Quote:


It IS "pseudo-science".  A body of the nation's TOP scientists concluded it had NO scientific validity, yet it's practitioners PRETEND that it is    Of course, admittedly, none have ever conducted a polygraph test or graduated from a 14 week long polygraph school.  The ARE scientists, though.  Are you a scientist?  Do you have ANY experience in the science?  If not, how could you possibly be qualified to make any pronouncement in the area of science?  By following your argument, that would be a profusion of utter ignorance!

Here are a couple of dictionary definitions for your self edification.  Note, I have never written a dictionary, and have NO EXPERIENCE in the field of lexicography.  Now, with that disclamer out of the way, the definitions follow:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


If there any way in which I can further educate you, or point out the obvious to you, please let me know.  Otherwise, feel free to post more jibberish.  By doing so, you help the "anti-polygraph" cause.

TC

Sergeant.  You said in a previous post “It seems that of the two people involved in the polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for sure if the results are accurate or inaccurate. “ While I disagree that at the conclusion of the test only the examinee knows if the results are accurate, one point is perfectly clear; of the two people involved in the polygraph, only the examinee has anything to gain by successfully altering the outcome of the test. Despite a lack of supporting evidence and not withstanding evidence to the contrary, according to the authors, countermeasures may be used to successfully lie on a polygraph test. If someone is successful, he or she might win, but EVERYONE else loses. 

Arguably, a dishonest person might have something to gain by successfully lying or using countermeasures on a polygraph test.  I do not believe honest people or society has anything to gain from someone successfully lying on the exam or the application of countermeasures. My personal opinion is that arguments to the contrary are selfish, egotistical, and morally dishonest.


Your signature line appears to tie you to a persistent “ad hominum argument” complaint. You seem to use it often. It equates ad hominum argument to intellectual bankruptcy. I suspect that you have discovered its usefulness as a red herring to toss into the fray when you are losing an argument. If someone gets agitated or frustrated by someone else’s improper argument or continued display of stubborn ignorance and mentions something remotely objectionable you trot it out like actually means something. Your accusation often appears misapplied, for even an informal forum such as this. I think you do this in order to deflect an opposing argument and goad the respondent into defending your accusation at the expense of the initial argument. Casting “Red Herrings” is improper argument. Especially when used “Tu Quoque” as they often are by some of the posters here.

However in this case LBCB is not engaging in ad hominum attack per se’. He/She has not attacked anyone’s character, just his or her qualifications. While everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion, in debate “Personal Opinion” should be clearly labeled as such. If one wishes to appear to be an authority on any subject, as many on here clearly have, then they should be able to establish, or at least claim, some reasonable qualification for that authority. Conversely, polygraph examiners, like LBCB, who reveal their qualifications, as a group, are constantly subjected to ad hominum accusations of dishonesty by posters on this board. Something you consciously and obviously choose to ignore. You also choose to ignore that some of the posters here appear to be trying to incite Ad Hominum comments from those who disagree. 

For anyone to argue that simply because several of the posters here claim similar experiences some premise has been established or refuted is simply an Ad Populum argument, which is no less fallacious than a true ad hominum attack and no less intellectually bankrupt. 

The common reasoning against polygraph that most often appears on this website divides into two predominant arguments. The first argument is inherently circular and is easily characterized as” Polygraph doesn’t work/ How do you know? Because, I told the truth and failed anyway. / How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn’t work/ How do you know? Because I told the truth and failed anyway/How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn’t work” etc. ad nauseum. I do not think this argument is capable of resolving any of the issues presently under discussion because of its circular nature. Asserting or implying expertise based primarily on failing a test is probably insufficient to sway anyone with real qualifications. This brings me to the second predominant argument. 

The second predominant argument is based on claimed expertise. A recent poster recently argued the expertise of the sites founder. To argue that the authors of a website are experts simply because they wrote a book that, while arguably published, has never been subjected to peer review is an argument from improper authority or “Ad Vercundium” argument. It makes no more sense than quoting Stephen W. Hawking on mountain climbing.

In this particular book, written curriculum vitae which might establish the level of expertise regarding qualifications, knowledge and experience or either or both of the authors regarding its subject matter is suspiciously absent. If you look at other instructional guides, I am sure you will find that a formal presentation of the author’s qualifications, knowledge and experience to teach the subject matter are never omitted. When curriculum vitae are omitted, questions regarding the author’s expertise are justifiable. When those questions are ignored, or fail to support a reasonable standard of qualification, knowledge and experience the more suspicious they become. 

Suspicion or challenge of ones qualifications is not ad hominum argument by any accepted definition other than your own. In fact, position and point of view are very relevant to any discussion in order to identify bias that may cloud ones perception. Both the content of this book and this website appear to lack any convincing endorsement indicating that anyone has successfully applied its teachings about countermeasures to insure passing a test or any supporting documentation establishing sufficient expertise or qualifications to teach the subjectmatter being taught. If one buys a cookbook, it isn't the slightest bit unreasonable to expect the author actually knows how to cook and has in fact cooked on numerous occasions

Some Antipolygraph posters also engage in a lot of “deck stacking” by selectively choosing to ignore or dismiss any studies or relevant information contained therein that does not support their position. For example, in this thread, Cullen responded to a posting by LBCB by citing William Iacono’s criticism of Matte’s field study, but he failed to acknowledge that the study facing Iacono’s criticism just happened to be one of the field studies that N.A.S. determined met their basic criteria for inclusion in their quantitative analysis. He also presents this citation in an apparent attempt to refute a claim of 100% accuracy, which LBCB never offered. Did he do this because he does not understand the material under discussion or because he was attempting to falsely, attribute a claim of 100% accuracy to LBCB? Maybe one, maybe the other, but I suspect it is a combination of both.

If you wish to complain about someone violating the “rules of argument”, perhaps you should consider cleaning your own house first.

Quote:


The above IS a ""circular argument.  Fortunately, it's NOT our argument.  Out argument is more like this:

"The polygraph doesn't work.
 How do you know?  
Because, I told the truth and failed anyway. 

 How did that happen? 
 Because a consistent reaction on the chart was falsely assumed to indicate deception. 

How do you know that?  
Because, the operator used the term "deception indicated" and told me the machine said I was lying or holding back information. This, despite the fact that there are many other possible/probable underlying causes (unrelated to veracity of my answer) for a such reactions.  

How do you know this?
Because, although the operator CAN measure physiological states of nervous arousal, he/she can NOT "read" the thoughts (conscious or unconscious) or sets of thoughts, that caused the persistent arousal so measured. 

How do you know this?  

This is the nature of the human brain/mind/autonomic nervous system, based on our current body of knowledge.

TC

Sergeant, whether distinctly stated or not, you participate in a joint assertion or implication of shared expertise based upon your similar experiences and your combined/shared responses to persons who come to this board seeking advice or debate.

I can certainly understand, based on your personal experience, why you might be inclined to question a statement that the polygraph is highly accurate or that honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem. Your bias appears based upon your personal experience, bolstered by similar claims that appear on this board rather than training or expertise. I assert that this has resulted in a fallacious Ad Populum argument. 

In support of this assertion, I offer the following.

There are real statistics regarding polygraph that do not involve the NAS report, or Scientific Studies by researchers that can easily be branded as Pro-Polygraph or Anti-Polygraph by those who disagree with their findings. For example, here is one that tends to indicate this Ad Populum argument will not hold water.

There is a link on this web site that accesses another web site belonging to the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, which includes Department of Defense Annual reports to Congress regarding polygraph from 1997 to 2002. Even though the content of this website appears, in my opinion, to be somewhat slanted against polygraph, I have no reason to believe that the copies they provide are inaccurate or differ in any material way from the reports actually submitted to Congress. 

My review and compilation of these reports tend to support previous claims, including the assertions that “honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem”, “false positive outcomes are an uncommon occurrence” and polygraph, as used in this program, proved to be a highly accurate method to screen individuals and help divide them into groups of those who have committed violations and those who have not.

Regarding these reports, I would direct your attention to statistics addressing the Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph, (CSP) which is a screening type exam for security issues and violations, because they provide a reasonably detailed breakdown on exam results and share taxonomical similarities with screening type polygraph examinations applied in different situations such as pre-employment and post conviction sex offender testing. 

Over a six-year period, DoD conducted CSP exams on 48,552 persons. They reported that 47,289 displayed NO significant reactions indicative of deception. In other words, roughly 97% passed their exam without any problems. Approximately, 3% (1353) were reported as having significant reactions to relevant questions, which could be interpreted as deception by the examiner. 

The group that displayed significant reactions would arguably contain both True Positives and False Positives. Out of 1353 examinees who exhibited significant reactions, 1158 made admissions to relevant issues. I think that it would be fair to include this sub-set in the “True-Positive” Column because they displayed significant reactions on their exam AND subsequently admitted violations. Simple subtraction reduces the POTENTIAL False Positive group to 195 or four-tenths of one percent (0.4%). This potential False Positive group will likely contain both unresolved True Positive and unresolved False Positive examinees. Probably, most if not all of those have been resolved one way or another by now.

False negatives are not considered in this commentary because there were none reported and False Negative outcomes have no bearing on whether or not honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem. 

Unless you have some credible evidence that the Department of Defense lied to Congress, some statistic that establishes that a significant portion of the 97% of people who took this test and passed were actually dishonest or that the CSP has significantly different accuracy than other screening exams. I think that the statement attributed to LBCB that polygraph is highly accurate and that honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem is supported by the evidence presented.

In Summary; most (over 97%) of the people, taking the test passed it. This goes to the assertion that “Honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem.
Most (over 92%) of the people who failed the test subsequently admitted violations. This goes to accuracy of the process in doing what it claims to be able to do which is identifying persons who committed violations regarding relevant issues. 

This review of the reported statistics relating to almost 50,000 actual screening exams conducted by a changing cadre of approximately 200 trained and qualified polygraph examiners over a period of six years, certainly contrasts with an Ad Populum argument based on a comparatively small collection of limited personal experiences stemming from mostly failed exams. If you have read many polygraph studies, you should observe that based on review of the above statistics most polygraph research claims of accuracy are somewhat conservative in comparison to this “real world” application of screening exams. 

If you are interested, each report provides anecdotal information regarding the scope and nature of the violations discovered as a direct result of polygraph screening. 

Allow me to return this discussion to the subject of this thread.

I think that since the likelihood of a false positive is so small, (less than 1% based on the above information) and an opinion reached by the NAS that persons who attempt countermeasures may actually reduce their chances of passing a polygraph exam, as well as their observation that there is no credible research that someone can pass a polygraph examination using the instructional content of  this web site or associated book make countermeasure attempts a foolhardy activity. You may add to this what I regard as a lack of credible proof that the authors possess sufficient expertise, qualifications, knowledge or experience regarding the material they are attempting to teach.

While you are certainly entitled to possess your opinion, which certainly cannot be granted by nor restricted by me or anyone else, I am entitled to point out that your experience, based on your own statements, is limited to only four polygraph examinations which is a comparatively small number related to the thousands of exams conducted each year or the number of exams reviewed above. 

I would argue that while your statement is indictaive of knowledge regarding 4 exams, there is nothing in your personal experience even when combined with the alleged experiences of the several other posters on this board that would remotley qualify as a sustainable indictment of polygraph in general and that the joint assertion or implication of shared expertise based upon similar experiences and combined/shared responses to persons who come to this board seeking advice or debate is innapropriate Ad Populum argument. 

I believe for any naive individual who might come to this board and infer otherwise would be doing so at their peril.

Of course, I do not expect you or any other persona asserting a postion against Polygraph to agree.

JPW,

The DoD reports to Congress are of little value for estimating the false positive rates associated with any other agency's polygraph program. The DoD understands that spies are rare, and thus it keeps the failure rate of its counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening program artificially low. As I pointed out in a letter to then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, virtually the only persons who "fail" the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph are those who make "substantive admissions." This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts. Incidentally, it's worth noting that the DIA's senior Cuba analyst, Ana Belen Montes, who was already a Cuban agent at the time she sought DoD employment, didn't make substantive admissions and passed her polygraph screening examinations.

Polygraph failure rates for law enforcement agencies, where the relevant questions concern much more common transgressions than espionage, are typically much higher than at DoD. Failure rates on the order of 50% are not uncommon. Given polygraphy's complete lack of scientific underpinnings, its clear that many of those failing law enforcement pre-employment polygraphs are being falsely accused of deception.

The NAS did not suggest that the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may reduce one's chances of passing a polygraph. The passage in question concerns a study on the use of so-called "spontaneous" countermeasures (things that persons unfamiliar with polygraph procedure sometimes do on their own in the [usually mistaken] belief that it might help them to pass).

Given polygraphy's shortcomings, I can only agree with the late David T. Lykken, who writes at p. 277 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards..."

For prior discussion of these issues, see the discussion thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent started by Gordon Barland.

Sargent 1107,

You leave me speechless with your fine post!  Oh the joy, oh the inspiration you afforded me with those fine words.  Expert or not, I gleefully basked in the glow of your humble eloquence.  I anxiously await the day in which I can truly fathom the depths of your wisdom.  That day might never come, but I shall endeavor to ascend to such a lofty and worthwhile goal!

Jolly good show old man!  I hope there will be more where that came from I can tell you!

TC

JPW,

Yes, I feel the same as you when it comes to spending more than a few days posting on this forum.  As I said in a previous post, I enjoy coming here from time to time and ruffling these parrots' feathers, but then I become bored and move on to some other entertainment.  Perhaps we polygraphers shouldn't abandon naive readers to these self-portrayed experts; however, perhaps anyone who can't distinguish between actual experience and wishful thinking deserves what they get when they sit in that polygraph chair and screw themselves.  If I asked 1000 polygraph examiners whether they've seen an increase in failed polygraphs due to attempted countermeasures, I think at least 800 of them would answer in the affirmative.

I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.  And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.  Could it be any clearer than this?

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of “beating” the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. 

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will “pass” the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

What part of that don't you understand, George? I know that one of the main pillars of this website is that anyone can easily learn to beat the polygraph simply by reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and putting its lessons into practice.  In fact, one of the first links people find when they look up the word polygraph on the internet proclaims "Learn how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test." Another advises people to "download our little book" (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) and learn how to beat a polygraph test.  However, the truth, as those of us with actual experience know (and as the NAS, even without actual experience with the polygraph process, has figured out), is that the real lie is your claim, George.  Sure, there's some truth in your little book, and there's some good information, but there is also a lot of faulty information, poor advice, and outright lies.  My mom used to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "The Devil is a liar, but he doesn't get anyone to follow him through lies alone.  He sprinkles his lies with a little truth, so if someone's not careful, they'll swallow it whole." The Lie Behind the Lie Detector appears like a well-written instruction manual, and it contains just enough good information that the unsuspecting, the frightened, and the foolish will indeed swallow it whole.  And I've personally seen these people come to a polygraph exam and choke on what they swallowed.  Often it's glaringly obvious, which of course falls in line with what the NAS has said.

You're peddling lies, George.  Years ago, you didn't get hired by the FBI because you failed every relevant question on a polygraph exam, and now you're responsible, whether you can accept it or not, of causing others to do the same.

JPW, what has never ceased to amaze me since I first visited this website is how someone like George, not to mention these ignorant fools who keep him regular company on this forum and treat him like an expert, could waste so much time and effort in a worthless cause, especially when we polygraphers regularly see the damage caused when examinees take his advice.  Seriously, what a pathetic loser! George is the perfect example of someone investing so much of his time in a worthless endeavor, that he is no longer capable of seeing how worthless it is, and he just can't give it up because he's invested so much of himself and his time that quitting would be admitting that so much of his life was wasted.