- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 31, 2005, 12:08 AMNonombre,
You raise some interesting points. Let us begin with innocent/information absent subjects. Unlike those facing a CQT exam, these GKT examinees do not recognize the difference between key and properly chosen alternative items (not at all true for examinees with the relevant and comparison questions in a CQT exam), so they would go through the exam painlessly (none of the brow beating nonsense that goes along with setting comparison questions) and in fact would hardly know what had happened after having gone through the series of multiple-choice like questions. I cannot emphasize too strongly that this type of examination (CIT) is far far better for innocent examinees than is either the CQT or the absolutely miserable RI technique. With regard to guilty/information present examinees, you are correct inasmuch as it is possible for them in a CIT exam using autonomic channels on a standard polygraph to attempt to alter the exam by producing responses to alternative items (making these responses greater than the key item). How one handles this depends on what channels of information are utilized. A counter-countermeasure approach using a standard GKT exam (utilizing only the electrodermal channel) is described by David Lykken in an early paper (1959 I believe--I don't have the reference with me at the present as I am out of town). The method would differ if other channels were utilized. I will not go through the complexities of it here (you can review my considerably earlier posts if you care to see a synopsis), but I believe the nature (timing of stimulus presentation and onset timing of response) of the so-called oddball design applied in an event related potential based CIT exam is far and away the best solution. If you like at some point in the future we can discuss this exam in some detail.
You raise some interesting points. Let us begin with innocent/information absent subjects. Unlike those facing a CQT exam, these GKT examinees do not recognize the difference between key and properly chosen alternative items (not at all true for examinees with the relevant and comparison questions in a CQT exam), so they would go through the exam painlessly (none of the brow beating nonsense that goes along with setting comparison questions) and in fact would hardly know what had happened after having gone through the series of multiple-choice like questions. I cannot emphasize too strongly that this type of examination (CIT) is far far better for innocent examinees than is either the CQT or the absolutely miserable RI technique. With regard to guilty/information present examinees, you are correct inasmuch as it is possible for them in a CIT exam using autonomic channels on a standard polygraph to attempt to alter the exam by producing responses to alternative items (making these responses greater than the key item). How one handles this depends on what channels of information are utilized. A counter-countermeasure approach using a standard GKT exam (utilizing only the electrodermal channel) is described by David Lykken in an early paper (1959 I believe--I don't have the reference with me at the present as I am out of town). The method would differ if other channels were utilized. I will not go through the complexities of it here (you can review my considerably earlier posts if you care to see a synopsis), but I believe the nature (timing of stimulus presentation and onset timing of response) of the so-called oddball design applied in an event related potential based CIT exam is far and away the best solution. If you like at some point in the future we can discuss this exam in some detail.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 30, 2005, 11:38 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Aug 30, 2005, 09:34 AMKaisersosa,
The polygraph community is now largely between the devil and the deep blue sea. Its members find themselves having to chose between a technique (RI test) discredited and ridiculed by many of its own leaders for decades and one (CQT testing) whose validity is not only lacking but whose underlying assumptions are questionable and embarrassing when brought to light and for which even the suggestion of examinee knowledge now causes publicly admitted fright and flight. None of this suggests any procedural stability or supports the feigned ability to detect examinee manipulation(s)/countermeasures that is sheepishly put forth (but never demonstrated) here and elsewhere. Perhaps this situational dilemma will finally lead the polygraph community to enhanced utilization of the rationally based concealed information test.
Dr Richardson,
I have investigated the GKT/CIT and I must say I am very interested in this procedure. The only question I have regards its susceptibility to countermeasures. I would think that if an examinee can beat a CQT easily by identifying the control questions and applying physical countermeasures, wouldn't a GKT be just a susceptible by identifying and applying countermeasures to the alternative choices on a GKT chart?
One might even come to the conclusion that you and the others on this site have "let the cat out of the bag" In such a way as to make BOTH methodologies ineffective.
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Marty
- Aug 30, 2005, 10:41 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Aug 30, 2005, 09:54 PMMarty,Well Drew, I am sorry to hear that. I had not previously noticed the video on Dr. Furedy's site. The woman that introduced him seemed quite enthusiastic about his c.v. but the initial part of the intro was chopped.
I'm sorry to report that the video link you gave us relates not to a recent presentation (and interest) but to one given some twelve or thirteen years ago at DoDPI. I know because I was present for the lecture and was largely responsible for Dr. Furedy's invitation. I would like to think that DoDPI has given serious consideration to concealed information testing since and has invited Dr. Furedy and/or others known for their expertise and support of this form of testing to give follow up lectures since that time.
Too bad it's dated. Interesting that nothing really stood out in the discussions that suggested that other than the polite clapping and that it lasted 1 hr past govt time.
The GKT seems to still have the most promise in widespread acceptance in courtrooms. Too bad so little progress has been made.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 30, 2005, 09:54 PMMarty,
I'm sorry to report that the video link you gave us relates not to a recent presentation (and interest) but to one given some twelve or thirteen years ago at DoDPI. I know because I was present for the lecture and was largely responsible for Dr. Furedy's invitation. I would like to think that DoDPI has given serious consideration to concealed information testing since and has invited Dr. Furedy and/or others known for their expertise and support of this form of testing to give follow up lectures since that time.
Kaisersosa,
The lack of scientific control (control question test comparison questions do NOT offer such control) and a test consisting of the mere asking of relevant questions (whose nature is obvious to examinees and for which consequences of being found deceptive are equally apparent) will lead to a raft of false positive results over time.
I'm sorry to report that the video link you gave us relates not to a recent presentation (and interest) but to one given some twelve or thirteen years ago at DoDPI. I know because I was present for the lecture and was largely responsible for Dr. Furedy's invitation. I would like to think that DoDPI has given serious consideration to concealed information testing since and has invited Dr. Furedy and/or others known for their expertise and support of this form of testing to give follow up lectures since that time.
Kaisersosa,
The lack of scientific control (control question test comparison questions do NOT offer such control) and a test consisting of the mere asking of relevant questions (whose nature is obvious to examinees and for which consequences of being found deceptive are equally apparent) will lead to a raft of false positive results over time.
Posted by Marty
- Aug 30, 2005, 02:43 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Aug 30, 2005, 09:34 AMKaisersosa,Drew,
The polygraph community is now largely between the devil and the deep blue sea. Its members find themselves having to chose between a technique (RI test) discredited and ridiculed by many of its own leaders for decades and one (CQT testing) whose validity is not only lacking but whose underlying assumptions are questionable and embarrassing when brought to light and for which even the suggestion of examinee knowledge now causes publicly admitted fright and flight. None of this suggests any procedural stability or supports the feigned ability to detect examinee manipulation(s)/countermeasures that is sheepishly put forth (but never demonstrated) here and elsewhere. Perhaps this situational dilemma will finally lead the polygraph community to enhanced utilization of the rationally based concealed information test.
Just how ingrained CQT is can be seen in the discussion and Q&A earlier this year with Furedy at DoDPI.* It was a presentation to senior DoD polygraphers apparently organized by staff with the idea of promoting interest in GKT (aka CIT). The degree of entrenchment of the CQT and resistance to anything new, not by all but certainly by most, was disappointingly high. More suprisingly, there was almost no awareness amongst the senior polygraphers in attendance of how and why GKT's work. One audience member, upon noting Furedy's lack of direct polygraph experience, went on to state "We know diddly squat about the GKT."
One thing I learned that struck me as quite possibly a form of CQT that could be valid is a technique (new to me) that is used in Japan in addition to their well known use of the GKT. There, a control question is created by using a similar crime where the examinee is known by the police to be innocent - but the examinee is unaware of this and is led to believe he is under suspicion of this alternate crime. This serves as the control. Very novel concept.
Anyway, I want to applaud DoDPI for their (staff level) interest in the GKT and willingness to bring Furedy to promote the more scientifically based GKT.
*Link to the 2 hr video, 1.5 hrs of which was Q&A is on Furedy's web site. http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/PT%2008%20DOD%20Discussion.wmv
Marty
Posted by Kaisersosa
- Aug 30, 2005, 11:01 AM@Drew,
I do find it interesting that with the wealth of knowledge that polys are so unscientific, there still exists this pretentious idea that it is valid. We once believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and then we learned that it was all a lie, but fun at the time.
Here we have Santa Claus dressed in polygrapher's clothing and we (the public out of willingness or ignorance) want to believe UNTIL we are subjected ourselves.
On the other side, we, the ones subjected to exams and empowered with the knowledge, pretend the polygrapher is truly Santa during the exam and play the 'game'.
Officials, other than the polygrapher, when approached with the knowledge of the polygraph, will not talk about it.
The human condition is a phenomenon in itself.
So, my question still stands: given my scenario described above, how does this affect the false-positives if there are no control questions to measure relatives against?
-Kaisersosa
I do find it interesting that with the wealth of knowledge that polys are so unscientific, there still exists this pretentious idea that it is valid. We once believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and then we learned that it was all a lie, but fun at the time.
Here we have Santa Claus dressed in polygrapher's clothing and we (the public out of willingness or ignorance) want to believe UNTIL we are subjected ourselves.
On the other side, we, the ones subjected to exams and empowered with the knowledge, pretend the polygrapher is truly Santa during the exam and play the 'game'.
Officials, other than the polygrapher, when approached with the knowledge of the polygraph, will not talk about it.
The human condition is a phenomenon in itself.
So, my question still stands: given my scenario described above, how does this affect the false-positives if there are no control questions to measure relatives against?
-Kaisersosa
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 30, 2005, 09:34 AMKaisersosa,
The polygraph community is now largely between the devil and the deep blue sea. Its members find themselves having to chose between a technique (RI test) discredited and ridiculed by many of its own leaders for decades and one (CQT testing) whose validity is not only lacking but whose underlying assumptions are questionable and embarrassing when brought to light and for which even the suggestion of examinee knowledge now causes publicly admitted fright and flight. None of this suggests any procedural stability or supports the feigned ability to detect examinee manipulation(s)/countermeasures that is sheepishly put forth (but never demonstrated) here and elsewhere. Perhaps this situational dilemma will finally lead the polygraph community to enhanced utilization of the rationally based concealed information test.
The polygraph community is now largely between the devil and the deep blue sea. Its members find themselves having to chose between a technique (RI test) discredited and ridiculed by many of its own leaders for decades and one (CQT testing) whose validity is not only lacking but whose underlying assumptions are questionable and embarrassing when brought to light and for which even the suggestion of examinee knowledge now causes publicly admitted fright and flight. None of this suggests any procedural stability or supports the feigned ability to detect examinee manipulation(s)/countermeasures that is sheepishly put forth (but never demonstrated) here and elsewhere. Perhaps this situational dilemma will finally lead the polygraph community to enhanced utilization of the rationally based concealed information test.
Posted by Kaisersosa
- Aug 30, 2005, 07:22 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 30, 2005, 04:25 AMSounds very much like a Relevant/Irrelevant method which many examiners are now switching to in certain situations.
I appreciate the thought, but you are just affirming the obvious. There are other issues, like "false-positives", that are more interesting once you move beyond the obvious.
-Kaisersosa
Posted by polyfool
- Aug 29, 2005, 11:26 PMQuote from: Kaisersosa on Aug 29, 2005, 11:05 PM
I wish I could tell you that I had a miscue but I can tell you that absolutely 100% of the questions, other than birth month were relevant. I posted my situation here a few years back and know the variations between "control, relevant and irrelevant" questions very, very well.
Having explained that, I would like to hear from anyone experienced with this (new to me) ploy, how the impact of false positives plays in this scenario.
-Kaisersosa
Perhaps someone could elaborate on this method?
Posted by Kaisersosa
- Aug 29, 2005, 11:05 PMQuote from: polyfool on Aug 29, 2005, 10:43 PMKaisersosa:
Are you sure you didn't mistake controls for relevants? Sometimes, controls may seem relevant, but are actually not.
The question about your birth month is obviously an irrelevant--the answer to which the examiner knew for sure.
I wish I could tell you that I had a miscue but I can tell you that absolutely 100% of the questions, other than birth month were relevant. I posted my situation here a few years back and know the variations between "control, relevant and irrelevant" questions very, very well.
Having explained that, I would like to hear from anyone experienced with this (new to me) ploy, how the impact of false positives plays in this scenario.
-Kaisersosa
Posted by polyfool
- Aug 29, 2005, 10:43 PMKaisersosa:
Are you sure you didn't mistake controls for relevants? Sometimes, controls may seem relevant, but are actually not.
The question about your birth month is obviously an irrelevant--the answer to which the examiner knew for sure.
Are you sure you didn't mistake controls for relevants? Sometimes, controls may seem relevant, but are actually not.
The question about your birth month is obviously an irrelevant--the answer to which the examiner knew for sure.
Posted by Kaisersosa
- Aug 29, 2005, 03:34 PMI just went through a poly where there were NO questions where "countermeasures" could be used. The only question that came close was, "Is it true that you were born in the month of (blank)?". All other questions were relevant.
The results were "no deception".
Feedback?
New process?
Anyone think this is strange or different?
-Kaisersosa
The results were "no deception".
Feedback?
New process?
Anyone think this is strange or different?
-Kaisersosa