- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 04, 2006, 07:39 PMQuote from: gigman1986 on Apr 04, 2006, 07:07 PM........Is there such a thing as a statute of limitations in this poly world.
Who decides what that break point is. Obviously, it is based on the offense but to say someone can be black mailed indefinitely is a little stretch, especially if there is no possibility of traceability.
I suspect they would assume you can be blackmailed on it for as long as you are married to your wife and are not willing to tell her about it. However, I think it is safe to assume there are a lot of cleared people who have had affairs and this issue by itself wouldn't disqualify you.
Here's to you and your wife being faithfull to each other henceforth.
Posted by gigman1986
- Apr 04, 2006, 07:07 PM........Is there such a thing as a statute of limitations in this poly world.
Who decides what that break point is. Obviously, it is based on the offense but to say someone can be black mailed indefinitely is a little stretch, especially if there is no possibility of traceability.
Who decides what that break point is. Obviously, it is based on the offense but to say someone can be black mailed indefinitely is a little stretch, especially if there is no possibility of traceability.
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 04, 2006, 06:11 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 04, 2006, 05:47 PMOnesimus:
I guess I didnt make myself clear. I consider the poly exam and the post test criminal interrogation two different things.
George didn't say everything a polygrapher says is a lie. He only indicated that gigman would be lied to by his polygrapher, a near certainty. Personally, when I'm being lied to, I don't really care what phase of the exam/interrogation I'm in. However, in my experience, the lies can come at any time.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 04, 2006, 06:11 PMQuote from: Onesimus on Apr 04, 2006, 06:05 PM
Wow, it looks like you guys are starting to win George over
No, just poor proofreading on my part. Thanks for catching that.
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 04, 2006, 06:05 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 02, 2006, 06:10 AMThe polygraph ... does verify truth.
Wow, it looks like you guys are starting to win George over
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 04, 2006, 05:47 PMOnesimus:
I guess I didnt make myself clear. I consider the poly exam and the post test criminal interrogation two different things.
I guess I didnt make myself clear. I consider the poly exam and the post test criminal interrogation two different things.
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 04, 2006, 04:02 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 03, 2006, 01:10 PMWhen I give an exam I don't lie to anyone.
QuoteAt one point or another I tell him that his partner ratted him out and confessed. Now, I know this is not true but does that make me a liar.
Does this mark the moment in time when polygraphers, having grown weary of their war against science, decided to launch an all out attack on the English language? If this is not a lie, then I will have to throw out all my dictionaries. There has nary been a lie told throughout history whose teller did not think was justly told.
Unfortunately, there are many in the intelligence community who think a self-serving lie is justified, or is not a lie at all.
(Note that I have not commented on whether or not what retcopper said was justified or not, but only on whether or not is was a lie.)
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 04, 2006, 02:06 PMGeorge:
I wasn't trained by DODPI so I cant' speak for their examiners. The training I had in physiology as it relates to polygraph is more than adequate and I would guess it is the same with DODPI. When giivng an exam we don't have to "lead a discusison" in physiology as you suggest.
I have never read "the lie behind the lie detector"
and do not plan on doing so. This is not a knock against you but I do believe it would be a waste of my time because I know more about polygraph then you do. You rely on Dr Richardson and the results of one flawed study for your information. " I do not know what you do for a living but I certainly would not read a few books about it and then try to tell you that you are doing it wrong.
I do not use deception during my stim tests. I do not tell an examinee anything about scoring IRR QS. It is my opinion that polygraph screening does have validity so why would I tell an examinee that it does not. To do so would mean that I am lying.
Allow me to give you an example of a post test interview and you tell me if you consider it lying. A subject fails a crime specific exam where he was the shooter in a holdup with a co conspirator. He still denies his part in the crime. At one point or another I tell him that his partner ratted him out and confessed. Now, I know this is not true but does that make me a liar. You can call it what you want but please know that the courts have allowed and condone "trickery and chicannery" during interrogations of suspects. According to you, Dr. Richardson might call this scheming but I call it using what the courts allow to get at the truth.
I believe a lot of what you and I disagree with is due to semantics, suppositions and ignorance on both sides. I do not agree with your motivation for running this site but I respect you for allowing different view points. Since I have been coming to this site I have not contibuted much to the "nuts and bolts" discussion about polygraph becasue I think it is usless to do so. However, I do enjoy talking about the philosophical differences surrounding polygraphy with your posters and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in that
Thanx
I wasn't trained by DODPI so I cant' speak for their examiners. The training I had in physiology as it relates to polygraph is more than adequate and I would guess it is the same with DODPI. When giivng an exam we don't have to "lead a discusison" in physiology as you suggest.
I have never read "the lie behind the lie detector"
and do not plan on doing so. This is not a knock against you but I do believe it would be a waste of my time because I know more about polygraph then you do. You rely on Dr Richardson and the results of one flawed study for your information. " I do not know what you do for a living but I certainly would not read a few books about it and then try to tell you that you are doing it wrong.
I do not use deception during my stim tests. I do not tell an examinee anything about scoring IRR QS. It is my opinion that polygraph screening does have validity so why would I tell an examinee that it does not. To do so would mean that I am lying.
Allow me to give you an example of a post test interview and you tell me if you consider it lying. A subject fails a crime specific exam where he was the shooter in a holdup with a co conspirator. He still denies his part in the crime. At one point or another I tell him that his partner ratted him out and confessed. Now, I know this is not true but does that make me a liar. You can call it what you want but please know that the courts have allowed and condone "trickery and chicannery" during interrogations of suspects. According to you, Dr. Richardson might call this scheming but I call it using what the courts allow to get at the truth.
I believe a lot of what you and I disagree with is due to semantics, suppositions and ignorance on both sides. I do not agree with your motivation for running this site but I respect you for allowing different view points. Since I have been coming to this site I have not contibuted much to the "nuts and bolts" discussion about polygraph becasue I think it is usless to do so. However, I do enjoy talking about the philosophical differences surrounding polygraphy with your posters and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in that
Thanx
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 04, 2006, 12:23 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 03, 2006, 02:21 PMGeorge:
I wouldn't' call oversimplification a form of lying and exaggeration is sometimes used to clarify a point to someone.
1. I received many weeks of intensve training regarding the ANS and other physiologic functions as they pertain to the polygrpah. For obvious reasons I am not going to spend hours explaining these systems to an examinee when I can get my point across by "simplifying" the process to the examinee. This means I'm lying?
DoDPI trainees get a roughly two-week cram-course on physiology. This hardly qualifies them to lead a discussion of the autonomic nervous system. And if they follow the DoDPI script laid out in the Test for Espionage and Sabotage Administrative Guidelines, then as Dr. Richardson mentioned, they do indeed engage in gross oversimplification and error:
Quote4. Explain how the polygraph instrument works and the F3 theory of deception detection--be very brief. Use the following example as a guideline.
You may be a little nervous, especially if you have not had a PDD examination before. This is expected and is quite normal. To help put you at ease, I will explain what the instrument is and how it works. The polygraph is a diagnostic tool that is used to determine if a person is telling the truth. It simply records physiological changes that take place in your body when you are asked questions. Today, changes in your respiration, sweat gland activity, and blood pressure will be recorded. Please notice the two rubber tubes on the desk. One will be placed across your chest and the other will be placed around your abdominal area. They will be used to record your breathing. There are two metal finger plates next to the rubber tubes. These plates will be attached to two of your fingers and will record your sweat gland activity. Finally, there is a blood pressure cuff on the desk. It is the same type of cuff a doctor uses to measure blood pressure. It will be placed on your arm and will monitor changes in your cardiovascular activity.
These physiological changes are a result of an automatic response system in your body. It is a response system over which you have no control. For example, visualize yourself walking down a dark
alley late at night. Suddenly you hear a loud noise. You will instantaneously decide either to remain where you are and investigate the source of the noise, or to flee the area, sensing danger to your well being. Regardless of the choice you make, your body automatically adjusts itself to meet the needs of the situation; your heart may beat faster, your breathing may change and you may break out in a cold sweat.
When you were growing up, if you are like most people, you were raised to know the difference between right and wrong. Quite probably, all of the adults you came in contact with--your parents, grandparents, relatives, teachers, church officials--taught you that lying, cheating, and stealing were wrong. Ever since you were a young child, you have been programmed to know that lying is wrong. Think about the first time you lied and got caught. Remember how your body felt during that confrontation. Your heart may have been racing or you may have been sweating. However, the responses were automatic; your body adjusted to the stress of the situation.
People are not always 100% honest. Sometimes it is kinder and more socially acceptable to lie than to be honest - such as telling someone you like their clothes when you really think the clothes are awful. It is important for you to understand that even though a lie might be socially acceptable or only a small lie, or a lie by omission, your body still responds. The recording on the polygraph will show only the physiological responses. It cannot know what kind of lie you are telling. Therefore, it is extremely important that you be totally honest to those questions concerning this project.
But, as pointed out in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 88 of the 4th edition):
QuoteThe above explanation is carefully designed to instill fear. But like the Wizard of Oz, the polygrapher is making believe. His explanation is deliberately false and misleading: telling a lie may or may not result in physiological changes measurable by the polygraph. When the polygrapher says, "It is important for you to understand that even though a lie might be socially acceptable or only a small lie, or a lie by omission, your body still responds," he really means, "It is important for me that you believe this to be true."
You also write:
Quote2. I am usually correct in my stim tests. If I am not , does that make me a liar.
The deceptions associated with the stim test are explained at pp. 89-92 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Quote3. I am up front with the examinee about the Irr Qs.
Then you're not following DoDPI protocol. Again, from the Test for Espionage and Sabotage Administration Guidelines:
Quote10. Explain and review the irrelevant questions. Use the following explanation example as a guideline.
The final diagnostic questions you may hear are ones you will answer truthfully so that I can see how you are responding when you tell the truth. It will be obvious that you are telling the truth....
Of course, the irrelevant questions are not scored at all. The explanation that they are so that the examiner "can see how you are responding when you tell the truth" is a lie.
Quote4. I tell the examinee I compare the control question to the relevant question. Doe that make me a liar?
No. But if you follow standard polygraph practice and don't tell the examinee that you actually expect his answers to probable-lie "control" questions to be less than completely honest, that does make you dishonest.
Quote5. I am there to give him a test. I am not there to tell him about techniques and which one is statistically better.
If you tell examinees that any form of polygraph screening has any validity at all, you are not being honest.
Quote6. I will coordinate my questions about the crime or subject according to the reactions to my questions. I wouldn't call that scheming or whatever.
Come now. Post-test interrogation is where some of the biggest whoppers are told. In the context of a criminal interrogation, a certain amount of examiner deception may well be justified. But I don't think it's appropriate in the hiring process or in the workplace.
The kinds of "themes" that Dr. Richardson mentioned are to be found in DoDPI's Interview & Interrogation handbook:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-interrogation.pdf
Quote7. I disagree this statement but I wouldn't consider it lying if i did tell the examinee this, because I believe in the process. Moot point anyway because I wouldn't I say this to an examinee.
If you genuinely believe that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, then I agree you would not be lying when claiming so. But you would be mistaken, for reasons explained by Dr. William G. Iacono in his article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml
Posted by NSAreject
- Apr 04, 2006, 09:40 AMgigman1986,
Certainly, your situation opens you up to blackmail,
but if you are intent on taking the poly, don't let them
trick YOU into, "opening up the door", to discussions
concerning sexual behavior...
Certainly, your situation opens you up to blackmail,
but if you are intent on taking the poly, don't let them
trick YOU into, "opening up the door", to discussions
concerning sexual behavior...
Posted by AngryinNY
- Apr 03, 2006, 06:56 PM"4. I tell the examinee I compare the control question to the relevant question. Doe that make me a liar?"
I suppose that depends on what you mean by the term "liar". Do you imply that the control question is the directed lie, or do you point out the ACTUAL control questions? During my first two CIA polys, my polygrapher definitely lied to me throughout. During the third test, when I told the polygrapher everything I knew about the poly from this site, he determined he would have to change the format of the test since I was already aware of the control question ruse. It then became much more of an outright interrogation. (got the job, by the way)
P.S. It's pretty hilarious to hear a polygrapher defend "oversimplification" and "exaggeration". Just goes to show you how with the correct state of mind, you can convince yourself that just about any statement is true.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by the term "liar". Do you imply that the control question is the directed lie, or do you point out the ACTUAL control questions? During my first two CIA polys, my polygrapher definitely lied to me throughout. During the third test, when I told the polygrapher everything I knew about the poly from this site, he determined he would have to change the format of the test since I was already aware of the control question ruse. It then became much more of an outright interrogation. (got the job, by the way)
P.S. It's pretty hilarious to hear a polygrapher defend "oversimplification" and "exaggeration". Just goes to show you how with the correct state of mind, you can convince yourself that just about any statement is true.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 03, 2006, 02:21 PMGeorge:
I wouldn't' call oversimplification a form of lying and exaggeration is sometimes used to clarify a point to someone.
1. I received many weeks of intensve training regarding the ANS and other physiologic functions as they pertain to the polygrpah. For obvious reasons I am not going to spend hours explaining these systems to an examinee when I can get my point across by "simplifying" the process to the examinee. This means I'm lying?
2. I am usually correct in my stim tests. If I am not , does that make me a liar.
3. I am up front with the examinee about the Irr Qs.
4. I tell the examinee I compare the control question to the relevant question. Doe that make me a liar?
5. I am there to give him a test. I am not there to tell him about techniques and which one is statistically better.
6. I will coordinate my questions about the crime or subject according to the reactions to my questions. I wouldn't call that scheming or whatever.
7. I disagree this statement but I wouldn't consider it lying if i did tell the examinee this, because I believe in the process. Moot point anyway because I wouldn't I say this to an examinee.
P.S. I made the above comments without reading your citation by Dr. Lykken.
I wouldn't' call oversimplification a form of lying and exaggeration is sometimes used to clarify a point to someone.
1. I received many weeks of intensve training regarding the ANS and other physiologic functions as they pertain to the polygrpah. For obvious reasons I am not going to spend hours explaining these systems to an examinee when I can get my point across by "simplifying" the process to the examinee. This means I'm lying?
2. I am usually correct in my stim tests. If I am not , does that make me a liar.
3. I am up front with the examinee about the Irr Qs.
4. I tell the examinee I compare the control question to the relevant question. Doe that make me a liar?
5. I am there to give him a test. I am not there to tell him about techniques and which one is statistically better.
6. I will coordinate my questions about the crime or subject according to the reactions to my questions. I wouldn't call that scheming or whatever.
7. I disagree this statement but I wouldn't consider it lying if i did tell the examinee this, because I believe in the process. Moot point anyway because I wouldn't I say this to an examinee.
P.S. I made the above comments without reading your citation by Dr. Lykken.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 03, 2006, 01:28 PMDr. Richardson has enumerated some of the examiner deceptions involved in CQT polygraphy an earlier message thread:
Another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):
QuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
Another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):
QuoteOne important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched on in passing deserves explicit emphasis in this summing up. All of these techniques fundamentally depend on deception -- not just in one way and not just in little ways. The theory and assumptions of polygraphic interrogation require the examiner to successfully deceeive each subject that he tests in several basic ways. First, he must persuade the subject that being untruthful or even unsure about his answers to the control questions may cause him to fail the test, although in fact the opposite of this is true. Second, when he administers the "stim" test in order to impress the subject with the accuracy of the technique, the examiner has two choices, both of them deceptive. He can use the original Reid "pick-a-card" method in which the deck is either stacked or marked so that the examiner can be sure to guess the right card. Alternatively, he can use the Raskin "pick-a-number" method in which he deceitfully explains that he is "determining what your polygraphic response looks like when you lie." The truth is, that individuals do not show characteristic physiological response patterns when they lie that they do not also show when telling the truth. Third, throughout his interactions with this subject, the examiner must convey an impression of virtual infallibility. The stim-test is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polgyraph will reveal their guilt, then they are more likely to respond strongly to the relevant questions. If innocent subjects are similarly convinced, then they will tend not to respond so strongly. Moreover, because most examiners truly believe in their near-infallibility, because as we have seen they are the victims of their own deceptive art, they may convey this needed impression not only effectively but also without conscious guile. Nonetheless, the polygraph test, as we have seen, has an accuracy closer to chance than to infallibility; the innocent being tested by the police faces worse odds than in a game of Russian roulette. The fact that most polygraph examiners are not aware of these facts (indeed, they may be the last to know) is not an adequate excuse. Fourth, when the subject is interrogated after a polygraph test, he may be the victim of repeated deceptions. "This unbiased, scientific instrument is saying that you're not telling the truth about this, John!" "Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you feel guilty about, Mary, then maybe you will do better on the next test." "With this polygraph chart, George, no one is going to believe you now. The best thing you can do is to confess and make the best deal you can."
I will confess here that I do not personally object to certain harmless deceptions of criminal suspects that might lead to verifiable confessions and a quick and easy solution to a criminal investigation. But a procedure that claims to be a genuine test for truth that cannot hope to succeed even by its own theory and assumptions unless the subject is successfully deceived in certain standard ways is an invitation to abuse, abuse by examiners and especially by sophisticated criminals and spies. I submit that it is madness for courts or federal police and security agencies to rely on polygraph results for this reason alone. As we have seen, of course, there are many other reasons for this same diagnosis.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 03, 2006, 01:10 PMGeorge:
Where and when is the examiner being deceptive? When I give an exam I don't lie to anyone.
Where and when is the examiner being deceptive? When I give an exam I don't lie to anyone.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 03, 2006, 12:13 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 03, 2006, 11:50 AMGeorge tells you that polygraph examiners are liars because they believe in something he disagrees with.
I mentioned that polygraphy depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested" because it's the truth, not because of any beliefs held by polygraphers with which I may disagree.
QuoteDo you think that justifies a reason for you to be dishonest? I think you know the answer to your question.
I would suggest that honesty is a two-way street.
QuoteShopping here for support won't make it any easier for you to pass the exam.
True. Shopping for support won't make it any easeir for gigman1986 to pass the polygraph. But not making admissions will.