Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!! (Read 26028 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #30 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I agree that how knowledge of polygraph procedure affects an examinee's polygraph results will depend on the person's personality (among other things, such as whether the examinee consequently chooses to augment reactions to the "control" questions). But I don't see how such knowledge would necessarily tend to cause false positive outcomes in a probable-lie control question test, as LBCB suggests.



George, you understand the theory of CQT better than many polygraphers. Therefore, I know you can see that an examinee's belief that certain questions are important and other questions aren't can easily cause a focus and consequent reaction where, were the examinee less "knowledgable," that focus and consequent reaction would be much less pronounced or wouldn't exist at all.

I believe that the "knowledge" you impart to potential examinees might leave them with no other recourse than to attempt countermeasures, and I know from sad experience what happens to some of those people when they get caught.
  
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: 6175
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #31 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:18pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:02pm:
George, you understand the theory of CQT better than many polygraphers. Therefore, I know you can see that an examinee's belief that certain questions are important and other questions aren't can easily cause a focus and consequent reaction where, were the examinee less "knowledgable," that focus and consequent reaction would be much less pronounced or wouldn't exist at all.


Yes, I concede it might, but again, the knowledgeable examinee will also understand that his or her reactions to the control questions are of paramount importance for passing. I don't see any convincing rationale for concluding that foreknowledge of polygraph procedure will tend to produce false positive outcomes. To my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion, either.

What is clear, however, is that examinee foreknowledge of polygraph procedure completely invalidates the (tenuous to begin with) theoretical assumptions behind CQT polygraphy. The polygraph community has yet to articulate how examiners are to handle examinees who, answering truthfully when asked if they've researched polygraphy, admit to knowing about polygraph procedure.

Quote:
I believe that the "knowledge" you impart to potential examinees might leave them with no other recourse than to attempt countermeasures, and I know from sad experience what happens to some of those people when they get caught.


Indeed, I think that for the informed polygraph subject, countermeasure use is a prudent choice, notwithstanding the unsupported claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
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 LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #32 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Yes, I concede it might, but again, the knowledgeable examinee will also understand that his or her reactions to the control questions are of paramount importance for passing. .

The polygraph community has yet to articulate how examiners are to handle examinees who, answering truthfully when asked if they've researched polygraphy, admit to knowing about polygraph procedure.

Indeed, I think that for the informed polygraph subject, countermeasure use is a prudent choice, notwithstanding the unsupported claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures.


Thank you for your own limited concessions, George. †I took the liberty of quoting you piecemeal not because I object to what you said, but simply in the interest of space and because what I have left quoted is obviously what I want to address.

When I say that examinees are led by your imparted "knowledge" to the belief that only certain relevant questions matter, I'm talking about which questions matter most to the examiner. If an examinee believes that the examiner only really cares about certain questions, then that examinee, being an intelligent, rational person, is going to find it nearly impossible to avoid reacting to those questions. Which leaves such an examinee with only two options:

Fail the exam or at best come up inconclusive because his/her reactions to those questions he/she knows matter to the examiner will cause them to be scored higher than the surrounding questions.

OR

Attempt countermeasures to augment the surrounding questions that the examinee now believes are of no importance to the examiner.

The ironic thing is, now that the examinee believes only those relevant questions really matter, his/her reactions to those questions are going to be much stronger than they would have been, leaving the examinee with the unenviable task of trying to augment the control questions to such a degree that they stand out as abnormal responses to a trained examiner, especially when taking into account what IS normal, i.e. normal habituation and normal variability of response to the same question presented at different times and in different orders throughout the exam.

No, I don't know of a good study that proves that all or even a majority of examiners can reliably detect countermeasures. But I do know from experience that I have been able to do so--and it wasn't guesswork--and it was not a fun experience for either myself or the examinee. If you feel that it was "prudent" in their case to employ countermeasures when all it did was lead to their failure, well, I don't know what to say.

Now, you say that the polygraph community has said nothing about how examiners should handle knowledgable examinees. Well, I'm part of the polygraph community, so I'll tell you what we have to do. We have to do our best to help those examinees pass the exam in spite of their knowledge. We have to try to erase the unfounded confidence that knowledge gives them, or at least cause them to question it. That's not an easy task, George. And it's not an easy task to have to fail an examinee when you know, as an experienced examiner, that had they not received well-meaning but damaging "knowledge" prior to the exam, they probably would have passed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Onesimus
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 110
Joined: May 10th, 2003
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #33 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I suppose LBCB is planning on continuing the PLCQT even after the examinee admits to knowing how the test works?

If the examinee then chooses not to use countermeasures, it will be very difficult for him to pass the test as he cannot reasonably be expected to have higher responses to the control questions even if he is being truthful to the relevant questions.

But the real issue is who is really to blame for such an outcome...

edit:  Looks like LBCB got in another post before mine.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #34 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Per LBCB
"Ecchasta,
Are you really that dense, or is it all an act? "

It's true!  I'm so dense that I am unable to read people's minds and determine whether or not they are lying.  But I'm not so dense as to believe that a person's (or machine's) ability to detect lies can not be verified through scientifically repeatable testing.

I stumbled across this website after watching a Dr. Phil show where Dr. Phil used polygraph results to implicitly conclude that a father was molesting his daughter.  After seeing the show I was curious about the claims of the polygrapher that studies show that polygraph results were 90% accurate.  I had no idea.  (dense you know)

My entire goal here is to find such a study.  In fact, all the studies that I have come across have concluded that polygraphy is nothing more than an interrogation. The instrumentation is superfluous.

I have never been polygraphed, nor am I aware of anyone who has.  I have no bone to pick.  You, LBCB, (or anyone else for that matter) has had ample opportunity to present credible scientific evidence validating polygraphic lie detection.  You haven't.  My search ends.  Adieu.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #35 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Onesimus wrote on Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:47pm:
I suppose LBCB is planning on continuing the PLCQT even after the examinee admits to knowing how the test works?

If the examinee then chooses not to use countermeasures, it will be very difficult for him to pass the test as he cannot reasonably be expected to have higher responses to the control questions even if he is being truthful to the relevant questions.

But the real issue is who is really to blame for such an outcome...

edit: †Looks like LBCB got in another post before mine.


Sorry about that, Onesimus! Sometimes when we all post at the same time we step on eachother's toes.

You do understand my point, Onesimus, and I appreciate that very much, since I know you are in opposition to the polygraph.

Yes, who is to blame? That's a very good question. But the polygraph, whether you believe in it or not, will continue to be used--that's a given, at least within the next decade or so. And people will have to undergo polygraph exams to get certain jobs. Therefore, it's a shame, regardless of who is to blame, that some of those people will fail due to the good intentions of others like George Maschke.

Oh, adieu, Ecchasta. †Nice to have made your acquaintance.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Onesimus
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 110
Joined: May 10th, 2003
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #36 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 9:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
What are your thoughts about using R/I on the informed exmainee?  Do you think PLCQT is still more reliable in that situation? Or are you not allowed to use anything but PLCQT where you work?, something else?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #37 - Jan 11th, 2007 at 10:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I am "allowed" to use whichever format I feel is best. I don't care for R/I, though, to be honest. I believe directed-lie comparison tests are a much better alternative to R/I. Your question is very valid. In some agencies even knowledgable polygraphers have to take a polygraph. It is my understanding that to be admitted to the Dept. of Defense Polygraph Institute, all students, even experienced former polygraphers, must take and pass a polygraph. I would not want to be the one conducting their polygraphs, that's for sure!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sudeva
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 5
Joined: Jan 4th, 2007
Gender: Female
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #38 - Jan 12th, 2007 at 1:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Hello guys!

I've been meaning to come back here but my DSL was down. 

Anyway...

Boy has this thread grown!

I'm happy to report that I took and passed my polygraph!  I could not have asked for a better examiner.   He is top notch in the polygraph community.  I'm sure some of you polygraphers on this site know him. (He knows you!)  I was completely forthcoming with him about coming to this site, and others.

George, we discussed you and your book.  He said it was an "interesting read."  I havenít read it but I may check it out laterÖ

My examiner already knew when he asked me if I had researched the internet re: the polygraph, because later in the exam he showed me printouts of MY posts!!  But, it was ALL GOOD because I hadn't posted anything negative or incriminating. 

He admitted being suspicious about knowing I had been here but after we talked he "vindicated" me.  Because I was so forthcoming and had just passed an extremely extensive background investigation, he told me that he didnít believe I was trying to hide anything or that my intention was to be deception or beat the box.  He even reworded questions for me that I told him I wasnít comfortable answering with certainty.  He also admitted that the polygraph exam is not 100% but because heís being doing it longer than Iíve been alive (almost 30 years) he knows how to weed out bad candidates for the test.  He gave the box a 95-98% accuracy rating.

Because I'm such a knowledge junkie, the examiner taking the time to explain to me the polygraph process in GREAT AND LENGTHY DETAIL, caused me to fear the process less and less.  He explained to me how the test works, each part of the machine itself, and how heís spent almost 30 years reading examineesí body language, handwriting, voice tension, facial expressions, etc. (also thatís been trained significantly in all of the above). 

He SHOWED me my results after the test and how I reacted to each question.  The responses measured and how there are recorded is quite amazing.  I remembered one question that reeved me up (because I realized I forgot to tell him something during our conversation before the test...but it was okay because it was information I had already disclosed in my application, during the oral board, and with my background investigator) and I could see, ON THE CHART, how I spiked!!!!!!!

Ironically, when asked about countermeasures, I didn't spike at all, but I did spike on other questions.  He explained to me that what "saved" me was that all of my charts were different.  The only thing that was consistent was me showing no response to the countermeasures line of questioning.

After experiencing this process, my conclusion is that someone has to be psychotic to successfully "beat the box" with a veteran examiner!!

LieBabyCryBaby is right about the process being "an art" and "2 fold" (the science of the machine itself and the examiner's role).  He is also right about the possibility that ignorance, in this case, is a better guarantee to passing than knowing about the test. 
Another officer told someone told him not to look up the polygraph on the internet for the same reason.  He passed his as well.  If ever in a position to do so, I will certainly caution anyone interested in becoming a police officer for an agency that does polygraph, to NOT research the exam until after he/she takes it!!
For those of you thinking you WANT to employ countermeasures in order to get hired as a police officer because you DO have something to hide, please choose another profession!  I donít want you getting me killed! And, for those of you who have bought into the notion that you HAVE to employ countermeasures because telling the truth will cause you to fail, DONíT DO IT! 

My overall opinion about the polygraph is that although the science is not 100% accurate, the interrogation aspect of it IS 100% effective. If you are being completely honest, regardless if itís pre-employment, criminal interrogation, or whatever, youíre screwed if youíre a liar and youíre more than likely okay if youíre trustworthy. 

By the way, I got my start date!!!  Iím an official rookie Cheesy that is now academy bound!!!! Grin

In closing, I'd like to THANK LieBabyCryBaby for his candid replies and everyone else who stayed on topic.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #39 - Jan 12th, 2007 at 3:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sudeva,

The anti-polygraphites on this forum might expect me to come back here and gloat because of your newfound "come to Jesus" feelings about the polygraph process. However, I intend to do no such thing. As an experienced polygrapher, I know that the polygraph works when in the hands of a polygrapher who knows how to combine the art and science of the polygraph process so that the science works almost all of the time. But that doesn't mean that the polygrapher can't make a mistake and adversely affect someone's life. I have come to believe--and I hope I am not wrong--that George Maschke and some of the others on this forum were actually innocent victims of polygraphs gone wrong. As your examiner explained, it is not a perfect process by any means, but simply the best thing we have at this point in time.

I'm glad you had the benefit of a good, experienced and, might I say, fatherly type of polygrapher to help you through the process despite your possibly having been contaminated by the "knowledge" found on this website. I do commend you for listening to the advice of a polygrapher rather than many of the false "experts" on this website. And I wish you a long, successful career. God bless, and be safe out there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Bill Crider
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 213
Joined: Mar 26th, 2004
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #40 - Jan 12th, 2007 at 4:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
congrats on passing so that you may now pursue your career ambitions
  
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: 6175
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #41 - Jan 12th, 2007 at 5:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sudeva,

Congratulations on passing the polygraph, and I wish you all the best as you embark on your new career! With the polygraph now behind you, by all means do go ahead and look further into polygraphy. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is a good start (and is readily available). I would also recommend the late David T. Lykken's seminal work on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998).

And a note to sudeva's polygraph examiner, should he read this and recognize himself: kudos for not retaliating against this applicant for having posted here, and please consider joining the discussions here yourself! Your participation would be welcome!
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
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 sudeva
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 5
Joined: Jan 4th, 2007
Gender: Female
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #42 - Jan 12th, 2007 at 5:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 12th, 2007 at 3:29pm:
I do commend you for listening to the advice of a polygrapher rather than many of the false "experts" on this website. And I wish you a long, successful career. God bless, and be safe out there.


Thank you for the well wishes.  I'm glad I trusted my instincts to just be honest and didn't play into the fear I caused myself as a result of surfing the net!  Whether or not this site is more damaging that helpful is not a determination I'm comfortable making.  So far, I've experienced both the positive & negative ripple effects this site can potentially have upon a reader...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box randomman
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Dec 29th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #43 - Jan 24th, 2007 at 7:32pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I think this art and science argument is silly. If Polygraphy is art mixed with science, we have nothing more than wishful thinking that we can "detect" lies. Mixing the two categories will cause bizarre results.

Art:
Oil painting
Singing
Guitar playing
Dance
Sculpture
Astrology

Science:
Astronomy
Physics
Genetics
Chemistry
Biology

Where does Polygraphy fall? If it is art then it is interpretive in a subjective way. If it is science, it is the measurement of objective events. If the machine measures in a "scientific way" (observing physiological responses) and then the measurements are interpreted in an "artistic way," (discerning a lie from truth, nervousness or irrational response) then it is not science at all. It would be as astrology is used today. A scientific measurement (objective) of stars and planets interpreted (subjective) as to their affects upon our lives here on Earth. In fact, interpretation of the information produced by the polygraph is not art at all. It is nothing more than supposition. You suppose a certain response indicates truth or fiction. What happens when you are wrong? To rely upon such an odd pairing of science and art (and I am hesitant to say Polygraphy is art like Picasso or Beethovenís art is art) is to put in jeopardy an innocent man's reputation and our nation's security!

Biology, Chemistry and Physics don't need "art" to practice them successfully. Skill is necessary, but not artistic skills. To be a great artist requires no science. Beautiful music needs no scientific measurement. What about polygraphs? Do they function to detect a lie without subjective or artistic discernment? Sounds like astrology to me. I hope the person who reads the results of my test can paint like a master or I'm in big trouble with this artistic science! 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!
Reply #44 - Jan 24th, 2007 at 11:49pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Art in polygraph, as I am talking about, has to do with conducting the entire process with precision, finesse, and expertise. I'm not talking about being creative here. Creative art is something entirely different. The polygraph process IS scientific, in that there are certain scientific principles involved, and the data being monitored, measured and compared is certainly scientific data. However, there is also an "art" involved, and that is the art of interview/interrogation, as well as the art--or perhaps a better word would be skill--with which the polygrapher conducts the entire process, from greeting the examinee to writing good reports.

Don't assume that I don't know the weaknesses and limitations of the polygraph PROCESS. Because there are elements of skill, insight and, yes, intuition (oooh, there's a word that will definitely get a backlash from the anti- people) involved, the science can be affected by an examiner lacking in these elements. Also, I am well aware that innocent people may be hurt--as some of you claim to be--by a poorly conducted polygraph. But where YOU say it is "junk science," I would say it is simply a poorly conducted scientific process.

The problems with the polygraph, which I readily admit, are the following:

Polygraphers and examinees are of widely varying personalities, among other difficult-to-control factors such as education level, experience, expectations, etc.

Polygraphers vary in skill, i.e., "artistic ability."

The questions used on an exam, and the emphasis placed on each question by both the polygrapher and the examinee, vary. And I believe that in many cases an examinee can be oversensitized to particular questions, especially when he/she reads information found on this website and from other sources that tell the examinee that only certain issues (relevant issues) matter to the examiner.

And finally, the human mind and body are in a constant state of flux, which can create many other uncontrollable variables.

I admit all of these as weaknesses of the polygraph. Yet I can still be an advocate of the polygraph IF it is conducted by an "artful" and "scientific" examiner. Certified schools and quality control prorams are in place to try to minimize these weaknesses in the polygraph process, and I think these things work for the most part. If the conditions are right--which I believe they usually are because I have seen this through experience--the polygraph works almost all of the time.

You see, I understand all of these things because of my experience, not simply because I read some questionable lab study or obtain some secondhand knowledge from inexperienced sources. The polygraph works. Yes, it does. But without the "art" the science is questionable. But then you might say this about many other more scientific processes. If the person conducting the process isn't sufficiently skilled, and the conditions of the tools and the subject are not optimal, many scientific processes will fail or at least be hindered.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
examiner knows I posted here!!!!!!!

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