Sergeant1107:

You have stated again what I believe is this website most important contribution.  Very few opinions are edited or deleted.

This site will post "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" of polygraph operations and opinions.

I challenge any "pro-polygraph" opinionated reader to refer me to a site which is dedicated to the "continued usage" of polygraph which tolerates and post opposing points of view.

Love him or hate him, George rarely censors any postings to this site unless they are just plain lazy, unthoughtful, verbally abusive or off the wall opinions given just for the sake of seeing themselves on a webpage.

Regards.

Quote:


So you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at? 

There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...

The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously... 

Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...

So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?

Quote:


Let's see, where did I get false positive from? Hmm, I think it was this post you made:

Quote:


Let's parse this: First statement is that an individual showed deception on a prior polygraph. The next statement is that he showed no deception on a subsequent test for the same issue which was corroborated by documentation...

It seems perfectly reasonable to me from your statements to infer that the first test was a false positive, or did I miss something? But then I didn't go to Texas A&M, my colleges were Rutgers University, the University of Colorado and Washington State University...

And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly...

Sorry digithead, I missed one point.   

YOUR WORDS IN SEPERATE POSTS

'Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen? '

'And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly... '


My answer is, you needed an aggie education and your communication would have been clear.  First, how many False Negativese I've seen, Second your asking how many false negatives in my career.  Hope you can see the difference.   

My answer to how many have I seen, several.  How many have I had in my career, I don't know.  I am sure it has happened, I just don't have facts and cases that document this.  Polygraph is not 100%, nor is other procedures of this type.  MMPI is a case in fact, yet considererd very reliable to those that use it.  The Able Screen is another.   

Sorry, I am tired from a difficult day and would go further, just don't have the energy at this late hour.  Thanks for the interesting discussion and have a good night.   

digithead wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2007 at 7:07am:


My statement that a person passed a polygraph that had he had failed on a previous examination does in fact show that not ALL PERSONS ARE SENSITIZED AND NOT ALL PERSONS FAIL A SECOND EXAM ON THE SAME ISSUE. 
It seems you are using sematics to make a point of this.  How do I know that the subject was sensitized on the case I mentioned?  He was in tears and very angry when the second examination started.  The examiner used persuasive coments to calm and resolve the issue.

We do agree that in sex offender monitoring, polygraph should not be the end all/know all of the offenders progress or truthfulness.  SOV treatment is an inclusive system with strict guidlines that SHOULD be followed.  Probation officers should not depend entirely on the polygraph, persons are known to have passed a monitoring examination while violating portions of the probation agreement. 
As mentioned in many threads, a monitoring or pre employment examination is subject to false positivies and negatives.  The reasons have been stated by polygraph examiners that post on this board, as well as persons who dislike polygraph and consider it nothing better than reading tarot cards.  

I may have different views on the validity and reliability, I agree that polygraph has no place in a court room as evidence.  My opinion of correct decisions in screening situations would be in the mid 80% range of accuracy.  This is based on my own personal opinion from experience, studies conducted by the polygraph community, and published research in polygraph journals.  

I know you disagree with this and I have no problem with your opinion.  I would personally like to see studies conducted under the supervision of persons with no intrest in the outcome of such studies.  The problem is having a qualified examiner, properly trained using approved format's, while under the supervision of persons that do not have a bias for or against polygraph.  Find that mixture and I would participate and accept the result of such a study.  

Prior to use of polygraph in SOV treatment, recidivism was over 65% in a few case studies I have seen years ago.  Once standards of treatment were established and polygraph was introduced into the system of treatment recidivism reportedly dropped to about 25%.  I don't have those studies available to me at this time and they were conducted by actual theapists treating convicted sex offenders.  I am not familiar with the manner in which they reached those conclusions, therefore I cannot and will  not state they are factural.  Anything that will reduce victimization of any persons is good.   

Thank you for a genuine conversation which has helped me look deeper at my inner self and opinion of polygraph.  And I will continue to look even deeper, will you make the same commitment?

I see we have major differences in opinon and it does not appear they will be resolved by further comments or debate.  We are both set in our opinions and will maintain our own opinions regardless of further debate.  I have enjoyed the exchange of information and will do further studies.   And no I do not accept the conclusions of the NAS report.  You must admitt they did not conduct any examinations, they used studies that were selected by the NAS only.   

The use of poly's in the SOTP is just plain BS. While I was still on probation in Tarrant County, my ex successfully coached my oldest daughter into making an accusation  of me abusing her some 5 years back. When I walked into the polygrapher's office, the very first question he asked me was, "Do you have someone from the police department here with you?", leaving me to believe that I would immediately be arrested and charged with that offense, should I fail the poly. Well guess what. I failed it. I failed it because the entire time I sat there, all  I could think of was going to prison for the rest of my life if I failed it. I finally had to fight the probation dept. on the use of the examiner I had been using the entire time while on probation, and once I got to him, I passed. I passed because I knew this examiner was a no-BS man, and that he played by the real rules. Not the one's created in the minds of every new probation officer that thinks they can make up shit as they go along.

The original polygrapher KNEW that if he asked that kind of question before the test, he could instill fear within me that would absolutely make me fail the test. Screw Texas and their entire probation sex-offender program. The only good I got out of all of those years was the actual counseling.

From the information given to me they are only 85-88% accurate, so whats up with the other 12-15% any answer?????????

I past the first set of question no problems, then ansked again the same set of question say time qwithin 2-3 minutes and a question show different results, then the third time the same thing.... no past no fail DRAW.... incunclusive.
First time taking test...
RICHARD