- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Bill Crider
- Nov 28, 2006, 02:48 AMI understand your point completely. You dont subscribe to 100% accuracy. My question was, what evidence supports your conclusion of a nebulous but fabulously high success rate of the polygraph?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 27, 2006, 06:37 PMWhat part of "almost always" do you not understand, Bill?
Posted by Bill Crider
- Nov 27, 2006, 06:22 PMon what basis do you maintain that? What sort of polygraphs do you typically do? what empricial evidence leads you to that conclusion?
some background--I spent 14 years trying to get into the FBI, made it to the very end, got accused by a polygrapher of being a drug dealer and booted. I have never touched a drug much less sold it.
some background--I spent 14 years trying to get into the FBI, made it to the very end, got accused by a polygrapher of being a drug dealer and booted. I have never touched a drug much less sold it.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 27, 2006, 12:37 PMQuote from: Bill Crider on Nov 25, 2006, 09:11 PMLBCB,
My point is that it is quite possible I am sure to produce CMs that are absolutely undetectable, but that it requires a bit of knowledge and experience about what a "winning" chart looks like and how the scoring works. Going in without that knowledge leaves a lot to chance.
Besides to my point of view, the whole CM argument is spurious. What really matters is the truth and a correct result, whether that happens by chance or by design. An innocent person using CMs and passing is a better result than a False positive, wouldnt you agree? Or are you going to argue that the process is more important than the truth? At the end of the day, that's whats this site is about--arriving at the truth.
That's right, Bill. I believe it is possible, with very much practice and feedback, to produce polygraph charts that appear legitimate while using countermeasures. I can't even do it myself in lab conditions with another polygrapher trained in counter-countermeasures, though. If I can't do it, I believe the average reader on this website can't do it, either, and I've caught some of them trying. When that happens, their job opportunity ends right there.
The truth is all that polygraph examiners and the agencies or organizations that employ them desire. Polygraph examiners aren't like Saruman, the evil wizard in Lord of the Rings, looking in their crystal ball and trying to work the arts of black magic. When examinees pass the exam, it's nice for everyone involved. When they fail, I maintain that it is almost always because they deserve to fail.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Nov 25, 2006, 09:11 PMLBCB,
My point is that it is quite possible I am sure to produce CMs that are absolutely undetectable, but that it requires a bit of knowledge and experience about what a "winning" chart looks like and how the scoring works. Going in without that knowledge leaves a lot to chance.
Besides to my point of view, the whole CM argument is spurious. What really matters is the truth and a correct result, whether that happens by chance or by design. An innocent person using CMs and passing is a better result than a False positive, wouldnt you agree? Or are you going to argue that the process is more important than the truth? At the end of the day, that's whats this site is about--arriving at the truth.
QuoteMy point exactly, Bill.
My point is that it is quite possible I am sure to produce CMs that are absolutely undetectable, but that it requires a bit of knowledge and experience about what a "winning" chart looks like and how the scoring works. Going in without that knowledge leaves a lot to chance.
Besides to my point of view, the whole CM argument is spurious. What really matters is the truth and a correct result, whether that happens by chance or by design. An innocent person using CMs and passing is a better result than a False positive, wouldnt you agree? Or are you going to argue that the process is more important than the truth? At the end of the day, that's whats this site is about--arriving at the truth.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 25, 2006, 06:45 AMApparently I hit the million-to-one lottery three times in a row on three different polygraph exams. All of them for different issues.
It would seem logical that if I showed deception in my answers about selling cocaine on my first polygraph exam that I would show some reaction to the same question on subsequent exams, but that never happened.
I wonder what the odds are of hitting a one-in-a-million shot three times in a row? I believe the odds of that happening are one time in ten to the eighteenth power. I think that's approaching what even statisticians call "impossible."
It would seem logical that if I showed deception in my answers about selling cocaine on my first polygraph exam that I would show some reaction to the same question on subsequent exams, but that never happened.
I wonder what the odds are of hitting a one-in-a-million shot three times in a row? I believe the odds of that happening are one time in ten to the eighteenth power. I think that's approaching what even statisticians call "impossible."
Posted by meangino
- Nov 21, 2006, 08:10 PMLieBabyCry Wrote
Do polygraphers (and Dr. Phil
) not have an agenda in trumpeting a polygraph's alleged accuracy as 999,999 in a million (in your case) or 92% (in Dr. Phil's case)?
Who should an uninterested party believe, you or Dr. Phil?
QuoteBecause a neutral observer doesn't carry the baggage of your personal agenda, George. Without that baggage, it's easier to trust experience over lack thereof.
Do polygraphers (and Dr. Phil
) not have an agenda in trumpeting a polygraph's alleged accuracy as 999,999 in a million (in your case) or 92% (in Dr. Phil's case)?Who should an uninterested party believe, you or Dr. Phil?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 21, 2006, 07:34 PMOk, perhaps one in a million is a slight exaggeration. Let's look at in another way, though. How many people who have posted on this website are false positives? In this age of the internet, I think that there are a lot of people out there taking polygraphs who come to this site out of curiosity, and I'm sure you would like to think you have that kind of audience. Well, since you began keeping count, there have been just over 20,000 posts on this website. Over 3,500 of those have been yours, George. That leaves less than 17,000 posts. How many total posters wrote those 17,000 posts? Surely less than 10,000 posters, judging by the enormous number of posts by many of the Especially Senior Users and Senior Users. But let's say that every single one of those posters has been a false positive failure in a polygraph exam. I'm sure that would be a ridiculous exaggeration, but let's give it a ridiculous benefit of the doubt. How many polygraphs have been conducted in the U.S. alone since you began this anti-polygraph crusade? Any idea? No? Me neither. But if you took all of those posters we're pretending are false positive failures, I think it would still be a tiny minority compared with those who passed the polygraph or simply came up inconclusive.
I had fun with this post, as I'm sure you can tell. But it is fun food for thought.
I had fun with this post, as I'm sure you can tell. But it is fun food for thought.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2006, 07:04 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 06:32 PMGeorge, even if you insist on discounting my experience (and, sadly, I must remain anonymous for legitimate reasons I'm sure you would appreciate), the NAS never said that the false positive was even a likely result.
The NAS's above-cited finding necessarily entails that false positives are not unlikely.
QuoteIf you take all of the correct decisions made in correctly administered polygraph exams, and then throw in the inconclusives, the false positives and false negatives would indeed be a tiny minority.
What documentation supports this assertion?
QuoteAnd you don't see the false negatives on this forum complaining do you?
Why would they?
QuoteSo that leaves us with a tiny minority of claimed false positives, of which you are one.
That's a conclusory argument. On the basis of what evidence do you conclude that false positives are a "tiny minority?" Consider that pre-9/11, the FBI's pre-employment polygraph failure rate was about 20%. Post-9/11 it suddenly rose to about 50%. How can such a sudden departure be consistent with false positives being a "tiny minority?"
QuoteAnd how many of those false positives know anything about the polygraph except what they read and choose to credit or discredit? And how many of them have any experience in the real world as polygraph examiners?
I don't pretend to know. But considering that the FBI has administered fewer than 1,000,000 pre-employment polygraph examinations since it began pre-employment polygraph screening in 1994, those who have wrongly failed the FBI polygraph know from personal experience that your suggestion of a one-in-a-million false positive rate is overly optimistic.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:32 PMGeorge, even if you insist on discounting my experience (and, sadly, I must remain anonymous for legitimate reasons I'm sure you would appreciate), the NAS never said that the false positive was even a likely result. If you take all of the correct decisions made in correctly administered polygraph exams, and then throw in the inconclusives, the false positives and false negatives would indeed be a tiny minority. And you don't see the false negatives on this forum complaining do you? 
So that leaves us with a tiny minority of claimed false positives, of which you are one. And how many of those false positives know anything about the polygraph except what they read and choose to credit or discredit? And how many of them have any experience in the real world as polygraph examiners?
So that leaves us with a tiny minority of claimed false positives, of which you are one. And how many of those false positives know anything about the polygraph except what they read and choose to credit or discredit? And how many of them have any experience in the real world as polygraph examiners?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:25 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 06:07 PM
Because a neutral observer doesn't carry the baggage of your personal agenda, George. Without that baggage, it's easier to trust experience over lack thereof.
I see. So a neutral observer without my "baggage" should accept your word for it, based on your (anonymously and unverifiably) professed experience, that the risk of a false positive outcome in a polygraph examination is 1:10^6. Yet somehow, the National Academy of Sciences did not accept such a notion, finding instead (at p. 202 of The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that "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" (original emphasis). How do you explain this? None of the authors of this report were saddled with my alleged "baggage."
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 21, 2006, 06:07 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 21, 2006, 05:55 PM
Why should a neutral observer accept your estimate?
Because a neutral observer doesn't carry the baggage of your personal agenda, George. Without that baggage, it's easier to trust experience over lack thereof.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2006, 05:55 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 05:51 PMIt's an estimate, George, ok?
An estimate based on what? Why should a neutral observer accept your estimate?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Nov 21, 2006, 05:51 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 21, 2006, 05:42 PM
On what basis do you maintain that the risk of a false-positive result is 1:10^6? Please be specific.
It's an estimate, George, ok? No, I haven't conducted one million polygraph exams yet. But from personal experience I can tell you that my estimate is more likely than the sky-is-falling dramatic exaggeration of "false positives" claimed by this website.
And Brandon, although there is bitterness in your humor, I do appreciate your humor.
Posted by polyscam
- Nov 21, 2006, 05:50 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 05:37 PM
Well, I guess you win the lottery. The other 999,999 people go on with their lives and don't frequent this website.
Great. My chance to win the lottery was wasted on a simpleton with a physio-gadget accusing me of lying. Yeah, now I feel better.
Had the wonderful false positive polygraph opinion not cost me the chance to complete further hiring phases with the agency which conducted the "test" and another agency that immediately tossed my application due to the same test I may very well have gone on my merry way. But unfortunately that did not happen.
No matter what anyone says, I am aware that false positives do occur much, much more frequently than 1/1,000,000. That's just bad math.