- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 17, 2004, 05:35 PMMarty,
Indeed, if polygraphers truly wanted examinees to be informed about polygraph procedure, then they wouldn't lie to them from beginning to end about it. And a true explanation of polygraph procedure would be provided on the American Polygraph Association website.
Indeed, if polygraphers truly wanted examinees to be informed about polygraph procedure, then they wouldn't lie to them from beginning to end about it. And a true explanation of polygraph procedure would be provided on the American Polygraph Association website.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 17, 2004, 05:23 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 17, 2004, 05:04 PMMarty,
Of course the lead-in to the AntiPolygraph.org homepage is intended to pique curiosity. But it is neither melodramatic nor is it gimmickry: it is a concise statement of a key but all-too-little-known fact.
Again -- and I mean no offense by this -- I do not think that you have put forward a compelling argument for your proposed warning.
George,
No offense taken. For that matter I don't think my argument is compelling either. It's just an argument, or perhaps only a preference. I only believe that knowledge of polygraph, without intent to use CM's may, increase risk of false positives. OTOH, one can make an argument that an informed person who is unusually honest may lead to lower risk of false positives by increasing anxiety in control Q's that they had not lied on but were assumed to lie on by the examiner.
Perhaps I am reacting to the often heard polygraph examiner statements that they desire an informed examinee. One of the bigger lies floating around.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 17, 2004, 05:04 PMMarty,
Of course the lead-in to the AntiPolygraph.org homepage is intended to pique curiosity. But it is neither melodramatic nor is it gimmickry: it is a concise statement of a key but all-too-little-known fact.
Again -- and I mean no offense by this -- I do not think that you have put forward a compelling argument for your proposed warning.
Of course the lead-in to the AntiPolygraph.org homepage is intended to pique curiosity. But it is neither melodramatic nor is it gimmickry: it is a concise statement of a key but all-too-little-known fact.
Again -- and I mean no offense by this -- I do not think that you have put forward a compelling argument for your proposed warning.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 17, 2004, 02:48 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 17, 2004, 06:11 AMMarty,polygraph "testing" has not been proven through peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably work at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.
We've discussed this before, I must still respectfully disagree with you regarding the wisdom providing a "warning" when informing people about polygraph procedure. My reasons for this disagreement include:
1) polygraphy has not yet been demonstrated to reliably differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, even if the subject is unaware of polygraph procedure;
George,
You often repeat that statement which, while accurate, some may falsely read as meaning polygraphy has been scientifically shown to be no better than a 50-50 prop. It is accepted by the polygraph community and not really a matter of significant debate that the CQT yields more reliable results than the R/I test. Since the former requires and assumes a certain amount of examiner deception sufficient to get the examinee to lie and believe the lie matters, it's highly doubtful that polygraphers would have adopted it so strongly unless they really believed it better that the R/I format.
A more interesting question is: "What are the actual statisitics on well designed controlled, scientific studies of both specific incident and screening types?"
Quotewhile the polygrapher will be unable to "set" the "control" questions with an informed subject, that subject will also understand that the whole procedure has no scientific basis, and that the truly "important" questions (the ones to which he must show a stronger reaction in order to pass) are in fact the "control" questions. This might well tend to increase rather than decrease the significance of the "control" questions for the subject, and perhaps increase involuntary reactions to them, even absent the conscious use of countermeasures. This might especially be the case in situations where the subject has made his/her best effort to answer the "control" questions as candidly as possible and would otherwise be relatively unconcerned by them vis-a-vis the relevant questions;Yes, and I've seen this argument advanced over at polygraphplace in one of their rare moments of candor.
Quotepersons who decide that they will not use countermeasures without first understanding polygraph procedure have made an uninformed choice that they might not have made if presented with the truth about polygraphy;I regard this as the best argument. The idea that one is to be kept ignorant for one's own good is highly offensive, patronizing, and just plain wrong from my point of view - even if there is a reason behind it. There are psychological tests that also require the examinee be ignorant of the test workings. While ignorance is required, examiner deception is not so there are fewer ethical issues extant in that field.
Quoteit is a fair assumption that people who visit this website are seeking the truth truth about polygraphy;And I have found the site to be pretty factually accurate as to how the practice of polygraphy operates.
Quotea "warning" such as you have suggested is likely to be received as melodramatic at best and as cheap gimmickry intended to pique the curiosity of readers at worst.
And your lead in to the main page isn't designed to pique curiousity? Again:
Despite claims of better than 90% accuracy, polygraph "testing" has not been proven through peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably work at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.
-Marty
Posted by nunyun
- Oct 17, 2004, 01:39 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 17, 2004, 06:11 AMMarty,
5) a "warning" such as you have suggested is likely to be received as melodramatic at best and as cheap gimmickry intended to pique the curiosity of readers at worst.
When you read the book, I found lots of examples that I should be warned about how I would handle the Polygraph, either in chapter 3 or 4 about just refusing, telling me that they are inaccurate and I could get a false +, That telling an examiner what I know may cause me to still fail the test, That there is a big debate about CM's and exactly what works and if they work. I found all these subjects as warnings both in the book and on the board. In the end I made my own decision and whatever happened I only had myself to blame as I knew in advance what the risk were on both sides of the fence.
Anybody with a high school education should be able to read this board and TLBTLD and make a decision knowing the controversy on both sides.......Then again I met some truly dumb people with high school educations in the Service..
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 17, 2004, 06:11 AMMarty,
We've discussed this before, I must still respectfully disagree with you regarding the wisdom providing a "warning" when informing people about polygraph procedure. My reasons for this disagreement include:
1) polygraphy has not yet been demonstrated to reliably differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, even if the subject is unaware of polygraph procedure;
2) while the polygrapher will be unable to "set" the "control" questions with an informed subject, that subject will also understand that the whole procedure has no scientific basis, and that the truly "important" questions (the ones to which he must show a stronger reaction in order to pass) are in fact the "control" questions. This might well tend to increase rather than decrease the significance of the "control" questions for the subject, and perhaps increase involuntary reactions to them, even absent the conscious use of countermeasures. This might especially be the case in situations where the subject has made his/her best effort to answer the "control" questions as candidly as possible and would otherwise be relatively unconcerned by them vis-a-vis the relevant questions;
3) persons who decide that they will not use countermeasures without first understanding polygraph procedure have made an uninformed choice that they might not have made if presented with the truth about polygraphy;
4) it is a fair assumption that people who visit this website are seeking the truth truth about polygraphy;
5) a "warning" such as you have suggested is likely to be received as melodramatic at best and as cheap gimmickry intended to pique the curiosity of readers at worst.
We've discussed this before, I must still respectfully disagree with you regarding the wisdom providing a "warning" when informing people about polygraph procedure. My reasons for this disagreement include:
1) polygraphy has not yet been demonstrated to reliably differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, even if the subject is unaware of polygraph procedure;
2) while the polygrapher will be unable to "set" the "control" questions with an informed subject, that subject will also understand that the whole procedure has no scientific basis, and that the truly "important" questions (the ones to which he must show a stronger reaction in order to pass) are in fact the "control" questions. This might well tend to increase rather than decrease the significance of the "control" questions for the subject, and perhaps increase involuntary reactions to them, even absent the conscious use of countermeasures. This might especially be the case in situations where the subject has made his/her best effort to answer the "control" questions as candidly as possible and would otherwise be relatively unconcerned by them vis-a-vis the relevant questions;
3) persons who decide that they will not use countermeasures without first understanding polygraph procedure have made an uninformed choice that they might not have made if presented with the truth about polygraphy;
4) it is a fair assumption that people who visit this website are seeking the truth truth about polygraphy;
5) a "warning" such as you have suggested is likely to be received as melodramatic at best and as cheap gimmickry intended to pique the curiosity of readers at worst.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 17, 2004, 03:05 AMGeorge,
I am not at all sure that when an uninformed person becomes informed on CQT technique, that they don't risk an even higher probability of being a false positive absent use of CM's. While this area doesn't seem to be studied the entire basis of CQT is the ability of the examiner to set the principal focus of an "innocent" examinee on the threat of the controls rather than the obvious risk of the relevants. They may have more difficulty being properly conditioned since they know the purpose of the controls.
I think it would be wise to warn people determined not to use CM's that learning about polygraph technique may increase their risk of a false positive.
-Marty
I am not at all sure that when an uninformed person becomes informed on CQT technique, that they don't risk an even higher probability of being a false positive absent use of CM's. While this area doesn't seem to be studied the entire basis of CQT is the ability of the examiner to set the principal focus of an "innocent" examinee on the threat of the controls rather than the obvious risk of the relevants. They may have more difficulty being properly conditioned since they know the purpose of the controls.
I think it would be wise to warn people determined not to use CM's that learning about polygraph technique may increase their risk of a false positive.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 16, 2004, 06:13 AMtonsOqs,
To the best of my knowledge, there is no standardized list of polygraph questions asked by law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida. As elsewhere, agencies develop their own questions. In general, however, law enforcement agencies nationwide are particularly interested in past use or sale of illegal drugs and any undisclosed criminal activity.
You will find numerous examples of the kinds of questions asked in a typical law enforcement pre-employment polygraph examination in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
You say that you "just want to tell the truth and not lie on a lie detector test," but you need to understand that the polygraph operator secretly expects you to lie to the so-called "control" questions. In fact, the more honestly you answer the control questions, and as a consequence experience less stress when answering them, the more likely you are to wrongly fail the "test." This, too, is explained in Chapter 3.
Information on how to pass (or beat) a polygraph examination is provided in Chapter 4 of the book, so you don't have to read it if you don't want to. However, because of the very high risk of a false positive outcome (remember, there is consensus amongst scientists that polygraph screening has no scientific basis), you might want to read this chapter, too -- not in order to "beat" the polygraph, but rather to learn how to protect yourself against the random error associated with this invalid procedure. We wrote this book (and have made it available for free) not to help liars beat the system, but to offer truthful applicants like yourself a means of reducing the risk of being wrongly branded as liars.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no standardized list of polygraph questions asked by law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida. As elsewhere, agencies develop their own questions. In general, however, law enforcement agencies nationwide are particularly interested in past use or sale of illegal drugs and any undisclosed criminal activity.
You will find numerous examples of the kinds of questions asked in a typical law enforcement pre-employment polygraph examination in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
You say that you "just want to tell the truth and not lie on a lie detector test," but you need to understand that the polygraph operator secretly expects you to lie to the so-called "control" questions. In fact, the more honestly you answer the control questions, and as a consequence experience less stress when answering them, the more likely you are to wrongly fail the "test." This, too, is explained in Chapter 3.
Information on how to pass (or beat) a polygraph examination is provided in Chapter 4 of the book, so you don't have to read it if you don't want to. However, because of the very high risk of a false positive outcome (remember, there is consensus amongst scientists that polygraph screening has no scientific basis), you might want to read this chapter, too -- not in order to "beat" the polygraph, but rather to learn how to protect yourself against the random error associated with this invalid procedure. We wrote this book (and have made it available for free) not to help liars beat the system, but to offer truthful applicants like yourself a means of reducing the risk of being wrongly branded as liars.
Posted by tonsOqs
- Oct 16, 2004, 12:34 AMThis is a nice site and Ive been reading the good with the bad from everyone in the past 2 months as well as searched around the site for the answers to my questions but still have some I can not find... I was wondering what questions are asked in FL based Law Enforcement exams.... Im probably gonna do shotgun applying coming up soon as in applying for several departments at one time in the big cities of FL and was wondering if theres a link of the questions they ask or if anyone has taken them and can pm the or reply below... I was reading the National Agency questions posted in one of the forums and was like... ummm i did that as a kid... such as vandalism but we only toilet papered cars back in the day ... does that count? Ive never messed with drugs at all but the stolen from employer question i hear about may be my downfall... never money but when i worked in food service industry back in the day (few years ago) id take some food home that I didnt pay for
thanks for anyone that helps or just reads this =)
I really do not want to read the book posted all over the forums because I dont want to beat the test I just want to tell the truth and not lie on a lie detector test
thanks for anyone that helps or just reads this =)
I really do not want to read the book posted all over the forums because I dont want to beat the test I just want to tell the truth and not lie on a lie detector test