Boy, did I get bated into that one.  That is why I have refrained from joining these discussions over the years.   

George, I respect your opinon on polygraphs.  I don't agree with it, but you are entitled it.  I have tested hundreds of people that also didn't believe in polygraphs and after the test their opinion changed.  I have also tested many that attempted CMs and got caught.  I understand your quest to conquer polygraphs but I think that your site harms more than it helps.  I don't give a crap if a guilty person like policeHopeful wants to come in and lie (and get caught) but I feel bad for the innocent person looking for information and finds this site and gets psyched out - they loose out on a prospective employer due to the measures they use.

If polygraphs don't work - then why do you suggest CM's?  Bottom line is the polygraph detects 'physiological changes' that are indicative of deception on the naive and educated examinee.  Now, I do not intend to debate art vs science, provide research, take the challenge or reveal how I can detemine if CMs are used.  Do I believe they are 100% accurate? No.  On pre-employment exams the investigator should do a thorough job before the polygraph.  If there is arousal on a particular area, the info should be given back to the investigator for further investigation.  We don't believe the hiring process should be based entirely on the polygraph.   

As for PCSOT, I have found hundreds if not thousands of victims over the years that would not be known if it were not for the polygraph - on both the naive and educated examinee.  It is because of this issue that this site really irks me.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 1:11am:


No one baited you into posting on this website. It was your choice. I hope you won't regret it. Those who are dedicated to the truth should have nothing to fear from a frank debate.

Quote:


You've no doubt also polygraphed people who believed in polygraphs until you incorrectly accused them of deception. But in most cases, such persons will have the better judgment not to question polygraphy to your face.

Quote:


But you have no way of knowing how many you've polygraphed who employed countermeasures and were not caught. The fact remains that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated the ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


On what do you base this belief? How much of it is based on self-interest?

Quote:


You really have no way of knowing whether policeHopeful, who posted in another thread, is "guilty" of disqualifying behavior or plans on lying to any relevant question. In any event, despite your expressed concern about innocent persons looking for information being "psyched out" by this website, you haven't pointed out anything published here about polygraphy that is untrue.

Quote:


Precisely because they don't work: simply telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass. If it were, this site would not exist.

Quote:


No it doesn't. The polygraph detects physiological changes that may stem from a multitude of uncontrolled and uncontrollable factors. As Professor John Furedy has observed, polygraph techniques have no real way of differentiating between the nervous-but-innocent and the nervous-and-guilty.

Quote:


You may make this choice, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

Quote:


How accurate do you believe them to be? And on the basis of what evidence?

Quote:


Unfortunately, that's not the way things work in practice. With most agencies, the applications of those who "fail" their pre-employment polygraph examinations are summarily terminated. 

Quote:


This is an example of the utility, and not the validity, of polygraphy. As Dr. Drew Richardson has pointed out, post conviction sex offender "testing" is every bit as invalid as pre-employment polygraph screening. And as public understanding that polygraphy is a pseudoscience inevitably grows, the utility of the polygraph for eliciting admissions from those who might otherwise be unwilling to make them will inevitably wane.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 1:11am:

I feel bad for the people like me, who "believed" in the polygraph and went into my tests believing all I had to do was tell the truth and I would pass.  I was completely mystified when I failed three in a row, because I had been telling the complete truth in all of them.  At the time I was completely ignorant of the existance of CM's, and I certainly didn't try to employ any.  The sum total of my knowledge of the polygraph came from the fiction I saw on TV and in the movies, i.e., if you lie the polygraph machine will show that you are lying.

Do you feel bad for the person who takes the exam, tells the truth, and fails?  Or do you console yourself when that happens but telling yourself the person must have been attempting CM's in a misguided attempt to protect himself from a false positive?
Or do you, like many of the examiners on this site, shrug away those people who claimed to have told the truth and still failed with the sentiment that, even if that is true, the polygraph catches more liars than it unjustly screws truthful people?

I didn't look for any information and I still lost out on three prospective employers.  I should say, rather than I lost out on them, that they lost out on me.  Since the BS polygraph removed me from their hiring process I finally passed my fourth polygraph and have since worked for over ten years as a police officer.   

I think that it is preferrable to have knowledge, regardless of the situation.  My lack of knowledge of the polygraph didn't make it any easier for me to pass, even though I told the truth.

I don't see how you can truly believe that providing information on how the polygraph works and what the test procedure consists of can possible be harmful.  Unless, of course, you wish to admit that the polygraph is not a valid scientific test.

digithead wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 3:48am:




I am looking forward to this research paper D-Head. If you can convince me, than you can convince anyone. I am however a little puzzled by just who you are referring to who has such "false assurances." Most professionals I deal with in the PCSOT arena take passed polygraphs with a grain of salt. It seems that your hatred for polygraph blinds you to it's niche usage.

my 2 cents

Well Dr. DODPI, once again you and your buddies like to throw around your peer reviewed scientific studies, despite the fact the vast majority have not been supported by peer review, and as usual you stifle the dissenting views, as is well documented about your Matchbook University (DACA).  Once someone breaks with the DODPI party-line they are dismissed, transferred or fired.  It is true, check the records folks --- it is all in the public domain.  In fact, wasn’t it the NAS that exposed the unscientific and biased approach of your so called scientific research?  So let’s turn to your latest scientific study “Honts and Alloway.”  First off who funded this study?  Secondly, who wrote the protocols?  Third and most important, it is as bogus as all previous DODPI and DODPI-like studies for one simple reason – it was conducted in the absence of true jeopardy.  Dr. DODPI, you know as well as I do that so called “scientific studies” attempting to recreate jeopardy in a laboratory environment are invalid. I already know you will try to justify these shams with your 50 cent words, but you know they don’t work.  But they are easily manipulated to provide the desired outcome.  They are just smoke screens used to manipulate decision makers about a capability that does not work effectively in the real world.  That is why DOD is switching to LVA.  As we speak DOD has students attending LVA training.  Polygraph and DACA are on the way out.  Current DOD statistic regarding your magic box provide it is only 70-80% accurate in the field.  Throw in a 25% inconclusive rate and the true accuracy is at best about 60%.  Sure its better than tossing a coin, but we are not playing a game (you might be, but the real warriors aren’t).  And, in fact your buddy Robert Andrews was fired.  It is in Bill Gertz’s reporting this week.  I know it says he “resigned” but that is just Washington DC code for being fired.  I know the facts about his half-assed performance and leaking of information to the press without authority.  Shame on you and your poly-boys Dr. DODPI….

 

Now let’s take a look at the stellar Honts and Alloway scientific study you so easily cite:

 

Abstract:

 

Purpose Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT. 

 

Method Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behaviour and perceptions during their examination.

 

Wow this is really scientific….   Let’s dream up a mock crime and base the entire results of our bogus study on this fakery.  I hope they don’t test drugs that way - making up mock diseases and using people as lab rats test snake-oil.  Man you make me sick…  I hope you are not a real government employee because you are wasting tax payer dollars posting on this site all day instead of working.  Oh, I forgot, that is your job once you finish emptying the ashtrays you have plenty of time to dream up idiotic postings.  I feel so safe at night knowing there are bureaucrats such as you keeping America free….

Snake_Eater wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 11:26pm:



Snake Eater,
I am on a 2 week vacation and have been cruising this and other polygraph sites frequently. I am not a DODPI cheerleader, period. You on the other hand have shown a dementia and rage that worries me. Your winning battle cry over your (LVA) professed victory over DACA is as grave as my lower battle cry from eating White Castle Hamburgers. To be frank, no one believes you pal. You know a few names, and you know a thing or two about cut and paste---hell, you might have even ran a test or two with your Winnie the Pooh Mr. Microphone. But talk to your Doctor about Lexapro. The government is using VSA because they can't get enough examiners to fill the polygraph positions, not because polygraph is put out of favor. LVA gets a little break with testing low value targets for economical research and Snake man here thinks it's V-Day.

Legit concerns D. But walk in the shoes.... When you have a limited # of poly questions, and a world of questions---well, you know it's tough. I was unable to identify dangerous behavior from an offender due to concerns by team members that were not the crux of that Offender's new method of manipulation. This is a simple concept. I would be interested to see if your Offender had been administered a Monitoring Exam (committing new sex crimes)vs. a Maintenace exam (breaking supervision rules). Somehow, I doubt he was given a monitoring exam. I think at last count I totaled 700 target areas that could be tested on a polygraph for supervision and/or sexual crime issues. On each polygraph test, ya got 4 to 8 issues to test. On behalf of Sex Offender Containment professionals, I apoligize that we aren't doing better Digithead.