Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Marty
 - Jan 24, 2004, 12:53 AM
Quote from: guest on Jan 23, 2004, 10:12 PM

Yes Marty, but you fail to consider the PDQ, ETC, SOP, ASAP, AND PD.  TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SOB.  Who are you trying to impress with all your nonsense?
What nonsense? I'm using common polygrapher jargon and addressing the question to anyone knowledgeable in the field. I want to understand the controversy about these techniques (DLT vs PLT) within the polygrapher's own community.

I recently picked up Matte's book, "Examination and Cross Examination of Experts in Forensic Psychophsyiology Using the Polygraph" It's quite an eye opener if rather self serving.

-Marty
Posted by guest
 - Jan 23, 2004, 10:12 PM
Quote from: Marty on Jan 23, 2004, 08:27 PMMatte (and many others) strongly believes the DLT is defective and favors the exclusionary, PLT. However, his analysis doesn't include factors such as non-naive examinees. This seems particularly odd given the increasing use of PV's in SO cases. It would seem to me quite likely SO's would not be naive about CQT's after being repeatedly subject to them. Perhaps false negatives associated with repeated, non-naive, SO PV's are making it look like SO, PV programs are more effective than they really are.

Anyone know of research in this area?

-Marty

Yes Marty, but you fail to consider the PDQ, ETC, SOP, ASAP, AND PD.  TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SOB.  Who are you trying to impress with all your nonsense?
Posted by Marty
 - Jan 23, 2004, 08:27 PM
Matte (and many others) strongly believes the DLT is defective and favors the exclusionary, PLT. However, his analysis doesn't include factors such as non-naive examinees. This seems particularly odd given the increasing use of PV's in SO cases. It would seem to me quite likely SO's would not be naive about CQT's after being repeatedly subject to them. Perhaps false negatives associated with repeated, non-naive, SO PV's are making it look like SO, PV programs are more effective than they really are.

Anyone know of research in this area?

-Marty
Posted by Marty
 - Dec 15, 2003, 02:40 PM
Polygraphers often comment that examinees should not use countermeasures and just "tell the truth." OK, that is the most ethical thing to do - but only if it's possible. Let's examine the two principal scenarios involved. Both assume an "informed" examinee.

In the first scenario the examiner does not ask about the examinee's polygraph knowledge. So exactly how does a well meaning examinee, desiring not to use countermeasures, respond when reviewing the relevant and control question? An informed examinee will know the examiner will expect a lie on the controls. Should he lie? Is doing what an uninformed examinee is expected to do not using countermeasures? If he doesn't lie because he has been exhorted to "just tell the truth" the controls will be unusable, or even worse, the examinee will be telling the truth on the controls and thus failing to produce a NDI on the relevants.  Alternately, the examinee could then reveal he is aware of the purpose of controls at that time. How will the examiner deal with that person then?

Now lets take the case where the examinee tells the examiner up front she is "informed." If the examiner is trained in DLCQT's then that is one direction. Has anyone here had this result? OTOH, the examiner may not be trained at DLCQTs and may just try to bluff their way through.  Should an examinee then pretend to not recognize the controls and lie on them knowing the examiner anticipates a lie? In what ways would such a polygraph produce results different from a standard exam-examinee?

I'm interested in how both polygraphers and examinees who have taken exams without using CM's have resolved these questions.

To me it seems a little like trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together.

-Marty