- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Richard
- Mar 09, 2012, 01:18 PMALSO I FORGOT to Say im in GEORGIA>
??
:-?
??:-?
Posted by Richard
- Mar 09, 2012, 01:17 PMFrom the information given to me they are only 85-88% accurate, so whats up with the other 12-15% any answer???
I past the first set of question no problems, then ansked again the same set of question say time qwithin 2-3 minutes and a question show different results, then the third time the same thing.... no past no fail DRAW.... incunclusive.
First time taking test...
RICHARD :-/
??I past the first set of question no problems, then ansked again the same set of question say time qwithin 2-3 minutes and a question show different results, then the third time the same thing.... no past no fail DRAW.... incunclusive.
First time taking test...
RICHARD :-/
Posted by ecordy75
- Oct 18, 2009, 12:26 PMQuote from: POLYSCORE on Aug 11, 2004, 12:07 PM
I AM AN EXAMINER AND HAVE IMPLEMENTED CONTERMEASURES.
I don't bullshit or do crap, either.
You are a polygraph examiner, hence, you are a terrorist,
because you hate freedom.
Hence, you should be dealt with as severely and harshly
as British and American troops deal with the terrorist Taliban.
Hence, anyone who fights you
and fights for the freedom of others who are terrorized by the polygraph deserves to be honored and praised for their patriotic courage.
There is no scientific proof whatsoever that there is any harm done by the freedom of anyone who refuses to take a polygraph or who, the polygraph believes, "fails" a polygraph.
Posted by Control Freaks
- Apr 09, 2009, 03:37 PMThe use of poly's in the SOTP is just plain BS. While I was still on probation in Tarrant County, my ex successfully coached my oldest daughter into making an accusation of me abusing her some 5 years back. When I walked into the polygrapher's office, the very first question he asked me was, "Do you have someone from the police department here with you?", leaving me to believe that I would immediately be arrested and charged with that offense, should I fail the poly. Well guess what. I failed it. I failed it because the entire time I sat there, all I could think of was going to prison for the rest of my life if I failed it. I finally had to fight the probation dept. on the use of the examiner I had been using the entire time while on probation, and once I got to him, I passed. I passed because I knew this examiner was a no-BS man, and that he played by the real rules. Not the one's created in the minds of every new probation officer that thinks they can make up shit as they go along.
The original polygrapher KNEW that if he asked that kind of question before the test, he could instill fear within me that would absolutely make me fail the test. Screw Texas and their entire probation sex-offender program. The only good I got out of all of those years was the actual counseling.
The original polygrapher KNEW that if he asked that kind of question before the test, he could instill fear within me that would absolutely make me fail the test. Screw Texas and their entire probation sex-offender program. The only good I got out of all of those years was the actual counseling.
Posted by digithead
- Mar 25, 2007, 05:49 PMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 25, 2007, 01:09 PMI see we have major differences in opinon and it does not appear they will be resolved by further comments or debate. We are both set in our opinions and will maintain our own opinions regardless of further debate. I have enjoyed the exchange of information and will do further studies. And no I do not accept the conclusions of the NAS report. You must admitt they did not conduct any examinations, they used studies that were selected by the NAS only.
Wow, you really are in denial...
However, the fact that the NAS did not conduct any examinations is irrelevant to their conclusions. Does a physician have to suffer from a disease to be able to research it? The statisticians, engineers and psychologists on the panel had more than sufficient experience with research methods, psychophysiology, and science to deliver a sound and reasonable conclusion. It's too bad that you are so wrapped up in your delusion that you can't see it correctly...
As for their methods, they did an extensive literature review which is a perfectly acceptable method of research. Why recreate the wheel? However, from this literature review they determined that the majority of polygraph research wouldn't qualify for funding from the National Science Foundation or National Institute of Health. That's the academic equivalent of saying that most polygraph research is garbarge. Beside this conclusion they also determined that CQT polygraph lacks a plausible scientific basis and as such has no validity or reliability. Therefore, reliance on the CQT polygraph poses a clear threat to national security...
I do find it funny that polygraphers deride the NAS study by saying that it conducted no new research as if this is what is needed when 100 years of prior research has failed to come up with anything that proves polygraph works outside of eliciting confessions from the gullible...
At what point would any of you concede that CQT polygraph is pseudoscience? What evidence would convince you that nature did not equip us with a "Pinocchio nose"? That truth and deception are complex interactions of situation, emotion, cognition, and memory rather than rote physiological responses?
How many failures with polygraph screening both in employment and sex offender supervision are needed before we toss this peculiar device onto the scrap heap?
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 25, 2007, 01:09 PMI see we have major differences in opinon and it does not appear they will be resolved by further comments or debate. We are both set in our opinions and will maintain our own opinions regardless of further debate. I have enjoyed the exchange of information and will do further studies. And no I do not accept the conclusions of the NAS report. You must admitt they did not conduct any examinations, they used studies that were selected by the NAS only.
Posted by digithead
- Mar 25, 2007, 06:01 AMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 23, 2007, 04:59 PMSince semantics refers to the meaning of words, expressions, and sentences then yes, I'm using semantics. So are you, it's a pointless barb...
My statement that a person passed a polygraph that had he had failed on a previous examination does in fact show that not ALL PERSONS ARE SENSITIZED AND NOT ALL PERSONS FAIL A SECOND EXAM ON THE SAME ISSUE.
It seems you are using sematics to make a point of this. How do I know that the subject was sensitized on the case I mentioned? He was in tears and very angry when the second examination started. The examiner used persuasive coments to calm and resolve the issue.
Pointless barbs aside, your statement is still only an anecdote and contains no proof that the subject was sensitized, only that he was upset. They are not the same thing...
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 23, 2007, 04:59 PMWe do agree that in sex offender monitoring, polygraph should not be the end all/know all of the offenders progress or truthfulness. SOV treatment is an inclusive system with strict guidlines that SHOULD be followed. Probation officers should not depend entirely on the polygraph, persons are known to have passed a monitoring examination while violating portions of the probation agreement.You and I disagree on the use of the polygraph in SOT. The only thing the polygraph should be used for is the extraction of confessions from the gullible. Its results should not be used in any decision-making regarding the offender because it is pseudoscience. The government should not employ flapdoodle in any capacity...
As mentioned in many threads, a monitoring or pre employment examination is subject to false positivies and negatives. The reasons have been stated by polygraph examiners that post on this board, as well as persons who dislike polygraph and consider it nothing better than reading tarot cards.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 23, 2007, 04:59 PMI may have different views on the validity and reliability, I agree that polygraph has no place in a court room as evidence. My opinion of correct decisions in screening situations would be in the mid 80% range of accuracy. This is based on my own personal opinion from experience, studies conducted by the polygraph community, and published research in polygraph journals.Do you accept the conclusions of the NAS study? They are an impartial and eminent scientific body only concerned with doing the best possible research. The members of the polygraph panel are some of the best statisticians, engineers, and psychologists in the nation and they concluded that CQT polygraph is flapdoodle. Why doesn't that study from such an august group persuade you?
I know you disagree with this and I have no problem with your opinion. I would personally like to see studies conducted under the supervision of persons with no intrest in the outcome of such studies. The problem is having a qualified examiner, properly trained using approved format's, while under the supervision of persons that do not have a bias for or against polygraph. Find that mixture and I would participate and accept the result of such a study.
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 23, 2007, 04:59 PMPrior to use of polygraph in SOV treatment, recidivism was over 65% in a few case studies I have seen years ago. Once standards of treatment were established and polygraph was introduced into the system of treatment recidivism reportedly dropped to about 25%. I don't have those studies available to me at this time and they were conducted by actual theapists treating convicted sex offenders. I am not familiar with the manner in which they reached those conclusions, therefore I cannot and will not state they are factural. Anything that will reduce victimization of any persons is good.I have seen these studies and all of them fail to disentangle the treatment (e.g., cognitive behavior therapy, therapeutic communities) from use of the polygraph. Their conclusions are an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). If you can't disentangle the use of the polygraph with the type of treatment a sex offender received, you can't make the claim that the polygraph is responsible for the decrease in recidivism...
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 23, 2007, 04:59 PMI have always been committed to reality and the reality is that CQT polygraph is pseudoscience and poses a threat to society...
Thank you for a genuine conversation which has helped me look deeper at my inner self and opinion of polygraph. And I will continue to look even deeper, will you make the same commitment?
And unlike a lot of the anti-people who post on this site, I've never been personally harmed by the polygraph. I became interested in the topic because I'm a criminal justice researcher who studies sex offending. I reached my conclusions from reading all of the literature, pro and con, and the con was definitely more persuasive...
But since your identity is so wedded to the polygraph as a "professional lie detector", it would probably cause you significant cognitive dissonance to admit that you've been practicing pseudoscience all of these years so I doubt that you will ever come to the same conclusion as I have...
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 23, 2007, 04:59 PMQuote from: digithead on Mar 23, 2007, 03:07 AM
How does your anecdote negate my statement that a person who has become sensitized cannot pass a subsequent polygraph?
As you said, we have no information regarding your anecdote. Was this person sensitized? We don't know. So your anecdote isn't be evidence against my claim...
However, if someone continues to fail a polygraph on topic for which they are truthful, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that this subject is now sensitized?
As for my question about false negatives, it's something I ask of all the polygraphers on this board. None have given me an answer which is troubling because in the context of this topic - sex offender monitoring - false negatives are the thing of utmost importance. These unknown or unknowable errors allow these guys to continue their victimization and pose a clear threat to society...
My statement that a person passed a polygraph that had he had failed on a previous examination does in fact show that not ALL PERSONS ARE SENSITIZED AND NOT ALL PERSONS FAIL A SECOND EXAM ON THE SAME ISSUE.
It seems you are using sematics to make a point of this. How do I know that the subject was sensitized on the case I mentioned? He was in tears and very angry when the second examination started. The examiner used persuasive coments to calm and resolve the issue.
We do agree that in sex offender monitoring, polygraph should not be the end all/know all of the offenders progress or truthfulness. SOV treatment is an inclusive system with strict guidlines that SHOULD be followed. Probation officers should not depend entirely on the polygraph, persons are known to have passed a monitoring examination while violating portions of the probation agreement.
As mentioned in many threads, a monitoring or pre employment examination is subject to false positivies and negatives. The reasons have been stated by polygraph examiners that post on this board, as well as persons who dislike polygraph and consider it nothing better than reading tarot cards.
I may have different views on the validity and reliability, I agree that polygraph has no place in a court room as evidence. My opinion of correct decisions in screening situations would be in the mid 80% range of accuracy. This is based on my own personal opinion from experience, studies conducted by the polygraph community, and published research in polygraph journals.
I know you disagree with this and I have no problem with your opinion. I would personally like to see studies conducted under the supervision of persons with no intrest in the outcome of such studies. The problem is having a qualified examiner, properly trained using approved format's, while under the supervision of persons that do not have a bias for or against polygraph. Find that mixture and I would participate and accept the result of such a study.
Prior to use of polygraph in SOV treatment, recidivism was over 65% in a few case studies I have seen years ago. Once standards of treatment were established and polygraph was introduced into the system of treatment recidivism reportedly dropped to about 25%. I don't have those studies available to me at this time and they were conducted by actual theapists treating convicted sex offenders. I am not familiar with the manner in which they reached those conclusions, therefore I cannot and will not state they are factural. Anything that will reduce victimization of any persons is good.
Thank you for a genuine conversation which has helped me look deeper at my inner self and opinion of polygraph. And I will continue to look even deeper, will you make the same commitment?
Posted by digithead
- Mar 23, 2007, 03:07 AMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 23, 2007, 02:38 AMvery good points indeed.
The examination which branded the subject a DI was in fact a bad examination. QC on the examination was clear regarding this. The second examination also had QC and the examination had been conducted properly.
Yes we had a false positive as a result of a very poorly conducted examination in which the examinee was accused of the offense by the examiner. I would agree this was a false positive, and give you that one, no argument.
My record of false negatives? How would any individual know for a fact they had a false negative? Only confession by a second individual with cooberation would answer that question. My answer is, I don't know.
There are false positivies and false negatives, however without a review of the facts and case, can you truly make the statement you did, prior to my posting other results?
Aggies are Aggies, and proud as hell, so don't go there.
Second point, I did not conduct either of the examinations. I was allowed to QC both after they had already been QC'd by others. This was an important case that demanded the truth be found, and it was. The system works when worked properly.
Just a note, the comments offered were not even connected to the last two posts! Your original statement was to the effect that an individual would be so sensitized to the relevant question, there would be no chance of passing a second examination. If I am not mistaken, the information regarding the case at hand demonstrates your error.
Your post regarding the inability to conduct a second examination and pass when being truthful to both was incorrect, that was my only point.
How does your anecdote negate my statement that a person who has become sensitized cannot pass a subsequent polygraph?
As you said, we have no information regarding your anecdote. Was this person sensitized? We don't know. So your anecdote isn't be evidence against my claim...
However, if someone continues to fail a polygraph on topic for which they are truthful, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that this subject is now sensitized?
As for my question about false negatives, it's something I ask of all the polygraphers on this board. None have given me an answer which is troubling because in the context of this topic - sex offender monitoring - false negatives are the thing of utmost importance. These unknown or unknowable errors allow these guys to continue their victimization and pose a clear threat to society...
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 23, 2007, 02:57 AMSorry digithead, I missed one point.
YOUR WORDS IN SEPERATE POSTS
'Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen? '
'And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly... '
My answer is, you needed an aggie education and your communication would have been clear. First, how many False Negativese I've seen, Second your asking how many false negatives in my career. Hope you can see the difference.
My answer to how many have I seen, several. How many have I had in my career, I don't know. I am sure it has happened, I just don't have facts and cases that document this. Polygraph is not 100%, nor is other procedures of this type. MMPI is a case in fact, yet considererd very reliable to those that use it. The Able Screen is another.
Sorry, I am tired from a difficult day and would go further, just don't have the energy at this late hour. Thanks for the interesting discussion and have a good night.
YOUR WORDS IN SEPERATE POSTS
'Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen? '
'And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly... '
My answer is, you needed an aggie education and your communication would have been clear. First, how many False Negativese I've seen, Second your asking how many false negatives in my career. Hope you can see the difference.
My answer to how many have I seen, several. How many have I had in my career, I don't know. I am sure it has happened, I just don't have facts and cases that document this. Polygraph is not 100%, nor is other procedures of this type. MMPI is a case in fact, yet considererd very reliable to those that use it. The Able Screen is another.
Sorry, I am tired from a difficult day and would go further, just don't have the energy at this late hour. Thanks for the interesting discussion and have a good night.
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 23, 2007, 02:38 AMvery good points indeed.
The examination which branded the subject a DI was in fact a bad examination. QC on the examination was clear regarding this. The second examination also had QC and the examination had been conducted properly.
Yes we had a false positive as a result of a very poorly conducted examination in which the examinee was accused of the offense by the examiner. I would agree this was a false positive, and give you that one, no argument.
My record of false negatives? How would any individual know for a fact they had a false negative? Only confession by a second individual with cooberation would answer that question. My answer is, I don't know.
There are false positivies and false negatives, however without a review of the facts and case, can you truly make the statement you did, prior to my posting other results?
Aggies are Aggies, and proud as hell, so don't go there.
Second point, I did not conduct either of the examinations. I was allowed to QC both after they had already been QC'd by others. This was an important case that demanded the truth be found, and it was. The system works when worked properly.
Just a note, the comments offered were not even connected to the last two posts! Your original statement was to the effect that an individual would be so sensitized to the relevant question, there would be no chance of passing a second examination. If I am not mistaken, the information regarding the case at hand demonstrates your error.
Your post regarding the inability to conduct a second examination and pass when being truthful to both was incorrect, that was my only point.
The examination which branded the subject a DI was in fact a bad examination. QC on the examination was clear regarding this. The second examination also had QC and the examination had been conducted properly.
Yes we had a false positive as a result of a very poorly conducted examination in which the examinee was accused of the offense by the examiner. I would agree this was a false positive, and give you that one, no argument.
My record of false negatives? How would any individual know for a fact they had a false negative? Only confession by a second individual with cooberation would answer that question. My answer is, I don't know.
There are false positivies and false negatives, however without a review of the facts and case, can you truly make the statement you did, prior to my posting other results?
Aggies are Aggies, and proud as hell, so don't go there.
Second point, I did not conduct either of the examinations. I was allowed to QC both after they had already been QC'd by others. This was an important case that demanded the truth be found, and it was. The system works when worked properly.
Just a note, the comments offered were not even connected to the last two posts! Your original statement was to the effect that an individual would be so sensitized to the relevant question, there would be no chance of passing a second examination. If I am not mistaken, the information regarding the case at hand demonstrates your error.
Your post regarding the inability to conduct a second examination and pass when being truthful to both was incorrect, that was my only point.
Posted by digithead
- Mar 23, 2007, 02:00 AMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 22, 2007, 09:12 PM"FALSE POSITIVE---FALSE NEGATIVE" why are you so convinced that this is the case? You have no knowledge of the case facts, procedures used, subject of the examination or anything else associated with this particular case. You are attempting to prove a point without facts, therefore you are making it up as you go.
Let's see, where did I get false positive from? Hmm, I think it was this post you made:
Quote from: Lienot on Mar 22, 2007, 04:36 AM
I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam. His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case. We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good. (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct). The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.
Let's parse this: First statement is that an individual showed deception on a prior polygraph. The next statement is that he showed no deception on a subsequent test for the same issue which was corroborated by documentation...
It seems perfectly reasonable to me from your statements to infer that the first test was a false positive, or did I miss something? But then I didn't go to Texas A&M, my colleges were Rutgers University, the University of Colorado and Washington State University...
And lastly, I asked you to discuss your false negatives in your career, not this specific incident. It must be that lack of Aggie education again which prevents me from communicating clearly...
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 22, 2007, 09:12 PMQuote from: digithead on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMSo you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at?
Texas A&M
There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...
Correct statement
The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously...
Your Key Word is "COULD" my statement is 'NOT ALWAYS'
Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...
"SIGNIFICANT RISK" Not a predetermined dynamic process.
So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?
"FALSE POSITIVE---FALSE NEGATIVE" why are you so convinced that this is the case? You have no knowledge of the case facts, procedures used, subject of the examination or anything else associated with this particular case. You are attempting to prove a point without facts, therefore you are making it up as you go.
However you do make good points regarding cognition and conditioned responses. These can be alterred if proper procedures are utilized. This occurs repeadly in treatment of many different situations, polygraph only being one.
Posted by digithead
- Mar 22, 2007, 08:49 PMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 22, 2007, 04:36 AM"In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that... " posted by digithead
I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam. His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case. We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good. (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct). The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.
So you're claiming that a person cannot be sensitized to a negative stimulus? Where'd you get your psych degree at?
There are two risks with repeated polygraphs. The first, which is acknowledged by practitioners is habituation where a subject no longer responds to a stimulus because its novelty has worn off. Subjects who continually pass on a question (especially those who are lying) may no longer see that question as threatening, hence they can become habituated to the process...
The second is sensitization which occurs when a subject has negative experiences with certain stimuli and the response increases when faced with those stimuli. A subject who is accused of deception or inconclusive on a question in which they are truthful could become sensitized to that question, regardless of who asks it just from the memory of wrongly failing that question previously...
Note that not everyone will become completely habituated or sensitized as learning and cognition are a dynamic process but given the nature of polygraph and its reliance on stimulation, memory, emotion and cognition, there is a significant risk of both of these things occurring...
So unless you're able to turn over years of research into non-associative learning, your anecdotes carry no weight other than they're an admission of a false positive. Would you like to discuss how many false negatives you've seen?
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 22, 2007, 04:36 AM"In addition, regardless of who you go to for another polygraph, you are now sensitized to the questions in which you've been deemed inconclusive. No matter how experienced (LBCB?), a new examiner cannot overcome that... " posted by digithead
I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam. His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case. We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good. (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct). The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.
I must disagree with Digithead, as a matter of record, an individual was tested that had shown deception to an allegation about sexual abuse of a child on a prior exam. His results this date were NDI (no deception indicated) on the same case. We do have some examiners that have problems, others are quit good. (The documenting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the result on NDI is correct). The examiner did not have that documentation prior to the examination.