Quote:


I see... Your technique for "catching" people using countermeasures is essentially to use bluffery, a tactic we warn readers about in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


But peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. There are no tell-tale "crumbs." Which is no doubt why no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to accept Dr. Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge, which remains a daily embarrassment (147 days and counting) to those who falsely claim to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto).

Mark,

You said, 
Quote:


I am not sure that is true.  I have in fact worked with P.D's that consider more than just the Polygraph exam.  It is just that DI poly results tend to lead to disqualifying admissions.  What's worse, are the subjects who conceal info that does not necessarily DQ them.  In those "DI" cases, if I can get the info out of the subject, then retest, he can still get the job.  It just does not get more simple than that.

In either case, I have not seen enough DI exams in which the subject just sits there with his lips sealed, to make a educated analysis of how many of those applicants still get the job in the end.  Nevertheless, I agree with you that the DI examinee is under a great deal of stress and has big decisions to make.  My only point is that I do not believe the advice he/she gets on this site necessarily "helps."

Regarding your comments about countermeasures, I can not answer for the whole polygraph community, nor am I in a position to talk for my agency (a small P.D.) but I believe that sooner or later the issue of the viability of countermeasures will be better addressed, whether it will be some form of answer to Drew's challenge, or some other venue.  I can tell you that although I catch alot of countermeasure attempts, I probably don't get them all.  What the examinee getting ready to attempt countermeasures has got to ask himself is "Am I willing to roll the dice?"  To that my answer has got to be....

Do you feel "lucky?"...
 
Polycop...

Polycop says

Quote:
 

Well does that mean your dept. relies ENTIRELY on your analysis to determine fitness to be a member of your dept?  How thorough is your background investigation?

Also if people HAVE to get past you, why must applicants sign a release of liability before testing? This gives you Carte Blanche to do what you please regardless of the results. If the candidate doesn't fit your "standards"  you will deliver negative outcomes.

You also say
Quote:


Remember, you said people must get past you. If the above statement was true, why are applicants  DQ'ed after a  DI or Inconclusive poly. The rest of the personal history doesn't matter, does it? The applicant could have graduate school education, great work history, etc. But you fail poly, NO JOB


Think about it

Fred F.

Mr Maschke, keep giving your countermeasures advice - frankly, you're not as smart as you like to believe.  You're doing nothing but hurting people who would be much better off going in and taking their poly in good faith.  You don't know what the term "good faith" even means.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 4:21am:


"Good Faith" generally involves warranted trust.  No one who knows anything about polygraphs and their record is under the illusion that polygraphers deserve such trust.

And frankly, Eastwood, you're really not in a position to be criticizing the intelligence of anyone's posts.  Thus far, the content of your contributions have pretty much been limited to a demonstration of an unhealthy voyeuristic obsession with other people's lives.  IMHO, you might want to consider getting professional help with this.

I have a hunch that the polygraphy profession serves as a legal outlet for quite a number of people with the same affliction.

Skeptic

"Eastwood" to George Maschke:
Quote:

From the rather sparse intellectual content of your last 10 posts, it appears that you are hardly the one to judge intelligence. It appears that you are simply jealous of Mr. Maschke's intelligence. If this was not the case, I would expect you to reply to his well-developed criticism of polygraphy with logical rebuttals. Instead, all you seem able to manage are some flippant ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we should leave the judging of intelligence to the impartial observers of this debate. 

Quote:

On what basis do you assert this? Was there a discussion of the concept of good faith somewhere on this board or elsewhere where George displayed a lack of knowledge of the term? Without any support (lack of support combined with a personal attack seems to be the recipe for all of your posts), this sounds like yet another gratuitous assertion by an angry 'grapher.

If anything lacks good faith, it is polygraphy.

Black's Law Dictionary defines good faith as:

A state of mind denoting:
(1) Honesty or lawfulness of belief or purpose,
(2) Faithfulness to one's duty or obligation
(3) Observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or 
(4) Absence of intent to defraud or seek unconscionable advantage. 

Polygraphers may get by on numbers one and two. A person genuinely attempting to keep criminals out of government service by using a crystal ball can still be acting in good faith (this person would also be a moron and contributing absolutely nothing to his good faith goal). As far as number two goes, nobody can dispute the fact that polygraphers are faithful to their duty and/or obligation. People like you defend the art of polygraphy to the end, long after every rational argument for it has been defeated.

When it comes to numbers three and four, polygraphy is in big trouble. As readers of this site know, polygraphy is completely dependent on trickery and deception. 

Quote:

You can bet your bottom dollar that we will.

Quote:


Yet another substantive, weighty post.