- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ecchasta
- Nov 08, 2006, 12:37 AMThe "fresh slate" is no more or less valid than the original. This is because the original test had no validity. I went to a fortune teller who told me that I would not get married until I was 35. I'm considering going to a second fortune teller who doesn't have knowledge of the first to get the original results validated. It could happen!
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2006, 10:03 PMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 29, 2006, 08:59 PM
Retcopper,
You make an excellent point. My son, who is home for the summer, works part time in the pathology lab of a major county hospital. Every day he comes home with stories of incorrect diagnosis, missed cancers, and the frequent removal of the wrong limb. How about we play a game of, "chase the cancer." Is it there??? or not...Let's do tests, more tests, and more tests. Lots of $$$ expended. That's okay, the insurance company will pay...
Is he sick at all? Only the dying patient knows for sure...
Let's continue:
Doctor one says malignant melonoma..
Doctor two says a benign growth.
Doctor three says nothing at all..
Doctor four says call my service, I am on the golf course...
Whew!! Given all I know now, I would take the opinion of a polygrapher any day. All he decides is who is telling the truth...
Regards,
Nonombre
All of your examples are of human error, not the test so you're using misdirection again from the question at hand which is whether or not there really is a clean slate in polygraphy...
But I do think you make an excellent point by comparing your profession to indifferent doctors...
Medical errors are made all of the time and they are rectified (somewhat) by malpractice lawsuits, disciplinary actions and the like. How does someone rectify malpractice by a polygrapher? How does one clear one's name once they are branded a liar?
And at least in the situation you've listed above a person will either develop or not develop cancer, the polygrapher never really knows absent a confession or other corroborative evidence whether they really have the truth or not...
So spare me the misdirection and logically fallacies and speak to the matter at hand...
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 29, 2006, 08:59 PMQuote from: retcopper on Aug 29, 2006, 12:03 PMDigithead :
If I soleyy relied on the so called scientific, infallible reliablity of certain medical examns and studies I would be dead. The first Dr and supporting tests indicated I didn't have cancer. Second Dr and subsequent tests incdated cancer. The so called "no cancer" was subsequently removed.
Drew:
I don't know if you ever did polygraphs fro agencies other than the Feds but I can assure you that our quality control people were not afraid to disagree with the original diagnosis.
Retcopper,
You make an excellent point. My son, who is home for the summer, works part time in the pathology lab of a major county hospital. Every day he comes home with stories of incorrect diagnosis, missed cancers, and the frequent removal of the wrong limb. How about we play a game of, "chase the cancer." Is it there??? or not...Let's do tests, more tests, and more tests. Lots of $$$ expended. That's okay, the insurance company will pay...
Is he sick at all? Only the dying patient knows for sure...
Let's continue:
Doctor one says malignant melonoma..
Doctor two says a benign growth.
Doctor three says nothing at all..
Doctor four says call my service, I am on the golf course...
Whew!! Given all I know now, I would take the opinion of a polygrapher any day. All he decides is who is telling the truth...
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2006, 04:05 PMQuote from: retcopper on Aug 29, 2006, 12:03 PMDigithead :
If I soleyy relied on the so called scientific, infallible reliablity of certain medical examns and studies I would be dead. The first Dr and supporting tests indicated I didn't have cancer. Second Dr and subsequent tests incdated cancer. The so called "no cancer" was subsequently removed.
Where did I say that scientific tests are infallible?
And what made you skeptical of the first result that made you pursure a second opinion?
I'm glad the second test caught the cancer and you were restored you to health. Did your medical treatment consist of voodoo and prayer or was some of it scientifically based? Which do you think got rid of your cancer?
And there are people on this board who essentially became "dead" to a law enforcement career because of a one-time false positive on a polygraph and they couldn't pursue a second opinion. What say you..
Posted by retcopper
- Aug 29, 2006, 12:03 PMDigithead :
If I soleyy relied on the so called scientific, infallible reliablity of certain medical examns and studies I would be dead. The first Dr and supporting tests indicated I didn't have cancer. Second Dr and subsequent tests incdated cancer. The so called "no cancer" was subsequently removed.
Drew:
I don't know if you ever did polygraphs fro agencies other than the Feds but I can assure you that our quality control people were not afraid to disagree with the original diagnosis.
If I soleyy relied on the so called scientific, infallible reliablity of certain medical examns and studies I would be dead. The first Dr and supporting tests indicated I didn't have cancer. Second Dr and subsequent tests incdated cancer. The so called "no cancer" was subsequently removed.
Drew:
I don't know if you ever did polygraphs fro agencies other than the Feds but I can assure you that our quality control people were not afraid to disagree with the original diagnosis.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 29, 2006, 11:11 AMDigithead,
You write in part:
In addition to issues relating to independence of the exam that you have correctly identified and elucidated are issues related to independence of the (second) examiner. In the case of a second polygraph examiner, he/she is frequently (almost always) merely a colleague of the first examiner and one chosen by the chief of the administrative unit that both work for. This presents the obvious conflict of interest/bias associated with the possibility of finding the first examiner and parent agency wrong. In the case of a second medical opinion, the second clinician is one most likely one chosen by the patient (not the first medical organization) and an individual who is independent of the first clinician's practice and who may not even know the first clinician. Aside from what you correctly point out about second blood assays, there is no comparison between polygraphy and medical diagnosis in the nature of WHO is doing the second exam and how that individual is chosen to perform his/her function. In the case of the (second) polygraph exam, one will end up with a non-valid procedure and result largely set up to meet the government's (not the examinee's) needs and in the case of the medical exam, one will likely end up with a procedure and result of varying (but higher than that associated with the second polygraph exam) validity but one chosen by the patient to meet his/her needs. Regards...
You write in part:
Quote
...And second opinions in medicine are usually scientifically based and do have independence, internal validity, reliability and consistency such as a second blood test to confirm disease presence or DNA testing....
In addition to issues relating to independence of the exam that you have correctly identified and elucidated are issues related to independence of the (second) examiner. In the case of a second polygraph examiner, he/she is frequently (almost always) merely a colleague of the first examiner and one chosen by the chief of the administrative unit that both work for. This presents the obvious conflict of interest/bias associated with the possibility of finding the first examiner and parent agency wrong. In the case of a second medical opinion, the second clinician is one most likely one chosen by the patient (not the first medical organization) and an individual who is independent of the first clinician's practice and who may not even know the first clinician. Aside from what you correctly point out about second blood assays, there is no comparison between polygraphy and medical diagnosis in the nature of WHO is doing the second exam and how that individual is chosen to perform his/her function. In the case of the (second) polygraph exam, one will end up with a non-valid procedure and result largely set up to meet the government's (not the examinee's) needs and in the case of the medical exam, one will likely end up with a procedure and result of varying (but higher than that associated with the second polygraph exam) validity but one chosen by the patient to meet his/her needs. Regards...
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 29, 2006, 05:18 AMDigithead,
The points you make are correct and unfortunately wasted on these polygraphers. I am willing to concede that maybe local and state LEO organizations may be less biased, but the feds have no such benevolent intentions. There are too many posts within this website that more than validate that any retests within the federal arena are a fools erand. None from years of being here have ever passed a 2nd polygraph. You argue well and are more than a match for the poly chart jockies, who are most entertaining at best. Much success.
Regards ...
The points you make are correct and unfortunately wasted on these polygraphers. I am willing to concede that maybe local and state LEO organizations may be less biased, but the feds have no such benevolent intentions. There are too many posts within this website that more than validate that any retests within the federal arena are a fools erand. None from years of being here have ever passed a 2nd polygraph. You argue well and are more than a match for the poly chart jockies, who are most entertaining at best. Much success.
Regards ...
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2006, 02:42 AMIf a polygrapher is going to rest on the premise that CQT lie detection is scientific, then they should be prepared to defend it scientifically...
Linking it to counseling, mediation, and other human-based constructs is simply misdirection because unlike the polygraphy, the outcomes that result from these things are not based on the expectation that they're measuring some underlying truth. And while these things should be consistent in their outcome, we don't expect them to have independence, internal validity, and reliability because they are not designed for it. But one can assess if they are fair and unbiased...
And second opinions in medicine are usually scientifically based and do have independence, internal validity, reliability and consistency such as a second blood test to confirm disease presence or DNA testing...
And yes, I do have all the terminology down because I do research for a living, specifically in the criminal justice arena. Unlike the majority of people who post on this board, I have never been harmed by the polygraph. But I am reasonably educated enough so that I can understand the science (or lack thereof) behind CQT polygraphy and reasonably conclude that it's flapdoodle...
So if you have something other than ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, let's hear them...
Linking it to counseling, mediation, and other human-based constructs is simply misdirection because unlike the polygraphy, the outcomes that result from these things are not based on the expectation that they're measuring some underlying truth. And while these things should be consistent in their outcome, we don't expect them to have independence, internal validity, and reliability because they are not designed for it. But one can assess if they are fair and unbiased...
And second opinions in medicine are usually scientifically based and do have independence, internal validity, reliability and consistency such as a second blood test to confirm disease presence or DNA testing...
And yes, I do have all the terminology down because I do research for a living, specifically in the criminal justice arena. Unlike the majority of people who post on this board, I have never been harmed by the polygraph. But I am reasonably educated enough so that I can understand the science (or lack thereof) behind CQT polygraphy and reasonably conclude that it's flapdoodle...
So if you have something other than ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, let's hear them...
Posted by Lienot
- Aug 29, 2006, 01:22 AMself-deception self-deception self-deception
independence, internal validity, consistency, or reliability...
cognitive biases
self-deception to prevent cognitive dissonance..
I must say, you do have the terms down. I have not denied that I have biases in certain areas. Retest on polygraph is one area I don't have cognitive biases, therefore no self deception to prevent cognitive dissonance....
Go down another rabbit trail if you will, I find it rather atypical in your particular case.
independence, internal validity, consistency, or reliability...
cognitive biases
self-deception to prevent cognitive dissonance..
I must say, you do have the terms down. I have not denied that I have biases in certain areas. Retest on polygraph is one area I don't have cognitive biases, therefore no self deception to prevent cognitive dissonance....
Go down another rabbit trail if you will, I find it rather atypical in your particular case.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 28, 2006, 09:07 PMQuote from: digithead on Aug 28, 2006, 07:34 PM
If the process has to be altered to prevent serial correlation then it doesn't have much independence, internal validity, consistency, or reliability...
So how can anyone believe the results?
Quite simply there is no way to remove the effect of the prior polygraph on the examinee short of inducing memory loss no matter how much you alter the questioning process...
So,
According to your position:
There could never be a "second opinion" by a medical doctor...
Or a psychologist...
No need for a mediator...
Or an ombudsman...
We can close the complaint department at the local department store...
No need to ever get a "new lawyer"...
and there would be no need for judges to remove themselves from a case, since the new judge will obviously agree with the old one...
Yes, Digithead. I guess you must be right...None of these processes have much independence, internal validity, consistency, or reliability...
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by digithead
- Aug 28, 2006, 07:34 PMQuote from: Lienot on Aug 28, 2006, 05:53 PMYou are correct in stating "no sequential polygraph can be free of the influence of the prior polygraph". I am aware of cognative function in humans. The process must be altered to satisfy this problem and can be in MOST cases, not all. Polygraph is not 100%.
" As for an examiner, they're human too so I'd figure the same things would stand for them..."
Your opinion is valid, as is my own. My opinion is different.
If the process has to be altered to prevent serial correlation then it doesn't have much independence, internal validity, consistency, or reliability...
So how can anyone believe the results?
And I'm assuming by the process you mean the interview because the machine processes and measures all remain the same...
And I have no doubt that most polygraphers consider themselves to have the utmost integrity, but science tells us that we all have cognitive biases. So if you're not willing to admit your cognitive biases and find ways to overcome them (e.g., blinding) then you're engaging self-deception to prevent cognitive dissonance...
Quite simply there is no way to remove the effect of the prior polygraph on the examinee short of inducing memory loss no matter how much you alter the questioning process...
Posted by Lienot
- Aug 28, 2006, 05:53 PMYou are correct in stating "no sequential polygraph can be free of the influence of the prior polygraph". I am aware of cognative function in humans. The process must be altered to satisfy this problem and can be in MOST cases, not all. Polygraph is not 100%.
" As for an examiner, they're human too so I'd figure the same things would stand for them..."
Your opinion is valid, as is my own. My opinion is different.
" As for an examiner, they're human too so I'd figure the same things would stand for them..."
Your opinion is valid, as is my own. My opinion is different.
Posted by digithead
- Aug 28, 2006, 04:22 PMExcept we're talking about testing humans who by nature are defined by their prior experiences...
The polygraph is inexorably linked to emotional and cognitive processes which is why it is used the way it is used...
So no sequential polygraph can be free of the influence of the prior polygraph because people remember their prior experiences...
You cannot have it both ways, either people are affected by prior experiences that allow you to judge their physiological response or they're not...
As for an examiner, they're human too so I'd figure the same things would stand for them...
The polygraph is inexorably linked to emotional and cognitive processes which is why it is used the way it is used...
So no sequential polygraph can be free of the influence of the prior polygraph because people remember their prior experiences...
You cannot have it both ways, either people are affected by prior experiences that allow you to judge their physiological response or they're not...
As for an examiner, they're human too so I'd figure the same things would stand for them...
Posted by Lienot
- Aug 28, 2006, 03:59 PMNo one is talking about single-blind or double-blind, just taking another polygraph. My experience with giving a second examination is similar to Nonombre's. You have a fresh start and we realize that we do have false positives on occasion.
The second examiner, being aware of the first exam does not taint the second exam. In this field, we do try to help persons pass polygraph examinations, that is our task. There are methods that enable us to be successful with a second exam, even if there were an error on the first exam, that's why examines are afforded a second examination.
"There will be (has to be) an innate prejudice, if for no other reason than that humans dislike change and tend to trust what they see (like a prior chart)."
"I can't imagine that any polygrapher would be desirous of changing the results of a colleague and friend."
This may be your own thought process. Mine is considerably different. I don't mind change. I do not tend to "TRUST" simply because you or another individual has reached a conclusion. You do come across as educated in psychology, and may accept your statement as fact rather than your own personal prejudice.
I have on occasion been the second examiner and found the examine to be truthful on the second examination. Usually there is an explanation and reason for the false positive. (Not necessarily deception).
The second examiner, being aware of the first exam does not taint the second exam. In this field, we do try to help persons pass polygraph examinations, that is our task. There are methods that enable us to be successful with a second exam, even if there were an error on the first exam, that's why examines are afforded a second examination.
"There will be (has to be) an innate prejudice, if for no other reason than that humans dislike change and tend to trust what they see (like a prior chart)."
"I can't imagine that any polygrapher would be desirous of changing the results of a colleague and friend."
This may be your own thought process. Mine is considerably different. I don't mind change. I do not tend to "TRUST" simply because you or another individual has reached a conclusion. You do come across as educated in psychology, and may accept your statement as fact rather than your own personal prejudice.
I have on occasion been the second examiner and found the examine to be truthful on the second examination. Usually there is an explanation and reason for the false positive. (Not necessarily deception).
Posted by cesium_133
- Aug 28, 2006, 12:16 PMIf polyboy #2 has any knowledge of the results of polygraph #1 conducted by polyboy #1, that immediately destroys the single-blind concept. There will be (has to be) an innate prejudice, if for no other reason than that humans dislike change and tend to trust what they see (like a prior chart).
I can't debate how the victim, er, subject feels or how their emotions might affect the graphs, as I think every person would react differently to a second go. However, I can't imagine that any polygrapher would be desirous of changing the results of a colleague and friend.
There is never a clean slate, as you only get one chance to make a first impression...
I can't debate how the victim, er, subject feels or how their emotions might affect the graphs, as I think every person would react differently to a second go. However, I can't imagine that any polygrapher would be desirous of changing the results of a colleague and friend.
There is never a clean slate, as you only get one chance to make a first impression...