Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) breathing (Read 13801 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nomegusto
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 75
Joined: Nov 26th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #15 - Dec 4th, 2007 at 5:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
How did breathing turn into urinalysis, or thinking poetry? 

Roll Eyes
Either way. If you get caught and your trying to get a job. Your chances of getting a job went from good to nonexistant...
  

semper paratus
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: 6242
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: breathing
Reply #16 - Dec 4th, 2007 at 6:34am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 11:08pm:
Quote:
the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect them


That's not true.  Perhaps it hasn't been done to your satisfaction, but who are you that we need to appease you?  Examiners here have told you that they catch them all the time.  We are poor at it according to the research, but that same research shows it doesn't matter.  The deceptive are still found deceptive.  The truthful, on the other hand, may well skew things in the wrong direction.


Barry,

If my statement that the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures is untrue, could you tell me who in the polygraph community has demonstrated such an ability? Where and when?

If the polygraph community wants the public to believe that it can detect polygraph countermeasures, then some showing of such ability is in order. It's not a question of "appeasing" me. As things now stand, the points I raised in my 2001 critique, "On the Esoteric Wisdom of the Polygraph Sages: Whereby Countermeasures Are Revealed through the Mystic Art of Polygraph Chartgazing," remain pertinent today.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Signal Private Messenger: ap_org.01
SimpleX: click to add profile
E-mail: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6242
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: breathing
Reply #17 - Dec 4th, 2007 at 6:39am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nomegusto wrote on Dec 4th, 2007 at 5:29am:
How did breathing turn into urinalysis, or thinking poetry? 

Roll Eyes
Either way. If you get caught and your trying to get a job. Your chances of getting a job went from good to nonexistant...


nomegusto,

There is no evidence that actually using polygraph countermeasures increases the risk of being accused of using them, or that not using them reduces the risk thereof. In my own experience, I was angrily (but falsely) accused of using polygraph countermeasures by one of the LAPD's most experienced polygraph operators. At the time, I did not even know what polygraph countermeasures are. I've heard from numerous individuals who have had similar experiences.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Signal Private Messenger: ap_org.01
SimpleX: click to add profile
E-mail: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #18 - Dec 4th, 2007 at 8:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
If my statement that the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures is untrue, could you tell me who in the polygraph community has demonstrated such an ability?


George, I believe Eric and others here have (time and again) told you they catch people (who confess to CMs).  That may not be the type of evidence for which you are looking, but it still makes the point to some extent.  Is it scientific, no, but you guys use that logic here all the time.  The "I failed so polygraph doesn't work" argument.  (For those being intellectually honest, the flip side is that they could call everybody CM users, some of whom confess, and they use that to make their claims.  I don't believe that to be the case, but we'll never get anywhere with this one.)

I've participated in courses in which we had to identify CMs in charts, some of which didn't contain any.  I can tell you people found many them (perhaps not all), but time and time again, they had no effect on a DI score, so the current research (which validates Dr. Rovner's) is not a surprise to those of us in the polygraph community.

I don't suspect it will be long before you have the concrete evidence you are looking for, but we'll have to wait a little bit on that one.  In the meantime, the research we have shows they don't work, and there's a real fear that they will cause a truthful person to fail.
  
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: breathing
Reply #19 - Dec 5th, 2007 at 7:08am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 4th, 2007 at 8:38pm:
George, I believe Eric and others here have (time and again) told you they catch people (who confess to CMs).  That may not be the type of evidence for which you are looking, but it still makes the point to some extent.  Is it scientific, no, but you guys use that logic here all the time.  The "I failed so polygraph doesn't work" argument.  (For those being intellectually honest, the flip side is that they could call everybody CM users, some of whom confess, and they use that to make their claims.  I don't believe that to be the case, but we'll never get anywhere with this one.)

I've participated in courses in which we had to identify CMs in charts, some of which didn't contain any.  I can tell you people found many them (perhaps not all), but time and time again, they had no effect on a DI score, so the current research (which validates Dr. Rovner's) is not a surprise to those of us in the polygraph community.

I don't suspect it will be long before you have the concrete evidence you are looking for, but we'll have to wait a little bit on that one.  In the meantime, the research we have shows they don't work, and there's a real fear that they will cause a truthful person to fail.


Using anecdotal evidence of people being accused of and confessing to countermeasure usage is not particularly informative.  There's a lot of information being left out.

How many people are accused of CM's that do not subsequently confess?  How many of those were actually using CM's, and how many were not?

If you polygraph one hundred people, accuse fifty of them of using countermeasures and five of them admit to it, that's hardly proof that countermeasures are detectable.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #20 - Dec 5th, 2007 at 4:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Using anecdotal evidence... is not particularly informative.


If you stick to that one, you'll never have anything to say again, which was my point.  You use anecdotal "evidence" all the time when expedient for you.
  
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: breathing
Reply #21 - Dec 6th, 2007 at 9:13am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 5th, 2007 at 4:55pm:
Quote:
Using anecdotal evidence... is not particularly informative.


If you stick to that one, you'll never have anything to say again, which was my point.  You use anecdotal "evidence" all the time when expedient for you.


I have a difficult time believing you misconstrued my post in such a manner. 

What other posts could we go through, select a few words, take them out of context, and pretend to make a point with?  I’m sure there would be a bunch.  What would be the point of doing so?

You were claiming that since polygraph examiners sometimes accuse people of using countermeasures, and sometimes those people subsequently confess, that shows examiners are able to detect countermeasures.  You are citing anecdotal evidence that is, in and of itself, incomplete.  What would be necessary for an accurate idea of how well or poorly examiners can detect countermeasures is the number of times an examiner believes he or she has detected countermeasures, compared to the actual number of times countermeasures were used.

If an examiner believes they detect countermeasure usage in one hundred test subjects out of five hundred subjects being tested, and all one hundred of the accused subjects confess to actually using countermeasures, AND none of the other four hundred test subjects were using countermeasures, that would prove that countermeasures are detectable.

All you cited was incomplete anecdotal evidence consisting of stories told by examiners, relating how they accused someone of using countermeasures and that person admitted to doing so.  There was no information on how many of their test subjects they have incorrectly accused of using countermeasures, and no information on how many of their subjects were actually using countermeasures.

My comment about such anecdotal evidence not being particularly informative was on point and correct.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #22 - Dec 6th, 2007 at 4:21pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 4th, 2007 at 8:38pm:
[ In the meantime, the research we have shows they don't work, and there's a real fear that they will cause a truthful person to fail.


Mr. C, what research are you speaking of, specifically, and where can one read the write-ups?
  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #23 - Dec 6th, 2007 at 9:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I have a difficult time believing you misconstrued my post in such a manner.


Maybe that's your conscience.  Look closely and you'll see I didn't.  I set you up to strike down my anecdotal evidence so that I could point out you do the same thing all the time.  Can you say "double standard"?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Barry_C
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 17th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #24 - Dec 6th, 2007 at 9:32pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
 
Mr. C, what research are you speaking of, specifically, and where can one read the write-ups?


The most recent study is cited somewhere on this site, and you can also see the writings of Drs. Honts and Rovner.

You'll see Dr. Honts' older studies cited here without the caveats Dr. Honts adds, and you'll fail to see his more recent statements clarifying his findings for those who read more into them than they should.  In short, it's his position, based on research, that CMs are not a real fear for the average examiner.
  
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: breathing
Reply #25 - Dec 7th, 2007 at 6:20am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 6th, 2007 at 9:28pm:
Maybe that's your conscience.  Look closely and you'll see I didn't.  I set you up to strike down my anecdotal evidence so that I could point out you do the same thing all the time.  Can you say "double standard"?


So you are saying that you do not perceive any difference between the two?  I find that difficult to believe as well.

When I say that I told the truth during a polygraph exam and was incorrectly labeled a liar, there is no missing information.  The same cannot be said in your example.

In order to determine the worth of the anecdotal evidence I presented you would need to know if the subject was truthful, and if the examiner was able to determine that.  Both of those pieces of information are present, which makes that particular anecdotal evidence legitimate.  Presenting that anecdotal evidence to support my belief that the polygraph is inaccurate is completely reasonable.

In your example, you are clearly missing vital components of the situation, which render your anecdotal evidence worthless.  Your story that examiners have sometimes accused people of countermeasures, and sometimes those people have subsequently confessed is missing the necessary information one would need to determine its legitimacy.

As previously mentioned, in order to determine if your anecdotal evidence was valid, one would need to know the number of people being tested, the number who were accused of using countermeasures, and the number of people who actually were using countermeasures.  You have provided none of that information; therefore, presenting that anecdotal evidence to support your belief that countermeasures are detectable is neither reasonable nor accurate.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: breathing
Reply #26 - Dec 7th, 2007 at 2:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Barry_C wrote on Dec 6th, 2007 at 9:32pm:
Quote:
 
Mr. C, what research are you speaking of, specifically, and where can one read the write-ups?


The most recent study is cited somewhere on this site, and you can also see the writings of Drs. Honts and Rovner.

You'll see Dr. Honts' older studies cited here without the caveats Dr. Honts adds, and you'll fail to see his more recent statements clarifying his findings for those who read more into them than they should.  In short, it's his position, based on research, that CMs are not a real fear for the average examiner.


You must be referring to:

Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test 
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society

So, assuming you are, if this is the best you have, then you are in big trouble, as this "study" is so poorly constructed and administered that it lacks any scientific validity.  For example, the most important variable, (whether or not a student read Georges book TLBLD), is not even verified or verifyable.  Just a student's word that the did or did not read it.  Further, whether or not they actually used any of the techinques in the book are also unverfiable.

But, lets for a moment assume that what you postulate is in fact true, that counter measures don't work.  Poly examiners should be estatic then, because what an easy way to identify and weed out the liars.  Afterall, isn't someone who might employ counter measures the exact person you are trying to eliminate from police employment?  The cheater?

Lastly though, your argument falls apart completely regarding catching countermeasure users, because by virtue of the nature of the anecdotal evidence, you have acutally no idea which of the polygraph takers use countermeasures and "pass" because they "pass" and are not questioned.   

  

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
breathing

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
                       
Change Text Color
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