- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 17, 2005, 09:48 AMDarkcobra,
I support specific issue testing to the extent that it is performed with a concealed information test. I do not support the use of any of the lie detection formats (PLCQT, DLCQT, or RI) for any purpose or application (specific issue testing or screening). You are correct about the similarity of my views and those of David Lykken. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him and have been privileged to have personally known and interacted with him for more than two decades. I believe that his views about polygraphy were correct almost half a century ago when first expressed/published and are equally correct today. I'm glad that you feel our exchanges have been worthwhile and, of course, would be happy to discuss research and other issues in the future. Best Wishes....
I support specific issue testing to the extent that it is performed with a concealed information test. I do not support the use of any of the lie detection formats (PLCQT, DLCQT, or RI) for any purpose or application (specific issue testing or screening). You are correct about the similarity of my views and those of David Lykken. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him and have been privileged to have personally known and interacted with him for more than two decades. I believe that his views about polygraphy were correct almost half a century ago when first expressed/published and are equally correct today. I'm glad that you feel our exchanges have been worthwhile and, of course, would be happy to discuss research and other issues in the future. Best Wishes....
Posted by polyfool
- Oct 16, 2005, 07:31 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 14, 2005, 03:25 AMFor a person to have knowledge of polygraph does not hamper testing. For me to educate a person who is taking a polygraph regarding Neutral, Symptomatic, Relevant, Copntrol questions is very time consuming and unnecessary. No I don't give a polygraph course to each individual taking an examination, I don't mind if they are aware of the procedure.
Cobra,
With all due respect, I didn't inquire whether you taught a polygraph course to examinees prior to the so -called testing procedure. I asked you if you informed them of the BASIC CONCEPT behind the control question format. Anyone could easily understand it in a matter of minutes--much less time than examiners spend trying to convince examinees that they care about controls. You said yourself that knowledge is not a bad thing--why not impart examinees with it, since as you say it doesn't hamper the testing? How do you handle a test if an examinee admits to knowledge? Do you still conduct a so-called stim test? How do you get around the so-called controls? Are you honestly saying that it makes no difference whether an examinee has prior knowledge? Knowledge changes the dynamics of the situation. Polygraphs are nothing but a tool to ellicit confessions and if the examinee is not willing to give up the info., they are worthless. If an examinee knows that they don't really detect lies as myth has it, then they won't react and they also won't fess up. They'll just sit back and laugh to themselves at the stupid charade.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 16, 2005, 10:44 AMDarkcobra,
A Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is an information-based test. Lie detection includes a group of emotion-based procedures. Polygraph Screening (by its very nature) is an absence of information procedure, i.e., a fishing expedition. You the examiner do not (by the very nature of the exam) know whether a crime or some prohibited behavior has occurred let alone let alone that your examinee is the one who has committed/performed it. A Peak of Tension Test (POT) to the first approximation is a poorly constructed Guilty Knowledge Test and as you allude to a poorly named exam as well. It like the GKT, it is putatively an information-based exam; any emotion (tension) involved is merely an artifact of using a standard autonomic-channel-based polygraph (one of several reasons for using CNS measures for concealed information tests), not the parameter (concealed information) which is theoretically being measured. But again, a GKT is an information-based exam (you the examiner via the investigator and the guilty examinee must both have access to the privileged information you seek to probe for.) A screening exam is a lack of information exam, has no theoretical basis for practice, and has nothing in common with or anyway benefits from some artificial linking with a GKT exam. And to end on the general theme of our recent exchanges, neither you nor your colleagues in the federal community can fix or make better a screening exam. Polygraph screening can only be made better through abandonment and resource redirection and redistribution. If you seek to make your polygraph program better and it now includes polygraph screening, perhaps no one thing that you and your colleagues could do to improve it would do so more than eliminating its polygraph screening component.
A Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is an information-based test. Lie detection includes a group of emotion-based procedures. Polygraph Screening (by its very nature) is an absence of information procedure, i.e., a fishing expedition. You the examiner do not (by the very nature of the exam) know whether a crime or some prohibited behavior has occurred let alone let alone that your examinee is the one who has committed/performed it. A Peak of Tension Test (POT) to the first approximation is a poorly constructed Guilty Knowledge Test and as you allude to a poorly named exam as well. It like the GKT, it is putatively an information-based exam; any emotion (tension) involved is merely an artifact of using a standard autonomic-channel-based polygraph (one of several reasons for using CNS measures for concealed information tests), not the parameter (concealed information) which is theoretically being measured. But again, a GKT is an information-based exam (you the examiner via the investigator and the guilty examinee must both have access to the privileged information you seek to probe for.) A screening exam is a lack of information exam, has no theoretical basis for practice, and has nothing in common with or anyway benefits from some artificial linking with a GKT exam. And to end on the general theme of our recent exchanges, neither you nor your colleagues in the federal community can fix or make better a screening exam. Polygraph screening can only be made better through abandonment and resource redirection and redistribution. If you seek to make your polygraph program better and it now includes polygraph screening, perhaps no one thing that you and your colleagues could do to improve it would do so more than eliminating its polygraph screening component.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 16, 2005, 12:33 AMDarkcobra,
I would be more than disappointed at this stage of our conversation to learn that you do not understand the difference between concealed information testing and lie detection. Tell me it is not so. Your last note leaves it very much in doubt. In the simplest analysis, the former has a sound basis for practice; the latter does not. The fact that a standard polygraph can be used for both is irrelevant.
I would be more than disappointed at this stage of our conversation to learn that you do not understand the difference between concealed information testing and lie detection. Tell me it is not so. Your last note leaves it very much in doubt. In the simplest analysis, the former has a sound basis for practice; the latter does not. The fact that a standard polygraph can be used for both is irrelevant.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Oct 15, 2005, 05:41 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 15, 2005, 10:11 PMGeorge,
It would violate the APA standards, it poses no threat to Dr. Richardson, therefore no fear of being caught using counter measures or fear of being found deceptive. If there is no consequence, there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no reaction. Possibly the challenge could be refered to others in the polygraph community with there being a fear or consiquence for being deceptive and using countermeasures. The stakes would have to be high to instill the necessary fear of detection of deception and countermeasures.
I am using DarkCorbra owns words, and I will give him credit for at least being an atypical examiner. But this is exactly the point why this web site exists. I will concede that a danger of this information on this web site poses an ethical dilemma when criminals can use it, and beat the polygrapher. But its a risk that those who believe in fairness must endure. Just one false positive to an innocent is wrong, PERIOD. This web sites information removes the fear, the unknowns and the anxiety. And from my own emperical tests, know that with the removal of the fear, the polygraph is just a line drawing machine. Because the examiner, whether its you DarkCobra or another examiner,you can not read my mind, and you can't beat the knowlege and the montra going on in my head .... this thing does not work, its a lie.
A disciplined mind will negate the use of any physical countermeasures. And using the physical type countermeasures is a recipe for failure. As I am sure that as this knowlege spreads, you and your examiner brethern are testing to see if you can detect the better and less detectable countermeasures. I know I would in your shoes.
Still the bottom line, Knowlege is power, and with the removal of the fear and anxiety. The best you will get is a "NO" No Opinion, or stalemate in Chess. THe best outcome is "NDI", and walking out knowing that its checkmate. But you might get a youngpup to cough up the info that he gleaned from here, but that is inexperience on that persons part. Again Experience is the difference. Happy Hunting
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 15, 2005, 07:59 AMDarkcobra,
Neither you nor I have any way of fixing polygraph screening--it is a fatally flawed practice, causes irreparable damage to country and individual alike and should be immediately discontinued. The flip-of-a-coin probability of success ("uncovers deception and verifies truth") with a binomial determination in no way compensates for the horror associated with ongoing daily failure. The only way I can see current methodology having a widespread social benefit would be to have a lottery for which of your various colleague's number comes up next, i.e., for the next polygrapher to be revealed in a major screw up that is picked up by the national media. The winnings from this lottery would be donated to the Katrina fund (or the like) in the revealed dupe's name. Quite seriously-you do appear to be more caring than many of your colleagues, but you share their culpability and stain if you continue in this practice. The only thing you can hope for is that your mistakes remain local mistakes and do not reach the level of national notoriety and embarrassment that we witness on a regular basis. As I recall, you are not a federal examiner. As such you are somewhat protected from this occurence, but at the same time you are disadvantaged with the aforementioned lottery.
You suggest that my research has some bearing on polygraph screening. If you believe this you are quite mistaken. I would have nothing whatsoever to do with this activity and in fact, other than opposing it and educating others about it, have little to do with current lie detection methodology. My research and operational involvement deal exclusively with concealed information testing.
Neither you nor I have any way of fixing polygraph screening--it is a fatally flawed practice, causes irreparable damage to country and individual alike and should be immediately discontinued. The flip-of-a-coin probability of success ("uncovers deception and verifies truth") with a binomial determination in no way compensates for the horror associated with ongoing daily failure. The only way I can see current methodology having a widespread social benefit would be to have a lottery for which of your various colleague's number comes up next, i.e., for the next polygrapher to be revealed in a major screw up that is picked up by the national media. The winnings from this lottery would be donated to the Katrina fund (or the like) in the revealed dupe's name. Quite seriously-you do appear to be more caring than many of your colleagues, but you share their culpability and stain if you continue in this practice. The only thing you can hope for is that your mistakes remain local mistakes and do not reach the level of national notoriety and embarrassment that we witness on a regular basis. As I recall, you are not a federal examiner. As such you are somewhat protected from this occurence, but at the same time you are disadvantaged with the aforementioned lottery.
You suggest that my research has some bearing on polygraph screening. If you believe this you are quite mistaken. I would have nothing whatsoever to do with this activity and in fact, other than opposing it and educating others about it, have little to do with current lie detection methodology. My research and operational involvement deal exclusively with concealed information testing.Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 14, 2005, 07:55 PMDarkcobra,
That which I would have you and your colleagues do is rather quite simple. Cease and desist from doing polygraph screening. It is a fishing expedition with no present or probable theoretical basis for practice. It is further a danger to the national security (several recent well publicized examples) and to individuals alike. Use the saved resources (time, money, manpower) to conduct serious investigations to augment concealed information material for your specific incident testing. I maintain steadfastly that which I said to you in my previous post--a "test" whose foundation rests upon (examinee) ignorance is radically impacted by knowledge and truth. Regards...
That which I would have you and your colleagues do is rather quite simple. Cease and desist from doing polygraph screening. It is a fishing expedition with no present or probable theoretical basis for practice. It is further a danger to the national security (several recent well publicized examples) and to individuals alike. Use the saved resources (time, money, manpower) to conduct serious investigations to augment concealed information material for your specific incident testing. I maintain steadfastly that which I said to you in my previous post--a "test" whose foundation rests upon (examinee) ignorance is radically impacted by knowledge and truth. Regards...
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 14, 2005, 02:18 PMDarkcobra,
You write in part:
I'm sorry to have to differ on this point, but I can hardly imagine the self-contained snickering of a knowledgeable examinee not affecting your or a colleague's exam. This examinee would be one who recognizes (but does not reveal) what he/she has read about on this site, e.g., the misrepresentations about exam question types and purposes and the charade of the numbers test/acquaintance test as he manipulates you through this exercise, etc. But then again, perhaps you disavow all that is listed for these readers to peruse in the Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph Exam (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf), yes?
You write in part:
Quote
For a person to have knowledge of polygraph does not hamper testing.
I'm sorry to have to differ on this point, but I can hardly imagine the self-contained snickering of a knowledgeable examinee not affecting your or a colleague's exam. This examinee would be one who recognizes (but does not reveal) what he/she has read about on this site, e.g., the misrepresentations about exam question types and purposes and the charade of the numbers test/acquaintance test as he manipulates you through this exercise, etc. But then again, perhaps you disavow all that is listed for these readers to peruse in the Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph Exam (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf), yes?
Posted by polyfool
- Oct 14, 2005, 12:57 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 13, 2005, 12:51 AMPolygraphs do not totally depend on ignorance. If you understand the concept, and do not make admissions to the controls (Information readily available on this site) you will be informed and able to complete the process without problems.
So information is not bad if properly used. Information on countermeasures (and many disagree) don't get you through the examination if the examiner is observant and knows what countermeasures look like.
The studies by Hont's is used to demonstrated that examiners are unable to detect them. Since his study, many changes have been made and countermeasures are observed on a daily basis.
Knowlege is good and honesty is good. They go hand in hand.
Darkcobra,
Are you saying it's better to polygraph someone who understands the concept behind the procedure? Do you believe that prior knowledge w/o countermeasures reduces the chance of false positives? Do you inform your examinees about the concept behind the polygraph before administering it? If polygraphs don't depend on ignorance, then why are examinees not informed about the concept behind them beforehand?
Posted by polyfool
- Oct 12, 2005, 11:15 PMCobra,
Would you not agree that examinee knowledge of the poly affects the testing procedure? I had no prior knowledge when I took mine, so I believed that all the questions mattered to the examiner/agency and that the poly was practically infallible. However, once an examinee knows the diffference between controls and relevants, the game changes completely. Why would an examinee be concerned enough to react to questions he knows the examiner doesn't care about? Also, what about the use of fear during the poly? An informed examinee would be familiar with the importance of its use during the procedure. Polygraphs depend on ignorance. Knowledge changes everything. Surely you must acknowledge this.
Would you not agree that examinee knowledge of the poly affects the testing procedure? I had no prior knowledge when I took mine, so I believed that all the questions mattered to the examiner/agency and that the poly was practically infallible. However, once an examinee knows the diffference between controls and relevants, the game changes completely. Why would an examinee be concerned enough to react to questions he knows the examiner doesn't care about? Also, what about the use of fear during the poly? An informed examinee would be familiar with the importance of its use during the procedure. Polygraphs depend on ignorance. Knowledge changes everything. Surely you must acknowledge this.
Posted by UNASIAN
- Oct 12, 2005, 06:47 AMA sidebar:
Being American-born of Asian descent I applied for LAPD back in the mid 90's. Went all the way up to the interview process, but everything stopped after my last job working with people I didn't always agree with. Well, they did not consider me Asian because my fluency was in English and Spanish but weak in my actual (chinese) language. So I was considered white, because I couldn't speak a chinese language. I guess at that time the Asian community never sued the LAPD. So beware of the LAPD usage of what they consider a minority. As far as I know now, I am really white, even though I look Asian and I think now my parents must have adopted me!
Being American-born of Asian descent I applied for LAPD back in the mid 90's. Went all the way up to the interview process, but everything stopped after my last job working with people I didn't always agree with. Well, they did not consider me Asian because my fluency was in English and Spanish but weak in my actual (chinese) language. So I was considered white, because I couldn't speak a chinese language. I guess at that time the Asian community never sued the LAPD. So beware of the LAPD usage of what they consider a minority. As far as I know now, I am really white, even though I look Asian and I think now my parents must have adopted me!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 12, 2005, 03:36 AMQuote from: atomic84 on Aug 13, 2005, 09:32 PMI have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph....
A listing of the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph is now available. See the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Aug 16, 2005, 06:40 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 16, 2005, 12:59 PMThe APA prohibits individual polygraph examiners from participating in public displays of polygraph such as Dr. Richardsons Challenge. (without APA sanction).Perhaps it is just me, but I find this interesting in and of itself.
I recall many posts on this board by polygraph examiners which assert that examinee knowledge of the polygraph procedure is irrelevant – even a knowledgeable subject can be accurately polygraphed.
I cannot think of any scientific test where knowledge of the testing procedure would possibly invalidate the test. I also cannot think of any reason for the APA's prohibition except to prevent knowledge of the testing procedure from becoming available to the public.
I would guess that in cases like Ed Gelb on the TV show, the ground rules were laid down in advance as to what would be shown and what would not, and that is why it was apparently acceptable to the APA.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 16, 2005, 03:16 PMIs Ed Gelb a member of the APA? I ask becuase he publicly displays polygraphy on the television program "Lie Detector."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 16, 2005, 03:07 PMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 16, 2005, 12:59 PMThe APA prohibits individual polygraph examiners from participating in public displays of polygraph such as Dr. Richardsons Challenge. (without APA sanction).
I could find no such prohibition in the American Polygraph Association's bylaws. Might you be mistaken about this?