- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 05, 2009, 02:42 AMAnonymous Too,
I thought you didn't like "cut and paste" jobs?
TC
I thought you didn't like "cut and paste" jobs?
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 05, 2009, 01:33 AMQuoteVery well-organized post, "Anonymous." I've heard and debated most of those points before, to at least my own satisfaction, although obviously never to the satisfaction of you and other parrots (your word) on this forum. And in my opinion, and yours, it would be a waste of my time and effort to reply to everything you wrote.
I'd be happy if you'd respond to my earlier question. You said that a reaction on the polygraph machine doesn't necessarily mean "deception", but it does mean "something is going on inside". Or something to that effect. If so then:
1. Why do polygraph operators use the phrase "DECEPTION indicated" when a subject "reacts" on the machine if a reaction doesn't necessarily mean "deception" Are they purposely lying, or just don't understand the underlying science?
2. How can you distinguish "deception" from "something else going on inside the subject" when you measure a reaction on the machine? Are you psychic? Do you go on instinct? Or are you actually unable to make a distinction and are just trying to convince the subject otherwise ?
TC
Posted by Anonymous Too
- Mar 04, 2009, 11:30 PMAnonymous: This is tha JAMA abstract you have cited several times. 75% to 97% is not only different than your previous post it indicates the AMA thinks polygraph is significantly better than a "coin toss" which implys 50%.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
If you have a first hand citation from the American Medical Association that uses the phrase "Coin Toss" why don't you post it and then we can all use it to ask AMA why they have two different opinions concerning the accuracy of polygraph?
A second hand quote from that guy who doesn't like red neck preachers and lithuanians doesn't really have much more compelling information to add to this discussion than someone who thinks Columbus discovered the earth was round.
LieBabyCryBaby seems to be on to some thing when he said
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
QuoteThe American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs has reviewed the data on the validity and accuracy of polygraphy testing as it is applied today. The use of the control question technique in criminal cases is time honored and has seen much scientific study. It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. This does not preclude using the polygraph test in criminal investigations as evidence or as another source of information to guide the investigation with full appreciation of the limitations in its use. Application of the polygraph in personnel screening, although gaining in popularity, has not been adequately validated. The few limited studies that have been performed suggest no greater accuracy for the types of testing done for this purpose than for the control question polygraph testing used in criminal cases. The effect of polygraph testing to deter theft and fraud associated with employment has never been measured, nor has its impact on employee morale and productivity been determined. Much more serious research needs to be done before the polygraph should be generally accepted for this purpose.
If you have a first hand citation from the American Medical Association that uses the phrase "Coin Toss" why don't you post it and then we can all use it to ask AMA why they have two different opinions concerning the accuracy of polygraph?
A second hand quote from that guy who doesn't like red neck preachers and lithuanians doesn't really have much more compelling information to add to this discussion than someone who thinks Columbus discovered the earth was round.
LieBabyCryBaby seems to be on to some thing when he said
Quotewhen you convince yourself that you will respond to the "relevant" questions because you believe they are the only questions that really matter on the exam, you will fulfill your own prophecy of failure.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Mar 04, 2009, 10:52 PMVery well-organized post, "Anonymous." I've heard and debated most of those points before, to at least my own satisfaction, although obviously never to the satisfaction of you and other parrots (your word) on this forum. And in my opinion, and yours, it would be a waste of my time and effort to reply to everything you wrote.
A short word on experience: Don't belittle it when you have none. It means a LOT more than you think--and yes, much more than mere theory. At least I have it, so I can argue my opinions firsthand rather than by rote.
One thing that I would like to respond to is this:
How can you take these anonymous posts by people who failed the polygraph as any kind of proof of anything? First, we don't know whether they are telling the truth in their posts. Second, we weren't present for the polygraph examinations they failed, and we haven't seen the data. However, I will concede that it is possible that at least some of them may have screwed themselves prior to and during the polygraph exam by what they have read and possibly put in practice from this forum. Which brings us back to the original line of thought from which we strayed in this thread. I will repeat, therefore, what I have seen and believe to be true: Taking the advice of polygraph failures on this forum, almost all of whom have no practical experience as polygraph examiners, can have detrimental effects on your ability to pass the polygraph exam. Particularly when you convince yourself that you will respond to the "relevant" questions because you believe they are the only questions that really matter on the exam, you will fulfill your own prophecy of failure.
A short word on experience: Don't belittle it when you have none. It means a LOT more than you think--and yes, much more than mere theory. At least I have it, so I can argue my opinions firsthand rather than by rote.
One thing that I would like to respond to is this:
How can you take these anonymous posts by people who failed the polygraph as any kind of proof of anything? First, we don't know whether they are telling the truth in their posts. Second, we weren't present for the polygraph examinations they failed, and we haven't seen the data. However, I will concede that it is possible that at least some of them may have screwed themselves prior to and during the polygraph exam by what they have read and possibly put in practice from this forum. Which brings us back to the original line of thought from which we strayed in this thread. I will repeat, therefore, what I have seen and believe to be true: Taking the advice of polygraph failures on this forum, almost all of whom have no practical experience as polygraph examiners, can have detrimental effects on your ability to pass the polygraph exam. Particularly when you convince yourself that you will respond to the "relevant" questions because you believe they are the only questions that really matter on the exam, you will fulfill your own prophecy of failure.
Posted by Anonymous
- Feb 21, 2009, 07:31 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
The words of a fraud: "Our method cannot be proven in controlled experiments. It only works in 'real world' settings." Does this work for ANYTHING legitimate? I cannot think of any psychological/medical/scientific application that is nearly unequivocally accepted that the aforementioned statement may apply to. That must mean one thing: the polygraph doesn't fall into any of those domains. Its domain lies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psuedoscience
It is my understanding that Dr. Drew C. Richardson earned his doctorate in physiology in the process of studying lie detection. This is a legitimate doctorate from a legitimate university, mind you, unlike many of your peers who list phony degrees in an attempt to bolster their credibility. This equates to years and years of scientific research under academic, peer-reviewed scrutiny. He then proceeded to graduate from the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which, from what I have gathered, is supposed to be something like the "holy grail" of polygraph schools. In addition, I hardly believe an individual who has earned a doctorate in science would have the slightest amount of difficulty with "polygraph school," especially given that the polygraph is infinitely simpler than the subject of physiology as a whole. Lastly, Dr. Richardson spent time in the FBI's polygraph research unit. Now, unless you have a similar degree, graduated from DoDPI, and spent time researching the polygraph for the federal government, it seems to me that Dr. Richardson has you outmatched in terms of qualifications. Do you even have a degree in a scientific subject from an accredited university? Oh, I forgot, science is wrong, why would you care about such an education.
I forgot to parrot one other resource for you.
The American Medical Association:
"The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."
Every REAL scientific body that the polygraph can be linked to has condemned the polygraph, be it medical, psychological or wholly scientific in scope. Your device has failed. It is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. It never will be because its premise is incorrect. And this causes innocent people to be barred from jobs they have spent years preparing for, and allows guilty people to go by undetected into jobs of public trust. Yet you attempt to insult us because we are using conclusions ("theories" you say) from these subject matter experts. Aren't theories supposed to be scientific?
I simply do not understand your scrutinizing others for using subject matter experts as means of gathering information. I suppose you get all of your information first hand? Maybe you simply are an expert in all things? Must one be a geologist to state that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old? Or a medical doctor to state that exercise is good for one's heart? Or is this merely useless parroting? Your logic is terribly flawed if you actually believe that all one's knowledge is either inaccurate or flawed unless it comes first hand. It's strictly nonsense.
I also don't understand why you attempt to belittle others by calling them "polygraph failures" when in reality failing a polygraph means little, given its low accuracy rate. Even you accept the fact that the polygraph is not 100% accurate and false positives are possible. Consider the reality that the polygraph is closer to 50% accurate and false positives are relatively common, and your behavior becomes even more asinine.
I refer you to the following sources if this site has not convinced you that many innocent people fail polygraphs.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1352955&postcount=1
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357603&postcount=10
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1651463&postcount=19
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1548760&postcount=43
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1538719&postcount=1
There are MANY more of these posts. This is just barely scratching the surface. I could go on, but I fear it would take this whole thread over with examples.
You agree that the polygraph isn't a lie detector. Yet you still use phrases like, "deception indicated." I am hard pressed to believe one can be more hypocritical. What is the difference between the word "lie" and the word "deception"?
So what DOES the polygraph show going on inside people if it doesn't show deception? And when one consistently responds to the same question many times, what is it that is "definitely" going on inside his/her head?
The words of a fraud: "Our method cannot be proven in controlled experiments. It only works in 'real world' settings." Does this work for ANYTHING legitimate? I cannot think of any psychological/medical/scientific application that is nearly unequivocally accepted that the aforementioned statement may apply to. That must mean one thing: the polygraph doesn't fall into any of those domains. Its domain lies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psuedoscience
It is my understanding that Dr. Drew C. Richardson earned his doctorate in physiology in the process of studying lie detection. This is a legitimate doctorate from a legitimate university, mind you, unlike many of your peers who list phony degrees in an attempt to bolster their credibility. This equates to years and years of scientific research under academic, peer-reviewed scrutiny. He then proceeded to graduate from the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which, from what I have gathered, is supposed to be something like the "holy grail" of polygraph schools. In addition, I hardly believe an individual who has earned a doctorate in science would have the slightest amount of difficulty with "polygraph school," especially given that the polygraph is infinitely simpler than the subject of physiology as a whole. Lastly, Dr. Richardson spent time in the FBI's polygraph research unit. Now, unless you have a similar degree, graduated from DoDPI, and spent time researching the polygraph for the federal government, it seems to me that Dr. Richardson has you outmatched in terms of qualifications. Do you even have a degree in a scientific subject from an accredited university? Oh, I forgot, science is wrong, why would you care about such an education.
I forgot to parrot one other resource for you.
The American Medical Association:
"The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."
Every REAL scientific body that the polygraph can be linked to has condemned the polygraph, be it medical, psychological or wholly scientific in scope. Your device has failed. It is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. It never will be because its premise is incorrect. And this causes innocent people to be barred from jobs they have spent years preparing for, and allows guilty people to go by undetected into jobs of public trust. Yet you attempt to insult us because we are using conclusions ("theories" you say) from these subject matter experts. Aren't theories supposed to be scientific?
I simply do not understand your scrutinizing others for using subject matter experts as means of gathering information. I suppose you get all of your information first hand? Maybe you simply are an expert in all things? Must one be a geologist to state that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old? Or a medical doctor to state that exercise is good for one's heart? Or is this merely useless parroting? Your logic is terribly flawed if you actually believe that all one's knowledge is either inaccurate or flawed unless it comes first hand. It's strictly nonsense.
I also don't understand why you attempt to belittle others by calling them "polygraph failures" when in reality failing a polygraph means little, given its low accuracy rate. Even you accept the fact that the polygraph is not 100% accurate and false positives are possible. Consider the reality that the polygraph is closer to 50% accurate and false positives are relatively common, and your behavior becomes even more asinine.
I refer you to the following sources if this site has not convinced you that many innocent people fail polygraphs.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1352955&postcount=1
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357603&postcount=10
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1651463&postcount=19
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1548760&postcount=43
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1538719&postcount=1
There are MANY more of these posts. This is just barely scratching the surface. I could go on, but I fear it would take this whole thread over with examples.
You agree that the polygraph isn't a lie detector. Yet you still use phrases like, "deception indicated." I am hard pressed to believe one can be more hypocritical. What is the difference between the word "lie" and the word "deception"?
So what DOES the polygraph show going on inside people if it doesn't show deception? And when one consistently responds to the same question many times, what is it that is "definitely" going on inside his/her head?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2009, 01:12 AMQuoteT.M., we don't use the words "detection indicated." It's "deception indicated."
I know, that was a typo on my part.
QuoteAnd the polygraph isn't a "lie detector." It simply monitors what your body is doing while the examiner asks you a series of questions. An analysis of your body's reactions can be summarized by several diagnoses, one of which is "deception indicated."
If "deception" is only one of many "diagnoses" behind an F3 reaction as measure by the machine, then why do polygraph operators confidently use the term "deception indicated" when they get certain measurements on the machine? Shouldn't it be "something, perhaps deception, but maybe not indicated"?
How exactly can you distinguish or "diagnose" deception, versus "something else" based on chart output?
TC
Posted by Bill Crider
- Feb 16, 2009, 11:59 PMLieBabyCryBaby does not like us because perhaps because we are a constant reminder of the wreckage of polygraph screening. I do not doubt the polygraph as an interrogation tool or as a tool that accurately records stimuli to questions.
The fact is that the people on this board who have been on here for years are not on here because we are mad about being busted lying on polygraphs. There is for more outrage among the innocent accused than the guilty exposed.
you may or may not pass your polylgraph. my advice. quit obsessing, take the damn thing and good luck. if you make it you will have a nice career somewhere. If you dont make it, have a backup plan and join us on the forum. lol.
The fact is that the people on this board who have been on here for years are not on here because we are mad about being busted lying on polygraphs. There is for more outrage among the innocent accused than the guilty exposed.
you may or may not pass your polylgraph. my advice. quit obsessing, take the damn thing and good luck. if you make it you will have a nice career somewhere. If you dont make it, have a backup plan and join us on the forum. lol.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Feb 16, 2009, 10:31 PMT.M., we don't use the words "detection indicated." It's "deception indicated." And the polygraph isn't a "lie detector." It simply monitors what your body is doing while the examiner asks you a series of questions. An analysis of your body's reactions can be summarized by several diagnoses, one of which is "deception indicated."
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 12, 2009, 01:35 PMLBCB,
You still haven't explained why, if the polygraph doesn't detect lies as you stated in an earlier post, do polygraph operators use the phrase "detection indicated" when referring to results as measured by the polygraph machine.
You still haven't explained why, if the polygraph doesn't detect lies as you stated in an earlier post, do polygraph operators use the phrase "detection indicated" when referring to results as measured by the polygraph machine.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Feb 12, 2009, 02:26 AMQuoteLieBabyCryBaby:
Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson -
"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity... the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. ...(A)nyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."
I suppose this is secondhand information? I also suppose you have the credentials to challenge this individual's opinion?
"Anonymous," do you think I just popped onto this board for the first time? Read your so-called expert's "Countermeasures Challenge" thread. I've refuted Dr. Richardson many times, and you need only read my posts to see that. Here's one of my posts from 2006 to EosJ, who was more entertaining than you when it comes to spouting worn-out secondhand--or in your case probably hundredthhand--rhetoric:
EosJ,
I'm afraid I've shaken you too much. You can't even write complete sentences.
If the advice on this site actually did produce "inconclusive after inconclusive," that would be quite revealing indeed. What it would say is that a guilty examinee did just enough to pull himself or herself from the depths of failure to the gray area of inconclusive. If the information actually worked for innocent examinees, why would they end up inconclusive, going in the opposite direction TOWARD failure rather than away from it into higher positive numbers?
As for Drew's challenge, it is an empty challenge. It could only be done in a lab setting or, worse, in a public setting where outside factors would likely contaminate and skew the results. Lab studies can not duplicate real-world conditions. And where would we find REAL criminals willing to put their lives on the line simply to satisfy a bunch of disgruntled polygraph failures? Drew, George, and their minions make this challenge, but most of them know it isn't practical or even possible to implement an event that would prove anything one way or another. So, no serious polygrapher is going to bother responding to it.
I repeat, EosJ, where are all the criminals who have used the advice on this site to pass the polygraph? And where are all the applicants who have used this same advice to pass the polygraph while lying their asses off to relevant questions? All we hear on this site are a few people saying they used the information and it helped them pass, but can they prove they passed because of the information rather than simply because they were innocent to begin with? I think not.
Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is without merit, and his actual experience as a polygrapher is a big fat 0. He's nothing more than a parrot like yourself who can quote other people's secondhand ideas. He barely passed polygraph school and never had any practical experience. So yes, I have more actual credentials than this pretender.
The advice on this site can do nothing to help the scared children pass a polygraph exam. But it can increase their chances of failure. For those of you who, like Ghon, are scared children when faced with the prospect of sitting in that polygraph chair, please ignore these pretenders because most of them are simply polygraph failures without any experience.
And yes, "Anonymous," I'm sure you could go on "listlessly." But you're sufficiently listless already, thank you.
Posted by Anonymous
- Feb 10, 2009, 09:16 PMLieBabyCryBaby:
Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson -
"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity... the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. ...(A)nyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."
I suppose this is secondhand information? I also suppose you have the credentials to challenge this individual's opinion?
The American Psychological Association -
"There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious."
"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."
Psychologist Dr. Carol Tavris -
"There is no reliable way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not."
"People who offer hi-tech solutions and all kinds of fancy gizmos that promise a way to give you the answer - that's a very appealing promise to be able to make. But they're dead wrong."
Psychologist Dr. Phil Zimbardo -
"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal..."
National Academy of Sciences -
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology
provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph
test could have extremely high accuracy"
"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"
I could go on listlessly.
The bottom line is that the professionals who spend years researching the science of human behavior have concluded that the polygraph is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. Yet you and other polygraphers with self serving interests stand all out there on your own insisting your little machine works. It does not take much common sense to see which side has more credibility.
If someone legitimately does not give a rat's ass about the polygraph, does not fear it, and does not believe it works, the polygraph is ultimately useless, and therefore its accuracy is nil. You cannot argue this. With no fearful responses from a subject, the polygraph has absolutely no utility. And this is why your subculture relies on spreading the myth of "lie detection" and "98% accuracy," when in all actuality, such claims are BS.
The myth is dying, and eventually you will be confined to strip malls with psychics, tarot card readers and the rest of your kind.
Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson -
"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity... the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. ...(A)nyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."
I suppose this is secondhand information? I also suppose you have the credentials to challenge this individual's opinion?
The American Psychological Association -
"There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious."
"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."
Psychologist Dr. Carol Tavris -
"There is no reliable way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not."
"People who offer hi-tech solutions and all kinds of fancy gizmos that promise a way to give you the answer - that's a very appealing promise to be able to make. But they're dead wrong."
Psychologist Dr. Phil Zimbardo -
"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal..."
National Academy of Sciences -
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology
provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph
test could have extremely high accuracy"
"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"
I could go on listlessly.
The bottom line is that the professionals who spend years researching the science of human behavior have concluded that the polygraph is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. Yet you and other polygraphers with self serving interests stand all out there on your own insisting your little machine works. It does not take much common sense to see which side has more credibility.
If someone legitimately does not give a rat's ass about the polygraph, does not fear it, and does not believe it works, the polygraph is ultimately useless, and therefore its accuracy is nil. You cannot argue this. With no fearful responses from a subject, the polygraph has absolutely no utility. And this is why your subculture relies on spreading the myth of "lie detection" and "98% accuracy," when in all actuality, such claims are BS.
The myth is dying, and eventually you will be confined to strip malls with psychics, tarot card readers and the rest of your kind.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Feb 10, 2009, 08:01 PMSame old tired arguments from the same people who failed polygraph exams. Quite some time ago I grew tired of debating with this forum's pretenders, repeaters of questionable ideas, and polygraph failures. Believe whom you will, Ghon and others who are "scared out of your mind." Believe polygraph failures who get all of their knowledge and theories secondhand, or believe someone who actually has a lot of experience with the polygraph. Use their faulty advice at your own peril. I've caught many people who have tried, and I know what to look for. That doesn't mean all polygraphers are the same, though. Take the serious chance of failing the polygraph due to poor advice, or follow the voice of experience and increase your chances of passing the polygraph. It's not by any means perfect, but it's a whole lot more accurate than these pretenders wish to believe.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Feb 08, 2009, 06:49 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Feb 07, 2009, 05:25 PMThe polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.Some people call it a "lie detector." It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question. But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.So, "something" is going on inside you when you consistently respond to the same question many times? Gee, that sounds scientific...
Supervisor: "Was the subject deceptive or truthful?"
Polygraph Examiner: "He was something!"
Supervisor: "Well done!"
If only the examinee can answer what the "something" is, why do examiners score the charts? Why do they determine if deception was indicated or not?
Common sense indicates that polygraph examiners make a determination based on what they think. They do not leave it up to the examinee, and there is no way for the examiner to truly know if their guess is accurate or not.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 08, 2009, 01:10 AMQuoteIt doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question.
Every polygraph operator I dealt with claimed it detected deception. Where they lying? How do you then explain use of the phrase "deception indicated"?
QuoteBut when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.
But deception is only one. There are other reasons why a person nervous system could register a "defensive" reaction. In fact, if a person had been repeatedly told he was lying on a given question when he/she wasn't, his nervous system could just as easily react to that question. And a consistent reaction simply means he/she is consistently "reacting", whatever the underlying reason is.
Don't believe me, read the quote below from Dr. Zimbardo. Still not convinced, NAS report said the same thing about there being NO direct connection between an F3 reaction and "decption". It's just a huge supposition. That's why you need to badger, cajole or otherwise harrass the examinee until he/she gives you something you can twist, take out of context, or blow out of proportion, to prove your theory that the consistent reaction means "deception".
QuoteMy point has nothing to do with the subject of countermeasures, to which this thread has detoured. It also has nothing to do with why a "false positive" is a possibility, although a very slim one. My point is that when a person gets all caught up in "this question is a comparison" and "this question is a relevant," I think they make the relevant questions MORE relevant than they would otherwise be if they had just gone through the test without worrying about all that stuff.
I think the FIRST THING a person would be well advised to do is:
Know at both conscious (through study and learning) and subconscious levels that reactions on the machine don't mean a thing. The more one learns about what the polygraph machine actually does, and it's true limitations, the less afraid of it they will be. I mention "subconscious" above because it is at that level that "reactions" are produced.
Know also, that who process is nothing more than an interrogation disguised as a test. And that the polygraph machine is just a prop.
This is just the opposite of most examinees. Most believe (mainly from the "pop" culture) that the polygraph is extremely accurate and scientific. That is the polygraph claims the machine "indicates" deception, then "shoot! there must be something I did! What the heck could it be? Better start talking!" This is JUST THE OPPOSITE way they should be thinking!
Posted by meangino
- Feb 07, 2009, 09:50 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Feb 07, 2009, 05:25 PMhe polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.
Wrong, LBCB. I took 2 polygraphs. My answers were the same both times. Yet, I was deemed "deception indicated" on the first one and "no deception indicated" on the second one. There it is, a 50% chance of passing.
Of course, the complainant involved had zero credibility. It baffled me when the polygrapher accused me of lying. Nothing that she alleged was true; everyone involved with the investigation realized that. Even the FBI dicks (I don't mean penises; as Rowan and Maartin said, look it up in your Funk and Wagnals if you don't know what it means) agree she was not credible, but (I) "must have been hiding something." OK, if I were hiding something, what in the world was it? The FBI dicks didn't know because there was nothing to hide!
Mr. Maschke is correct about so-called "lie detectors," they are junk science and nonsense.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Feb 07, 2009, 05:25 PMThe polygraph isn't perfect, and there IS an extremely slim chance that you could end up as a "false positive."
Well, I agree with your first point
and strongly disagree with your second one. 
Polygraphs are like a coin toss, 50% heads (no decption indicated) and 50% tails (deception indicated). I know it's a small sample size but I know from my personal experience that a polygraph's outcome is a 50/50 propisition.