Thanks for setting the record straight Anonymous. I had no idea that the RI format was held in such utter contempt even by the pro-polygraph community as a whole.

Dave

George & Company...

Allow me to respond...

George, you said, "the behavioral countermeasures discussed earlier in Chapter 4, plus the absence of any substantive admissions on the subjects part, may well be enough to get him through the Relevant/Irrelevant "test."

How do your "behavioral countermeasures" equate to the physical manipulation of the charts which you alledge make it "so easy" to beat a polygraph exam.  All I get from your advice is to act "friendly" and not admit to anything.  SORRY, the examinee still fails the exam.  His physiological responses are unchanged.  George, you have in no way helped him "beat the polygraph."

You said, "These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions."

Oh., PLEASE!  Any "explanation" the examinee makes, only means that I run a confirmatory test to make sure there isn't anything else the subject is hiding.  "Throwaways are quickly "thrown away."

You said., If your scoring method is such that any reactions to any relevant questions necessarily increases the likelihood of a "significant response" outcome, then other physical countermeasures that might still be helpful include augmenting one's physiological responses to the number one actually picked during the "stim test." A strong reaction to the "hot" question on the "stim test" may help make any responses to the relevant questions appear less "significant."

No George, nice attempt at dancing though.  The fact is that If I see ANY consistancy in the subject's responses, he and I are going to have a lengthy prayer session...They don't have to be the biggest responses, just consistant...Gee, I thought you understood that...

You said, "If you use the Keeler technique of announcing the beginning and ending of the "test" as form of "control" stimulus, then it might be beneficial to produce a reaction to those announcements."

Sorry George, that is not how we do it in the government.  You need source materials a little more recent than 1936 if you are going to advise people...

"Another strategy might be to produce a strong response to the first question of each chart collection (such reactions are not unexpected, which is why the first question in a series is usually a sacrifice relevant), so that any later responses to relevant questions might appear minor in comparison."

Nope, we expect an "orienting response" We don't even look at the first question.  Nice try though....

"And, of course, by regulating one's breathing, one can avoid producing any reaction to a relevant question on the pneumo channels."

...and of course, we can still identify responses in controlled breathing.  Plus, we do try to get the subject to stop.  If he refuses, we still have three other channels.  If he controls his breathing to to point the charts are not evaluatable, we shut down the test, hire the next guy in line, and refer this applicant to Burger King...

Lastly, you said, "Now, as Anonymous pointed out, the R/I "test" has been largely dismissed by the polygraph community itself, and it has no validity as a diagnostic technique."

George, I am really surprised at you...   You are the one who argues that NO polygraph technique has validity.  Now, you are actually QUOTING the polygraph community?  Gee, maybe you ARE a spy for the American Polygraph Association...   As far as the R&I being "dismissed" by the PG community, if you had your hand on the pulse of the aforementioned community, you would discover the R&I is in significant use across the country...

"Again I ask you, if the polygraph cannot detect lies (as you have admitted), then just what does it mean when you report that there are "signficant responses" present? What do those responses signify?"

Finally, a reasonable question.  George, SR responses mean just that.   The particular stimulas is significant for some reason to that examinee at that time.  It may be because he is lying to the question and is afraid of getting caught.  It may be that the behavior being questioned really bothers him (The subject is asked a drug question, and his cousin dies of an OD).  It is my job to help the subject resolve the issue.  Most do (after confirmatory testing) and in most cases, they get the job they are seeking.  Those who choose not to, or those who accept the innane advice of others to attempt to manipulate their examinations, are disqualified, period...

PDD-Fed


 

PDD-Fed,

If you are having trouble detecting your own, i.e., your ridiculous assertion that Mr. Maschke might be a member of the American Polygraph Association, I suppose we should not be surprised that your moniker, psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD-Fed), is equally absurd and empty.  By the way, are you now PDSR-Fed and the nomenclature simply not kept pace with the lightning-fast theoretical developments in the world of polygraphy?? Who in your community wants to come forward and publicly embrace something (RI testing) so truly unfounded and insane as to make the CQT test appear rational and well conceived?  Admittedly, only a member of the polygraph community could sink to such an intellectual low.   Perhaps you might care to review my earlier post and discuss the theoretical basis for drawing conclusions from a litany of repeated hot button items (relevant questions) and the haphazard so-called clinical approach to scoring that some in your community have utilized with this technique over the years…

beech trees,

First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.  

Second, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?"  Not who has ever said this statement.  Please direct me to the supporting peer-reviewed scientific research on this assertion.  In your search I believe you will find quite the contrary to your belief.

Third, peer-reviewed scientific research on CQT polygraph was off the topic?  If you are referring to the use of psychology or physiology, the other cited research can be readily correlated to polygraph.  Correlation of related research is quite readily used in both the medical and psychological fields.

Fourth, I think you should research a little more into the differences of conducting a pre-employment and criminal specific issue exam/test.  A test can be very valid for one application but not for another.  I would think you are quite able to find other disciplines (i.e. psychology, physiology, medical, forensic science...etc.) that I need not explain this issue.

Finally, although court decisions can be quite dated and still be valid, antiquity of a court's decision has a great deal of importance when the more current rulings have replaced them. (i.e. Frye’s General Acceptance Rule vs Daubert’s Federal Rules of Evidence)  
For an in-depth review: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/courseware/goldman/kesan.html

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Jun 5^th, 2002 at 9:03am:


Nice, nice compliment JB. I have read enough, and experienced abuse at enough polygraph interrogations (two) to know of what I speak. I quoted Circuit Court Opinion, the opinion of the APA, of both victims of and former proponents of polygraphy, and my own horrible experiences with polygraphy. The only people to whom I do not make reference are those who benefit financially and strategically (i.e., the almost unlimited weilding of power and influence over the hiring process) from the continued use and abuse of the polygraph in the local, state, and federal governments as well as the crimnal justice system. If that's not enough for you, frankly I don't give a damn. Move on, because I am here to stay.

Quote:


A curious but fairly sophmoric language trap JB. If I am asked to cite a source, do you agree I must quote a source?

If you're asking for some sort of empirical edict akin to Fermat's Last Theorem, I can't provide one. It doesn't change the facts that polygraphers lie to their test subjects with willful abandon and that polygraphers, contrary to their moralistic and frankly bombastic, pedagoguish sermons about 'telling the truth' here on these boards, EXPECT you to lie during the course of a polygraph exam.

J.B.,

You state:

  Quote:


  Nor do you find in said procedures stated that an examiner must breathe while conducting an (CQT) exam.  However both (breathing and various forms of deception on the part of the examiner) occur as surely as the sun rising in the East and (in some form) with every examination.  Should you maintain that this is not the case, I would suggest you support your claim with the availability for public scrutiny of audio/video tapes of all your exams over the past year or suggest any other examiner where this scrutiny would be available.

Anonymous,

Most of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response.  I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.   

The recording of a polygraph exam would be a most useful tool, when used as documentation of the proper procedures for later scrutiny by the appropriate entities.  It has in fact been so suggested by courts that this be done to aid them in the evidentiary hearing process.  I personally have no problem with the recording of polygraph examinations for this purpose.  I do have a problem with the recording of a polygraph examination within the purposed agenda you have implied.  Weather truthful or deceptive, any individual within our free society we so relish should not have the threat of the general public viewing their polygraph, as you suggest.  This ludicrous course would most certainly lead to further consequences and the loss of  privacy and protection that is afforded in other facets of inquires within society.

J.B.,

You wrote to Anonymous:

Quote:


J.B., astute opponents (and even some practitioners) of polygraphy might wonder just what it is that you've been smoking... Have you so internalized the deceptions inherent in polygraphy that you no longer recognize them as such?

As beech trees pointed out, Dr. Drew Richardson has enumerated some of the deceptions involved in an earlier message thread:

Quote:


Similarly, another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):

Quote: