Thanks for the clarification...but apparently "two block" also has some special connotation when discussing officer evaluation reports

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2002 at 6:52pm:


The public challenges that I have posted here have simply been to polygraphers to publicly document or otherwise support misleading statements that they have publicly made. Those I've challenged include:

Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association)

Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association)

Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society)

George Slattery (Past President, Florida Polygraph Association)

None have responded.

The Breeze asserts "until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you." But the information about polygraph countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is already well-documented, with references (including peer-reviewed research) that skeptical readers may check for themselves. For any who doubt that the polygraph can be beaten, we have the real-world examples of spies Aldrich Hazen Ames, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Karel Frantisek Koecher, and Ana Belen Montes, all of whom beat the polygraph while commiting espionage against the United States.

By contrast, the claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures are unsupported. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, hasn't published a single article setting forth a methodology for the detection of countermeasures. And in peer-reviewed analog studies conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. So Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge calling on the polygraph community to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures remains quite apropos.

George
Your evading.
I do not care that others have not accepted your sites challenge, that is a personal decision.  I do not care that you believe your and Gino's document is the final authoritative word on the matter either.
I have asked why your collection of anti polygraph freedom fighters will not put action to words (endlessly rehashed, check BT's re-warmed response to me) It is a simple proposition.  By your own actions, stop talking about what a ridiculously flawed procedure polygraph screening is and do something about it. Why are you waiting for someone to prove your point by participating in a staged event, or publishing available information for your use?
After you have manipulated the hiring process, post the results to the world, and prove your point with something tangible. (rather than footnotes)
Stein is the only one who had the balls to specifically address the point, while incidently reinforcing one of mine-even though Im sure he did not mean to.
There seems to be a small group of people keeping this site alive with reasonable intelligence and vast amounts of energy (at the keyboard), why is this not translated into something joe average applicant can understand and use to his benefit?
If polygraphers are cowards for not participating in your countermeasure challenge, what label should we apply to someone who lacks the fortitude to back up thier convictions?

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:


I did not state or mean to imply that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is the "final authoritative word" on any matter. However, it is, as I mentioned previously, well-documented with ample references that skeptical readers may check for themselves. Moreover, I am confident that most intelligent readers will find our arguments regarding polygraph procedure, policy, and countermeasures to be compelling.

Quote:


I think that what you have suggested would be an imprudent diversion of AntiPolygraph.org's limited resources. That the polygraph can be (and has been) beaten through countermeasures is readily apparent, supported by empirical evidence, and acknowledged by the polygraph community itself.

In my opinion, our time and effort is better spent on improving public awareness of polygraph issues and political outreach.

As for Beech Trees's "re-warmed response" to you, I note that you have dodged the very cogent questions he has put to you.

Quote:


Karel F. Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, and Ana Belen Montes were all double-agents for foreign powers before they successfully "manipulated the hiring process" by beating the polygraph. If that is not tangible enough for you, I don't know what the hell would be.

Quote:


We have produced something that "Joe Average applicant" can understand and use to his benefit. It's called The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and it has been downloaded over 50,000 times. It is quite possibly the most widely read book on polygraphy ever. Watch for the 3rd edition in 2003.

Quote:


What convictions have we failed to back up? Again, that which is found in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is backed up by ample references that skeptical readers can check. If those references are beyond you reading level (or perhaps your attention span) that is a problem with which I cannot help.

Quote:


How would this prove anything? There would be no way to prove that the applicant actually used countermeasures. Pro-polygraph types like you will likely attempt to explain the "passed" test (and subsequent offer of employment) in a number of ways.

Perhaps you will claim:
(1) The applicant did not use countermeasures and passed only because he actually told the truth. You guys must have had a bad examiner the first time around.
(2) The examiner was incompetent. A more skilled examiner would have easily detected the countermeasures.

The list could go on and on. 

Drew's challenge would be a much more effective test of the efficacy of polygraph countermeasures. Using a luminary in the polygraph community as the examiner and a list of deceptive responses sealed in an envelope would allow the winner of the challenge a lot less wiggle room than the one you suggested.

332 days and counting, 'graphers.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:


Actually Breeze, I did mean to reinforce your point.  I don't believe in Countermeasures, as I have said many times on this site.   

I also don't belive in the polygraph as an effective screening tool.

I do believe in using the polygraph for specific incident testing, because there is focus for the polygrapher.  The test results shoulds only be used for narrowing a suspect pool as to whom the investigators should begin work with.  But the polygraph should never exonerate anyone from the suspect pool.

Moreover, the polygraph can be an effective intimidation tool.  Again, test results are worthless, but information garnered by investigators viewing the polygraph proceedings can sometimes be effective.

That is what is known as specific incident testing.

In screening, whether it is employee or pre-employment screening, there is no incident.  The polygraph is used in an extremely broad range of questioning.  Polygraphers decide truth v. deception based on pre-determined assumptions to answers of  inherently "unanswerable" questions.  This type of testing is seriously flawed (opinions I share with the NAS).

Because of the flaws in the system, countermeasures have evolved (mostly for employee and applican use) to correct the inaccuracy of the polygraph.  Too many honest individuals have received "false positive" results, forcing a employees and applicants to counter the possibility of the "false positive."  THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN!!!  The system is completely flawed.  The polygraph must go.

What truly baffles me is the LE professional who defends the polygraph.  No LE pro would ever denounce the investigator on the street as the best tool for conducting investigations.  Their error rate is minimal, and their sucess rate is high.  Why then is the investigator replaced by a machine?  Money.  Agencies are too cheap to put extra people on the street to investigate.  The polygraph, with its high error rate, has replaced the investigator.   

I think I'd be pretty damn mad if I were an LE pro who was replaced by an inaccurate machine. 

Chris

Of all the silly, "let me prove Im smarter than you" replies I received, I may of liked Marty's the best. Is any anti-polygraph person here shocked and outraged giving the questionably legal advice they give? why would it be different if you yourselves applied the advice? You might hasten the demise of polygraph, something you do want.  Guess its easier to just talk about it, Im not surprised by this.
I enjoy having my posts called meaningless, while yours are obviously stimulating and overflowing with goodness.  Has it occurred to you anonymous that the questions posed by your soul mates have induced boredom, and I am not here to scramble around and try to respond to every rehashed notion you folks cough up?
Ok George, If you would rather do campus fliers and compete for telephone pole space with rock bands, thats your decision.  My suggestion is based on the simple belief that I have that your crew is better at dispensing faulty advice, than serving as an example.  Your little book is certainly within my reading level, but as someone who does not have a victim's mindset I refuse to embrace your vanity work.  And you should not be so quick to dismiss someones attention span if it differs from your own.  My own experiences in this area are far more extensive than yours, and your research is selective to your viewpoint. I will in the future not take you to task for being inexperienced.
Gino, it would prove that you could defeat an applicant process at will and send agencies utilizing screening exams into confusion.  Having looked at a few applications in my time, applicants are not generally asked if they intend to take a job if sucessful, and there is no consequence if an applicant withdraws.  Your "foot soldiers" would be specially trained, since it only takes a few minutes, and the results documented.  It is my belief that you folks are just as liable for advocating a behavior as performing it.
Skeptic, my good, stout hearted friend.  Turned away from your choice of profession by the overwhelming prospect of a polygraph every 5 years? wont you guys have killed it off by then? why so little confidence?  Thanks for bringing up my point, even if you tried to turn it around.  I maintain that the anti polygraph assertions have not been backed up, and are hysterical and pathetic. The way to prove me wrong is to just do so, and document it here.  Stating that sophisticated  countermeasures were sucessfully employed (among other things) in vague terms, sounds like BS.  You declined employment with NSA, why dont you get the ball rolling and specifically post what happened?  Certainly it could not impact on whatever it is that you do now.  Set an example.
Its curious to me that you are so concerned with things Ive said to George when he seems to have recovered nicely on his own.  Is it just deflecting, while trying to fill a post with something, anything?  How could you of all people question anyones honesty and integrity when you have recently admitted to employing countermeasures on a screening test for a high level government agency? If your examiner would of looked you in the eye and asked if you were manipulating the test, you would of answered "NO". Conclude again, oh pillar of truth!
Ok, Ill answer one of Beech Tree's lame questions: I passed my CQ tests (one was RI) because I must of been unsure during the asking of such questions.  While I certainly made admissions, no one will put every juvenile indiscretion on paper.  The relevant questions did not bother me, so there you go.  An example: If I gave a cat a well deserved kick, would I want to go into an applicant process stating that I abused animals? You get the idea, Im sure.
Stein, good post. You've joined the very small group of posters here that may in time command respect.  Plus you served with my brother.
Have a prosperous new year my anti polygraph friends.  Make it your resolution to spend less time here, and shoot your rifles more often!  Watch the "wind and the lion" at least once, and let your keyboards rest.

Breeze, you addressed the following words to me:

Quote:


You have yet to demonstrate that any advice given here is "faulty." Wasn't it your central thesis that our making countermeasure information public is unethical, because it could help criminals to beat the polygraph? Evidently, you do believe that polygraph outcomes may be influened by countermeasure use. So what advice given here is "faulty?"

Quote:


Nonetheless, I am not convinced by the content of your posts to this message board that you have 1) read and 2) understood The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

You further boast:

Quote:


Your accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint" is patently untrue. Had you bothered reading what you dismissively term "my vanity work," you would know better. My personal library on polygraphy includes writings by authors whose viewpoints are very different from my own, including the American Polygraph Association's CD-ROM archive of all issues of its quarterly Polygraph from 1972-2001, John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique, James Allan Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, and Leonard H. Harrelson's Lie Test: Deception, Truth and the Polygraph. In researching polygraphy, I've also relied on Department of Defense Polygraph Institute documentation, some of which AntiPolygraph.org has sought and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Scalabrini and I relied on all of these sources in writing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Perhaps it is you, Breeze, whose "research" (if any) "is selective to your viewpoint."