Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Calling out LieBabyCryBaby (Read 34529 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Sep 20th, 2007 at 2:53am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 13th, 2007 at 12:25pm:
In my experience, there are only two reasons why someone would fail ALL of the relevant questions on a polygraph screening exam.  First, they are actually lying on all of those questions, which in George's case I don't actually believe occurred.  Or second, and much more likely, they [the PLCQ examinee] have made the RELEVANT questions more significant to themselves by knowing or realizing that those are the only questions of true importance in the exam.


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 13th, 2007 at 12:25pm:
I believe that a person's knowledge of countermeasures, and their attempts to amplify the reactions on the comparison questions can actually backfire because they make the relevant questions even more significant to themselves during the exam.


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.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 439
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #1 - Sep 20th, 2007 at 11:50am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have sucessfully polyed other examiners, experienced senior investigators, medical doctors and university professors.  The techniques are more robust than you suspect.  In a real crime investigation, I could not beat a well trained rookie examiner, but I would surely try.

  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #2 - Sep 20th, 2007 at 8:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 439
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #3 - Sep 22nd, 2007 at 11:11am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
No   Knowledge of how the techniques work, in my experience, does not alter outcome.  As for the screen name, I was raised on a dairy farm, think milk pail, and my favorite movie hero was Red Ryder, likely before your time.  Not related to palerider, who is an outstanding professional that I greatly respect, and has named me as a kiss ass examiner on another board.  Polygraph developed from practical application, not hypothetical speculation.  I have never heard an explanation of how it works that completely satisfies me, but that applies to all things psychological.  I am not uncomfortable answering your questions.  I have learned much from this board.  I was a reader long before I began to post.  If polygraph was banned tomorrow, I would need to change how I do, but not what I do because sometimes there is a need for independent, unbiased credibility assessments.  I am a private examiner, people do not pay me to abuse, confuse or trick them. Please remember I offer only my opinion, not a scarlet letter.  You are absolutely on point about one thing, as a group, polygraphers are not people I would seek out for a serious conversation.      
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 439
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #4 - Sep 22nd, 2007 at 11:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
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: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #5 - Sep 23rd, 2007 at 8:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
In my view the most telling portion of LBCB's quote is "... which in George's case I don't actually believe occurred."
This demonstrates that polygraphy is merely a prop assisted interrogation.  In this case the "machine" is not a polygraph machine, but the internet and George's posts!  The interrogators opinion is all that really matters.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #6 - Sep 24th, 2007 at 3:56am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Sep 22nd, 2007 at 11:11am:
No   Knowledge of how the techniques work, in my experience, does not alter outcome.  ... You are absolutely on point about one thing, as a group, polygraphers are not people I would seek out for a serious conversation.         


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.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 439
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #7 - Sep 24th, 2007 at 11:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
There are some enterprises in which a careful disorder is the true method.
                                                                                          Herman Melville    Moby Dick (1851)

1.  Thanks to this site, I assume everyone coming to my office knows, or thinks they know, how the
     test works.  I attempt to answer, to the best of my limited ability, any and all questions from both
     client and subject.

2.  In the pretest I discuss the type of test I propose to use and explain the advantages and 
     disadvantages of each and explain, review, and unlike Dr. Rovner, properly identify each
     question according to type. 

3  I allow the subject to decide on the technique, PLC, DLC, I/R, MGQT, if they are uncomfortable with
    my choice.
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #8 - Sep 24th, 2007 at 5:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Sep 24th, 2007 at 11:28am:
There are some enterprises in which a careful disorder is the true method.
                                                                                          Herman Melville    Moby Dick (1851)

1.  Thanks to this site, I assume everyone coming to my office knows, or thinks they know, how the
     test works.  I attempt to answer, to the best of my limited ability, any and all questions from both
     client and subject.

2.  In the pretest I discuss the type of test I propose to use and explain the advantages and 
     disadvantages of each and explain, review, and unlike Dr. Rovner, properly identify each
     question according to type. 

3  I allow the subject to decide on the technique, PLC, DLC, I/R, MGQT, if they are uncomfortable with
    my choice. 


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?
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #9 - Sep 24th, 2007 at 6:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 439
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #10 - Sep 24th, 2007 at 7:21pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.   

  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #11 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 7:01am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24th, 2007 at 6:43pm:
I see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.

Thanks for your input.

It must be tiresome to spend your time perusing a site filled with fables and posters with a lack of knowledge.

Feel free to move along.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous Ítes intellectuellement faillite.
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: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #12 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 8:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24th, 2007 at 6:43pm:
I see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.


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.
  

George W. Maschke
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 Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #13 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 2:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24th, 2007 at 6:43pm:
I see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.


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.




Point well taken. Polygraph procedures do contain a number of barrowed terms such as "orienting response" and even the misuse of the word "control" regarding comparison questions.
On knowledge of procedure, please site a peer reviewed study that suggests that mere knowledge of the CQT negates successful determinations. Do you plan on indefinitely ignoring the relatively recent Honts study regarding such "TLBTLD education" affects on accuracy? I certainly won't ignore NAS---the good and the bad. By virtue of your static and inflexible hatred for polygraph, you demonstrate the very same stubborness which some examiners who think they are gods demonstrate. How about some give and take? Your stated philosophies on polygraph remind me of GW Bush's absolutism policy on "evil." You are either with us or against morality. This thinking is commonly known as arrested development.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
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: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #14 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 2:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25th, 2007 at 2:00pm:
On knowledge of procedure, please site a peer reviewed study that suggests that mere knowledge of the CQT negates successful determinations.


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:
Do you plan on indefinitely ignoring the relatively recent Honts study regarding such "TLBTLD education" affects on accuracy?


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:
I certainly won't ignore NAS---the good and the bad. By virtue of your static and inflexible hatred for polygraph, you demonstrate the very same stubborness which some examiners who think they are gods demonstrate. How about some give and take? Your stated philosophies on polygraph remind me of GW Bush's absolutism policy on "evil." You are either with us or against morality. This thinking is commonly known as arrested development.


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.
  

George W. Maschke
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
 
Calling out LieBabyCryBaby

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