Batman,

Clarification is my middle name . . .
Batman wrote on Mar 6^th, 2003 at 8:58am:

Or the agency you are applying for will process you for clearance as part of their application process . . .
Quote:

1.  Not supposedly, I did fail.  If you want proof I will gladly send you a scanned copy of my letter rescinding my offer of emplyment because of the polygraph.
2.  You know what happens when you make assumptions, Batman.  I am not "employed" by the DoD.  I once was on Active Duty, but now am a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, basically on Inactive Reserve status.  The DoD has control of me, but I do absolutely nothing (and receive no pay or benefits).  Recall of the IRR is the last step before a draft.
3.  The failure of my polygraph HAS affected my ability to apply for other government postions.  See my personal statement for details.
Quote:

Oh, I believe him.  I just want your reaction to the possibility that the polygraph test is widely abused and mishandled around the nation.  I want you to know that there are many, many reasons why people are being bounced by the polygraph, and not all of them are based on pure machine readings.
Quote:

You're damn right it is.  The PL CQT is based solely on a unknowing subject falling for all the tricks employed on them.   Why can't a screening or pre-employment test be based solely on the machine readings?  Because the machine readings don't tell you squat unless you compare them to other questions to which you ASSUME the subject is lying.  Tha is BOGUS!!!
Quote:

"Let me explain to you the imprtance of honesty and integrity" -- a phrase used when administering a Probable Lie Control Question test.  Emphasize honesty but assume that the subject will lie.  If that isn't the most ass backward thing . . .

"Please write a number from 1 to 7 on a card.  I'm going to run a test to calibrate the machine."  HA!

"This test is about to begin" -- don't you mean "This test began the moment I hooked you up"

Must I go on?  Read TLBTLD for more details.  Better yet, go back to your DoDPI handbook.  It's all in there.
Quote:

In my opinion, I believe that countermeasures that are used on a first polygraph are undetectable.  However, if an individual tried to use countermeasures on a second polygraph, after not using them on the first, well, a comparison of the charts wouls CLEARLY indicate an improvement in test results.  The marked improvement could only be attributed to 2 things - substantially less anxiety as to the polygraph experience or use of countermeasures.   Countermeasure-paranoia among polygraphers will always lead them to the second conclusion.
Quote:

My case is very different than others.  You assume (again, Batman, assumptions mare bad) that I am just someone who claims a false positive but really had some issues during my test.  I had nothing to hide during my poly, but a PAPERWORK error by the agency created misleading information which swayed the polygrapher into calling me deceptive.  Remember, my polygraph took TWO days, and at the end of day one, I was deemed "inconclusive."  But at the end of day two, I was a "definitely conclusive, a conclusive failure."  The polygrapher was looking for information from me that he believed, from a PAPERWORK error, to be true, and when he didn't find it, he failed me.

Without that paperwork error, I'm sure I would have passed.  The PL CQT relies on too many outside factors to judge results on, rather than using straight polygraph readings, like CKT (event specific).  The PL CQT is straight up fishing.  My polygrapher was told where the fish were, went there, didn't get a bite, and chose to believe that there were fish in the water, rather than refute what he was told.  It is crazy.
Quote:

Come on, Batman.  You know I am a man of my word, despite what your silly PL CQT says about me.  I don't skate around or ignore arguments.  Hell, I'll even include a point from your second post:
Quote:

Ahh, see, I believe that the polygraph MACHINE does work.  It can measure the physiological responses of the human body.  What does NOT work is the person sitting behind the machine, trying to interperet another human's autonomic nervous system measurements down to a 50/50, truth or lie result.  
Now in the CKT, the measurements are overwhelming, and the questions are specific.  But I would never believe guilt or innocence based on the test result; it is only another piece to the comlete investigation pie.
Of course the PL CQT is nothing like the CKT.  Truth or lie is determined by answers to a question in which the polygraph examiner ASSUMES (there's that word again) that a previos answer given by a subject is a lie.  How crazy is that?  And to boot, some agencies use these test results as the final authority on an individual.  It's the whole pie, not even a piece of it!

The system itself SUCKS.  And countermeasures are living proof that the system is totally unreliable.  Using countermeasures corrupts the system even more.  Well, if a system is corrupt, we ought to get rid of it!!
 
Why do I tell people not to use countermeasures?  If good people, those with nothing to hide, use countermeasures to ensure they pass a polygraph, years later, when they are a asset to the agency they work for, everyone will assume that the polygraph worked well, and let in a real winner.  
When that happens, NOBODY wins, becasue the broken, corrupt system perpetuates. 

Chris

Batman and Torpedo,

I have watched the two of you sling mud around this site for a while.  I have even slung some your way myself.  But when it was all said and done, we got down to actual debate.  

You both presented some poignant points to me, and asked for me to clarify my opinions.  I have done so, and am eagerly awaiting your responses.  Now I've even created a thread JUST for the two of you.  Now you won't have to worry about arguing off-topic.  We are the topic.

Time and time again I have asked you both, respectfully, to share your opinions.  You did, but now have not responded to my debate. Well, in this new thread, I have re-posted my open responses to you both.

Speak up, and maybe people on this site will learn to respect what you both write.  Or stay quiet, and remain in contempt.

Your choice.

Chris

steincj,

I realize that this thread is intended primarily for Batman and Torpedo... I'm a little confused, but I will speak up anyway...

1) Polygraph testing is unreliable and relies on trickery and deceit. 

2) Simply telling the truth is no absolute guarantee of passing a polygraph exam. 

3) False positive results [DI] are not uncommon.

4) Polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures.

Chris, my apologies if I'm out of line here; not real sure who you are looking for responses from.


Respectfully,
triple x

All,

I am a big MORON!!! 

Yes, it should be titled pro-poly people . . . 

This thread is intended for Batman, Torpedo, or any other Pro poly person to come and enter into mud-sling-less (hey, if I'm calling myself a moron, at least let me make up my own words!!) debate.  I will be sure to admonish anyone who throws personal attacks toward anyone else (as per Torpedo's request), rgardless of your poly views.

It is intended to allow Batman and Tropedo to present points without overzealous anti-polygraph rebuttal.  The course of this discussion shouldn't lead to "writing on bathroom walls."

I have some questions that I would like answered by those on the other side.  As Batman, Torpedo, and I have engaged in some intellectual discussion (though I rarely add intellect to it), I would like this thread to remain intellectual.   

As many of you know, I have my own opinions about various polygraph issues.  Sometimes I seem pro-poly, but most times I seem anti-poly.  Read my personal statement, I am anti-poly.  But to me, a crusade to eliminate the polygraph in one stroke is probably in vain.  The most debateable type of polygraph is the pre-employment screening test.  I have already had polygraphers tell me their feelings on pre-employment screening and the PL CQT, and I hope that with the intellectual insight provided by Batman, Torpedo and the likes, we can create a feasable solution to th polygraph problem.

And to the Administrators of AP.org, is there anyway this humble dimwit can get the name of this thread changed from Anti to Pro?

Captain Numbnuts

Batman wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 10:34pm:


Well, that's certainly a fascinating admission. Forgive me, but your longstanding history of clever, Clinton-like parsing of meaning and hair-splitting of word definitions to avoid revealing your actual profession leads me to ask directly: Does this mean you haven't even read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?

Captain,

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, but you do apply a lot of pressure.  First you wanted "intellectual insight", and now you want a "scholary reply".  Give me a break will ya?

Lets start small and work our way up.  Do I understand you correctly when you say that you failed your polygraph exam, not because of the inaccuracies of the polygraph instrument itself, but because of errors by the examiner?

If I misunderstood please clarify for me.

Batman

Steincj,

Not exactly sure where you want to go with this.  It appears we agree the polygraph instrumentation works for what it is designed to do, record/measure physiological activity of the individual attached to it.  It appears we also agree the inherent weakness is with the Examiner.  If an Examiner allows a bias to play a role in his administration of a polygraph, that certainly could have an impact on the outcome.  There is also a large degree of uncertainty created by each individual Examinee and the personal "baggage" they bring into the room.  Experience and expertise of the Examiner also plays a major role, however for those programs that have a stringent quality control process, this particular aspect can be somewhat controlled.

I guess the real point of contention lies in two areas.  First, the techniques utilized (PLCT v GQT for example), and the application of polygraph (screening v specific issue testing).

I am not a supporter of utilizing polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool, unless it is to resolve credible derogatory information that surfaces during a background investigation.  I have slightly less reservation with it's use in support of SAPs, however I believe additional research needs to be conducted to develop a better technique than TES.  I have no reservations what so ever with the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, whether it is on Subjects, Victims, or Witnesses.

As for PLCT v GQT, my experience and training is with PLCT's, however I believe the GQT may be less susceptible to the use of countermeasures.

As for countermeasures, I believe trained; experienced Examiners can detect them.

Lastly, I believe the promotion of the use of countermeasures is wrong.  I can't say it is unethical, unless someone within the polygraph profession is advocating/teaching their use.  Someone like George M. is under no obligation to be ethical.  In a different thread he stated he thought it prudent for "anyone" taking a polygraph to utilize countermeasure.  I asked him to clarify his use of the term "anyone" (he has yet to do so).  By normal standards the word "anyone" would include everyone from a potential employee to a child abuser, from someone who is innocent to someone who is very guilty of a specific crime.  He would like folks to believe he is striving for some greater good, and that in order to reach that level if a few bad guys get away with a crime, well so be it.  I personally find this argument weak, and this attitude detrimental to society as a whole.  There a many ways to go about changing or improving the societal system then to advocate the use of something that could be very harmful to that same society.

Batman

To Antiploygh.org,

I  ________________, unequivocally state that science can correspond physiology to specific emotions and that these emotions produce distinctive chart patterns when measured - recorded by the polygraph instrument rendering the polygraph an infallible forensic tool in the detection of deception.

Any takers?

To those who attack this site on the basis of providing information with regards to countermeasures my response to you is this:

1) This information, back by the scientific community, reveals the vulnerability of this test and the serious threat it poses to our national security and public safety.

2) The assumption that only liars, thieves or those with something to hide would be the ones to employ the use of countermeasures shows your total and complete comtempt for those who have a gunuine fear of the consquences of a false positive outcome. 

3) To protect ones self from being falsely accused of deception during a psychological interrogation would be in my view a justifiable use.