- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 13, 2005, 07:49 AMPG, be thankful for inconclusive results. If there were a thin line between passing and failing a polygraph, without an inconclusive area in between, just one point would separate the two. Polygraph uses numerical analysis that, whether you choose to believe me or not, really favors the innocent examinee. It takes quite a lot to jump the chasm between a "no deception" conclusion and a "deception" conclusion. That's one reason why the false positive result isn't as common as some of the ignorant people on this forum would have you believe. Saying it's "bull" that they can't come to a decision is like saying it's "bull" that meteorologists can't get your weekend weather exactly right 100% of the time; it is a very good tool, but it's not perfect by any means. When figuring accuracy rates and validity, it wouldn't be fair to put the inconclusives on the side of error because the data is just . . . inconclusive.
Posted by PG111
- Feb 13, 2005, 01:26 AMOh I forgot my question
Anal why do they not figure those results in the averages.
Anal why do they not figure those results in the averages.
Posted by PG111
- Feb 13, 2005, 01:25 AM Anal answer this if you can?
All of those studies you cited are not figuring in the inconclusive tests, for what ever reason they say they are not errors. BULL if they can not make a decision they just toss it out and not figure them in.
All of those studies you cited are not figuring in the inconclusive tests, for what ever reason they say they are not errors. BULL if they can not make a decision they just toss it out and not figure them in.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 11, 2005, 07:30 PMOK, Gino. Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once. We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage. :-/
In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit. The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80% on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception. Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53).
Pretty darned good, huh, Gino? It gets better, so read on:
In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%. It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors. (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.) In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts). Because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners. The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation. What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners. In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%. The studies used by the Committee are as follows:
Horvath, F.S. (1977) The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136.
Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988) A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.
Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection. Nature, 308, 449-450.
Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988) A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040. Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238.
Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino?
(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!)
Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read. This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about. The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world. Take your best shot, Gino. I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby!
Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be? He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life. He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.
In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit. The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80% on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception. Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53).
Pretty darned good, huh, Gino? It gets better, so read on:
In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%. It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors. (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.) In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts). Because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners. The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation. What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners. In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%. The studies used by the Committee are as follows:
Horvath, F.S. (1977) The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136.
Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988) A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61.
Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection. Nature, 308, 449-450.
Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988) A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040. Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238.
Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino?
(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!)
Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read. This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about. The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world. Take your best shot, Gino. I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby!
Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be? He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life. He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 11, 2005, 11:57 AMGino, you show me yours, and I'll show you mine. 
Show me where polygraph has been shown NOT to reliably determine truth from deception in a peer-reviewed scientific study done under field conditions.
The fact remains that you can't replicate real-world applications in a lab study, and the peer-reviewed scientific study done under field conditions is impractical if not impossible.
Your argument holds less merit than pro-polygaph people arguing that the polygraph works because . . . well, it just does. I've seen polygraph work time and time and time again. False positives are rare in real-world applications. Let me repeat: FALSE POSITIVES ARE RARE IN REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS. The proof is in the confession or the self-disclosure of the failed or even inconclusive examinee, which happens much more often than not. Fortunately, there ARE some valid field studies out there, and I shall gather a couple of them for you as soon as possible.
A few disgruntled people spouting the same tired argument on an obscure forum like this can only do harm to the scared little boys and girls who have to undergo the unpleasant experience of a polygraph exam. Polygraph is not a perfect process. No one has ever said that it is. It's just the best tool we have, and it gets the right answer at a rate much better than chance. Until something better comes along (and it will), we use what we have. If that hurts the life ambition of one out of 1000, or even one out of 100 people, it's worth it. But that's my opinion, of course.
Chris, your polygraph/background investigation process is unusual at best and downright wrong at worst. That said, I suppose some agencies might take ANYTHING they get from a polygraph exam and use it against their people--even a strong reaction to what is clearly a comparison question. Sounds like a witch hunt to me, and that's not what the process is all about. Using an issue like "have you ever stolen anything from an employer" as a tool in such a witch hunt is arguably unethical, in my opinion.
Show me where polygraph has been shown NOT to reliably determine truth from deception in a peer-reviewed scientific study done under field conditions.
The fact remains that you can't replicate real-world applications in a lab study, and the peer-reviewed scientific study done under field conditions is impractical if not impossible.
Your argument holds less merit than pro-polygaph people arguing that the polygraph works because . . . well, it just does. I've seen polygraph work time and time and time again. False positives are rare in real-world applications. Let me repeat: FALSE POSITIVES ARE RARE IN REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS. The proof is in the confession or the self-disclosure of the failed or even inconclusive examinee, which happens much more often than not. Fortunately, there ARE some valid field studies out there, and I shall gather a couple of them for you as soon as possible.
A few disgruntled people spouting the same tired argument on an obscure forum like this can only do harm to the scared little boys and girls who have to undergo the unpleasant experience of a polygraph exam. Polygraph is not a perfect process. No one has ever said that it is. It's just the best tool we have, and it gets the right answer at a rate much better than chance. Until something better comes along (and it will), we use what we have. If that hurts the life ambition of one out of 1000, or even one out of 100 people, it's worth it. But that's my opinion, of course.
Chris, your polygraph/background investigation process is unusual at best and downright wrong at worst. That said, I suppose some agencies might take ANYTHING they get from a polygraph exam and use it against their people--even a strong reaction to what is clearly a comparison question. Sounds like a witch hunt to me, and that's not what the process is all about. Using an issue like "have you ever stolen anything from an employer" as a tool in such a witch hunt is arguably unethical, in my opinion.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Feb 11, 2005, 04:22 AMQuoteThe argument that it hasn't been proven totally accurate is not based on real-world applications.
I guess my rhetoric wasn't all that well memorized—because in my haste, I left out the statement that polygraphy has not been shown to reliably determine truth from deception in a peer-reviewed scientific study done under field conditions.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.... If you know of any studies contrary to my above statement, by all means cite them here.
QuoteYou can't really know how accurate polygraph is or isn't unless you've been on the other side of the table. The argument that it hasn't been proven totally accurate is not based on real-world applications.
By your convoluted logic, one must read Tarot cards and prognosticate after gazing into a crystal ball before declaring that astrology is a farce. I'll leave it to the followers of this thread to decide whose comments are inane.
Posted by chris116
- Feb 11, 2005, 01:47 AMFor the second polygraph test; the polygraph examiner informed me that "Unfortunately you have had two reactions." He tried to get a confession out of me - however I had nothing to confess, so he then told me not to worry that this would probably not disqualify me, it's up to my background investigator. The next day my background investigator called me to come down and talk to him. The investigator informed me that I had two reactions on my polygraph test (lying on a police report, and taking something that I did not tell the polygraph examiner about). I was disqualified from that process as soon as the background investigator found out he was not getting anything out of me. There was nothing to get out of me.
If you say that those questions are comparison questions, I guess you could be correct. However those are the reasons why I was disqualified. Perhaps this test was a different format than one you are accustomed to?
If you say that those questions are comparison questions, I guess you could be correct. However those are the reasons why I was disqualified. Perhaps this test was a different format than one you are accustomed to?
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 11, 2005, 01:27 AMThat's strange, Chris. Lying about ever stealing anything from work would actually be a comparison question, which would NOT fail you. Ever lying on a police report should also be a comparison question, unless of course you were being specifically tested as a suspect rather than an applicant, in which case why would you be submitting to the polygraph in the first place?
I'm not sure you know what it means to fail a polygraph. Having an examiner question you post-exam about a particular COMPARISON question does not equate to failure--it's part of the process.
Lying about smoking pot--well, that was a relevant question. Are you going to tell me you NEVER smoked pot even once? Sounds to me like you were playing with your own head on that question. People, reading this forum and the bad advice offered here by George and Co. will be playing with their own heads no doubt.
And Gino, your comments are inane. You spout memorized rhetoric like a Macaw. You can't really know how accurate polygraph is or isn't unless you've been on the other side of the table. The argument that it hasn't been proven totally accurate is not based on real-world applications. You may be a very senior user, but your seniority seems to come with some geriatric senility.
I'm not sure you know what it means to fail a polygraph. Having an examiner question you post-exam about a particular COMPARISON question does not equate to failure--it's part of the process.
Lying about smoking pot--well, that was a relevant question. Are you going to tell me you NEVER smoked pot even once? Sounds to me like you were playing with your own head on that question. People, reading this forum and the bad advice offered here by George and Co. will be playing with their own heads no doubt.
And Gino, your comments are inane. You spout memorized rhetoric like a Macaw. You can't really know how accurate polygraph is or isn't unless you've been on the other side of the table. The argument that it hasn't been proven totally accurate is not based on real-world applications. You may be a very senior user, but your seniority seems to come with some geriatric senility.
Posted by chris116
- Feb 10, 2005, 10:04 PMAnalSphincter :
Thanks for your reply to my original post. However I must disagree with you on your conclusion. I told the truth 100% all the time, and I stand at a 50% pass rate. If you re-read my original post you will see that my outcomes are like this:
Poly #1: Fail --- Lying about smoking pot
Poly #2: Pass --- N/A
Poly #3: Fail --- Lying on stealing anything
from work and lying on a
police report
Polly #4: Pass --- N/A
As you can see these are listed in chronological order, and on the ones that I failed I have never had a duplicate reaction. Polygraphs seem to be only accurate 50% of the time on me - and in my opinion that's too great of an error margin.
I used the tactics on this website by elevating my responses to the "control questions" by imagining I was about to start a race or was about to speak in front of a group. Both of those make me nervous so my reactions to the control questions must have been greater than the "relative questions". The two times I tried to be "completely honest" I had 2 totally different reactions on those tests. Can you please explain that?
Trust me people for me (and I believe most people) just being 100% honest just does not cover it. I hear too many people telling me "Yea I passed my polygraph - lied my ass off when I took it and still passed. No problem at all!"
Thanks for your reply to my original post. However I must disagree with you on your conclusion. I told the truth 100% all the time, and I stand at a 50% pass rate. If you re-read my original post you will see that my outcomes are like this:
Poly #1: Fail --- Lying about smoking pot
Poly #2: Pass --- N/A
Poly #3: Fail --- Lying on stealing anything
from work and lying on a
police report
Polly #4: Pass --- N/A
As you can see these are listed in chronological order, and on the ones that I failed I have never had a duplicate reaction. Polygraphs seem to be only accurate 50% of the time on me - and in my opinion that's too great of an error margin.
I used the tactics on this website by elevating my responses to the "control questions" by imagining I was about to start a race or was about to speak in front of a group. Both of those make me nervous so my reactions to the control questions must have been greater than the "relative questions". The two times I tried to be "completely honest" I had 2 totally different reactions on those tests. Can you please explain that?
Trust me people for me (and I believe most people) just being 100% honest just does not cover it. I hear too many people telling me "Yea I passed my polygraph - lied my ass off when I took it and still passed. No problem at all!"
Posted by G Scalabr
- Feb 10, 2005, 08:51 PMQuoteGeez, I'll bet if we searched long and hard we might find at least another 50 million times when honest people passed the polygraph.
And if we tested the honest of 100 million people by flipping a coin, we would also likely find 50 million people who passed.
QuoteBy the way, Chris116, why do you listen to these people anyhow? You still have your job, you didn't fail a polygraph, and playing with your head won't help you on the next one. Stick with what worked and stop worrying so much.
Perhaps it's because he doesn't want to leave his future up to a non-science based "test" that has never been shown to determine truth from deception?
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 10, 2005, 01:44 PMWhat, ANOTHER example of an honest person passing a polygraph? Geez, I'll bet if we searched long and hard we might find at least another 50 million times when honest people passed the polygraph. Sounds to me like all the bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers on this site should congratulate this guy on honestly passing his polygraph. They should also follow his example and stop their silly attempts to manipulate a polygraph exam OR to give other people highly questionable advice to do so.
By the way, Chris116, why do you listen to these people anyhow? You still have your job, you didn't fail a polygraph, and playing with your head won't help you on the next one. Stick with what worked and stop worrying so much.
By the way, Chris116, why do you listen to these people anyhow? You still have your job, you didn't fail a polygraph, and playing with your head won't help you on the next one. Stick with what worked and stop worrying so much.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 12, 2005, 03:44 PMChris,
Congratulations on passing, and I wish you all the best in the rest of the hiring process!
Now that the polygraph is behind you, I hope you'll consider helping us to get the word about polygraphy out to others. Please see our "Get Involved" page for ideas on how you can help:
http://antipolygraph.org/get.shtml
Again, congratulations!
Congratulations on passing, and I wish you all the best in the rest of the hiring process!
Now that the polygraph is behind you, I hope you'll consider helping us to get the word about polygraphy out to others. Please see our "Get Involved" page for ideas on how you can help:
http://antipolygraph.org/get.shtml
Again, congratulations!
Posted by chris116
- Jan 12, 2005, 06:44 AMGeorge,
Thank you for sending me back that response. I thought it would be helpful to all of your readers to inform you that I did pass the polygraph exam. Your response was 100% correct. I also found out through a friend who also had a polygraph with that agency that they pulled the same crap with him. (Telling him he had a reaction on a drug question when he really did not.)
I have one question for all of the polygraph people out there: If your test is so accurate like you all claim then why do you resort to trickery / lies / deceit / deception to try to obtain confessions from people?
Do Polygraph Examiners not see the IRONY in that???[/u]
By the way this was my 4th polygraph test, tell why I failed the first one for marijuana use, passed the second one with flying colors, failed the third one for lying on a police report, and taking items from work that I did not disclose to my background investigator, and now I passed the 4th one. (Yes all of my answers have always been the same!) I have nothing to hide from any background investigator.
If you are going to take a polygraph remember it is a "junk test" read and do what the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" tells you to do - and most importantly remember no matter what a polygraph examiner tells you - their test is bull.
Thanks for everything George!
Thank you for sending me back that response. I thought it would be helpful to all of your readers to inform you that I did pass the polygraph exam. Your response was 100% correct. I also found out through a friend who also had a polygraph with that agency that they pulled the same crap with him. (Telling him he had a reaction on a drug question when he really did not.)
I have one question for all of the polygraph people out there: If your test is so accurate like you all claim then why do you resort to trickery / lies / deceit / deception to try to obtain confessions from people?
Do Polygraph Examiners not see the IRONY in that???[/u]By the way this was my 4th polygraph test, tell why I failed the first one for marijuana use, passed the second one with flying colors, failed the third one for lying on a police report, and taking items from work that I did not disclose to my background investigator, and now I passed the 4th one. (Yes all of my answers have always been the same!) I have nothing to hide from any background investigator.
If you are going to take a polygraph remember it is a "junk test" read and do what the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" tells you to do - and most importantly remember no matter what a polygraph examiner tells you - their test is bull.
Thanks for everything George!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 24, 2004, 08:40 AMChris,
The lack of any post-test interrogation is a fairly good indication that you passed. I suspect that your polygrapher's remark that the next time she sees you, "you better have a smile on your face" was her way of indirectly saying that you passed.
The lack of any post-test interrogation is a fairly good indication that you passed. I suspect that your polygrapher's remark that the next time she sees you, "you better have a smile on your face" was her way of indirectly saying that you passed.
Posted by chris116
- Dec 24, 2004, 08:23 AMI just took my polygraph test for a local law enforcement agency in California. The test was administered at the XXXXX County Sheriff's Department - by the sheriff polygraph examiner. I filled out the questionnaire before hand and went through all of their usual junk about how the polygraph is 90% - 98% correct, how it reads your "fear" of being caught in a lie and all that junk. I told the truth about everything - I have known since I was a child that I have wanted to become a police officer or deputy sheriff so I have always watched what I have done in the past. I informed my examiner that I have had 3 prior polygraphs. The first polygraph in 1998, I had a reaction to marijuana use (that was wrong I have never smoked, sold carried etc. any drug at all). The second polygraph I took I had no reaction at all they said I passed. The third I had a reaction to 2 questions: Have you stolen anything from work you have not told me about and have you lied on a police report. (I have never had a police report taken in my life - go figure).
So at the end of my 4th polygraph the examiner would not tell me if I had any reactions. She asked me first what about my theft from employers - if there was anything wrong with my answer. I said NO. She left the room; her supervisor came in and reviewed the responses for "quality control". The supervisor said hi to me and then told me my examiner would be right back. She came back in and then preceded to ask me what question did I have the most trouble with. I told here no question realy, however the drug questions troubled me because I have had a reaction to it on the very first polygraph test I took. She asked me if I wanted to change my answers I told her no I had been honest. I asked her if I had a reaction to a question - she stated, "Everyone has a reaction to every question". I then proceeded to ask her if I passed. She responded with "You know if you passed or failed, if you lied you failed, if you did not lie you passed. So you know your answer". On the way out in the hallway I as she was escorting me out of the Sheriff's Station she said smiling, "The next time I see you, you better have a smile on your face". Has anyone ever had this happen to them? What would you guess the outcome was? I don't think I reacted to any of the questions - I did not lie at all I just get reactions to some of the questions sometimes. Please help me; I don't like not knowing what is going on with my career choice.
This post has been edited to protect your privacy (and to protect against the risk of retaliation for having posted here). Information identifying the specific agency that polygraphed you has been removed. If you disagree with this decision, you may re-edit this post. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
So at the end of my 4th polygraph the examiner would not tell me if I had any reactions. She asked me first what about my theft from employers - if there was anything wrong with my answer. I said NO. She left the room; her supervisor came in and reviewed the responses for "quality control". The supervisor said hi to me and then told me my examiner would be right back. She came back in and then preceded to ask me what question did I have the most trouble with. I told here no question realy, however the drug questions troubled me because I have had a reaction to it on the very first polygraph test I took. She asked me if I wanted to change my answers I told her no I had been honest. I asked her if I had a reaction to a question - she stated, "Everyone has a reaction to every question". I then proceeded to ask her if I passed. She responded with "You know if you passed or failed, if you lied you failed, if you did not lie you passed. So you know your answer". On the way out in the hallway I as she was escorting me out of the Sheriff's Station she said smiling, "The next time I see you, you better have a smile on your face". Has anyone ever had this happen to them? What would you guess the outcome was? I don't think I reacted to any of the questions - I did not lie at all I just get reactions to some of the questions sometimes. Please help me; I don't like not knowing what is going on with my career choice.
This post has been edited to protect your privacy (and to protect against the risk of retaliation for having posted here). Information identifying the specific agency that polygraphed you has been removed. If you disagree with this decision, you may re-edit this post. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator