posted 11-10-2008 09:10 AM            

Get ready, because PCSOT dogma will soon be coming to a neighborhood near YOU.

As I understand it, this test:

quote:

---

R4: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/XXXX), did you engage in sexual contact with anyone besides your wife?

R6: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/XXXX), have you been completely alone or unsupervised with a minor?

R8: Since your last polygraph (XX/XX/XXXX), did you masturbate while looking at any sexually stimulating images?

---

would be regarded as "in-valid" under our proposed standards.

In-valid because "masturbation" is a "treatment" issue, and not a "probation" issue.

Slide 267 of 267 from the UPA PCSOT training states:

quote:

---

Treatment infractions that are not violations of probation/parole are considered to have a separate Frame of Reference and are examined as a separate ME.

Examples:

• masturbation activities and reporting
  
• fantasy issues and reporting
  

---

Its seems the ONLY examples of distinct separation between probation and treatment are masturbation and fantasy problems. And, in at least one juristiction that separation is non-existent.

In the juristidictions in which I work, offenders are required to include all masturbation activities in their routine reports to their probation officers and their treatment providers.

It would seem reasonable, that if the PCSOT committee is going to conduct a survey and use the data to base a recommendation, that data should be made available for other smart and knowlegable people to review.

--------------

Let's try another:

C3: Have you attempted to twist the facts or tell any lies regarding any deviant activities?
R4: Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you engage in sexual contact with anyone besides your wife?
C5:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?
R6:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you view or use any X-rated or pornographic images?
C7:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?
R8:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), have you been completely alone with anyone under age 18?

Lets assume this offender is married, denies cheating, denies any contact with pornography, and has an infant child in the home (the team is considering a decision to allow unsupervised contact).

If it were completely up to me, I might prefer to ask about masturbation to thoughts or fantasies about minors under these circumstances. But that was not the plan.

Valid or in-valid?

Probation or treatment?

.012

r

posted 11-10-2008 09:29 AM            

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 11-10-2008 01:00 PM            

------------------
Ben

posted 11-10-2008 06:57 PM         

Will this be an invalid examination?

…have you masturbated to thoughts/fantasies/etc. of minors? NON-VIOLATION
…have you been alone with anyone under the age of 18? VIOLATION
…have you had sexual contact with anyone other than your wife? VIOLATION

Since masturbation is likely not officially addressed in the terms of probation, it is our assumption that masturbation to thoughts of minors is less consequential (i.e. non-violation of probation). Additionally, it is not a violation. However, perceived consequences differ between individuals and situations. The potential consequences associated with masturbation to thoughts of minors may not result in revocation of the individual. However, I would presume the individual knew the supervision team would be using the examination, in part, to determine whether or not they would be allowed to have unsupervised contact with the child.

Since I’ve never worked in Colorado and have limited information about how the supervision teams function or make these determinations, I will assume that masturbation to fantasies involving minors might be to some degree, an important determining factor for the team. I will also assume that masturbation to thoughts of minors in this case would likely result in similar consequences (i.e. no unsupervised contact if it’s happening). However, Ray would have to make these clarifications.

Would masturbation to thoughts of minors be an important aspect to the supervision team if they were considering permitting the individual to have unsupervised contact with a child? Would it result in similar consequences (i.e. no unsupervised contact)?

The point I am attempting to make is that the relevant questions may have similar consequences yet they may not all be “violations”. So the big question becomes…do physiological responses to violations look different than physiological responses to non-violations when they have similar consequences?

Marty

posted 11-10-2008 07:21 PM            

Comparison question are broader in nature, cause the examinee to doubt his or her non-involvement, and describe concerns for which most people might probably be lying (if you factor in values-based judgments). CQs do not describe a specific behavior, and are therefore not relevant. Failing or reacting to a CQ does not tell us much of anything about where to look for the problem.

In this (hypothetical) Maintenance/compliance Exam:

quote:

---

C3: Have you attempted to twist the facts or tell any lies regarding any deviant activities?

R4: Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you engage in sexual contact with anyone besides your wife?

C5:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?

R6:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you view or use any X-rated or pornographic images?

C7:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?

R8:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), have you been completely alone with anyone under age 18?

---

the relevant targets describe specific behaviors that would signal a stable level of risk (denied and passed), or might indicate an escalating level of risk (FAILED OR ADMITTED). Relevant targets are of sufficiently low level to assume moderate base-rates (external probability), but are also not themselves deviant, unlawful, or abusive. They are simply against the rules.

This test, therefore, is compliant with the recommended standards which require that CQs be separation by "time of reference" or frame of reference. I posed these questions witout time-bars. They are separated by "frame of reference," in which the CQs refer broadly (non-specifically) to Monitoring (reoffense: abusive, unlawful, deviant). Note that deviant (value judgments aside) refers to things that are so far outside normal limits that they would still be regarded as wrong even if behind closed doors. Most things, we don't really care all that much about,among persons who are otherwise normal functioning, as long as they are behind closed doors. For a rule-of-thumb on deviancy: things that are deviant, are wrong regardless of the when and where. Of course, sometimes the context itself defines the deviancy, as when someone enjoys masturbating in view of others in public. but again, it is not the masturbation which is deviant, but the urge to do so in a public context.

Also note that requirments for time-bars are are not consistent with the scientific studies.

.012

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 11-10-2008 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

When determining the suitability of a relevant question for an examination, there appears to be a reliance on our perception of consequences (violation v. non-violation).

Since masturbation is likely not officially addressed in the terms of probation, it is our assumption that masturbation to thoughts of minors is less consequential (i.e. non-violation of probation). Additionally, it is not a violation.

---

I wouldn't assume that. Probation officers routinely use a written report form that requires the offender disclose masturbation issue and masturbatory deviancy (minors, victims, violence, etc). It could therefore be argued that masturbation activity IS a probation issue.

quote:

---

However, perceived consequences differ between individuals and situations. The potential consequences associated with masturbation to thoughts of minors may not result in revocation of the individual. However, I would presume the individual knew the supervision team would be using the examination, in part, to determine whether or not they would be allowed to have unsupervised contact with the child.

Since I’ve never worked in Colorado and have limited information about how the supervision teams function or make these determinations, I will assume that masturbation to fantasies involving minors might be to some degree, an important determining factor for the team. I will also assume that masturbation to thoughts of minors in this case would likely result in similar consequences (i.e. no unsupervised contact if it’s happening). However, Ray would have to make these clarifications.

---

I think most teams would be taking action to remove an offender from living at home, and having even supervised contact with a child, if he were struggling to manage, and underreporting his masturbatory deviancy. To allow continued contact, is to paint a bullsey on the child.

Offenders sometimes attempt to submerge the issue be refraining from all masturbation. Some treatment programs encourage this as a general approach, and some teams make these recommendations on an individual basis. The problem with masturbatory abstinence is that is does submerge the issue of masturbatory/fantasy deviancy out of view from the treatment and supervision team.
It is helpful to clarify with the offender, his reasons for abstaining from masturbation (i.e., individualized instruction or solution to a stuborn problem, general program approach, personal choice). Even a personal choice is telling. It might be a safeguard approach, or it may be the offender knowns he cannot contain his thoughts of children.

quote:

---

Would masturbation to thoughts of minors be an important aspect to the supervision team if they were considering permitting the individual to have unsupervised contact with a child? Would it result in similar consequences (i.e. no unsupervised contact)?

---

In fact, it represents a more complex problem and more complex consequences. The offender will not be permitted to live at home. Family, according to our supreme court, is a right. So, we're now messing with someone's constitutional rights, based on the results of a polygraph. We'll win this one, because the offender will have already demonstrated an absence of masturbatory/fantasy deviance before being allowed to live at home with supervised contact. Then, after living at home and having contact with the child, his deviancy re-emerges - ergo, there is some likelihood that deviancy is trigger by the child.

So, I don't disagree that masturbation questions are special animals which require special care and feeding. I do disagree that the vector of separation is created by which list of rules it is written on (probation or treatment).

quote:

---

The point I am attempting to make is that the relevant questions may have similar consequences yet they may not all be “violations”. So the big question becomes…do physiological responses to violations look different than physiological responses to non-violations when they have similar consequences?

---

The only responsible answer is "we don't know," and it is incorrect to fill the gap with our psychologizing (untested hypothesis).

.012

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 11-10-2008 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

C5:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?

R6:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you view or use any X-rated or pornographic images?

---

Suppose the examinee has viewed a single photgraph that he believed to be child pornography and decided to not disclose the information to anyone.If the examinee answers no to both questions, he is lying to both and the consequences of getting caught could include a trip back to jail. What train of thought would allow the examiner in this case to presume that the relevant question would have more significance to the examinee than the comparison question?

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 11-10-2008 08:04 PM            

quote:

---

The point I am attempting to make is that the relevant questions may have similar consequences yet they may not all be “violations”. So the big question becomes…do physiological responses to violations look different than physiological responses to non-violations when they have similar consequences?

---

quote:

---

The only responsible answer is "we don't know," and it is incorrect to fill the gap with our psychologizing (untested hypothesis).

---

If I may respectfully disagree, The only responsible to the question is "No, we can't tell the difference" at least until someone proffers a hypothesis that attempts to describe the difference.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 11-10-2008 09:11 PM            

quote:

---

C5:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?
R6:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you view or use any X-rated or pornographic images?

---

quote:

---

Suppose the examinee has viewed a single photgraph that he believed to be child pornography and decided to not disclose the information to anyone.If the examinee answers no to both questions, he is lying to both and the consequences of getting caught could include a trip back to jail.

What train of thought would allow the examiner in this case to presume that the relevant question would have more significance to the examinee than the comparison question?

---

Simple. The relevant question describes a specific behavior. The CQ does not - its a broad category of behaviors, regarding which most people will probably be lying, or for which people might begin to doubt their own complete truthfulness.

Are we to be afraid that a non-psychotic/normal functioning deceptive examinee can engage in "incidental" child pornography (as if there is such a thing), and still be more concerned about a CQ on the broad category of 'keeping secrets from the TxP on PO re any unlawful behaviors,' than he would be to an RQ that describes the specific act of viewing pornography and implies direct involvement (did you) in that activity.

Or, are we to be afraid that a non-psychotic and normal-functioning deceptive examinee will somehow avoid his own knowlege and experience regarding that-there incidental child-pornography use?

Or, are we to fear that a non-psychotic and normal-functioning deceptive examinee can somehow avoid his own knowlege and experience that his pornography viewing wasn't just pornography, but child pornography.

If so, then we have bigger things to worry about. If so, then the polygraph simply cannot work because the basic construct of saliency or "psychological test" wouldn't work. Think about it. Which is more salient: 1) a specific behavior which one has knowlege and experience of direct involvment,or 2) a broad category of behavior that doesn't describe any specific act.

These sex offenders seem to have almost magical powers of compartmentalized thinking. The thing is, if someone could compartmentalize their own awareness that effectively, then they would probably be psychotic. Think about how much of your own mental health you'd have to 86 in order to "forget" the bad thihg you did. You you really think someone could achieve that level of dissociation and somehow retain sufficient control over the dissociative activity that they wouldn't also begin to loose touch with reality.

No. It's not magic, and sex offenders are have no mystified powers of dissociation.

Even psychopathic sex offenders, who can be very good liars, know when they are lying. They know why they lie, and why it is useful to them (what they acieve) by lying. They are not psychotic. They are simply good actors. They don't experience fear in normal ways, but they known when they lie, and the studies seem to be fairly consistent that they will react to polygraph questions when they lie (though probably not due to fear).

So, this brings us back to...

The concept of psychological set (salience), and a bunch of empirical studies on CQT polygraphs, tells us that deceptive examinees will react more to the questions that describe the issue under investigation, while truthful examinees will tend to react more to the broad CQ which does not describe a specific act but encompasses a category of behavior regarding which most people will either be lying or will doubt their own honesty.

It is a magical atribution to suggest that someone can view child pornography, hear RQs specific to pornography use, forget that his he both viewed pornography and viewed child pornography, and still remain more concerned about the broad, vague, and non-specific CQ about keeping any secrets re any unlawful behaviors.

Magical-thinking, mind-reading, and excessive psychologizing.

(Why do I get the feeling you knew I'd respond like this?)

.012

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 11-10-2008 10:29 PM            

Where I see another glitch is that this is not a single issue criminal specific examination concerning pornography. You have no allegation. What you are running is a mixed issue screening examination and the only "issue under investigation" is verifying or refuting information provided by the examinee regarding compliance.

If the examinee shows significant reaction you will interrogate to see if he will confess non-compliant behaviors, but I don't think, and evidently APA agrees that it is not the examiner's job to probe the depths of; or motivations underlying the examinees deviant behavior or psychology.

Acknowledging your background in counseling and psychology, I can understand your interest in taking polygraph deeper into the diagnostic arena. I think you are on to something there, but that is not PCSOT as it is defined today.

To quote one of my good friends from Texas. "I ain't a head shrinker.My job is to find out whether this feller is a Lyin SOB or a Truth Tellin SOB."

Given the clear definition of examiner responsibility as set out in the APA Policy. I see no reason to make the process any more complicated than required to fufill the stated mission.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 11-11-2008 01:20 AM            

quote:

---

If the examinee shows significant reaction you will interrogate to see if he will confess non-compliant behaviors, but I don't think, and evidently APA agrees that it is not the examiner's job to probe the depths of; or motivations underlying the examinees deviant behavior or psychology.

Acknowledging your background in counseling and psychology, I can understand your interest in taking polygraph deeper into the diagnostic arena. I think you are on to something there, but that is not PCSOT as it is defined today.

---

I didn't make this stuff up. It was going on in Colorado before I came to polygraph.

Be careful with terms like "deeper into the diagnostic arena." The term "diagnostic" may have differential meaning in polygraph (single-issue event-specific test) and psycholoyg.

I have never suggested that polygraph or polygraph examiners can begin to make any kind of diagnosis. Our job is to obtain, verify, and refute information provided by the examinee. We do that on behalf of risk evaluators and treating clinicians who may use our information in their diagnostic considerations. That is all.

In fact, I work diligently to refrain from head-shrinking in the polygraph context. That doesn't mean I, or any of us, neglect to use our skills to get information.

In fact, I have ranted and ranted at what I beleive to be excessive psychologizing among polygraph examiners. Mind-reading, and crazy-making are effectively managed by challenging ourselves to define our concerns with clear "operationa definition." Operational-definitions attempt to answer the questions "what would it look like if someone did that," whatever behavior "that" represents. Notice, if you read my rantings, that I have continually emphasized the need for polygraph questions to "describe a behavior," and refrain from excessive psychologizing.

I do like the PCSOT committee's correction of the horrendous language presented at APA, pertaining to testing for "culpable mental status." I was the person in the back of the room who spoke up to challenge the problems with this type of motivational focus - with all the possible problems resulting from endorsing test questions regarding mens rhea and other culpability/motivational/legal aspects. The solution is perfect. An example can be seen on slide 232 of 267 from the UPA PCSOT training materials:

quote:

---

following an admission of the acts or behaviors under investigation, testing for memory of purpose (i.e., sexual motivation for a behavior) may be conducted to further treatment purposes

---

It's unlikely to get much better than that.

My questions (above) are not about motivation. My explanations regarding there relevance might be, but that does not change the fact the my questions (RQs) are about behavior.

In fact, I rarely, if ever, ask an offender why they did something. I might on occasion ask if they recall the reason they did something, and then I write down their answer verbatim, and include it in the report - it will be the therapist's job to determine the clinical relevance of their statement - not mine.

quote:

---

posted 11-10-2008 10:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that you can assume that the guilty examinee can differentiate the frame of reference on a concious or sub-concious level in these two questions. I say this for no other reason than the viewing of child pornography and then lying about it could have exactly the same consequences if found deceptive to either question.
Where I see another glitch is that this is not a single issue criminal specific examination concerning pornography. You have no allegation. What you are running is a mixed issue screening examination and the only "issue under investigation" is verifying or refuting information provided by the examinee regarding compliance.
[/quote

Agreed. If it were me (and it's not), I would define the purpose of PCSOT more carefully. I would define the objectives and rationale for PCSOT as: 1) disclosure of additional information - there is no doubt we can get mroe information, 2) deterence of problem behavior - by increasing the likelihood they will get caught and consquenced, and 3) detection of areas for further discussin/exploration/investigation, and 4) decision-support. All of this, of course, occurs in the context of verifying or refuting information provided by the examinee. The difference is that with my suggestion, it becomes "ethical" - in a declarative sense - to polygraph people simply for the opportunity to obtain addition disclosure, or simply for the deterrent value, or simply for the detection or decision support value. If were up to me (and it's still not), I would have a model policy state that PCSOT is intended to serve the information need, and provide observational support, to risk-assessment, risk-management, and treatment planning tasks. That way, it is again "ethical" (not necessarily valid) to attempt to use PCSOT towards any of those objectives. It is also then clearer where to look for information to guide PCSOT target selection and pretest interview content - actuarial studies pertaining to risk assessment, risk management, and treatment outcomes.

[quote]I don't think that you can assume that the guilty examinee can differentiate the frame of reference on a concious or sub-concious level in these two questions. I say this for no other reason than the viewing of child pornography and then lying about it could have exactly the same consequences if found deceptive to either question.

---

I disagree.

I think we have to assume that examinees can differentiate frames-of-reference between RQs that describe specific behaviors of concern, and CQs that describe broader challenges to personal integrity and overal honesty. I also think that polygraph validity research (which shows that polygraph does work) is indirect evidence of construct validity. Furthermore, I think that polygraph research regarding non-time-barred CQs is additional evidence that examinees can differentiate these frames-of-reference even when there is no clear separateion of the times-of-reference.

In practical terms this means that lying or failing a pornography or child pornography question will lead to an interrogation regarding pornography or child pornography. It will also lead to lifestyle restrictions, consequences, and hopefully a home-search by the PO.

Reacting to a broad, non-specific CQ about keeping secrets re any unlawful acts will not lead to any specific response - unless we count the requirement expressed at APA and the UPA conferences on slide 234 of 267:

quote:

---

During post-test PCSOT phases of truthful exams, examiners shall inform and discuss with offenders responses to CQs, noting that discernable reactions were displayed and advising that these issues may be targets of additional testing at a future date.

---

We were assured at APA that the "shall" word would be fix, but there is evidently no change on this.

This requirement is actually very concerning, and very short-sighted. We are to tell every examinee they failed. The examinee will return to his probation officer and treatment provider who will inquire about how the polygraph went. They examinee will say, "I failed," or "he said I lied to some of the questions." The PO and treatment provider will want a report on what questions he failed and lied to. The PO and treatment provider will then get a report, sometimes, that he passed. Confusing. A few experiences of this type, and offenders will get the joke. Even when you are told you lied, you might not have failed. Lesson: don't admit anything when your told you lied - you might still pass.

The point is that a broad CQ, does not point to any specific behavior to investigate during the posttest or a home-visit.

Failing a question about child pornography will generally produce a stop-the-world type of response, until we figure out what has occured. It's not so different with regular pornography (if there is such a thing), its just that regular pornography will be a technical violation. In fact, failing questions about regular pornography are more likely to produce serious (incarceration) consequences if it occurs repeatedly and results in unsuccessful termination from treatment. On the other hand, failing questions about child pornography (without admission or evidence) will not produce incarceration - offenders know this - because only a neophyte PO would be unaware they will lose the argument with the defense counsel wit only a polygraph result and no admission or evidence.

.012

r

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 11-11-2008 04:21 AM            

If treatment kicks the offender out, then that's a violation, so it could be argued that in a way they are somewhat connected. Violating treatment rules has probation consequences and versa visa.

If we are truly going to seperate probation polys for treatment polys, we are going to get alot of static that it's just for the money, though we as polygraph examiners know different, that will be a big hurdle for us.

I do the two part SHE whenvere I can and have gotten the line "you're just looking to do more tests for more money" I tell them to have another examiner do Part 2.

PO's frequently say that their offender's are paying to much for treatment and polys ($150) main in Washington, so this will really set them off.

I think that perhaps two polys a year for probation and two polys per year for treatment. One every three months. To me it works out the same. What do you think of working like;

Since your last Treatment poly............? or, Since your last probation poly..........?

posted 11-11-2008 09:01 AM            

C5:Have you tried to keep any secrets from your supervision team regarding any unlawful behaviors?

R6:Since your last polygraph (xx/xx/xxxx), did you view or use any X-rated or pornographic images?

posted 11-11-2008 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

If we are truly going to seperate probation polys for treatment polys, we are going to get alot of static that it's just for the money, though we as polygraph examiners know different, that will be a big hurdle for us.

I do the two part SHE whenvere I can and have gotten the line "you're just looking to do more tests for more money" I tell them to have another examiner do Part 2.

PO's frequently say that their offender's are paying to much for treatment and polys ($150) main in Washington, so this will really set them off.

I think that perhaps two polys a year for probation and two polys per year for treatment. One every three months. To me it works out the same. What do you think of working like;

Since your last Treatment poly............? or, Since your last probation poly..........?

Pete

---

I hope you're joking.

Actually, I like the two part sex history. I think there is good rationale for that.

I also like the solutions for the instand offense, though the surgical (magic-bullet) solution to the Prior Offense Specific Exam (POSE) is going to be a problem.

The real problem is that the logic of human language is often fuzzy and imperfect. Human language has emerged in a developmental and cultural context in which we tend sometimes to express ourselves impressionistically and metaphorically. This is really only a problem in science, and it's why have need to develop specialized and more precise coding systems for things like mathematics, verbal logic, symbolic logic, Venn diagrams, and computer programming languages. Human language just ain't suited for those precise jobs. On the other hand, impressionistic and metaphorical language does make for efficient introduction of new and foreign concepts, and makes for good poetry and literature.

The mistake we polygraph professionals will tend to make is in hoping that human language, polygraph questions, and their subsequent physiological responses will somehow achieve the precision of a Venn diagram.

Example:

R4: Prior to your date of conviction (the last one, not the first three), and not including the victims of the instant offense, or the other two allegations from before your last conviction, and besides the six people you disclosed to me, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else who was related to you?

(inhale)

So, we're suggesting that our garden variety idiot on probation will effectively differentiate his last treatment polygraph from his last probation polygraph. These guys work hard to forget the date of their last arrest, the victim's name, their judge's name, and even what are their supervision rules.

There is no real vector of separation between treatment and supervision rules.

The PCSOT committee members have expressed, at APA, that the content of those contracts will overlap. The only examples, in the UPA PCSOT materials, of treatment issues that is not also probation issues are: 1) masturbation, and 2) fantasies.

Fantasies is a whole 'nuther problem, and the committee seems to have neglected it's own recommendation - "if you wouldn't do it in preconviction testing, then you shouldn't do it in post-conviction testing." We wouldn't test fantasies in preconviction testing. Fantasies, not connected with behavior, really is excessive psychologizing. The signal value of fantasy information is also quite unclear to risk evaluators and clinicians. (Yeah, sure, all us cognitive-behavioral, and even psychodynamic theorists regard thought as action in rehearsall.) But behavioral signals provide much clearer and more useful interpretable value for risk assessment and risk management.

I have already shown, that in some juristictions, masturbation issues can be probation issues. I have also shown that if masturbation questions require special care-and-feeding (and they do), it is not because they belong to treatment or probation. It is because masturbation behavior is complex. Like sexuality in general, masturbation behavior touches peoples core sense of self (from the childhood day that people learn whether we are little boys or little girls, and the (normally) adolescent day they decide whether like the shapes of innies or outies). Underreporting masturbation is very normal, even for people in treatment. Masturbation is also considered high-base rate behavior. Add to that the fact that masturbation is surrounded by so many cultural values and attitudes. So, it is an area of PCSOT where we will encounter problems. But if you want to ensure that a sex offender is being rigorously honest with a therapist, or that a therapist is taking the time to look at the nitty-gritty details of an offender's sexual profile and behavior, then we can't neglect to talk about masturbation. We also have to be careful not to do the therapist's job. But that doesn't mean we place the topic off limits.

If we don't ask, then they won't tell us. Therapists sometimes tire of asking, and benefit from the daylight that polygraph provides, regarding whether the offender is really discussing his personal and private activities - like pornography, masturbation, and how is his marriage really doing.

Again, if we don't ask then they won't tell us. If we stop polygraphing these things, offenders will stop disclosing them - they won't need to.

quote:

---

What if the offender has a gram of meth in his vehicle. Regardless of if he looked at porn don't you think he might respond more to the CQ?

---

OK that makes me think of a potentially useful countermeasure strategy.

If someone does something bad, and then has to take a polygraph, can he amplify his reactions to the CQs by first telling a bunch of lies to his family, all the people that love or trust him, and any authority figure he can find?

Interesting idea. And a testable one. we could do an experiment with polygraph examiners as examinees (savvy subjects). Concoct a mock crime, and program some examinees to have told a bunch of lies to their families, employers, and other authority figures. Of course, a human subjects committee might need to review this for potential harmful impact to the examinee. We could even use directed lies, and evaluate between-group differences in RQ/CQ response magnitude for truthful and deceptive persons who did or did not first tell a bunch of lies to amp their CQ reactions. The null-hypothesis (because science invites disproof), would be that there is no difference. An observed difference, at statistically significant levels, would be interesting.

.012

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 11-15-2008 03:51 AM            

R)Since your last test, have you masturbated to prolonged thoughts of fantasies of anyone under age 18?(or 16) depending on the state.

I agree that questions about masturbation need to be addressed and not ignored. If these guys are frequently fantasizing about minors and rewarding it with masturbation, then they become a ticking time bomb in my opinion.

Regarding the CQ with meth:

I think that it is one of PCSOT's weaknesses. The unrelated to sexual behavior criminal activity helps the offender on the CQ's, for example;

I recently tested several subjects who are not only sex offenders, but also career criminal offenders involved in robbery, burglary, pimpin ho's, etc.

In one case, I got huge responses to CQ's about violating parole and unlawful acts. The Relevants were frequenting hookers, pimpin ho's, and unapproved sexual contact.

I was suspicious of CMs, due to the to good to be true responses anyways;

as it turned out, this guy who admitted in post test to having sex with female friends in exchange for, believe it or not, McDonald's Cheeseburgers...........Riiight! was arrested for 10-15 counts of fraud. So, the criminal activity really helped him pass the PCSOT questions.

The other cases were similar. I verbally tell the PO's that I think their offender is up to something non-PCSOT related, but unless I get admissions to the CQ's and cannot conclusively say countermeasures, I really don't know what that criminal behavior is.

Sorry, it's late and I am rambling on,

posted 11-15-2008 11:16 AM            

"Macdonalds Cheeseburgers, so good you just might want to have bathroom sex with a dumpy, crosseyed cashier for one----just ask "I'll have a number 69."

posted 11-15-2008 06:39 PM            

someone help me I'm typing and I can't shut up.....

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 11-15-2008 10:06 PM            

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)