use of spontaneous countermeasures was detrimental to Innocent subjects, moving them significantly in the direction of a deceptive decision."  It should be noted that this study also used graduate students as examiners.  But, as with all such studies I would encourage everyone to carefully study any cited research before trying to apply those results to their own situation.  This study has been submitted for peer review and is pending publication.

First Post,

What about my statements regarding the two Honts studies do you believe to be inaccurate and/or misleading?

Given the usually articulate responses I see on this site I was very distressed to see how inaccurately the results of the two Honts studies quoted by Mr Maschke were portrayed.  I would suggest that anyone truely interested in the findings and conclusions of these studies obtain them for themselves and read them.  Those conclusions are protrayed in a VERY misleading way by Mr Maschke.

Apparently Mr. Zorn was not fooled by Mr. Webb's lack of candor and misrepresentations.  His (Zorn's) last statement/paragraph is quite revealing:
    "Under the circumstances, anyone who would willingly trust his reputation, his career, his freedom or his fortune to a lie detector is a fool. Honest."

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote about polygraphy in a 14 July 2001 column titled, "Truth is elusive in debate over lie detectors":

http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/zorn/ 

Zorn spoke with both Doug Williams, author of "How to Sting the Polygraph" and American Polygraph Association President Skip Webb. Zorn writes in part:

Quote:


Challenge to Skip Webb: cite any research supporting your contention that the methods Williams describes in "How to Sting the Polygraph" are "outdated" and that his customers have the same chance as anyone else of fooling a polygraph examiner. If you're truly "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto), you should be able to support your statements to Mr. Zahn, whom I will notify by e-mail of this challenge.

A peer-reviewed laboratory study by Charles R. Honts, David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher titled "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests" and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 79 [1994], No. 2, pp. 252-59) showed that about 50% of test subjects who received no more than 30 minutes of training in how to beat the polygraph were successful in doing so. And similar results were obtained in an earlier experiment by Honts, Robert L. Hodes, and Raskin: "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the  Physiological Detection of Deception," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 (1985), No. 1, pp. 177-87. Abstracts of both articles are included in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Ray,

A psychometric test is one that takes some kind of mental measurement. Standardization, in this context, means that the test is administered the same way each time. The IQ test is an example of a standardized psychometric test. But the polygraph "control" question "test" (CQT) lacks standardization. Each subject receives a different pre-test interview and a customized set of "control" questions (which provide no control in the scientific sense of the word). And an unstandardized post-test interrogation may follow. As a result of this lack of standardization, no true validity rate can be established for the CQT: it is not a valid "test."

This fundamental shortcoming notwithstanding, CQT polygraphy can serve as a useful aid to interrogation to the extent that it induces naive and gullible subjects to make admissions that they might not otherwise make. But that is all. One cannot say with any specificiable degree of certainty that a subject is truthful or deceptive based on the interpretation of polygraph charts. In the words of Leonard Harrelson, longtime director of the Keeler Polygraph Institute:

Quote:


Although APA president Skip Webb claimed to Sam Donaldson of ABC News that "[t]here's a... a wealth of research that clearly shows that polygraph is in the neighborhood of 90 plus percent accuracy upwards to 98 percent accuracy," the "research" to which he referred does not appear in peer-reviewed scientific publications. For further reading on the validity of CQT polygraphy, I refer you to chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited therein.

I do appreciate the analogy you made between your car just working despite your neighbor's criticism of the model. But I respectfully submit that your analogy is simplistic, and that methodologies that purport to be science-based are not customarily validated in this manner.

In addition, I do look forward to any specific criticism of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector you may provide, and to continuing our exchange of ideas.

(And, of course, I would be grateful if Skip Webb, as the senior representative of those who profess to be "Dedicated to Truth," might find it within him to publicly substantiate or withdraw the claims he publicly made to Sam Donaldson.)

Hi George,
A quick reply.  Since I have no idea as to what a "Standardized psychometric test" is, I cannot comment on the answer that you were "happy" to give.  Yes! I was referring to "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector"  and my criticism, I thought, was somewhat complimentary.  I am going to read this book again, this time I will highlight that, which in my opinion, is untrue.  When I have completed this task i will do my best, with my limited time and resources, to put together an intelligent rebuttal.  I drive a car every day and yet I am neither an automotive engineer nor a mechanic.  I know for a fact that my car starts when I turn the key and it gets me to the office.  As long as maintain the car, obey the traffic rules and use common sense the car performs as it was designed to do.  My neighbor has a different make of auto and he spends (wastes) a lot of time telling me how surprised he is that my car works.  He referrs me to all kinds of consumer reports,user complaints and criticisms etc. and offers these as reasons why my 10 year old car is unreliable and dangerous  and should not get me the office every day.  Not being an engineer or a mechanic, I can only reply that it works for me.  I suppose that I could spend some time investigating and reading manuals etc. and that I could probably come up with some logical and persuaive explanations as to why my car works.  However no matter what I come up with, I know that I will never convince Frank that my car is safe and reliable.  I hope that you can recognize the anology that I am trying to make.  I recognize the fact that I am leaving myself open here to a rash of pseudo intellectual comments.  (this is not a reference to you, I find your remarks and statements to be well thought out and courteously delivered)  On a final not, I did not address the challenge put to Skip Webb, because I believe that Mr. Webb should respond to it.  Thanx for your patience and help in getting my posts on this forum.

Ray L. 
 

Ray,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


I'll be happy to answer this question. Because "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy hasn't been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to be capable of distinguishing between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy in the field (and indeed, because the CQT is not even a standardized psychometric test to begin with), truthful persons run a significant risk of being wrongly branded as liars when they submit to polygraphic interrogation.

You also wrote:

Quote:


If you intend this as a criticism of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it would be more instructive if you were to point out anything therein that you believe to be untrue.

On a final note, while you questioned Doug Williams' credentials and character (without commenting on anything he had to say about polygraphy), you did not address the challenge I put to American Polygraph Association president Skip Webb in the first message of this thread. I would be interested in your thoughts regarding Mr. Webb's above-referenced representations.

I recently seen a video of the Sam Donaldson Interview.  What a shame!  Mr. williams allowed himself to be introduced as a former White House employee who conducted polygraph examinations on all types of Federal Agents, he claims to have conducted over 6000 and he allowed Mr. Donaldson to believe that he, Mr. Williams, had conducted research on the validity and reliability of the polygraph instrument.  I do not know Mr. Williams and I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not he conducted and research/studies or how many exams he conducted. I did observe however that when the president of the APA refuted these "facts", Mr. Williams hdid not defend himself.  I was surprised to hear that Mr. Williams was a police officer and a polygraph examiner for"almost" 5 years and that in that short time he had administered over 6000 polygraph examinations.  Why, I wonder did it take Mr. Williams "almost"5 years and over 6000 polygraph examinations to come to the conclusion that he could "no longer condone the abuse of personal freedom and the violation of the right to privacy" that he was engaging in by administering Polygraph examinations.  He must be a slow learner.  I am glad that he didn't go to medical school.  I am sure that he is making a lot more money now, peddling his pamphlet.
Why would one have to read a book(?) on how to"beat" something that doesn't work?  I sent Mr. Williams an e-mail sometime ago asking this same question and I never received an answer.
I was recently given a copy of his pamphlet.  I took the full 10 minutes required to read it thoroughly and I immediately felt a sense of relief.  If thsi is the best there is, polygraphists should have no fear.  At the risk of being accused of making ad hominem attacks, I can agree with one "fact" inthe "ABOUT THE AUTHOR" blip on the back cover of Mr. William's pamphlet, I am quite sure that he holds a B---S--- degree.  Nuff said!!
I also read the download from this forum, and I must say that it is well written and much more informative and well worth the cost- ZERO!

Ray Latimer

Aproud NTC graduate

Quote:


Ray,

I didn't see the note you e-mailed me on this forum. You'll want to post it in the specific message thread to which you were responding. As I recall, your opening remarks were on CBS News' reference to people being "strapped into polygraph chairs." That appeared in the following message thread:

http://www.antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy&action=display&...

If you load that page, you can hit either "Reply" button at the right-hand side of the top and bottom of the page, or, alternatively, you can hit the "quote" button at the bottom of the message I posted which includes an excerpt from the CBS News report in order to include in your post a quotation from the specific message to which you're replying. (I used this option to quote your message here.)

Anon,

Excellent point.  You found out the hard way that it does little good to complain to Polygraphers' Associations about erroneous results or misconduct.  I think "Wild Bill" put it very well when he said that the polygraphers associations amount little more than "the farmer with the shotgun guarding the turkeys" when it comes to complaints against members. 

And yes, it does seem that there is at least tacit acceptance of behavior in the polygraph community that would be considered unprofessional to say the least in almost any other realm.

Lastly, I could not help but notice that Mr. Webb chose to make personal attacks against George Maschke in his December 15thresponse to a letter Mr. Maschke sent requesting clarification of the APA's position on an issue.  The response attacked Mr. Maschke's background and stated that "It appears that [Mr. Maschke's] intense
interest in polygraph stems from [his] inability to pass a polygraph!"  Meanwhile, Mr. Webb made a dodgy response when actually fielding the question posed to him.  It is truly unfortunate that he has chosen to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of adding to the open discussion of polygraph policy.

I found it very insightful to read the comments
of "Skip" Webb Jr., on your website. Mr Webb is one
of the first persons who I contacted after my polygraph. I had written to the American
Polygraph Association asking for any advice, direction, knowledge, opinion or anything and was fortunate enough to receive his compassionate reply. In effect he told me to write a letter to my Congressman and that he didn't want to get involved.

I cannot help but think that when good people have been robbed of their rights then contempt, belligerence, and malicious disinterest are part of the accepted social discourse. Mr Webb's
response left me disgusted, and although I have never met him, his reply fits my perception of everything that is wrong with the
polygraph.

Dear George
I sent a post re: this interview, as you know my first response was sent to you via e-mail.
I later sent a reply (the same note as the e-mail)
to this forum.  Did I send that one incorrectly also.  Did you receive it? what did I do wrong.

Rat Latimer 
a proud NTC graduate

Three weeks have now passed since I notified American Polygraph Association president Skip Webb of this public challenge by e-mail. For reasons he surely knows best, he has not responded.

However, in the absence of any clarification from Mr. Webb, those who are interested in polygraph policy may draw their own inferences.