- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 17, 2006, 04:54 PMDigithead, I knew it didn't take much to interest you the moment you wanted me to rehash the old CQT argument/explanation you can find in at least a hundred other places on this website. Just find the posts that conform to your personal opinion, because it would be a waste of time for me to give you mine.
Posted by digithead
- Nov 17, 2006, 03:58 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 17, 2006, 01:52 PMDigithead,
Didn't your parents teach you that it isn't polite to interrupt adults when they are having a conversation?
As for the "point" about the CQT, don't you ever get tired of re-runs? It is tedious and boring to once again have to read either side's opinion on the CQT, let alone take the time to explain it. That argument has been and will be rehashed a thousand times on this website, so you don't need to hear it from me again.
But if you're in the mood for re-runs, I hear they still show Gilligan's Island on cable channels.
It's interesting that polygraphers need to resort to ad hominem attacks because they can't answer the question or provide actual science to back up their position...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 17, 2006, 01:52 PMDigithead,
Didn't your parents teach you that it isn't polite to interrupt adults when they are having a conversation?
As for the "point" about the CQT, don't you ever get tired of re-runs? It is tedious and boring to once again have to read either side's opinion on the CQT, let alone take the time to explain it. That argument has been and will be rehashed a thousand times on this website, so you don't need to hear it from me again.
But if you're in the mood for re-runs, I hear they still show Gilligan's Island on cable channels.
Didn't your parents teach you that it isn't polite to interrupt adults when they are having a conversation?
As for the "point" about the CQT, don't you ever get tired of re-runs? It is tedious and boring to once again have to read either side's opinion on the CQT, let alone take the time to explain it. That argument has been and will be rehashed a thousand times on this website, so you don't need to hear it from me again.
But if you're in the mood for re-runs, I hear they still show Gilligan's Island on cable channels.
Posted by digithead
- Nov 16, 2006, 03:58 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 15, 2006, 04:02 PMMost of the so-called experts on this website, although having failed the polygraph and/or erroneously taken the side of those who have, all have the same glaring deficiency when they want to convince others that they know what they are talking about. Yes, that's right: They haven't been there.
One doesn't have to suffer from a delusion to be knowledgeable about the delusion...
And you failed to address Dr. Richardson's point: CQT is an inherently unreliable procedure for detecting lies, hence any method to detect countermeasures on an unreliable test must therefore also be unreliable...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 15, 2006, 08:00 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Nov 15, 2006, 07:32 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
If I could reliably detect countermeasures, then you could in theory reliably detect countermeasures. The reality of things is that neither you nor I nor any of your colleagues nor the next generation of your colleagues, should this foolishness so persist, reliably detect countermeasures.
Of course I am familiar with the basic psychophysiological constructs you have listed for us. All that you have mentioned is well within the grasp (both in terms of basic comprehension and practice) of the average would-be applicant of countermeasures.
With regard to your global evaluation of perceived atypical responses leading to a determination of the presence or absence of countermeasures, I would suggest that there is no more basis for such an approach than there is for the global scoring of what you would recognize as true responses (something at one time (perhaps still) practiced in the intelligence community but now widely discounted even by your own wider community) for purposes of determining truth or deception. Unless one believes that all countermeasure application has to be performed globally (obviously a ridiculous assumption), a global analysis of what you deem to be atypical responses is not justified and will lead to unwarranted and erroneous guessing on your part and that of other soothsayers.
I do appreciate this dialogue though--the would be user of countermeasures should be both encouraged/delighted by your previous admission regarding a lack of understanding of countermeasure etiology and dutifully instucted by your current discourse on global analysis and such analysis' impact on his practice. Regards...
Dr. Richardson,
Perhaps you were in a hurry, or perhaps you were preoccupied while writing your last response. Therefore, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and curb my disappointment in hopes of better things to come.
Surely you don't really think that "All that you have mentioned is well within the grasp (both in terms of basic comprehension and practice) of the average would-be applicant of countermeasures." I've been visiting this forum for quite some time (although participating infrequently), and I know for a fact that the "average" reader has very little understanding of what I was talking about, despite the fact that to you and me the terms I used are basic. I've tested and failed some of those "average would-be" applicants of countermeasures, discovering later, predictably, that they got their information from this very website. We're not talking about rocket scientists here . . . well, unless it's EosJ we're talking about. And as for such brainiacs being encouraged/delighted by my responses, I am of the opinion that if they examine what I wrote they will be discouraged/dismayed to learn that at least one polygrapher--possibly their own future polygrapher--is not as hapless and incompetent as the "polyboys" and "soothsayers" portrayed by you, George et. al.
It is no great admission for me to say that while a polygrapher may know that countermeasures have been used and that things are not as they should be, he or she may not have observed the particular method used. But suffice it to say that regardless of the method used, it will take a very, very good performer to replicate, consistently, the normal response patterns that won't stand out to an experienced examiner.
Simply saying that you are aware of the terminology I use is an insufficient answer to my questions, Doctor. And no, countermeasure detection is not limited to a global analysis, although that is but one tool that can be used when looking for atypical response patterns. And patterns is really where it's at. By focusing on the larger picture, we can often see things we would not otherwise notice with our noses touching the polygraph chart at just one spot.
It's difficult to explain to you, and I think more difficult to explain to the reader, how countermeasures detection methods have evolved. But things have changed, and they are changing, Doctor, and it won't require that we wait until the next generation of polygraphers to reach the time when we can reliably, although admittedly not always, detect when the data is as it should be and when the data has been skewed. It's already happening, and I've seen it first-hand. If you have any doubts, go back to school and see where things are going, rather than viewing things from your how-it-was-when-I-was-there mentality.
Oh, and I noticed how you completely ignored the first question I asked, and we both know why.
Regards.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Nov 15, 2006, 07:32 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
If I could reliably detect countermeasures, then you could in theory reliably detect countermeasures. The reality of things is that neither you nor I nor any of your colleagues nor the next generation of your colleagues, should this foolishness so persist, reliably detect countermeasures.
Of course I am familiar with the basic psychophysiological constructs you have listed for us. All that you have mentioned is well within the grasp (both in terms of basic comprehension and practice) of the average would-be applicant of countermeasures.
With regard to your global evaluation of perceived atypical responses leading to a determination of the presence or absence of countermeasures, I would suggest that there is no more basis for such an approach than there is for the global scoring of what you would recognize as true responses (something at one time (perhaps still) practiced in the intelligence community but now widely discounted even by your own wider community) for purposes of determining truth or deception. Unless one believes that all countermeasure application has to be performed globally (obviously a ridiculous assumption), a global analysis of what you deem to be atypical responses is not justified and will lead to unwarranted and erroneous guessing on your part and that of other soothsayers.
I do appreciate this dialogue though--the would be user of countermeasures should be both encouraged/delighted by your previous admission regarding a lack of understanding of countermeasure etiology and dutifully instucted by your current discourse on global analysis and such analysis' impact on his practice. Regards...
If I could reliably detect countermeasures, then you could in theory reliably detect countermeasures. The reality of things is that neither you nor I nor any of your colleagues nor the next generation of your colleagues, should this foolishness so persist, reliably detect countermeasures.
Of course I am familiar with the basic psychophysiological constructs you have listed for us. All that you have mentioned is well within the grasp (both in terms of basic comprehension and practice) of the average would-be applicant of countermeasures.
With regard to your global evaluation of perceived atypical responses leading to a determination of the presence or absence of countermeasures, I would suggest that there is no more basis for such an approach than there is for the global scoring of what you would recognize as true responses (something at one time (perhaps still) practiced in the intelligence community but now widely discounted even by your own wider community) for purposes of determining truth or deception. Unless one believes that all countermeasure application has to be performed globally (obviously a ridiculous assumption), a global analysis of what you deem to be atypical responses is not justified and will lead to unwarranted and erroneous guessing on your part and that of other soothsayers.
I do appreciate this dialogue though--the would be user of countermeasures should be both encouraged/delighted by your previous admission regarding a lack of understanding of countermeasure etiology and dutifully instucted by your current discourse on global analysis and such analysis' impact on his practice. Regards...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 15, 2006, 06:39 PMDr. Richardson,
Thank you for addressing TwoBlock's questions. His post on equipment calibration didn't just come out of left field; it came from some other ball park. It's as if we're all playing football, and he shows up with his catcher's mitt, a hockey mask, and a basketball jersey. In a way, I can't really blame him since this topic has strayed so far from where it started. I read his post, considered it, and concluded that it was simply too tedious to respond. But you did so quite well. I was interested in your response about the CQT's validity. (By focusing on the validity of the CQT rather than the polygraph in general, you seemingly imply that other test methods have more legitimacy . . .) However, a discussion on the validity of a particular polygraph test method is also another topic entirely.
I was actually waiting for TwoBlock to mention you in response to my last post, since he had mentioned you previously with his "carry his jock" proclamation of you as the be-all, end-all expert on all things polygraph.
As a fellow (former) polygrapher, I needn't question your having "been there, done that" qualifications. And I needn't talk about lab studies vs. lab studies or lab studies vs. real world to you. That's a waste of time.
I do, however, have a couple of questions for you which I think relate to this evolving topic that has so whimsically gone from a question about test data analysis for a school report to where we are now. Of course, I have myself to blame as much as any other for this evolution, and I regret that many people won't even read this discussion because they won't be interested by the topic "school report."
Anyhow, here are my questions. I don't know if you will address them, but I do feel reasonably certain that you will read them, since you will be curious to investigate any responses to your most recent posts.
1. As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
2. Tell me, honestly, despite any biases you may have now that you are on the "anti-" side, are you unaware of the most recent developments made in the area of countermeasure detection as taught by DoDPI and other reputable polygraph schools? You obviously know what I'm talking about when I mention normal habituation, and, if you were any kind of polygrapher at all, I know you know what I'm talking about when I say "atypical responses," especially when viewed globally over the course of an entire exam, i.e., as a pattern rather than in isolation. Likewise, I think you should know the difference between legitimate response and an anomaly, particularly when differentiating between a normal response within the generally accepted response window vs. an abnormally protracted response, again viewed globally rather than simply during one isolated incident.
These things may be out of the average reader's realm of understanding, and one might avoid answering these questions by using the excuse that we are already off-topic and that my questions are themselves out of left field. However, since you showed up carrying your own jock this time
, it would be interesting to read your answers. Regards.
Thank you for addressing TwoBlock's questions. His post on equipment calibration didn't just come out of left field; it came from some other ball park. It's as if we're all playing football, and he shows up with his catcher's mitt, a hockey mask, and a basketball jersey. In a way, I can't really blame him since this topic has strayed so far from where it started. I read his post, considered it, and concluded that it was simply too tedious to respond. But you did so quite well. I was interested in your response about the CQT's validity. (By focusing on the validity of the CQT rather than the polygraph in general, you seemingly imply that other test methods have more legitimacy . . .) However, a discussion on the validity of a particular polygraph test method is also another topic entirely.
I was actually waiting for TwoBlock to mention you in response to my last post, since he had mentioned you previously with his "carry his jock" proclamation of you as the be-all, end-all expert on all things polygraph.
As a fellow (former) polygrapher, I needn't question your having "been there, done that" qualifications. And I needn't talk about lab studies vs. lab studies or lab studies vs. real world to you. That's a waste of time.
I do, however, have a couple of questions for you which I think relate to this evolving topic that has so whimsically gone from a question about test data analysis for a school report to where we are now. Of course, I have myself to blame as much as any other for this evolution, and I regret that many people won't even read this discussion because they won't be interested by the topic "school report."
Anyhow, here are my questions. I don't know if you will address them, but I do feel reasonably certain that you will read them, since you will be curious to investigate any responses to your most recent posts.
1. As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?
2. Tell me, honestly, despite any biases you may have now that you are on the "anti-" side, are you unaware of the most recent developments made in the area of countermeasure detection as taught by DoDPI and other reputable polygraph schools? You obviously know what I'm talking about when I mention normal habituation, and, if you were any kind of polygrapher at all, I know you know what I'm talking about when I say "atypical responses," especially when viewed globally over the course of an entire exam, i.e., as a pattern rather than in isolation. Likewise, I think you should know the difference between legitimate response and an anomaly, particularly when differentiating between a normal response within the generally accepted response window vs. an abnormally protracted response, again viewed globally rather than simply during one isolated incident.
These things may be out of the average reader's realm of understanding, and one might avoid answering these questions by using the excuse that we are already off-topic and that my questions are themselves out of left field. However, since you showed up carrying your own jock this time
, it would be interesting to read your answers. Regards. Posted by Drew Richardson
- Nov 15, 2006, 05:56 PMTwoblock,
The problem with the polygraph exam does not lie with the polygraph and its calibration. The channels of physiology measured have been accurately recorded for more than a century. Although the instrument generally utilized is not a research instrument, the parameters measured are done so with reasonable accuracy and are generally preceded by daily calibrations by a competent polygraph examiner. The problem lies in that the chosen physiology RELIABLY and ACCURATELY recorded offers no basis for the diagnosis of truth or deception. This is because the chosen psychophysiological paradigm (CQT exam, etc) has no validity as a diagnostic test.
The problem with the polygraph exam does not lie with the polygraph and its calibration. The channels of physiology measured have been accurately recorded for more than a century. Although the instrument generally utilized is not a research instrument, the parameters measured are done so with reasonable accuracy and are generally preceded by daily calibrations by a competent polygraph examiner. The problem lies in that the chosen physiology RELIABLY and ACCURATELY recorded offers no basis for the diagnosis of truth or deception. This is because the chosen psychophysiological paradigm (CQT exam, etc) has no validity as a diagnostic test.
Posted by Twoblock
- Nov 15, 2006, 05:42 PMLieBabyCryBaby
Who calibrates the polygraph machine? Are they ever calibrated by a certified lab? Instrumentation used in techical disciplines, especially in government service, are required to carry certificates of calibration from certified labs whose standards are traceable to the NIST. Yes I have been HERE. Have you? The crucial question here is: Does the polygraph test machine fall into the class of technilogical instrumentation, used for government service, that requires simi-annual calibration? If it doesn't, then it should have no place in determining a persons employment future.
What our young Sarah needs to know is that ONE person with ONE machine has the power to control many people's employment future. Not a BI investigation. NOT a multipul of up to 12people. Even if the machine was 100% correct, ONE person decision is WRONG. And as to quality control!!! Give me a break. Charts reviewed by another polygrapher is quality control?? What are the standards utilized? Is there a written Quality Control Manual containing strict quality standards that must be strictly adhered to. You should know because you should have been there.
Who calibrates the polygraph machine? Are they ever calibrated by a certified lab? Instrumentation used in techical disciplines, especially in government service, are required to carry certificates of calibration from certified labs whose standards are traceable to the NIST. Yes I have been HERE. Have you? The crucial question here is: Does the polygraph test machine fall into the class of technilogical instrumentation, used for government service, that requires simi-annual calibration? If it doesn't, then it should have no place in determining a persons employment future.
What our young Sarah needs to know is that ONE person with ONE machine has the power to control many people's employment future. Not a BI investigation. NOT a multipul of up to 12people. Even if the machine was 100% correct, ONE person decision is WRONG. And as to quality control!!! Give me a break. Charts reviewed by another polygrapher is quality control?? What are the standards utilized? Is there a written Quality Control Manual containing strict quality standards that must be strictly adhered to. You should know because you should have been there.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Nov 15, 2006, 05:41 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
You write:
Thank you for this candid admission. I would strongly suggest to you that if you cannot reliably state the underlying mechanism and etiology of your purported atypical responses, you cannot reliably identify countermeasures. The great variance in normal response (absent the understanding that you openly admit is lacking) makes your atypical response not so atypical as you may think. And by the way, I have been there and have worked with those who have both conducted countermeasure research for the government and have taught same. Regards...
You write:
Quote..."The polygrapher didn't catch the examinee because all the polygrapher could say was that countermeasures were used, and he couldn't say what the examinee did."....
Thank you for this candid admission. I would strongly suggest to you that if you cannot reliably state the underlying mechanism and etiology of your purported atypical responses, you cannot reliably identify countermeasures. The great variance in normal response (absent the understanding that you openly admit is lacking) makes your atypical response not so atypical as you may think. And by the way, I have been there and have worked with those who have both conducted countermeasure research for the government and have taught same. Regards...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 15, 2006, 04:02 PMNo, George, EosJ did not mention the "challenge" specifically, but it is at the top of all the topic listings in the "Polygraph Procedures" section of this website, and it is continually referred to either explicitly or implicitly by most of the "anti-" people on this website who pose as experts on the polygraph without any personal experience whatsoever.
To say that polygraphers can not detect countermeasures is both true and false depending on how you look at it. It is true that even though a well-trained polygrapher will often notice atypical responses that he or she knows, through much experience, are the result of manipulation by the examinee, he or she may not know exactly which countermeasure caused the atypical responses. Hence, one could say, "The polygrapher didn't catch the examinee because all the polygrapher could say was that countermeasures were used, and he couldn't say what the examinee did."
You know the old saying "You had to be there," right? Well, George, when it comes to conducting polygraphs and knowing what I am talking about when I say "atypical responses," you haven't been there. Perhaps you need to attend a bonafide "countermeasures" course conducted by a reputable polygraph school. I can tell you that it would open your eyes to what it is possible for the polygrapher to see when it comes to examinee manipulation or attempted manipulation of responses. But again, you haven't been there.
I know from personal experience what atypical responses look like. I have caught examinees attempting countermeasures, and have been proven right by examinee admissions. I never confront examinees just to play a game to see if I can dig up something of which I am not sure, and I do not regularly question examinees regarding attempted countermeasures when the proof isn't visible to me. Now, that said, could an examinee, with sufficient training and feedback, learn to manipulate his or her responses so that even a well-trained examiner would miss the manipulations? I think so. But from my own experience, I do not believe there are many examinees capable of such a convincing performance, taking into account such factors as habituation and desensitization over the course of an exam. What we see instead are the tell-tale consistent signs of atypical response patterns. I don't know how to explain it any better than this if you haven't been there. Which reminds me, you haven't been there, George.
You and the "anti-" crowd that follows you just don't get it. The lab is not the real world. If you insist on looking at lab studies, you can find studies that both support and refute the reliability of the polygraph, and you can pick and choose whichever ones seem to support your agenda. The "pro-" people can do the same. But at least the "pro-" people will admit that even those lab studies that support their view and refute yours can not accurately and assuredly replicate what goes on in the real world. Why would another lab study conducted as part of a "countermeasures challenge," prove anything one way or another, regardless of who "won"? At least the "pro-" people have on their side something you do not when it comes to support studies: Confirmation of theory by examinee admissions. That's real world. But of course, you haven't been there.
When all is said and done (what a statement, since nothing will ever be said and done that will convince people on either side of the equation of the fallacy of their beliefs), I think it comes down to one basic difference between you and me, George. That's right, you haven't been there.
Now, I don't expect to get the last word in here. I find it amusing that an apparent young person's request for help on a school report gets us into a discussion which will get us nowhere. But if our young Sarah still reads this forum, I hope she keeps in mind one thing: Most of the so-called experts on this website, although having failed the polygraph and/or erroneously taken the side of those who have, all have the same glaring deficiency when they want to convince others that they know what they are talking about. Yes, that's right: They haven't been there.
To say that polygraphers can not detect countermeasures is both true and false depending on how you look at it. It is true that even though a well-trained polygrapher will often notice atypical responses that he or she knows, through much experience, are the result of manipulation by the examinee, he or she may not know exactly which countermeasure caused the atypical responses. Hence, one could say, "The polygrapher didn't catch the examinee because all the polygrapher could say was that countermeasures were used, and he couldn't say what the examinee did."
You know the old saying "You had to be there," right? Well, George, when it comes to conducting polygraphs and knowing what I am talking about when I say "atypical responses," you haven't been there. Perhaps you need to attend a bonafide "countermeasures" course conducted by a reputable polygraph school. I can tell you that it would open your eyes to what it is possible for the polygrapher to see when it comes to examinee manipulation or attempted manipulation of responses. But again, you haven't been there.
I know from personal experience what atypical responses look like. I have caught examinees attempting countermeasures, and have been proven right by examinee admissions. I never confront examinees just to play a game to see if I can dig up something of which I am not sure, and I do not regularly question examinees regarding attempted countermeasures when the proof isn't visible to me. Now, that said, could an examinee, with sufficient training and feedback, learn to manipulate his or her responses so that even a well-trained examiner would miss the manipulations? I think so. But from my own experience, I do not believe there are many examinees capable of such a convincing performance, taking into account such factors as habituation and desensitization over the course of an exam. What we see instead are the tell-tale consistent signs of atypical response patterns. I don't know how to explain it any better than this if you haven't been there. Which reminds me, you haven't been there, George.
You and the "anti-" crowd that follows you just don't get it. The lab is not the real world. If you insist on looking at lab studies, you can find studies that both support and refute the reliability of the polygraph, and you can pick and choose whichever ones seem to support your agenda. The "pro-" people can do the same. But at least the "pro-" people will admit that even those lab studies that support their view and refute yours can not accurately and assuredly replicate what goes on in the real world. Why would another lab study conducted as part of a "countermeasures challenge," prove anything one way or another, regardless of who "won"? At least the "pro-" people have on their side something you do not when it comes to support studies: Confirmation of theory by examinee admissions. That's real world. But of course, you haven't been there.
When all is said and done (what a statement, since nothing will ever be said and done that will convince people on either side of the equation of the fallacy of their beliefs), I think it comes down to one basic difference between you and me, George. That's right, you haven't been there.
Now, I don't expect to get the last word in here. I find it amusing that an apparent young person's request for help on a school report gets us into a discussion which will get us nowhere. But if our young Sarah still reads this forum, I hope she keeps in mind one thing: Most of the so-called experts on this website, although having failed the polygraph and/or erroneously taken the side of those who have, all have the same glaring deficiency when they want to convince others that they know what they are talking about. Yes, that's right: They haven't been there.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 15, 2006, 02:38 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 15, 2006, 12:49 PMAaaah, are we back to that silly "countermeaures challenge" again? I get tired of addressing that topic, but I will do so once again.
EosJupiter didn't mention Dr. Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge, but there is nothing silly about it, especially in light of the fact that the polygraph community offers no proof of its claimed ability to detect countermeasures. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The polygraph community offers none.
QuoteRegarding the "countermeasures challenge": Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world. At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis.
That is sheer (and erroneous) speculation on your part. If polygraphers were able to reliably detect countermeasures in a properly controlled and blinded laboratory experiment, I would be inclined to agree that they could probably do the same under field conditions.
QuoteSo what's the point? For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time, the "challenge" is ignored.
The question of whether polygraphers can detect countermeasures is a crucially important one. Were it publicly demonstrated that they cannot, it would have serious negative implications for the polygraph community. A fair-minded observer might imagine that perhaps there are reasons beyond supposed cost in dollars and time that explain the failure of the polygraph community to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge.
;-)
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 15, 2006, 12:49 PMEosJ:
Unless you are or have been a polygrapher, you have no practical experience. Taking polygraph tests is not the same as conducting them. That should go without saying, but I find myself repeatedly saying it to the "anti-" crowd on this website. Reading a few selected lab studies and biased publications, regularly visiting a website of mostly like-minded individuals, and taking a polygraph or two does not make one an expert on the polygraph process.
So you passed a polygraph or two while using "countermeasures" and you were lucky enough not to get caught. How do you know you wouldn't have passed the test anyhow? It's not very scientific for a self-proclaimed scientist/engineer type like yourself to use such subjective and impossible-to-prove support for your opinion.
Aaaah, are we back to that silly "countermeaures challenge" again? I get tired of addressing that topic, but I will do so once again.
Regarding the "countermeasures challenge": Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world. At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis. So what's the point? For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time, the "challenge" is ignored.
Unless you are or have been a polygrapher, you have no practical experience. Taking polygraph tests is not the same as conducting them. That should go without saying, but I find myself repeatedly saying it to the "anti-" crowd on this website. Reading a few selected lab studies and biased publications, regularly visiting a website of mostly like-minded individuals, and taking a polygraph or two does not make one an expert on the polygraph process.
So you passed a polygraph or two while using "countermeasures" and you were lucky enough not to get caught. How do you know you wouldn't have passed the test anyhow? It's not very scientific for a self-proclaimed scientist/engineer type like yourself to use such subjective and impossible-to-prove support for your opinion.
Aaaah, are we back to that silly "countermeaures challenge" again? I get tired of addressing that topic, but I will do so once again.
Regarding the "countermeasures challenge": Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world. At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis. So what's the point? For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time, the "challenge" is ignored.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Nov 09, 2006, 04:17 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
You assume that I am a novice to the polygraph venue. I can assure you that I am not. But again this debate is mute, as none of you polygraphers are willing to step up to defend your machine, (other than with rhetoric), in a sanctioned, controlled testing format. Of which I have stated I will be more than willing to be one the subjects hooked up. Now if you catch me using CM's then I will renounce any and all claims to the fallibility of your process and machine. I do not diminish your capabilities as an interrogator, I would never underestimate an opponent. But I state you never know who you have in the chair and the capabilities they have. Surprize is always on the examinees side. And a powerful friend it truly is. The dedicated are always prepared. And from experience it hasn't failed me yet.
Regards ....
You assume that I am a novice to the polygraph venue. I can assure you that I am not. But again this debate is mute, as none of you polygraphers are willing to step up to defend your machine, (other than with rhetoric), in a sanctioned, controlled testing format. Of which I have stated I will be more than willing to be one the subjects hooked up. Now if you catch me using CM's then I will renounce any and all claims to the fallibility of your process and machine. I do not diminish your capabilities as an interrogator, I would never underestimate an opponent. But I state you never know who you have in the chair and the capabilities they have. Surprize is always on the examinees side. And a powerful friend it truly is. The dedicated are always prepared. And from experience it hasn't failed me yet.
Regards ....
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 09, 2006, 12:29 PMEosJ,
You seem to be an intelligent guy. Therefore, I think that if you were given the opportunity to attend DoDPI or another similar polygraph institution, you might actually pass the course. I can tell you that the DoDPI curriculum is extremely rigorous and intense, and that every class has bright, intelligent people fail. And it's not a matter of how long one goes to school, but rather the quality and intensity of the training, as well as whether the course is simply theory from books or actual practical learning in a lab setting. You might belittle "trade" schools, but there are a lot of extremely intelligent people who have no more than a trade school degree. A lot of them decided that they would rather attend an institution that would let them concentrate solely on their desired vocation rather than make them pay an exorbitant amount of money to take courses like basket weaving or ballroom dancing or a foreign language in the name of a "well-rounded education." Colleges and universities do teach, but so many of them also scam their students by making them pay thousands and thousands of dollars studying courses that have absolutely nothing to do with the students' occupational goals and needs.
The point is that polygraphers can be just as well-trained and professional in their careers as anyone else. We could argue all day and all night for a year about the scientific basis--or lack thereof--for the polygraph. I wouldn't convince you, and you wouldn't convince me. But at least I would be basing my arguments on theory AND experience, which is more than you would have on your side.
Regards.
You seem to be an intelligent guy. Therefore, I think that if you were given the opportunity to attend DoDPI or another similar polygraph institution, you might actually pass the course. I can tell you that the DoDPI curriculum is extremely rigorous and intense, and that every class has bright, intelligent people fail. And it's not a matter of how long one goes to school, but rather the quality and intensity of the training, as well as whether the course is simply theory from books or actual practical learning in a lab setting. You might belittle "trade" schools, but there are a lot of extremely intelligent people who have no more than a trade school degree. A lot of them decided that they would rather attend an institution that would let them concentrate solely on their desired vocation rather than make them pay an exorbitant amount of money to take courses like basket weaving or ballroom dancing or a foreign language in the name of a "well-rounded education." Colleges and universities do teach, but so many of them also scam their students by making them pay thousands and thousands of dollars studying courses that have absolutely nothing to do with the students' occupational goals and needs.
The point is that polygraphers can be just as well-trained and professional in their careers as anyone else. We could argue all day and all night for a year about the scientific basis--or lack thereof--for the polygraph. I wouldn't convince you, and you wouldn't convince me. But at least I would be basing my arguments on theory AND experience, which is more than you would have on your side.
Regards.