- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by underlyingtruth
- May 31, 2007, 03:15 PMQuote from: palerider on May 31, 2007, 10:28 AMWhat?? You can attempt to cheat on ANY test. Validity and cheating are mutually exclusive. I was referring to the thread on the police/sheriff's board regarding the question of MMPI and cheating----apparently written by a person who is scared to reveal to authorities that he fears spiders and hates his mother.
Excuse me, but when I read your comments, I got the impression that you were concerned about a polygrapher posting "proprietary" information on this message board because it may enable a dishonest person to be able to manipulate (cheat) on a polygraph/personality test. Are you not concerned that "sex-offenders" may be reading this site and learning ways to influence polygraph examinations?
Posted by 1904
- May 31, 2007, 12:05 PMQuote from: palerider on May 30, 2007, 06:18 PMCQ's. hmmm. If you want to discuss and rant about polygraph shortcomings---I'm there man
p.s.s.s You are wrong about Germany's use of polygraph. Just because Germany, and the UK don't value the APA as the end all doesn't mean that they don't have polygraph programs in use in their respective intel ministries. I like their more low key approach to the practice. If you had ever worked with those agencies---or even NATO--you would know better than to state otherwise. 1904, you lost points with me on that one "tubby."
You didnt remember what I said when you started ranting.
I did not say Germany doesn't use polygraph - I said that their courts rejected polygraph evidence.
Rejected it as B.S. Sorry for you, but you lost all the points.
Your reply is more like the back page of a tabloid than a structured reply - all mixed up.
Are you just a little bit ADHD ?? Or merely practising chemical CM's.... :-?
Posted by palerider
- May 31, 2007, 10:28 AMWhat?? You can attempt to cheat on ANY test. Validity and cheating are mutually exclusive. I was referring to the thread on the police/sheriff's board regarding the question of MMPI and cheating----apparently written by a person who is scared to reveal to authorities that he fears spiders and hates his mother.
? You can attempt to cheat on ANY test. Validity and cheating are mutually exclusive. I was referring to the thread on the police/sheriff's board regarding the question of MMPI and cheating----apparently written by a person who is scared to reveal to authorities that he fears spiders and hates his mother.Posted by underlyingtruth
- May 30, 2007, 11:08 PMIt is impossible to cheat on a test designed to detected deception if that test is in fact a valid test. Thanks for, once again, verifying your own lack of confidence in the polygraph.
Posted by palerider
- May 30, 2007, 06:18 PMCQ's. hmmm. If you want to discuss and rant about polygraph shortcomings---I'm there man---- just not here----as this isn't a professional setting. I doubt that practitioners of other polarizing and nebulous fields of study i.e. forensic psychologists, SA analysts, cvsa folks etc. (see impressionistic studies) would care to debate mechanics on anti-anything websites. I do plenty of ranting against my profession and enjoy lampooning polygraph examiners who listen to tape recordings of their own voice in their cars. Show me any group of analysts of any trade, and I'll show you a group of dweebs with bad hair wearing "big-boy pants."I will also add that I'm no kiddo. For a guy who claims to have ran "thousands of tests" and then in another thread state that you have "dabbled"in polygraph----is well, I guess a little unusual. The reason why I haven't answered is that I was running tests out of town. I too have ran thousands of tests (whoopie). I am a "moderate to liberal" regarding poly usage for official purposes---that is---I don't worship anything, much less the falible but very usefull polygraph. You've been (apparently) too obsessed with the narcissistic poly "giants" who don't speak for us all. Show me a Geraldo and I'll show you 10 unknown iron toothed real journalists in the field. My favorite newspaper makes mistakes all the time---but I'll take a newspaper over no newspaper. Polygraph is a keeper too. Also, please take a dueche with the "kiddo" HS. 
p.s. I don't parrot cq's from school----nor do I talk shop in front of sex offenders and people who want to cheat on personality tests (can you believe that recent thread???) 1904, why don't you rant on our professional forums rather than this Rocky Horror Picture Show of a graffiti board?
p.s.s Regarding the DOD. I asked many professional intel folks if they knew the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims back in 2002 (the "lead-up") and let's just say that -----I'm not impressed. I've met beat cops in Detroit that knew more about Arabic culture. yah sara (what a pity)
p.s.s.s You are wrong about Germany's use of polygraph. Just because Germany, and the UK don't value the APA as the end all doesn't mean that they don't have polygraph programs in use in their respective intel ministries. I like their more low key approach to the practice. If you had ever worked with those agencies---or even NATO--you would know better than to state otherwise. 1904, you lost points with me on that one "tubby."
p.s. I don't parrot cq's from school----nor do I talk shop in front of sex offenders and people who want to cheat on personality tests (can you believe that recent thread???) 1904, why don't you rant on our professional forums rather than this Rocky Horror Picture Show of a graffiti board?
p.s.s Regarding the DOD. I asked many professional intel folks if they knew the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims back in 2002 (the "lead-up") and let's just say that -----I'm not impressed. I've met beat cops in Detroit that knew more about Arabic culture. yah sara (what a pity)
p.s.s.s You are wrong about Germany's use of polygraph. Just because Germany, and the UK don't value the APA as the end all doesn't mean that they don't have polygraph programs in use in their respective intel ministries. I like their more low key approach to the practice. If you had ever worked with those agencies---or even NATO--you would know better than to state otherwise. 1904, you lost points with me on that one "tubby."
Posted by 1904
- May 25, 2007, 10:01 AMPALERIDER......HELLOOOO SURFS UP KIDDO......
You didn't answer my question iro CQ's..?
Plse do.
Come on. dont be shy...
You didn't answer my question iro CQ's..?
Plse do.
Come on. dont be shy...
Posted by 1904
- May 25, 2007, 09:48 AMQuote from: palerider on May 23, 2007, 09:58 AMQuote from: 1904 on May 23, 2007, 07:55 AMREPLY TO PALERIDER:
Hi there. You attempt to sound academic but actually fail miserably bro.
Firstly, savy is spelled: savvy.
Then: Why would the 1961 question be at all 'sanctimonious' ?
(def: self righteous / pious / holier-than-thou )
What / whose CQ's do you generally utilise ? Reid / Backster ??
When testing a subject for a theft issue, do you use theft as the
subject of your CQ's. Do you use D/Lie CQ's - plse elucidate.
I'm immensely interested to receive your reply.
1st, this is a written message board, so "sounding" like anything is impossible----as there are no sounds. Also, is "bro" a word? What does "plse" mean? Taking your tactic of playing the grammer snob on what amounts to being a graffiti board is cool man. I understood your post without grammer/spelling perfections and you understood mine. I've never stated that polygraph is perfect. I do spot goofy countermeasures on a regular basis---and the tests are usually deemed as inconclusive. Like in Statement Analysis, even a fool can write uncharacteristicly (sp!) of themselves with any number of countermeasures---and then take a poop on the piece of paper for good measure---which results in that discipline's own form of inconclusive. Wow, real sophisticated stuff. That doesn't negate the fact that if you have a good reputation as an SA expert, that I wouldn't recommend you for hire. I would recommend you if you are as talented as you indicate. More importantly, I do not have a hard-on for S.A. despite the fact that such vulnerabilities and "nebulousness" exist. Why do you have such negative feelings for my chosen vulnerable and nebulous field. Is it personal?
Ha Ha - dont you make it personal now....tsk tsk.
I have many yrs experience in several DOD techniques/technologies.
Personal experience - not anecdotal BS that i heard in the mess or the local
watering hole. Statement Analysis in it's various disciplines is THE only accurate
and scientific DOD technique/technology.
Ever heard of criminal psychologist - Prof Udo Undeutsch of Koln Uni in Germany? He is also an APA
member. He has a story to tell about p/g. Essentially it was rejected by the German legal system
as an invalid and unscientific DOD methodology.
However, SA has been mandated into the German legal system since the early 50's.
Chew that bone big dog.
Posted by Lethe
- May 25, 2007, 12:35 AMPalerider, you didn't respond to my argument at all.
In a probable lie control question exam the control questions all ask about things that it is assumed that virtually everyone has done. When you're conducting an exam you're still basically saying "Do you remember ever having done this bad thing that everyone has done? If so, you can't work here. And neither can anyone else who's ever done that. And, since everyone has done that bad thing, no one is qualified to work here, if I'm telling the truth."
Anyway, if your current techniques are so much more sophisticated, why don't you share them with us so that we can have the confidence in the polygraph that you do and will support it's use against sex offenders? After all, you will claim that knowledge of the polygraph doesn't decrease accuracy, right? So you have no reason not to tell us and good reason to do so.
But I'll cut the crap. I think that you know for a fact and I believe with a high degree of certainty that knowledge of the polygraph decreases its accuracy. If that is a false statement, then post a message saying that, as a properly trained and qualified practicing polygrapher, you agree with the following statements, or as many of them as you can assent to:
In a probable lie control question exam the control questions all ask about things that it is assumed that virtually everyone has done. When you're conducting an exam you're still basically saying "Do you remember ever having done this bad thing that everyone has done? If so, you can't work here. And neither can anyone else who's ever done that. And, since everyone has done that bad thing, no one is qualified to work here, if I'm telling the truth."
Anyway, if your current techniques are so much more sophisticated, why don't you share them with us so that we can have the confidence in the polygraph that you do and will support it's use against sex offenders? After all, you will claim that knowledge of the polygraph doesn't decrease accuracy, right? So you have no reason not to tell us and good reason to do so.
But I'll cut the crap. I think that you know for a fact and I believe with a high degree of certainty that knowledge of the polygraph decreases its accuracy. If that is a false statement, then post a message saying that, as a properly trained and qualified practicing polygrapher, you agree with the following statements, or as many of them as you can assent to:
- Knowledge of the polygraph does not effect accuracy at all;
- Deceiving the subject of a polygraph exam in any way is never necessary to produce acceptably accurate results;
- The lies and deception used by some polygraphers are superfluous and have no effective purpose; OR
- The lies and deception used by some polygraphers does have a purpose and it is _______
Posted by palerider
- May 23, 2007, 09:58 AMQuote from: 1904 on May 23, 2007, 07:55 AMREPLY TO PALERIDER:
Hi there. You attempt to sound academic but actually fail miserably bro.
Firstly, savy is spelled: savvy.
Then: Why would the 1961 question be at all 'sanctimonious' ?
(def: self righteous / pious / holier-than-thou )
What / whose CQ's do you generally utilise ? Reid / Backster ??
When testing a subject for a theft issue, do you use theft as the
subject of your CQ's. Do you use D/Lie CQ's - plse elucidate.
I'm immensely interested to receive your reply.
1st, this is a written message board, so "sounding" like anything is impossible----as there are no sounds. Also, is "bro" a word? What does "plse" mean? Taking your tactic of playing the grammer snob on what amounts to being a graffiti board is cool man. I understood your post without grammer/spelling perfections and you understood mine. I've never stated that polygraph is perfect. I do spot goofy countermeasures on a regular basis---and the tests are usually deemed as inconclusive. Like in Statement Analysis, even a fool can write uncharacteristicly (sp!) of themselves with any number of countermeasures---and then take a poop on the piece of paper for good measure---which results in that discipline's own form of inconclusive. Wow, real sophisticated stuff. That doesn't negate the fact that if you have a good reputation as an SA expert, that I wouldn't recommend you for hire. I would recommend you if you are as talented as you indicate. More importantly, I do not have a hard-on for S.A. despite the fact that such vulnerabilities and "nebulousness" exist. Why do you have such negative feelings for my chosen vulnerable and nebulous field. Is it personal?
Posted by 1904
- May 23, 2007, 07:55 AMREPLY TO PALERIDER:
Hi there. You attempt to sound academic but actually fail miserably bro.
Firstly, savy is spelled: savvy.
Then: Why would the 1961 question be at all 'sanctimonious' ?
(def: self righteous / pious / holier-than-thou )??
What / whose CQ's do you generally utilise ? Reid / Backster ??
When testing a subject for a theft issue, do you use theft as the
subject of your CQ's. Do you use D/Lie CQ's - plse elucidate.
I'm immensely interested to receive your reply.
Hi there. You attempt to sound academic but actually fail miserably bro.
Firstly, savy is spelled: savvy.
Then: Why would the 1961 question be at all 'sanctimonious' ?
(def: self righteous / pious / holier-than-thou )
??What / whose CQ's do you generally utilise ? Reid / Backster ??
When testing a subject for a theft issue, do you use theft as the
subject of your CQ's. Do you use D/Lie CQ's - plse elucidate.
I'm immensely interested to receive your reply.
Posted by palerider
- May 22, 2007, 09:22 PM"Have you ever lied to someone you loved" was a really neato control question in 1961. Control questions by savy examiners are far less sanctimonious. -----regards
Posted by Lethe
- May 22, 2007, 07:41 AMUpon further reflection, I'd like to point out that I don't think LieBabyCryBaby's response solves the problem of non-ignorant examinees. He said, in relevant part:
I think the following we can all take as facts:
1. All people have lied to a loved one (in fact, the question assumes that is the case) and
2. Police departments employ people.
These two premises lead to this conclusion:
3. Therefore, police departments employ people who have lied to loved ones.
And we thus arrive at this conclusion:
4. Therefore lying to a loved one is not an automatic disqualification to work for the police.
The rationale that you are proffering to your examinee, LieBabyCryBaby, does not withstand even moderate scrutiny. At this point, the intelligent subject who is actually taking her exam seriously and thinking about your instructions would probably be quite confused and wondering why you are feeding her this sophistry.
Here is a suggestion: you would have a better time getting people to buy that stuff if you banned Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from schools. The very first paragraph of that greatest of American novels has Huck saying "I never seen anybody but lied, one time or another..." But, alas, even that wouldn't work; everyone knows that everyone has told a lie. Only an imbecile or someone who isn't thinking critically could ever believe that the hundreds of thousands of police officers and government employees in this country never told lies. And do we really want imbeciles and people who don't think critically going around with guns protecting us and examining ambiguous intelligence data?
QuoteBefore even asking you this question [the control, if you've ever lied to a loved one], the polygrapher will make you feel like anyone who WOULD lie to loved ones can not be trusted to be truthful with those he/she does not love, such as a boss, an acquaintance, an attorney, or a co-worker. A person whose loved ones can't trust him/her obviously can't be trusted by anyone else, right? And if you can't even be trusted by your loved ones, then you obviously can't be a truthful person, and therefore we don't want you working for our police department.
I think the following we can all take as facts:
1. All people have lied to a loved one (in fact, the question assumes that is the case) and
2. Police departments employ people.
These two premises lead to this conclusion:
3. Therefore, police departments employ people who have lied to loved ones.
And we thus arrive at this conclusion:
4. Therefore lying to a loved one is not an automatic disqualification to work for the police.
The rationale that you are proffering to your examinee, LieBabyCryBaby, does not withstand even moderate scrutiny. At this point, the intelligent subject who is actually taking her exam seriously and thinking about your instructions would probably be quite confused and wondering why you are feeding her this sophistry.
Here is a suggestion: you would have a better time getting people to buy that stuff if you banned Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from schools. The very first paragraph of that greatest of American novels has Huck saying "I never seen anybody but lied, one time or another..." But, alas, even that wouldn't work; everyone knows that everyone has told a lie. Only an imbecile or someone who isn't thinking critically could ever believe that the hundreds of thousands of police officers and government employees in this country never told lies. And do we really want imbeciles and people who don't think critically going around with guns protecting us and examining ambiguous intelligence data?
Posted by Lethe
- May 20, 2007, 07:06 PMLieBabyCryBaby, it seems that you are pretty close to saying that having knowledge of how the polygraph really works decreases its accuracy. Perhaps you would be willing to answer the following question to clarify the matter:
Does the accuracy of a polygraph exam decrease if the subject has knowledge of how the exam really works?
Logically, having knowledge either decreases accuracy or doesn't decrease accuracy, thus the answer to the above must be either yes or no, "neither" and "both" are logically impossible answers (you can't have "X and Not X" at the same time).
You might want to see my other post, written as a parody, on this topic.
Does the accuracy of a polygraph exam decrease if the subject has knowledge of how the exam really works?
Logically, having knowledge either decreases accuracy or doesn't decrease accuracy, thus the answer to the above must be either yes or no, "neither" and "both" are logically impossible answers (you can't have "X and Not X" at the same time).
You might want to see my other post, written as a parody, on this topic.
Posted by 1904
- May 18, 2007, 09:41 AMGuys, Guys, Guys.
Please stop.
My brain hurts.
This is all bulls**t baffles brains stuff.
All this psych0-techno-babble is never going
to turn polygraphy into a cience.
Lissen Up Good: Too Many VARIABLES.......
Take up a satisfying hobby instead.
Count leaves.
Lick stamps
Watch paint dry.... anything.
Come on, you know you want to.
Please stop.
My brain hurts.
This is all bulls**t baffles brains stuff.
All this psych0-techno-babble is never going
to turn polygraphy into a cience.
Lissen Up Good: Too Many VARIABLES.......
Take up a satisfying hobby instead.
Count leaves.
Lick stamps
Watch paint dry.... anything.
Come on, you know you want to.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jan 28, 2007, 06:18 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 27, 2007, 08:20 PM
Fender, there is such a thing as "optimal nervousness" in a polygraph exam. Much of what a polygraph examiner does and says during the interview before the exam is intended to make sure that you aren't too nervous, but that you are also not too relaxed. Take away all nervousness, and you take away the stimulus necessary to pass the exam. If an examinee is just too relaxed and carefree, he/she is apt to come up inconclusive on the exam. Some people here on this forum might tell you that coming up inconclusive is a good thing. However, there are a couple reasons why this is not true: First, if you are the person in charge of choosing between two job applicants who took polygraphs, and one passed it and the other one came up inconclusive--all other things being equal--and you have to choose between them, isn't it human nature to choose the one who is beyond doubt rather than the one who is in the gray? Second, if you come up inconclusive because you were too relaxed and carefree during the exam due to knowledge of the exam process, chances are you would have passed the exam without trouble, assuming you had nothing serious to hide in the first place.
I am glad that you have good intentions and don't plan to lie during the exam. Hopefully you don't have anything serious to lie about. But I would be a bit concerned if I were your polygrapher and you came into the exam feeling too relaxed and carefree, because I know there is an optimal level of nervous arousal in a polygraph exam.
Fender,
I am the one that LBCB speaks of, on the inconclusive from too much polygraph knowlege. And in a polygraphers own words, verifies this concept. Be relaxed and use the knowlege gleaned here. But contrary to LBCB beliefs, by nullifying the polygraph and polygrapher, it forces the decision back to where it belongs. Based on your background investigation. Which is the way it is supposed to be. Much success to you.
Regards ...
-----------------------------
LBCB,
Thanks for verifying my concept and the end result of too much polygraph knowlege being inconclusive. But on the contrary, this is actually a good thing as it eliminates the polygraph from the equation. And puts it back into a decision making venue outside of a polygraphers opinion. But the danger is at what point do you become frustrated knowing full well that the more polygraphs given, the more comfortable the subject becomes. I do believe the answer is 5, after that any responsiveness is gone. As is any fear. Which for any polygrapher is the worst case scenario. And whether or not its a grey area, the rules do say that you must fail to be eliminated. Inconclusive is not a fail. Should a subject be removed from a hiring procedure because of inconclusive, I do believe the subject would have definate grounds for bias in hiring. Unlike other attempts of law suits, I do believe this one would stick. The bottom line is it will again fall back to the background investigation and true supporting data for the decision. Not the polygraph which is expedient and a cheap way to get rid of candidates. Do keep up the quality posts, as your stock on this board has greatly increased.
Regards ...
----