Sackett,
I am truly impressed that you have responded at such length as you have. As will be no surprise to you, I believe your reasoning is faulty and will attempt to demonstrate where and how. To sum up quickly, you fail to do two things:
- Explain why it is okay to lie on the control questions; and
- Explain why an informed examinee would be significantly more concerned with the comparison questions than with the relevant questions.
Without addressing those two points--especially the first one--you don't have an argument. It seems to me that you're just
assuming it is okay to lie on the control questions, when, in fact, that is tautological and question begging since the whole debate we're having is on whether in fact is is okay to lie on the control questions.
You are simply arguing that it is bad to use CM. I am not arguing that it is not bad or that it is good to use them, I am arguing that it is at least as bad to lie on the control questions as to use CM.
Okay, to a few specifics:
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
The PLCQ test provides the honest and truthful examinee a place to focus their psychological interest. Honest/innocent, etc examinees will not focus on relevant questions is they do not pertain to them in any way.
Note that this explanation only works when dealing with ignorant subjects, but I think it usually will work with them. However, it does not apply to informed subjects. An informed subject will be about as concerned with the control questions as with the relevant questions making the difference between her responses to control questions and relevant questions very small, if present at all.
If the question just needs to pertain to the subject and it doesn't matter if she has done the activities mentioned in the control questions ("have you ever lied to get out of trouble?") why not tell the truth and use "Do you ever breathe oxygen?" and "Do you live on a planet orbiting the Sun?" as control questions? Those clearly pertain to the subject! The answer is obvious: it is important that the subject make an actual, bona fide attempt to deceive the examiner, and this is simply not possible with an informed subject.
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
I do not consider the honest examinee equally repugnant or immoral to those using CM's because the honest examinee is simply focusing on the comparison questions rather than the relevant ones. Conversely, those trying to enhance their reactions for the purpose of passing an exam because "they should" are CHEATING!
Um... how is lying not cheating? And how is lying to get a job morally better than trying to cheat on a test that you know is flawed? Unless you can answer that, I think your whole defense falls apart.
Also, you seem to be suggesting a counter measure yourself: just focus more on the control questions and you'll pass. Does it matter if one doesn't have any particular reason to pay more mind to those questions? What if you were up front with examinees and told them straight out which questions were for comparison and which were relevant and you tell them to focus more on the comparison questions? Presumably that would indeed be easier for an innocent than guilty person. Why don't you do that? If you did, use of CM would drop considerably because people have more faith in someone who tells them the truth than in someone who tells ridiculous lies.
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
It is no different than those who would bring a cheat sheet into a written test or excuse themselve to the restroom to review hidden material in their clothes each time they run into a difficult subject.
There are material differences. The polygraph is, under ideal circumstances, probably no better than 90% accurate and with an informed subject--a very not ideal circumstance--the accuracy is far below that, probably only a little above chance. On the other hand, most math tests are pretty damn accurate at demonstrating who knows the stuff. The polygraph is not a valid test under the circumstances described.
However, my argument is not that it is okay to use CM because the polygraph isn't a valid test if you know enough about it to know how CMs work. If I did that, I'd also have to argue that the BS polygraphers use is valid because the polygraph isn't valid without them. This argument doesn't help you because I'm not arguing that it is okay to use CM, I'm arguing that it is as bad to lie on the control questions. This doesn't address that point.
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
You also suggest state, "that the ignorant subject who lies on a control question is more culpable than the honest informed subject who attempts CM." This argument is flawed for the reasons stated above. The focus on the probable lie is not damning except to the examinee during the exam. Trying to beat the examination process defeats the purpose of the test (which of course is what this site is trying to do).
It is valid, for the reasons that I state above. The knowledgeable examinee has no reason to focus more on the control questions than the relevant ones. If the test were as accurate on informed and ignorant subjects you'd have no reason to try to keep people ignorant when your attempts to do so are what cause so many people to use CM in the first place (an outcome you claim to want to discourage).
Furthermore, the ignorant examinee who lies (on any question) is trying to produce a result not consistent with reality whereas the truthful informed examinee who uses CM is trying to produce a result that is consistent with reality, albeit by dubious means. I think the former is more culpable than the later. Apparently, you think lying to get out of trouble is perfectly okay. The fact that the examinee in fact faces no consequences for lying on the control questions is meaningless; the ignorant examinee thinks there will be consequences and lies anyway.
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
IOW, if an honest suspect of say, child molestation focuses on the comparison questions, then that is what I want.
And why should an honest informed subject be more concerned with the control questions than the relevant questions? Is it the mere fact that she is lying, irregardless of the perceived consequences of the lie or the perceived wrongness of the activity lied about? The ignorant subject fears failing the test if he doesn't lie, what does the informed subject fear? Pretty much the same thing that she fears on the relevant questions, right? It's not the fact that the subject is making certain sounds in response to certain sounds produced by the polygrapher; it is that the subject is attempting deception and fears the consequences of being found out--things that don't apply to informed subjects.
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
Opposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process. Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest?
Because they think the test is wildly inaccurate and doing so will increase their odds of producing a result that is consistent with reality. Why would anyone want to lie on the control questions?
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
On a side note, your position that people use CM's because they're honest and that they "should" pass oftentimes gets rationalized into the use of CM's because they followed the propaganda here, provided no information about their past behaviours during the interview and they have worked hard for it, so they deserve the job.
Further, your rationale seems to be in following TLBTLD that one MUST help themselves through the exam in order to avoid being falsely identified as guilty or lying. The problem with this theory is that false positives are minimal and catching CM's is on the rise, despite and many thanks to the propaganda here.
I haven't said people must use CM to pass, not even that informed subjects must do so. You're getting off argument. We're discussing why it's okay to lie on control questions but not okay to use CM.
Anyway, given the information that polygraphers withhold and the obvious lies they tell, a reasonable person could conclude that he or she has a better chance of passing if he or she uses CM. You think it is okay for people to lie if they think it will increase their chances of passing, what is the difference between lying and "cheating"? Isn't lying a form of cheating under these circumstances?
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
Rationalizing immoral behavior, i.e. manipulating the charts is wrong and will be seen as wrong (outside the room); whereas focus on comparison questions and reactions thereto will not.
I'm not rationalizing the use of CM; I am explaining it. You are the one who is assuming that it is okay to lie to get a job, an activity that most would consider immoral, but you don't attempt to provide any explanation for that view. You're begging the question: why is it not viewed as wrong to lie on control questions? You can't demonstrate that it's okay by saying it is regarded as okay.
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
Now it is you turn to pay attention. My point is simple. The convincing promotion of CM's (i.e. cheating on a test) by this board to ignorant readers who then use them, find themselvs either faulty or caught and dismissed, should not be a concern for you? I would think it would be a great concern because the misinformed readers will want to know why they have been told one thing, used their knowledge, finding it "less than" and leaving them to their own wits to figure out what happened, why they failed or were not hired? Not very supportive of you.
Where have I ever said it is not a concern of mine? I said it was a logical possibility, and indeed it is a real possibility, but that wasn't an issue in the discussion then going on, so I didn't address it in order to focus on the real argument then going on.
If people are misinformed that is largely the fault of the polygraph community for not making accurate information available to them. You try to quash the information provided on sites like this (much of which is presumably accurate because it comes from polygraphers themselves). What you don't get is that the answer to inaccurate conclusions drawn from good data (the polygrapher documents) is to provide accurate conclusions and explanation (NOTE: not arguments from authority or question-begging tautologies).
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
My meaning was clear. In the context of applicant testing that if they listen to the propaganda spewed here attempt to use what they read here and fail or go N/O, I do not care if they were otherwise honest and truthful. THEY WERE TRYING TO BEAT THE TEST AND ME! They didn't follow instructions and they were being deceiptful by their actions. I do not want someone like that to be in LE or working with me.
How is a person who lies not trying to beat the test? Is a person who lies on the control questions following instructions? Obviously, they are not. Is a person who lies on the control questions being deceitful by his or her actions? Obviously, they are. Therefore, you shouldn't want people who lie on the control questions to work in law enforcement or with you. Lying on the control questions is as bad as attempting CM. QED. How have I not produced the superior arguments here?
sackett wrote on May 3
rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
That [telling people that using CM will hurt them] is exactly why I am here (well, one of the reasons)... I also explain that to each and every examinee in my suite.
You explain no such thing. You merely present arguments from authority and tautologies. You just make a stupid claim and expect people to believe it, just because you said it. Well, it doesn't work like that in the real world (i.e. the world outside of polygraph school classrooms). You have to have better arguments than the next guy and, frankly, you don't. You can't explain how the polygraph works on knowledgeable subjects except by raising the question of why the workings of it are kept secret if knowledge of them doesn't hurt accuracy and your ham handed attempt to conceal said knowledge are the best ways to push people into using CM.
It's obvious that you're setting yourself up to play the polygrapher's trump card: "Gee, look at how much I've already written arguing with you, Lethe. It may all be bad arguments, red herrings, and dodges, but hey, the fact that I've written so much while saying so little of substance proves I've done my part and that you, by not accepting said bad arguments, are unreasonable. I need not talk with you further."
You
know that's what you're going to try pulling. Be a man (if indeed you are a man, and it seems about 90% of polygraphers are) and give us a real explanation of why it is okay to lie in order to get a job. C'mon, why is that okay? Because there are no consequences for doing so? Uh, yeah. But why are there no consequences? Because you say so? Okay. Why do you say so? Because the polygraph wouldn't work if people who lied on control questions were failed just like people who don't lie on them probably will? Aha!
Now we're getting somewhere!
You made the original comparison, not I. I simply established my position, to which you disagree. I simply stated that it was an inappropriate and unfair analogy. You in fact made the moral argument that people who use CM's are equally dishonest and reprehensible as those you consider to be lying in the CQ's. But you fail to address the fact that not everyone lies to the CQ's, but they still pass. Gee, how could that be?
As for focus and sensitivity during the examination. RQ's present a long term concern to the guilty; however, CQ's present a short term concern to the truthful. As for an honest person being more interested in CQ's than RQ's the answer is simple. The RQ's mean nothing to the honest person.