I would like to call on and call out my erstwhile interlocutor, nonombre, to address the ramifications of the things that he believes.  Not, I stress, the things that I believe or the things that the antipolygraph community believes.  I just want nonombre to think through his own beliefs.  If he honestly does so, he will certainly be a better person for it and we might benefit from his insight as well.

Now, nonombre, you admit, albeit reluctantly, that certain polygraph formats, like the ubiquitous probable lie control question (PLCQ) exams, increase in accuracy if the subject is deceived.  You defend yourself against the straw man claims that any deception ipso facto invalidates a test--something that I, for one, have never claimed.  Indeed, deceiving the subject is a noble thing, you say.  Because if the subject is appropriately deceived, the accuracy of the exam goes up and everyone wants the exam to be accurate.

To sum up, you believe (and correct me instantly if I'm wrong!):

(1) important polygraph techniques use deception and
(2) the use of the deception increases accuracy[/li]

I agree fully with those two statements and am glad that you have made them, certain colleagues of yours refuse to do so.  Thank you.   

Keeping in mind (2), consider now, nonombre, what is it that actually helps the accuracy?  Is it the mere fact that the polygrapher has made a statement that is false?  Or is it that the subject believes the false statement?  If the former, that seems like magic; instead of "hocus pocus" you say "if you have ever driven faster than the speed limit, you will probably commit treason and espionage."  Of course, I am being facetious.  The mere fact that you have said this or that lie does nothing whatsoever to increase accuracy (if anything, the opposite is probably true, see below).  It depends completely on whether or not the subject believes the lie to be true, doesn't it?  It is only if the subject is actually deceived that the accuracy improves.  Do you agree?

I presume you do.  If it didn't matter whether or not the subject was deceived, only that certain magic words were said, then you and your colleagues would not be very concerned with the secret of the words getting out.  Nor would you put such efforts into acting as you do.  Plus, such magical thinking is pretty absurd.

So, nonombre, your beliefs tell you that people who are deceived will--in general--produce more accurate results than people who are not deceived.  This is what you believe--it's not simply what I believe, though I do.  You own this belief, nonombre.  Assuming you're still with me and have no material objections to the above, we're making good progress; let's continue.

So, you agree that truthful people who are not deceived are less likely to pass the exam than are truthful people who are deceived.  I submit for your consideration, nonombre, that people with the following traits are less likely to be deceived than those who lack them:

• curiosity;
• a desire to understand the world around them;
• willingness to question assumptions;
• willingness to question authority; and
• critical thinking skills.

Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer?  Or a CIA analyst?  Or in any human being, for that matter?  But, according to the logical consequences of your current beliefs, people with those desirable traits are less likely to be employed by agencies and departments that rely on your profession.   

Also, I would say that your attempts to deceive knowledgeable subjects is not neutral with regards to the accuracy of their exams.  It probable harms it further since they'll be angry at your insults to their intelligence and they'll have their faith in the process and agency shaken by the farce.  Isn't it true that strong anger on the part of the subject directed towards the examiner has a negative influence on chart accuracy?

It doesn't compute, does it, nonombre?  You're the good guy, right?  It can't possibly be that what you're doing is more harmful than good.  Right about now you're searching for reasons not to believe the pretty obvious conclusions from the above summary.  You don't want it to be true, that would be too big a blow to your identity (not to mention financial and professional security), so it couldn't possibly be true.  Therefore, if you just think long enough, you'll be able to come up with a reason--any will do--that it isn't true.  But that's not honest.  You're being deceptive again--with yourself.  And, as I think I've pointed out before, when one group of people has a distorted view of reality, it is often the case that other people get hurt.   

Now, are you really dedicated to truth, or just to what makes you feel good?  If the former, you'll want to resolve the disconnect between your belief that you're a good guy and the argument based on your other beliefs which indicates that you're doing a bad thing.   

So, nonombre, where do you want to go with this?

Dear nameless one,

What are your qualifications nonombre?  Do you have an advanced degree in neuropsychology or neuropsychiatry?  Do you have a University degree at all?  What board certifications do you possess?  What is your (resident) state department of professional regulation certification number?  Do you have any credentials at all?

Lloyd Ploense

Here I am, Once again surrounded on all sides.  Good, that means I can shoot in any direction I want...

George, you said:
Quote:


Sorry, George, what you all the "prime deception," I call an efficient way to detect deception and resolve issues.  Next?

Quote:


I don't know what the feds may or may not put in their handbook.  I know what is being changed in several places in the polygraph community.

Quote:


I gave one example awhile back of a relevant question you said was a control.  Don't you remember?  It was the "Have you ever driven drunk" question.  I realize that you may have heard it as a control in your polygraph, but that does not mean it is use the same way in others.  I told you back then, that is a relevant question in the police pre-employment exam in my department.  There have been others George.  You and the others on this site are wrong more than you know... 

Quote:


Don't split hairs George, you know exactly what I meant.  Now here's the big question.  "What do you say to the poor schmuck who actually listened to you, employed the idiocy you propose, gets caught, and losses everything. And please don't give me the old line "there is no proof polygraphers can detect countermeasures, blah, blah, blah.  Fact is they are very much getting caught AND YOU FULLY KNOW IT.  What are those people George, "acceptable losses?" as you like to accuse the polygraph community of generating.  Are they "cannon fodder."  Maybe you figure if you can publically burn enough of those innocent people, it will somehow further your cause.  

EosJupiter wrote on Aug 5^th, 2007 at 5:31am:

 
Eos, George-e was Accused of using countermeasures, because he was CAUGHT using countermeasures.  Stop playing with words Eos, it does not become you.  You are a better debater than that.

EosJupiter wrote on Aug 5^th, 2007 at 5:31am:


Eos, now you are applying deduction where facts are sorely lacking.  First of all the first three lines have NOTHING to do with polygraph and as far as the Ortiz situation, please show me the LA times headline that says, "The head of the LAPD polygraph program was "recently demoted for changing polygraph results on candidates he deemed not fitting the LAPD model."

EosJupiter wrote on Aug 5^th, 2007 at 5:31am:


I think you meant to say "without having the SPIN to back it up."..

Regards,

Nonombre   

nonombre wrote on Aug 4^th, 2007 at 10:16pm:


Give an empty compliment to your opponent and then downplay expectations for your own reply.  Yeah.  They teach that in 8th grade debate club; such tricks are used to obfuscate the issue, not to clarify it. Anyway...

nonombre wrote on Aug 4^th, 2007 at 10:16pm:


Oh?  Really?  As I asked before, "Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer?  Or a CIA analyst?  Or in any human being, for that matter?"  Please enlighten us, if you "take some exception" to my list.  To which part do you take exception and why?

Also, let me pose some more simple questions for you to ignore.   

Do you always use the relevant/irrelevant test on applicants and why?
Do you ever use a probable lie control question test on applicants and why?
Do you always use the relevant/irrelevant test on suspects and why?
Do you ever use a probable lie control question test on suspects and why?

Also, you're using another straw man argument (note: straw men arguments are classified as a type of logical fallacy and are not proper methods of arguing).  Every time the going gets tough, nonombre and his friends hide their asses behind claims that countermeasures don't work for this reason or other (here, you say they don't work because examinees can't identify the control questions).  Well, when have I ever based any of my arguments about the polygraph on countermeasures or their utility?   I never said anything about countermeasures in my initial post.  Who said anything about countermeasures?  So why are you telling me about countermeasures?  I don't give a damn about countermeasures, nonombre.  Quit talking about them here.

The fact of the matter, nonombre, is that polygraph exam procedures are designed to produce the most accurate charts possible.  And this requires that certain information be withheld from examinees.  If the examinee nonetheless has this information, the accuracy of the test suffers.   

I can prove it: you can't provide us with a list of the control questions that you use.  If someone knows the control questions and knows that the examiner is trying to deceive and maneuver her into lying on them, the accuracy of the exam suffers.  Do you deny this?  If not, give us a list of 10 control questions that you're currently using.  Your inability to do so will serve as proof that knowing what the control questions are damages the accuracy of the exam.

If you try to bullshit your way out of this, it won't work (but you don't seem to mind being covered in shit, so...).  Your best bet, nonombre, is to admit my point: you can't give out the control questions because yes, it would lower accuracy for a subject to know them.  But the new and improved control questions are so awesome that no one could possibly figure them out!  And we'll just have to take your word for it, even though you're a proven liar who can't justify his own existence.  You might be able to pull off a draw with that one.

Just, please, get it through your fat, George Clooney looking head: I don't care about countermeasures.  My main argument against the polygraph has nothing to do with them.  Stop hiding and address the actual points that I've made, not the points that you wish I'd made.

Okay, it'd be great if nonombre could give us 10 of those awesome new control questions.  But I'd be satisfied with 5.  If he can give us 5 of those control questions, I'd be satisfied.

I hope you get a chance to reply in the next few days, nonombre!

Well, to the surprise of nobody nonombre is not going to back up his claims with facts.  He claims, or insinuates (making an actual claim involves the risk of being proved wrong and continues the discussion, thus polygraphers try to avoid doing so), that the new and improved control questions are very difficult to recognize.  Well, he could prove that if he shares just one or two of them.  But he doesn't.  Why?  Several reasons.

(1) Once the control question gets out, it isn't very useful as a control question and would need to be retired;
(2) With a few examples of these questions, the logic behind them could be determined and it would become easy to recognize any other control question constructed on the same principles;
(3) The new questions simply aren't all that good and are mentioned simply to reinstill fear into examinees.

I don't see how points (1) and (2) can be countered by the polygraph community if they don't either give some examples (two or three would suffice) or explain how they're made to make them so awesome.  Their claims that they are awesome are, to say the least, unimpressive and convince no one of any respectable intelligence.  Point (3) I offer for the sake of completeness, though my argument does not require any weight to be put on it.

All of this goes to demonstrate my point, which, for some reason, no polygrapher will even deny, let alone argue against: the PLCQ test has significant, built-in biases against truthful examinees who know how it works.  C'mon, guys.  If this isn't true, why can't you at least say it isn't true?  You won't even do that, but you'll never present any real argument against it.  Nor will you consider the consequences of the proposition.  What gives?  Aren't you all "dedicated to truth?"  Or is it just the convenient ones that you like?

Anyway, I posed numerous other questions to nonombre that have nothing to do with his allegedly improved control questions (which, as demonstrated above, are prone to the same fundamental problem as the old ones: knowing what they are invalidates the test).  Why doesn't he answer those questions?   

Lethe wrote on Aug 6^th, 2007 at 4:55am:


C'mon, nonombre.  Answer the questions, my friend.  If not, it's been nice knowing you and enjoy what's left of your life before it is totally discredited when the curtain is pulled back from polygraphy revealing it to be the humbug that it really is.  So, are you finished on this forum or not?