- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 27, 2005, 11:21 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 27, 2005, 03:46 PMPlease answer the following question, which you have dodged, if you wish to continue with this discussion. Do you concede that your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph" is not true when it comes to pre-employment screening? Again, if not, please explain. I shall interpret your continued failure to address this question head-on as confirmation of insincerity on your part.
You can interpret my response or non-response to any of your feeble points any way you want, George. As I've said before, it is my desire to respond only to statements that are worthy of a response, and some of your statements are so outlandish that I simply laugh at them and move on. But since it seems so important to you that I respond to that statement (I guess my opinion is very important to you) I'll answer it. NO, I don't concede anything with regard to that statement because it is absolutely true. As I stated before, outright failure of the polygraph is rare. Inconclusives are more common, of course, and you keep equating inconclusives as failures. If you actually failed ALL of the relevant questions on your exam, you are indeed an extreme anomaly. Failing an exam is uncommon, but failing ALL of the relevant questions on one screening test is outrageous. In fact, I find it "baffling" that you could have the nerve to claim that you were completely truthful on your failed exam.
I truly don't know of any department or Federal agency that will disqualify applicants for inconclusive results. Perhaps that occurred way back in the analog days when you took your polygraph . . . However, if anyone IS doing that, it would be an erroneous administrative policy, not a policy condoned by a knowledgable polygrapher.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 27, 2005, 03:46 PMPlease answer the following question, which you have dodged, if you wish to continue with this discussion. Do you concede that your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph" is not true when it comes to pre-employment screening? Again, if not, please explain. I shall interpret your continued failure to address this question head-on as confirmation of insincerity on your part.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 27, 2005, 01:53 PMSee my post under "Sphincter's Policy." It's tedious and repetive to post long replies to every point you're trying to make. It begins to feel like he who writes last is the "winner" of a meaningless exchange. You'll have the last word, George, don't worry. You have too much of yourself invested in the silly website, so you'll be here long after I'm gone. That's ok with me.
Oh, and I find it equally "baffling" that you only see what you want to see, George, which is only PARTS of particular studies that seem to support your agenda. You have no experience as anything but a failed examinee. I can trade regurgitations with you, but to what end? You base your "information" on only one side of the picture, and your suggestions that people actually use countermeasures to ensure that they pass an exam is at best unfounded, and at worst a disservice to honest people everywhere because it MAY assist the guilty somehow in getting through the net.
Oh, and I find it equally "baffling" that you only see what you want to see, George, which is only PARTS of particular studies that seem to support your agenda. You have no experience as anything but a failed examinee. I can trade regurgitations with you, but to what end? You base your "information" on only one side of the picture, and your suggestions that people actually use countermeasures to ensure that they pass an exam is at best unfounded, and at worst a disservice to honest people everywhere because it MAY assist the guilty somehow in getting through the net.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 27, 2005, 06:19 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 26, 2005, 02:28 PMGeorge, I really enjoyed the link to the thread titled "60% CT State Police Polygraph Failure Rate!" There are a few very knowledgable "pro" polygraph people who posted on that thread. I found especially revealing the statement that 85% of those who failed the polygraph for a particular department made disqualifying admissions AFTER failing the polygraph.
You haven't addressed the point of the links I provided, which is to show that your oft-repeated assertion that "the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph" is not true when it comes to pre-employment screening. Do you admit that you were mistaken?
QuoteIt's tough to convert people who don't listen to countering viewpoints, but instead just sit there ready to fire out rehashed rhetoric they picked and chose out of purely self-supporting, refutable studies.
I listened to your countering viewpoints, and provided what I hope were thoughtful and polite replies, directly addressing the points you raised. I regret that you seem to be unwilling to respond in kind.
QuoteIt's especially difficult to do so when those people have absolutely no experience on the other side of the polygraph table.
I reject the notion that one must have experience as a polygrapher (a vocation that requires less training than that of a hair stylist) in order to rationally discuss polygraph matters.
QuoteTo make this post short, I have read many refutations and studies that refute everything you just posted.
Would you be so kind as to direct me to any references that refute the citations I provided indicating that numerous law enforcement agencies have polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%?
QuoteAs for the Loopy references, if you don't buy the explanation, I'm not going to try to convince you of that either. It was humorous, to say the least!
I find nothing humorous in the fact that you forged posts on this site. By doing so, you undermined your credibility and raised serious doubts about your motives for posting. Your continued flippancy after having been caught red-handed tends only to deepen such doubts.
QuoteBefore I "retire," though, I may offer at least one parting post, purely speculative but stemming from common sense and experience, about why George and a tiny minority of examinees might actually jump the vast chasm from non-deceptive to deceptive EVEN IF WE JUMP OUR OWN CHASM AND ASSUME that they ARE being truthful to the relative issues on a polygraph exam.
It is not at all hard to understand why false positives occur. All it takes is for a truthful person to be more concerned about the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than he/she is with regard to the more general and less serious "control" questions.
Posted by nunyun
- Feb 27, 2005, 12:20 AMI still disagree with you, The tongue biting cannot be seen if practiced even if they are watching you. Many will disagree but then can they say they have done it? My polygrapher was FBI, DODPI grad but I guess everyone will say he was one of the polygraphers who was not good at his job.....
Posted by NSAreject2
- Feb 26, 2005, 09:17 PMThe NSA has a small camera, mounted on the top of
the wall, for each interrogation room. Biting one's
tongue probably wouldn't be recommended there, since
it can probably zoom in real close. They used to have
one-way mirrors, facing the applicants, and I am sure
they got a few good "panty shots", and did their
business behind the mirrors (I am sure THAT change
met with a lot of resistence !)
I haven't seen any
wires coming out of the bottom of the chairs, for an
anal pad, but who knows, what they are up to.
the wall, for each interrogation room. Biting one's
tongue probably wouldn't be recommended there, since
it can probably zoom in real close. They used to have
one-way mirrors, facing the applicants, and I am sure
they got a few good "panty shots", and did their
business behind the mirrors (I am sure THAT change
met with a lot of resistence !)
I haven't seen anywires coming out of the bottom of the chairs, for an
anal pad, but who knows, what they are up to.
Posted by nunyun
- Feb 26, 2005, 06:16 PMQuote from: Ghetto_Trooper on Feb 23, 2005, 10:48 PMFat_Moe,
Hope your poly went well. In my opinion, biting your tongue is a cm that is easily detected. Trained polygrapher usually are very observant of their subjects and even slight movement from around your throat area will be very noticeable (have you ever practiced this cm in from of a mirror?) if so you will notice that even a slight movement of the tongue will show which will get you red flagged and most likely cause you to get dq'd fast!!
Not exactly accurate as most polygraphers still have you face away from them and not to mention the fact that you do not answer then bite down, you bite as you are closing your mouth from answering the question as it does not show irregular jaw movement.
Nice scare tactic though, where is a better radar gun comes out someone always comes out with a better detector
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 26, 2005, 02:28 PMGeorge, I really enjoyed the link to the thread titled "60% CT State Police Polygraph Failure Rate!" There are a few very knowledgable "pro" polygraph people who posted on that thread. I found especially revealing the statement that 85% of those who failed the polygraph for a particular department made disqualifying admissions AFTER failing the polygraph.
Rehashing those arguments, as well as my own, is boring me to tears.
It's tough to convert people who don't listen to countering viewpoints, but instead just sit there ready to fire out rehashed rhetoric they picked and chose out of purely self-supporting, refutable studies. It's especially difficult to do so when those people have absolutely no experience on the other side of the polygraph table.
To make this post short, I have read many refutations and studies that refute everything you just posted. As for the Loopy references, if you don't buy the explanation, I'm not going to try to convince you of that either. It was humorous, to say the least!
Now some bad news for you, but some good news for me. I will be leaving this forum in due time. (Do I hear cheers from the peanut gallery?) The Cinderella ball of the Sphincter on AntiPolygraph.Org must reach its inevitabe end. I believe it was PG111 who recently said that I must be retired because I post on this site so much. Actually, it takes me about two or three minutes for an average reply to a thread--it's not complicated stuff, and I type very, very fast. But continually fielding weak pop flies on this forum is quickly losing its entertainment value, which is the only true value this website had to begin with.
Before I "retire," though, I may offer at least one parting post, purely speculative but stemming from common sense and experience, about why George and a tiny minority of examinees might actually jump the vast chasm from non-deceptive to deceptive EVEN IF WE JUMP OUR OWN CHASM AND ASSUME that they ARE being truthful to the relative issues on a polygraph exam.
Rehashing those arguments, as well as my own, is boring me to tears.
It's tough to convert people who don't listen to countering viewpoints, but instead just sit there ready to fire out rehashed rhetoric they picked and chose out of purely self-supporting, refutable studies. It's especially difficult to do so when those people have absolutely no experience on the other side of the polygraph table.
To make this post short, I have read many refutations and studies that refute everything you just posted. As for the Loopy references, if you don't buy the explanation, I'm not going to try to convince you of that either. It was humorous, to say the least!
Now some bad news for you, but some good news for me. I will be leaving this forum in due time. (Do I hear cheers from the peanut gallery?) The Cinderella ball of the Sphincter on AntiPolygraph.Org must reach its inevitabe end. I believe it was PG111 who recently said that I must be retired because I post on this site so much. Actually, it takes me about two or three minutes for an average reply to a thread--it's not complicated stuff, and I type very, very fast. But continually fielding weak pop flies on this forum is quickly losing its entertainment value, which is the only true value this website had to begin with.
Before I "retire," though, I may offer at least one parting post, purely speculative but stemming from common sense and experience, about why George and a tiny minority of examinees might actually jump the vast chasm from non-deceptive to deceptive EVEN IF WE JUMP OUR OWN CHASM AND ASSUME that they ARE being truthful to the relative issues on a polygraph exam.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 26, 2005, 06:20 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 25, 2005, 02:00 PMGeorge, as one of your apparently favorite researches, Charles R. Honts, says, "Despite widespread public information about countermeasures and commentary in the popular literature indicating that polygraph tests should be easily beaten . . . there is simply no scientific evidence to support that contention."
The results of Honts et al.'s own peer-reviewed countermeasure studies support the contention that polygraph "tests" should be easily beaten, considering that some 50% of deceptive subjects passed the polygraph after receiving a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in countermeasures.
QuoteRovner, Raskin and Kircher conducted studies on the use of practiced countermeasures during a two-chart mock polygraph test conducted by a confederate. As Honts sums up the findings of those studies, "Research on spontaneous countermeasure and on information strongly suggest that they are not serious problems for polygraph validity."
The "spontaneous" countermeasures mentioned in the passage you've cited refer to untrained countermeasures, that is, things that examinees who are not familiar with CQT procedure may "spontaneously" employ in an attempt to influence the outcome of a polygraph examination. Common examples include thinking calming thoughts or focusing one's attention on a point on the wall hoping to minimize reactions to questions.
Spontaneous countermeasures are not the same as "practiced" countermeasures, such as those that an examinee who has researched polygraphy might employ. A person who has educated himself about polygraph procedure and trained himself in the application of countermeasures such as those outlined in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may be said to employ "practiced" countermeasures.
QuoteHonts does claim that there are studies that both refute and support the use of practiced countermeasures as a means to affect the polygraph outcome. Therefore, at best, George, you have questionable studies to combat questionable studies.
To my knowledge, there are no peer-reviewed studies refuting the potential for countermeasures of the kind outlined in TLBTLD to influence the outcome of a polygraphic lie test. On the other hand, we do have two peer-reviewed studies (again, by Honts and collaborators) that strongly suggest that countermeasures may be effective in influencing polygraph outcomes. As the National Academy of Sciences noted at p. 214 of its report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."
QuoteMy use of the "scared little boys and girls" analogy is quite effective in pointing out how I feel regarding your fearmongering, George. On this website you dispense what might be called "Dr. Poole's Elixer for the Curing of Divers Maladies and Afflictions"--all placebo and no substance. You remind me of the old Popeye cartoon's humorous assertion that by eating your spinach you will be as strong as ten men. You call this site informative and yourself informed. The only way this site is ever truly informative is when a rational opposing view like myself comes on here and presents a counter to your highly questionable information.
Opposing views are certainly welcome on this message board, though it seems to me that you often choose ad hominem rather than rational argument, as above. I also recall that you regrettably chose to forge posts (those by LoopyLuWho) to bolster your own arguments.
QuoteWhile you may or may not have claimed that a person MUST use countermeasures, your downloadable reference material and many of your posts to fearful examinees sure makes it appear that you believe an examinee must MESS with the polygraph in order to pass it, which even you, despite your personal vendetta, must know is wrong. As you recently wrote to one of the scared little boys and girls, "As your experience shows, it is possible to pass a polygraph examination without using countermeasures. But given CQT polygraphy's complete lack of validity, I would personally not leave things to chance."
Indeed, I would not leave things to chance if my future employment were riding on the results of an invalid polygraph test. Especially considering that many pre-employment polygraph programs have failure rates on the order of 50%.
QuoteGeorge, as I have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph.
The fact that you have repeatedly said so does not make it so. While some polygraph screening programs, such as the Department of Defense's counterintelligence-scope polygraph program, do indeed have very low failure rates (almost everyone ultimately passes), the same does not hold true when it comes to pre-employment polygraph testing by federal, state, and local agencies. The FBI, for instance, has a pre-employment polygraph failure rate on the order of 50%:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067
The Connecticut State Police have reported employment figures indicating a 60% pre-employment polygraph failure rate:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1449.msg11371#msg11371
In 2002, Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks stated that 50% of applicants were being eliminated by the polygraph:
http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-008.shtml#leovy-gold-09-02-02
And Jack Ogilvie, a polygraph examiner with the Phoenix Police Department, has also spoken of a 50% polygraph failure rate for applicants to his department, noting that such high failure rates are not atypical:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/pre_employment_polygraph_testing.htm
QuoteAssuming you really had nothing to hide, I'm truly sorry that you didn't pass yours. I've read your story now. If that is the case, you are an anomaly, George. Don't treat your anomaly as if it is the norm, because it is not. I will address my own feelings about such an anomaly in an original post when and if I find the desire and the time.
I wish my case were anomalous. Indeed, during the first four years following my polygraph experience with the FBI and LAPD, although I was aware of polygraphy's scientific shortcomings, I had supposed that my case was an anomaly. But then, in 1999, I learned that what happened to me was happening to many more FBI applicants than I had originally supposed. The FBI's polygraph failure rate at the time was "only" 20%. I found it hard to believe that so many applicants who had made it past Phase I and Phase II testing were lying with regard to the relevant questions. Since 9/11, the Bureau's polygraph failure rate has climbed to about 50%. While I am not maintaining that my case is the "norm," as you put it, it is certainly not an anomaly, either.
QuoteAs for what you know being based on more than analog studies, you apparently give much more weight to the analog studies than anything else, if in fact you've "weighed" information from other than negative sources.
If you review the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, you'll see that we have also considered information from a wide range of pro-polygraph sources.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 26, 2005, 03:54 AMI didn't realize you had even asked that question. Still not sure when you asked it.
Sounds like a good Ph.D. project for you to find out. Go for it.
Sounds like a good Ph.D. project for you to find out. Go for it.
Posted by PG111
- Feb 26, 2005, 03:34 AMAnal I just feel hurt that you wont respond to my post.
Please share your knowledge, can a person learn to show any reaction at will to any question asked. I can prove my point can you.
Please share your knowledge, can a person learn to show any reaction at will to any question asked. I can prove my point can you.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 25, 2005, 02:00 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 24, 2005, 04:43 AM
My question to you concerned how you can purport to know that "[m]ost examinees will NOT receive adequate training" in polygraph countermeasures. I do agree, and think it is self-evident, that most examinees will not have access to a polygraph instrument or a willing confederate to provide feedback. But this does not necessarily entail that most examinees will not receive adequate training. Techniques for augmenting reactions to "control" questions are relatively simple, and "control" questions are generally not very difficult to pick out.
The National Academy of Sciences considered "psychological set" and related theories that have been put forth in support of CQT polygraphy, but did not find these to be compelling. See p. 74 ff. of The Polygraph and Lie Detection.)
It is certainly not the case that everything I know about polygraphy is based on analog (laboratory) studies. I've considered information from a wide variety of sources, including the available peer-reviewed field studies of CQT polygraphy. Note, however, that the only peer-reviewed studies of countermeasures to the CQT are analog studies. I don't see how I have drawn unwarranted inferences from these. If you think I have, please explain.
Again, I think your latter assertion goes well beyond the evidence of the available research. I think one could reasonably conclude that with subjects like those in Honts et al.'s studies (who received very limited instruction in polygraph procedure and countermeasures), and in similar (low) motivational settings, countermeasures might not help innocent examinees. But it is going too far to assert, as you seemingly do, that it has been conclusively demonstrated that countermeasures cannot help an innocent examinee to avoid a false positive outcome.
A survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research members conducted by William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken showed that of the 96% of respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Again, it has not been proven that countermeasures cannot assist the truthful in avoiding a false positive outcome, and no one has set forth a plausible explanation why such should be the case.
Considering the fact that CQT polygraphy lacks any scientific basis, the fact that numerous agencies, including the FBI, report polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, and considering also the polygraph community's failure to put forth any evidence that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures, persons facing polygraph examinations might reach a different risk assessment than the one you offer them.
Not so. Regarding polygraph theory, the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing." (The Polygraph and Lie Detection, p. 213. Original emphasis.)
You have repeatedly characterized (in other posts in other message threads) visitors to this site as "scared little boys and girls." I think that's a patronizing and offensive mischaracterization of individuals who come to this website seeking information about polygraphy.
I have never maintained that a person must employ countermeasures (which you term "messing") in order to pass a polygraph examination. But I think that persons facing this invalid procedure should have access to facts and information necessary for making an informed choice.
AntiPolygraph.org certainly has an agenda, but it is unhidden and publicly stated: to expose and end waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs. We also seek the abolishment of polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of lie detection) from the American workplace.
You assert that I am not open to the possibility that I may have been wrong. But the only person regarding whom you can truly know such a thing is yourself.
As for your assertion that I have a "personal vendetta," why not address my arguments, rather than my putative motives? If I have said or written anything that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, feel free to point it out for the benefit of all concerned.
"How can you be so obtuse. Is it intentional?" -- Andy Dufresne to the Warden, The Shawshank Redemption.
George, as one of your apparently favorite researches, Charles R. Honts, says, "Despite widespread public information about countermeasures and commentary in the popular literature indicating that polygraph tests should be easily beaten . . . there is simply no scientific evidence to support that contention."
Rovner, Raskin and Kircher conducted studies on the use of practiced countermeasures during a two-chart mock polygraph test conducted by a confederate. As Honts sums up the findings of those studies, "Research on spontaneous countermeasure and on information strongly suggest that they are not serious problems for polygraph validity." Honts does claim that there are studies that both refute and support the use of practiced countermeasures as a means to affect the polygraph outcome. Therefore, at best, George, you have questionable studies to combat questionable studies.
My use of the "scared little boys and girls" analogy is quite effective in pointing out how I feel regarding your fearmongering, George. On this website you dispense what might be called "Dr. Poole's Elixer for the Curing of Divers Maladies and Afflictions"--all placebo and no substance. You remind me of the old Popeye cartoon's humorous assertion that by eating your spinach you will be as strong as ten men. You call this site informative and yourself informed. The only way this site is ever truly informative is when a rational opposing view like myself comes on here and presents a counter to your highly questionable information.
While you may or may not have claimed that a person MUST use countermeasures, your downloadable reference material and many of your posts to fearful examinees sure makes it appear that you believe an examinee must MESS with the polygraph in order to pass it, which even you, despite your personal vendetta, must know is wrong. As you recently wrote to one of the scared little boys and girls, "As your experience shows, it is possible to pass a polygraph examination without using countermeasures. But given CQT polygraphy's complete lack of validity, I would personally not leave things to chance."
George, as I have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph. Assuming you really had nothing to hide, I'm truly sorry that you didn't pass yours. I've read your story now. If that is the case, you are an anomaly, George. Don't treat your anomaly as if it is the norm, because it is not. I will address my own feelings about such an anomaly in an original post when and if I find the desire and the time.
As for what you know being based on more than analog studies, you apparently give much more weight to the analog studies than anything else, if in fact you've "weighed" information from other than negative sources.
You tire me, George. Perhaps that's the plan. Responding to every point of each of your posts is unnecessary. Generally, I respond only to those points I feel merit a response, which means I've gone out of my way to indulge you once again.
Posted by PG111
- Feb 24, 2005, 01:00 PMThe entire argument over examinees not being able to obtain polygraph test equipment is absurd, www.ebay.com has several units up for sale all the time, I have two, while the computerized units are fancy and scarier to the uninformed they work no better.
The argument over trained polygraph examiner to give feed back is weak; practice with the live polygraph is simple. You can look at the charts and see what your reactions are in real time. You can tape your questions at the proper intervals, thereby keeping this a private endeavor. There is a huge amount of information about scoring the charts on the internet. If you can read you can score the charts.
My point is if you're scared of a polygraph test, you can buy a polygraph and prefect your technique. I bought mine for my thesis, to prove a point. But have learned that it is very easily to manipulate at will with practice. My next purchase is the countermeasures detection chair pad, and then we will know for sure what works and what does not..
The argument over trained polygraph examiner to give feed back is weak; practice with the live polygraph is simple. You can look at the charts and see what your reactions are in real time. You can tape your questions at the proper intervals, thereby keeping this a private endeavor. There is a huge amount of information about scoring the charts on the internet. If you can read you can score the charts.
My point is if you're scared of a polygraph test, you can buy a polygraph and prefect your technique. I bought mine for my thesis, to prove a point. But have learned that it is very easily to manipulate at will with practice. My next purchase is the countermeasures detection chair pad, and then we will know for sure what works and what does not..
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 24, 2005, 04:43 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 23, 2005, 07:29 PMThat's easy, George, although tiresome. I'll indulge you this time, despite the fact that I feel I provided good responses to most of what you said previously. I apologize beforehand to other readers for my redundancy, but you have only George to blame for that.
How do I know that most examinees won't have access to either a polygraph machine or a willing confederate to provide them with feedback while hooked up to the machine? It doesn't take much intelligence to figure that one out. Polygraph machines--including the laptop, software, and all the components--are not cheap. Finding a trained polygrapher to help you use the machine to perfect your countermeasures would be even more difficult to obtain....
My question to you concerned how you can purport to know that "[m]ost examinees will NOT receive adequate training" in polygraph countermeasures. I do agree, and think it is self-evident, that most examinees will not have access to a polygraph instrument or a willing confederate to provide feedback. But this does not necessarily entail that most examinees will not receive adequate training. Techniques for augmenting reactions to "control" questions are relatively simple, and "control" questions are generally not very difficult to pick out.
Quote...Sure, a person taking a real-life test would be more motivated to pass the exam, but this added motivation would also theoretically, through the principle of psychological set, help him accurately and justifiably pass or fail the exam....
The National Academy of Sciences considered "psychological set" and related theories that have been put forth in support of CQT polygraphy, but did not find these to be compelling. See p. 74 ff. of The Polygraph and Lie Detection.)
QuoteYou base everything you "know" on lab studies, George, so again you show your tendency to accept only those lab studies that support your personal agenda, or should we say vendetta?
It is certainly not the case that everything I know about polygraphy is based on analog (laboratory) studies. I've considered information from a wide variety of sources, including the available peer-reviewed field studies of CQT polygraphy. Note, however, that the only peer-reviewed studies of countermeasures to the CQT are analog studies. I don't see how I have drawn unwarranted inferences from these. If you think I have, please explain.
QuoteI'm not saying that the average polygrapher will notice practiced countermeasures. There are many types of motion detection devices, and many polygraphs are video recorded, but really good, practiced countermeasures would admittedly be difficult to observe. That's not really the point, though. The point is that studies (lab studies again) show that while countermeasures may--and again I emphasize MAY because we can't really apply lab studies to the real world--assist the guilty in producing a false negative, but they have no effect with innocent examinees.
Again, I think your latter assertion goes well beyond the evidence of the available research. I think one could reasonably conclude that with subjects like those in Honts et al.'s studies (who received very limited instruction in polygraph procedure and countermeasures), and in similar (low) motivational settings, countermeasures might not help innocent examinees. But it is going too far to assert, as you seemingly do, that it has been conclusively demonstrated that countermeasures cannot help an innocent examinee to avoid a false positive outcome.
QuoteThus, even though a polygrapher might not--or even probably will not--detect certain countermeaures unless he or she uses motion detection devices, the risk just isn't worth it when there is no evidence that countermeausures help the innocent in passing a polygraph exam.
A survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research members conducted by William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken showed that of the 96% of respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Again, it has not been proven that countermeasures cannot assist the truthful in avoiding a false positive outcome, and no one has set forth a plausible explanation why such should be the case.
Considering the fact that CQT polygraphy lacks any scientific basis, the fact that numerous agencies, including the FBI, report polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, and considering also the polygraph community's failure to put forth any evidence that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures, persons facing polygraph examinations might reach a different risk assessment than the one you offer them.
QuoteYou can talk about control-question theory all you want, George, and I understand it better than most of your readers. That theory backs up my arguments just as well as it does yours, and in many lab studies AND some field studies, better.
Not so. Regarding polygraph theory, the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing." (The Polygraph and Lie Detection, p. 213. Original emphasis.)
QuoteFinally, you are messing with the scared little boy's and girl's heads because the overwhelming majority of people who take a polygraph exam pass it without trying to mess with the process. By convincing these scared little boys and girls that they must mess with the process to pass it, you are needlessly causing them to put their hopes and efforts into misinformation.
You have repeatedly characterized (in other posts in other message threads) visitors to this site as "scared little boys and girls." I think that's a patronizing and offensive mischaracterization of individuals who come to this website seeking information about polygraphy.
I have never maintained that a person must employ countermeasures (which you term "messing") in order to pass a polygraph examination. But I think that persons facing this invalid procedure should have access to facts and information necessary for making an informed choice.
QuoteI know you can't back down from this forum, George. Too much ego involved, and too much personal vendetta. But by titling a website "AntiPolygraph.org" and backing up your agenda with refutable lab studies and no experience in the field of polygraphy, you show where your agenda really lies and you aren't open to the possibility that, all this time, you may have been very wrong.
AntiPolygraph.org certainly has an agenda, but it is unhidden and publicly stated: to expose and end waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs. We also seek the abolishment of polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of lie detection) from the American workplace.
You assert that I am not open to the possibility that I may have been wrong. But the only person regarding whom you can truly know such a thing is yourself.
As for your assertion that I have a "personal vendetta," why not address my arguments, rather than my putative motives? If I have said or written anything that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, feel free to point it out for the benefit of all concerned.
Posted by Ghetto_Trooper
- Feb 23, 2005, 10:48 PMFat_Moe,
Hope your poly went well. In my opinion, biting your tongue is a cm that is easily detected. Trained polygrapher usually are very observant of their subjects and even slight movement from around your throat area will be very noticeable (have you ever practiced this cm in from of a mirror?) if so you will notice that even a slight movement of the tongue will show which will get you red flagged and most likely cause you to get dq'd fast!!
Hope your poly went well. In my opinion, biting your tongue is a cm that is easily detected. Trained polygrapher usually are very observant of their subjects and even slight movement from around your throat area will be very noticeable (have you ever practiced this cm in from of a mirror?) if so you will notice that even a slight movement of the tongue will show which will get you red flagged and most likely cause you to get dq'd fast!!