- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by palerider
- Feb 25, 2007, 08:51 PMYawn. Please research the concept of "ground truth" within the proper parameters of polygraph research, and while you're at it, please research the empirical differance in field studies of polygraph versus "mock crime" staging and the subsequent disparities in arousal magnitudes. You have a very large paint brush when you dispense your opinions on polygraph. It is a sign of scientific prejudice. NAS type of studies are similar to zoologists studying animals in captivity under the guise of studying "wildlife."
My use of the word "elitist" was a sardonic referance to your grammer and spelling remark. Your critical remarks of what is supposed to be a web-shorthand-style of communication is the opposite of elite. I didn't realize I was dealing with Monk.
My use of the word "elitist" was a sardonic referance to your grammer and spelling remark. Your critical remarks of what is supposed to be a web-shorthand-style of communication is the opposite of elite. I didn't realize I was dealing with Monk.
Posted by digithead
- Feb 25, 2007, 05:33 PMQuote from: palerider on Feb 25, 2007, 11:39 AMDigi, I would respect your posted opinions if you didn't commit grammitical errors, and than raise your browe at mine. READ YOUR POSTS AND AIM THAT ELITIST EDITING AT YOURSELF. Christ, it's a goddamn web board, not a board of acedemics. It is clear that you have a hard-on for examiners (to use a 1950's phrase) and that you are incapable of having casual discourse. It must be very difficult being your friend or partner. It is not a requirement to be both anti-polygraph, and anti-social on this site, although it's not uncommon. That being said, I have seen "anti-dudes" in this realm who are of solid personality---despite my professional disagreement.
Your self importance is derived from your inability to accept that a statement of facts should require you to modify your opinion. Sex Offender containment officials sans Examiners do not vest the safety of our children with the results of a polygraph test, period. As far as we are concerned, 99% accurate would not be enough (I have 3 children of my own) to look away---much less 86-93% which is the more commonly held accuracy range for multi-issue tests. Your self importance comes from the fact that like a certain president, you seem to ignore facts and go with your "gut." Your gut is filled with organs and shit.
I'm sorry polygraph didn't serve your direct needs. Some stories regarding polygraph shortcomings make rational people desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Why is it that you polygraph people cannot argue without resorting to ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, and other logical fallacies?
Quite simply, I very rarely go with my "gut" on anything because I know that I have cognitive biases and I know I can be wrong. So I research things and what I've found about the polygraph is that given the bulk of research the CQT polygraph is a deeply flawed procedure that cannot reliably detect deception. Since it has no validity, it can't have any reliability and is therefore a dangerous prop if its relied on for anything more than inducing confessions from the gullible...
As for your overblown statements of accuracy regarding multi-issue tests, they are garnered from the pro-polygraph literature and the majority of that literature is not published in acceptable peer-reviewed journals nor could it meet the research standards of either the National Institute of Health or the National Science Foundation. I'll also stand by the National Academy of Science conclusion that the CQT polygraph has no validity and as such, it cannot have a high degree of accuracy in any screening application...
Can you refute the NAS study with anything other than your own experience? Are they all elitist snobs too?
Posted by palerider
- Feb 25, 2007, 11:39 AMDigi, I would respect your posted opinions if you didn't commit grammitical errors, and than raise your browe at mine. READ YOUR POSTS AND AIM THAT ELITIST EDITING AT YOURSELF. Christ, it's a goddamn web board, not a board of acedemics. It is clear that you have a hard-on for examiners (to use a 1950's phrase) and that you are incapable of having casual discourse. It must be very difficult being your friend or partner. It is not a requirement to be both anti-polygraph, and anti-social on this site, although it's not uncommon. That being said, I have seen "anti-dudes" in this realm who are of solid personality---despite my professional disagreement.
Your self importance is derived from your inability to accept that a statement of facts should require you to modify your opinion. Sex Offender containment officials sans Examiners do not vest the safety of our children with the results of a polygraph test, period. As far as we are concerned, 99% accurate would not be enough (I have 3 children of my own) to look away---much less 86-93% which is the more commonly held accuracy range for multi-issue tests. Your self importance comes from the fact that like a certain president, you seem to ignore facts and go with your "gut." Your gut is filled with organs and shit.
I'm sorry polygraph didn't serve your direct needs. Some stories regarding polygraph shortcomings make rational people desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Your self importance is derived from your inability to accept that a statement of facts should require you to modify your opinion. Sex Offender containment officials sans Examiners do not vest the safety of our children with the results of a polygraph test, period. As far as we are concerned, 99% accurate would not be enough (I have 3 children of my own) to look away---much less 86-93% which is the more commonly held accuracy range for multi-issue tests. Your self importance comes from the fact that like a certain president, you seem to ignore facts and go with your "gut." Your gut is filled with organs and shit.
I'm sorry polygraph didn't serve your direct needs. Some stories regarding polygraph shortcomings make rational people desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Posted by digithead
- Feb 24, 2007, 11:23 PMQuote from: palerider on Feb 23, 2007, 11:36 AMYour opinion is extremely nascissistic. You are suggesting that YOU know the real perils of polygraph, but all else are wearing druid robes and worshipping at the alter of poly. What part of NOT 100% ACCURATE ISN'T SINKING IN. You and others on this site pretend to know something that average people don't. Why don't you go to poly school, do some field work, and help us make it better. "Any damn fool can burn down a barn"--Bill Clinton
Since I'm assuming you meant narcissistic I'll ask how does my opinion have an inflated idea of its own importance? It appears that your vocabulary and word usage are about as good as your grammar and spelling...
As for your acknowledgement that the polygraph is not 100% accurate, admitting your problems is the first step towards recovery. Next thing you might realize that CQT polygraph is worthless as a diagnostic test and a clear threat to society...
As for attending polygraph school, since the National Academy of Science and the majority of psychologists conclude that it is pseudoscience, I'll pass on your invitation...
I will, however, continue to work to the best of my abilities for the abandonment of this peculiar pseudoscientific flapdoodle in all law enforcement arenas...
Posted by palerider
- Feb 23, 2007, 11:36 AMYour opinion is extremely nascissistic. You are suggesting that YOU know the real perils of polygraph, but all else are wearing druid robes and worshipping at the alter of poly. What part of NOT 100% ACCURATE ISN'T SINKING IN. You and others on this site pretend to know something that average people don't. Why don't you go to poly school, do some field work, and help us make it better. "Any damn fool can burn down a barn"--Bill Clinton
Posted by digithead
- Feb 23, 2007, 03:58 AMQuote from: palerider on Feb 22, 2007, 10:55 PMI respect your opinions--but digi is so wrong, It makes me want to abandon the site. To my knowledge, all offenders are on high watch---and a passed poly means status quo---gps,frequent drug/alc tests and reporting. A failed poly means code red. Do you read me Digi? Please in the name of Christ stop stating rubbish about community officials giving passed poly offenders the key to the nursery. Even the best accuracy rates for multi-issue test isn't good enough to trust predators around our dear kids. OK. So the polygraph doesn't work as well as we want---and some Examiners want all to believe in absolute infallacy
In what way am I wrong?
You don't think that there are any false negatives where the polygraph failed to detect serious violations? If so, you're a fool. Joseph Duncan is a prime example who just plead guilty to murdering the Groene family to kidnap and rape their daughter. He was on polygraph containment in the mid-90s for another crime and now he's the prime suspect in several murders in the Seattle area that the poly failed to pick up during that time. Had the poly picked up on these serious offenses like its proponents say that it can, Duncan would not have gone on to murder 6 more people and rape several children...
And don't think for a moment that I want to be soft on sex offenders, I feel that the only "containment" method that works is lifetime civil commitment to keep them away from society. The polygraph is an illusion that it can keep these predators on the straight and narrow and as such is threat to society itself because it gives users a false sense of security...
Posted by Polycrap
- Feb 23, 2007, 12:10 AMJesus what did I start!?!?!?!? 
Well I appreciate the input and arguing about the effectiveness of polygraphy seems like an argument between an atheist and a christian... I just found out that I passed my polygraph! I was completely honest and the results just came in the mail today 2 weeks after the test. BUT I still think the polygraph system is TOO MUCH OF AN INTERROGATION! Fortunately the my polygraph did not end up screwing me, but all too often it seems that it screws other people. With that being said, don't let the polygrapher control you, you control them. Good job guys! Thanks for the book it was a great read. I dread the polygraph so much that I will not go to that second interview for the other job because they will require one as well. I will not take chances with that machine acting funny and letting it effect my status with the first job which I passed on.
That being said, do any of you know what goes down during a psych exam? Is it at all similar to a polygraph? Are they trying to catch you in lies? Any info would be greatly appreciated! Thank you guys so much!
Well I appreciate the input and arguing about the effectiveness of polygraphy seems like an argument between an atheist and a christian... I just found out that I passed my polygraph! I was completely honest and the results just came in the mail today 2 weeks after the test. BUT I still think the polygraph system is TOO MUCH OF AN INTERROGATION! Fortunately the my polygraph did not end up screwing me, but all too often it seems that it screws other people. With that being said, don't let the polygrapher control you, you control them. Good job guys! Thanks for the book it was a great read. I dread the polygraph so much that I will not go to that second interview for the other job because they will require one as well. I will not take chances with that machine acting funny and letting it effect my status with the first job which I passed on.That being said, do any of you know what goes down during a psych exam? Is it at all similar to a polygraph? Are they trying to catch you in lies? Any info would be greatly appreciated! Thank you guys so much!
Posted by palerider
- Feb 22, 2007, 10:55 PMI respect your opinions--but digi is so wrong, It makes me want to abandon the site. To my knowledge, all offenders are on high watch---and a passed poly means status quo---gps,frequent drug/alc tests and reporting. A failed poly means code red. Do you read me Digi? Please in the name of Christ stop stating rubbish about community officials giving passed poly offenders the key to the nursery. Even the best accuracy rates for multi-issue test isn't good enough to trust predators around our dear kids. OK. So the polygraph doesn't work as well as we want---and some Examiners want all to believe in absolute infallacy
As far as applicant screening goes, I'm less a fan of fed hiring criteria than the tests themselves. OK, so if you smoke marijuana more than 15 times than it's no longer experimentation? I think by the 3rd time I smoked weed I was beyond experimentation. The fed hiring rules have many such arbitrary designations. I look forward to the day of better dna-level drug tests so that the miserable and polarizing issue of substance will be removed from the applicant polygraph (or FMRI) room. Haven't you all noticed the disproportionate outcry of alleged drug question false positives? Either the drug issue is the most deceptive -laden category of potential hirees (meaning all of you f.p. victims/activists are lying), or there is somthing else afoot. There will always be outcry of other issues being the point of the alleged FP's, but the drug issue is vastly disproportionate. If the polygraph is such a "flip of the coin" and such "entrails reading", than why is this disproportion so prevalent? Shouldn't such voodoo be a little less discriminate?
As far as applicant screening goes, I'm less a fan of fed hiring criteria than the tests themselves. OK, so if you smoke marijuana more than 15 times than it's no longer experimentation? I think by the 3rd time I smoked weed I was beyond experimentation. The fed hiring rules have many such arbitrary designations. I look forward to the day of better dna-level drug tests so that the miserable and polarizing issue of substance will be removed from the applicant polygraph (or FMRI) room. Haven't you all noticed the disproportionate outcry of alleged drug question false positives? Either the drug issue is the most deceptive -laden category of potential hirees (meaning all of you f.p. victims/activists are lying), or there is somthing else afoot. There will always be outcry of other issues being the point of the alleged FP's, but the drug issue is vastly disproportionate. If the polygraph is such a "flip of the coin" and such "entrails reading", than why is this disproportion so prevalent? Shouldn't such voodoo be a little less discriminate?
Posted by digithead
- Feb 22, 2007, 05:10 AMQuote from: EosJupiter on Feb 22, 2007, 02:46 AMDigithead,
All very good points, and yes your correct in the assessment that all polygraphy should be scrapped. Again its just my opinion that I don't have a problem with the use of a polygraph on sex offenders (I have stated this numerous times, and been taken to task for it too). A vile tool should be used on vile offenders. Let the punishment fit the crime. I just make a distinction on what I perceive to be issues that really don't effect me. I purposely with few exceptions, never post on that group of threads. It does greatly disturb me that countermeasure information is available to these people, as well as other unsavory entities. But in all fairness, knowlege should be open to all. And that is what I truly believe.
And again my beef is with using this vile device on honest hard working people, who just want to work. I believe this comparison is quite clear cut.
Regards ....
But the problem is that authorities rely on this pseudoscience to render decisions as to whether an offender is compliant with his supervision protocol and if he is reoffending or not. Given the high rate of deception among this population, the risk is not false positives but false negatives where offenders are able to fool authorities into thinking that they are not reoffending. So they are actually able to use the polygraph results to cover their reoffending. The polygraph gives a false sense of security to those that rely on it and the public pays the price.
This isn't a matter of pseudoscience being used to punish offenders, it's being used to supposedly protect society and that is its true threat.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 22, 2007, 02:46 AMDigithead,
All very good points, and yes your correct in the assessment that all polygraphy should be scrapped. Again its just my opinion that I don't have a problem with the use of a polygraph on sex offenders (I have stated this numerous times, and been taken to task for it too). A vile tool should be used on vile offenders. Let the punishment fit the crime. I just make a distinction on what I perceive to be issues that really don't effect me. I purposely with few exceptions, never post on that group of threads. It does greatly disturb me that countermeasure information is available to these people, as well as other unsavory entities. But in all fairness, knowlege should be open to all. And that is what I truly believe.
And again my beef is with using this vile device on honest hard working people, who just want to work. I believe this comparison is quite clear cut.
Regards ....
All very good points, and yes your correct in the assessment that all polygraphy should be scrapped. Again its just my opinion that I don't have a problem with the use of a polygraph on sex offenders (I have stated this numerous times, and been taken to task for it too). A vile tool should be used on vile offenders. Let the punishment fit the crime. I just make a distinction on what I perceive to be issues that really don't effect me. I purposely with few exceptions, never post on that group of threads. It does greatly disturb me that countermeasure information is available to these people, as well as other unsavory entities. But in all fairness, knowlege should be open to all. And that is what I truly believe.
And again my beef is with using this vile device on honest hard working people, who just want to work. I believe this comparison is quite clear cut.
Regards ....
Posted by digithead
- Feb 22, 2007, 02:18 AMEos,
The same reason you oppose polygraphs for employment screening is the same reason you should oppose it for sex offender screening...
Instead the problem of false positives you get with employment screening, with sex offenders it's false negatives. Reliance on this pseudoscience for decision-making in any arena is dangerous...
The most useful thing that the polygraph achieves with sex offenders is that it increases admissions but this is due to the bogus pipeline effect that one would get with a non-functioning lie detector. However, once someone is aware of the bogus nature of the device it no longer has this effect...
Given what you know about countermeasures and the fact that sex offenders do visit this site, doesn't it make you nervous that probation departments are using this "tool" in supervision of these offenders?
Any use of CQT polygraph should be abandoned as it poses a threat to society both in employment and post-conviction supervision...
regards,
-digithead
The same reason you oppose polygraphs for employment screening is the same reason you should oppose it for sex offender screening...
Instead the problem of false positives you get with employment screening, with sex offenders it's false negatives. Reliance on this pseudoscience for decision-making in any arena is dangerous...
The most useful thing that the polygraph achieves with sex offenders is that it increases admissions but this is due to the bogus pipeline effect that one would get with a non-functioning lie detector. However, once someone is aware of the bogus nature of the device it no longer has this effect...
Given what you know about countermeasures and the fact that sex offenders do visit this site, doesn't it make you nervous that probation departments are using this "tool" in supervision of these offenders?
Any use of CQT polygraph should be abandoned as it poses a threat to society both in employment and post-conviction supervision...
regards,
-digithead
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 22, 2007, 01:41 AMQuote from: palerider on Feb 21, 2007, 04:34 PMAs far as Dr Richardson's challenge, I'm a little amazed at just how people believe such a challenge holds meaning. It is like me stating on a website (this site is fantastic by the way) that I will challenge any drug screener/urine tester to a public challenge. I will defy any tester to determine whether I'm using drugs or not, and once more whether I'm using an antidote (countermeasure.) Even if I was able to slip a tsp of bleach in the sample, and the tester didn't smell the bleach, does that mean that such drug tests are no good and that we should subsequently illiminate them due to the mere possibility of contamination? I think not. We should keep striving to make better tests. I rant about polygraph shortcomings with my peers constantly. When you critisize DODPI for changing their scoring criteria, aren't you actually critisizing the betterment of the field of polygraphy. Your deep seated hatred for polygraph,demonstrated by your "war" reveals that if the "Messiah" came (back?) and proclaimed love for polygraph, you would convert. That's ok.
I do grow tired from sex offenders attempting your countermeasures. It is too time consuming, and for pete's sake, I am tired of your posters saying that we give "green lights" to Offender's who pass there maintenance tests. If a test is 89-93% accurate, who the hell wants to place the safety of their children within the scope of that risk. If the weatherman predicts 7%-11% chance for rain, ya grab your umbrella just in case. A passed test for a child molester means that we freeze the parole/probation status in code orange--and keep heavy monitoring. Using polygraph for sex offender containment is a win win situation, regardless of your views on accuracy. If I thought that you would take your "post conviction" section off of your site, and take a few other simple steps, I would personally fly to Europe (I go several times a year) to meet with you, and provide you with a number of cases of clinical potency, a fanciful dinner, whatever. Our children need your help sir. I have child killers on my caseload who should'nt be taking advice from TLBTLT, and should instead be compliant.
palerider,
Any and all things that make a sex offenders life tough is OK in my book, to include putting them back behind bars. No 2nd chances for these dirtbags.
That being said, My beef remains with the polygraph being used in the employment arena. You touch upon drug testing, its quite the stretch to link drug testing (chemistry + pharmacology), known sciences, to polygraph testing, (A pseudo-science). I can with all certainty redo any drug test with known evaluation factors and produce the same result, time and again. How does your polygraph stand up to true double blind empirical testing, it doesn't. This is because human opinion and judgement drive the results, not proven scientific rigor. Hence why Dr. Richardsons challenge will never be answered by any polygrapher, you can not prove your statements with any known scientific procedure. And as a side note, you should review the (2) 60 Minutes Exposes on this website. The original is still the best, as this story more than proves what a load polygraph testing really is. This expose really is a double blind empirical test.
And as for me, your interrogation prop may work on the naive and unread, but it can't scare or intimidate those that are truly well prepared and practiced. The end result is always inconclusive, and that is without countermeasures. You can't make an evaluation of PNC if you can't prove it. I win on all accounts.
You mention in another thread the fMRI, their are scientists, I know, already looking at ways to warp or counter this piece of garbage. You ask why would they do this, because like me, its the challenge with messing around with authority or so called authorities. I dislike anything that portrays itself as a validation of someones veracity or background. As do quite a few of my counterparts. Real background investigations, (thorough ones), should be the basis of any hiring decisions. But this is expensive, and the polygraph is cheap. And in this society, cheaper costs always win, over doing what is right. Keep your work in the criminal realm and you will not get any grief from me. But do know that Its not the box you beat, its the polygrapher. And you never know who you have in the chair.
Regards ....
Posted by palerider
- Feb 21, 2007, 04:34 PMAs far as Dr Richardson's challenge, I'm a little amazed at just how people believe such a challenge holds meaning. It is like me stating on a website (this site is fantastic by the way) that I will challenge any drug screener/urine tester to a public challenge. I will defy any tester to determine whether I'm using drugs or not, and once more whether I'm using an antidote (countermeasure.) Even if I was able to slip a tsp of bleach in the sample, and the tester didn't smell the bleach, does that mean that such drug tests are no good and that we should subsequently illiminate them due to the mere possibility of contamination? I think not. We should keep striving to make better tests. I rant about polygraph shortcomings with my peers constantly. When you critisize DODPI for changing their scoring criteria, aren't you actually critisizing the betterment of the field of polygraphy. Your deep seated hatred for polygraph,demonstrated by your "war" reveals that if the "Messiah" came (back?) and proclaimed love for polygraph, you would convert. That's ok.
I do grow tired from sex offenders attempting your countermeasures. It is too time consuming, and for pete's sake, I am tired of your posters saying that we give "green lights" to Offender's who pass there maintenance tests. If a test is 89-93% accurate, who the hell wants to place the safety of their children within the scope of that risk. If the weatherman predicts 7%-11% chance for rain, ya grab your umbrella just in case. A passed test for a child molester means that we freeze the parole/probation status in code orange--and keep heavy monitoring. Using polygraph for sex offender containment is a win win situation, regardless of your views on accuracy. If I thought that you would take your "post conviction" section off of your site, and take a few other simple steps, I would personally fly to Europe (I go several times a year) to meet with you, and provide you with a number of cases of clinical potency, a fanciful dinner, whatever. Our children need your help sir. I have child killers on my caseload who should'nt be taking advice from TLBTLT, and should instead be compliant.
I do grow tired from sex offenders attempting your countermeasures. It is too time consuming, and for pete's sake, I am tired of your posters saying that we give "green lights" to Offender's who pass there maintenance tests. If a test is 89-93% accurate, who the hell wants to place the safety of their children within the scope of that risk. If the weatherman predicts 7%-11% chance for rain, ya grab your umbrella just in case. A passed test for a child molester means that we freeze the parole/probation status in code orange--and keep heavy monitoring. Using polygraph for sex offender containment is a win win situation, regardless of your views on accuracy. If I thought that you would take your "post conviction" section off of your site, and take a few other simple steps, I would personally fly to Europe (I go several times a year) to meet with you, and provide you with a number of cases of clinical potency, a fanciful dinner, whatever. Our children need your help sir. I have child killers on my caseload who should'nt be taking advice from TLBTLT, and should instead be compliant.
Posted by palerider
- Feb 21, 2007, 04:04 PMProgrammed examinees. hmmm. If you were ever to experiment with polygraph instruments on programmed examinees, you would find very little arousels on either the control or relevant questions. Any person can augment control questions (although conspicuously via the seat cushion component as well as the "form" of arousels) when there is no threat of being caught lying on the relevent question. Telling a student to pretend to steal a 5 dollar bill (knowing of course that they aren't going to keep the money) and then lying about the issue --compared wih lying about actual criminal activity is nothing more than comparing playing guitar with The Who, and playing air guitar in your mother's basement. I have very little regard for anything other than field studies with regards to polygraph. It's too bad that your intelligence, your tenaciousness, and your resourcefullness regarding this site isn't fighting a cause such as global warming or AIDS in Africa. The world could use a man with such boundless energy for his chosen pet project/activism.
I do however find the people on this site who proclaim false positives and subsequent career loss/altercation to be compelling. Although it is in my experience that such martydom has more facets than the classic purity of innocence. Being screwed over by authority and subsequently lied to is as old as prostitution.
There is a part of me that believes that when the FMRI (Forensic Magnetic Resonance Imaging) replaces the polygraph, there will be a cadre of folks that both believe the 99.4% (I've heard this, not studied it) accuracy rate is unacceptable as a hiring augmenter-------and further more will label the act of moving around, and taking doses of iron pills will "beat the tube." Any person can goof around during any test and skew the results. This is not the same as defeating the test. It's called purposeful non-compliance.
If another senior user bad mouths my grammer on a chat board (which is like critizing a beach goer for wearing casual attire ) than I will not post again. On web boards, the preffered communication is webslang, and webonics. Thanks y'all.
I do however find the people on this site who proclaim false positives and subsequent career loss/altercation to be compelling. Although it is in my experience that such martydom has more facets than the classic purity of innocence. Being screwed over by authority and subsequently lied to is as old as prostitution.
There is a part of me that believes that when the FMRI (Forensic Magnetic Resonance Imaging) replaces the polygraph, there will be a cadre of folks that both believe the 99.4% (I've heard this, not studied it) accuracy rate is unacceptable as a hiring augmenter-------and further more will label the act of moving around, and taking doses of iron pills will "beat the tube." Any person can goof around during any test and skew the results. This is not the same as defeating the test. It's called purposeful non-compliance.
If another senior user bad mouths my grammer on a chat board (which is like critizing a beach goer for wearing casual attire ) than I will not post again. On web boards, the preffered communication is webslang, and webonics. Thanks y'all.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 21, 2007, 01:23 PMQuote from: palerider on Feb 21, 2007, 01:01 PM...Asking if it is "smart" to use cm's is a very good question. In my opinion, the answer is "no." I am an Examiner with years of experience and I have administered countermeasures on my own instrument as well as cohort's instruments. The response magnitude that you will be attempting to obtain on control questions will not overpower the relevant questions, if you are withholding guilty knowledge.
Could you cite any peer-reviewed research that supports your position? In peer-reviewed laboratory studies by Charles Honts and collaborators (cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector), some 50% of programmed-deceptive examinees were able to pass the polygraph using countermeasures after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction.
Note that Polycrap has not indicated that (s)he intends to answer any of the relevant questions deceptively.
QuoteMental math will suppress relevant question magnitudes latently, but not to the degree that you will likely need.
What are you talking about?! Mathematical calculation as a mental countermeasure is not to be applied during the asking of relevant questions. The idea of countermeasures is not to suppress reactions to relevant questions, but rather to augment reactions to "control" questions.
QuoteGiven those points and to make your situation worse, your countermeasures will appear highly artificial---like a poorly executed fake laugh at a party.
Again, in experiments by Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. No polygrapher has ever demonstrated the ability to reliably detect countermeasures. And after more than five years, Dr. Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has still not had a single taker.
QuoteAlthough the posters on this site and the prescribed countermeasures make a degree of theoretical sense, the reality is that to use countermeasures is a risk that posters on this site won't be undergoing with you in that dreadful room.
Indeed. The decision whether to use countermeasures is one that each person must make for him- or herself. But considering the unreliability of polygraphy and the availability of effective countermeasures, I wouldn't leave the results to chance were I in Polycrap's shoes.
QuoteAny one here that brags about their success here is probably no different than the morbidly obese man on a dating site proclaiming his physical prowess and muscle definition to unsuspecting single women.
How would you know?