- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by EosJupiter
- Apr 30, 2006, 06:29 PMQuote from: micki on Apr 30, 2006, 04:06 PMThank you for your help!!
Micki,
As Mr Mystery has so well defined your answers I need not add to them. But the thing to point out here is I see none of our local proponent PDD examiners sticking there 2 cents worth in, backing up that the polygraph results your husband has are valid. Hence the position that the polygraph being invalid is also dangerous and allows people like your X husband to get away with vile and illegal actions. My opinion of course, but TwoBlock is also dead on also. I wish you good things for the future, and justice will prevail with your X.
Regards
Posted by Twoblock
- Apr 30, 2006, 04:07 PMMicki
As in a lot of threads the original post gets turned into a debate.
As George said, anyone can beat the poly. I haven't answered because the only suggestion I have is have your lawyer file a petition with the court to have your ex-husband's polygraph invalidated because of it's vast inaccuracy. List this website, the NAS report or anything else he can find to get the sicko's polygraph thrown out and ask the court to consider the hard evidence. Your lawyer needs to research this site. Your ex needs to be in lock-up. Not in the military. This idiot shouldn't be allowed contact with your daughter even in the presence of another adult.
As in a lot of threads the original post gets turned into a debate.
As George said, anyone can beat the poly. I haven't answered because the only suggestion I have is have your lawyer file a petition with the court to have your ex-husband's polygraph invalidated because of it's vast inaccuracy. List this website, the NAS report or anything else he can find to get the sicko's polygraph thrown out and ask the court to consider the hard evidence. Your lawyer needs to research this site. Your ex needs to be in lock-up. Not in the military. This idiot shouldn't be allowed contact with your daughter even in the presence of another adult.
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 30, 2006, 03:58 PMQuote from: micki on Apr 30, 2006, 01:56 PMHi everyone,
I originally started this post and all this language is way above my head...please could you "in simple language" answer my question...I would so appreciate it as I am just a single mom trying to protect my child from being molested once again...
Again my 3 yr old came back from seeing her bioligical father who she had not seen since a baby (judge awarded my twins go across the country to be with their "dad")....after 3 days of returning home, one twin came to me in great detail saying what "dad" did to her..going into great detail...I had her examined and have a DR. Report saying she is sexually damaged by a penis...not by falling off a bike et. Ex husb is military, claims he has Post Traumatic Stress, took the lie detector test and passed. Because he passed, police dropped the case...Ive had to hire a lawyer because I am fighting for the safety of my girls so they dont have to spen 3 wks with him this summer.
I am a desperate mom as I need to protect my children. Note, I have never left with my children alone with any man but their dad...how could a 3 yr old go into great detail as to what he did...where it happened etc. I was present during the police interview with her and my lawyer asked for a copy of the tape...it was erased because of the Privacy Act...So I need to do research on the following:
1. are military men trained to beat lie detector tests
2. can men with Post Traumatic Stress beat a lie detector test
3. can a sexual predator beat a lie detector test
4. can a pathological lier beat a lie detector test
5. can someone who is in denial beat a lie detector test
I have recieved some advice from a man on this forum (and am very grateful!), but I am open to whatever else advice I can get...
Again, please help me in the right direction...I need text book research on this for my lawyer as this is going to trial in mid June.
Thank you so much for your time....I really appreciate it!!!
Micki
1. No.
2. No one really knows if a polygraph can tell the truth in the first place. People can influence the results of a polygraph. One doesn't not need to be any of the conditions you listed above. Sometimes it is accurate sometimes it is not. Any research produced by outsiders (non-polygraphers) tends to indicate that the polygraph is far from perfect.
3. See #2
4. See #2
5. See #2
I'm sorry the police dropped the case on the basis of the polygraph alone. Given the questionable accuracy it seems almost negligent. You may try meeting with the supervisor of the investigating detectives and expressing your doubts.
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 30, 2006, 02:14 PM"you, by definition, ignore the results of those innocent subjects who have been found deceptive and who do not confess. In other words you would have grossly underestimated your rate of false positives through such means."
As often as this issue comes up, I am beginning to wonder if people in the polygraph field are truly this ignorant. Or, do they just forget that people outside of their little circle posses the intelligence to see the most fundamental flaws in their logic.
Each day that I come to this board and read another person try to defend polygraphs, the more I realize what a hoax it has become. And of course, another day goes by without a shred of scientific validity to the voodoo that is polygraph.
The scientific community would laugh these clowns right out of the laboratory if they attempted "valid" studies that used the actual scientific method to determine results.
Instead, polygraph people prefer to work inside their little bubble, patting each other on the back, reassuring each other that they are not the smuck of the earth, scientifically and morally.
Back on topic, there are far better way to invesitgate a person suspected of sexual abuse. Relying on this stupid device was an insult to the victim. I hope people wake up someday and realize that polygraphs hurt everyone.
As often as this issue comes up, I am beginning to wonder if people in the polygraph field are truly this ignorant. Or, do they just forget that people outside of their little circle posses the intelligence to see the most fundamental flaws in their logic.
Each day that I come to this board and read another person try to defend polygraphs, the more I realize what a hoax it has become. And of course, another day goes by without a shred of scientific validity to the voodoo that is polygraph.
The scientific community would laugh these clowns right out of the laboratory if they attempted "valid" studies that used the actual scientific method to determine results.
Instead, polygraph people prefer to work inside their little bubble, patting each other on the back, reassuring each other that they are not the smuck of the earth, scientifically and morally.
Back on topic, there are far better way to invesitgate a person suspected of sexual abuse. Relying on this stupid device was an insult to the victim. I hope people wake up someday and realize that polygraphs hurt everyone.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Apr 30, 2006, 11:21 AMDetector1012000,
You write:
Additionally, your field study assessment of accuracy is silly at best. Because that which you refer to requires a confession/admission following a deceptive polygraph result, you, by definition, ignore the results of those innocent subjects who have been found deceptive and who do not confess. In other words you would have grossly underestimated your rate of false positives through such means.
You write:
QuoteYou have misunderstood or misrepresented the significance of my point. I was suggesting that the lack of external validity of simulated-crime studies underestimates the weakness (not the questionable strengths) of a CQT polygraph exam under realistic conditions, i.e., because innocent subjects do not have any fear of the consequences of being found wrongfully deceptive in a simulated crime scenario, the true rate of false positive outcomes is underestimated by such studies.
Please examine Drew Richardson's post...
Additionally, your field study assessment of accuracy is silly at best. Because that which you refer to requires a confession/admission following a deceptive polygraph result, you, by definition, ignore the results of those innocent subjects who have been found deceptive and who do not confess. In other words you would have grossly underestimated your rate of false positives through such means.
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 30, 2006, 02:06 AMQuote from: detector1012000 on Apr 29, 2006, 11:57 PMOnesimus, thanks for the verification that admissions are made when deception, for what ever cause, is detected.
Oh yeah, according to NSA polygraph divsion's technical directory, the polygraph doesn't detect lies in the first place.
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 30, 2006, 02:05 AMQuote from: detector1012000 on Apr 29, 2006, 11:57 PMOnesimus, thanks for the verification that admissions are made when deception, for what ever cause, is detected.
The point is that you have no idea if the information obtained was the reason why they failed the question.
I have given out information in post-test interrogations that I would have given out in the pre-test if I had not been cut-off. I would have gladly given out the same information without a polygraph test at all. By my count, polygraphers at my most recent agency are 0 for 5 on failed questions for me.
Posted by detector1012000
- Apr 29, 2006, 11:57 PMOnesimus, thanks for the verification that admissions are made when deception, for what ever cause, is detected.
Mr. Mystery,
I cannot cite "Scientific" studies, they are all Laboratory studies. Real Life studies are flawed also because we do not know what ground truth is.
When we use laboratory studies, we have no fear of detection, therefore we have very little reason for reaction on "relevant" issues, therefore the study is not a scientific study, only a WAG study.
Mr. Mystery,
I cannot cite "Scientific" studies, they are all Laboratory studies. Real Life studies are flawed also because we do not know what ground truth is.
When we use laboratory studies, we have no fear of detection, therefore we have very little reason for reaction on "relevant" issues, therefore the study is not a scientific study, only a WAG study.
Posted by digithead
- Apr 29, 2006, 11:55 PMQuote from: detector1012000 on Apr 29, 2006, 08:22 PMPlease examine Drew Richardsons post, it clearly states the problem with the "Scientific Research" in the polygraph arena, it is all laboratory research which has no scientific validity because it is not "Real Life" research, only laboratory. Those of us in the industry have conducted studies regarding admissions after obtaiing reactions indicitave of deception. Those figures give us 98% correct calls on deception. That my friend is real life. How many pass while telling lies? I have no idea so cannot give any reliable estimate of figure.
Regarding concern about false positivies. When a polygrapher detects deception, further investigation is necessary if admissions are not obtained. (Personal Opinion not held by all departments or examiners)
Laboratory research has no scientific validity? Huh? In almost every instance, reliability worsens when you go from lab to field studies because you can't control conditions as well you can as in a lab...
Your "field studies" are prime examples of "cargo cult science" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science and, as the NAS stated, "lack scientific rigor"...
Your statement is also used by people defending ESP when lab studies show no effect beyond chance. It's the omnipresent white lab coat effect...
But what is more amazing in your statement is that you cannot tell us what your false negative rate is. Think about that, you can't estimate how many you passed that were lying, be they bad cops or pedophiles. There's the true danger in your beloved polygraph...
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 29, 2006, 08:44 PMQuote from: detector1012000 on Apr 29, 2006, 08:22 PMPlease examine Drew Richardsons post, it clearly states the problem with the "Scientific Research" in the polygraph arena, it is all laboratory research which has no scientific validity because it is not "Real Life" research, only laboratory. Those of us in the industry have conducted studies regarding admissions after obtaiing reactions indicitave of deception. Those figures give us 98% correct calls on deception. That my friend is real life. How many pass while telling lies? I have no idea so cannot give any reliable estimate of figure.
Regarding concern about false positivies. When a polygrapher detects deception, further investigation is necessary if admissions are not obtained. (Personal Opinion not held by all departments or examiners)
Could you cite a field study to this effect? Preferably one regarding screening applications. I'd like to read it.
I've personally known people who would fail with one agency and pass at another (this would imply a false positive or false negative somewhere along the line probably the former). This happens far too many times to support a 98% accuracy.
Besides Dr. Richardson's statement was with regards to the motivation of innocent examinees to use countermeasures. It had nothing to do with the actuall application of countermeasure use. In Hont's study the examineer accused approximately 15% of the innocent examinees of using mental countermeasures (and exactly ZERO of the actual utilizers).
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 29, 2006, 08:43 PMQuote from: detector1012000 on Apr 29, 2006, 08:22 PMThose of us in the industry have conducted studies regarding admissions after obtaiing reactions indicitave of deception. Those figures give us 98% correct calls on deception. That my friend is real life.
Some of my coworkers admit to making things up when they are told they are deceptive on a question. Others, including myself, have had their words spun into a confession when no confession was actually given.
When you're told you'll be failed on a question if you don't give more information, most questions are quite vague, and polygraphers sometimes cut off examinees while they are answering a quesion in the pre-test phase, it's not surprising that you would find 98% willing to give more information on a failed question.
Posted by detector1012000
- Apr 29, 2006, 08:22 PMPlease examine Drew Richardsons post, it clearly states the problem with the "Scientific Research" in the polygraph arena, it is all laboratory research which has no scientific validity because it is not "Real Life" research, only laboratory. Those of us in the industry have conducted studies regarding admissions after obtaiing reactions indicitave of deception. Those figures give us 98% correct calls on deception. That my friend is real life. How many pass while telling lies? I have no idea so cannot give any reliable estimate of figure.
Regarding concern about false positivies. When a polygrapher detects deception, further investigation is necessary if admissions are not obtained. (Personal Opinion not held by all departments or examiners)
Regarding concern about false positivies. When a polygrapher detects deception, further investigation is necessary if admissions are not obtained. (Personal Opinion not held by all departments or examiners)
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Apr 28, 2006, 04:44 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Apr 28, 2006, 02:06 PMNow, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees.
Doesn't this conclusion presume that an "innocent" examinee (which I am guessing means an examinee that is not being deceptive) faces no possibility of a false-positive?
Once the possibility of a false-positive is acknowledged, regardless of what percentage of the time you believe it happens, how can you conclude that successful use of countermeasures has absolutely no effect on innocent examinees? Especially since you wrote that a deceptive person only faces the possibility that they "may" be caught using countermeasures, not that they "will" be caught?
What exactly is the reason why a guilty person using countermeasures to attempt to produce a false-negative has some chance of success but an innocent person using countermeasures to protect themselves from a false-positive has no such chances?
Since you wrote that countermeasures "may" result in a false-negative it would seem you have less than 100% confidence that such countermeasures are ineffective and/or easily detectable.
It seems that not even the examiners can agree on whether countermeasures are effective or ineffective, nor can they agree on whether countermeasures can be reliably detected.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Apr 28, 2006, 04:34 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
Amongst other things you write and attach some importance to is the following:
The explanation for Gershon's finding is really quite simple. For the typical simulated-crime (laboratory) polygraph study (in the absence of examinee countermeasure application), there is little to no fear of consequences for innocent examinees which results in a diminished (relative to the real world environment) and underestimated rate of false positive results for said examinees. Because of this there would not be expected to be much if any benefit and effect of countermeasures for these same subjects in laboratory countermeasure studies, i.e., although they might well benefit in the real world where there is a fear of consequences of being found deceptive, in the laboratory setting where there is none, no benefit would likely be expected, needed nor seen (as Gershon as indicated).
Amongst other things you write and attach some importance to is the following:
Quote
Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees. (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing. Academic Press, 2002.)
The explanation for Gershon's finding is really quite simple. For the typical simulated-crime (laboratory) polygraph study (in the absence of examinee countermeasure application), there is little to no fear of consequences for innocent examinees which results in a diminished (relative to the real world environment) and underestimated rate of false positive results for said examinees. Because of this there would not be expected to be much if any benefit and effect of countermeasures for these same subjects in laboratory countermeasure studies, i.e., although they might well benefit in the real world where there is a fear of consequences of being found deceptive, in the laboratory setting where there is none, no benefit would likely be expected, needed nor seen (as Gershon as indicated).
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 28, 2006, 02:22 PMFirst off, thank you for actually citing a peer reviewed journal. I've previously read the studies you have cited. To my knowledge they all refered to giving CM instructions to guilty participants. The first two refer to GKT polygraphs which are different than the typical CQT ones found in screening applications. I believe none of the studies above gave CM instructions to the "innocent" examinees. I may be incorrect in this. I'll check when I get home this evening.
If you have a study that actually looked at CM application by innocent examinees I'd really like to read it.
Again a comprehensive public demonstration of the effects of CM use by both innocent and guilty examinees would go a long way to settling this argument and putting everyone's mind at ease.
Regards,
Edit---
I also went through and read the part covered in the Handbook of Polygraphy Testing. Are you refering to page 114 "The Problem of Countermeasures"?
If you have a study that actually looked at CM application by innocent examinees I'd really like to read it.
Again a comprehensive public demonstration of the effects of CM use by both innocent and guilty examinees would go a long way to settling this argument and putting everyone's mind at ease.
Regards,
Edit---
I also went through and read the part covered in the Handbook of Polygraphy Testing. Are you refering to page 114 "The Problem of Countermeasures"?