Well, coming to this website prior to taking the polygraph has only done you a disservice. There are certain ideal conditions for a polygraph, and there are certain things that should be present for the polygrapher to establish a good psychological base in the test subject. Unfortunately, when a test subject is told that the polygrapher is actually only interested in specific questions on the test and not others, then the subject tends to focus very intently on only those questions. I believe that this may often lead  to a "self-fulfilling prophecy" of failure, because "comparision question" tests are built on the principle of comparison . . . comparison of some questions against others. Therefore, if you are only concerned about particular questions, those are the ones where the polygraph is very likely to show the most response.

One saving grace we experienced polygraphers have is that we know--BY EXPERIENCE--and I keep on harping about this despite many of the "anti-" people's disregard for experience--that when an examinee is realling "hitting on" ALL of the questions throughout the exam, with little or no normal habituation or variability of response, that things just aren't right. When this occurs, we know--or at least we have a BIG preponderance of the evidence--that the examinee is messing around on the test.

So, when an examinee is told that only particular questions really matter, and that he/she can overcome this through countermeasures, I believe a disservice has been done. I believe that most of the people who will fail an exam because they have been oversensitized to particular questions, and most of the people who are caught using countermeasures they've been told will help them, would have passed the exam without any problems had they not come to this website.

Anyway, despite all of this, I hope you have a good polygrapher and that you pass the test.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 28^th, 2007 at 1:20am:


Fender,

I am the one that LBCB speaks of,  on the inconclusive from too much polygraph knowlege. And in a polygraphers own words, verifies this concept. Be relaxed and use the knowlege gleaned here. But contrary to LBCB beliefs, by nullifying the polygraph and polygrapher, it forces the decision back to where it belongs. Based on your background investigation. Which is the way it is supposed to be. Much success to you.

Regards ...

-----------------------------

LBCB,

Thanks for verifying my concept and the end result of too much polygraph knowlege being inconclusive.  But on the contrary, this is actually a good thing as it eliminates the polygraph from the equation. And puts it back into a decision making venue outside of a polygraphers opinion. But the danger is at what point do you become frustrated knowing full well that the more polygraphs given, the more comfortable the subject becomes. I do believe the answer is 5, after that any responsiveness is gone. As is any fear. Which for any polygrapher is the worst case scenario. And whether or not its a grey area, the rules do say that you must fail to be eliminated. Inconclusive is not a fail. Should a subject be  removed from a hiring procedure because of inconclusive, I do believe the subject would have definate grounds for bias in hiring. Unlike other attempts of law suits, I do believe this one would stick. The bottom line is it will again fall back to the background investigation and true supporting data for the decision. Not the polygraph which is expedient and a cheap way to get rid of candidates. Do keep up the quality posts, as your stock on this board has greatly increased. 

Regards ...

----

LieBabyCryBaby, it seems that you are pretty close to saying that having knowledge of how the polygraph really works decreases its accuracy.  Perhaps you would be willing to answer the following question to clarify the matter:

Does the accuracy of a polygraph exam decrease if the subject has knowledge of how the exam really works?

Logically, having knowledge either decreases accuracy or doesn't decrease accuracy, thus the answer to the above must be either yes or no, "neither" and "both" are logically impossible answers (you can't have "X and Not X" at the same time).

You might want to see my other post, written as a parody, on this topic.

"Have you ever lied to someone you loved" was a really neato control question in 1961. Control questions by savy examiners are far less sanctimonious.  -----regards

Quote:


1st, this is a written message board, so "sounding" like anything is impossible----as there are no sounds. Also, is "bro" a word? What does "plse" mean? Taking your tactic of playing the grammer snob on what amounts to being a graffiti board is cool man. I understood your post without grammer/spelling perfections and you understood mine.  I've never stated that polygraph is perfect. I do spot goofy countermeasures on a regular basis---and the tests are usually deemed as inconclusive. Like in Statement Analysis, even a fool can write uncharacteristicly (sp!) of themselves with any number of countermeasures---and then take a poop on the piece of paper for good measure---which results in that discipline's own form of inconclusive. Wow, real sophisticated stuff. That doesn't negate the fact that if you have a good reputation as an SA expert, that I wouldn't recommend you for hire. I would recommend you if you are as talented as you indicate. More importantly, I do not have a hard-on for S.A. despite the fact that such vulnerabilities and "nebulousness" exist. Why do you have such negative feelings for my chosen vulnerable and nebulous field. Is it personal?

palerider wrote on May 23^rd, 2007 at 1:58pm:


Ha Ha - dont you make it personal now....tsk tsk.
I have many yrs experience in several DOD techniques/technologies.
Personal experience - not anecdotal BS that i heard in the mess or the local
watering hole. Statement Analysis in it's various disciplines is THE only accurate
and scientific DOD technique/technology.
Ever heard of criminal psychologist - Prof Udo Undeutsch of Koln Uni in Germany? He is also an APA
member. He has a story to tell about p/g. Essentially it was rejected by the German legal system
as an invalid and unscientific DOD methodology.

However, SA has been mandated into the German legal system since the early 50's.
Chew that bone big dog.

CQ's. hmmm. If you want to discuss and rant about polygraph shortcomings---I'm there man---- just not here----as this isn't a professional setting. I doubt that practitioners of other polarizing and nebulous fields of study i.e. forensic psychologists, SA analysts, cvsa folks etc. (see impressionistic studies) would care to debate mechanics on anti-anything websites. I do plenty of ranting against my profession and enjoy lampooning polygraph examiners who listen to tape recordings of their own voice in their cars. Show me any group of analysts of any trade, and I'll show you a group of dweebs with bad hair wearing "big-boy pants."I will also add that I'm no kiddo. For a guy who claims to have ran "thousands of tests" and then in another thread state that you have "dabbled"in polygraph----is well, I guess a little unusual. The reason why I haven't answered is that I was running tests out of town. I too have ran thousands of tests (whoopie). I am a "moderate to liberal" regarding poly usage for official purposes---that is---I don't worship anything, much less the falible but very usefull polygraph. You've been (apparently) too obsessed with the narcissistic poly "giants" who don't speak for us all. Show me a Geraldo and I'll show you 10 unknown iron toothed real journalists in the field. My favorite newspaper makes mistakes all the time---but I'll take a newspaper over no newspaper. Polygraph is a keeper too. Also, please take a dueche with the "kiddo" HS.  

p.s. I don't parrot cq's from school----nor do I talk shop in front of sex offenders and people who want to cheat on personality tests (can you believe that recent thread???) 1904, why don't you rant on our professional forums rather than this Rocky Horror Picture Show of a graffiti board?

p.s.s Regarding the DOD. I asked many professional intel folks if they knew the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims back in 2002 (the "lead-up") and let's just say that -----I'm not impressed. I've met beat cops in Detroit that knew more about Arabic culture. yah sara (what a pity)

p.s.s.s You are wrong about Germany's use of polygraph. Just because Germany, and the UK don't value the APA as the end all doesn't mean that they don't have polygraph programs in use in their respective intel ministries. I like their more low key approach to the practice. If you had ever worked with those agencies---or even NATO--you would know better than to state otherwise. 1904, you lost points with me on that one "tubby."