Sergeant, are you stating George's book does not endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations?  Have you read it? How exactly would one conclude that a document could attempt to teach countermeasures without endorsing their use?  Do I really need to cite specific passages as proof?

Are you saying that his own account of his experience with polygraph doesn't point out that the FBI and LAPD think he was lying while he claims he was telling the truth, thus establishing disagreement between he and the FBI and LAPD regarding his truthfulness? Have you read his account?

Are you denying that there is  peer reviewed published polygraph research as well as the vast majority of anecdotal information from actual cases prove repeatedly that a polygraph examination can effectively discriminate lying from truth-telling or that every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence? Have you read any of it?

Are you saying that George's unsubstantiated claims coupled with yours regarding  failing a polygraph while telling the truth are somehow statistically significant? Do you have any idea how many such claims would have to be verified to even approach statistical significance? Maybe you should ask someone familiar with statistical analysis?        One might understand how your personal experiences might affect your personal beliefs concerning polygraph, but they don't really PROVE anything significant about polygraph.

Cullen, are you stating that the NAS did not conclude that specific issue polygraph tests (Which is what pugs was being asked to take) are capable of discriminating lying from truth telling at rates significantly greater than chance? Have you read ALL of the NAS report. If you want citations, just use the citations provided in that report. You know where the NAS report can be found. Why should I cite studies that have been referenced on this site dozens of times? If you can't find them ask George, he knows where they are at. Do you believe that because they made comments that portray polygraph in a negative light that their comments regarding the positive aspects of polygraph should be considered less accurate or disregarded? Don't be disingenuous.

Do you have any evidence that George was accused of being a drug dealer? George didn't mention that in his letter to the FBI or in his letter to LAPD. One might think it would be something worth mentioning if it occurred. 

Are either of you claiming that there is peer-reviewed published research that proves countermeasures taught in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be effectively implemented in a real life polygraph?  Where is it? The NAS report didn't cite any. In fact they cast doubt on that likelihood.

Getreal already Why is it you only show up when the discussion turns to George's veracity or his failed polygraphs, even though you have been a member of this forum for almost 2 years?   Are you someone’s alter ego?  
The APA pre-employment protocol calls for exams to be recorded. Once recorded, they are available by subpoena. If they were any easier to obtain, the applicant and all their admissions would be featured on YOUTUBE. I don't think that would benefit anyone. Have you seen the one of George with the colander on his head? It isn't very flattering.

I don't claim to speak for ALL pro-polygraph people when I say that what I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance anger and ad hominum attack. Nor am I presently accusing you of endorsing lying even though I believe you have made a conscious decision to ally yourselves with those who do. Your accusation of "straw man argument" sounds like a feeble attempt at straw man argument to me.

What I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

I believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.
 
Do any of you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable, and truthful? 

If so I'd like to hear your arguments.

If you are all right and I am wrong, perhaps you could explain why the last piece of major polygraph legislation was in 1988 (over 20 years ago) and why this oft cited NAS report hasn't resulted in any significant changes in the law and why every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence?

As I said before, I am perfectly willing to leave the discussion of George's honesty, veracity, and integrity lay, if you guys are.

I’m pro-truth.

Sancho,

PUGS is taking a criminal polygraph?  Well, ponder this.  If you assume such polygraphs are 75% accurate (which I ain't and the NAS claimed actual accuracy % can not be determined), that means there is a 1 in 4 chance of failing despite telling the truth (false positive).  Those are WORSE ODDS THAN PLAYING "RUSSIAN ROULETTE"!!  Which would be 1 in 6 (first round).

Of course shooting yourself in the head is worse than being falsely accused of committing a crime, but the point is, you have nothing to gain by taking a criminal polygraph.

TC

P.S.  I'd still like to know why the NAS uses the term "specific incident" polygraph versus what seems to be the preferred  polygrapher term "single issue".  There is a definite semantic difference.  The former presumes an incident (crime, adulterous act...etc.) have already been determined to have taken place.  The later doesn't.  Just ASSumes so.

Gino, This 7 deceptions BS  comes from Drew Richardson. No matter what his academic credentials might be, he lacks the knowledge and experience to make such broad generalizations regarding what occurs or does not occur in every test. He isn't even qualified to support an allegation concerning what is or is not said in one percent of tests. What is undisputable is that you and George endorse lying and cheating on polygraph tests, regardless of your feeble attempt at justification.

The citations you seek can be found throughout and at the end of the NAS report. Use them. I see no reason to cite them over and over again, some of them are even mentioned in your book. Why should I fetch you a cup of coffee when you are standing next to the pot?

Drews "challenge" would not prove anything regarding the effect of countermeasures in the field. In order to do that, YOU and George will need to enlist the aid of liars and criminals. People you really shouldn't believe in the first place.

If you release those tapes to the applicant then they become a public record accesssable by anyone. I don't question that George's "kitchen utensil on the head" video is popular, I go back and watch it myself when I need a laugh.

I know it irks you that I have the "stones" to come here and take you on in your own yard but what I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance. I believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong. 

If you don't like the law, change it. Oh wait, you've been trying, haven't you?  What you aren't having is any success. In fact, every year since EPPA more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence and the courts have also decided that disqualified applicants have no standing to sue because a government employer uses polygraph as part of the hiring process.

Cullen, I dont know why the NAS used the terms they used. Maybe you should ask them.

But since you asked me, A specific incident polygraph examination allows questions concerning multple facets of a known incident. For example in case of a robbery. Did you point the gun? Did you plan the robbery? Did you drive the getaway car? are all possible actions by someone who committed the crime. Specific incident tests require a known incident.  A single issue test attempts to resolve a single issue such as did you point the gun? or Have you illegally used drugs in the last five years? Single issue tests do not necessarily require a known incident. I am unaware of any research that indicates that a single issue test's accuracy is affected by whether or not the topic is a known incident. Since specific issue tests are more accurate than multiple facet or multiple issue tests, the American Polygraph Association Protocol recommends that multi-fact or multi- issue tests be followed by a specific issue test regarding areas of significant reaction observed on the first test if unresolved by a significant admission. The NAS report is generally given credit for this change in procedures even though many examiners were using follow-up specific issue testing before their report was published.

I will bow to whatever experience you claim regarding russian roulette. While I have seen dozens of self inflicted gunshot wounds, except for an unintentional discharge involving a non-life threatening wound, the shooters were rendered permanently unavailable to discuss probabilities or comparitive benefit.  On my first one I ended up throwing away a pair of shoes and a hat and it's nothing to treat as flippantly as you have here.

I will say that if you offer me a 75% accuracy rate in a game of chance (which polygraph sn't by the way) I'll own Las Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City, hundreds of Indian Casinos and a fleet of river boats and cruise ships that would choke New York Harbor.

Clue:(Check the NAS report) According to the FBI, in the largest analysis of real world field data to date, reported their unresolved polygraph failures over a 10 year period were under 7%. That number combines false positives and true positives that did not result in and admission. That places a false positive rate in field applications at less than 7 %. Your revolver scenario by comparison would be at least twice and nearly three times that number approaching 17%.

But I'm not here to debate numbers or anyone's integrity or lack of same. I'll let that lay IF YOU WILL. 

What I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

getrealalready. Allow me to respond in simple declarative sentences.

I did not respond to your question about whether examiners should be required to be honest, honorable, and truthful in conducting their examinations because your question implies that they are not. I disagree with your unsubstantiated characterization.

While I tend to agree that examinations should be recorded, I do not agree that every examinee should be provided with a downloadable copy of his or her examination because they would likely end up on “Youtube”, like George's colander on the head video. If that happened you would see examinees begin to accuse examiners of releasing their videos and filing lawsuits. 

If you want a different set of rules, change the law.

Your claim that examiner deception is ubiquitous and it occurs to a greater extent (100 percent of all examinations) is either an unsubstantiated overgeneralization or a deliberate lie in order to get some type of angry response. I have yet to see any information that you are in any position to possess an informed opinion regarding what may or may not occur in any significant percentage of the thousands of polygraph examinations conducted every year. 

Sergeant, I did not state in any of the above posts that I believed that George lied on his polygraph. What I said was that based on his own account there is a difference of opinion between he, the FBI and LAPD, regarding his truthfulness which leaves the issue of his veracity unresolved. 

I didn't conduct George's test. I haven't seen his charts.  I don't know whether he told the truth or not. One could choose to believe him to be truthful based only upon his claim that he was being truthful, but that type of circular argument makes a pretty small circle and to claim that issue as settled is something of a non sequiter. Presuming that because you told the truth in your examination proves that he told the truth in his, is even more fallacious. I understand why it might make it easier for you to believe he was teling the truth but, it really proves nothing. What is settled, by virtue of his own writing, is that he endorses lying and cheating with regard to polygraph examinations. I find his and Gino's attempts to justify that type behavior unconvincing and I therefore disagree with it.  

I believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.

I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. Why must we continue to go over and over the same ground? After all of this time, do you think anything I might say could change your mind? Do you really believe that you will change mine?

There are however people out there who will come to this forum out of curiosity or apprehension regarding an upcoming exam. 

I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

Ed Earl,

Let me present a few points for your consideration as to why I believe polygraph examiner deception is widespread.  I have recently seen reference from you and others (most recently Dr. Maschke) to a list of polygraph examiner deceptions provided by Drew Richardson.  

Although they seem consistent in and of themselves with several things I have noted over the last couple of years, I will, for conversation's sake admit (that in theory at least) they could have arisen (1) from deranged thinking on the part of Dr. Richardson at the time of his writing, (2) perhaps a memory lapse on his part regarding what he had been taught or had witnessed that occurred between the time of his involvement and the time of his writing, (3) perhaps were true but were corrected between the time he knew such things to occur and the time of his writing.  I think the evidence before us all would indicate that none of the aforementioned is true and that these things existed at the time of his writing and may well continue to exist today.  

Points for your consideration:

1.  His original post was immediately preceded by that of one of your colleagues (as is the case with you, we are only led to believe he is a polygraph examiner).  This examiner not only confesses for himself for isolated and/or continual deceptions, but does so and tries to defend such actions for your whole community.

2.  Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence about polygrapher deception comes from the polygraph community itself and its would-be Athens of of doctrinal and procedural instruction, The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) and its various successors.  This site contains manuals of instruction for polygraph examiners which were written after Dr. Richardson's original post and which pretty much give a step by step lesson in deception more or less as outlined by Dr. Richardson.  If you would like to consider these in detail (I suspect you and your community might be a bit reluctant to do so), I would be happy to engage in that detailed discussion.  and finally to the last and most recent bit of deception...

Ed Earl wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 2:35am:


I would guess that this is the sort of deception Dr. Richardson was referring to in the original post when he referred to misrepresentations or exaggeration.  Although I don't doubt the APA has some sort of written protocol regarding exam recording, the average examinee is no more likely to receive routine compliance to a subpoena for a likely non-existent audio/video tape than he/she is to fly to the moon.  Comparing such a feat to the ease of watching a YOUTUBE feature is clearly misleading.

Quote:

I think that before they bear repeating they bear substantiating.. Regardless of what he or you may believe, Drew is not in any position to offer an informed opinion regarding what may or may not occur in any significant percentage of the thousands of polygraph examinations conducted every year. Whatever qualifications he had then, while severely lacking, are even less today than they were , regardless of his education and training. 

You need to review the definition of seminal. While some might argue that Lykken's work was original, the majority of the chapters constitute his review of others work, his influence on the direction of future events is questionable.

When Dr Lykken used his Russian roulette analogy which was borrowed by Cullen He was unaware of the FBI field statistics, which weren't available until 20 years after his book was first published in 1981. If you have his comments regarding that specific data, it might be pertinent. At the risk of overusing the word, presuming how a deceased scientist would interpret a data set he hasn't evaluated is a bit disingenuous.

You of all people should not be considered qualified to decide who is suitable to be included or precluded from an ethical debate about countermeasures. How dare you question my integrity by accusing me of dishonesty when you repeatedly tell people that lying and cheating is acceptable behavior. But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

I have no interest to debate your silly number games. You know polygraph works, The NAS said that it works, The American Medical Association said it works and numerous peer reviewed published studies say that it works you just refuse to acknowledge it, because it doesn't work to your satisfaction or fit your opinion of how it should work. I have no expectation of ever changing your opinion. You should not expect to change mine. You don't seem to be making much headway with the public either. Your petition boasts about 10 new signatures in the last 6 months. You might want to leave the president's name blank when you revise the cover letter. Who knows who might be in office by the time you get enough validated signatures to make an impression on anyone inside the beltway. 

The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Do you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful? Surely you aren't implying that in order to do so, some special qualifications are required that are somehow subject to your approval.

George, with all due respect, why would an unsubstantiated opinion offered without an appropriate frame of reference require refutation? 

I do not dispute that their allegations may have occurred somewhere or sometime. What I dispute is the idea that their observations are of sufficient quantity or quality to support any assertions regarding what all polygraphers say or do in all polygraph exams.

If either Drew Richardson or Dr. Lykken conducted, reviewed or observed 1000 actual polygraph examinations, which I doubt, they still lack sufficient frame of reference for any assertion regarding what is said or occurs in all or even most polygraph examinations. Their knowledge would be limited to what occurs only in the examinations they conducted, observed, or reviewed. 

This continued over-generalization from such small numbers is just selective observation. If a polygraph examiner claimed to have conducted 1000 polygraph examinations the results of which were confirmed by independent irrefutable evidence, and I attempted to assert his results constituted proof that that polygraph was 100% accurate you would be pointing out the same fallacy to me. Wouldn't you? Even some of the dimmer bulbs here would see that for what it was; an assertion based on a generalization supported by a lack of substantial numbers and selective observation.

That doesn't really matter though, the reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance. 

Do you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful? 

It seems reasonable that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.

Ed Earl,

The examiner deceptions enumerated by Richardson and Lykken are not unsubstantiated. Lykken discussed them at length in A Tremor in the Blood, and a review of the polygraph literature supports this view. It's not necessary to personally observe large numbers of polygraph interrogations to know about these deceptions (though both Richardson and Lykken have reviewed numerous polygraph sessions). The deceptions are documented in the literature of the polygraph community itself. Casual readers with any doubt that polygraphy depends in fundamental ways on examiner deception are invited to review Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited therein.

Again, a candid consideration of the examiner deceptions associated with polygraphy is necessary for any intellectually honest discussion of the ethical considerations associated with polygraph countermeasure use. But that seems to be a threshold you're not willing to cross.