I think George quoted some document in which a claim was made the the polygraph was particularly poorly suited for application on scientifically-minded test subjects.  Maybe it was the NAS doc?  I seem to recall it was related to DOE testing.

I thought this was a very interesting point.  It's not merely that polygraphy is a crapshoot.  It's that it can be systematically biased against people whose minds are geared toward the scientific analysis of information -- something you'd think all these various agencies would be looking for.

Instead they have a screening procedure suited to the selection of people who are more likely to be fooled by a cheap parlor trick.

Anyway, anybody recall this quote and where it appeared?  I tried using the search function, but no luck.

That wasn't the quote I was looking for, but it is interesting and certainly in the same vein.

You're right, it is a whopper.

Thanks guys.

I'll keep looking too.  If I find it I will post it here.

Quote:


I didn't recall you ever conclusively stating that you were a polygrapher, thus I felt it necessary to qualify my description of you. Although your style and bitter, accusatory, self-serving writing always struck me as typical of a polygrapher, better safe than sorry, especially on these boards.

Quote:


It was a verbatim quote of what you wrote sir.

Quote:


You and I differ, then, over how a person who 'think[s] into it too much' or who 'know[s] too much' should be labeled. How would you describe these kinds of people, if not as intellectuals?

Quote:


So if an examinee told you prior to your polygraph interrogation that were mitigating circumstances involving their emotions, their physchology, or their physique, you would give that person a waiver?


Quote:


Again, I quoted you VERBATIM sir. In addition, I provided a hyperlink to the entire thread in which you posted the above assertions and to your post in its entirety in my original posting.

Quote:


And 'ad lib'? No, it was a conclusionary statement based upon your assertions. Now you're quibbling over assertions you made yourself, it would appear.

Quote:


And at the other end of the scale, blind obeisance to an archaic, deeply flawed, unscientific and inaccurate testing procedure is insanity. 

Regardless, you are now engaging in a strawman argument-- your original assertion was NOT that a person who 'over analyzes everything' would fail a polygraph interrogation based upon that characteristic-- your assertion was that a person who 'thinks too much into it' [ 'it' being the polygraph] would possibly fail because of that specific 'thinking'. 

Quote:


I'm sure you would know more about lacking confidence than I, so I will defer to your superior knowledge with that assertion. As an aside, I will apologize to you if a simple debate that arose out of your assertions challenges you to the point where you feel your intellect is being put to the test in some sort of 'competition'.

Quote:


Would you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?

Quote:


My comment was aimed at the fact that polygraphers and their sympathizers on these boards are quick to jump on even the slightest mischaracterization of themselves, even if innocently made. I'm thinking of poster 'The_Breeze' who went totally ballistic when a simple question about his prior law enforcement experiences was posted. I'm also thinking of poster 'Batman' who threatened me with gross physical violence when he misread a post of mine to read that I was accusing him personally of professional misconduct. These experiences, combined with the fact I didn't recall a specific post by you conclusively stating you are a polygraph interrogator led me to post my all encompassing description of you as a polygrapher or polygrapher 'wannabe'. I see now that the term 'wannabe' is particularly offensive to law enforcement, because they themselves use it frequently as a term of derision when they cannot answer direct questions posed to them here, so again I apologize. I didn't mean to stoop to your side's level.

And to answer your question, no, you do not make me feel 'insecure'.

Beech,

Turn off "the challenge" - like time clock.  I haven't responded because I have a life and don't visit this site religiously.

First of all, your "conclusions" are a bit over-reaching if you wish to attribute them to what I wrote.  Enough said.

And to answer your question Quote:
:  

Instead of listing specific disorders, I will give you the standards I apply to determining suitability.

Psychological disorders:  The main standard in reference to mental health would be, "does the person know what is reality and what is not?" .  Can the person differentiate between what is truthful and what is not truthful?  Can the person recall the period of time in question?  And, is the person medicated to the point of being unable to meet the above criteria.  

Obviously a person who can not distinguish reality, is unfit for examination.  In the screeening world, such a disorder would likely disualify an applicant. However, persons under the care of a psychology professional often become suspects of criminal investigations.  Evaluating sutiability might include coordination with the caregiver (consent of subject is usuaully necessary).  Inability to determine for sure if the person meets the criteria, while there is reason to believe he may not, would be sufficient to cause me to refrain from running the exam.  

Physical Conditions:  Two criteria--
Ensuriing the process of examination is not life-threatening (or would not exacerbate the condition) would be my primary concern.  Obviously the stress of an examination could be detrimental to someone in a severely weakened or vulnerable condition. Secondly, ensuring the physical condition does not affect the collected data to the point that a conclusive determination could not be made.    Obviously there are numerous ailments which could cause problems in both areas, especially cardiovascualr or respriatory disease.  A disorder such as MS could cause dysfunction in the correlation of psychological stimulus (question) to physiological response.  Severity of the condition, and it's effect on this individual, is the key.  Again coordination with caregiver may be necessary.  And, the Acquaintance test can be used to gauge the effect on tracings (and this site says it's just part of some ruse!).  Of course, I'd also apply the reality criterion here as well -- a physical ailment (such as head injury, stroke, etc) could  cause symptoms similar to that of psychological ailments.

Lastly, emotional condition:  Obviously some emotional conditions can elevate to the need for psychological care.  For that, see the above paragraph on psych. condition.  In addition, I would never conduct an exam on a person who is overly angry or distraught.  If possible, I would try to get the person back into a calm state before trying to conduct the exam.  If necessary, I could re-schedule. This could be for an outside issue (ie illness/death of a family member, sudden loss of job, etc) or for emotion attached to the issue at hand (ie a person just confessed to an offense, or part of an offense, is now distraught, possibly crying, but there are more issues to be tested).  If a person is the suspect of the murder/serious injury of a loved one, the exam should be conducted after a resonable time for a reasonable person to grieve or obtain closure.  Gauging of emotional suitability is obviously an ongoing process throughout the exam.  

I did not list specific conditions, because no specific condition automatically renders a person suitable or unsuitable for examination.  It is a combination of training and common sense; and is an ongoing process throughout an examination.

As for sources; I am a public servant.  I have no authority to release such information.  You and George are obviously skilled at FOIA requests.  The info I provide is my personal, unofficial take on the issues presented.  

Beech, I can only surmise that your motives for requesting a listing of conditions which would preclude one from taking an exam, include avoiding further exams.  Perhaps with your delusions of self importance, you could convince a psychology professional to assert that you do not meet the reality criterion.  Or perhaps you could make a show of emotion with belligerence or crying -- you're quite good at both!!

Regards.

Public Servant

Public Servant,

Although your stated intentions with regard to physical/emotional/psychological disqualifying factors are indeed commendable, my friend, TwoBlock, has overlooked the fact that you are ill equipped to diagnose virtually all of the conditions you describe and has therefore mistaken good intentions with the skills that lead to meaningful follow through.  Your gut feeling about any of these issues is not a substitute for proper medical and psychiatric analysis and diagnosis.  And with regard to the acquaintance (stim) test you refer to--whether or not it is a simple and routine rouse and con (it is), it is most certainly is not a diagnostic test for any or all problems connected with multiple sclerosis or any other disease.  That which you have done admirably is to describe a variety of problems (aside from the basic theoretical flaws) that make CQT polygraph testing problematic--you have in no way given any evidence or indication of your (or any other polygrapher's) ability to recognize/diagnose and render sound judgment regarding these issues.

Anonymous,

Health care professionals are little better-suited than polygraph practitioners to determine whether any particular person is a suitable candidate for a polygraph "test." Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., has explained the reasons for this in a letter to Dr. Grant LeFarge, Secretary of the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners.