Hello this is my first post i took a poly for a police agency i am looking for opinions to ease my mind. i do not know if i past yet or not. i went in took the pre interview then we started i did not really use counter measures as i dont think i was lyeing although when i left i wasnt sure because she made me feel like i might have and not even known it. i took the test and the first one she said i was breething to slow and i needed to breeth normally so i said ok and explained to her that i was just trying to ease my nerves. anyway she ran for tests all together not one time did she say that i reacted to any question when we finished there was no post interview or anything she said ok we are done and i said ok thank you for your time and i left. can anyone help and give me there opinion on what happened did i pass or fail?

Based on the absence of any post-test interrogation or accusation of deception, it seems likely that you passed, or that at worst, the outcome might have been deemed inconclusive.

if it is deemed inconclusive what does that mean for job prospect and thank you for your opinion sir

You might have passed but you also might be called to take it again.  When I took my poly I was told once to "stop thinking about your breathing" once.  I used counter measures and passed.  Polygraphs are jokes....a sick joke.

dontknow wrote on Jan 13^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

if it is deemed inconclusive what does that mean for job prospect and thank you for your opinion sir

Typically, law enforcement agencies will ask examinees with inconclusive polygraph results to return for a follow-up session, and the applicant will not proceed further in the hiring process unless and until he/she passes the polygraph.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 5:05am:

dontknow wrote on Jan 13th, 2008 at 8:15am: if it is deemed inconclusive what does that mean for job prospect and thank you for your opinion sir Typically, law enforcement agencies will ask examinees with inconclusive polygraph results to return for a follow-up session, and the applicant will not proceed further in the hiring process unless and until he/she passes the polygraph.

George:

Why do you use the term "pass?"  How can one "pass" an opinion?

Back from vacation.
Based on your statement. Hmmm, well I dont know what to think. Normally, your polygrapher will tell you whether you passed or you failed.
How do you not know if you lied or told the truth? :o
You didn't really use a countermeasure? ::)
I'm gonna take a stab, and say you might NOT have passed. Reading your post, with your excellent grammar and spelling.  8-) But, I'm not a polygrapher, and well I didn't examine ya. Good Luck...

Gee, I thought polygraph tests were "scientific".  What difference does it make how you breath?  Or whether you're "Thinking about your breathing".

Maybe you should think about "a piece of liver" like in the movie Portnoy's complaint!

Try moving your leg around when someone is attempting a CT Scan. Childish non-compliance, easily detected, and easily remedied. :P

EJohnson wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 4:04am:

Try moving your leg around when someone is attempting a CT Scan. Childish non-compliance, easily detected, and easily remedied. :P

Try thinking about something else during a CT scan.  See if the doctor claims you are being purposefully noncompliant.

There is no way of ever knowing what a test subject is thinking, so any test that requires them to think of a certain thing, or not to think of certain things, cannot possibly be a valid scientific test.

Failing everyone suspected of inappropriate thinking is the only recourse, and that is simply untenable.

However, I'm still wondering about the validity of the first post. It seems to far fetched for me. Why do you need help after the fact?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 7:57am:

EJohnson wrote on Jan 15th, 2008 at 4:04am: Try moving your leg around when someone is attempting a CT Scan. Childish non-compliance, easily detected, and easily remedied. :P Try thinking about something else during a CT scan.  See if the doctor claims you are being purposefully noncompliant. There is no way of ever knowing what a test subject is thinking, so any test that requires them to think of a certain thing, or not to think of certain things, cannot possibly be a valid scientific test. Failing everyone suspected of inappropriate thinking is the only recourse, and that is simply untenable.

Perhaps a better analogy would be for a person subjected to a P300 brainwave scan. When a person is asked to recall soemthing in order to view psychological and physiological responses, then keeping your brain on task is quite relevant. Again you split hairs. You canot seem  to get around the fact that there is virtually no other sort of test like polygraph. It just trips you up, having too many caveats. When I attempt to fully understand the MMPI variations, I too have more questions than absolute comprehension. In the end, it is the dreaded Bayesian statistics that are the proofs. Understanding the precise mechanisms of polygraph is like understanding how broadcast television works. Sure, I know that multiple moving pictures are scattered into microscopic pieces and sent through the air, but that knowledge doesn't remedy my "huh's?" Polygraph and the MMPI all just "work" with far better than chance accuracy.

When one takes a hearing test, one is asked to press a button when a sound is first heard or hold the button down, releasing it when the sound goes away.  This is done at varying frequencies to determine hearing loss.  Such a test requires attention and concentration on the part of the examinee to be as accurate as possible.  If one wanted to defeat the efficacy of the test then one might "think of something else" rather than paying full attention.  I suppose that the hearing test should be scrapped as unscientific as it requires active mental participation and cooperation on the part of the person being tested.

Vision tests require the examinee to report whether one degree of magnification is clearer than another until the optimal lens magnification is discovered. If the examinee fails to concentrate or decides to "think about something else" rather than follow the instructions given, he might walk of the examination wearing “coke bottle” lenses and tripping over his own feet.  Guess we should scrap that unscientific examination as well.
;) ;D

Both of these analogies require an active response though by the testee, and neither purport to read a person's thoughts.  The polygraph purports to be able to tell what a person is thinking, and doesn't require an active response.  Apples and oranges.

Ahem! My P300 analogy was very appropriate. Google "P300 Brain waves." Also, read the famous 1851 novel "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 3:59pm:

Ahem! My P300 analogy was very appropriate. Google "P300 Brain waves." Also, read the famous 1851 novel "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville.

I was speaking about Skip Webb's two analogies.  (1) hearing test, (2) vision test.

nopolycop wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 3:50pm:

Both of these analogies require an active response though by the testee, and neither purport to read a person's thoughts.  The polygraph purports to be able to tell what a person is thinking, and doesn't require an active response.  Apples and oranges.

That is absurd.

Polygraph testing is about stimulus and response, just like so many countless other tests.

Nobody, except perhaps yourself and Mr. Maschke, has suggested the polygraph can read minds.

nope'cop, you are overstepping the bounds of your expertise here, and  engaging in a silly straw-man argument.

It would be much more informative to yourself, and the other readers, if you would constrain your discussion of polygraph to an actual conversation about testing theory or item response theory. Unless for some reason you are not interested in an authentic discussion of the matter.



Peace,



r

wow ok well please dont read to much into my first post. i was not looking for help. I was only looking for opinions of people with more expierience. I had my phsyc interveiw today and that went very well. What i meant when i said that i didnt think that i lied was that i told the truth but the lady made me feel as though i was lying during the pre test interview. i know that is a tactic, and when i said that i didnt really use any counter measures i meant that i didnt think i needed to. i did however answer the questions and think of something else i actually was singing a song in my head. thank you for all the responses to those of you who understood why i made a post.

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:

nopolycop wrote on Jan 15th, 2008 at 3:50pm: Both of these analogies require an active response though by the testee, and neither purport to read a person's thoughts.  The polygraph purports to be able to tell what a person is thinking, and doesn't require an active response.  Apples and oranges. That is absurd. Polygraph testing is about stimulus and response, just like so many countless other tests. Nobody, except perhaps yourself and Mr. Maschke, has suggested the polygraph can read minds. nope'cop, you are overstepping the bounds of your expertise here, and  engaging in a silly straw-man argument. It would be much more informative to yourself, and the other readers, if you would constrain your discussion of polygraph to an actual conversation about testing theory or item response theory. Unless for some reason you are not interested in an authentic discussion of the matter. r

Correct me if I am wrong, but a poly exam is supposed to be able to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth correct?  

Assuming that is correct then, and the the obvious fact that unless a fact is confirmed by outside evidence, (such as the DNA evidence that Gary Ridgway left with  his victims after his "passed" polygraph) there is no real way to confirm if the polygraph results are in fact correct.  Even a confession by a testee, while likely to be accurate, really cannot be confirmed except by independant means.

Thus, unless a fact is confirmed by independant means, then one trusts the opinion of the polygrapher as to what the person is thinking after the question is asked, as it is what he is thinking that causes the physiological response such as increased breathing rate, increased sweating, higher pulse rate and increased blood pressure.

I am not naive as to what occurs in a polygraph exam, I have taken three of them in my lifetime.

dontknow wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 6:01pm:

wow ok well please dont read to much into my first post. i was not looking for help. I was only looking for opinions of people with more expierience. I had my phsyc interveiw today and that went very well. What i meant when i said that i didnt think that i lied was that i told the truth but the lady made me feel as though i was lying during the pre test interview. i know that is a tactic, and when i said that i didnt really use any counter measures i meant that i didnt think i needed to. i did however answer the questions and think of something else i actually was singing a song in my head. thank you for all the responses to those of you who understood why i made a post.

If they sent you to the shrink, you passed the poly.  They wouldn't have spent the money on you if the poly had been a fail.

Nopolycop,

You clearly have no idea what is involved in the polygraph process.   I have read some interesting comments on this child molester support web site before, but you are actually the first person that I have seen that purports the polygraph can read minds.  It can not, and you are the only person I have ever heard make such a claim. Wanna take a guess at what I'm thinking right now.....oh...that's right, I'm not hooked up to your polygraph.  No soup for you.....come back....one year!  ;D

yankeedog wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 1:35am:

Nopolycop, You clearly have no idea what is involved in the polygraph process.   I have read some interesting comments on this child molester support web site before, but you are actually the first person that I have seen that purports the polygraph can read minds.  It can not, and you are the only person I have ever heard make such a claim. Wanna take a guess at what I'm thinking right now.....oh...that's right, I'm not hooked up to your polygraph.  No soup for you.....come back....one year!  ;D

Good evening, Yankee Dog.  I think you have it wrong.  I absolutely, 100% disagree that polygraphers can read minds.  It is the polygraphers themselves who purport to be able to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth.  They do this by recording the physiological reaction to what the testee is thinking just after a question is asked.

skip.webb wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 2:18pm:

When one takes a hearing test, one is asked to press a button when a sound is first heard or hold the button down, releasing it when the sound goes away.  This is done at varying frequencies to determine hearing loss.  Such a test requires attention and concentration on the part of the examinee to be as accurate as possible.  If one wanted to defeat the efficacy of the test then one might "think of something else" rather than paying full attention.  I suppose that the hearing test should be scrapped as unscientific as it requires active mental participation and cooperation on the part of the person being tested. Vision tests require the examinee to report whether one degree of magnification is clearer than another until the optimal lens magnification is discovered. If the examinee fails to concentrate or decides to "think about something else" rather than follow the instructions given, he might walk of the examination wearing “coke bottle” lenses and tripping over his own feet.  Guess we should scrap that unscientific examination as well. ;) ;D

When one takes a polygraph test, what is supposedly being tested is the subject's answers with regards to truth or deception.

If the subject answers the questions truthfully it shouldn't matter what he or she thinks about afterward.

To continue with your comparison to the hearing test, if the subject heard the tone, pressed the button, and then thought about something else, how would they be interfering with the test?  They have already done their part.  That is far more similar to what is being discussed with a polygraph exam, since I am not suggesting that when asked a question the subject should refuse to answer and instead think of something else.

For the vision test, if a person correctly read the eye chart and then thought about something else, how would they be interfering with the test?  Your comparison suggests that the person does not read the eye chart (as in not answering the polygraph examiner's questions), which is not at all what was originally suggested.  However, it is, as I am sure you are aware, a nice straw man argument to add to the debate.

Good luck on your BI.
Try to freshen up on your writing skills though.

skip.webb wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 2:18pm:

When one takes a hearing test, one is asked to press a button when a sound is first heard or hold the button down, releasing it when the sound goes away.  This is done at varying frequencies to determine hearing loss.  Such a test requires attention and concentration on the part of the examinee to be as accurate as possible.  If one wanted to defeat the efficacy of the test then one might "think of something else" rather than paying full attention.  I suppose that the hearing test should be scrapped as unscientific as it requires active mental participation and cooperation on the part of the person being tested. Vision tests require the examinee to report whether one degree of magnification is clearer than another until the optimal lens magnification is discovered. If the examinee fails to concentrate or decides to "think about something else" rather than follow the instructions given, he might walk of the examination wearing “coke bottle” lenses and tripping over his own feet.  Guess we should scrap that unscientific examination as well. ;) ;D

Comparing a polygraph test to hearing and eyesight tests is simply a childish rant. The 2 latter tests involve physical measurement of senses that the patient personally experiences, indisputably agrees with and gives feedback to the examiner.

When polygraph examiners ask a 'patient' if he is lying and he says "No" and the examiner accepts that feedback - that is the day that Mr Johnsons pink elephants fly over the APA HQ and dump fuel.

Mr Webb, aren't you supposed to be above such childish remarks ?

yankeedog wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 1:35am:

Nopolycop, You clearly have no idea what is involved in the polygraph process.   I have read some interesting comments on this child molester support web site before, but you are actually the first person that I have seen that purports the polygraph can read minds.  It can not, and you are the only person I have ever heard make such a claim. Wanna take a guess at what I'm thinking right now.....oh...that's right, I'm not hooked up to your polygraph.  No soup for you.....come back....one year!  ;D

I presume that you are a polygraph examiner..?
My research confirms that many examiners tell their victims that they are lying about one thing or the other; that they "can see-it in the charts" ( what? Tarot cards ?) They use verbiage such as; "come on, what're you holding back on; Tell me; gimme something; lets get this over with; you know you wanna tell me; etc etc"
That is the closest pretence to mind reading I have come across besides the gypsey lady in the caravan.

Candy, you disappoint. So, you are here because your brother failed a polygraph, for which he told you he told the truth, eh?  Perhaps you would have a teaspoon of credibility if it was YOU who took that test.

I don't believe that I have "ranted" as you alleged nor did I compare the polygraph test to either the hearing or eye test.  I merely pointed out that a number of tests conducted routinely, require the examinee to cooperate and that failing to fully cooperate can result in inadequate results in other situations.  I was merely providing an opinion for consideration. I don't think that constitutes a "childish remark".

nopolycop wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 7:46pm:

[ Correct me if I am wrong, but a poly exam is supposed to be able to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth correct?

Well, strictly speaking, you are wrong. Unless you insist on having this conversation in vague and inaccurate colloquialisms. It is common when discussing complex or unfamiliar phenomena to borrow concepts and language from more familiar contexts, but it is both reductionistic and inaccurate to stop there.

Polygraph, is casually referred to as a lie detector, but that term does not adequately define or describe the test. The term psychophysiological detection of deception, though chunky, is better better because it describes what is intended - the detection of deception through the measurement of physiological response to a stimulus. The stimulus is in the form of a question about involvement in a behavior or event.

In the language of testing, polygraph is simply intended to measure whether physiological reaction to the stimulus fits a model at some expected level of statistical significance.

sergeant1107:
Quote:

When one takes a polygraph test, what is supposedly being tested is the subject's answers with regards to truth or deception.

Not quite. What is being tested is the subject's reactions to the stimulus, and whether those reaction are a good or poor fit for a model.


r

Raymond,

Whether one chooses to refer to it as "lie detection," "truth verification," "polygraph," "psychophysiological detection of deception," or the latest buzzword, "credibility assessment," at its core, polygraph "testing" purports to determine whether a person has spoken the truth (as nopolycop and Sergeant1107 correctly stated). When I failed my FBI pre-employment polygraph (despite having answered all relevant questions truthfully), my polygrapher reported "It is the opinion of this examiner that the applicant was deceptive when responding to the listed relevant questions in Series I and Series II," and my file was summarily marked "no action - polygraph deceptive." There was no mention of whether my reactions were a "good or poor fit" for some supposed "model."

Mr. Maschke,

We'll probably continue to disagree on this. I will maintain that your description is reductionistic, inaccurate, and misleading.

Polygraph testing is intended to determine whether or not a person was involved in a behavior/activity/event/allegation, based on the combination and intensity and differences in physiological reaction to verbal stimulus questions. I'm sure you are well aware of silent answer tests.

r

Raymond,

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and I recognize that the Silent Answer Test, which is discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, is administered without the examinee speaking a word during the in-test phase. But even in this latter case, the examinee has verbally answered the questions aloud during the pre-test phase, and the overarching objective of the "test" is still to determine whether the examinee has or has not spoken the truth. To argue otherwise is to split hairs, or in more colorful language, to pick fly shit out of pepper.

Mr. Maschke,

I don't believe its splitting hairs to make this point. This point determines whether we are having a credible discussion about the empirical basis for polygraph testing, or simply engaging in some straw-man discussion about a mythical and inaccurate understanding of the test.

Words themselves cannot be measured (at least in the way you are implying regarding polygraph tests). Response to stimulus can be measured and understood. The term "lie detector" is simply a term of convenience, not an accurate or empirical description.

Epistemological complications aside, discussions about speaking the truth are a distraction from measurable concerns about behavior.


r

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:21pm:

nopolycop wrote on Jan 15th, 2008 at 7:46pm: [ Correct me if I am wrong, but a poly exam is supposed to be able to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth correct?   Well, strictly speaking, you are wrong. Unless you insist on having this conversation in vague and inaccurate colloquialisms. It is common when discussing complex or unfamiliar phenomena to borrow concepts and language from more familiar contexts, but it is both reductionistic and inaccurate to stop there. Polygraph, is casually referred to as a lie detector, but that term does not adequately define or describe the test. The term psychophysiological detection of deception, though chunky, is better better because it describes what is intended - the detection of deception through the measurement of physiological response to a stimulus. The stimulus is in the form of a question about involvement in a behavior or event. In the language of testing, polygraph is simply intended to measure whether physiological reaction to the stimulus fits a model at some expected level of statistical significance. sergeant1107: Quote: When one takes a polygraph test, what is supposedly being tested is the subject's answers with regards to truth or deception. Not quite. What is being tested is the subject's reactions to the stimulus, and whether those reaction are a good or poor fit for a model. r

In light of your comments, (above) and your comments to George, I find it preposterous that a member of the American Polygraph Association, an association with a motto "Dedicated to Truth" would be making these claims.

And if that wasn't enough, the Mission Statement of the American Polygraph Association, of which you are a member, (according to their web site, makes reference to "the truth" at least three times, as indicated below:

Mission
Established in 1966, the American Polygraph Association (APA) consists of over 2500 members dedicated to providing a valid and reliable means to verify the truth and establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field.

The American Polygraph Association continues to be the leading polygraph professional association, establishing standards of ethical practices, techniques, instrumentation, research, and advanced training and continuing educational programs.

Goals
The goal of the American Polygraph Association is to provide mankind with a valid and reliable means to verify the truth of the matter asserted by:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons
Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education
Establishing and enforcing standards for admission to membership and continued membership in the Association
Governing the conduct of members of the Association by requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and a set of Standards and Principles of Practice

nope'cop,

Please save the lawyerly indignation for the courtroom.

It's important not to confuse the values expressed in a professional mission statement with accurate description of testing constructs.


r

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 4:01am:

nope'cop, Please save the lawyerly indignation for the courtroom. It's important not to confuse the values expressed in a professional mission statement with accurate description of testing constructs. r

whatever  ::)

nopolycop,

In arguing that polygraph testing really isn't about determining whether a person has spoken the truth, Raymond (a participant in Eric Johnson's earlier trolling campaign on this message board) is putting into practice the old American adage, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:

This point determines whether we are having a credible discussion about the empirical basis for polygraph testing, or simply engaging in some straw-man discussion about a mythical and inaccurate understanding of the test. Words themselves cannot be measured (at least in the way you are implying regarding polygraph tests). Response to stimulus can be measured and understood. The term "lie detector" is simply a term of convenience, not an accurate or empirical description. Epistemological complications aside, discussions about speaking the truth are a distraction from measurable concerns about behavior. r

I'm afraid that several others on this forum are quite correct Raymond.
Bullshit covered in high falutin' techno-babble is still bullshit.
You can make up as many multi-sylabbled words for the polygraph as your technical dictionary allows - but ultimately that is not going to transform a con-job into a scientific test.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 5:31am:

nopolycop, In arguing that polygraph testing really isn't about determining whether a person has spoken the truth, Raymond (a participant in Eric Johnson's earlier trolling campaign on this message board) is putting into practice the old American adage, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

G

I fear, George, that you speak the truth, and afterall isn't that we all of us are after, the truth?

EJohnson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 4:35pm:

Candy, you disappoint. So, you are here because your brother failed a polygraph, for which he told you he told the truth, eh?  Perhaps you would have a teaspoon of credibility if it was YOU who took that test.

EJ, It has subsequently been proven that my brother did tell the truth and was not and is not a thief. He has been fully exonerated by a follow up test; a confession made by the thief; the recovery of stolen merchandise and cash from the thiefs home.

Pray tell for what reason do you think I should be tested ?

skip.webb wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 9:03pm:

I don't believe that I have "ranted" as you alleged nor did I compare the polygraph test to either the hearing or eye test.  I merely pointed out that a number of tests conducted routinely, require the examinee to cooperate and that failing to fully cooperate can result in inadequate results in other situations.  I was merely providing an opinion for consideration. I don't think that constitutes a "childish remark".

Mr Webb, you did make the analogy in your post. An analogy is defined by an online dictionary thus: 'Analogy is the comparison of two pairs which have the same relationship'.

There is simply no relationship between polygraph and sensory tests.

I retract my my 'rant' and 'childish' comment as upon reflection, it was uncalled for and personal.

I do think that the comparisons were somewhat left field though.

candy wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

EJohnson wrote on Jan 16th, 2008 at 4:35pm: Candy, you disappoint. So, you are here because your brother failed a polygraph, for which he told you he told the truth, eh?  Perhaps you would have a teaspoon of credibility if it was YOU who took that test. EJ, It has subsequently been proven that my brother did tell the truth and was not and is not a thief. He has been fully exonerated by a follow up test; a confession made by the thief; the recovery of stolen merchandise and cash from the thiefs home. Pray tell for what reason do you think I should be tested ?

Candy, I was not saying that I thought YOU should be tested, it's just that your story isn't in fact your story, it's your brother's story. "Trust capital" on online forums isn't handed out whilly nilly, and such is even less so when people are speaking for someone other than themselves over "ground truth."
When it comes to testing people on the issue of criminal behavior say for example theft, it is not uncommon that if an individual has stolen something within or very near the target time frame, such words as "while at Joe's, did you steal..." can have much penetrating relevance. This is one reason why I have always shyed away from certain testing modalities----for instance food workers, who "steal food" and other items in extremely high statistical numbers. It is critical that the examiner work very hard at differentiating between the relevant theft, and other recent thefts. Perhaps your cherubesque brother brought more secrets to his test than he cared to tell his "budinski", controlling, co-dependent sister.

Last night, it occurred to me what this forum is really all about for so many people. It's not about debate, discussion, or change. This site is actually a Rogerian Counseling Group for people unable to move past their life circumstances. It is a place were people come, not to develope tools to move on with their lives happily, but to bask in the pain and rehearse the Overextensionism (inability to distinguish different things from one another.) This is a place of masochism, where individuals can chew on their own mouth sores, not because it feels good, but because the pain feels good. Take a look at Mr. Maschke, a man who clings and relishes his professional setback so much, it actually makes him happy reliving the era. Sarge adds nothing of educational value here, but he , like a senior AA group member shows up, tells his story, and gains pleasure from self-perpetuating victimhood. All the times I felt that people screwed me over, or I didn't get a fair shake, could never justify such exhaustive and repeated long term self-injury. To endure a polygraph error should never be confused with being raped, any more than being discriminated against by age or race or disability (just talk with a rape victim, and you won't compare the victimology.) But I must tell you, Rape and Molest victims who have unlimited resources do not require treatment for as many years as the posters here seem to believe they need by virtue of their "formals."

EJ, Your reply is tragic. According to you, as your post infers, the 1st examiners mistake (that nearly cost D his job) is not a big deal. But we shouldnt dare to criticise the incompetent examiner !!! Why ? Because a hopelessly wrong result is not as bad as being raped........!!
And then you have the temerity to infer that perhaps D failed because he stole something prior...........My goodness but you have a twisted and ascerbic view of life. Is that the escape alibi of all examiners? ("He must have stolen something else in the same timeframe" )
Apparently you have become so cynical in plying your trade, that the ruined lives dotting the landscape here and there is simply collateral damage. No big deal.

Its a big deal. Believe me, its a big deal.

candy wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 4:30pm:

EJ, Your reply is tragic. According to you, as your post infers, the 1st examiners mistake (that nearly cost D his job) is not a big deal. But we shouldnt dare to criticise the incompetent examiner !!! Why ? Because a hopelessly wrong result is not as bad as being raped........!! And then you have the temerity to infer that perhaps D failed because he stole something prior...........My goodness but you have a twisted and ascerbic view of life. Is that the escape alibi of all examiners? ("He must have stolen something else in the same timeframe" ) Apparently you have become so cynical in plying your trade, that the ruined lives dotting the landscape here and there is simply collateral damage. No big deal. Its a big deal. Believe me, its a big deal.

Very poetic. Due to us not having ;
a. The charts
b. The precise questions
c. The investigative facts
d. A physiological and psychological profile of your bro
e. Your brothrs first hand acount

....we can only look at alternatives. Sure the examiner might have really screwed up. It happens. My Mom's doctor made her permanently blind because he prescribed her the wrong medication. Aweful shit happens. She still has an albeit suspicious belief in modern medicine, but she understands that people make enormous mistakes, but that doesn't altogether impune the validity of modern medical testing. Absent facts regarding Mom's previous moron doctor's notes and testing procedures,, her second physician inquired Mom about what sorts of pre-existing conditions SHE might have had and not disclosed. It was painful for her, but she had far less righteous indignation than you people. Does this manner of analysis sound familiar Candy?

Eric,

As Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D. so aptly put it, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

You and your ilk are quacks preying upon an all-too-gullible public.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

Eric, As Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D. so aptly put it, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice." You and your ilk are quacks preying upon an all-too-gullible public.

Isn't that what is known as a taunt and an ad hom attack? Are you decompensating?

No, Eric. I'm calling a spade a spade. You and your fellow polygraphers are the practitioners of a quack procedure that has no grounding in the scientific method, that depends on widespread public ignorance of its true nature, and that, as documented in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, serves to undermine national security and public safety.

EJohnson wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 2:54pm:

Last night, it occurred to me what this forum is really all about for so many people. It's not about debate, discussion, or change. This site is actually a Rogerian Counseling Group for people unable to move past their life circumstances. It is a place were people come, not to develope tools to move on with their lives happily, but to bask in the pain and rehearse the Overextensionism (inability to distinguish different things from one another.) This is a place of masochism, where individuals can chew on their own mouth sores, not because it feels good, but because the pain feels good. Take a look at Mr. Maschke, a man who clings and relishes his professional setback so much, it actually makes him happy reliving the era. Sarge adds nothing of educational value here, but he , like a senior AA group member shows up, tells his story, and gains pleasure from self-perpetuating victimhood. All the times I felt that people screwed me over, or I didn't get a fair shake, could never justify such exhaustive and repeated long term self-injury. To endure a polygraph error should never be confused with being raped, any more than being discriminated against by age or race or disability (just talk with a rape victim, and you won't compare the victimology.) But I must tell you, Rape and Molest victims who have unlimited resources do not require treatment for as many years as the posters here seem to believe they need by virtue of their "formals."

You certainly seem to have a dismal opinion of this web site.

For someone who clearly has no regard for what others term “the debate” on this site, it is interesting that you post here more frequently than either George or I.

(as of 0230 hours on 1/18/08):
Sergeant1107 – 0.47 posts per day
George Maschke – 1.54 posts per day
EJohnson – 1.64 posts per day

If you truly believe what you wrote, then why are you here?  And why are you here so frequently?  And why do you post so often?  If you believe that the posters here have all the problems you alluded to in your post, why would you come here to taunt them?

Quote:

EJohnson wrote [/quote} [quote] Very poetic. Due to us not having ; a. The charts

Why should YOU have the charts? An APA accredited examiner carried out the bungled examination. Shouldn't you all be on par ? I understand from your remark that you 'all' aren't on par.


Quote:

b. The precise questions

Again, why? What the h*ll difference does that make. the test was a bungled, proven  f a i l u r e. What would change by you having the precise questions........??


Quote:

c. The investigative facts

Again, Why ? There was no investigation other than the polygraph investigation. The facts are: Person B stole from the employer. Person A was accused by the examiner as the guilty party. A subsequent test by a CVS examiner found Person B to be guilty. Person B confessed to the theft and returned merchandise and cash. There was no prior theft.


Quote:

d. A physiological and psychological profile of your bro

Again, Why? Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist? Are you inferring that something in my bothers makeup could or did affect the test and it wasn't just a case of a bungled polygraph? You amaze me with your verbal gymnastics.


Quote:

e. Your brothrs first hand acount

Again, what difference would it make. The first hand account goes like this: Did you steal 4 wristwatches ? - NO. Okay let me test you. Sure. You failed your test. Oh, why? Cos youre a thief and you're going to get fired unless you own up. I didnt do it. Yes you did. No. Yes. No. Tough.


Quote:

....we can only look at alternatives. Sure the examiner might have really screwed up. It happens.

You dont say.


Quote:

My Mom's doctor made her permanently blind because he prescribed her the wrong medication. Aweful shit happens. She still has an albeit suspicious belief in modern medicine, but she understands that people make enormous mistakes, but that doesn't altogether impune the validity of modern medical testing. Absent facts regarding Mom's previous moron doctor's notes and testing procedures,, her second physician inquired Mom about what sorts of pre-existing conditions SHE might have had and not disclosed. It was painful for her, but she had far less righteous indignation than you people. Does this manner of analysis sound familiar Candy?

Well stop whinging, its not like she got raped or anything serious.

Quote:

Very poetic. Due to us not having ; a. The charts Why should YOU have the charts? An APA accredited examiner carried out the bungled examination. Shouldn't you all be on par ? I understand from your remark that you 'all' aren't on par.

Assuming your brother had no secret knowledge of the theft or refrained from "tattle telling" on a co-worker, then that leaves two possible explanations for the error; A. The construct of the test, or B. The examiner improperly scored the charts (assigned false numerical values to things he shouldn't have.)
Your question of "shouldn't you all be on par" is proper. The answer is yes, we should. If it was examiner error, than it is the equivelent of the wrong tooth being root canaled. Inexcusable and unfortunate.
If it was construct, then it was similar to the inexplicable false positive of a Hep B test, not altogether uncommon, and an issue that keeps the researchers working tirelessly to remedy.



Quote:

b. The precise questions Again, why? What the h*ll difference does that make. the test was a bungled, proven  f a i l u r e. What would change by you having the precise questions........??

This woud be helpful to view possible examiner errors. Perhaps the examiner "crossed targets" or was too vague in writing the relevant questions? Here is a horrible relevant question as an example' Do you know who stole those watches and or money." Well, if it was a theft by a member of an especially small group (1 or 2 other suspects), then "yes", your brother did in fact "Know" who stole the goods by virtue of excluding himself, and perhaps he had the dignity and social graces to not point fingers at a fellow employee without absolute evidence. This situation is not uncommon, and a highly sensetive examiner is required to hash out those subtleties.



Quote:

c. The investigative facts Again, Why ? There was no investigation other than the polygraph investigation. The facts are: Person B stole from the employer. Person A was accused by the examiner as the guilty party. A subsequent test by a CVS examiner found Person B to be guilty. Person B confessed to the theft and returned merchandise and cash. There was no prior theft

Again, knowing the investigative facts would be helpful. You Candy are not an investigater and probably do not appreciate how all cases have a level of complication---some simple and some complicated regarding polygraph application. Many times when examiner question formulation is at error, it is due to examiner ignorance or a lack of consideration to potential case complications. In looking for examiner error regading test question formulation, INVESTIGATION FACTS ARE EVERYTHING.




Quote:

d. A physiological and psychological profile of your bro Again, Why? Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist? Are you inferring that something in my bothers makeup could or did affect the test and it wasn't just a case of a bungled polygraph? You amaze me with your verbal gymnastics.

You claim to have researched polygraph, yet you ask such a question. hmmm. Well, if your brother suffered from some long term psychosis, short term neurosis, acute physical illness such as heart murmers, respiration illness,----and medication---such is important information. You can't even get your teeth cleaned without a dentist wanting to know those things. Silly statement Candy, bellow you.


Quote:

e. Your brothrs first hand acount Again, what difference would it make. The first hand account goes like this: Did you steal 4 wristwatches ? - NO. Okay let me test you. Sure. You failed your test. Oh, why? Cos youre a thief and you're going to get fired unless you own up. I didnt do it. Yes you did. No. Yes. No. Tough.

Not his first hand account of the test, the account of the incident and the investigation. sigh


Quote:

My Mom's doctor made her permanently blind because he prescribed her the wrong medication. Aweful shit happens. She still has an albeit suspicious belief in modern medicine, but she understands that people make enormous mistakes, but that doesn't altogether impune the validity of modern medical testing. Absent facts regarding Mom's previous moron doctor's notes and testing procedures,, her second physician inquired Mom about what sorts of pre-existing conditions SHE might have had and not disclosed. It was painful for her, but she had far less righteous indignation than you people. Does this manner of analysis sound familiar Candy? Well stop whinging, its not like she got raped or anything serious.

Well, when elderly people lose their sight, due to restricted plasticity (the brains ability to learn new things and adapt to new thought patterns), they typically develope acute Parkinson's disease, with a progressive rate that shocks. No whining here, just an analogy. So, no she wasn't raped, but due to an examiner error AND a pharmaceutical (construct) error combination, she will be dead in about a year or two.
I am sorry that your brother suffered from one of those types of errors, or suffered the consequences of not ratting out a friend.

EJohnson, you are in the wrong trade. You should join a carnival and become a mind-reader. Oops, sorry, you are in the correct trade after all.

You make so many inferences and assumptions. The only one  that is correct is that the examiner screwed up. ( Like you all do, all too frequently.)

candy wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 12:52pm:

EJohnson, you are in the wrong trade. You should join a carnival and become a mind-reader. Oops, sorry, you are in the correct trade after all. You make so many inferences and assumptions. The only one  that is correct is that the examiner screwed up. ( Like you all do, all too frequently.)

Candy,
Don't worry about him.  He is obviously grasping for straws.  He is so self concious about his "career".  If he really believed that polygraphs worked he would not be at this site trying to fool people into believing in his witchcraft.   :'( :'(

WJ wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 4:32pm:

candy wrote on Jan 21st, 2008 at 12:52pm: EJohnson, you are in the wrong trade. You should join a carnival and become a mind-reader. Oops, sorry, you are in the correct trade after all. You make so many inferences and assumptions. The only one  that is correct is that the examiner screwed up. ( Like you all do, all too frequently.) Candy, Don't worry about him.  He is obviously grasping for straws.  He is so self concious about his "career".  If he really believed that polygraphs worked he would not be at this site trying to fool people into believing in his witchcraft.   :'( :'(

Well Einstein, I am no longer a polygraph examiner, having quit the profession last Summer. What skin in the game do you have? Me, well I have 3 young children who are at the mercy of thousands of convicted sex offenders, 6% of which will reoffend-----who are sold a bill of goods from the carney herea herea herea side show countermeasure callers. Such folks give sexual predators the false idea that they can run amuck without getting caught. When they do get caught, it is too late, as another child has been victimized. Keep on ignoring my words, as your colons will certainly keep your ears warm.

WJ wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 4:32pm:

candy wrote on Jan 21st, 2008 at 12:52pm: EJohnson, you are in the wrong trade. You should join a carnival and become a mind-reader. Oops, sorry, you are in the correct trade after all. You make so many inferences and assumptions. The only one  that is correct is that the examiner screwed up. ( Like you all do, all too frequently.) Candy, Don't worry about him.  He is obviously grasping for straws.  He is so self concious about his "career".  If he really believed that polygraphs worked he would not be at this site trying to fool people into believing in his witchcraft.   :'( :'(

Well Einstein, I am no longer a polygraph examiner, having quit the profession last Summer. What skin in the game do you have? I have 3 young children who are at the mercy of thousands of convicted sex offenders, 6% of which will reoffend-----who are sold a bill of goods from the carney herea herea herea side show countermeasure folks. Such folks give sexual predators the false idea that they can run amuck without getting caught. When they do get caught, it is too late, as another child has been victimized. Keep on ignoring my words, as your colons will certainly keep your ears warm.

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:

Mr. Maschke, I don't believe its splitting hairs to make this point. This point determines whether we are having a credible discussion about the empirical basis for polygraph testing, or simply engaging in some straw-man discussion about a mythical and inaccurate understanding of the test. Words themselves cannot be measured (at least in the way you are implying regarding polygraph tests). Response to stimulus can be measured and understood. The term "lie detector" is simply a term of convenience, not an accurate or empirical description. Epistemological complications aside, discussions about speaking the truth are a distraction from measurable concerns about behavior. r

I don't expect to change any minds, but on the off chance the this writer and others really are interested in the empirical evidence, I invite you to review the analysis I have done on the no-nonsense, real-world, data published in the polygraphers' own literature which shows that reviews negative predictive value (that is calculating the probability that "if someone passes a polygraph, how likely is it that they are ACTUALLY telling the truth?" and positive predictive value (that is that is calculating the probability that "if someone FAILS a polygraph, how likely is it that they are ACTUALLY telling engaging in deception?".  

By the polygrapher's own literature, the answer is: about 55 - 60% for both questions, or, the equivalent of flipping a coin.

On this we base important national security, occasional legal and employment decisions?  The science could give no worse a grade to the theory behind and claims of the value of the CQT polygraph.

Respectfully,

Al Z.

---

APZ wrote on Jan 24^th, 2008 at 3:54am:

raymond.nelson wrote on Jan 16th, 2008 at 11:02pm: Mr. Maschke, I don't believe its splitting hairs to make this point. This point determines whether we are having a credible discussion about the empirical basis for polygraph testing, or simply engaging in some straw-man discussion about a mythical and inaccurate understanding of the test. Words themselves cannot be measured (at least in the way you are implying regarding polygraph tests). Response to stimulus can be measured and understood. The term "lie detector" is simply a term of convenience, not an accurate or empirical description. Epistemological complications aside, discussions about speaking the truth are a distraction from measurable concerns about behavior. r I don't expect to change any minds, but on the off chance the this writer and others really are interested in the empirical evidence, I invite you to review the analysis I have done on the no-nonsense, real-world, data published in the polygraphers' own literature which shows that reviews negative predictive value (that is calculating the probability that "if someone passes a polygraph, how likely is it that they are ACTUALLY telling the truth?" and positive predictive value (that is that is calculating the probability that "if someone FAILS a polygraph, how likely is it that they are ACTUALLY telling engaging in deception?".   By the polygrapher's own literature, the answer is: about 55 - 60% for both questions, or, the equivalent of flipping a coin. On this we base important national security, occasional legal and employment decisions?  The science could give no worse a grade to the theory behind and claims of the value of the CQT polygraph. Respectfully, Al Z.

Dr. Zelicoff, I presume?

Thank you for joining in on this. I read your paper. I have some thoughts, and of course some disagreements. I don't expect to change any minds either, but it might be satisfying and informative to some to engage a conversation about these important things.


r