LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 13^th, 2007 at 12:25pm:


This is exactly correct, Baby.  A major theme of almost all of my posts on this forum is that simply by knowing how the PLCQ exam works that person's chances of producing accurate results suffers materially.  Thus your need to keep people ignorant, which can only be accomplished by discouraging curiosity and initiative--two things that we need rather more of, I'd aver.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 13^th, 2007 at 12:25pm:


Now, you see, there you go again.  This happens every time I make this point too.  I present a very solid argument that mere knowledge of how the test works makes it difficult to pass and some polygraph simpleton blurts out "But... but... but countermeasures don't work!!!!"  Countermeasures, of course, don't need to work for my argument to work.  At least, none of you things has refuted it yet.  Maybe you can be the first?

So, Baby, do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

An examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works is, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works.

Do you or do you not agree with that statement?  It's a simple question.  So, yes--or no?  And, please, don't trot out the old countermeasures canard.

Hey, pailryder.  As a polygrapher, you are--of course!--very welcome to address the question, just as LieBabyCryBaby is--and any other polygraphers.  But, I can't help but point out that, well, you didn't actually answer the question.  I request that you please do so.

It seems to me that the subject of a probable lie exam must be fooled so that he or she will be able to form the intent to deceive.  If you can't fool them using one set of tricks, you simply go to another set of tricks.  Isn't that the way it works?  I'm pretty sure that it is, since I never get any straight answers out of your polygraphers and the only reason to not explain things fully is if explaining things fully somehow introduces inaccuracies into the exam.   

So, pailryder: do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

Baby, do you or do you not agree with the following statement:
 

An examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works is, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works.

Yes, or no?

P.S. Are you related to palerider, pailryder?  Also, where does your screen name come from?  Would I be correct if I were to guess it was a reference to Revelation 6.8?

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Of course, it was the horse that was pale, not the rider.  And the rider of the pale horse was... death.  Anyway, just curious.  But you polygraphers don't seem to be very friendly folk.  You like to make small chit chat to build rapport with people, but if they go off script and start asking questions that aren't in your training manual, you guys become very uncomfortable.  But, please, don't let me make you uncomfortable.

Lethe, 
Consider that when a person contacts me and pays for someone else to take a polygraph they want to know if that person is lying to them.  The subject's lie to me is secondary.  The subject primairly fears the consequences of the target of their deception learning the truth.

pailryder wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2007 at 11:11am:


I wish to clarify what you are saying.  In your professional opinion, it would not effect the accuracy of the exam if the examinee:

(1) Knew how the test worked;
(2) Was able to identify the control questions; and
(3) Knew that she was supposed to lie to the control questions?

That seems unlikely to me.  If you know that you're supposed to say "no" when asked this or that control question, it hardly seems possible to form the intent to deceive and it seems that we're dealing with a directed lie exam, not a probable lie one.  But I will await your clarification or confirmation before progressing.

Also, still waiting for LieBabyCryBaby.

pailryder wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 11:28am:


Thanks for the Moby-Dick quote.  But you didn't actually answer my question(s).  I didn't ask how much you think your subjects know about the test, I asked if you think that them having detailed knowledge of it will impact the accuracy.  I didn't ask if you reviewed the questions with the subject in advance (I believe that all polygraphers do that).  Rather, if the subject knows which are the control questions, and that the polygrapher simply won't take "yes" for an answer to them and will assume that any "no" answer is a lie, will that effect the psychophysiological response of the examinee and thus the accuracy of the exam?

Thank you for your patience, I will try again.  As to question one, no, I have not found, in my experience, that even a detailed knowledge of the techniques effects accuracy.  Question two, I will identify for the subject in the pretest the comparison questions and why they are used in scoring and no, all examiners do not do that!  Question three, (as you first asked it) I do not agree that, all else being equal, an examinee with knowledge of how a PLC test works is less likely to produce an accurate result than the same examinee ignorant of how the test works.  Question three (as you changed it) If an examinee insisted on answering yes to a comparison question, I would first explain why it is important that her answer should be no, and if still unable to agree on a suitable wording for the question I would suggest a DLC instead.  If you are asking if an improper abusive pretest interview or bullying by the examiner could effect the examinee's psychophysiological response, sure it could.   

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 6:43pm:


Indeed, the rationale for probable-lie "control"/comparison questions put forth by proponents of CQT polygraphy doesn't require that the examinee's answer to the control question be a willful, knowing lie. It is considered sufficient that the subject have sufficient doubt regarding the truthfulness of her answer such that the innocent examinee will react more strongly to the control question than to the corresponding relevant question. But CQT theory remains implausibly simplistic and depends in fundamental ways on examiner deception and examinee ignorance of the procedure (this latter being harder to safely assume with the advent of the Internet and sites such as AntiPolygraph.org).

I don't think it's proper to speak of an "orienting response" with regard to the asking of a series of previously reviewed questions during the course of a polygraph chart collection. An orienting response is what one might expect to observe, for example, if, behind the subject's back, a heavy book were to be dropped to the floor, or if the lights were suddenly flashed on and off.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 2:00pm:


I am aware of no studies from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effect of examinee knowledge of CQT procedure on polygraph results in the field. The few existing laboratory studies in this regard have weaknesses in design that make generalization to field conditions problematic.

Quote:


I haven't ignored it at all. The citation for  the study to which you refer is: Honts, Charles R. and Wendy R. Alloway. "Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test," Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320. You'll see I mentioned it, and cited the abstract, in the message thread, Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma. As I mentioned there, this study has serious methodological shortcomings that will be addressed in detail at a future point.

Quote:


If polygraphers could demonstrate that the polygraph can actually detect deception, and that it is robust against countermeasures, this website would not exist. I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but the polygraph community has yet to provide it.