Dr. Richardson,

Thank you for addressing TwoBlock's questions.  His post on equipment calibration didn't just come out of left field; it came from some other ball park.  It's as if we're all playing football, and he shows up with his catcher's mitt, a hockey mask, and a basketball jersey.  In a way, I can't really blame him since this topic has strayed so far from where it started.  I read his post, considered it, and concluded that it was simply too tedious to respond.  But you did so quite well.  I was interested in your response about the CQT's validity. (By focusing on the validity of the CQT rather than the polygraph in general, you seemingly imply that other test methods have more legitimacy . . .)  However, a discussion on the validity of a particular polygraph test method is also another topic entirely. 

I was actually waiting for TwoBlock to mention you in response to my last post, since he had mentioned you previously with his "carry his jock" proclamation of you as the be-all, end-all expert on all things polygraph.  

As a fellow (former) polygrapher, I needn't question your having "been there, done that" qualifications.  And I needn't talk about lab studies vs. lab studies or lab studies vs. real world to you.  That's a waste of time.

I do, however, have a couple of questions for you which I think relate to this evolving topic that has so whimsically gone from a question about test data analysis for a school report to where we are now.  Of course, I have myself to blame as much as any other for this evolution, and I regret that many people won't even read this discussion because they won't be interested by the topic "school report."

Anyhow, here are my questions.  I don't know if you will address them, but I do feel reasonably certain that you will read them, since you will be curious to investigate any responses to your most recent posts.

1.  As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

2.  Tell me, honestly, despite any biases you may have now that you are on the "anti-" side, are you unaware of the most recent developments made in the area of countermeasure detection as taught by DoDPI and other reputable polygraph schools?  You obviously know what I'm talking about when I mention normal habituation, and, if you were any kind of polygrapher at all, I know you know what I'm talking about when I say "atypical responses," especially when viewed globally over the course of an entire exam, i.e., as a pattern rather than in isolation. Likewise, I think you should know the difference between legitimate response and an anomaly, particularly when differentiating between a normal response within the generally accepted response window vs. an abnormally protracted response, again viewed globally rather than simply during one isolated incident.

These things may be out of the average reader's realm of understanding, and one might avoid answering these questions by using the excuse that we are already off-topic and that my questions are themselves out of left field. However, since you showed up carrying your own jock this time  , it would be interesting to read your answers.  Regards.  

Quote:


Dr. Richardson,

Perhaps you were in a hurry, or perhaps you were preoccupied while writing your last response. Therefore, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and curb my disappointment in hopes of better things to come.

Surely you don't really think that "All that you have mentioned is well within the grasp (both in terms of basic comprehension and practice) of the average would-be applicant of countermeasures."  I've been visiting this forum for quite some time (although participating infrequently), and I know for a fact that the "average" reader has very little understanding of what I was talking about, despite the fact that to you and me the terms I used are basic.  I've tested and failed some of those "average would-be" applicants of countermeasures, discovering later, predictably, that they got their information from this very website.  We're not talking about rocket scientists here . . . well, unless it's EosJ we're talking about.  And as for such brainiacs being encouraged/delighted by my responses, I am of the opinion that if they examine what I wrote they will be discouraged/dismayed to learn that at least one polygrapher--possibly their own future polygrapher--is not as hapless and incompetent as the "polyboys" and "soothsayers" portrayed by you, George et. al.

It is no great admission for me to say that while a polygrapher may know that countermeasures have been used and that things are not as they should be, he or she may not have observed the particular method used.  But suffice it to say that regardless of the method used, it will take a very, very good performer to replicate, consistently, the normal response patterns that won't stand out to an experienced examiner.

Simply saying that you are aware of the terminology I use is an insufficient answer to my questions, Doctor.  And no, countermeasure detection is not limited to a global analysis, although that is but one tool that can be used when looking for atypical response patterns. And patterns is really where it's at.  By focusing on the larger picture, we can often see things we would not otherwise notice with our noses touching the polygraph chart at just one spot.

It's difficult to explain to you, and I think more difficult to explain to the reader, how countermeasures detection methods have evolved.  But things have changed, and they are changing, Doctor, and it won't require that we wait until the next generation of polygraphers to reach the time when we can reliably, although admittedly not always, detect when the data is as it should be and when the data has been skewed.  It's already happening, and I've seen it first-hand.  If you have any doubts, go back to school and see where things are going, rather than viewing things from your how-it-was-when-I-was-there mentality.

Oh, and I noticed how you completely ignored the first question I asked, and we both know why.

Regards. 

Digithead,

Didn't your parents teach you that it isn't polite to interrupt adults when they are having a conversation?

As for the "point" about the CQT, don't you ever get tired of re-runs?  It is tedious and boring to once again have to read either side's opinion on the CQT, let alone take the time to explain it.  That argument has been and will be rehashed a thousand times on this website, so you don't need to hear it from me again.

But if you're in the mood for re-runs, I hear they still show Gilligan's Island on cable channels.

Digithead, I knew it didn't take much to interest you the moment you wanted me to rehash the old CQT argument/explanation you can find in at least a hundred other places on this website. Just find the posts that conform to your personal opinion, because it would be a waste of time for me to give you mine.