How did breathing turn into urinalysis, or thinking poetry? 


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 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 5:29am:


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.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 8:38pm:


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.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 4:55pm:


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.

Quote:


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"?

Barry_C wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 9:28pm:


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.