Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
Topic: The Blind Stim Test---Try one or your money back
stat Member
posted 02-07-2008 10:46 AM
The Blind Stim Test
Certainly there are many among you that approach the idea of a blind stim with great apprehension, if not complete distrust. You have no doubt seen the stim fall flat on its face when you know the key, and to NOT know the key seems, well, frightening. The very last thing an examiner needs to do at the beginning of the intest is to show the examinee that we can't determine truth from lies. It comes as little surprise that our detractors find particular annoyance at our use of the stim test, as they so readily accuse us of perpetrating “the big lie.” Those naysayers have a point when you look at the history of trickery such as marked decks of cards and the like. So what separates a standard “known key” stim versus a “blind key” stim. Well, there certainly is little stress or arousal to known key tests, as they are very much operational, even from the perspective of the examinee. The real dividend is at the end when you show the examinee their arousal and proclaim how well-suited they are for the polygraph test. I used to isolate their key and “jack up” the sensitivity of their tracing just before showing them, so that the graphs look positively Rector-scalish. Conversely, a blind stim goes like this;
me; OK Woody, I want you to pick either 5,6, 7, or 8. Write it on this paper real big while I look away. [emergency backup—with a ball point pen, making giant numbers makes a distinct noise—i.e. The sound of writing an 8 is unmistakable]
him; OK, I did it.
Me; now, I will determine which number you picked----as I will need a sample of your tracings---your lies and your truth telling. I am going to ask you regarding the number you picked is it 4....and of course I didn't even give you the choice of four so you will answer “no.” I want you to answer “no” to all of the numbers I ask you about, you know 5,6,7,8, and even 9.
him. “so you want me to lie?”
me; I want you to answer “no” to all of the numbers, and do your best to fool me as to which number you picked. Do you think you can get one over on us today?”
him; I'll try.
Me; Remember, I won't be printing or scoring this chart---no magnifying glasses
OK, here is how you determine the key. Ignore everything but the galvo. Tell him that at a glance his key is #6 and to show you what he wrote down---many times you can read through the paper what the number is----but it never ceases to astound the examinee. I have had many full blown confessions after the blind stim, as well as many additional small-fry disclosures. Show the examinee their response----jacked up if you'd like. If it is a close call, use your computer to rate amplitude on the stim. If it is still too close to call (rare), tell him that the test looked good ----show him contentedness without additional stim test discussion and that you are moving immediately to the regular questions---and review the questions again . 9 times out of 10, you will see the anticipatory galvo response, plus the big daddy----as you are after all, calling out numbers in chronological order---they know when their number is coming, and their arousal is generally a fear of detection---as they don't want to be “fit” for polygraph, or is a surrender to polygraph thsough self suggestion----a kind of “aw shucks, I'm no good at lying” type of response. Either way, the blind stim is much more arousing than a known key stim. The big benefit is psych set. In a dirty post test, you can always say--”-look, you can't even lie in a silly numbers game, how do you expect to fare in a game of grave seriousness?!”
Emergency; If you cannot determine the key, wait for the next bathroom break and peak at their paper (if you must.). Tell them their number during an interrogation alond with the above statement. Works well.
Keep the paper turned upside down---right in front (next to) them. It will remind them of a failed lie. Most examinee's can feel their own changes when they lie on a blind stim test---that gut feeling. You will see a much more significant reaction on a blind stim. Remember----ignore the cardio----it will lie to you. Just look at the cardio on my last "trick charts" posted stim test. Make sure you have 2 numbers of padding before the possible keys for "settling down" time.
Prepare for a slightly more stressful test for you--afterall, you are doing something new-----but a payoff of more 11th hour pretest admissions------and a better preview of what the actual charts will (should) look like.
No, I do not worry about habituation even though the blind stim does have a more stressful component for the examinee.
I double dog dare you to do two (to be fair to the process). Once you go blind, you'll never go back.
posted 02-07-2008 01:33 PM
Now them is some challenging words - double dog dare.
But I'm feeling kind of weasily about this. What if I put it in an envelope and set it on the table in front of the examinee.
In actual practice, this blind stim may not be any less risky than the actual exam.
But what would be the difference between a known-stim and this blind-stim if a cautious examiner wanted to simply gain familiarity with the blind stim by sealing the answer and not attempting to demonstrate a result? In the case of the known-stim we all know the answer, and we simply run the stim and proceede to the pretest. With the sealed result, we run the blind-stim and proceed to the pretest.
I'm all for fun, but chasing buffalo right off the cliff is not a fun day of hunting.
r
"pointy end goes in the other guy."
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 02-07-2008).]
posted 02-07-2008 01:50 PM
Good point, but perhaps my own perspective explains/answers your question. Everything I do and everything I say is a memetic part of an interrogation, with the exception of psych set statements. I did hundreds of sucessful blind stim tests, not out of boredom, but for the reasons for the stim test to begin with.
1. Demonstrate the instrument. 2. Take a gander at individual subject specificities. 3. Get psych set (or at least attempt such) 4. Get my feet wet so that I don't start an actual test with upside down components.
I do the blind stim because deductive reasoning suggests that it does a beter job of accomplishing those objectives than a mere mock up stim.
Go ahead and seal your results. Just be sure to not ignore the programming aspect of it----which isn't very conducive to permanently withholding the results (your ability to decipher their number.)
On second thought, do some sealed tests. If you feel the blind stim is a cliff jump, than such anxiety might reveal itself to your examinee. However, when you do decide to take the plunge, your success will also bolster your own interrogative confidence----the commodity that makes a test a "big hit."
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-07-2008).]
posted 02-07-2008 04:39 PM
Busta Move, I never saw nor heard how to run "the" blind stim. I was told by another examiner with a great track record to try it----I relucted, but gave in out of curiosity. He really didn't tutor me per se, so I kind of found my own approach. I saw a difference immediately on many simple levels.
I ultimately ran the blind stim as a result of feeling annoyed by the triviality of the known key stim test. Smart examinees and even dumb ones are not so impressed by the "tell me your number and we'll pretend you are lying to me" folly. The blind stim will actually illicit genuine amazement from some examinees----and better yet, regarding liars, sometimes a sense of futility.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-07-2008).]
posted 02-07-2008 05:27 PM
We had somebody teach it, but by the time he was done, three charts were run: First time, straight through; second time, backwards; third time, the critical number last - or something like that.
posted 02-07-2008 09:09 PM
Run the fax machine through the dish washer----it's more painful and slow. I vote for drowning in sub-boiling water in the dark as torture.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-07-2008).]
the original reason and purpose for the stim test was to sell it to the examinee, nothing else. "Back in the day" (early-mid 90's) we were taught to go into a big production about it in order to convince the examinee the worth and accuracy.
Nowadays, if you run a stim and try to sell it in any way, shape or form, you fall straight into the propaganda and validate GM's instruction thereby verifying what the anti people are expecting. I for one will do nothing to make george look credible.
Anytime I do a stim now, I present it simply as a test to show them how it works and familairize them to the process. Nothing more, ever!
Of course, if you want to run them, I'm not one to criticize...
I recall from polygraph school that Tom Ezell and his instructor related someboy's experience with an attorney who had some fun or caused some trouble with the idea of "stimulating" an examinee just before beginning the test.
It was suggested to call it a "sensivity" test instead.
After the 10th, 20th, 30th or more polygraph, I'm sure the subject is familiar with the same old schtick "you're obviously not a very good liar. we're going to have no trouble telling whether your lying or telling the truth today..."
I've taken to just doing a CVOS and calling it a "practice test"
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
posted 02-08-2008 08:27 AM
Jim Wrote--------------------------------- stat, the original reason and purpose for the stim test was to sell it to the examinee, nothing else. "Back in the day" (early-mid 90's) we were taught to go into a big production about it in order to convince the examinee the worth and accuracy.
Nowadays, if you run a stim and try to sell it in any way, shape or form, you fall straight into the propaganda and validate GM's instruction thereby verifying what the anti people are expecting. I for one will do nothing to make george look credible. ------------------------------------------
Jim, I see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid we are too late to not fall into Geoerge's categorical denunciations. We (as a profession) are still determining hireability based on passing the Yugo of polygraph tests, the multi-issue, far-reaching time-span, applicant srceening test. We use not one, but two absolutely worthless components called "pneumos" that record so much data noise and artifact, they scarcely should even be scored. We lie and manipulate our examinee's in order to program concern over questions that are not core to the issues. Many of us lie about our accuracy(96-98%) when speaking of multiple issue tests to both examinee's and hiring/contracting agents (what do you tell your people as to the accuracy, as I am sure you are asked frequently "how accurate are these things?") So, you are right----we don't want to play into the "propaganda" of George----but that my friend is a bell that tolled hours ago.
I mostly agree. george's advice and insght is well written, fairly accurate (regarding most things) and already out there. BUT, why play into his follower's hands and reinforce his knowledge by inadvertently using the "TLBTLD" as a polygraph playbook...? In other words, the bell may have already tollled, but there is no reason to join the orchestra...
BTW, I disagree, the polygraph is actually 95% accurate (not the 96-98% you report) in all things except devining the future, to which I believe it is actually closer to 94% accurate...:-)
posted 02-08-2008 10:32 AM
I can post more blind stim charts, or we can wait for someone to try one and post remarks, or I can simply post another zombie picture on Ray's John Couch thread. I'm game for anything.
posted 02-08-2008 10:35 AM
Thanks all. It was Gordon's version I must have heard at polygraph school, but I thought three charts were run - not one somewhat longer single chart as he explained in the article.
The latest wisdom seems to be that running a stim / practice test is all that is necessary, so how much does a blind numbers test really gain? Do we know? I can't recall who drew this conclusion, but I think it was based on data out of Utah. I'd have to look.
posted 02-08-2008 07:18 PM
Good clip. Ya know, I think we get rid of the CLIP OF THE DAY and make it a generic repository of interesting and /or funny clips---like the Ross and Steve Irwin clip.
You don't need photobucket to post clips. On You Tube for example, on the right of every clip screen, there are 2 choices of links---URL and Embed. Right click the Embed link and copy it---come to poly place, start your thread, and click Paste on your thread--it pastes a bunch of scribbly code-----then submit your post like normal------and boom, it shows the screen clip after you've Submitted your thread.
To summarize; 1. copy the Embed link to the right of YouTube video screen.
2. Paste the Embed code onto your poly place thread.
3. Submit the thread.
4. After you submit, view your post as it appears to all, and the video screen will be in your thread.
Donna, try another for testing.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-08-2008).]
posted 02-08-2008 09:15 PM
See, easy peasy. Posting pics, avatars, and charts is not much more work. You get a free membership at www.photobucket.com ---where you upload your images---and just like Youtube, right next to your collection of pics is the EMBED (HTML) version of your stuff. Cut and paste to poly place the code EXACTLY like what you just did.
I have about 200 avatar pics already in the EMBED code and handy on my tool bar-----just to express more than bad spelling.Like this picture of Ted holding in his belly (lol);
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-08-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-08-2008).]
posted 12-01-2012 02:22 AM
_________________Necropost!!!!!_______________
Hmmmmmm......now isn't this interesting.....Stat instructed that one can listen to the noise the pen makes to identify the number .... or he suggests just looking at the number secretly during a restroom break..........unethical trickery that should be disclosed as such in Dan's Bill of Rights ?
[This message has been edited by clambrecht (edited 12-01-2012).]
Dig deep enough and you'll find a few other skeletons in the archive closet.
Happy hunting.
Dan
P.S. I love these gems from stat...
quote:We (as a profession) are still determining hireability based on passing the Yugo of polygraph tests, the multi-issue, far-reaching time-span, applicant srceening test.
It's a Yugo of a test indeed, although Don "The Godfather" Krapohl neatly justifies it as "practical polygraph." Convenient, like disposing of the body of a mob rival in a rendering plant.
...and I admire stat's tell-it-like it is candor:
quote:We lie and manipulate our examinee's in order to program concern over questions that are not core to the issues. Many of us lie about our accuracy(96-98%) when speaking of multiple issue tests to both examinee's and hiring/contracting agents.
As Ray put it, "stones."
[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 12-01-2012).]
posted 12-01-2012 12:02 PM
Looking at Stat's posts from over the years, I appreciate his efforts to energize these forums! The reason I resurrected this old post was certainly not to label his method of "blind stims" as unethical. We all realize such chicanery can help the truthful pass by raising their concerns for the Cs and amps up the deceptive's focus on the Rs. I disagree with such tactics for practical reasons, not ethical. As stated in this thread above, we should assume the smart examinee will recognize what's about to occurr as soon as you hand the pen to them. They will smile internally while appear mystified externally. . These types of acquaintance tests are expected with much of the population. People like my uncle who are very bright - yet are not Internet savvy , might urinate themselves in shock as the examiner selects the correct number but most will see the magic trick coming and wonder if the detective/examiner should sell cars or get into show business.
Now veteran examiners here may shrug and smugly attribute my skepticism to being a rookie examiner. That's fine, I appreciate being considered a rookie at age 40 :-) Trust me though, I am not one of those examiners that thinks they know it all. I never will and humbly learn from you guys ( and gals?) all the time! My point is that we should expect the examinee to have read the following advice from GM's TLBTLD :
Instead, by employing the breathing and cardio countermeasures you’ve learned to augment your physiological responses as you answer the question about the number or card you actually picked, you can make your polygrapher think that you really are a “screamer,” and he won’t be surprised when you react strongly to the “control” questions. Practice Makes Perfect. You should practice both the breathing and cardio countermeasures until you can employ them at will and with confidence.
posted 12-01-2012 03:03 PM
I don't find Barack "wannabe Pharaoh" Obama "inspirational," he pimps votes by allowing people to rely on the government for too much. Quite an asshole as far as I'm concerned!
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
[This message has been edited by Poly761 (edited 12-01-2012).]
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 02-07-2008 10:46 AM
