- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Flaw
- Jan 06, 2004, 04:25 PMQuotePlease accept my apologies.None necessary.
QuoteWould you be kind enough to provide more information about your examination...
sure, what would you like to know? I'd consider myself a 'young' 32-yr old (not middle-aged); and, as you can see in my profile, i'm male. And, very healthy, athletic, intelligent, i like soccer, and "romantic walks on the beach". All kidding aside, just ask.
Posted by Torpedo
- Jan 06, 2004, 03:52 PMWell apparently, I was incorrect. Please accept my apologies. I based my comments on the information that you supplied...or rather did not supply. I am guilty of jumping to a conclusion. I was nevertheless trying to offer some explanation as to why the examiner made use of the scarf. Had I not been knowledgeable of this disesase, I certainly never would have offered the explanation that I did. Again, I was apparently incorrect, but I was also attempting to offer some explanation of why the examiner did what he did, to George, but also, perhaps to you as this disease often goes undetected and thus untreated. Would you be kind enough to provide more information about your examination...just curious as I too am trying to understand the actions of the examiner; perhaps if he is a reader, he can advise us.
Posted by Flaw
- Jan 06, 2004, 03:37 PMHey, and I thought polygraphers were only "licensed" in tarot cards, apparently they're also able to diagnose vascular diseases! great!
Torpedo,
Although this may have been done on others as "an effort on the part of the examiner to reduce the problems associated with this disease", it clearly wasn't the case for me.
For the past 6 years I have had an annual physical (not to mention random drug tests which I should show my medical polygrapher who suspected "a problem with drugs") which included blood work! Granted, they may have not tested for this particular disease, but I have not had any hints of any sort of disease, diagnosed or felt, throughout my life.
If you feel this is still not enough, why would I get the "scarf" treatment on only 1 of the 6 iterations? The scarf was used on either the 2nd or 3rd iteration of my first polygraph. It was not used at all on my 2nd polygraph (and by the same tester).
Bingo! I came to the same conclusion, although as TLBTLD correctly states, it was due to my being a completely honest applicant! Having had a very clean life and being a good-natured person, I had no problem whatsoever answering the control questions honestly. Without having read TLBTLD or having any detailed knowledge of the polygraph, I came out thinking I was very calm throughout the entire "test". Now having read how this "coin toss" 'works', I suspect my control responses were either the "same" or "less" than my relevant responses; they're loss.
But rest assured, if ever faced with another 'test', I have full confidence i'll blow it away using CMs.
Torpedo,
Although this may have been done on others as "an effort on the part of the examiner to reduce the problems associated with this disease", it clearly wasn't the case for me.
For the past 6 years I have had an annual physical (not to mention random drug tests which I should show my medical polygrapher who suspected "a problem with drugs") which included blood work! Granted, they may have not tested for this particular disease, but I have not had any hints of any sort of disease, diagnosed or felt, throughout my life.
If you feel this is still not enough, why would I get the "scarf" treatment on only 1 of the 6 iterations? The scarf was used on either the 2nd or 3rd iteration of my first polygraph. It was not used at all on my 2nd polygraph (and by the same tester).
Quote. Based on Flaw's description, I would conclude that throughout chart 1, the examiner observed an absence of response and perhaps even an involuntary twitching of the fingers thereby bringing about difficulty in obtaining acceptable physiological signals.
Bingo! I came to the same conclusion, although as TLBTLD correctly states, it was due to my being a completely honest applicant! Having had a very clean life and being a good-natured person, I had no problem whatsoever answering the control questions honestly. Without having read TLBTLD or having any detailed knowledge of the polygraph, I came out thinking I was very calm throughout the entire "test". Now having read how this "coin toss" 'works', I suspect my control responses were either the "same" or "less" than my relevant responses; they're loss.
But rest assured, if ever faced with another 'test', I have full confidence i'll blow it away using CMs.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 06, 2004, 05:10 AMTorpedo,
While it is possible that Flaw's polygrapher was attempting to provide "medical treatment" for some disorder that he/she "diagnosed" (but apparently did not mention to Flaw), I think it is much more likely that the polygrapher was simply attempting to increase reactivity on the electrodermal channel in order to produce more readily scorable charts.
I'm not suggesting that the polygrapher acted out of impure motives. And I'm certainly not suggesting that the polygrapher should be "drawn and quartered." What I am saying is that there is no scientific basis for such manipulation as the polygrapher practiced. Can you name any forensic test where it is appropriate for the person conducting test to introduce an uncontrolled and potentially confounding variable when the results don't turn out as desired?
While it is possible that Flaw's polygrapher was attempting to provide "medical treatment" for some disorder that he/she "diagnosed" (but apparently did not mention to Flaw), I think it is much more likely that the polygrapher was simply attempting to increase reactivity on the electrodermal channel in order to produce more readily scorable charts.
I'm not suggesting that the polygrapher acted out of impure motives. And I'm certainly not suggesting that the polygrapher should be "drawn and quartered." What I am saying is that there is no scientific basis for such manipulation as the polygrapher practiced. Can you name any forensic test where it is appropriate for the person conducting test to introduce an uncontrolled and potentially confounding variable when the results don't turn out as desired?
Posted by Torpedo
- Jan 06, 2004, 01:25 AMSorry, I neglcted to provide additional information which I had intended.
George comments that from a "scientific standpoint such manipulation is entirely inappropriate and merely introduces additional uncontrolled (and potentially confounding variables" Wrong, wrong wrong! As I pointed out, there is a fairly high probablity that this person suffers from a vascular disorder(Raynaud's seems to fit the symptoms - or the actions taken by the examiner). George, you might like to know that if the examiner would refuse to test the examinee ( if this is a screening issue) because of a probblem like Raynaud's precluded the examinee from providing physiological signals, that the examiner could be held liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The examiner should be applauded because he took some action to reduce the problem. You George would have him drawn and quartered. Shame Sir!
George comments that from a "scientific standpoint such manipulation is entirely inappropriate and merely introduces additional uncontrolled (and potentially confounding variables" Wrong, wrong wrong! As I pointed out, there is a fairly high probablity that this person suffers from a vascular disorder(Raynaud's seems to fit the symptoms - or the actions taken by the examiner). George, you might like to know that if the examiner would refuse to test the examinee ( if this is a screening issue) because of a probblem like Raynaud's precluded the examinee from providing physiological signals, that the examiner could be held liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The examiner should be applauded because he took some action to reduce the problem. You George would have him drawn and quartered. Shame Sir!
Posted by Torpedo
- Jan 06, 2004, 01:17 AMActually George, you are likely incorrect in this case. Although more information would be needed, I would be willing to bet, based on the supplied information, that Flaw suffers from a disease called Raynaud's Syndrome. It is a disease that often remains dormant and is more prevalent in middle aged women (but certainly not restricted to that group). I will grant you that it is probably that the examiner did not know (assuming my diagnosis is correct) what was occuring, but to wrap the hand in a scarf might very well be a effort on the part of the examiner to reduce the problems associated with this disease. You are wrong to conclude without knowing all of the facts that the only reason for warming the hands is to facilitate scoring the charts. I have encountered this disease before and in actuality the examinee came into my examination suiite on a summer day wearing light gloves. It was she who enlightened me and I took the time to explore available information about this and learned what I am providing here. I would have to conclude that there was nothing devious going on as you would have Flaw believe because often the affilcted person doesn't even know what might be bring forth the symptoms of this very debilitating vascular disease. Based on Flaw's description, I would conclude that throughout chart 1, the examiner observed an absence of response and perhaps even an involuntary twitching of the fingers thereby bringing about difficulty in obtaining acceptable physiological signals. I would like to know if Flaw knows what the problem is, or explained to the examiner that his/her hands were cold. have provided you with a website where you can learn more about Raynaud's Syndrome....and maybe next time you will not be so hasty to conclude that there is something improper going on. You know there isn't any sin in just saying "I don't know...and I will look into it" Any chance you made a mistake here George?
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/7397/
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/7397/
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 03, 2004, 06:03 AMWrapping a subject's hand in a scarf is not standard procedure, in the sense that it is not routinely done with all subjects. This does not mean that this practice would necessarily be considered inappropriate within the polygraph community. While yours is the first reference to such a practice that I've come across, I've heard of other polygraphers having subjects run warm water over their hands.
It seems likely that the motivation for warming a subject's hands is to increase reactivity on the electrodermal channel of the polygraph instrument, in hopes of producing charts that will be more readily scored. However, from a scientific standpoint such manipulation is entirely inappropriate and merely introduces additional uncontrolled (and potentially confounding) variables.
It seems likely that the motivation for warming a subject's hands is to increase reactivity on the electrodermal channel of the polygraph instrument, in hopes of producing charts that will be more readily scored. However, from a scientific standpoint such manipulation is entirely inappropriate and merely introduces additional uncontrolled (and potentially confounding) variables.
Posted by Flaw
- Jan 02, 2004, 05:26 PMProcedure question (still not finished reading TLBTLD) :
What would've been the purpose of wrapping my hand with a scarf during only one of the three iterations of my 1st polygraph? Obviously it increases temperature and thus sweat production, but was this to create a 'cieling' on my chart? Oddly, if I recall correctly, it may have been the 2nd or 3rd iteration. Is this standard procedure?
What would've been the purpose of wrapping my hand with a scarf during only one of the three iterations of my 1st polygraph? Obviously it increases temperature and thus sweat production, but was this to create a 'cieling' on my chart? Oddly, if I recall correctly, it may have been the 2nd or 3rd iteration. Is this standard procedure?