The Polygraph Place

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


Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
Comparison questions (Page 1)

Post New TopicPost A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

This topic is 2 pages long:12 next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Comparison questions
Taylor
Member
posted 08-29-2007 06:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
Due to Chaz' recent problems, I thought it would be insightful to see everyone's favorite comparison questions along with the test they are running. Stat already listed some great starts for Fidelity testing. Of course, we all know that the questions will depend on our examinee but here goes a few....

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?

When in doubt, Lie controls always work well in all cases! Taylor

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-29-2007 08:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
Nice Taylor (especially the one about harming someone who can't defend themselves). Sometimes controls listed in and of themselves don't make much sense without the corresponding "set" and "target." But, I'll play! I typically ---as many of you do----characterize controls as "weak" and "strong" (theoretically speaking)Here are some of both;

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!

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-29-2007).]

IP: Logged

chaz
Member
posted 08-29-2007 09:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for chaz Click Here to Email chaz Edit/Delete Message
Hi Stat,

No I promise not to use the big booger comparison.
About the comparison:
DYE consider hurting someone who could not defend themselves...would there be any advantage of changing it to simply DYE consider hurting someone? Is there an advantage of adding the ..'who could not defend themselves? (I do not do PSCOT so Im only asking).

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-30-2007 07:09 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
I like control questions that to a reader of TLBTLD gives pause and makes them question whether such is a control or not. I feel a little uneasy using some of the old classic controls as for the "informed examinee", appears too easy to recognize. Aslo, it appears that the more complex, yet vague a control presents, the more effective. Adding the last part "who can't defend themselves" just makes it more provocative (anecdotally speaking of course.) 2 cents

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 08-30-2007 04:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E Edit/Delete Message
Did you ever cheat in School? Moderate

Have you ever considered committing a serious crime? Strong

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

All of these are non time barred, I would only use one non time barred question in a
sequence of controls. Just personal preference.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 08-30-2007 05:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
I wish I had the list we created the last few days of polygraph school! How about some of those we'd like to use, but can't. Come on Ted, I need a good laugh.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 08-30-2007 05:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
Oh yeah, I think we had the booger one on our list too.

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-30-2007 07:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
Before the alleged incident, have you ever considered committing a serious crime (just):
a. for recreation?
b. to see if you could get away with it?
c. to get even with a bad employer?
d. to teach someone a lesson?
e. for carnal pleasure?
f. to harm someone who you believed harmed you?
g. to ponder your criminal aptitude (mindedness/ mind/ capabilities)

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

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

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-30-2007 08:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
Here's a couple of polygraph school novelty Q's;


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)


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

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 08-30-2007 08:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
One other I really like with anyone in LE or top dogs...HYE shared info with somone who did not have the need to know?

IP: Logged

Polyscoring
Member
posted 08-30-2007 09:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Polyscoring Edit/Delete Message
SYSP have you had a deviant sexual fantasy?

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:

in the future, would you re-offend if you were certian that you wouldnt be caught?

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-31-2007 06:50 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
polyscore said"SYSP have you been sexually aroused while listening to a Group Member's sexual crime?"

That one is gold polyscore! Thanks

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-31-2007 07:12 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
Since you started parole, have you ever presented yourself as being more trustworthy (or innocent) than you deserve?

I haven't used this one as I just thought of it----maybe I'll try it next week----any thoughts?

IP: Logged

skipwebb
Member
posted 08-31-2007 07:48 AM Click Here to See the Profile for skipwebb Click Here to Email skipwebb Edit/Delete Message
OK...I don't run PCSOT or fidelity tests, but I want to play too. Like Stat, I try to keep them away from Maschke's "Before this year" and "Other an what you told me about". So for a sexual assault/rape test:

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)?

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 08:39 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Here are some from a recent exam - the subject's 30-somethingth polygraph while on probation. He's failed and passed polygraphs, read about the polygraph on-line, and even attended a "failed polygraph group" at his treatment program. (we've been advocating stopping those groups for a while, but POs like them because they are a form of spanking, and tx providers like them because they think like they are doing something productive while increasing the revenue stream - offenders can never seem to recall what they got out of those "classes").


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)


IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 08-31-2007 08:46 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
I do try to disguise my CQ's also due to Georges site. 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.

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.

Taylor

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-31-2007 08:54 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
I really love this message board, and I really love several of those CQ's Taylor, Skip, RN, and Bill. Isn't it silly that at times we are faced with a target that gives us temporary stymie over creating controls---I have even endured a very brief and private panic attack in a "control Q writer's block"----as most of us have been presented with one of those one in a hundred situations that temporarily stretch our creative capacity. Just looking at this thread alone presents with a garden of good ideas. I am going to cut and paste these to my lappy and when faced with one of those bizarre and unique targets, I'll have an extended arsenal.

Thanks you bunch of deviant thinkers!

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-31-2007).]

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 09:19 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Taylor:
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

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 08-31-2007 02:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
He wrote a pretty good article back a ways on this and other issues.

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 08-31-2007 06:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
He listed 'the big three for RQ'

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????

Does that help? Taylor

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 08-31-2007 06:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
I'm a little off topic here - but here goes...I agree we need PCSOT standards but then need to be realistic. In reading APA's proposed PCSOT policy it stated 'if the offender admits new victims do not test the offender and refer him back to the the therapist'....now don't quote me as I don't have that proposed policy in front of me. I DO NOT AGREE with this portion (as well as other portions of the proposed policy). The reason they are referring them to us is to verify information and/or 'break the denial'. If the offender starts opening up to me on additional victims - I am going to get the info. I know I am not a therpist & don't claim to be one, but if they finally admit to this info I am not going to shut them down. At least the therapist will now have something to work with. Taylor

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 08-31-2007 07:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
Are people referring to the one on the APA website. It says the one in the magazine has errors, and the good one is up on the site, maybe in the reading room.

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 07:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
That helps a lot Taylor. Thanks.

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)


IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-01-2007 07:54 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
As much of a rebel as I am, I have to agree with Rick Holden's guidelines----not for scientific reasons, but for pragmatic reasons. 2 reasons for my conformity come to mind. Like the English language, there exists a body of rules and parameters that in many cases do not demonstrate any rhyme or reason---especially spelling rules. There is a silent "K" in "know" just because that is the way it is-----it is a simple framework for the organization of communication----and it limits the confusion between the like-sounding words "know" and "no." Such a K isn't empirically explained, it just makes things easier to learn. Learning is the key (kee.)I wholeheartedly agree with Ray in that we as a profession need to be able to explain why we do what we do, in a way that other scientific disciplines can relate, but sometimes we need to just organize our criteria so that new members of the profession can avoid having to learn 1000 caveats which do nothing but cloud the field from understanding the core goal----protecting the community.I do not mean to imply that we as examiners are incapable of grasping higher principles of scientific rationale, but we need to be pragmatic. Of course we could organize auto traffic laws like the FAA organizes air traffic, but to what limits is the average driver able to conceptualize and practice such higher degrees of traveling parameters?
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. Rick Holden noticed a need to structure pcsot, not through data, but from symptomatic diagnosis-----albeit reasons we tend to avoid for good reasons, but I must admit I personally and professionally took (when I first started pcsot) a degree of comfort in the parameters as it kept me focused on what I can't do, not what I can do. The can'ts outnumber the cans----and to new examiners, sometimes we need clear paths rather than a limitless 3-d environment. Now as a more seasoned professional, I do sometimes feel as though I am governed by "beginner's rules." When I see a new examiner come along and ignore the rules of targets by mixing monitoring and maintenance targets, I have great doubts as to the examiner's ability to stay grounded (at least for his/her first couple of hundred tests). Why? It's because you don't eat pizza and ice cream together if you have irritable bowel syndrome-----superstition or not, I prefer to err on the side of caution----and I like a language that although seems somewhat confined at times, has a set of parameters that 2 examiners can engage in mutual communication with.

but, what the hell do I know.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-01-2007).]

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-01-2007 09:22 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Those are well formulated arguments stat.

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)


IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-01-2007 01:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
rnelson wrote;"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."

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.

IP: Logged

chaz
Member
posted 09-01-2007 10:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for chaz Click Here to Email chaz Edit/Delete Message
Hi All

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.

Chaz
- believe half of what you see and 10% of what you hear-

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 09-02-2007 09:08 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E Edit/Delete Message
Just read George's site and got these CQ's off the board after we have been discussing them here. Is someone posting these or sending these to the Anti Site?

1. Have you ever lied to a supervisor?
2. Have you ever lied to loved ones?
3. Have you ever lied to parents, teachers, or the police?
4. Have you ever lied to get out of trouble?
5. Did you ever reveal anything told to you in confidence?
6. Did you ever cheat in school?
7. Did you ever cheat in college?
8. Did you ever betray the trust of a friend or relative?
9. Did you ever steal anything from an employer? (Note, however,
that any question about stealing money from an employer is a
relevant, not a control question!)
10. Do you sometimes intentionally mislead or deceive your
friends?
11. Are you a really honest person?
12. Are you absolutely trustworthy?
13. Do you think you are smarter than most people?
14. Are you an untrustworthy person?
15. Are you a dishonest person?

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 09-02-2007 03:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
Chaz, there are numerous CQ's listed in this thread that can be manipulated to fit your scenario....hurting anyone - affairs hurt their loved one, keeping secrets, flirting.. You may also want to purchas Matte's 'bible' as it has pages of CQ's you can refer to when you have a brain cramp.

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

BILL2E - I noticed the same thing on the anti site. I don't think it is coincidence that they are posted right after I started this discussion as when I made another thread posing on PEOA the next day there was a CATWOMAN7 posting almost my same concerns. There is probably a two bit lurker scum bag monitoring this site and posting on the anti site.

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-02-2007 05:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
well then, lets provoke him
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/maschke_9-2-07.png

r

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 09-02-2007 06:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
Ray - That one tops them all! LOL

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.

Taylor

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-03-2007 08:23 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
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)


IP: Logged

J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
posted 09-03-2007 11:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for J.B. McCloughan Click Here to Email J.B. McCloughan Edit/Delete Message
Do we need another "mole" hunt Ray?

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-03-2007 11:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Jamie,

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)


IP: Logged

Ted Todd
Member
posted 09-04-2007 12:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Ted Todd Edit/Delete Message
I have a great new way to use comp questions that is working exremely well. I will wait until the board gets locked down again before posting the info.

Ted

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 09-04-2007 05:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
Ted would you email me this info? Taylor

quest4truth@msn.com

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 09-04-2007 05:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
Ted would you email me this info? Taylor

quest4truth@msn.com

IP: Logged

chaz
Member
posted 09-06-2007 10:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for chaz Click Here to Email chaz Edit/Delete Message
Dear Rnelson,

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.

Chaz.

IP: Logged

chaz
Member
posted 09-06-2007 10:17 AM Click Here to See the Profile for chaz Click Here to Email chaz Edit/Delete Message
Sorry Rnelson,

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

Chaz

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-06-2007 10:21 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
Ted, I am also interested in your new approach also. Please get my email address from Taylor. Thanks!---------palerider

IP: Logged

This topic is 2 pages long:12

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New TopicPost A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.