Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "how to sting the polygraph" (Read 68665 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #30 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 7:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme,

There is really no way to be certain.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #31 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 7:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme wrote on Jun 11th, 2003 at 7:38pm:
I have a question.  If you have nothing to hide and you intend to use countermeasures, how do you know your countermeasures are what got you over the hump as opposed to your truthful responses to the relevant questions?



You don't, of course.  However, since the polygraph has not demonstrated scientific validity at "honesty" detection, it's not reasonable to conclude that truthful responses "got you over the hump", either.  The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones.

The issue I believe Beech Trees was discussing before was whether countermeasures are detectable.  Many polygraphers seem to regard countermeasure attempts as indicative of deception; therefore, we can conclude that it is highly likely the polygrapher who administered Beech Trees' polygraph did not detect them.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #32 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 7:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Thanks
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #33 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 8:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The_Breeze wrote on Jun 11th, 2003 at 6:59pm:
Beech Trees
Well done, of course you have ignored my request for proof of agency, but it does not matter.  Also, one who is complimented for honesty, would not be subject to "interrogation" perhaps you would use more accurate terms especially since you spend so much time on this topic.


I think that the entire polygraph session meets the dictionary definition of an "interrogation".  However, I suppose it's a matter of professional semantics -- not being a professional in this area, I will defer to your opinion on the matter as to whether the polygraph is described as an "interrogation" by those who investigate professionally.

Quote:
I actually found a way for you to be of value the other day.  A sister agency had an applicant that was believed to be using countermeasures. A re-test was administered and I suggested a follow up GKT using three charts of information as contained on this site.  One key was your site name.  So Maestro, ask Lykken what the statistical odds are in scoring 6 to such a GKT?


And, of course, if you used only GKTs, we wouldn't have a disagreement in the first place.

Just one more reason why I won't work for any agency or company that uses the polygraph.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #34 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 8:21pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Skeptic

You seem to be validating polygraph theory.

"The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones."

If the examiner did his/her job than obviously the control questions would be more meaningful to the truthful examinee. 

If Beech trees was truthful during his/her examination and used countermeasures, whose to say it wasn't truthful responses that produced a passing examination.  Of course that's going in with the belief Beech Trees had nothing to hide regarding the relevant issues.

Here's a question for the crowd:  Are countermeasures easier to detect when used by deceitful examinee as opposed to a truthful examinee (regarding relevant questions)

My belief is countermeasures are easier to detect on a deceitful/guilty person because of the psychological issues involved in the testing process. 



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #35 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 8:35pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme,

It's meaningless to speak of countermeasures by deceptive vs. truthful subjects being "easier to detect" considering that no polygrapher has demonstrated any capability to detect countermeasures. Wink
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #36 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 8:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I'll bite.  Having been an examiner for some time now I can tell you with certainty that most countermeasures are detectable.  It's not really a matter of how well you (examinee) employ them, it's more how close the examiner is watching for them.  Most federal examiners are well versed in countermeasures and do a pretty good job ferreting them out.  Do some get by, probably, but the majority do not.  For the guilty examinee I say good luck, to the truthful person I say tell the truth and avoid these types of websites.  They'll do you more harm than good.  In my experiences and knowledge of other examiners in the field, we detect countermeasures daily.  Tell Drew to turn off his clock. Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #37 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 8:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme,

I don't doubt that by observation, a polygraph examiner might detect such crude countermeasure attempts as coughing, fidgeting, or muscle-flexing. But the available peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraph examiners cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

Countermeasure "detection" at this stage seems to be little more than guesswork and badgering a subject for an admission.

In the field, polygraph examiners have no way of knowing what percentage of countermeasures employed they are "detecting."

You ask me to tell Drew to turn off the countermeasure clock (which will otherwise roll to 500 days tomorrow!). Does this mean that you've accepted his polygraph countermeasure challenge? Smiley
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #38 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 9:19pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Having first hand experience, I know our detection efforts detect more than the crude CM's you describe.  As for Drew's clock, he can run it until hell freezes over.  I don't know how any examiner could ever meet his challenge.  Running a mock polygraph examination is quite different than a true specific issue test.  However, if he's ever falsely accused of a crime I would be happy to either clear him (if innocent) or take his written confession (if guilty) during the post-test.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #39 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 9:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme,

I'll accept that you honestly believe that you can detect sophisticated countermeasures. But what evidence can you provide others that you have any such ability?

If countermeasures can genuinely be detected under field conditions, then it should be possible to detect them under laboratory conditions, too, no? If not, why not?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Saidme
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Jun 11th, 2003
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #40 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 9:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Completely different frame of mind (examinee & examiner) between field conditions and laboratory.  There is no proper psychological frame of mind in a laboratory setting.  In fact, I've observed many people effectively use CM's in a laboratory setting.  The proof you seek is in the field amongst hundreds of polygraph examiners who daily collect polygraph data.  I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's.  So I guess to answer your question, no you cannot duplicate the polygraph in a laboratory setting.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #41 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 9:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme wrote on Jun 11th, 2003 at 8:21pm:
Skeptic

You seem to be validating polygraph theory.

"The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones."


Hardly.  Clearly, polygraph theory is meaningless without ascribing a consistent cause for the mentioned physiological changes.  It is this assumption of cause that has not been validated and is demonstrably wrong in many cases.

Quote:
If the examiner did his/her job than obviously the control questions would be more meaningful to the truthful examinee.
 

Then you're willing to hold polygraphers to a higher standard than I.  I don't believe it is reasonable to assume anyone should be able to discern truth from lies based upon the polygraph, nor force reactions on the polygraph that necessarily conform to those predicted by polygraph theory.

Polygraphers can sometimes influence an unwitting subject's reactions through suggestion, but that's not the same thing.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #42 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 10:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme wrote on Jun 11th, 2003 at 9:45pm:
Completely different frame of mind (examinee & examiner) between field conditions and laboratory.  There is no proper psychological frame of mind in a laboratory setting.  In fact, I've observed many people effectively use CM's in a laboratory setting.  The proof you seek is in the field amongst hundreds of polygraph examiners who daily collect polygraph data.  I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's.  So I guess to answer your question, no you cannot duplicate the polygraph in a laboratory setting.


You know, I'd settle for scientifically-controlled field observations, as well.  Unfortunately, as the National Academy of Sciences recently found in their exhaustive review of polygraph literature, the scientific backing for polygraph validity is quite lacking.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #43 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 10:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Saidme,

You are quite likely correct that no polygrapher can meet my challenge.... but your reasoning is quite faulty--it is not that the stated conditions are unfair, but that the outcome of accepting such a challenge will likely lead to the end of control question test polygraphy.  With regard to the conditions (simulated crime/mock crime scenario), you must realize that largely the only evidence put forward by polygraph proponents for any validity of control question test (CQT) polygraphy comes from simulated crime studies.  You would hardly suggest that such a study would be the basis for drawing conclusions regarding validity in the absence of countermeasures, but would not be suitable for examining countermeasure efficacy would you??  I would argue that, in fact, it (a simulated crime study) is much more suitable for the latter than the former--the reason being roughly as follows:  I believe the operative principle of CQT testing is what I have previously referred to as fear of consequences (not the same as and independent of any fear of detection) .  These consequences that are to be feared are largely associated with relevant question material.  I would argue that the lack of any meaningful consequences in many simulated studies would render this sort of validity study largely useless and would likely lead to an underestimation of the level of false positive results that would be expected in real field cases.  The reason I believe a simulated crime study has meaning as outlined with my challenge is that, although suffering from the same lack of consequences, at least this condition is balanced over those trials for which countermeasures are employed and those for which none are employed.  Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the simulated study paradigm that I have outlined in broad principle is likely considerably more meaningful for a countermeasure study than a validity study.  Even if that were not the case (both of similar value) one could hardly look to a simulated crime study for answers to validity issues and then question its use for similar insight into issues related to countermeasures.

Playing at DoDPI and/or demonstrating to yourself in your own polygraph suite that if you know to look for countermeasure "x' that you can see it on a polygram is not the same as demonstrating that you can reliably detect countermeasures as applied by a knowledgeable examinee with a large arsenal of readily available countermeasures and one who further will apply such with stealth and motivation and with you not knowing in advance that such will be applied.  I am sorry, but there is nothing but either reasoned retreat or cowardice associated with the absence of a response to the countermeasure challenge.  Although I have nothing to do with the running of the clock associated with this site, the challenge most certainly remains in effect.
« Last Edit: Jun 11th, 2003 at 10:35pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: "how to sting the polygraph"
Reply #44 - Jun 11th, 2003 at 10:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Saidme,

You are quite likely correct that no polygrapher can meet my challenge.... but your reasoning is quite faulty--it is not that the stated conditions are unfair, but that the outcome of accepting such a challenge will likely lead to the end of control question polygraphy.  With regard to the conditions (simulated crime/mock crime scenario), you must realize that largely the only evidence put forward by polygraph proponents for any validity of control question test (CQT) polygraphy comes from simulated crime studies.  You would hardly suggest that such a study would be the basis for drawing conclusions regarding validity in the absence of countermeasures, but would not be suitable for examining countermeasure efficacy would you??  I would argue that, in fact, it (a simulated crime study) is much more suitable for the latter than the former--the reason being roughly as follows:  I believe the operative principle of CQT testing is what I have previously referred to as fear of consequences (not the same as and independent of any fear of detection) .  These consequences that are to be feared are largely associated with relevant question material.  I would argue that the lack of any meaningful consequences in many simulated studies would render this sort of validity study largely useless and would likely lead to an underestimation of the level of false positive results that would be expected in real field cases.  The reason I believe a simulated crime study has meaning as outlined with my challenge is that, although suffering from the same lack of consequences, at least this condition is balanced over those trials for which countermeasures are employed and those for which none are employed.  Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the simulated study paradigm that I have outlined in broad principle is likely considerably more meaningful for a countermeasure study than a validity study.  Even if that were not the case (both of similar value) one could hardly look to a simulated crime study for answers to validity issues and then question its use for similar insight into issues related to countermeasures.


Drew,
Although I agree with your assessment of the appropriateness of test conditions considering the likely mechanism of polygraph functionality (if any can be clearly defined as overriding), I think it would be more appropriate to assess such test conditions on the basis of prevailing polygraph theory instead: namely, "fear of detection".  And it seems to me that using the assumptions of that theory should lead to the conclusion that a "simulated crime" scenario should be perfectly adequate to evaluate the validity of the polygraph and efficacy of countermeasures, as long as actual lies are involved.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
"how to sting the polygraph"

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X