- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 19, 2008, 11:48 PMQuoteOn the other hand, there is plenty of research and studies which support the accuracy and validity of polygraph testing, whether you wish to believe in it or not.
Can you please cite some references?
Quotenot one has ever called me up to report they underwent a polygraph, were truthful and were subsequently told by the examiner that they were lying.
So what does that prove?
OTOH, there have been a steady stream of people who have posted on POLYGRAPHPLACE.COM, a PRO-poly site, claiming to have been false positive.
TC
Posted by sackett
- May 19, 2008, 06:24 PMSarge,
no hypocracy here. I have read no indepedent study or research which supports the CVSA in determining truth (in the manner a polygraph does). It is, on the other hand, a great interrogation tool. On the other hand, there is plenty of research and studies which support the accuracy and validity of polygraph testing, whether you wish to believe in it or not.
Additionally, this has nothing to do with my contacts having false negatives. Interestingly though, of the many friends I know that have undergone pre-employment polygraph or periodic updates to clearances, not one has ever called me up to report they underwent a polygraph, were truthful and were subsequently told by the examiner that they were lying.
I'm sure the phone lines were jammed that day, huh?!
Sackett
P.S. Cullen, whose arguing? But if the facts are blurring your vision, best to stay out of the conversation.
no hypocracy here. I have read no indepedent study or research which supports the CVSA in determining truth (in the manner a polygraph does). It is, on the other hand, a great interrogation tool. On the other hand, there is plenty of research and studies which support the accuracy and validity of polygraph testing, whether you wish to believe in it or not.
Additionally, this has nothing to do with my contacts having false negatives. Interestingly though, of the many friends I know that have undergone pre-employment polygraph or periodic updates to clearances, not one has ever called me up to report they underwent a polygraph, were truthful and were subsequently told by the examiner that they were lying.
I'm sure the phone lines were jammed that day, huh?!
Sackett
P.S. Cullen, whose arguing? But if the facts are blurring your vision, best to stay out of the conversation.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 19, 2008, 04:59 PMQuoteI myself have had friends take a CVSA then call me to tell me they lied their asses off and still passed.
Aldridge Ames and Larry Wu-tai Chin and the "Green Rive Killer" lied their asses off yet passed their polygraph test too.
This is like watching witches arguing over who can cast the best "spell".
TC
Posted by yankeedog
- May 19, 2008, 04:03 PM"In the United States, there are an estimated 17,784 law enforcement agencies, spread out across the federal, state, and local levels of government. Policing and law enforcement services are mainly the jurisdiction of local government, with an estimated 12,666 local police agencies and 3,070 sheriff's departments.[1] Local police include county police, metropolitan police, city, and town police departments. In addition, there are 1,376 special-purpose district police agencies, with jurisdiction over parks, schools, housing, transit, etc." (Source: Wikipedia)
The number of LEA that reportedly use the CVSA is 1,400. That is the same number that NITV has been advertising for the last 8-10 years. That number is used to make it appear that it is a perferred method of detection of deception. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that only 7% of police agencies in the Unted States use the CVSA. And those that use it for pre-employment screening are probably in violation of federal employment laws. Hardly an amount to suggest that it is overtaking or supplanting the polygraph. And as time goes on, that number is going down simply because those agencies learned the hard way that the CVSA simply does not perform as advertised. It is however, very effective when used as a door stop, boat anchor or paper weight.
The number of LEA that reportedly use the CVSA is 1,400. That is the same number that NITV has been advertising for the last 8-10 years. That number is used to make it appear that it is a perferred method of detection of deception. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that only 7% of police agencies in the Unted States use the CVSA. And those that use it for pre-employment screening are probably in violation of federal employment laws. Hardly an amount to suggest that it is overtaking or supplanting the polygraph. And as time goes on, that number is going down simply because those agencies learned the hard way that the CVSA simply does not perform as advertised. It is however, very effective when used as a door stop, boat anchor or paper weight.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 19, 2008, 03:20 PMQuote from: Lethe on May 19, 2008, 11:50 AMMy interest in CVSA going away is not the financial aspect of my own employment as some of the posters here have suggested but in the fact that CVSA does not work with any accuracy. I myself have had friends take a CVSA then call me to tell me they lied their asses off and still passed.It is interesting (and somewhat hypocritical) that you judge the CVSA as not being accurate because some friends of yours claim to have lied and passed.
I admit polygraph is not perfect. But, like I have said, build me a better "lie detection" moustrap, and I'll use it. But until then, polygraph is what we have.
Sackett
When people on this board offer their opinion based on essentially identical experiences with the polygraph (i.e. - telling the truth and failing) you decry their lack of expertise and mock the fact that they have the audacity to post an opinion based on nothing more than an alleged false positive or two.
Posted by sackett
- May 19, 2008, 11:50 AMQuote from: Lethe on May 19, 2008, 11:23 AMSackett
Respectfully, if by flash in the pan, you mean that CVSA has routed polygraph in a number of states, to the point that it is the sole prefered tool of every LEA in that state for both pre-emp screening and criminal investigation, then I agree. Based on membership in AAPP I doubt there are 1400 LEA's left that still rely on poly.
Pailryder,
I am in agreement that CVSA has pushed into the areas that have been polygraph predominant domain. Chuck Humble and his folks have an excellent sales gimmick and technique, which when presented to administrators and police commanders makes them question the tried and true usage of polygraph, but all for financial reasons, nothing more.
That's OK. As time goes on, their sales are slowing down. Lost law suits are making their positive press go away and many dept's are returning to polygraph, ever so slowly (though they hate losing the cost effectiveness of teaching a patrolman a week of interviewing skills with a CVSA rather than months of polygraph). BUT! They are coming back.
Regarding CVSA, it has always boiled down to $$. They spend $7K for a CVSA unit and training, then lose $50K to a lawsuit for its misuse. It is not cost effective to retain. They're learning. Lawsuits against polygrah don't add up that way. Several dept's I am aware of use CVSA when it really "doesn't mean much" (which I find offensive because I know the process means something to someone) and then when they really want to know the truth, they call for a polygraph.
Interesting and sad, but very true.
My interest in CVSA going away is not the financial aspect of my own employment as some of the posters here have suggested but in the fact that CVSA does not work with any accuracy. I myself have had friends take a CVSA then call me to tell me they lied their asses off and still passed.
I admit polygraph is not perfect. But, like I have said, build me a better "lie detection" moustrap, and I'll use it. But until then, polygraph is what we have.
Sackett
Posted by sackett
- May 19, 2008, 11:34 AMQuote from: Lethe on May 19, 2008, 12:26 AMQuoteBecause a majority of your devotees are being caught and find themself unable to bring themself to report it here.
Can you be a little more specific and provide us with some names of devotees "being caught".
TC
Nope. I was just kidding. The information on this website is so good, that we examiners never catch anybody using countermeasures...
Sorry for being so misleading Cullen.
Sackett
Posted by pailryder
- May 19, 2008, 11:23 AMSackett
Respectfully, if by flash in the pan, you mean that CVSA has routed polygraph in a number of states, to the point that it is the sole prefered tool of every LEA in that state for both pre-emp screening and criminal investigation, then I agree. Based on membership in AAPP I doubt there are 1400 LEA's left that still rely on poly.
Respectfully, if by flash in the pan, you mean that CVSA has routed polygraph in a number of states, to the point that it is the sole prefered tool of every LEA in that state for both pre-emp screening and criminal investigation, then I agree. Based on membership in AAPP I doubt there are 1400 LEA's left that still rely on poly.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 19, 2008, 12:26 AMQuoteBecause a majority of your devotees are being caught and find themself unable to bring themself to report it here.
Can you be a little more specific and provide us with some names of devotees "being caught".
TC
Posted by Lethe
- May 18, 2008, 11:02 PMAnyway, to comment again on the UK program, I wonder what, if anything, is in place to keep Person A from beating the system by having Person B make the call instead? Person B could be provided with all the information and Person A could listen in on the call to relay any other needed answers as unanticipated questions come up.
I suppose it depends a bit on what the control questions are, but it wouldn't be hard to figure that out. And, of course, you must deal with the lack of honor among thieves; having a human accomplice creates a liability: what if he or she rats you out?
Anyway, does anyone know if this approach could be detected without the accomplice squealing?
I suppose it depends a bit on what the control questions are, but it wouldn't be hard to figure that out. And, of course, you must deal with the lack of honor among thieves; having a human accomplice creates a liability: what if he or she rats you out?
Anyway, does anyone know if this approach could be detected without the accomplice squealing?
Posted by Lethe
- May 18, 2008, 10:55 PMMan, check out the love fest here:
Next thing you know, George, they'll be putting you in for the Medal of Freedom!
Of course, in business, competition forces companies to improve their products or services or they go out of business. While AntiPolygraph is not directly in competition with the polygraph, the effect is similar. Nonetheless, pretty much every businessman or businesswoman would rather not have any competition so they could make more money with less work.
Quote from: Lethe on May 18, 2008, 06:03 PMMr Maschke ... I like your site and feel that on the whole you have been a positive force for the improvement of polygraph by pointing to out shortcomings we have until recently neglected to address. I know you have made me a better examiner. And as always. thank you for providing an open forum for the discussion of all views.
Quote from: Lethe on May 18, 2008, 08:34 PMThe biggest threat to polygraph is in fact ignorant polygraph examiners who continue to practice their profession without benefit and knowledge of this site. I must say, you do more to help the polygraph profession than anyone will ever tell you, or give you credit for.
Next thing you know, George, they'll be putting you in for the Medal of Freedom!
Of course, in business, competition forces companies to improve their products or services or they go out of business. While AntiPolygraph is not directly in competition with the polygraph, the effect is similar. Nonetheless, pretty much every businessman or businesswoman would rather not have any competition so they could make more money with less work.
Posted by sackett
- May 18, 2008, 08:34 PMQuote from: Lethe on May 18, 2008, 01:48 PMpailryder,
The primary threat to the survival of polygraphy--whether by law enforcement agencies or others--is not voice stress analysis in any of its flavors. Rather, that which most threatens the continuation of the fraudulent practice that you engage in for a living is an informed citizenry.
Sorry George,
While CVSA is a flash in the pan, albeit lingering, an informed examinee, as it relates to countermeasures, is probably what you meant to say. Not the so called "informed citizenry" regarding the accuracy (or as you purport the inaccuracy) of polygraph.
The biggest threat to polygraph is in fact ignorant polygraph examiners who continue to practice their profession without benefit and knowledge of this site. I must say, you do more to help the polygraph profession than anyone will ever tell you, or give you credit for.
You truly do a wonderful job at convincing good people that polygraph is bad and doesn't work, thereby creating an illusion that one must protect oneself from "false positives." Besides causing many honest and decent people to screw themselves out of a job and attempting to assist child molesters, criminals and terrorists in beating their examiners, what have you really accomplished in your "anti" efforts?
These pages are conspicuously empty of success stories of your training. Did you ever wonder why? I'll tell you. Because a majority of your devotees are being caught and find themself unable to bring themself to report it here. Interesting, no-one has ever proven the ability to "beat" an examiner using your information, though you and others continue to promote them as the save thyself methods.
Continued wishful thinking that somehow your training here will make polygraph obsolete. And while I support your freedom of speech, I find your intent and efforts despicable.
It is truly unfortunate (for you) that the only thing that will ultimately do away with polygraph is not you or this board, but polygraph's replacement; whatever it may be.
Sackett
Posted by pailryder
- May 18, 2008, 06:03 PMMr Maschke,
I live among, value, engage with, and provide professional assessment services to an informed citizenry every day. I have nothing to fear from any information on this or any other site. I like your site and feel that on the whole you have been a positive force for the improvement of polygraph by pointing to out shortcomings we have until recently neglected to address. I know you have made me a better examiner. And as always. thank you for providing an open forum for the discussion of all views.
I live among, value, engage with, and provide professional assessment services to an informed citizenry every day. I have nothing to fear from any information on this or any other site. I like your site and feel that on the whole you have been a positive force for the improvement of polygraph by pointing to out shortcomings we have until recently neglected to address. I know you have made me a better examiner. And as always. thank you for providing an open forum for the discussion of all views.
Posted by pailryder
- May 18, 2008, 05:47 PMMr. Cullen
My only point was that the petty, lame-ass intimidation that went on in 1400 LEA's that used preemps polys, now goes on in 1400 LEA's that use preemp CVSA assessments. I am not defending or attacking government preemp screening use, which has been largely prohibited in the private sector where I work since 1988. I am just stating that CVSA is a growing threat to LEA polygraph, based on what I have observed.
My only point was that the petty, lame-ass intimidation that went on in 1400 LEA's that used preemps polys, now goes on in 1400 LEA's that use preemp CVSA assessments. I am not defending or attacking government preemp screening use, which has been largely prohibited in the private sector where I work since 1988. I am just stating that CVSA is a growing threat to LEA polygraph, based on what I have observed.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 18, 2008, 03:19 PMPailryder,
But, because of the information provided on this website, more and more people subject to the test are becoming informed about the actual facts, and will be less affected by the petty, lame-ass intimidation that goes on in the typical preemployment test:
From "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies" by Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, MD:
IOW, it's going to get harder and harder to BLUFF people into thinking they're being deceptive when actually they aren't! And to elicit information from applicants they can later inflate to suit their own subjective opinion about the person's level of truthfulness.
TC
But, because of the information provided on this website, more and more people subject to the test are becoming informed about the actual facts, and will be less affected by the petty, lame-ass intimidation that goes on in the typical preemployment test:
From "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies" by Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, MD:
QuoteThe polygraph makes for a very poor screening or "random" test for deception. The reason is that in such contexts, the vast majority of people are honest (especially those applying for security clearances) so that a negative test result adds little to what one knows a priori. At the same time, failing to pass a polygraph vastly overestimates the likelihood that the subject is, in fact, being deceptive (or, alternatively, offers very little additional diagnostic information than chance alone.) The only exception to the latter conclusion is in the situation where a subject actually believes that the polygrapher (with or without using the tracings from the polygraph test) can divine deception and thus confesses on the spot. As knowledge of the inherent inaccuracies of the polygraph spreads, the probability that any intelligent or informed individual would harbor such beliefs will drop.[/size][/i]
IOW, it's going to get harder and harder to BLUFF people into thinking they're being deceptive when actually they aren't! And to elicit information from applicants they can later inflate to suit their own subjective opinion about the person's level of truthfulness.
TC