- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Zurren
- Aug 15, 2003, 09:42 PMHey s-X-e
To answer some of yor questions, I used both physical and mental. I applied the countermeasures in the way I understood it. Which is, use the countermeasures on the irrelavent questions and did nothing on the relavent ones. Actually there was only one question I was deseptive about. The countermeasures worked. I think it made me more nervious knowing I was applying countermeasues rather then being deseptive. I also did apply the countermeasures throughout the whole test. I didn't want to slack off and have the test start to look odd.
To answer some of yor questions, I used both physical and mental. I applied the countermeasures in the way I understood it. Which is, use the countermeasures on the irrelavent questions and did nothing on the relavent ones. Actually there was only one question I was deseptive about. The countermeasures worked. I think it made me more nervious knowing I was applying countermeasues rather then being deseptive. I also did apply the countermeasures throughout the whole test. I didn't want to slack off and have the test start to look odd.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Aug 14, 2003, 04:06 PMSaidme,
The fact that you make an analogy between the polygraph and the space shuttle tells me that you have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever. Your analogys, and inability to use them properly, tell me that you don't really understand the science (what little science there is) behind the machine, or that it has no scientific validity at all in detecting deception or differentiating truth.
You think it works based soley on the confessions you obtain. If you think your charts are indications of deception or truth I think you are either brainwashed or delusional.
Better purchase a new pair of boots and take that uniform out of mothballs because I feel you might have to go back to humping a beat to pay the bills.
The fact that you make an analogy between the polygraph and the space shuttle tells me that you have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever. Your analogys, and inability to use them properly, tell me that you don't really understand the science (what little science there is) behind the machine, or that it has no scientific validity at all in detecting deception or differentiating truth.
You think it works based soley on the confessions you obtain. If you think your charts are indications of deception or truth I think you are either brainwashed or delusional.
Better purchase a new pair of boots and take that uniform out of mothballs because I feel you might have to go back to humping a beat to pay the bills.
Posted by s-X-e
- Aug 14, 2003, 02:16 AMQuote from: Zurren on Aug 13, 2003, 12:55 PMI didn't think my post would generate this kind of attention.
Well for whom cares, I practiced these countermeasures. I did so on a similar chair as the one I would be on and I practiced in front of a full body mirror. They can not physically be detected unless you really screw up. It was as if I was just sitting there motionless. Now the countermeasures effect was obviously (to me anyways) working on the machine also. How could I be asked the same questions and answer the same way but have a totally different result? Because they worked?
The machine can be beat. The machine has been beat. The machine beats both the right and the wrong people. These are lives that are being messed with here.
Zurren, congratulations on passing your polygraph exam. I'm curious about a couple things regarding your examination. First, what countermeasures did you use? All physical, all mental, some of each, etc? Second, did you lie to any relevant questions? I'd like to know how much effort you used in applying your countermeasures and whether or not you had to overcome any strong reactions you might have given on relevant questions (i.e., if you lied).
Posted by Zurren
- Aug 13, 2003, 12:55 PMI didn't think my post would generate this kind of attention.
Well for whom cares, I practiced these countermeasures. I did so on a similar chair as the one I would be on and I practiced in front of a full body mirror. They can not physically be detected unless you really screw up. It was as if I was just sitting there motionless. Now the countermeasures effect was obviously (to me anyways) working on the machine also. How could I be asked the same questions and answer the same way but have a totally different result? Because they worked?
The machine can be beat. The machine has been beat. The machine beats both the right and the wrong people. These are lives that are being messed with here.
Well for whom cares, I practiced these countermeasures. I did so on a similar chair as the one I would be on and I practiced in front of a full body mirror. They can not physically be detected unless you really screw up. It was as if I was just sitting there motionless. Now the countermeasures effect was obviously (to me anyways) working on the machine also. How could I be asked the same questions and answer the same way but have a totally different result? Because they worked?
The machine can be beat. The machine has been beat. The machine beats both the right and the wrong people. These are lives that are being messed with here.
Posted by Anonymous
- Aug 13, 2003, 12:49 PMThomas Sowell made another observation that perfectly caputures the effect that this website is having on polygraph operators:
"It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites."
"It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites."
Posted by beech trees
- Aug 13, 2003, 12:07 PMQuote from: Saidme on Aug 13, 2003, 11:19 AMYou're not getting off the hook that easy. If you're so hell bent on removing polygraph then you need to come up with an adequate solution/replacement.
Thomas Sowell addressed this question perfectly when he wrote,
"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"
Posted by Saidme
- Aug 13, 2003, 11:19 AMYou're not getting off the hook that easy. If you're so hell bent on removing polygraph then you need to come up with an adequate solution/replacement.
Posted by Skeptic
- Aug 13, 2003, 04:11 AMQuote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 11:45 PMIf you're trying to make things better, than what's your answer to polygraph? What should we replace it with? Should we discontinue it's use until the George's of the world come up with something? I think not. I'll use it until something better comes along. We've got cases to resolve.
In my opinion, the polygraph and belief in it are so deeply flawed, in most of its current uses, that doing without completely would be an improvement.
As an interrogation prop for going after criminal subjects for confessions, I'm sure it's quite adequate. But to actually put faith in any existing technique to discern truth from falsehood is (again in my opinion) wrongheaded and worse than nothing.
Skeptic
Posted by Saidme
- Aug 12, 2003, 11:45 PMIf you're trying to make things better, than what's your answer to polygraph? What should we replace it with? Should we discontinue it's use until the George's of the world come up with something? I think not. I'll use it until something better comes along. We've got cases to resolve.
Posted by Skeptic
- Aug 12, 2003, 11:00 PMQuote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 10:46 PMSkeptic
Regarding specific issue testing (which is what I do). Your coveted NAS study (which I have no regard for) states something to the effect that specific issue testing is "far above chance" but less than perfect. Is far above chance 90%, 95%, 98%. I think I would take any one of those numbers to the bank. Let's even concede 85%, still pretty damn good.
The actual finding was:
QuoteCONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to realworld settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
-- NAS Report, Executive Summary, p. 4
You'll note a couple of things. First of all, they don't give a reliability rate, period. Second, they caveat the statement regarding the populations that are being discussed (e.g. subjects "untrained in countermeasures"). Third, the NAS is, in the above, specifically talking about polygraph research -- exactly the sort you seem to disdain as unrepresentative of the polygraph in the real world.
Finally, if you take an 85% accuracy rate yet hold 100% confidence in your results, you're talking about barking up the wrong tree 15% of the time. That may sound OK, but we're talking about an awful lot of misdirected investigations and wrongfully accused people.
QuoteLet me caveat this next statement so your co-horts don't take this out of context. The most recent (and more recent) shuttle disasters were horrendous. America lost a lot of great astronauts in both instances. The shuttle and the technology driving those shuttles is awesome. The people working on them are extraordinarily bright. Were the shuttles 100%? Obviously not. Would I volunteer to ride the next shuttle to space? In a heartbeat. Anytime you factor in the human element you've got room for error. Polygraph is no different. It's pretty damn good but face it, nothing's perfect.
Nope. But we're always trying to make things better. If that means a system is fatally flawed, we change it out. There's no way the Shuttle would fly if engineers gave it only a 75% chance of reaching orbit. And though your courage is remarkable, I sure as heck wouldn't fly under those conditions, either.
Skeptic
Posted by Saidme
- Aug 12, 2003, 10:46 PMSkeptic
You stand corrected on a couple of comments:
First let's take your CM statement. I have no doubt CM's can cause physiological changes during the course of a polygraph examination. My contention is that a competent examiner can and will detect CM's (turn off the clock Drew). We (polygraph examiners) have and continue to demonstrate it regularly. I know Drew would like a little lab coat and white room to do his test but face reality, the important work is in the field.
Regarding specific issue testing (which is what I do). Your coveted NAS study (which I have no regard for) states something to the effect that specific issue testing is "far above chance" but less than perfect. Is far above chance 90%, 95%, 98%. I think I would take any one of those numbers to the bank. Let's even concede 85%, still pretty damn good.
Let me caveat this next statement so your co-horts don't take this out of context. The most recent (and more recent) shuttle disasters were horrendous. America lost a lot of great astronauts in both instances. The shuttle and the technology driving those shuttles is awesome. The people working on them are extraordinarily bright. Were the shuttles 100%? Obviously not. Would I volunteer to ride the next shuttle to space? In a heartbeat. Anytime you factor in the human element you've got room for error. Polygraph is no different. It's pretty damn good but face it, nothing's perfect.
I guess my long winded point really takes a jab at the scientific community. They of all people should know that nothing is 100%. Unfortunately you get whiners like George who claimed to have been wronged. And none of us truly know why George failed his polygraph, do we?
You stand corrected on a couple of comments:
First let's take your CM statement. I have no doubt CM's can cause physiological changes during the course of a polygraph examination. My contention is that a competent examiner can and will detect CM's (turn off the clock Drew). We (polygraph examiners) have and continue to demonstrate it regularly. I know Drew would like a little lab coat and white room to do his test but face reality, the important work is in the field.
Regarding specific issue testing (which is what I do). Your coveted NAS study (which I have no regard for) states something to the effect that specific issue testing is "far above chance" but less than perfect. Is far above chance 90%, 95%, 98%. I think I would take any one of those numbers to the bank. Let's even concede 85%, still pretty damn good.
Let me caveat this next statement so your co-horts don't take this out of context. The most recent (and more recent) shuttle disasters were horrendous. America lost a lot of great astronauts in both instances. The shuttle and the technology driving those shuttles is awesome. The people working on them are extraordinarily bright. Were the shuttles 100%? Obviously not. Would I volunteer to ride the next shuttle to space? In a heartbeat. Anytime you factor in the human element you've got room for error. Polygraph is no different. It's pretty damn good but face it, nothing's perfect.
I guess my long winded point really takes a jab at the scientific community. They of all people should know that nothing is 100%. Unfortunately you get whiners like George who claimed to have been wronged. And none of us truly know why George failed his polygraph, do we?
Posted by Skeptic
- Aug 12, 2003, 10:30 PMQuote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 10:11 PMMuch like my credentials are questioned, I question the timing as well as the source of this and other sources.
Of course you do. Unfortunately for your analogy, it is a documented, scientific fact that countermeasures can influence the results of polygraph "tests". We have no such information regarding your credentials, though you'll note that, for the most part, I've avoided making an issue out of it, as it simply doesn't matter much.
It's true that one simply can't know, on a site such as this that allows anonymous posting, the truthfulness of any claim made in absence of corroborating evidence. That is why it is so important to take claims such as Saidme's regarding the ability to detect countermeasures with a grain of salt.
It really doesn't matter whether "Zurren"'s being truthful or not. What matters is that the science says the polygraph is not reliable enough for the uses to which it's put, and that polygraphers (despite having been challenged to do so) have not demonstrated an ability to detect countermeasures above chance. Thus, for the record, I find "Zurren"'s statement completely in line with the facts of the matter, Saidme's confident (and self-serving) assertion of true faith notwithstanding.
Skeptic
P.S. five stars after 251 postings, IIRC. It might have been 300 or 350, though...
Posted by Saidme
- Aug 12, 2003, 10:12 PMGeorge
Where is my 5th star. You don't think I play these games for free do you?
Where is my 5th star. You don't think I play these games for free do you?
Posted by Saidme
- Aug 12, 2003, 10:11 PMMuch like my credentials are questioned, I question the timing as well as the source of this and other sources. I think I read a post Batman put on here once where he suspected George (or one of the other anti folks) of having multiple handles. I think the caped crusader was on to something. Regarding my view on CM's? Like a rock baby! 
Posted by Skeptic
- Aug 12, 2003, 10:02 PMQuote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 09:46 PMSkeptic/CC
Wow, my whole life's been transformed by this revelation. Maybe I'll just put my black box and snake oil away and join you and George and Gino and Drew. Sounds like a hell of a good time. NOT! I do have a question for Z. Why would you want to work for a place that's known as a "backwards hillbilly" place? Hmmm.
A simple acknowledgement that you were wrong in your prediction regarding countermeasure efficacy would suffice, Saidme. But as I said, it's hardly necessary, as the accuracy of your confident, expert prediction is now obvious.
Perhaps detecting countermeasures isn't quite as easy as Saidme likes to assert...
Skeptic