- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 19, 2007, 06:23 PMLethe:
It may be nonombre is busy playing Stan_Smith.
Lloyd
It may be nonombre is busy playing Stan_Smith.
Lloyd
Posted by Lethe
- Aug 18, 2007, 06:46 PMWell, to the surprise of nobody nonombre is not going to back up his claims with facts. He claims, or insinuates (making an actual claim involves the risk of being proved wrong and continues the discussion, thus polygraphers try to avoid doing so), that the new and improved control questions are very difficult to recognize. Well, he could prove that if he shares just one or two of them. But he doesn't. Why? Several reasons.
All of this goes to demonstrate my point, which, for some reason, no polygrapher will even deny, let alone argue against: the PLCQ test has significant, built-in biases against truthful examinees who know how it works. C'mon, guys. If this isn't true, why can't you at least say it isn't true? You won't even do that, but you'll never present any real argument against it. Nor will you consider the consequences of the proposition. What gives? Aren't you all "dedicated to truth?" Or is it just the convenient ones that you like?
Anyway, I posed numerous other questions to nonombre that have nothing to do with his allegedly improved control questions (which, as demonstrated above, are prone to the same fundamental problem as the old ones: knowing what they are invalidates the test). Why doesn't he answer those questions?
C'mon, nonombre. Answer the questions, my friend. If not, it's been nice knowing you and enjoy what's left of your life before it is totally discredited when the curtain is pulled back from polygraphy revealing it to be the humbug that it really is. So, are you finished on this forum or not?
- (1) Once the control question gets out, it isn't very useful as a control question and would need to be retired;
(2) With a few examples of these questions, the logic behind them could be determined and it would become easy to recognize any other control question constructed on the same principles;
(3) The new questions simply aren't all that good and are mentioned simply to reinstill fear into examinees.
All of this goes to demonstrate my point, which, for some reason, no polygrapher will even deny, let alone argue against: the PLCQ test has significant, built-in biases against truthful examinees who know how it works. C'mon, guys. If this isn't true, why can't you at least say it isn't true? You won't even do that, but you'll never present any real argument against it. Nor will you consider the consequences of the proposition. What gives? Aren't you all "dedicated to truth?" Or is it just the convenient ones that you like?
Anyway, I posed numerous other questions to nonombre that have nothing to do with his allegedly improved control questions (which, as demonstrated above, are prone to the same fundamental problem as the old ones: knowing what they are invalidates the test). Why doesn't he answer those questions?
Quote from: Lethe on Aug 06, 2007, 12:55 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 04, 2007, 06:16 PM
I do take some exception to your statement regarding the following desirable traits in police applicants:
Oh? Really? As I asked before, "Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer? Or a CIA analyst? Or in any human being, for that matter?" Please enlighten us, if you "take some exception" to my list. To which part do you take exception and why?
Also, let me pose some more simple questions for you to ignore.Do you always use the relevant/irrelevant test on applicants and why?
Do you ever use a probable lie control question test on applicants and why?
Do you always use the relevant/irrelevant test on suspects and why?
Do you ever use a probable lie control question test on suspects and why?
C'mon, nonombre. Answer the questions, my friend. If not, it's been nice knowing you and enjoy what's left of your life before it is totally discredited when the curtain is pulled back from polygraphy revealing it to be the humbug that it really is. So, are you finished on this forum or not?
Posted by 1904
- Aug 15, 2007, 08:24 AMQuote from: Lethe on Aug 08, 2007, 08:45 AMOkay, it'd be great if nonombre could give us 10 of those awesome new control questions. But I'd be satisfied with 5. If he can give us 5 of those control questions, I'd be satisfied.
I hope you get a chance to reply in the next few days, nonombre!
Don't hold your breath dude.
He's just figured out that you dont sharpen the end with the eraser.
Posted by Lethe
- Aug 08, 2007, 08:45 AMOkay, it'd be great if nonombre could give us 10 of those awesome new control questions. But I'd be satisfied with 5. If he can give us 5 of those control questions, I'd be satisfied.
I hope you get a chance to reply in the next few days, nonombre!
I hope you get a chance to reply in the next few days, nonombre!
Posted by Twoblock
- Aug 06, 2007, 05:44 AMNonombre
"Criminal Cases" ?? Since the polygraph is not acceptable in courts, why are spending taxpayer money doing them? Trying to get a confession? If the subject doesn't confess, what use is the polygraph except to turn up the heat on a possible innocent person.
BTW - when are you going to respond to the post of Lloyd Ploense of 8-2-07 on another thread?
"Criminal Cases" ?? Since the polygraph is not acceptable in courts, why are spending taxpayer money doing them? Trying to get a confession? If the subject doesn't confess, what use is the polygraph except to turn up the heat on a possible innocent person.
BTW - when are you going to respond to the post of Lloyd Ploense of 8-2-07 on another thread?
Posted by Lethe
- Aug 06, 2007, 12:55 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 04, 2007, 06:16 PM
A very eloquent post. I enjoyed reading it. Now, I am afraid my answer will not be quite as detailed as yours, but I will try to put forth an answer to your questions...
Give an empty compliment to your opponent and then downplay expectations for your own reply. Yeah. They teach that in 8th grade debate club; such tricks are used to obfuscate the issue, not to clarify it. Anyway...
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 04, 2007, 06:16 PM
I do take some exception to your statement regarding the following desirable traits in police applicants:
Oh? Really? As I asked before, "Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer? Or a CIA analyst? Or in any human being, for that matter?" Please enlighten us, if you "take some exception" to my list. To which part do you take exception and why?
Also, let me pose some more simple questions for you to ignore.
- Do you always use the relevant/irrelevant test on applicants and why?
Do you ever use a probable lie control question test on applicants and why?
Do you always use the relevant/irrelevant test on suspects and why?
Do you ever use a probable lie control question test on suspects and why?
The fact of the matter, nonombre, is that polygraph exam procedures are designed to produce the most accurate charts possible. And this requires that certain information be withheld from examinees. If the examinee nonetheless has this information, the accuracy of the test suffers.
I can prove it: you can't provide us with a list of the control questions that you use. If someone knows the control questions and knows that the examiner is trying to deceive and maneuver her into lying on them, the accuracy of the exam suffers. Do you deny this? If not, give us a list of 10 control questions that you're currently using. Your inability to do so will serve as proof that knowing what the control questions are damages the accuracy of the exam.
If you try to bullshit your way out of this, it won't work (but you don't seem to mind being covered in shit, so...). Your best bet, nonombre, is to admit my point: you can't give out the control questions because yes, it would lower accuracy for a subject to know them. But the new and improved control questions are so awesome that no one could possibly figure them out! And we'll just have to take your word for it, even though you're a proven liar who can't justify his own existence. You might be able to pull off a draw with that one.
Just, please, get it through your fat, George Clooney looking head: I don't care about countermeasures. My main argument against the polygraph has nothing to do with them. Stop hiding and address the actual points that I've made, not the points that you wish I'd made.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 05, 2007, 01:17 PMNonombre,
As usual we agree to disagree, but you truly should read, "Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner" by John Sullivan.
The entire book is nothing but how they/he filtered and rightly so in some cases the masses that wanted to work for CIA. And its not much of a stretch to put the same issues discussed into the LAPD hiring process. In order to filter the masses something has to be used. Not everyone can work for LAPD, not everyone is going to make the cut. So an effective polygrapher told what to look for is extremely surgical in the venue. I state again that being judge, jury and executioner is quite the heady position. This is the vice that having the power of a guess can induce. And Roy Ortiz .... well use your polygraph / LEO contacts, as I did, and find out the whole story, which will eventually come out. When you piss people off, paybacks are sure and swift, this is exactly what Ortiz got, and is getting. Spin is only what you make of the information available. Search google using this token "LAPD Hiring Rates", you will need about 8 hours to digest the plethora of articles on the abuses of the hiring by LAPD. Have fun reading.
Regards ....
As usual we agree to disagree, but you truly should read, "Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner" by John Sullivan.
The entire book is nothing but how they/he filtered and rightly so in some cases the masses that wanted to work for CIA. And its not much of a stretch to put the same issues discussed into the LAPD hiring process. In order to filter the masses something has to be used. Not everyone can work for LAPD, not everyone is going to make the cut. So an effective polygrapher told what to look for is extremely surgical in the venue. I state again that being judge, jury and executioner is quite the heady position. This is the vice that having the power of a guess can induce. And Roy Ortiz .... well use your polygraph / LEO contacts, as I did, and find out the whole story, which will eventually come out. When you piss people off, paybacks are sure and swift, this is exactly what Ortiz got, and is getting. Spin is only what you make of the information available. Search google using this token "LAPD Hiring Rates", you will need about 8 hours to digest the plethora of articles on the abuses of the hiring by LAPD. Have fun reading.
Regards ....
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 05, 2007, 08:44 AMHere I am, Once again surrounded on all sides. Good, that means I can shoot in any direction I want... 
George, you said:
Sorry, George, what you all the "prime deception," I call an efficient way to detect deception and resolve issues. Next?
I don't know what the feds may or may not put in their handbook. I know what is being changed in several places in the polygraph community.
I gave one example awhile back of a relevant question you said was a control. Don't you remember? It was the "Have you ever driven drunk" question. I realize that you may have heard it as a control in your polygraph, but that does not mean it is use the same way in others. I told you back then, that is a relevant question in the police pre-employment exam in my department. There have been others George. You and the others on this site are wrong more than you know...
Don't split hairs George, you know exactly what I meant. Now here's the big question. "What do you say to the poor schmuck who actually listened to you, employed the idiocy you propose, gets caught, and losses everything. And please don't give me the old line "there is no proof polygraphers can detect countermeasures, blah, blah, blah. Fact is they are very much getting caught AND YOU FULLY KNOW IT. What are those people George, "acceptable losses?" as you like to accuse the polygraph community of generating. Are they "cannon fodder." Maybe you figure if you can publically burn enough of those innocent people, it will somehow further your cause.
Eos, George-e was Accused of using countermeasures, because he was CAUGHT using countermeasures. Stop playing with words Eos, it does not become you. You are a better debater than that.
Eos, now you are applying deduction where facts are sorely lacking. First of all the first three lines have NOTHING to do with polygraph and as far as the Ortiz situation, please show me the LA times headline that says, "The head of the LAPD polygraph program was "recently demoted for changing polygraph results on candidates he deemed not fitting the LAPD model."
I think you meant to say "without having the SPIN to back it up."..
Regards,
Nonombre
George, you said:
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2007, 05:59 AMnonombre,
I can agree with you that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique involves less examiner deception than does the Control Question Test (CQT). But even the R/I technique involves examiner deception. The prime deception involved is the false notion, communicated to the examinee in various ways, that the R/I "test" can detect deception at all.."
Sorry, George, what you all the "prime deception," I call an efficient way to detect deception and resolve issues. Next?
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2007, 05:59 AMHas the polygraph community as a whole modified its probable-lie control questions, or is it just you? I note that the October 2006 edition of the federal polygraph handbook documents no such development.."
I don't know what the feds may or may not put in their handbook. I know what is being changed in several places in the polygraph community.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2007, 05:59 AMCould you please cite examples?."
I gave one example awhile back of a relevant question you said was a control. Don't you remember? It was the "Have you ever driven drunk" question. I realize that you may have heard it as a control in your polygraph, but that does not mean it is use the same way in others. I told you back then, that is a relevant question in the police pre-employment exam in my department. There have been others George. You and the others on this site are wrong more than you know...
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2007, 05:59 AMNote that since the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org no longer recommends the anal sphincter contraction (and never suggested contraction of the buttocks) as a polygraph countermeasure. Nor did we ever suggest that any examinee apply such a countermeasure "for all he was worth."
Don't split hairs George, you know exactly what I meant. Now here's the big question. "What do you say to the poor schmuck who actually listened to you, employed the idiocy you propose, gets caught, and losses everything. And please don't give me the old line "there is no proof polygraphers can detect countermeasures, blah, blah, blah. Fact is they are very much getting caught AND YOU FULLY KNOW IT. What are those people George, "acceptable losses?" as you like to accuse the polygraph community of generating. Are they "cannon fodder." Maybe you figure if you can publically burn enough of those innocent people, it will somehow further your cause.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Aug 05, 2007, 01:31 AM
He was accused of using countermeasures, not proved and not shaken.."
Eos, George-e was Accused of using countermeasures, because he was CAUGHT using countermeasures. Stop playing with words Eos, it does not become you. You are a better debater than that.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Aug 05, 2007, 01:31 AM
Does the Rampart scandal come to mind, racial profiling by LAPD, planting evidence to convict gang bangers, ( this really doesn't bother me), but it still wrong, ...And let me remind you of one of your notible polygraph experts, Roy Ortiz, recently demoted for changing polygraph results on candidates he deemed not fitting the LAPD model.
Eos, now you are applying deduction where facts are sorely lacking. First of all the first three lines have NOTHING to do with polygraph and as far as the Ortiz situation, please show me the LA times headline that says, "The head of the LAPD polygraph program was "recently demoted for changing polygraph results on candidates he deemed not fitting the LAPD model."
Quote from: EosJupiter on Aug 05, 2007, 01:31 AM
You can read all about it. I never post a comment or statement without having the firepower to back it up.
I think you meant to say "without having the SPIN to back it up."..
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 05, 2007, 05:59 AMnonombre,
I can agree with you that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique involves less examiner deception than does the Control Question Test (CQT). But even the R/I technique involves examiner deception. The prime deception involved is the false notion, communicated to the examinee in various ways, that the R/I "test" can detect deception at all.
You write:
In what way(s) have probable-lie control questions changed? Has the polygraph community as a whole modified its probable-lie control questions, or is it just you? I note that the October 2006 edition of the federal polygraph handbook documents no such development.
Could you please cite examples?
Note that since the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org no longer recommends the anal sphincter contraction (and never suggested contraction of the buttocks) as a polygraph countermeasure. Nor did we ever suggest that any examinee apply such a countermeasure "for all he was worth."
I can agree with you that the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique involves less examiner deception than does the Control Question Test (CQT). But even the R/I technique involves examiner deception. The prime deception involved is the false notion, communicated to the examinee in various ways, that the R/I "test" can detect deception at all.
You write:
QuoteNow, I do use a PLC in many of my criminal cases and since I and most other examiners today are quite aware of the information provided on this site, even the PLC has undergone some changes as a result. For example, as I have stated in earlier posts, the PLCs have very much changed. Never again will an examinee hear control questions in my laboratory that sound ANYTHING like the examples given on this and other sites.
In what way(s) have probable-lie control questions changed? Has the polygraph community as a whole modified its probable-lie control questions, or is it just you? I note that the October 2006 edition of the federal polygraph handbook documents no such development.
QuoteOn more than one occasion, a reader has posted a polygraph test question on this board and asked one of the resident "experts" what kind of a question it was. In several cases you guys were 100% wrong. Relevant questions were identified as controls and visa versa.
Could you please cite examples?
QuoteNow put yourself in the place of that poor soul who heard what he THOUGHT (was told by APG.org) was a control question and the squeezed his butt for all he was worth.
Note that since the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org no longer recommends the anal sphincter contraction (and never suggested contraction of the buttocks) as a polygraph countermeasure. Nor did we ever suggest that any examinee apply such a countermeasure "for all he was worth."
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 04, 2007, 11:00 PMDear nameless one,
What are your qualifications nonombre? Do you have an advanced degree in neuropsychology or neuropsychiatry? Do you have a University degree at all? What board certifications do you possess? What is your (resident) state department of professional regulation certification number? Do you have any credentials at all?
Lloyd Ploense
What are your qualifications nonombre? Do you have an advanced degree in neuropsychology or neuropsychiatry? Do you have a University degree at all? What board certifications do you possess? What is your (resident) state department of professional regulation certification number? Do you have any credentials at all?
Lloyd Ploense
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 04, 2007, 06:16 PMLethe,
A very eloquent post. I enjoyed reading it. Now, I am afraid my answer will not be quite as detailed as yours, but I will try to put forth an answer to your questions.
First of all, I administer two types of polygraph examinations. I run R&I tests on my applicants and PLC exams on my criminal cases. Therefore, in the case of my police applicants, I do take some exception to your statement regarding the following desirable traits in police applicants:
----------------------------------------------
• curiosity;
• a desire to understand the world around them;
• willingness to question assumptions;
• willingness to question authority; and
• Critical thinking skills.
Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer? Or a CIA analyst? Or in any human being, for that matter? But, according to the logical consequences of your current beliefs, people with those desirable traits are less likely to be employed by agencies and departments that rely on your profession."
--------------------------------------------
Since I administer an R&I exam to all my applicants, I am not deceiving any of them. I would never wish to deceive good applicants who possess all those very desirable traits you listed. You see, in an R&I exam, the questions are simply the questions. No deception, nobody gets mislead. I pose a question, and the applicant answers it, period.
There goes your argument I believe...
Now, I do use a PLC in many of my criminal cases and since I and most other examiners today are quite aware of the information provided on this site, even the PLC has undergone some changes as a result. For example, as I have stated in earlier posts, the PLCs have very much changed. Never again will an examinee hear control questions in my laboratory that sound ANYTHING like the examples given on this and other sites. In fact, several times recently, after being provided the question list, an examinee has actaully asked: "Which ones are the control questions?"
. Of course the color then generally drains from their face, when I reply "Control questions? Oh, I don't use those. By the way, where did you hear about those anyway?"
Is that a deception? I suppose so, but since I am not using it on one of those fine "critical thinking" police applicants with a desire to "understand the world around them" what's the problem? I remind you that the base rate for guilt in the criminal investigative examinee population is somewhere in the 80% to 90% range. Therefore if a guilty examinee has read this website and intends to use his newfound knowledge in an attempt to defeat the polygraph I say "bring it on." If an innocent subject is actually stupid enough to believe the B.S. posted on this site and employ CMs to "guarantee he passes." I say shame on him. But even in his case, since the controls are now very much masked, he is a bit confused, not quite so sure of himself. In this case, I am going to use the PLC methodology to help him achieve a correct truthful result in spite of himself and the "well meaning" residents of these bulletin boards.
Oh, by the way, I am going to repeat something I have said before, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart. On more than one occasion, a reader has posted a polygraph test question on this board and asked one of the resident "experts" what kind of a question it was. In several cases you guys were 100% wrong. Relevant questions were identified as controls and visa versa. Now put yourself in the place of that poor soul who heard what he THOUGHT (was told by APG.org) was a control question and the squeezed his butt for all he was worth.
Thank you APG-org. Quite a "public service" you are engaged in...
Your response?
Nonombre
A very eloquent post. I enjoyed reading it. Now, I am afraid my answer will not be quite as detailed as yours, but I will try to put forth an answer to your questions.
First of all, I administer two types of polygraph examinations. I run R&I tests on my applicants and PLC exams on my criminal cases. Therefore, in the case of my police applicants, I do take some exception to your statement regarding the following desirable traits in police applicants:
----------------------------------------------
• curiosity;
• a desire to understand the world around them;
• willingness to question assumptions;
• willingness to question authority; and
• Critical thinking skills.
Tell me, which of those traits is undesirable in a police officer? Or a CIA analyst? Or in any human being, for that matter? But, according to the logical consequences of your current beliefs, people with those desirable traits are less likely to be employed by agencies and departments that rely on your profession."
--------------------------------------------
Since I administer an R&I exam to all my applicants, I am not deceiving any of them. I would never wish to deceive good applicants who possess all those very desirable traits you listed. You see, in an R&I exam, the questions are simply the questions. No deception, nobody gets mislead. I pose a question, and the applicant answers it, period.
There goes your argument I believe...
Now, I do use a PLC in many of my criminal cases and since I and most other examiners today are quite aware of the information provided on this site, even the PLC has undergone some changes as a result. For example, as I have stated in earlier posts, the PLCs have very much changed. Never again will an examinee hear control questions in my laboratory that sound ANYTHING like the examples given on this and other sites. In fact, several times recently, after being provided the question list, an examinee has actaully asked: "Which ones are the control questions?"
. Of course the color then generally drains from their face, when I reply "Control questions? Oh, I don't use those. By the way, where did you hear about those anyway?"Is that a deception? I suppose so, but since I am not using it on one of those fine "critical thinking" police applicants with a desire to "understand the world around them" what's the problem? I remind you that the base rate for guilt in the criminal investigative examinee population is somewhere in the 80% to 90% range. Therefore if a guilty examinee has read this website and intends to use his newfound knowledge in an attempt to defeat the polygraph I say "bring it on." If an innocent subject is actually stupid enough to believe the B.S. posted on this site and employ CMs to "guarantee he passes." I say shame on him. But even in his case, since the controls are now very much masked, he is a bit confused, not quite so sure of himself. In this case, I am going to use the PLC methodology to help him achieve a correct truthful result in spite of himself and the "well meaning" residents of these bulletin boards.
Oh, by the way, I am going to repeat something I have said before, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart. On more than one occasion, a reader has posted a polygraph test question on this board and asked one of the resident "experts" what kind of a question it was. In several cases you guys were 100% wrong. Relevant questions were identified as controls and visa versa. Now put yourself in the place of that poor soul who heard what he THOUGHT (was told by APG.org) was a control question and the squeezed his butt for all he was worth.
Thank you APG-org. Quite a "public service" you are engaged in...
Your response?
Nonombre
Posted by Lethe
- Aug 04, 2007, 02:53 PMI would like to call on and call out my erstwhile interlocutor, nonombre, to address the ramifications of the things that he believes. Not, I stress, the things that I believe or the things that the antipolygraph community believes. I just want nonombre to think through his own beliefs. If he honestly does so, he will certainly be a better person for it and we might benefit from his insight as well.
Now, nonombre, you admit, albeit reluctantly, that certain polygraph formats, like the ubiquitous probable lie control question (PLCQ) exams, increase in accuracy if the subject is deceived. You defend yourself against the straw man claims that any deception ipso facto invalidates a test--something that I, for one, have never claimed. Indeed, deceiving the subject is a noble thing, you say. Because if the subject is appropriately deceived, the accuracy of the exam goes up and everyone wants the exam to be accurate.
To sum up, you believe (and correct me instantly if I'm wrong!):
I agree fully with those two statements and am glad that you have made them, certain colleagues of yours refuse to do so. Thank you.
Keeping in mind (2), consider now, nonombre, what is it that actually helps the accuracy? Is it the mere fact that the polygrapher has made a statement that is false? Or is it that the subject believes the false statement? If the former, that seems like magic; instead of "hocus pocus" you say "if you have ever driven faster than the speed limit, you will probably commit treason and espionage." Of course, I am being facetious. The mere fact that you have said this or that lie does nothing whatsoever to increase accuracy (if anything, the opposite is probably true, see below). It depends completely on whether or not the subject believes the lie to be true, doesn't it? It is only if the subject is actually deceived that the accuracy improves. Do you agree?
I presume you do. If it didn't matter whether or not the subject was deceived, only that certain magic words were said, then you and your colleagues would not be very concerned with the secret of the words getting out. Nor would you put such efforts into acting as you do. Plus, such magical thinking is pretty absurd.
So, nonombre, your beliefs tell you that people who are deceived will--in general--produce more accurate results than people who are not deceived. This is what you believe--it's not simply what I believe, though I do. You own this belief, nonombre. Assuming you're still with me and have no material objections to the above, we're making good progress; let's continue.
So, you agree that truthful people who are not deceived are less likely to pass the exam than are truthful people who are deceived. I submit for your consideration, nonombre, that people with the following traits are less likely to be deceived than those who lack them:
Also, I would say that your attempts to deceive knowledgeable subjects is not neutral with regards to the accuracy of their exams. It probable harms it further since they'll be angry at your insults to their intelligence and they'll have their faith in the process and agency shaken by the farce. Isn't it true that strong anger on the part of the subject directed towards the examiner has a negative influence on chart accuracy?
It doesn't compute, does it, nonombre? You're the good guy, right? It can't possibly be that what you're doing is more harmful than good. Right about now you're searching for reasons not to believe the pretty obvious conclusions from the above summary. You don't want it to be true, that would be too big a blow to your identity (not to mention financial and professional security), so it couldn't possibly be true. Therefore, if you just think long enough, you'll be able to come up with a reason--any will do--that it isn't true. But that's not honest. You're being deceptive again--with yourself. And, as I think I've pointed out before, when one group of people has a distorted view of reality, it is often the case that other people get hurt.
Now, are you really dedicated to truth, or just to what makes you feel good? If the former, you'll want to resolve the disconnect between your belief that you're a good guy and the argument based on your other beliefs which indicates that you're doing a bad thing.
So, nonombre, where do you want to go with this?
Now, nonombre, you admit, albeit reluctantly, that certain polygraph formats, like the ubiquitous probable lie control question (PLCQ) exams, increase in accuracy if the subject is deceived. You defend yourself against the straw man claims that any deception ipso facto invalidates a test--something that I, for one, have never claimed. Indeed, deceiving the subject is a noble thing, you say. Because if the subject is appropriately deceived, the accuracy of the exam goes up and everyone wants the exam to be accurate.
To sum up, you believe (and correct me instantly if I'm wrong!):
- (1) important polygraph techniques use deception and
(2) the use of the deception increases accuracy[/li]
I agree fully with those two statements and am glad that you have made them, certain colleagues of yours refuse to do so. Thank you.
Keeping in mind (2), consider now, nonombre, what is it that actually helps the accuracy? Is it the mere fact that the polygrapher has made a statement that is false? Or is it that the subject believes the false statement? If the former, that seems like magic; instead of "hocus pocus" you say "if you have ever driven faster than the speed limit, you will probably commit treason and espionage." Of course, I am being facetious. The mere fact that you have said this or that lie does nothing whatsoever to increase accuracy (if anything, the opposite is probably true, see below). It depends completely on whether or not the subject believes the lie to be true, doesn't it? It is only if the subject is actually deceived that the accuracy improves. Do you agree?
I presume you do. If it didn't matter whether or not the subject was deceived, only that certain magic words were said, then you and your colleagues would not be very concerned with the secret of the words getting out. Nor would you put such efforts into acting as you do. Plus, such magical thinking is pretty absurd.
So, nonombre, your beliefs tell you that people who are deceived will--in general--produce more accurate results than people who are not deceived. This is what you believe--it's not simply what I believe, though I do. You own this belief, nonombre. Assuming you're still with me and have no material objections to the above, we're making good progress; let's continue.
So, you agree that truthful people who are not deceived are less likely to pass the exam than are truthful people who are deceived. I submit for your consideration, nonombre, that people with the following traits are less likely to be deceived than those who lack them:
- curiosity;
- a desire to understand the world around them;
- willingness to question assumptions;
- willingness to question authority; and
- critical thinking skills.
Also, I would say that your attempts to deceive knowledgeable subjects is not neutral with regards to the accuracy of their exams. It probable harms it further since they'll be angry at your insults to their intelligence and they'll have their faith in the process and agency shaken by the farce. Isn't it true that strong anger on the part of the subject directed towards the examiner has a negative influence on chart accuracy?
It doesn't compute, does it, nonombre? You're the good guy, right? It can't possibly be that what you're doing is more harmful than good. Right about now you're searching for reasons not to believe the pretty obvious conclusions from the above summary. You don't want it to be true, that would be too big a blow to your identity (not to mention financial and professional security), so it couldn't possibly be true. Therefore, if you just think long enough, you'll be able to come up with a reason--any will do--that it isn't true. But that's not honest. You're being deceptive again--with yourself. And, as I think I've pointed out before, when one group of people has a distorted view of reality, it is often the case that other people get hurt.
Now, are you really dedicated to truth, or just to what makes you feel good? If the former, you'll want to resolve the disconnect between your belief that you're a good guy and the argument based on your other beliefs which indicates that you're doing a bad thing.
So, nonombre, where do you want to go with this?