- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by hratli
- May 27, 2021, 02:03 AMThe problem with polygraph, even though if it wasn't "exposed", there will be people who secretly knows/trained how to beat it. This is why people shouldn't rely on this machine. Imagine, people letting their guard down to someone who has passed the polygraph, earning their trust, but in reality has done heinous crimes. The harm it may do outweighs the good in this scenario.
Posted by guest
- Feb 11, 2009, 01:25 PMhello can you tell me the difference between controled and relevant questionns. And give me some examples of some of those questions still not getting the diffence.. Thanks alot.
Posted by puck
- Nov 09, 2008, 11:49 PMWhy on earth would a polygraph "expert" require, much less need to misrepresent, a PhD, to begin with? Philip Scala, the man who headed the team that infiltrated and eventually brought down the Gambino crime family, only had his Masters in psychology. What am I missing?
And yeah I do find it mind-numbingly underhanded, for an "expert" to ignore the very protocol that challenges the premise they're upholding as fact. Thereby neither proving their case, nor disproving yours. These shows are always skewed toward predetermined results. You'd hope they'd drop a segment in a case like this, but alas, I don't think this is the first time they've opted for shoddy methodology to obtain a desired conclusion.
btw there is an account of a woman whose escape from a cult, depended on fooling a crude lie detector, which the cult used for a technique called audit councilling. It's believed that it's purpose is to control people's behavior, attitudes, etc... She was terrified because the needle did seem to reflect a difference in calm and emotionally agitated states (these sessions often lasted between 1 - 2.5 hours.) She successfully beat the machine by thinking intensely, about things that made her happy (too bad she didn't know about tongue biting technique etc...). So it does seem possible.
Cheers
And yeah I do find it mind-numbingly underhanded, for an "expert" to ignore the very protocol that challenges the premise they're upholding as fact. Thereby neither proving their case, nor disproving yours. These shows are always skewed toward predetermined results. You'd hope they'd drop a segment in a case like this, but alas, I don't think this is the first time they've opted for shoddy methodology to obtain a desired conclusion.
btw there is an account of a woman whose escape from a cult, depended on fooling a crude lie detector, which the cult used for a technique called audit councilling. It's believed that it's purpose is to control people's behavior, attitudes, etc... She was terrified because the needle did seem to reflect a difference in calm and emotionally agitated states (these sessions often lasted between 1 - 2.5 hours.) She successfully beat the machine by thinking intensely, about things that made her happy (too bad she didn't know about tongue biting technique etc...). So it does seem possible.
Cheers
Posted by polytek
- Sep 26, 2008, 10:51 AMDear Spanker 76
You have quite aptly pigeonholed the APA and blusterers like SP.
The APA ethos produces megalomaniacs who deem it acceptable to festoon themselves with phony titles.
You have quite aptly pigeonholed the APA and blusterers like SP.
The APA ethos produces megalomaniacs who deem it acceptable to festoon themselves with phony titles.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 25, 2008, 01:05 PMSpanker76 Congratulations on your Phd. This is a bit off topic but would you use your knowledge of molecular biology to address a discussion that is occurring off of this board.
The argument asks the question: What is the potential of cross contamination or identification error regarding a forensic sample of blood if the sample donor had received a recent transfusion of two pints of whole blood from a non-relative during a surgery? Assume for the sake of this argument that the sample will require polymerase chain reaction to provide a suitable comparison. If it is possible, can you predict how long the contamination or identification error might be possible after the surgery. Would it be hours? days? weeks?
In other words, in the context of a novel, would it be possible for the donor blood to result in a CODIS "hit" on someone who was not at the scene of the crime?
I realize that these circumstances are pretty unlikely to occur in real life, but is the possibility supportable by science?
Thanks
Sancho Panza
The argument asks the question: What is the potential of cross contamination or identification error regarding a forensic sample of blood if the sample donor had received a recent transfusion of two pints of whole blood from a non-relative during a surgery? Assume for the sake of this argument that the sample will require polymerase chain reaction to provide a suitable comparison. If it is possible, can you predict how long the contamination or identification error might be possible after the surgery. Would it be hours? days? weeks?
In other words, in the context of a novel, would it be possible for the donor blood to result in a CODIS "hit" on someone who was not at the scene of the crime?
I realize that these circumstances are pretty unlikely to occur in real life, but is the possibility supportable by science?
Thanks
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 25, 2008, 10:28 AMspanker76,
Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org and congratulations on completing your doctoral degree. I agree that the American Polygraph Association's tolerance of members who falsely hold themselves out as Ph.D.s is disgraceful. The APA has also declined to sanction a polygraph school that reportedly shortchanged students on hours and a member who defamed me in a polygraph examination that was video recorded for evidentiary purposes.
Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org and congratulations on completing your doctoral degree. I agree that the American Polygraph Association's tolerance of members who falsely hold themselves out as Ph.D.s is disgraceful. The APA has also declined to sanction a polygraph school that reportedly shortchanged students on hours and a member who defamed me in a polygraph examination that was video recorded for evidentiary purposes.
Posted by spanker76
- Sep 25, 2008, 10:03 AMwow.... just wow.
As someone who just got a PhD in molecular biology from a top 5 university I am incredulous.
The extent of my knowledge about polygraphs is that they are considered to be a pseudoscience. I had no idea, however, that it was such an incestuous little world.
As an impartial observer who stumbled across this page (I don't even remember how) I will tell you that I just downgraded my opinion substantially. Any profession who knowingly lets its members falsely pass themselves off as "doctors" is simply bogus.
I worked in the molecular biology field for 10 years before starting my PhD program. Seven years and one degree later I have realized that there is no way that I would have learned the appropriate application of the scientific method or how to properly design and assess experiments without attending grad school. It is a real bitch, and that is why jokers like this "Dr." Mike guy are worse than pretenders, they are downright charlatans.
This is the first I have ever heard of the APA, but I am already spreading the word about this completely bogus association run by wannabes who either don't have the inclination or the brains to put in the real work to become a doctor.
Oh, and about that nonombre poster... don't even bother. I've been arguing with idiots on message boards for years, and guys like that will never address your question or even read your full response. They'll just keep posting the same ALL CAPS, HAHAHA! 8-) responses over and over. Don't waste your time on fools.
As someone who just got a PhD in molecular biology from a top 5 university I am incredulous.
The extent of my knowledge about polygraphs is that they are considered to be a pseudoscience. I had no idea, however, that it was such an incestuous little world.
As an impartial observer who stumbled across this page (I don't even remember how) I will tell you that I just downgraded my opinion substantially. Any profession who knowingly lets its members falsely pass themselves off as "doctors" is simply bogus.
I worked in the molecular biology field for 10 years before starting my PhD program. Seven years and one degree later I have realized that there is no way that I would have learned the appropriate application of the scientific method or how to properly design and assess experiments without attending grad school. It is a real bitch, and that is why jokers like this "Dr." Mike guy are worse than pretenders, they are downright charlatans.
This is the first I have ever heard of the APA, but I am already spreading the word about this completely bogus association run by wannabes who either don't have the inclination or the brains to put in the real work to become a doctor.
Oh, and about that nonombre poster... don't even bother. I've been arguing with idiots on message boards for years, and guys like that will never address your question or even read your full response. They'll just keep posting the same ALL CAPS, HAHAHA! 8-) responses over and over. Don't waste your time on fools.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 13, 2008, 09:53 AMReynold,
I, too, am mystified by Mythbusters' decision to deceive the public regarding "Dr." Michael Martin's credentials, and disappointed that the show served to perpetuate the myth of the lie detector. You might want to ask Jamie Hyneman about this. He may be contacted at mythbusters@m5industries.com.
I, too, am mystified by Mythbusters' decision to deceive the public regarding "Dr." Michael Martin's credentials, and disappointed that the show served to perpetuate the myth of the lie detector. You might want to ask Jamie Hyneman about this. He may be contacted at mythbusters@m5industries.com.
Posted by Reynold
- Sep 13, 2008, 09:18 AMI have watched this episode, and I was amazed. I thought that lie detectors were really credulous.
But after reading what you wrote about the phony pHD's and stuff, I am now really confused of how can Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, dislplay a fraud.
But asking you again,
So, "Is the credibility of lie detectors still a myth?
But after reading what you wrote about the phony pHD's and stuff, I am now really confused of how can Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, dislplay a fraud.
But asking you again,
So, "Is the credibility of lie detectors still a myth?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 30, 2007, 04:43 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Dec 29, 2007, 11:03 PMGM,
Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3!
Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions.
I think that proves that not everyone can beat the CQT, but it hardly proves that no one can. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that everyone who uses CM's is successful in beating the polygraph, so proving that some people who use CM's still fail is simply affirming a known fact.
By definition, any successful use of countermeasures goes undetected. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that no one, in the history of the polygraph, has passed a CQT by using countermeasures. While that assumption certainly doesn't prove that the CQT can be beaten, neither does the statement that some people who use CM's are caught doing so prove that the CQT cannot be beaten.
Posted by Donna.Taylor
- Dec 29, 2007, 11:03 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Dec 29, 2007, 08:22 PMDonna,
Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."
GM,
Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3!
Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions.
I believe it was Nonombre that said if they would have incorrectly identified the individuals AP would have had it posted in big bold RED letters. Bottom line is the tests were good and accurate!
I will state on the record that I do not agree with the 'DR' status Mr. Martin uses; however, he doesn't need a PH.D behind his name to run a good exam.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 29, 2007, 09:41 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Dec 29, 2007, 08:22 PMDonna,
Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."
The link provided for this "survey" in your book's bibliography is a dead link.
You fail to point out that this is an opinion poll which is pretty much without value absent information regarding what information was provided in the poll to establish the parameters of the subject matter.
I suppose you would prefer that we believe that any member of the Society for Psychophysiological Research possessed knowledge about polygraph, when in fact Psychophysiology is a broad discipline and many may have no more concept of what it does and doesn't do that the average man on the street. This is especially true since their particular membership requirements are pretty broad to wit:
(a) published scientific research in psychophysiology or related areas;
(b) membership in one of the major scientific associations for psychological, neuroscience, medical, biological, or engineering professions; or
(c) interest in psychophysiology, and sponsorship by two members of the Society.
While it would certainly help your argument if we knew that only persons from category A were polled, it is at least as likely that 2/3 of those polled came from categories B and C. This means that the possible qualifications of the persons polled consisted of "membership in another organization" or a casual interest and 2 buddies who were members.
This does not even take into account the "Student Membership class
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 29, 2007, 08:22 PMDonna,
Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."
Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."
Posted by Donna.Taylor
- Dec 29, 2007, 07:58 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Dec 29, 2007, 04:35 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Dec 29, 2007, 02:49 PMMr. Maschke,
Would you please revise the title of this topic?
At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..."
In fact, they did not.
So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic.
A more accurate topic might be
"the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...."
or, if you prefer something more neutral
"Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode."
Thank you.
r
Raymond,
The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.
Clearly GM you could have stated BUSTED after the tiltle. You have to admit when printing it on this site it appears they beat the polygraph when in fact the POLYGRAPH CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED ALL THREE INDIVIDUALS.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 29, 2007, 04:35 PMQuote from: Barry_C on Dec 29, 2007, 02:49 PMMr. Maschke,
Would you please revise the title of this topic?
At present it states "Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector..."
In fact, they did not.
So, the present title seems inaccurate and misleading to your readers. As I know you want them to have accurate information, I can only assume that was an oversight in the heat of all the excitement surrounding this topic.
A more accurate topic might be
"the Lie Detector Beats the Mythbusters...."
or, if you prefer something more neutral
"Mythbusters Lie Detector Episode."
Thank you.
r
Raymond,
The phrase "Beat the Lie Detector" in the title of this message thread is taken directly from the language used on the official Mythbusters message board to describe this episode. See Confederate Steam Gun - Beat The Lie Detector! - Discuss It Here!.