- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Sep 28, 2001, 11:07 PMBeech trees,
I've posted a note about this on another thread, "Theories of CQT-polygraphy (Attn Gordon Barland)." It will be a while before I can discuss theories.
So many topics, so little time! But patience. I will indeed return to theories.
Peace,
Gordon
I've posted a note about this on another thread, "Theories of CQT-polygraphy (Attn Gordon Barland)." It will be a while before I can discuss theories.
So many topics, so little time! But patience. I will indeed return to theories.
Peace,
Gordon
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 09, 2001, 05:00 AMQuote from: Gordon H. Barland on May 11, 2001, 07:36 PM
Anonymous,
Now this is exactly the type of discussion I had hoped for, on a topic dear to my heart. I will give you my views in the coming days and weeks, but wish to clear up some of the back log first.
Mr. Barland,
The above cited quote appears from a reply you made almost four months ago to a post directly addressed to you in another thread. I find it interesting and illustrative that you chose not to address that topic-- dear to your heart-- as you clearly stated you would do, but rather you expend your energies on other threads created after whatever 'backlog' you were experiencing has no doubt dissapated.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 02, 2001, 06:05 AMGordon,
I also find it interesting that in two months and 227 viewings, "nobody has seen fit to anwer the plea." I don't know how much can be inferred from this, however. As with polygraphy, there are too many unknown and unknowable variables. For example, we don't know, and cannot know, how many people who used countermeasures read this message thread (though it seems safe to assume that the number was less than 227). Clearly any who did use countermeasures and viewed this message thread chose not to post a reply. You said that this is "revealing." What, in your opinion, does it reveal?
You assert that a polygrapher's experience, alertness, and training in detecting countermeasures is a "variable involved." Could you cite any peer-reviewed research that indicates that a polygrapher's experience, alertness, and training have any correlation with a polygrapher's ability to detect the point countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?
With regard to the last point you made:
This is similar to your argument in the message thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent. Yet when you were asked to support your arguments, you chose to dodge the hard questions that were put to you. Which I find "revealing."
I also find it interesting that in two months and 227 viewings, "nobody has seen fit to anwer the plea." I don't know how much can be inferred from this, however. As with polygraphy, there are too many unknown and unknowable variables. For example, we don't know, and cannot know, how many people who used countermeasures read this message thread (though it seems safe to assume that the number was less than 227). Clearly any who did use countermeasures and viewed this message thread chose not to post a reply. You said that this is "revealing." What, in your opinion, does it reveal?
You assert that a polygrapher's experience, alertness, and training in detecting countermeasures is a "variable involved." Could you cite any peer-reviewed research that indicates that a polygrapher's experience, alertness, and training have any correlation with a polygrapher's ability to detect the point countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?
With regard to the last point you made:
Quote
Let me reiterate an important point. Countermeasures may shift the odds to a greater or lesser degree; they do not assure success. There are risks involved. Examiners are catching an increasing number of people who were unsuccessful in applying countermeasures. In my opinion, this increase in CM detection is likely caused by two factors: First, more people are trying them based on the Internet advice. Second, examiners are more experienced in detecting them.
This is similar to your argument in the message thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent. Yet when you were asked to support your arguments, you chose to dodge the hard questions that were put to you. Which I find "revealing."
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Aug 31, 2001, 07:27 PMI find it revealing that in two months and 227 viewings, nobody has seen fit to answer the plea.
So let me put in my two cents worth.
I don't think there's any one answer to this. There are a lot of variables involved:
What type of test is being used? Some are more susceptible to CMs than others.
How experienced is the examiner at detecting CMs? Is he alert for them? Has he had specialized training in identifying them? This varies from agency to agency, examiner to examiner.
Is there quality control? All federal examiners operate within a quality control system. On average, quality control personnel seem to be more experienced at detecting many CMs than the original examiner.
What type of CMs are being employed? Some are likely to be detected, others are less obvious.
How adept is the person taking the test at employing the CM? Some people learn them quickly and well; others do poorly regardless of how much instruction they get.
This last point is the one Beech Trees and Godzilla are interested in. As you see, it is only one item in a long equation.
Let me reiterate an important point. Countermeasures may shift the odds to a greater or lesser degree; they do not assure success. There are risks involved. Examiners are catching an increasing number of people who were unsuccessful in applying countermeasures. In my opinion, this increase in CM detection is likely caused by two factors: First, more people are trying them based on the Internet advice. Second, examiners are more experienced in detecting them.
Peace.
Gordon
So let me put in my two cents worth.
I don't think there's any one answer to this. There are a lot of variables involved:
What type of test is being used? Some are more susceptible to CMs than others.
How experienced is the examiner at detecting CMs? Is he alert for them? Has he had specialized training in identifying them? This varies from agency to agency, examiner to examiner.
Is there quality control? All federal examiners operate within a quality control system. On average, quality control personnel seem to be more experienced at detecting many CMs than the original examiner.
What type of CMs are being employed? Some are likely to be detected, others are less obvious.
How adept is the person taking the test at employing the CM? Some people learn them quickly and well; others do poorly regardless of how much instruction they get.
This last point is the one Beech Trees and Godzilla are interested in. As you see, it is only one item in a long equation.
Let me reiterate an important point. Countermeasures may shift the odds to a greater or lesser degree; they do not assure success. There are risks involved. Examiners are catching an increasing number of people who were unsuccessful in applying countermeasures. In my opinion, this increase in CM detection is likely caused by two factors: First, more people are trying them based on the Internet advice. Second, examiners are more experienced in detecting them.
Peace.
Gordon
Posted by Godzilla
- Aug 22, 2001, 01:34 AMI have the same concerns, i would love to see an educated response to this question.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 27, 2001, 11:57 PMI'm curious: How long did you practice, and what advice would you give to make practice more productive?