- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 27, 2007, 03:17 AMSkip,
Now that you are a registered user of this message board, might you be willing to address the public challenge I put to you some six years ago? The questions I raised then remain relevant today.
Now that you are a registered user of this message board, might you be willing to address the public challenge I put to you some six years ago? The questions I raised then remain relevant today.
Posted by Post
- Sep 04, 2001, 02:23 PMThanks, George I have requested copies of the two studies you mentioned so I can re-read them before I continue. Once I have them, I'll set up the thread.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 03, 2001, 03:42 AMPost,
The Polygraph Procedure forum is suitable for discussion of polygraph countermeasures. To start a new thread, go to the forum in which you wish to post and click the "new thread" button, which you'll find in the upper right hand corner of the message list.
If you'd like to have the option of editing messages after you've posted them, you can register with the message board. (Note that if you choose a multiple word screen name, the message board software we're using will place underscores between words, e.g. John_Smith. By clicking on the "profile" button any time after registering, you can change this to John Smith without the underscore.)
You can also add hyperlinks and add styled text to messages you post by using UBB code, which is similar to HTML. For more on this, click on the "help" button at the top of the screen.
The Polygraph Procedure forum is suitable for discussion of polygraph countermeasures. To start a new thread, go to the forum in which you wish to post and click the "new thread" button, which you'll find in the upper right hand corner of the message list.
If you'd like to have the option of editing messages after you've posted them, you can register with the message board. (Note that if you choose a multiple word screen name, the message board software we're using will place underscores between words, e.g. John_Smith. By clicking on the "profile" button any time after registering, you can change this to John Smith without the underscore.)
You can also add hyperlinks and add styled text to messages you post by using UBB code, which is similar to HTML. For more on this, click on the "help" button at the top of the screen.
Posted by Post
- Sep 02, 2001, 11:35 PMWell, there seems to be some interest in continuing with this discussion. I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to do it however and I would be interested in starting a new thread for this purpose. Can anyone give me brief instructions on how to start a new thread and which topic heading would be considered appropriate for the discussion, ie Poly policy, procedure, etc. Also is there any way to transfer the pertinient posts from this thread, to the new thread?
Posted by Fred F.
- Sep 01, 2001, 09:31 PMQuote from: Last Post on Aug 31, 2001, 08:14 PM
As for attacking anyone, I wasn't aware I was doing that. I merely expressed an opinion regarding the manner in which some information was presented. I must say that wannabe's post does read like an attack to me, but I probably should have expected that from reading his previous posts and those of Fred F.
Regarding being a polygraph examiner, I am not. I am a Forensic Psychologist. I have a personal interest in psychophysiology and thus interest in polygraphy, but thats the extent of it. I do find it interesting that anyone who expresses any opinion that deviates even slightly from the crusade to abolish the evil polygraph is immediately branded an examiner.
Options Open on Posting,
I never mentioned in my post anything to the extent of "labeling" you a polygrapher, I am not posting attacks, only challenges to those who won't respond to Mr. Maschkes requests for documented scientific validity for polygraph testing.
As a Forensic Psychologist you know the value of validity in any scientific research... Your profession requires a great deal of research and investigation, therefore you know that you better have the research to back your findings or they won't hold up as evidence in court.
If you interpreted my posting as a personal attack, Please don't. Like wannabe, I welcome your input and insight to this message board.
Fred F.
Posted by Options Open on Posting
- Sep 01, 2001, 04:16 PMWannabe, I apologize. After reading your post again, you did not brand me an examiner. I misinterpreted your first couple of sentences. I also appreciate your clarification of your intent and the invitation to continue participating in this forum. My wife tells me all the time that e-mail and text chat are susceptible to mistakes since the bulk of our communication processes (expressions, body language, vocal tone and inflection) are missing. I look forward to more exchanges of substance on the topics presented here.
Posted by Wannabe
- Aug 31, 2001, 09:50 PMI wasn't aware that I branded you a polygraher, after re-reading my post several times I still don't see it, I guess it's because I am blinded by my ignorant obseesion with doing away with or severely limiting that which has and will continue to wrongly accuse and shatter the dreams of so many truthful persons....
Please don't stop posting, intellegent debate is very important as it helps to more fully inform the public, I apologize if I seemed to be attacking, I guess I see posts that are aggrivating because the polygraph is so very obviously, at least to me now, a threat to not the criminals in which it is supposed to protect the public from, but the truthful who wish to further protect the public.
I do hope you will continue to use the board
Please don't stop posting, intellegent debate is very important as it helps to more fully inform the public, I apologize if I seemed to be attacking, I guess I see posts that are aggrivating because the polygraph is so very obviously, at least to me now, a threat to not the criminals in which it is supposed to protect the public from, but the truthful who wish to further protect the public.
I do hope you will continue to use the board
Posted by Last Post
- Aug 31, 2001, 08:14 PMMr Maschke:
I appreciate your expansion of these studies on the site. While I certainly agree that you document your references well, allowing anyone who would like more information to find it, I suspect most who view this site and review your download don't bother to find the references and read them for themselves.
As for attacking anyone, I wasn't aware I was doing that. I merely expressed an opinion regarding the manner in which some information was presented. I must say that wannabe's post does read like an attack to me, but I probably should have expected that from reading his previous posts and those of Fred F.
Regarding being a polygraph examiner, I am not. I am a Forensic Psychologist. I have a personal interest in psychophysiology and thus interest in polygraphy, but thats the extent of it. I do find it interesting that anyone who expresses any opinion that deviates even slightly from the crusade to abolish the evil polygraph is immediately branded an examiner.
That said, again Mr Maschke, thanks for the platform to express my opinions. To those others, rest assured this is my Last Post here and you can go back to your rabid rhetoric without "challenge" from me.
I appreciate your expansion of these studies on the site. While I certainly agree that you document your references well, allowing anyone who would like more information to find it, I suspect most who view this site and review your download don't bother to find the references and read them for themselves.
As for attacking anyone, I wasn't aware I was doing that. I merely expressed an opinion regarding the manner in which some information was presented. I must say that wannabe's post does read like an attack to me, but I probably should have expected that from reading his previous posts and those of Fred F.
Regarding being a polygraph examiner, I am not. I am a Forensic Psychologist. I have a personal interest in psychophysiology and thus interest in polygraphy, but thats the extent of it. I do find it interesting that anyone who expresses any opinion that deviates even slightly from the crusade to abolish the evil polygraph is immediately branded an examiner.
That said, again Mr Maschke, thanks for the platform to express my opinions. To those others, rest assured this is my Last Post here and you can go back to your rabid rhetoric without "challenge" from me.
Posted by Fred F.
- Aug 31, 2001, 12:57 AMGeorge,
Cudos to you on another masterful demonstration of presenting evidence to support the intentions of this site, to educate people on the pseudo-science that is polygraphy
What still amazes me is that after all the time this site has been here is that the polygraph community has still FAILED to address the basic issues that are presented on this board. While some present intelligent and candid arguments, others attempt to debunk scientific research that does support many of the notions that polygraphy is indeed a flawed and dangerous "tool" that has destroyed many careers and prevented some from seeking careers in law enforcement, intelligence, and scientific research (Los Alamos..etc).
To the members of the polygraph community...All the members of this site would like to see you address the issues that George and Gino have challenged you to on numerous occasions.This site is educating people to the pitfalls and fallacies of polygraph testing and to assist those who have been wronged by it.
Finally to everyone who visits this site and gets educated..HAVE INTEGRITY AND BE HONEST but,remember The Lie Behind The Lie Detector
Fred F.
Cudos to you on another masterful demonstration of presenting evidence to support the intentions of this site, to educate people on the pseudo-science that is polygraphy
What still amazes me is that after all the time this site has been here is that the polygraph community has still FAILED to address the basic issues that are presented on this board. While some present intelligent and candid arguments, others attempt to debunk scientific research that does support many of the notions that polygraphy is indeed a flawed and dangerous "tool" that has destroyed many careers and prevented some from seeking careers in law enforcement, intelligence, and scientific research (Los Alamos..etc).
To the members of the polygraph community...All the members of this site would like to see you address the issues that George and Gino have challenged you to on numerous occasions.This site is educating people to the pitfalls and fallacies of polygraph testing and to assist those who have been wronged by it.
Finally to everyone who visits this site and gets educated..HAVE INTEGRITY AND BE HONEST but,remember The Lie Behind The Lie Detector
Fred F.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 30, 2001, 07:31 PMFirst Quote,
You wrote in part:
If you go back and read the Honts countermeasures studies, you'll see that the polygraph examinations were not administered by graduate students. While the countermeasures instruction was provided by assistants, in the 1985 study (Honts, C.R., R.L. Hodes, and D.C. Raskin, "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 [1985], No. 1, 177-187) Honts himself performed all of the polygraph examinations:
In the 1994 study (Honts, C.R., D.C. Raskin, and J.C. Kircher, "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 [1994], No. 2, 252-259), while countermeasures training was again provided by assistants, all polygraph examinations were conducted by experienced polygraphers:
I agree with you that readers of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector should check our sources. We scrupulously annotated it for this very purpose, and in the case of the Honts studies in question, we cited the full abstracts in the annotated bibliography for the benefit of those for whom a visit to a research library might be inconvenient.
With regard to the last Honts study to which you refer (Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., and Gordon, A.K., "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test"), it was published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly Polygraph, Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, 1-9. Note that the Office of Naval Research grant which supported this research is #N00014-98-0725.
With regard to the examiners in this study, Honts et al. write:
"Spontaneous countermeasures," the subject of this report, are untrained countermeasures: those things done by subjects who are ignorant of polygraph procedure in an attempt to increase the likelihood of their passing the "test." Spontaneous countermeasures are fundamentally different from those that were the subject of the earlier two Honts studies (and those discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) It is hardly surprising that the use of spontaneous countermeasures by innocent subjects did not help them to pass the "test." It is noteworthy, however, that in this study, highly trained examiners were unable to detect even such unsophisticated countermeasures attempts:
You wrote in part:
QuoteEssentially its your characterization that people who received no more than 30 minutes training were able to beat the polygraph. Those studies used graduate students, who received just enough training to operate the laboratory polygraph posing as examiners. The question is not whether or not the polygraph can be beat, but how easy is it to do so. How easy is it to beat an unqualified student posing as an examiner, as opposed to beating an experienced, certified examiner.
If you go back and read the Honts countermeasures studies, you'll see that the polygraph examinations were not administered by graduate students. While the countermeasures instruction was provided by assistants, in the 1985 study (Honts, C.R., R.L. Hodes, and D.C. Raskin, "Effects of Physical Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 [1985], No. 1, 177-187) Honts himself performed all of the polygraph examinations:
QuoteThe first author conducted all of the polygraph examinations in this experiment. He was trained at the Backster School of Lie Detection, had 5 yr of field polygraph experience, and was a licensed detection of deception examiner in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (p. 179)
In the 1994 study (Honts, C.R., D.C. Raskin, and J.C. Kircher, "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 [1994], No. 2, 252-259), while countermeasures training was again provided by assistants, all polygraph examinations were conducted by experienced polygraphers:
QuoteApproximately 1 week after their initial appointments, all subjects were administered a CQT polygraph examination by an experienced polygraph examiner who was unaware of the subject's guilt, innocence, or countermeasure training. (p. 254)
I agree with you that readers of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector should check our sources. We scrupulously annotated it for this very purpose, and in the case of the Honts studies in question, we cited the full abstracts in the annotated bibliography for the benefit of those for whom a visit to a research library might be inconvenient.
With regard to the last Honts study to which you refer (Honts, C.R., Amato, S.L., and Gordon, A.K., "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test"), it was published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly Polygraph, Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, 1-9. Note that the Office of Naval Research grant which supported this research is #N00014-98-0725.
With regard to the examiners in this study, Honts et al. write:
QuoteAn experienced (22 years in practice) polygraph examiner used reference materials provided by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) to train three women, none of whom was a practicing polygraph examiner, to conduct polygraph examinations. Two of the examiners held the Ph.D. degree in Psychology, the third was an undergraduate research assistant. The goal of the training was that the examinations should follow field procedures as closely as possible. As a quality control procedure, all polygraph examinations were videotaped. Throughout the experiment, sample examinations were randomly reviewed by the supervising examiner to make sure that the examinations were being conducted properly.... (p. 3)
...
The physiological data from the examinations were printed on paper charts and were evaluated independently by three Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) instructors using the numerical scoring system taught at DoDPI (Swinford, 1999; Weaver, 1980). Those instructors also made an assessment on a 7-point scale (1=not likely at all) regarding the likelihood of countermeasure use. (p. 6)
"Spontaneous countermeasures," the subject of this report, are untrained countermeasures: those things done by subjects who are ignorant of polygraph procedure in an attempt to increase the likelihood of their passing the "test." Spontaneous countermeasures are fundamentally different from those that were the subject of the earlier two Honts studies (and those discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) It is hardly surprising that the use of spontaneous countermeasures by innocent subjects did not help them to pass the "test." It is noteworthy, however, that in this study, highly trained examiners were unable to detect even such unsophisticated countermeasures attempts:
QuoteThe present study also examined the ability of highly trained polygraph examiners to detect the use of countermeasures. The results of this study indicate that they cannot detect the use of spontaneous countermeasures. Their ratings of the likelihood of countermeasure use were generally unreliable and were not associated with actual countermeasure use at better than chance levels. Field polygraph examiners generally appear to operate under the notion that a detection of countermeasure attempts is synonymous with attempted deception to the relevant questions of the examination (Jayne, 1981). Clearly, that notion is incorrect. The results of this study show that an examiner's decision of countermeasure use is unrelated to both countermeasure use, and to deception. Our analyses indicated that almost half of the subjects judged to be using countermeasures were in fact Innocent subjects. These results strongly suggest that the field practice of equating countermeasure attempts with deception to the relevant issues of an examination should be abandoned. (pp. 7-8)
Posted by Wannabe
- Aug 30, 2001, 05:40 PMfrom what I have read and from what I have seen posted by admitted or assumed polygraphers the only ones doing any misleading are the polygraphers themselves, which is understandable considering the polygraph itself when "properly" used relies heavily on the subject being uninformed and misled. That said, it is perfectly fine to encourage people to refer to the quoted material in order to see the whole picture, but I don't think it's appropriate to attack Mr. Maschke's statements simply because he seeks to inform people of the facts, furthermore I have read post after post of Mr. Maschke's that have provided links to the very material he quotes, and if not, it is most likely available or referenced elswhere on this site. understand that the closer people come to finding out what the polygraph is all about and abolishing it or seriously limiting it's application, the more attacks those who seek to inform will have to endure, as the polygraph community sees it's cash cow fading away I am sure the attacks will increase in frequency and intensity. Mr. Maschke, I for one would like to thank you for your efforts, I am sure these things don't bother you much, but I am glad to show my support anyway 
Posted by First Post
- Aug 30, 2001, 02:02 PMEssentially its your characterization that people who received no more than 30 minutes training were able to beat the polygraph. Those studies used graduate students, who received just enough training to operate the laboratory polygraph posing as examiners. The question is not whether or not the polygraph can be beat, but how easy is it to do so. How easy is it to beat an unqualified student posing as an examiner, as opposed to beating an experienced, certified examiner. I believe the way you present the information is misleading and stand by my suggestion that anyone contemplating a polygraph or utilizing the information on this or any other site should go to the source to ensure they have complete information before they decide on a course of action. Especially since its very easy to give advice when you don't have to bear the consequences that result from that advice.
I would also suggest that anyone really interested in this topic check Honts, Amato, and Gordon, "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test", Boise State University, Contract N00014-98-0752, a 2000 study which concluded among other things that spontaneous countermeasures were counterproductive. In that study 45.8% of the innocent subjects employed some type of countermeasure. The finding was "The main effect of Countermeasure Use indexed a significant difference in total numerical scores between innocent subjects who did not use countermeasures (M=4.55) and those who did use countermeasures (M=-3.91). Thus the use of spontaneous countermeasures was detrimental to Innocent subjects, moving them significantly in the direction of a deceptive decision." It should be noted that this study also used graduate students as examiners. But, as with all such studies I would encourage everyone to carefully study any cited research before trying to apply those results to their own situation. This study has been submitted for peer review and is pending publication.
I would also suggest that anyone really interested in this topic check Honts, Amato, and Gordon, "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test", Boise State University, Contract N00014-98-0752, a 2000 study which concluded among other things that spontaneous countermeasures were counterproductive. In that study 45.8% of the innocent subjects employed some type of countermeasure. The finding was "The main effect of Countermeasure Use indexed a significant difference in total numerical scores between innocent subjects who did not use countermeasures (M=4.55) and those who did use countermeasures (M=-3.91). Thus the use of spontaneous countermeasures was detrimental to Innocent subjects, moving them significantly in the direction of a deceptive decision." It should be noted that this study also used graduate students as examiners. But, as with all such studies I would encourage everyone to carefully study any cited research before trying to apply those results to their own situation. This study has been submitted for peer review and is pending publication.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 29, 2001, 05:38 PMFirst Post,
What about my statements regarding the two Honts studies do you believe to be inaccurate and/or misleading?
What about my statements regarding the two Honts studies do you believe to be inaccurate and/or misleading?
Posted by First Post
- Aug 29, 2001, 05:11 PMGiven the usually articulate responses I see on this site I was very distressed to see how inaccurately the results of the two Honts studies quoted by Mr Maschke were portrayed. I would suggest that anyone truely interested in the findings and conclusions of these studies obtain them for themselves and read them. Those conclusions are protrayed in a VERY misleading way by Mr Maschke.
Posted by Trib Reader
- Jul 16, 2001, 07:32 AMApparently Mr. Zorn was not fooled by Mr. Webb's lack of candor and misrepresentations. His (Zorn's) last statement/paragraph is quite revealing:
"Under the circumstances, anyone who would willingly trust his reputation, his career, his freedom or his fortune to a lie detector is a fool. Honest."
"Under the circumstances, anyone who would willingly trust his reputation, his career, his freedom or his fortune to a lie detector is a fool. Honest."