- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by alterego1
- Sep 17, 2006, 12:57 AMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 24, 2006, 02:14 PMTarlain:
I would much ratherr trust my children's welfare to the likes of nonombre, polygraphers and other LE officers than some fool who beileves in Michael Moore. Fahrenhiet 451. Give me a break.
What does Michael Moore have to do with the book Farenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury? :-/
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 25, 2006, 02:48 PMGeroge and Mr Mystery:
With all due respect why would I want to tell you how we detect counter measures. Polygraphers have nothing to prove so I personally don't fell the need to do what Mr. Mystery suggests. I will say that when I do detect counter measures and warn the subject, they stop trying to manipulate the test in about 95% of the time.
With all due respect why would I want to tell you how we detect counter measures. Polygraphers have nothing to prove so I personally don't fell the need to do what Mr. Mystery suggests. I will say that when I do detect counter measures and warn the subject, they stop trying to manipulate the test in about 95% of the time.
Posted by Wallerstein
- Apr 25, 2006, 02:46 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Apr 25, 2006, 02:27 PM
If someone can study an online manual for a few minutes and learn how to defeat a supposedly valid test, and by doing so get away with doing unethical or criminal acts, doesn't that speak more to the validity of the test than it does to the propriety of disclosing that information?
Of course it does. Your post, sergeant, is about as well-reasoned and thorough as they come for providing the raison d'être of this website.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Apr 25, 2006, 02:27 PMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 16, 2006, 12:01 AMNonombre,
Sergeant,
I know we have already gone 'round and 'round on this subject, but I can't help pointing this out once again...
One cannot stand a shotgun up in the doorway of the schoolhouse and then take no responsibility when a kid picks it up and shoots another kid.
The statement, "I didn't mean for any kids to pick up that gun, you can't hold me responsible," is itself irresponsible and foolish...
Regards,
Nonombre :-/
I must have skipped over this thread for some reason for a few days, as I'm just seeing it now.
The purpose of this site is to provide information on the polygraph. George and many others believe that the accuracy of the polygraph for non-specific issue testing (such as pre-employment screening) is approximately 50%. The reason it is approximately 50% (random chance when you have two possible outcomes, DI or NDI) is because the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or deception.
George has specifically stated that he believes an applicant for a public service position has an ethical responsibility to tell the truth. He also believes that simply telling the truth will not increase a person's chances of passing a polygraph. So he also provides information on how to artificially augment one's reactions to certain questions during the polygraph exam to ensure that you will pass.
I know from personal experience that telling the truth on a polygraph actually allows you to pass only 25% of the time. I wish I had known about this site when I was agonizing over why I was failing my polygraphs and losing out on the police career at which I know I would excel. It certainly would have helped me feel better and not beat myself up for my continuing failures at the polygraph. And that's what this site is here for.
The purpose of this site is to help people. People like me who were telling the complete truth and couldn't figure out why I alternately being labeled as "deceptive" with regards to selling cocaine, "deceptive" with regards to assaulting people, and "deceptive" with regards to stealing. I thought there was something wrong with me, since I had never heard anything about the polygraph other than it was a "lie detector." I have always been a very honest person and I was hurt by the accusations of deception on matters I was being 100% honest and forthright about.
By providing this information George helps people understand that if they suffered through one or more false-positives they are not alone. If they told the truth and still "failed" their test they are not alone. If they missed out on a job because they couldn't pass the polygraph exam even though they were completely honest they are not alone.
If you have never been a false-positive then you probably don't understand what I'm talking about. It is a hurtful experience that leaves you shaken. I remember thinking, "This must be some sort of terrible mistake! How can this be?" And then it happened again, and again after that.
I applaud George's efforts in bringing this information to the Internet for anyone to read. By doing so he has helped many people, which I am confident was his intention.
If some people choose to use the information on this site for unethical reasons the responsibility for doing so is theirs and theirs alone. Pretty much any sort of information, regardless of the motivation behind its dissemination, could be used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't mean that all such information should be withheld from this point on.
Leaving a loaded shotgun in a schoolhouse serves no useful purpose other than to endanger the children. There is no realistic reason for leaving the shotgun there that could be deemed to be benevolent in any fashion. It would be a reckless act that could hardly be compared to providing information on how a supposedly scientific test works.
As I have mentioned before in other threads, why would anyone be concerned about the information on this site if the polygraph was, in fact, a scientifically valid test? How valid can a test be if one can learn to defeat it by studying a web site for a few minutes?
If there was a website called "AntiPhysics.org" which claimed that Newton's laws of motion were invalid and could not be used to determine the paths of vehicles involved in a motor vehicle accident I cannot imagine that it would bother me. If the site contained information on how to "think exciting thoughts" or bite your tongue during an accident in order to thwart the efforts of the traffic crash reconstructionist it would make me laugh, but it wouldn't bother me. Since I know physics is a scientifically valid method of reconstructing traffic accidents I really don't care if some people don't believe it works.
If someone can study an online manual for a few minutes and learn how to defeat a supposedly valid test, and by doing so get away with doing unethical or criminal acts, doesn't that speak more to the validity of the test than it does to the propriety of disclosing that information?
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 25, 2006, 01:32 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 11:34 AMMr Mystery and Digithead:
I don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
Well for goodness sakes get out there and publicly demonstrate it can be done at greater than chance accuracy!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 25, 2006, 11:37 AMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 11:34 AMI don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
How?
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 25, 2006, 11:34 AMMr Mystery and Digithead:
I don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
I don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 25, 2006, 01:54 AMQuote from: digithead on Apr 25, 2006, 01:12 AM
My mistake...in addition to the pro-polygraph folks, a lot of people that post here do so under the guise of regular people when in actuality they are polygraphers trying to spread misinformation...
Hey no problem
I've been called much worse than a polygraph sympathizer (but not much). Yes, some of the old threads from polygraphers are quite entertaining. They've done everything from accusing George of being a pedophile through a bogus Washington Times article and I believe we had one who was posting as two separate people working for the NSA.They could stop this site very quickly simply by publicly demonstrating their ability to detect countermeasures. That would be much more effective than half-hearted dis-information attempts.
Posted by chitown_dude
- Apr 25, 2006, 01:41 AMInteresting. In famous spook fashion, the conversation inevitably jumps to things most protected and fragile: the human morale engine and those things 'taboo' from discussion: kids and family.
Wow. We have some seasoned operators trolling these boards, do we not?
You see, ladies and gents, it's really the first thing they teach you in interrogation school: nothing is out of bounds. Move to family if you feel your subject is going to leak like a Dutch dam should that topic be approached. It's the psychological operators first stop: taboo subjects.
Watch out. The eyes have walls.
Wow. We have some seasoned operators trolling these boards, do we not?
You see, ladies and gents, it's really the first thing they teach you in interrogation school: nothing is out of bounds. Move to family if you feel your subject is going to leak like a Dutch dam should that topic be approached. It's the psychological operators first stop: taboo subjects.
Watch out. The eyes have walls.
Posted by digithead
- Apr 25, 2006, 01:12 AMQuote from: Mr. Mystery on Apr 24, 2006, 11:26 PMSo please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.
My mistake...in addition to the pro-polygraph folks, a lot of people that post here do so under the guise of regular people when in actuality they are polygraphers trying to spread misinformation...
As for the polygraph's use as an interrogation tool, again, it is nothing more than a fancy version of Sigall and Jones (1971) bogus pipeline. If you believe it works, you're more likely to make admissions, if you don't believe, you won't. Not much of a tool, is it?
And regardless of issue-specific or screening usage, one can employ countermeasures to defeat it...
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 24, 2006, 11:26 PMI didn't say there were a lot of parts friendly to polygraphy
And yes I was referring to the fact that in cases involving specific incidents and a naive examinee the polygraph can achieve greater than chance accuracy. Again, no one really disputes that it can drag the truth out of the unwitting (sometimes).
Anyways the most interesting part comes on page 144:
"Polygraph practitioners claim that they can detect countermeasures; this claim would be much more credible if there were known physiological indicators of countermeasure use"
Also page 139
"....there is anecdotal evidence of increasing levels of countermeasure use in federal security screening programs."
Or page 101
"The scientific basis for polygraph testing is far from what one would like for a test that carries considerable weight in national security decision making"
Finally I posted a link to a discussion on polygraphplace.com that occurred when the NAS report was released. As a whole the community didn't take it well.
So please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.
And yes I was referring to the fact that in cases involving specific incidents and a naive examinee the polygraph can achieve greater than chance accuracy. Again, no one really disputes that it can drag the truth out of the unwitting (sometimes).
Anyways the most interesting part comes on page 144:
"Polygraph practitioners claim that they can detect countermeasures; this claim would be much more credible if there were known physiological indicators of countermeasure use"
Also page 139
"....there is anecdotal evidence of increasing levels of countermeasure use in federal security screening programs."
Or page 101
"The scientific basis for polygraph testing is far from what one would like for a test that carries considerable weight in national security decision making"
Finally I posted a link to a discussion on polygraphplace.com that occurred when the NAS report was released. As a whole the community didn't take it well.
So please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.
Posted by digithead
- Apr 24, 2006, 10:18 PMQuote from: Mr. Mystery on Apr 24, 2006, 04:04 PMThere were parts of it that supported polygraphy, and parts of their study were quite harsh towards polygraphy.
Supported the polygraph? Really?
Was it the part that went:
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." (pg. 2)
or
"Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results." (pg. 2)
Or is it the "well above chance" quote that polygraphers hang their hats onto while ignoring the whole context:
"Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Because the studies of acceptable quality all focus on specific incidents, generalization from them to uses for screening is not justified." (pg. 4).
And we haven't even made it out of the executive summary yet...
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 24, 2006, 04:04 PMI didn't find it to be that biased at all. There were parts of it that supported polygraphy, and parts of their study were quite harsh towards polygraphy.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 24, 2006, 03:43 PMMr Mystery:
I dont want to sound rude but I asked Tarlain. I dont know if he ever heard of the stufy before he came on here and started calling polygraphers liars, etc. Now that you mentioned it I read where the NAS study may have been flawed and or bias.
I dont want to sound rude but I asked Tarlain. I dont know if he ever heard of the stufy before he came on here and started calling polygraphers liars, etc. Now that you mentioned it I read where the NAS study may have been flawed and or bias.
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 24, 2006, 03:33 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 24, 2006, 02:14 PMTarlain:
And what facts or science can you cite that backs up your half ass attacks on the polygraph.
Is the NAS report sufficiently factual for you?