Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures (Read 28543 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #15 - May 5th, 2008 at 6:05pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe wrote on May 5th, 2008 at 5:18am:
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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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!


Lethe,

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.

I'm not going to address your rantings elsewhere in your post.

Anything else?

Sackett

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #16 - May 5th, 2008 at 9:10pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Thank you for your quick reply.

Yes, I did make the original comparison, but you don't seem to understand it.  My point is not that using CM is good.  Nor is it that one must lie on the comparison questions to pass.  My argument is that people who lie on the control questions are equally culpable as those who use CM.  Your only response to this has been "it is bad to use CM," which does nothing to refute my claim.

sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008 at 6:05pm:
Lethe,

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.


To be clear, the claim I am making is as follows: People who lie on the control questions are equally culpable as those who use CM.  Nothing you have said has even tried to refute this in any logical way.  You simply claim that using CM is bad.  But I'm not arguing that it is good, I am arguing that lying is equally bad. 

You seemed to agree with my claim that lying on the control questions was bad just a moment ago when you said you didn't want someone who didn't follow the exam directions of a polygrapher or who was deceitful on a polygraph to get a job in law enforcement.  That appears to be a lie, since you are, in fact, okay with people not following instructions by lying on their exams.  I don't see how you could possibly deny that.

sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008 at 6:05pm:
But you fail to address the fact that not everyone lies to the CQ's, but they still pass.  Gee, how could that be?


This has nothing to do with my argument, which is that lying on a polygraph exam is wrong.  I have not argued that one must lie in order to pass.  Let's look at my arguments in a strictly logical way, listing the various premises and conclusions.  This might help you.  I will present two arguments, starting with the easiest.

    ARGUMENT 1:

    P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

    P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception.  (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)

    C1: Therefore, people who use CM should not pass.  (Reason: substitution of "people who use CM" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception" in P1)


Would you agree with the above logic, Sackett?  If not, you must demonstrate either that one or more of the premises is materially incorrect or that the reasoning is incorrect.

Now, the second argument, which you should only tackle once you understand the first one, is as follows:

    ARGUMENT 2:

    P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

    P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)

    P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)

    C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)

    C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not pass a polygraph exam. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)


Do you agree with that logic, Sackett?  It seems as sound as the first example, albeit requiring an additional step.  I have logically proven that--by your standards, not mine--people who lie on control questions should not pass polygraph exams. 

Where have I gone wrong?  Again, you must demonstrate either that one or more of the premises is materially incorrect or that the reasoning is incorrect.  You may not like that, but that's the way logic works.  Can you refute these arguments in a logical way, or are you reduced to more red herrings, arguments from authority, tautologies, and good old fashioned taking your marbles and going home when you're losing?

sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008 at 6:05pm:
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.

I'm not going to address your rantings elsewhere in your post.

Anything else?

Sackett


I hope you'll focus your efforts on the first part of this post, but this bears addressing as well.  Can you answer each of the following questions?
  • Why is the honest examinee unconcerned with the relevant questions?
  • Why is the honest examinee concerned with the control questions?
  • Why is the dishonest examinee concerned with the relevant questions? and
  • Why is the dishonest examinee unconcerned or concerned with the control questions, as the case may be?

If you wish to avoid this portion of the discussion for now to focus on the logical arguments that I've presented that's fine; perhaps we could come back to this later.

Lethe
  

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 Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #17 - May 5th, 2008 at 9:31pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sackett, if you want a hint from someone more accustomed to using logic than you are, I'd say that you're best bet--besides just refusing to use logic and quitting the discussion--is to challenge P1.  Even though you offered it, find a way to clarify the statement such that it is okay to deceive by lying but not okay to deceive by cheating (note: this will require you to state the difference between those two acts).

Once you have rewritten P1 we'll need to analyze your change to see if it itself is sensible or just special pleading.  And that's your chance.  You can just try to drag that out and drag it out until you feel you can quit the discussion under claims of me being unreasonable. 

At least, that's how I'd do it if I were you.  Remember, you can't assume a priori that I'm wrong, you need to demonstrate that logically.  Good luck.
  

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 sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #18 - May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe,

I have never condemned myself of being an academic or intellectual, most unlike your opinion of yourself.  On the note of logic, it may only be applied and understood from one's own training, education, values, beliefs, etc.  Much applied, like statistics, it becomes manipulatable for the purposes of an argument.

As for your points:


 ARGUMENT 1:

P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

You apply an "AND" to combine the points.  If they do not follow instructions, they won't pass but will be deemed uncooperative and therefore not pass for that reason.  If they attempt deception at RQ's, they will not pass because they can't stop themselves from responding. If they do both, who knows

P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception.  (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)

Not necessarily.  People using CM's are not following instructions, true enough. And, though not necessarily attempting deception, many of the readers this board would like to convince to "protect themselves" will in fact be truthful, yet not pass due to non-cooperation.

C1: Therefore, people who use CM should not pass.  (Reason: substitution of "people who use CM" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception" in P1)

No.  People who use CM's will be caught and not pass by a No Opinion call.  This,  due to non-cooperation; NOT deception, therefore someone using CM's will not have an opinion made about their truthfulness because they are not allowing the proper collection of physiology.

Would you agree with the above logic, Sackett?  If not, you must demonstrate either that one or more of the premises is materially incorrect or that the reasoning is incorrect.

Through my own courtesy I respond, not because I "must" do anything.  I have no intentions of changing your beliefs, but preventing an otherwise honest person from making the worst mistake of their life by trying to beat an examiner.

Now, the second argument, which you should only tackle once you understand the first one, is as follows:


ARGUMENT 2:

P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

See above response to P1.

P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)

Yep!, even my simple mind can see where this is going...

P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)

Perhaps, but not necessarily.  People who are truthful pass examinations daily.  So this can not possibly explain every CQ response.  Put more rudimentarily, CQ's more significant = pass.  RQ's more significant = failure.  Significance is set during the pre-test inteview.

C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)

See last response.

C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not pass a polygraph exam. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)

Nope.  Your inabiltiy to understand my statements are twisted logic applied through a filter of ignorance concerning polygraph. This is much the logic many scientists use when trying to debunk polygraph and its accuracy.  

My initial thought is that you are searching for a moral argument.  Then I realized that you are trying to "defrag" the entire process, step by step.  Polygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work.  To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature.  

I'm not sure I can make it any easier to understand.  

Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #19 - May 6th, 2008 at 5:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Holy Toledo!

So much debate and verbiage over whether to pucker the old anus or not.

TC

Ya squeeze yer anus in,
Ya squeeze yer anus out,
bite the side of yer tongue,
Until ya really want to shout

You do the poly pokey
So you get the stupid job
That what it's all about!
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #20 - May 7th, 2008 at 12:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
Lethe,

I have never condemned myself of being an academic or intellectual, most unlike your opinion of yourself.  On the note of logic, it may only be applied and understood from one's own training, education, values, beliefs, etc.  Much applied, like statistics, it becomes manipulatable for the purposes of an argument.


Everyone take note: being an academic or having an intellect is so bad that just claiming your opponent thinks he is one is sufficient to discredit him.  Don't worry, Sackett, no one will accuse you of being an intellectual.

Also note: logic is unreliable.  Apparently feelings or claims from authorities are what Sackett bases his beliefs on.  Sackett, here is a logical argument:
    P1: A = B
    P2: B = C
    C: A = C

If the two premises are correct, then the conclusion is true, at least for everyone not a polygrapher.  Are you really saying that the statement is not true for someone who's been to polygraph school?  What sort of life experiences does one need to have in order for that argument to be not true?

Anyway, it was easier to beat you down to the point where you deny logic is useful because you can't use it to defend your own beliefs that I'd thought it would be.

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
ARGUMENT 1:

P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

You apply an "AND" to combine the points.  If they do not follow instructions, they won't pass but will be deemed uncooperative and therefore not pass for that reason.  If they attempt deception at RQ's, they will not pass because they can't stop themselves from responding. If they do both, who knows


It appears you're arguing that all people who don't follow directions will fail.  That is demonstrably incorrect: people who lie on control questions are not following directions and yet often pass.  In any event, I'm not talking about whether they will pass and get the job, but whether they should, after all, that's the whole discussion I'm trying to have: why is it okay for someone to lie to get a job?  Previously you said people who lie should not be given a job of trust, now you're changing your mind.  Why?

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception.  (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)

Not necessarily.  People using CM's are not following instructions, true enough.


What are you talking about?  You claim that P2 is not necessarily true and in the next sentence you say that P2 is true.  Which is it?  Only one can be correct (reason: law of the excluded middle)

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
Through my own courtesy I respond, not because I "must" do anything.  I have no intentions of changing your beliefs, but preventing an otherwise honest person from making the worst mistake of their life by trying to beat an examiner.


True.  What I should have said is "if you want to refute this logical argument you need to either demonstrate that one or more premise(s) is wrong and/or that the conclusion does not follow from them.  But since you have contempt for logic, I guess you won't be doing that.

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)

Perhaps, but not necessarily.


Perhaps people who lie aren't telling the truth?  Sorry, Sackett, by definition a person who is lying is not telling the truth. 

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)

See last response.


Your last response is senseless; it is true that people who lie on control questions are attempting deception and not following the polygrapher's instructions and it is true that you said that you don't want people who do that working in law enforcement.  Therefore, you don't want people who lie on control questions working in law enforcement.  This is very rudimentary stuff, Sackett.

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
My initial thought is that you are searching for a moral argument.


Well, yeah.  You say it is morally okay to lie in order to get a job.  I think it's not.  You have thus far given exactly zero (0) reasons to think it is true that it is morally okay to lie to get a job.

Why don't you just tell us, in your own words, why you think it is okay for a person to lie in order to get a job?  Perhaps that could be a good starting place for a discussion.
  

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 sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #21 - May 7th, 2008 at 4:07pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe,

your circular, misapplied logic has proven itself once again.  We're right back where we started from...

I am sure the readers are not interested further in your pointless arguments, because I know I am getting weary of it, and I normally like these types of discussions.  And though I am sure you feel it necessary to continue this conversation, it serves no further purpose, other than to boost your own ego by dissecting each and every point I make to support your own warped opinion.  Sort of like my statistics analogy.  

Anyway, I have stated what I needed to.  For you to repeatedly attack minor, non-substantive, subordinate issues is a pointless lesson in futility.  You dissagree and want to argue.  I do not!  Like I said, it serves no legitimate purpose.

Feel free to attack me one last time and call me what you will, but I am no longer pursuing this "discussion", it's getting stale; for everyone!

Have a nice day!

Sackett    
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #22 - May 7th, 2008 at 9:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
It appears I was correct:

Lethe wrote on May 5th, 2008 at 5:18am:
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."


As I will try to show for those interested in the discussion that Sackett and I have had, I don't think he presented any rational argument that materially challenges my position and he certainly did not refute the logical argument at the heart of what I'm saying.  I am happy to let the people decide for themselves who has presented the better argument,  insofar as Sackett  has presented anything which can be regarded as an intelligible argument. 

My argument is that, based on his own standards, people who lie on the control questions should not get jobs in law enforcement (or working with Sackett), since he stated:

sackett wrote on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:14am:
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.


He was, of course, referring to people who use CM, but I believe this rule applies equally to people who lie on the control questions.  I argue this as follows:

Lethe wrote on May 5th, 2008 at 9:10pm:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)

P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)

C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)

C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not pass a polygraph exam. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)


Sackett failed to demonstrate any material defect in any of the premises nor did he show any flaw in the reasoning.  Therefore, he has shown no reason for believing the conclusion to be flawed; he just doesn't like it and so comes near to accusing logic itself of being biased and almost states that the polygraph needs no logical justification to be used (whether it needs any sort of justification at all he likewise doesn't state).

He did not retract or modify his original statement that People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass, so P1 is intact.  He did not challenge P2, which states that a polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth.  Nor did he argue the absurdity that People who lie on the control questions are telling the truth and are not attempting deception.  Therefore, the third premise is also intact. 

Given the three premises, which Sackett has not demonstrated incorrect or even called into question, the conclusion--that people who lie on the control questions should not be given jobs in law enforcement or in which they will be working with Sackett--follows naturally and logically. 

Sackett just doesn't like this, so he brings up a number of completely unrelated points.  The fact that some people don't lie on the control questions does not make it okay for the people who do lie.  If I murdered someone, could I say that it was okay because not everyone commits murder?  No, obviously not.  Nor can Sackett argue that it is okay to lie if not everyone does lie.

He also makes a few nonsensical statements.  For instance, he says perhaps People who lie ... are not telling the truth--but, by implication, maybe people who lie are telling the truth.  Of course, the law of the excluded middle--a logical operator, so Sackett is probably unfamiliar with it--tells us that a statement is either true or false, it cannot be both a lie and the truth.

The closest he comes to mounting a real challenge is the following (his words in bold):

sackett wrote on May 6th, 2008 at 1:24am:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)

You apply an "AND" to combine the points.  If they do not follow instructions, they won't pass but will be deemed uncooperative and therefore not pass for that reason.  If they attempt deception at RQ's, they will not pass because they can't stop themselves from responding. If they do both, who knows

P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception.  (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)

Not necessarily.  People using CM's are not following instructions, true enough. And, though not necessarily attempting deception, many of the readers this board would like to convince to "protect themselves" will in fact be truthful, yet not pass due to non-cooperation.


So, according to Sackett, people who use CM--an act that he classifies as cheating (see reply #13 to this thread on May 2nd)--are not necessarily attempting to deceive anyone; it is therefore, according to Sackett, possible to cheat without attempting deception.  I don't think that's true, because, at the least, you are attempting to deceive the other party about the fact that you are attempting to cheat.  Therefore, this line of reasoning fails and the premise has survived the challenge to its validity.

In his defense, Sackett is ambiguous about whether a person must both disobey instructions and attempt deception OR if it is sufficient for them to either disobey instructions or attempt deception.  He didn't state whether they had to do both before he wouldn't want them in law enforcement or if doing either one would suffice to disqualify them.  I think this point might be somehow confusing him, but it really shouldn't.  People who lie on the comparison questions are in fact doing both (not following directions and attempting deception), so even if they only had to do one they still fall into that class of people that Sackett doesn't want working in law enforcement or with him.

In any event, I don't see that Sackett has made any successful challenge to the premises or logic of my argument nor has he demonstrated how it is circular, as he claims it is.  Indeed, I would say he is the one who has produced the tautology here: he has indicated that it is okay to lie on the comparison questions because there are no real consequences for doing so, and there are no real consequences for doing so because it is okay.  QED indeed.

Clearly, the reason polygraphers declare it okay to lie in order to get a job of importance and trust is because if they failed people who lied in order to get a job so few people would pass the polygraph exam that the polygraph could not possibly be used to screen applicants.  Sackett would then lose his job, which he cares more about having than about doing.

Sackett is not as dumb as I think he makes himself look here.  He's smart enough to know that he should avoid saying both "it is okay to lie to get a job in which trust will be placed in you" and "it is not okay to lie to get a job in which trust will be placed in you."  He knows that he can't possibly say either one, despite the fact that one must be true.  He can't say it is okay and he can't say it is not okay.  If he makes either statement, he's totally fucked.  He is very smart to avoid saying either, but the impossibility makes him look like a total idiot when he attempts to defend his position.

Secondly, I don't think he's trying to deceive us.  The deception has already occurred: he has deceived himself, about a great many things, including the usefulness of actual logic.  Let us remember that the polygraph makes victims of us all, whichever side of the table we're on.  But, like a dog which has contracted rabies, polygraphers must still be put down.

I welcome any comment or question on my concluding message here.  If my reasoning is anywhere faulty, I would appreciate learning this fact so please waste no time in writing a cogent post indicating where my mistake is.  You will earn my gratitude by doing so.  Best wishes to my erstwhile interlocutor, Sackett.  May neither he nor his children suffer as a result of his contempt for logic, academics, or science.
  

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: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #23 - May 7th, 2008 at 11:36pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Wow Lethe,

Now that logic is crystal clear!  Guess I'll go back to infantilizing the kids.
  

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: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #24 - May 8th, 2008 at 1:09am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I think I see one of the reasons why the polies are having trouble understanding what I am talking about and I accept the blame for the ambiguity.

I think they interpret the statement "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass" to mean "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should, theoretically, not produce results that will lead to passing the exam."  However, that is not what I mean at all.  What I mean is that "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not be given a position of trust and authority."  That is, if and when you determine that a person is lying to you, you should not then go a give that person a position of trust and authority.

Presenting the argument mutatis mutandis gives us the following:

    P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not be given positions of trust and authority. (Source: Sackett)

    P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)

    P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)

    C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)

    C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not be given a position of trust and authority. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)

I think that argument is more precisely and accurately stated. I invite all polygraphers to reconsider it as presently stated.  If you disagree with it, please consider telling me why it is wrong and not just insist that it is wrong.  Also, I invite you to indicate whether or not you think it is okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority.
  

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: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #25 - May 9th, 2008 at 1:22pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Whenever a truthful person subjects themselves to a poly, they are at risk of a false positive, which is the only way they can fail.  But if a truthful subject employes countermeasures they open an additional path to failure.  They are still at risk of a false positive outcome, but they create an additional risk of failure by being detected using CM. 

  

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 George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6150
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #26 - May 9th, 2008 at 1:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on May 9th, 2008 at 1:22pm:
Whenever a truthful person subjects themselves to a poly, they are at risk of a false positive, which is the only way they can fail.  But if a truthful subject employes countermeasures they open an additional path to failure.  They are still at risk of a false positive outcome, but they create an additional risk of failure by being detected using CM. 



Actually, the risk of being accused of using countermeasures exists whether or not one actually employs them. For example, I was angrily accused of using countermeasures by one of LAPD's senior polygraph examiners, despite the fact that I not only did not employ countermeasures, I didn't even know what they were at the time.

Moreover, there is no evidence that using countermeasures of the kind outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector actually increases the risk of being accused of countermeasures. No polygrapher has demonstrated any ability to reliably detect them.
« Last Edit: May 9th, 2008 at 2:05pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
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 Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #27 - May 9th, 2008 at 7:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Note that pailryder's post does not in any way even attempt to address the argument that I have presented.  No polygrapher has yet even proposed any reason why we should think that it is okay to lie in order to get a position of trust.  Indeed, they are not even honest enough to answer that question: do they think it is okay to lie to get a position of trust?  Either they do or they don't--and either way they're screwed--so they just avoid the matter entirely.

I invite any and all polygraphers to answer this simple question: is it okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority?  Yes, or no?

I predict that no polygrapher will be able to give a yes or no answer to the question, though the law of the excluded middle tells us that no other response is possible.  They will instead ignore the question, scoff at it, indicate that it is silly.  But they will not--cannot!--ever answer it.  They would damn themselves whichever answer they give.  They're damned if they do--but they're also damned if they don't.  If no polygrapher is able to answer the question, it will be evidence of the irreconcilable contradictions inherent in the polygraph.
  

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: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #28 - May 9th, 2008 at 9:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe
Please clarify your question.  Are you asking if it is ever okey to lie to get position or is it always okey to lie to get a position?
  

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: A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures
Reply #29 - May 9th, 2008 at 10:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on May 9th, 2008 at 9:13pm:
Lethe
Please clarify your question.  Are you asking if it is ever okey to lie to get position or is it always okey to lie to get a position?


That's a sensible request for clarification.  Indeed, I think you've helped me make the question much better than it was, pailryder.  Thank you.

I don't suspect that anyone would say it is always okay to lie in order to get any position of trust and authority.  That would leave "is it ever okay to lie to get a position of trust and authority?" as the question, but I will refine and narrow it down it still further. The question I am asking appears to be this:
    Is it ever okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority and, if so, under what circumstances is it okay and are those circumstances met in a normal PLCQ exam conducted for government or law enforcement employment screening purposes?
I suppose one could make a good case that it would be okay for someone to lie in order to get a job as Osama bin Laden's donkey driver in order to get close to him to obtain intelligence or to pull off an assassination attempt.  However, even assuming that to be true, it wouldn't prove that it is okay to lie to get a job as a police officer in the United States.  You need to demonstrate not just that there is some conceivable circumstance under which it would be okay to lie to get a position of trust and authority, but that the normal context of a polygraph exam conducted for government or law enforcement employment is such a circumstance.

I think that's a very high bar to pass and I would be surprised if anyone is able to meet it.  If someone can, I imagine the answer will be most interesting and I look forward to hearing it.

But, even if you can't explain the reasoning behind your position, I'd still be interested in knowing if you think yes it is okay or no it is not okay to lie to get a position of trust and authority in context of a normal employment screening exam.  Presumably at least some polygraphers have thought about this question; if any have an answer that satisfies himself, it might be of interest to others or provide at least a starting point to discuss the issue here.

And of course, if you don't know whether or not you think it's okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority, it is perfectly acceptable to say so.  If you really don't know, it's more honest to say so and then try to think through the issue some more, perhaps in conjunction with others, than to pretend that you do know the answer but won't tell anyone.
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
A thought for the antis regarding Countermeasures

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