posted 08-29-2007 06:00 PM            

For pre-employments (I set them up within the first few minutes of them sitting down by stating honesty/integrity are the most important traits.....'past behavior predicts future behavior' and we can't hire liars and thiefs)...

In the past 10 years, HY had any thoughts about stealing from anyone?

In the past 10 years, HY lied to a supervisor or co-worker?

PCSOT - Montior
SLT, HYH any arousal while looking at someone too young?

SLT, HY even once considered lying to your PO or TX?

NEW CRIMES/especially with old criminal acts..
B4 (this crime), HYE misrepresented any facts to your attorney?

Assault cases: B4...DYE consider hurting, harming or injuring anyone who could not defend themselves?

CONS: While in prison/jail, DYE snitch on another inmate?

posted 08-29-2007 08:45 PM            

SYSP, have you ever done something sexual that you would lie to me about today?weak

SYSP, have you attempted to manipulate anyone who is trusting you to be honest?(strong)

SYSP, have you had any violent fantasies of any of your treatment or parole officials? (strong)

As an adult, have you ever picked a big booger, pulled a thick hair out of it, and devoured it while at work? (oh so strong)

ok, so that last one was a pre-EPPA law control (lol)

p.s. Chaz, don't use that last one!

posted 08-30-2007 04:34 PM         

Have you ever considered committing a serious crime? Strong

Did you totally trust your parents? Could be moderate or Strong

posted 08-30-2007 07:57 PM            

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-30-2007).]

posted 08-30-2007 08:15 PM            

As an adult, have you ever put something in your mouth that if known about by others today would cause you great shame?

As an adult, have you ever risked your life for or during a sexual opportunity? (think hard about that one)

posted 08-30-2007 09:51 PM         

SYSP have you been sexually attracted to anyone under 18?

SYSP have you been sexually aroused while listening to a Group Member's sexual crime?

SYSP have you masturbated to any fantasy that youre too embarassed to disclose to your Group?

ummm...one i heard but not used:

posted 08-31-2007 06:50 AM            

That one is gold polyscore! Thanks

posted 08-31-2007 07:48 AM            

Would any of the women you dated prior to (victim) report that you were aggressive towards them sexually?

Have you ever participated in any illegal sexual acts prior to moving to (City/State)?

Have you engaged in any sexual acts that you consider abnormal with any of your previous dates?

Would previous girlfriends tell us you acted sexually abnormal while dating them?

Are there any women in other places where you have lived that could accuse you of forcing your sexual intentions on them?

Would any of your previous sexual partners report that you forced them to engage in any sexual acts?

Could you be investigated in any other city for your past sexual conduct?

For Lie Comparisons:

While working at any of your previous positions, did you ever use lies to get yourself out of trouble?

Did you ever lie to anyone in authority at any previous location where you lived?

Have you used lies in years past when you found yourself in trouble?

Would people you worked with at any of your previous jobs say that you could not be trusted?

For Theft:
While living at your previous address, did you ever participate in any thefts?

When you lived in (City/State) were you involved in any thefts?

Are you responsible for any thefts that occurred while you lived in (City/State)?

Were you ever involved in any thefts before you came to (City/State)?

posted 08-31-2007 08:39 AM            

c1) SYLP, have you been tempted to tell even one single lie to you therapist or probation officer?

c2) SYLP, have you attempted to keep any secrets from your treatment team or treatment group regarding any high-risk or deviant behavior?

c3) SYLP have you done anything at all that you've chosen to or had to withhold from your family or supervision team?

I would say these are pretty strong comparisons, for use when most everything else is depleted and when I still don't want to use sex comparisons. I agree with Taylor - when in doubt use lie comparisons.

Its interesting to observe that a number of us have a good arsenal of sex comparisons.

Here's another:

SYLP have done anything at all that would cause your wife or supervision team to doubt your sincerity or authenticity?

Obviously, than can't working the IQ=90 bone-head, but its OK for the semi-intelligent and non-naive offender who wants to present a veneer of superficial charm and pious or contrite religiosity.

r

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

posted 08-31-2007 08:46 AM            

Stat, I like 'Since you started parole, have you ever presented yourself as being more trustworthy (or innocent) than you deserve?' I also really like the fantasizing about another group members disclosure. Damn I wish I would have thought of that one.

Skip - thanks for participating. My hopes are that anyone just watching this site w/o participating will pick up on new ideas. I really like the way you worded your questions as to not be so obvious. See ya in Moab.

posted 08-31-2007 08:54 AM            

Thanks you bunch of deviant thinkers!

posted 08-31-2007 09:19 AM            

quote:

---

In Holdens class at APA he stated the RQ and CQ can have the same time of reference but not ths same frame of reference. On the paroles that have had a prior test, I start all questions with SLT.

---

I was there, but I know others were not. Could you explain this for people not familiar with these things? Time-of-referernce is not hard to discern, but frame-of-reference is idiomatic PCSOT jargon that may not be as obvious to some.

r

posted 08-31-2007 06:05 PM            

1. They must have a similar time of reference (specific time period that relevant and comparison questions focus on/similar time period).

2. they must have a similar frame of reference (specific body of information that relevant test questions focus within the time of reference/Similar issue).

3 They must have a similar potential consequences. Lying or guilt would likely result in similar consequences.

Your RQ & CQ should not have the same time of reference & frame of reference. One must be distinctively different. If the CQ's overlap the same time and frame as the RQ's they are both relevant.

Therefore, except for the Instant Offense disclosure test PCSOT CQ's would be considered appropriate if they have the same time of reference but different frame of reference that the RQ OR the same frame of reference but different time of reference from the RQ.

He then has 'basic rules for PCSOT CQ development' The Instant Offense Disclosure CQ's should NEVER be a sexual fantasy issue - Sexual fantasy issues may be allowed for any other PCSOT exam. (later he printed '10th commandment' you can't use fantasy questions on Instant Offesen or SH tests) I don't know if this is a typo????

posted 08-31-2007 07:54 PM            

Its evident that Eric Holden has thought this through. However, I don't think he has all the answers yet.

For one thing, I disagree with calling things "laws" or "commandments" - its overstated. He's probably not wrong about most points, but the language is troublesome. Laws are things decided by legilators, or discovered by scientists. I doubt that his commandments will hold water in those ways any more than they statement that the present draft model PCSOT policy is based on the latest scientific research. But if you want to make a strong impression, and put the fear of (dissapproval from some authority) into field examiners in attempt to divert them from making up new s%^* as they go along - then sure call 'em laws or commandments.

The problem is that every field of science has a tendency to: 1) miss the point a little bit until they evaluate their data, and 2) make a big deal out of things that sometimes aren't such a big deal. So, its often best to be cautious about how assertive we are until we really know (from data).

If you think PCSOT doesn't have to be science then be prepared to eventually switch careers. Science is the only way to win the long game. It will not impress people to talk out of both sides of our mouth, with discussion about "pin-point accuracy" alongside expressions of disinterest in or ignorance about what makes good science.

I believe there is strong procedural logic to most of Eric Holden's suggestions - including the requirement to separate the time of reference and frame of reference. I'm not as convinced about the distinction between probation issues and treatment issues.

I'm just not convinced that human psychology organizes itself into neat little ven diagrams, with portions of complete separation that are completely distinct from the portions of overlap. Human psychology and attention is quite fuzzy - and there is a lot of individual and juristictional variability.

I think I'd agree with Mr. Sosnowski's statements from the past that treatment issues are often probation issues and probation issues are often treatment issues.

quote:

---

If the CQ's overlap the same time and frame as the RQ's they are both relevant.

---

I understand the point, but stating it this way impedes our ability to have a complete and thoughtful dialog about this. It would be more accurate to say they are "undifferentiated" - it might be just as accurate to say they are both "comparison" as it is to say they are both "relevant." No. What is relevant is defined not within the test, but by our referring agent - whatever they are concerned about. If they are smart, they will dictate targets that inform them about the possibility of any change in lifestyle or risk behaviors. Those targets are again a matter for research - we examiners cannot define what data points are salient to risk prediction. We simply investigate what needs to be investigated.

To do otherwise will not suffice. I get referrals that state "I just want to know if he's lying about anything... breaking any rules... keeping any secrets... being completely honest about his sexual behavior... told us everything... Or, I just want to know if he's reoffended. All of these targets are inadequate (reoffending is inadequate for different reasons than the others).

If a referring agent wanted us to do so, most of us could find something that most any sex offender is lying about. If we did that all we would end up with is a stuck case. Of course treatment providers and supervision officers in some juristictions seem to want the polygraph to be some form of sand-bag to weigh down the offender's narcissistic momentum. Those professionals need more training. Polygraph cannot sustain that role forever. Attorneys will eventually get wise to that game, and we will loose.

Valuable targets are meaningful because they inform (add information to) our risk assessment, risk management and treatment plans - before a reoffense occurs. Many of the things people keep secret or lie about may not mean anything in actuarial (static or dynamic) risk prediction models. Refering agents should suggest investigation targets that are relevant to those models, or relevant to the phenomenology of the individual's problem behavior.

It is our job to differentiate what is relevant from broader non-specific concerns, and to determine if any significant different exists between the two.

Time of reference / frame of reference is a suggested conceptual model for organizing what are relevant targets and what is comparison material. It may or may not be completely adequate by itself, and deserves study - just as the concept of specific behavioral concerns vs broader ambigous concerns about integrity also deserves further study. Until we have data, refering to laws and commandments might be premature.

Alright. Its Friday, and I'm done till tommorrow.

Peace,

r

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

posted 09-01-2007 07:54 AM            

but, what the hell do I know.

posted 09-01-2007 09:22 AM            

Thanks.

I absolutely agree with the need for structure, and for sensible structure.

One of my main concerns is the tendency to overstate the strength of our knowledge with use of words like "laws" and "commandments" and "state of the art." Sometimes we have decisions that are agreements, which can become "laws" as defined by legislators - such as driving on the right or left side of the road.

Certainly, driving on the left side, in the US, is a violation of the law. But its not a violation in some countries, and that is the difference between laws of social organization and laws of science. If left or right were a matter of science, then the principle would hold true regardless of which country one drives in.

In polygraph, we sometimes sound silly to our critics because of our tendency to rapidly indict each other's work as "invalid," when we have not sometimes little to validate a particular practice (and sometimes when the data suggest we have overemphasized a concern). Take symptomatic questions. Would incorrectly formulated or missing SY questions make a test invalid. And, when we say "invalid" are we saying the result is invalid or inaccurate. Its possible that an invalid test can have an accurate result.

Anyone who has had a basic first-aide course, in most US states, has been taught that an unconscious person is in shock - raise their legs. This is consciously inaccurate. The DOT sets first aide training standards and curricula, and those smart docs know full well that most unconscious people are not experiencing medical shock - the are parasympathetic. They also know that lifting the legs of a person who is actually in shock will have little effect. The rationale is to get the aide-giver something to do and move on to the next triage issue. People in shock will die in a few minutes. It might take a few minutes for most aide-givers to differentiate the two. People in shock are probably going to die in a few minutes. First aide training does not include tourniquet, mast-pants or traction splints. Lifting the legs of a person who is in shock may slow that or allow them to die in a more comfortable position. People who are not in shock (who are parasympathetic) will awaken in a more comfortable position. This is an example of a strategic decision to teach something that is not completely correct, for a pragmatic reason, because the results are more desirable. Therefor it is "valid" to assume that an unconscious person is in shock, and to raise their legs. It is also "valid" to assume an unconscious person is not in shock and to state that lifting the legs of a person who is in shock will have little effect.

The point of difficulty in PCSOT, sometimes rests in how those dicey consensus decision get made.

quote:

---

I believe that like restless leg syndrome, fiber myalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome, there are illnesses which we cannot completely prove exist, but we should practice with such hidden illnesses in mind----such as crossing target lines.

---

Just take a road-trip with someone who has IBS, and you will not doubt its existence.

Could you start another thread and explain for us the ven diagram on maintenance and monitoring targets? I know what you mean, but some readers may not.

r

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

posted 09-01-2007 01:01 PM            

I am sorry Ray, but in all honesty my IBS is got me feeling a little tired today.

As always Ray your crisp intelect has codified the argument regarding standardizing pcsot question formulation in your own stylized fashion. You are right man, we shouldn't accept without discussion "laws" and "commandments." After all, we are not children---- although I am easily distracted by shiney things. Sometimes shiny things contain lead paint.

posted 09-01-2007 10:58 PM            

what control suggestions would you seasoned examiners use on an a person who between the ages of 13 and 18 was a career criminal (theft, assualt,weapons charges and attempted murder etc AND who was jailed as a minor for 3 years) AND then who apparently reformed himself and joined the Army from the age of 28 to the age of say 35 and got promoted to the rank of corporal.

Then left the Army at age 35 and now works as an IT manager in a big corporate firm and now at the age of say 45 has been accused by his wife of having extra marital sex at some stage between the age of 30 and and now (age 45).

What should the time bars be if the subject is too eager to make admit to things he did between the age of 13 and 18 but claims after that he was on the straight.

posted 09-02-2007 03:31 PM            

On a previous thread I believe Stat listed some excellent questions and set ups for this exact issue.

posted 09-02-2007 06:41 PM            

I just re-read my post and realized I said 'scumbag' out loud. Actually the PEOA posts on the Anti site weren't bad - it was just weird timing with my posts here.

posted 09-03-2007 08:23 AM            

quote:

---

what control suggestions would you seasoned examiners use on an a person who between the ages of 13 and 18 was a career criminal (theft, assualt,weapons charges and attempted murder etc AND who was jailed as a minor for 3 years) AND then who apparently reformed himself and joined the Army from the age of 28 to the age of say 35 and got promoted to the rank of corporal.

Then left the Army at age 35 and now works as an IT manager in a big corporate firm and now at the age of say 45 has been accused by his wife of having extra marital sex at some stage between the age of 30 and and now (age 45).

What should the time bars be if the subject is too eager to make admit to things he did between the age of 13 and 18 but claims after that he was on the straight.

---

Have we learned nothing???

What king of collateral documentation have you received? What kind of contact from a professional referring agent? Or, is this another self referral?

Self-referred fidelity testing is a huge, perhaps one of the most reckless at present, polygraph time-bomb.

Not burned enough yet, huh chaz?

r

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

posted 09-03-2007 11:39 PM            

It does seem like there were two or three recent coincidences.

I know it was probably a serious hassle to verify the ID of everyone on the board last time. I'll help if there is any way to do so.

One time-saver will be to check ralph's logins between the time of the postings here and the time of the postings there.

r

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

posted 09-06-2007 10:15 AM            

The examinees wife was the client...is that self reffered? Here we do not do Govt or Law enforcement testing. Its all private, mainly marriage infidelity, small private business theft issues and thats it!
There is no Pscot or anything like that.

There is are refferals from Govt agencies or anything like that.
Its a very small and isolated industry with only approx 4 examiners in the whole country. Most of which only offer polygraph as a supplement to other private investigation services.

If we didnt take this type of work on , we would have any any polygraph work.

posted 09-06-2007 10:17 AM            

That last line should read..'there are No refferals from any govt agencies etc.