|
Author
|
Topic: to test a Politician
|
chaz
Member
|
posted 03-12-2008 07:54 PM
  
Does anyone have any suggestion on what to ask/what type of test to administer to our local politician who wants to submit himself to a polygraph test 'on anything' to boost his chances of getting electedIP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-12-2008 08:39 PM
oh, let me seeeeee....bribes, kick backs, black mail, privacy violations, denying anyone their rights, sexual solicitation, illegal drugs, battery, illegal threats of battery,domestic battery, illegal use of law enforcement, money laundering, financial fraud, tax evasion, criminal voter fraud.....to name a few. IP: Logged |
chaz
Member
|
posted 03-12-2008 08:48 PM
Stat this is just the local Smallsville politician we are talking about here..on a clear day Superman helps out with the community cookout and brings home baked cookies.IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 03-12-2008 08:57 PM
If you run a polygraph test without a clear and precise target, than I'm afraid the target will be you my friend.
The recent TV show "Moment of Truth" has just such "would you lie to ..." as Relevant issues. It's impossible for me to be objective of that show because it pains me to see such horse S. Maybe people are interested in such awful aspects of humanity, but even on my most sadistic (what's that fancy German word for taking secret pleasure in people's failings?)days, I can never see families ripped apart over such unnecessary questions. Just watch out for your competition crying foul over tests that are ludicrous and/or whisical and PUBLIC.
Good luck. IP: Logged |
chaz
Member
|
posted 03-12-2008 09:21 PM
Totally agree. Show should be called something else.I have heard of some examiners (out of Nate's stable) instructing examinees to write out a brief statement and then signing it. They then make the RQ: Did you lie on your signed statement (regarding....) today? So what is your opinion on using this signed statement format. Limitations and advantages(if any)? IP: Logged |
thenolieguy4u
Member
|
posted 03-12-2008 10:56 PM
Hi Chaz, I think historically Inspector Howard Bailey of the SFPD (Ret.) was the creator of the statement test, which was intended to take out the emotion for testing a victim. It may well work for politicians who either display manufactured emotion in sound bites, or lack emotion as well. Don't forget to put in that prostitution question / aspect given this weeks happenings in New York. IP: Logged |
chaz
Member
|
posted 03-13-2008 12:18 AM
Hi Nolieforuguy, I met you in class in the last couple of apa seminars. Was it you with the real fancy boots? I need to get a pair downunder next when I come to this years apa meet.
Is there anyway one can/should/can't formulate an RQ about 'intention to keep certain election promises into a statement and then test on : Did you lie on your signed statement today regarding...?
Regarding for example:
Do you intend to increase tax rates?
Do you intend to allow a casino to be developed, if elected.
If elected will you cap urban development?(Yes I know the RQ should be based on something concrete and tangible and not intent so don't shoot me for asking) IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 03-13-2008 12:10 PM
Chaz,Answer four questions for us before proceeding. - What does it mean to say that something is "true?"
- What kinds of things can be true?
- What does it mean to say that something is "false," or "deceptive?"
and - What are the principles for proper question formulation?
(then for fun, you can tell us what is the average air-speed velocity of a swallow.) Emotion based explanations about CQT polygraph reactions are becoming inadequate. If we want to legitimize George Maschke's repeated accusations that polygraph testing is pseudoscience, then all we have to do is fail to keep pace with new developments in related fields, and continue to endorse arcane and senseless explanations for what happens during polygraph testing. There is some evidence that cognition and orienting responses play an important role in CQT polygraph, not just GKT exams. It is simplistic to the point of inaccurate to suggest that different neuropsychological mechanisms someone switch 'on' and 'off' simply because we use a different examination technique. It is possible, if not likely, that polygraph testing and fMRI are recording some of the same phenomena, though the technology is obviously different. It would be absurd to suggest that lying during fMRI testing somehow invokes different physiology than lying during polygraph testing. With all that in mind, things like statement testing, and other half-baked overly-psychologized constructs like intent questions, statement-testing, situationally relevant questions, and lie-tests are going to become more and more concerning. Testing is about "stimulus" and "response." (repeat: stimulus and response). The simple and complicated concerns involve what constitutes a clear and cogent stimulus, and what is the basis of a subjects response potential. To put that differently: what are the variety of reasons for which a subject may or may not possess a response potential to a stimulus? For a test result to offer any interpretable meaning, we must be able to constrain the possible influences that underlie reactions to stimulus, so that it becomes reasonable to assume that nothing other than involvement in a behavior or activity would cause the subject to respond to the stimuli. I will argue that questions of intent or legal culpability (i.e., intentionally, knowingly, willingly, recklessly, etc. whatever), along with lie-questions such as "did you lie to me today..." (a good comparison question though), and written statement testing are all complicated by unconstrained factors that could explain the presence or absence of reaction to stimuli, just as much as involvement in a behavior or event. Good polygraph questions are any version of "Did you do it?" (end of rant) r 
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
chaz
Member
|
posted 03-13-2008 06:11 PM
Can I get some more feed back on Statement Tests in General? When I discussed with Nath G last time in New Orleans he seemed to support it given guidelines are followed eg the statement contains sentences like ,'I did not.....'On another issue: Why do we give GM so much attention? By doing so we atually sustain his existence and give meaning to his site. I believe that ignorining him would be a better strategy. Dust him off like a nobody rather than devote so much time and effort and energy on him.
Treat him with the importance he deserves. Zero.For example Dr Lou R gave him too much importance by mentioning GM in that pre test
Thats just my opinion guys. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 03-13-2008 06:59 PM
Let's not forget what Lou was doing. Research seems to show that if truthful people attempt CMs, they could very well doom themselves. GM teaches people must use CMs - truthful included - to be sure to pass. Lou's fear isn't so much that a liar will pass, but that a truthful person will believe GM and fail. Let's not forget, to the uninformed, GM is persuasive.As for statement tests, there's little research one way or the other. Ray raised some very valid points. As far as these statements tests go, we could all try a few, for research purposes after running a standard CQT. (At some point you'd want to run them before a CQT too.) It would be good to have some real data to look at and make some decisions. With OSS-3 we could then look at them all (statements and "Did you do it's) sans human bias. IP: Logged |
thenolieguy4u
Member
|
posted 03-13-2008 10:00 PM
Hi Chaz, To my mind and training the work intent, intentionally, or any derivative can ONLY be used in the sacrafice relevant issue question. We open ourselves to easy criticism when and if we ever try to test Intent, State of Mind, emotion, or an opinion, or anything future oriented. I think intent is wide open to monday morning quarterbacking by the subject in processing that question. IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
