tw wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Not for purposes of "verifying" sexual fidelity, but I did have problems with the CIA and NSA vetting and polygraph charades.

tw,
I have to admit, I'm bit shocked that he provided the charts to you, but at the same time I respect him for doing so.

The charts are interesting. In my previous comments, I mentioned that he may have been poised to do some follow up testing before you left.

My observations:

1. You are showing some mild reactions to the Relevant Questions.

2. I'm concerned about that lack of diagnostic data in the EDA channel. Did he use the "stick on" electrodes on your palm? A gain of 1 is pretty low.

3. "Have you acted out sexually in anyway?" in my opinion is more like a Comparison Question. Just giving your morning erection a squeeze could be a "yes" to this question.

He should not have said to you that you "failed" some questions; a more appropriate response would have been "it appears that some of the questions are bothering you, let's see if we can work through it."

Even in light of this, I hold this examiner in somewhat high esteem for being forthcoming with the charts, and I don't see anything really out of line here.

Yes, that is question 42R and as I predicted, it was the strongest of the reactions and indicates the struggle you had with that question. 

You may ask him if he will do a breakdown exam for you, asking for a specific issue: "Did you insert your thingy into the vagina of another woman?" - straight forward, single issue ZCT.

If he wants more money tell him that according to the APA protocol on "successive hurdles", that it should be included in the original price.

Do you have any good links that teach me how to read the charts?  I have looked at other charts online that show deception and there is a large change.  I dont see those on my chart.  so I just wonder what is considered significant reactions.  I guess I am looking for a manual of sorts...

tw, I wouldn't waste too much brain power on this unless you are thinking of going to polygraph school.

Ex Member wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:56pm:


tw, in retrospect, I think I was too dismissive of your honest inquiry. I apologize. I will show you what a good spot looks like. The attachment is from my own research. The examinee had much at stake and was properly stimulated.

Please zoom in a bit and take note of the following:

1. The Comparison Questions I formulated are effective. You can see the reactions; note the complex EDA reaction in C3 and the robust cardio reaction in C5.

2. However, comparing these reactions to those of the Relevant Questions, it is clear that this examinee's PS (salience) was oriented to the RQ's; robust complex cardio arousal in R4 & R6 along with relief is very clear. The EDA reactions speak for themselves. I did not calculate RLL in the Pneumo channels, but some suppression is noticeable in the RQ's. 

Lacking ground truth, does this mean the subject is lying? Alas! Therein lies the conundrum.

Hope this helps your insight.

tw wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 3:30pm:


Rather than go through all of this misery, why not introduce your wife to Anti-Polygraph.org ?  Show her that the polygraph is a joke and not worth taking serious.  How more obvious can it be ? You have guys like Dr. Drew Richardson and other PhD's that have testified that it is a fraud.  The people who support the polygraph are all scaming a living with it.  Like Dr. Richardson said in his testimony before Congress, having the polygraph community researching their product is like having the tobacco industry conducting cancer research.

KEx Member wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:15pm:


Either that or the tea leaves and/or the goat entrails were not proper placed so as to allow  an accurate viewing and diagnosis of the results.   

Can we PLEASE stop trying to use science to explain this ridiculous  procedure which is nothing more than me last vestige of witchcraft - polygraph testing.