- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by theignorantone
- Mar 30, 2005, 01:45 PMAnal S,
At laest there is a cure for ignorance
theignorantone
At laest there is a cure for ignorance
theignorantone
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 01, 2005, 07:20 AMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 28, 2005, 03:49 PMYes, I'd have to concur with regard to voice stress analysis. I think if George really wanted to help society (since Lykken says no good can come to society by trying to deceive polygraphers) he'd be renaming this site AntiVoiceStress.org. Then he'd actually be attacking something with no credibility.
The comment by Professor David T. Lykken (whom I hold in the highest regard) to which you refer appears at p. 277 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, which was published in 1998. Here it is in context:
QuoteNo good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. As Fay's prison example shows, the most avid students of such developments would be professional criminals rather than the innocent suspects and the truthful job applicants who now fall victim to the trust that we Americans invest in this technology. (On the other hand, if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT administered under adversarial circumstances, and those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette.)
I might add that, as noted in the acknowledgments section of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, Dr. Lykken was among those who were kind enough to review and comment on our pre-publication draft, and he provided important comments on the chapter dealing with countermeasures.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 28, 2005, 05:14 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 28, 2005, 03:49 PMYes, I'd have to concur with regard to voice stress analysis. I think if George really wanted to help society (since Lykken says no good can come to society by trying to deceive polygraphers) he'd be renaming this site AntiVoiceStress.org. Then he'd actually be attacking something with no credibility.
A.S.,
You are missing the utility factor. The CVSA, properly given, may have more utility than the polygraph. Most people automatically have higher regard for newer technology - even when unwarranted. Everybody and their grandparents has heard of the polygraph and knows it is old. Leveraging that belief in new tech, the CVSA may even have more utility in extracting confessions than polygraph. (I phrased it that way just for you George!)
Hell, two kids here in Escondido falsely confessed to murder during CVSA post test interrogation. It was a bitch when the DA had to discredit those confessions during the trial of the SOB later caught with DNA evidence.
marty
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 28, 2005, 03:49 PMYes, I'd have to concur with regard to voice stress analysis. I think if George really wanted to help society (since Lykken says no good can come to society by trying to deceive polygraphers) he'd be renaming this site AntiVoiceStress.org. Then he'd actually be attacking something with no credibility.
Posted by OfficerWannabe
- Feb 27, 2005, 05:07 PMHi,
Sorry about the misunderstanding. Well, I can't help you then as I didn't lie on my one and only Poly.
However, on an interesting side note I did pass a recent CVSA for a PD position. No lies there either, but one funny bit: this was a Directed Lie "test" and the examiner said that I kept showing signs of stress on a particular DL question, "Am I wearing a tie?" I was to lie and say no. Apperaantly, I was having trouble with that one, heh.
If there had been any problems, the only thing I could have done would be to stand my ground, as I don't know of any countermeasures for the CVSA. And the CVSA is an even bigger joke than the Poly. Big waste of time.
Cheers.
Sorry about the misunderstanding. Well, I can't help you then as I didn't lie on my one and only Poly.
However, on an interesting side note I did pass a recent CVSA for a PD position. No lies there either, but one funny bit: this was a Directed Lie "test" and the examiner said that I kept showing signs of stress on a particular DL question, "Am I wearing a tie?" I was to lie and say no. Apperaantly, I was having trouble with that one, heh.
If there had been any problems, the only thing I could have done would be to stand my ground, as I don't know of any countermeasures for the CVSA. And the CVSA is an even bigger joke than the Poly. Big waste of time.
Cheers.
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 27, 2005, 04:43 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 27, 2005, 01:55 PMYou both need to read my challenge again. It has nothing to do with setting up an exam with either of you. I'm looking for people who actually lied to a relevant issue on a polygraph and then overcame their lies through countermeasures. Are you both admitting that you fit that profile? If so, 'fess up.
No confessions are warranted since I was honest during all phases of my examination. What I failed to add was perhaps your challenge needs to be modified in order for a true result to be acheived. I have doubts regarding that many would admit directly that he/she lied outright and employed CMs as such an admission could bring about unwanted attention. However, I have viewed posts in which the author claims to have lied and employed CMs to "pass."
I was offering to undergo an exam which has attainable ground truth and attempt the use of CMs explained on this site without detection. I remain willing to do so.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 27, 2005, 03:37 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 27, 2005, 02:53 PMExactly. How else are we to believe that countermeasures extolled on this site actually work?Anecdotal evidence provided by anonymous persons in response to your challenge will not provide genuine evidence that countermeasures work, just as anecdotal claims by polygraphers to have detected countermeasures do not prove that polgyraphers are able to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.
But peer-reviewed research strongly suggests that CQT polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures that even experienced polygraphers are unable to reliably detect.
QuoteInnocent examinees don't need countermeasures.The finding of the National Acamedy of Sciences that polygraph screening is without validity does not support this assertion.
QuoteFor innocent examinees to say that they passed their exam because of countermeasures is like saying that the fizz in carbonated beverages keeps you from getting cancer because the cancer cells are expelled in burps. Silly, silly, silly.It is true that an innocent person who employs countermeasures and subsequently passes a polygraph examination cannot know for sure that the countermeasures were resonsible for his/her passing. But the same is also true with regard to the guilty person who employs countermeasures and passes. He/she cannot truly know whether or not he/she might have also passed absent the use of countermeasures.
QuoteYou dispense a placebo, George, nothing more.While you assert this to be the case, you have not presented any compelling evidence or argument for such. An understanding CQT procedure, as well as peer-reviewed research, strongly suggests that augmentation of reactions to the "control" questions to increase one's chances of passing is more than just a "placebo."
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 27, 2005, 02:53 PMExactly. How else are we to believe that countermeasures extolled on this site actually work? Innocent examinees don't need countermeasures. For innocent examinees to say that they passed their exam because of countermeasures is like saying that the fizz in carbonated beverages keeps you from getting cancer because the cancer cells are expelled in burps. Silly, silly, silly.
You dispense a placebo, George, nothing more.
You dispense a placebo, George, nothing more.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 27, 2005, 02:04 PMHere I must agree with A.S. He/she is asking for those who produced a false negative result in a real world polygraph examination to post the details of such.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 27, 2005, 01:55 PMYou both need to read my challenge again. It has nothing to do with setting up an exam with either of you. I'm looking for people who actually lied to a relevant issue on a polygraph and then overcame their lies through countermeasures. Are you both admitting that you fit that profile? If so, 'fess up.
Posted by OfficerWannabe
- Feb 27, 2005, 03:06 AMHi,
I second Polyscam's offer to your challenge. If you come to me, I'll be more than happy to take you up.
I second Polyscam's offer to your challenge. If you come to me, I'll be more than happy to take you up.
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 27, 2005, 01:42 AMIf you are willing to orchestrate and financially provide for an exam in my city, I'll take you up on your challenge. However, if I'm going to reveal more about myself you must return the courtesy.
Crickets or a fancy verbal dodge?
Crickets or a fancy verbal dodge?
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 26, 2005, 12:05 AMOK, enough dilly-dallying. Back to the countermeasures challenge. Any takers? Come on, somebody speak up . . .
That's right, nothing but the sound of crickets in the grass . . .
That's right, nothing but the sound of crickets in the grass . . .
Posted by polyscam
- Feb 25, 2005, 03:14 PMCriminals, eh? I'm no criminal and I didn't successfully complete my poly. My record is nearly snow white. The only exception is a non-moving violation citation I received over ten years ago. I exihibited some very questionable behavior as a youth, but criminal? I can see the utility of the poly in criminal investigations as a scare tactic. However, its place in employment screening is of no value.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 25, 2005, 02:07 PMQuote from: NSAreject2 on Feb 25, 2005, 01:54 PM"You correctly characterize interrogation as a blend of lying, manipulation, and sometimes aggression"
AS,
If the polygraph was so accurate, then why do the
above techniques need to be employed ? The
polygraph is used as only an intimidation tool, which is
supplimented by the above behaviors. Also, how do
you explain the fact that the DoD DIS (Defense
Investigative Service) does not look at the actual
poly results from NSA (DIA, etc.), but just what the
person was tricked into admitting ?
The above techniques need to be employed because criminals don't simply say, "Gee, you got me" when confronted with polygraph results. It is a good tool to augment such techniques, though.
As for the DoD DIS, who says they don't look at the poly results? It's simply that poly results backed up with admissions is much, much more compelling and can't be effectively refuted by anyone, whether a believer in the polygraph or not.