Twoblock wrote on Mar 19^th, 2006 at 6:36pm:


Analog, or digital?

Twoblock wrote on Mar 20^th, 2006 at 7:04pm:


Actually the movement pads attached to today's computerized systems really are better than the old analog systems.  This is no big polygraph "secret", it is more a case of simple physiology.  The old analog movement sensors were mounted under the legs of the chair, where the new pads have a more "direct connection" so to speak.

What I don't understand is your comment, "these devices plus books to help set up and callibrate them can be had for a song. Especially on Ebay."

Do you mean actual polygraph instruments (which I do know can be bought) or do you mean somekind of movement sensor all by itself?

Nonombre

I think many of the anti-polygraph people on this board hold too much faith in mental countermeasures.  While it would seem to make sense that mentally over-riding the fight-flight response would be a matter of mental self discipline, suppressing millions of years of evolutionary response behavior is almost impossible if the examiner is doing his job properly.  The very effort to suppress responses actually increases them well below the conscious level of thought.   

I'll admit that some countermeasure attempts are very good at masking or disguising a person's physiological responses; however, a good examiner will rarely be fooled.  (Although as I posted before, I do believe that occasionally even a very good examiner may not recognize the countermeasure.)

Also keep in mind, a good police detective can almost always recognize deception during interrogations just by watching physical responses from the person being interrogated.  Those are physical behavior traits that are noticable to the eye, that many criminals have tried mask or eliminate from their responses, but they are still there.  A polygraph measures responses that are not visible to the eye, and people still think they can somehow override those responses by controlling their thinking.  Perhaps one in a hundred is good enough to do that, but for the other 99 it leads to failing the polygraph exam.   

I also know how stressful it is to be given a polygraph exam, and I am sympathetic, but I still understand the importance of pre-employment polygraph exams.  There are still a lot of dishonest and unethical people trying to get into jobs where they can further thier criminal ambitions and the polygraph examination is an additional safety barrier against those people.   

Regarding defense lawyers who have their clients take polygraph examinations, in almost all cases, it's because the attorney questions the innocence of their client and believes the polygraph will determine the truth.  Why do so many defense attorney's trust the polygraph?

My final thought is this:  If I had a good friend who was trying to get a job and was forced to submit to a pre-employment polygraph exam, my advice to him would be to be honest and let his future employer judge him on the person he is rather than try to coach him on how to beat a polygraph.  I have a sincere belief that the vast majority of those who were not hired because they were suspected of using countermeasures far outnumber those who were not hired because of something shameful, but irrelevant, in their background.
There is no big conspiracy in the polygraph community to keep trustworthy people from getting jobs.  Employers want to feel good about the people they hire, and trustworthy people are highly valued by them.

I know there will be plenty of visitors to this site who disagree with what I have said, but something we should agree on is that I do admit that there are too many unethical or poorly trained examiners in the polygraph community.  I wish there was a way to raise the standards and remove the examiners from the field who do not belong there.  Perhaps that would people less apprehensive about submitting themselves to an examination.   

I appreciate all points of view, and I hope we can keep this debate mature and intellegent.

187Dick,

     I will grant you your opinion and I am sure that (I know this is redundant), dumb crooks, are caught all the time, by your polygraph. And your use of the polygraph for criminal investigations I don't have a problem with either. But as far as pre-employment / periodic post employment polygraphs is just dead wrong. 1 false positive on an honest person is not collateral damage. It is character asassination and no one should be made to endure it. Why do people have to sign a waiver for a polygraph test. It allows you polygraphers to violate a persons rights in pursuit of a job. The thing I find most funny is in the states where LEO's are not polygraphed, they seem to do just fine in finding outstanding candidates and officers. Where I bet the interviewing and BI processes are more thorough also. So the stand you have that it eliminates more undesireable people is also wrong. I dare you to say that your better than, say a Massachusetts State police officer to his face, because you took a polygraph for employment, and he didn't. I have a great amount of respect for anyone who can be a LEO. Hands down one of the toughest careers there is. And as of late it appears that the polygraph is no deterent from law breakers getting a badge.  Your stand though fully appreciated and follows the usual examiners views, Does not stand when pressed against the realities of LEO's doing there jobs in the states where they don' t polygraph. Unless you stand by the belief that all unpolygraphed LEO's are corrupt and will soon be law breakers. Not a stand I would push out into the LEO community.

Regards ....

retcopper wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2006 at 6:48pm:


retcopper,

THe more comments I get from you, the more I see a reactionary not a visionary. I never put out information that I can't prove. My cousin is a graduate of the MASS STATE Police Academy. And the vetting process over the course of the 6 months at the academy more then goes into the candidates BI and they evaluate the candidates under the duress of a military style pressure school. This method is far more expensive and time consuming than a mere psych/polygraph format for LEO selection. But that process is cheap and less time consuming. The finished product is an outstanding LEO and they pride themselves on the fact. And from personal experience they are truly a great LEO organization. 

And your right 187Dick didn't say that. What I said is if you believe that polygraphed LEO's are better than nonpolygraphed ones. Prove it.   Which of course is ridiculous. And if your so inclined you invited to prove it too.  Next time read what is written, not what you wish to read.

Regards ... 

retcopper wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2006 at 3:42pm:


retcopper,

Obviously your keen analytical thought processes must have also gone into retirement,  The point is, now pay attention, Is that  Massachusetts is a non-polygraph state, and produce out of their academies professional and competant LEOS. So your and 187Dicks opinion that a polygraph produces better LEOS is BS.  The short and sweet of it and why you won't compare agencies is that your polygrapher mind set can't get beyond the fact that these states saw the wisdom of doing away with your pseudo-science machine and schtick, and function very nicely. And they have little or no problem getting great qualified candidates. 

Comprende'   

Regards

Twoblock wrote on Mar 25^th, 2006 at 6:05am:


Actually the only issue I see with the curent digital movement sensors is occasional noise in the signal that I believe to be related to muscle movements in other parts of the body.  If someone would like to make some real money, I suggest designing a filter to work in conjunction with the piezo device that would help to better isolate unrelated body movements... 

Perhaps Marty would like to strike it rich...

Regards and have a good dig...

Nonombre
   

EosJupiter wrote on Mar 25^th, 2006 at 7:09am:


Eos,

I don't know if I can agree with your assessment.  I have also done a great deal of experimenting with the pad.  I find it discerns lower body movement quite well.  Upper body movements are identified with less consistancy.

Here's an interesting discovery.  Although I have no data to back this up, I'm now convinced certain lower body movements somehow "look" different on the movement pad.  (e.g., a toe curl looks different from a rectal squeeze).  I can't explain it, and I am not really sure real research would back it up.  I do know we use different muscle groups to affect different parts of the body.   

Therefore, wouldn't be cool if someone wrote a computer program that analyzed pad reactions and reported:

"Question #7, toe curl, left foot, 2.7 seconds, followed by rectal manipulation, 3.7 seconds."

I believe I would find such a program useful...

Lastly, I agree discomfort in the chair might affect movement artifacts.  I believe that is why polygraph chairs are designed to be fairly comfortable.

Your thoughts?

Nonombre