- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 22, 2002, 03:52 PMQuote from: msp on Jun 22, 2002, 02:30 PM
...You have to be realistic in life, NOTHING is perfect, and NOTHING "works" 100% of the time, ever! Not even an eye witness. Obviously that's why the Feds run their programs with a sold quality control division in place. Never is it the case that one person is deciding anyone's future.
Based on a review of Chapter III of the Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Handbook ("Quality Control Procedures"), it appears that the federal polygraph community's much vaunted "quality control" procedures are little more than window dressing.
For those whose honesty and integrity is being judged based on the pseudoscientific fraud that is "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy, it is little comfort that one's fate is decided by several polygraph chartgazers rather than just a single one. A CQT polygraph examination, done precisely to standard, still has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 22, 2002, 02:57 PMMSP,
It is you who miss the point. Polygraph screening is not in the class of DNA testing. Find a DNA research scientist who would assess the validity of that which he does in the same category of polygraphy. Give me a break
If the reliability/validity of automotive brakes were no better than that of polygraphy, we'd still be relying on bicycles and horses for land transportation. Since when does a DNA analyst hide the details of the procedures he uses as does a polygraphist or the agencies which employ them (see Mr. Maschke's request to DSS for the Federal Polygraph Handbook). Since when does DNA analysis or brake operation depend on deception and fraud. I think you very badly need to take this analogy back to the drawing board. And with regard to the list of items you leave us with as being nice to know about, don't confuse problems/needs with solutions. Polygraphy is not a solution for confirming that which we know about, let alone shedding light on that which we don't know about.
It is you who miss the point. Polygraph screening is not in the class of DNA testing. Find a DNA research scientist who would assess the validity of that which he does in the same category of polygraphy. Give me a break
If the reliability/validity of automotive brakes were no better than that of polygraphy, we'd still be relying on bicycles and horses for land transportation. Since when does a DNA analyst hide the details of the procedures he uses as does a polygraphist or the agencies which employ them (see Mr. Maschke's request to DSS for the Federal Polygraph Handbook). Since when does DNA analysis or brake operation depend on deception and fraud. I think you very badly need to take this analogy back to the drawing board. And with regard to the list of items you leave us with as being nice to know about, don't confuse problems/needs with solutions. Polygraphy is not a solution for confirming that which we know about, let alone shedding light on that which we don't know about.Posted by Hubert Redfield
- Jun 22, 2002, 02:30 PMAs to your request to elaborate on how polygraph "works" if it is imperfect, I offer the following: It's no different than the doctor who takes an X-Ray and misreads it, advises the patient of one thing, and a second opinion comes up with another. How can you explain that? Should we now stop using this doctor, or X-Ray machine, because it's "out of control; ruining people's lives"? What about the test used on a pregnant woman to determine if she might give birth to an abnormal child (downs syndrome, etc), and for six months of her pregnancy she thinks she will be having an abnormal child? Yet on the day of the child's birth, it's completely healthy and normal. Should we now stop using that medical test? What about the brakes on your car? For the most part, they "work", but might inexplicably give out one day. What should we do? Rush to expose the ludicrousy of automotive brakes? How do you explain the rare incidences when DNA is wrong? Should we now toss that out and ban together to force it out of use? You have to be realistic in life, NOTHING is perfect, and NOTHING "works" 100% of the time, ever! Not even an eye witness. Obviously that's why the Feds run their programs with a sold quality control division in place. Never is it the case that one person is deciding anyone's future.
Nice quote on the judgement issue, but you chose to miss the point. My only argument is one of logic. Should a known pedophile be running a day care? Should we put an alcoholic in charge of bartending? Is it appropriate for a drug addict to become a pharmacist? People change in life everyday, I don't deny anyone that. My point is, if you've done some things/or have some problems which make you unsuitable for a particular position in life (& not just law enforcement, the ministry, teaching, whatever), step up to the plate & take responsibility for that. Stop playing the victim role and start to look for what it is in life you are gifted to do. You won't be able to grasp that until you stop pining away for something that wasn't meant to be. You could very well be letting another golden opportunity in life pass you by. Seems like a shame.
Unfortunately a lot of polygraph bashers use the argument that a good background investigation should/could uncover everything. So untrue. Who's going to tell us about the 10 month old baby you digitally penetrated when you were babysitting @ 17 years of age? Who's going to tell us about the GHB you slipped into a woman's drink & raped her? She doesn't know! Who's going to tell us about the motorcyclist you killed in that hit & run that was never solved? None of these issues would be uncoverable in even the most thorough background.
Nice quote on the judgement issue, but you chose to miss the point. My only argument is one of logic. Should a known pedophile be running a day care? Should we put an alcoholic in charge of bartending? Is it appropriate for a drug addict to become a pharmacist? People change in life everyday, I don't deny anyone that. My point is, if you've done some things/or have some problems which make you unsuitable for a particular position in life (& not just law enforcement, the ministry, teaching, whatever), step up to the plate & take responsibility for that. Stop playing the victim role and start to look for what it is in life you are gifted to do. You won't be able to grasp that until you stop pining away for something that wasn't meant to be. You could very well be letting another golden opportunity in life pass you by. Seems like a shame.
Unfortunately a lot of polygraph bashers use the argument that a good background investigation should/could uncover everything. So untrue. Who's going to tell us about the 10 month old baby you digitally penetrated when you were babysitting @ 17 years of age? Who's going to tell us about the GHB you slipped into a woman's drink & raped her? She doesn't know! Who's going to tell us about the motorcyclist you killed in that hit & run that was never solved? None of these issues would be uncoverable in even the most thorough background.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 22, 2002, 03:58 AMQuote from: MSP on Jun 22, 2002, 01:21 AMI took my Federal exam quite some years ago, and was also totally honest, and passed a "probable lie" exam. I also told my examiner about the mistakes I had made (cheated on a test, lied to a boss) and passed the exam. Why? Because I was telling the truth!!
No, you passed because your recorded physiological responses to the Control Questions were greater than your recorded physiological responses to the Relevant Questions. Truth, honesty, deception made no difference.
QuotePolygraph does work, and like everything else in life, it's not perfect.
Could you elaborate? If polygraphs 'work', how are they imperfect?
QuoteWhat I say to those who profess that they have done "bad" things & now changed their lives, that's great, but it doesn't make you suitable for law enforcement. Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on! Also, couldn't agree with you more on the point that if these people will go to these attempts to get something they think they were born entitled to, what else will they do that's unethical?? Makes you wonder, huh?
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.-- Matthew 7:1-2
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 22, 2002, 02:37 AMMSP,
You state:
[bold]...Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on...[/bold]
You are clearly as arrogant and foolish as DUC was naive and mindlessly loyal to bureaucratic doctrine, and, no, there are legions of people on this site (false positives) who will testify that polygraph doesn't work. A brief recounting of the who's who of major spies who've beat the polygraph exam will supply a convincing statement of polygraph screening's lack of merit (quite apart from the damage to individuals that it has caused). The dribble you offer with regard to polygraph being imperfect as all other things are imperfect is simply meaningless. Although there do exist shortcomings with all of man's endeavors, that phenomenon hardly leads one down a path to logically conclude that all endeavors are equally imperfect. Relatively speaking, polygraph screening is near the bottom of the barrel.
You state:
[bold]...Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on...[/bold]
You are clearly as arrogant and foolish as DUC was naive and mindlessly loyal to bureaucratic doctrine, and, no, there are legions of people on this site (false positives) who will testify that polygraph doesn't work. A brief recounting of the who's who of major spies who've beat the polygraph exam will supply a convincing statement of polygraph screening's lack of merit (quite apart from the damage to individuals that it has caused). The dribble you offer with regard to polygraph being imperfect as all other things are imperfect is simply meaningless. Although there do exist shortcomings with all of man's endeavors, that phenomenon hardly leads one down a path to logically conclude that all endeavors are equally imperfect. Relatively speaking, polygraph screening is near the bottom of the barrel.
Posted by Hubert Redfield
- Jun 22, 2002, 01:21 AMDUC - So nice to see there are still honest, upfront applicants for LEO positions out there. I took my Federal exam quite some years ago, and was also totally honest, and passed a "probable lie" exam. I also told my examiner about the mistakes I had made (cheated on a test, lied to a boss) and passed the exam. Why? Because I was telling the truth!! Polygraph does work, and like everything else in life, it's not perfect. What I say to those who profess that they have done "bad" things & now changed their lives, that's great, but it doesn't make you suitable for law enforcement. Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on! Also, couldn't agree with you more on the point that if these people will go to these attempts to get something they think they were born entitled to, what else will they do that's unethical?? Makes you wonder, huh?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 25, 2002, 02:39 AMThe polygrapher will review all questions with you during the "pre-test" phase. Not knowing the answer to a question can be a problem in some instances. For example, one FBI polygrapher has suggested that the applicant who admits to having smoked marijuana in the past but who cannot remember the exact number of times that he smoked it is "going to fail."
However, with regard to the probable-lie "control" questions, the polygrapher will secretly want there to be some doubt in your mind as to the complete truthfulness of your answers even as he tries to steer you into a sweeping denial.
For further reading on what to expect during your polygraph interrogation, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
However, with regard to the probable-lie "control" questions, the polygrapher will secretly want there to be some doubt in your mind as to the complete truthfulness of your answers even as he tries to steer you into a sweeping denial.
For further reading on what to expect during your polygraph interrogation, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by Brian Curran
- Apr 24, 2002, 06:09 PMI am currently in the FBI specail agent selection process. I was wondering what happens on a polygraph if you don't know the answer to the question?
Posted by antant00
- Apr 01, 2002, 11:55 AMWOW enjoyed your response....I'm glad we heve and have had persons such as yourself in the armed forces....it makes me feel safer...
Posted by AMM
- Mar 31, 2002, 03:57 PMAlthough I have been monitoring this post over the past few weeks, I haven't had the pleasure (due to other obligations) of adding my two cents to this topic until today.
First, with regard to whether or not honesty is better than deception I would say that honesty (in almost every case) is better. However, with that being said, I don't think it inconsistent to advocate the use of, or to actually use, countermeasures. As Dr. Richardson pointed out: "The use of countermeasures by an innocent polygraph examinee has nothing to do per se with either honesty or deception." An innocent examinee employing countermeasures is simply making sure the correct outcome (non-deception indicated) is reached.
In 1997, the venerable FBI had this to say about the polygraph "technique" in an affidavit (USA v. ENS Patrick J. Jacobson, USN) signed by, James K. Murphy, Chief of the FBI Laboratory's Polygraph Unit:
"...the polygraph technique has not reached a level of acceptability within the relevant scientific community, [and] scientific research has not been able to establish the true validity of polygraph testing in criminal applications..."
This should give polygraph proponents and non-independent thinkers (sorry, Duc748) food for thought. To those true believers: Don't you find the FBI's polygraph policies inconsistent? On one hand, they are the gospel truth when it comes to screening prospective employees, on the other, well, you can read it again for yourself.
To Duc748, I would say:
You should be very happy that you passed your polygraph. However, please keep in mind that many honest Law Enforcement applicants have been falsely branded as liars. (I would suspect that this means little to you though.) Your many posts have been both entertaining and mortifying in that your blind allegiance to "the process" has totally clouded both your judgment and objectivity. This is truly scary given the position you will ultimately hold.
There was a time when I was as naïve as you seem to be now. Given that, I often wonder what my feelings on the polygraph would be had I passed my first "test." I may have very well taken the position you hold, but now know from first hand experience that honesty does not guarantee a favorable outcome. Additionally, I know from my second test that countermeasures do in fact work.
The fact that "Good or bad [you] support the decisions made by those agencies for which [you] work" scares me as well. Like you, I am a military officer (that is, I assume you are), but unlike you, I believe in loyal dissent. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, noted in a speech regarding integrity and moral courage, you have be willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes. You would do well to remember that.
V/r
AMM
First, with regard to whether or not honesty is better than deception I would say that honesty (in almost every case) is better. However, with that being said, I don't think it inconsistent to advocate the use of, or to actually use, countermeasures. As Dr. Richardson pointed out: "The use of countermeasures by an innocent polygraph examinee has nothing to do per se with either honesty or deception." An innocent examinee employing countermeasures is simply making sure the correct outcome (non-deception indicated) is reached.
In 1997, the venerable FBI had this to say about the polygraph "technique" in an affidavit (USA v. ENS Patrick J. Jacobson, USN) signed by, James K. Murphy, Chief of the FBI Laboratory's Polygraph Unit:
"...the polygraph technique has not reached a level of acceptability within the relevant scientific community, [and] scientific research has not been able to establish the true validity of polygraph testing in criminal applications..."
This should give polygraph proponents and non-independent thinkers (sorry, Duc748) food for thought. To those true believers: Don't you find the FBI's polygraph policies inconsistent? On one hand, they are the gospel truth when it comes to screening prospective employees, on the other, well, you can read it again for yourself.
To Duc748, I would say:
You should be very happy that you passed your polygraph. However, please keep in mind that many honest Law Enforcement applicants have been falsely branded as liars. (I would suspect that this means little to you though.) Your many posts have been both entertaining and mortifying in that your blind allegiance to "the process" has totally clouded both your judgment and objectivity. This is truly scary given the position you will ultimately hold.
There was a time when I was as naïve as you seem to be now. Given that, I often wonder what my feelings on the polygraph would be had I passed my first "test." I may have very well taken the position you hold, but now know from first hand experience that honesty does not guarantee a favorable outcome. Additionally, I know from my second test that countermeasures do in fact work.
The fact that "Good or bad [you] support the decisions made by those agencies for which [you] work" scares me as well. Like you, I am a military officer (that is, I assume you are), but unlike you, I believe in loyal dissent. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, noted in a speech regarding integrity and moral courage, you have be willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes. You would do well to remember that.
V/r
AMM
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 19, 2002, 05:39 PMQuote from: dispatchgal on Mar 19, 2002, 04:10 PM
George, et al.
I don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
Ms. Dispatchgal,
While I cannot speak to everyone's experiences, I successfully employed countermeasures, and my polygrapher does little else *except* polygraph people all day long. In fact, he has decades of experience. Having read of others' experiences and having spoken to many others who have successfully employed countermeasures, I think perhaps you're labouring under false impressions if you think the countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are easily detected, if at all.
QuoteI can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
I have yet to read one posting on this website from a person who employed the countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector and have then been failed, either from a Deception Indicated score or because the polygrapher concluded countermeasures were used. Indeed, even very crude countermeasures have worked.
QuoteI personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
Ditto that.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 19, 2002, 05:24 PMdispatchgal,
You wrote:
There is no reason to believe that polygraphers can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy. Peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers can't.
The risk of a false positive outcome can be quite significant. For example, in the FBI, about 20% of applicants who make it as far as receiving tentative job offers are disqualified as a result of their polygraph chart readings. In the Los Angeles Police Department, the polygraph disqualification rate is at or above 50%. But "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer reviewed research. As readers of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector know, far from being a genuine test grounded in the scientific method, CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that is completely bereft of any diagnostic value whatsoever.
Faced with such risks, the truthful applicant might be well-advised to employ countermeasures to protect him- or herself against a false positive outcome. Again, there is no published evidence that actual countermeasure use has any correlation with increased risk of failure and/or an accusation of countermeasure use from the polygrapher.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
You wrote:
QuoteI don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
There is no reason to believe that polygraphers can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy. Peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers can't.
QuoteI can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/ polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
The risk of a false positive outcome can be quite significant. For example, in the FBI, about 20% of applicants who make it as far as receiving tentative job offers are disqualified as a result of their polygraph chart readings. In the Los Angeles Police Department, the polygraph disqualification rate is at or above 50%. But "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer reviewed research. As readers of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector know, far from being a genuine test grounded in the scientific method, CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that is completely bereft of any diagnostic value whatsoever.
Faced with such risks, the truthful applicant might be well-advised to employ countermeasures to protect him- or herself against a false positive outcome. Again, there is no published evidence that actual countermeasure use has any correlation with increased risk of failure and/or an accusation of countermeasure use from the polygrapher.
QuoteI personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Posted by dispatchgal
- Mar 19, 2002, 04:10 PMGeorge, et al.
I don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
I can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
I personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
I don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
I can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
I personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
Posted by MissionPoly-ban
- Mar 13, 2002, 05:44 PMJohn_F
I couldn't say it any better than that!
I'm starting to doubt the validity of Duc's claims.
Like others have pointed out, there is the plausible chance that the Duc is a total fraud. His intent might solely be to scare people off from using effective countermeasures.
Hell...I could claim I'm a 30 year veteran of the FBI for that matter!
But, getting back to your point John...your statement is a good one (assuming this narrow-minded airhead is truly preparing for a career in the FBI).
It is the narrow-tracked mind that has helped deteriorate the effectiveness of the FBI.
When Duc first entered this board and posted his first message, he didn't take the time to consider any other people's life experiences but HIS OWN.
Like a popular fast-food commercial suggests, "THINK OUTSIDE THE BUN!"
I couldn't say it any better than that!
I'm starting to doubt the validity of Duc's claims.
Like others have pointed out, there is the plausible chance that the Duc is a total fraud. His intent might solely be to scare people off from using effective countermeasures.
Hell...I could claim I'm a 30 year veteran of the FBI for that matter!
But, getting back to your point John...your statement is a good one (assuming this narrow-minded airhead is truly preparing for a career in the FBI).
It is the narrow-tracked mind that has helped deteriorate the effectiveness of the FBI.
When Duc first entered this board and posted his first message, he didn't take the time to consider any other people's life experiences but HIS OWN.
Like a popular fast-food commercial suggests, "THINK OUTSIDE THE BUN!"
Posted by john_f
- Mar 13, 2002, 05:46 AMThis entire thread only supports the total lack of critical thinking that makes the FBI the inept agency that it is (and the type of people that it employs). I submit that duc748 is the typical non-thinker that makes it so. I enjoy the contradictions that are pointed out by others, and i find it beyond belief that Duc748 bases his facts on his one experience.