- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Administrator
- Mar 10, 2008, 12:29 PMOff-topic replies have been moved to: this topic.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 09, 2008, 09:47 PMQuoteRead it [NAS report] and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions.
I agree, and I have read it, but just look at one of their final conclusions regarding the "VALUE" of the test:
"Danger of Overconfidence Overconfidence in the polygraph—a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence—presents a danger to national security objectives. A false faith in the accuracy of polygraph testing among potential examinees may enhance its utility for deterrence and eliciting admissions. However, we are more concerned with the danger that can arise from overconfidence in polygraph accuracy among officials in security and counterintelligence organizations, who are themselves potential examinees. Such overconfidence, when it affects counterintelligence and security policy choices, may create an unfounded, false sense that because employees have appeared nondeceptive on a polygraph, security precautions can be relaxed. Such overconfidence can create a false sense of security among policy makers, employees in sensitive positions, and the public that may in turn lead to inappropriate relaxation of other methods of ensuring security. It can waste public resources by devoting to the polygraph funds that would be better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures. It can lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams YES!!!!!! or because they avoid or leave employment in federal security organizations in the face of such prospects. And it can lead to credible claims that agencies that use polygraphs are infringing on individuals' civil liberties for insufficient benefits to national security.
Note the ref to false positives you claim only occur "rarely"!
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 09, 2008, 09:14 PMIt may only be part of the process, but if you get anything short of a "pass", you not likely to get hired. And if you get a "fail", which you can get without being deceptive, you sure as hell ain't getting hired.
Not as good? No it isn't. The specific issue test will provide results "well above chance, though well below perfection", as for the preemployment test:
"For each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive"NAS Report
Doesn't sound like a very "valuable" test. I suppose I could eliminate all the weeds in my garden by dousing it with kerosene, but many of the flowers would die also! But hey, such a process would have SOME value.
So then the best advice is DON'T make a confession or admission, no matter how small you think it is. It will be used against you, and you at least have some chance of being hired with a DI w/o c/o as it's hardly ever used as the sole criterion for hiring!
And "deception indicated" is a misnomer, as you really don't know if they are being deceptive, you may suspect it, but you really don't know.
You, a polygrapher who makes his living off the test, say false positives are a rare occasion.
Yet again, aprestigious body of scientific researchers reviewed findings on the subject and concluded there are hundreds of false positives for every spy or would be spy possibly caught.
Add to that my personal experience with the test, and my wife, and many other people I've talked to over the years.....think I disagree with your "rare occasion" estimate.
Your statement above is an understatement.
The NAS concluded the specific issue test is "...well below perfection"
IOW, it's not anywhere near perfection.
So significantly better than a coin flip, but far from perfect (in at it's BEST), yet likely to smear the reputation of hundreds of people for each would be spy or security violator it catches.
My favorite: "Living well is the best revenge."
But that is neither here nor there.
The purpose of this board, contrary to what polygraphers would have you believe, is to educate people WHO HAVE YET TO TAKE THE TEST. So they don't get scammed. That is a positive thing.
If a soon to be tested applicant reads GM's book, it will level the playing field a bit. Like educating oneself prior to visiting a used car lot or dealership.
Quoteunlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as "good" as a specific issue examination.
Not as good? No it isn't. The specific issue test will provide results "well above chance, though well below perfection", as for the preemployment test:
"For each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive"NAS Report
Doesn't sound like a very "valuable" test. I suppose I could eliminate all the weeds in my garden by dousing it with kerosene, but many of the flowers would die also! But hey, such a process would have SOME value.
QuoteWhen I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment.
So then the best advice is DON'T make a confession or admission, no matter how small you think it is. It will be used against you, and you at least have some chance of being hired with a DI w/o c/o as it's hardly ever used as the sole criterion for hiring!
And "deception indicated" is a misnomer, as you really don't know if they are being deceptive, you may suspect it, but you really don't know.
QuoteBut, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur.
You, a polygrapher who makes his living off the test, say false positives are a rare occasion.
Yet again, aprestigious body of scientific researchers reviewed findings on the subject and concluded there are hundreds of false positives for every spy or would be spy possibly caught.
Add to that my personal experience with the test, and my wife, and many other people I've talked to over the years.....think I disagree with your "rare occasion" estimate.
QuoteHow many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect. It never has been and never will be.
Your statement above is an understatement.
The NAS concluded the specific issue test is "...well below perfection"
IOW, it's not anywhere near perfection.
So significantly better than a coin flip, but far from perfect (in at it's BEST), yet likely to smear the reputation of hundreds of people for each would be spy or security violator it catches.
QuoteRule #1: Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
My favorite: "Living well is the best revenge."
But that is neither here nor there.
The purpose of this board, contrary to what polygraphers would have you believe, is to educate people WHO HAVE YET TO TAKE THE TEST. So they don't get scammed. That is a positive thing.
If a soon to be tested applicant reads GM's book, it will level the playing field a bit. Like educating oneself prior to visiting a used car lot or dealership.
Posted by yankeedog
- Mar 09, 2008, 07:33 PMPolyfibber,
If your question is, What do you do if the examinee is DI and does not make an admission or confession? The answer is, you pass on the results to the adjudicator. I don't support using a less than acceptable polygraph test (DI) as the singular rationale to deny employment. I never have and that was my view even before the APA put it in writing. It is merely one part of the whole process. A pre-employment test is usually very broad, unlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as "good" as a specific issue examination. The reason apparently has to do with the broadness of the test. That is not to say the process does not have value, because it does, and for the reasons I have previously given. When I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment. But, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur.
And I do not make any attempts to debunk or attack the NAS report. I was, however, surprised that they did not conduct any of there own research. Read it and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions. How many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect. It never has been and never will be. I think one beneficial outcome of the NAS report is that there are now ASTM standards for certain protocols and some testing protocols have mathematical calculations to determine probability of error. In many polygraph tests there are variables that are unknown, and will never been known. It is that unknown entity that allows the polygraph process to be attacked. But, the documented successes of even those tests apparently have been judged to be "worth the cost." That is not my call. Someone else has made that decision. And if it ruffles some feathers, too bad. My feathers have been ruffled in the past, but it hasn't stopped me.
I hope this was the response to which you referred. In closing, I refer you to Bill Gates' rules of life. Rule #1: Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
If your question is, What do you do if the examinee is DI and does not make an admission or confession? The answer is, you pass on the results to the adjudicator. I don't support using a less than acceptable polygraph test (DI) as the singular rationale to deny employment. I never have and that was my view even before the APA put it in writing. It is merely one part of the whole process. A pre-employment test is usually very broad, unlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as "good" as a specific issue examination. The reason apparently has to do with the broadness of the test. That is not to say the process does not have value, because it does, and for the reasons I have previously given. When I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment. But, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur.
And I do not make any attempts to debunk or attack the NAS report. I was, however, surprised that they did not conduct any of there own research. Read it and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions. How many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect. It never has been and never will be. I think one beneficial outcome of the NAS report is that there are now ASTM standards for certain protocols and some testing protocols have mathematical calculations to determine probability of error. In many polygraph tests there are variables that are unknown, and will never been known. It is that unknown entity that allows the polygraph process to be attacked. But, the documented successes of even those tests apparently have been judged to be "worth the cost." That is not my call. Someone else has made that decision. And if it ruffles some feathers, too bad. My feathers have been ruffled in the past, but it hasn't stopped me.
I hope this was the response to which you referred. In closing, I refer you to Bill Gates' rules of life. Rule #1: Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 09, 2008, 06:34 PMStill waiting for a response from you in the "Trimbarco" thread (reply #37)
Guess you're only good for short little quips.
Guess you're only good for short little quips.
Posted by yankeedog
- Mar 09, 2008, 06:05 PMGood story polyfibber. I'm a beleiver.....not
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 09, 2008, 05:26 PMOf course, sackett will not answer these simple, straightforward questions.
No. The purpose is to get a gullible person to "open up" and provide info that can be used against him/her. The polygraph is just a "prop".
No. Not according to the scientific community. A response by the ANS to a question does not necessarily equate to deception.
Furthermore, you can "fake" an ANS response by puckering yer anus, biting your tongue, or altering your breathing pattern.
I had fun with a polygrapher once. He told me the standard polygrapher lie that the test was 98% accurate. When asked the question "is your name xxxxx", I puckered my anus, bit my tongue and altered my breathing slightly.
He stopped the tape, and asked me why I would react to such a question. I said I wasn't reacting. He persisted, so I pulled out my I.D. and said "Look! My name is xxxxx! Want to see my birth certificate? What a joke! This test is 98% accurate? What a joke!"
His faced turned a sickening shade of red, and he left the room! Of course I failed, but they were going to fail me anyway.
It's a long story. It was for a preemployment test. I was first tested at the agency as part of the preemployment process. Three days of polytesting with the usual shennanigans, ended up with me ripping of the chest straps and me telling me what I thought about their voodoo ritual with some pretty salty language (I don't recommend others do that!).
To my great surprise, 6 months later I get a call from HR asking if I'd like to take the test again!
A few phone calls to my contacts at the agency, and I found out that the "hiring committee" and security were having a big "pissing contest" over me. My contact told me that security was just going "through the motions" to satisfy the HR/OPS people and retest me. They probably had no intention of passing me, and were out for blood, because I had made one of their precious polygrapher babes look bad. I had insulted the "high priesthood"!
So, I decided to have some fun.
QuoteIs the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?
No. The purpose is to get a gullible person to "open up" and provide info that can be used against him/her. The polygraph is just a "prop".
QuoteDoes a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?
No. Not according to the scientific community. A response by the ANS to a question does not necessarily equate to deception.
Furthermore, you can "fake" an ANS response by puckering yer anus, biting your tongue, or altering your breathing pattern.
I had fun with a polygrapher once. He told me the standard polygrapher lie that the test was 98% accurate. When asked the question "is your name xxxxx", I puckered my anus, bit my tongue and altered my breathing slightly.
He stopped the tape, and asked me why I would react to such a question. I said I wasn't reacting. He persisted, so I pulled out my I.D. and said "Look! My name is xxxxx! Want to see my birth certificate? What a joke! This test is 98% accurate? What a joke!"
His faced turned a sickening shade of red, and he left the room! Of course I failed, but they were going to fail me anyway.
It's a long story. It was for a preemployment test. I was first tested at the agency as part of the preemployment process. Three days of polytesting with the usual shennanigans, ended up with me ripping of the chest straps and me telling me what I thought about their voodoo ritual with some pretty salty language (I don't recommend others do that!).
To my great surprise, 6 months later I get a call from HR asking if I'd like to take the test again!
A few phone calls to my contacts at the agency, and I found out that the "hiring committee" and security were having a big "pissing contest" over me. My contact told me that security was just going "through the motions" to satisfy the HR/OPS people and retest me. They probably had no intention of passing me, and were out for blood, because I had made one of their precious polygrapher babes look bad. I had insulted the "high priesthood"!
So, I decided to have some fun.
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 09, 2008, 02:29 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 02:13 PMOkay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature. But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative. Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.
Sackett
P.S. I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"
Anomoly of human nature? NOOOOO, I am a cop, and knowing that other cops sometimes get into a jam on the side of the road, I slow down and make sure everything is okay, that's all.
And, regarding my questions, any reader will obviously see that you not only have not sufficiently answered my simple questions, but refuse to do so.
Have a nice day.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 09, 2008, 02:13 PMOkay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature. But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative. Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.
Sackett
P.S. I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"
Sackett
P.S. I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 09, 2008, 01:21 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 12:39 PM. The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving,
Sackett[/b]
BTW, I don't have an f-f-f reaction in the ANS when I see a cop by the side of the road when driving, I usually slow down a little to make sure my brother or sister is okay... But, that's just me.
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 09, 2008, 01:17 PMNo Sackett, please answer my questions directly. I'll re-phrase for simplicity:
Is the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?
Does a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?
Is the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?
Does a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?
Posted by sackett
- Mar 09, 2008, 12:52 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 12:31 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:52 AMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:05 AM The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!!
Sackett
What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements. This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.
"notguilty1",
Once again, I try, I mean, I really try to make the things as basic as humanly possible. This way even the most simple minded people can understand what I say. The reader (that's you) does not have to agree with me, just understand. In your case and the case of your compadres here, I must say, I have failed to achieve even that minimal a level of accomplishment. Since I don't have crayons and paper, I guess this will have to do.
H a v e a g o o d d a y.
Sackett
Posted by sackett
- Mar 09, 2008, 12:39 PMyou replied, "What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?"
I certainly feel like an inarticulate layman. I thought my postings were fairly clear and written for the simplistic of minds, apparently, I was wrong.
One last time... The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving, your body reacts to the mental developement of a lie because we subconsciously know it's wrong (based on the natural thought process being truthful and the sociological reinforcement throughout our life that lying is wrong). All societies in the world have the same basic premise. The correlation is clear and obvious. BTW, why do we have the ANS reaction versus maintenance of homeostasis when seeing a cop? What is it about a guy on the side of the road, in a marked car, with a radar gun that poses the threat. We have that reaction before going through even the first of cognitive thoughts of, what is my speed? Did he get me? How much is the ticket, etc? (Also equivalently post presentation thought to, am I going to be falsely accused a liar, etc)
You and others like to address lying as the sole act of saying something (out of your mouth) that is not true. This allows for the further premise that, I told the truth and they called me a liar. The facts is, withholding, minimizing, rationalizing and avoidance are also manners of lying through the natural thought process. All of this are causes for the mental conflict resulting in the ANS reaction. Are there other reasons for ANS reaction? Yes!, but not generally in a polygraph suite.
Besides, you can't give yourself an ANS reaction voluntarily. You can't think through the question of, "did you do___..?." and later cause a ANS reaction if you have no recollection of the incident and/or conflict arising from the answer of no." Meanwhile, you know if you're not telling everything which you have knowledge of about an issue and are withholding that information. This knowledge is a reason for the ANS reaction.
Finally, as I've already discussed in previous postings, the general nervous system, i.e., cognitive thought, residual to a question and answer will not cause the same ANS reaction, though it will certainly effect the GNS. BUT, that effects the whole system, and throughout the entire test, not specifically to one question or the other.
I hope that explain things stisfactorily enough. If not, I can not make it any more easier to understand, and I give up trying to get through to you and your anti-buddies.
Sackett
I certainly feel like an inarticulate layman. I thought my postings were fairly clear and written for the simplistic of minds, apparently, I was wrong.
One last time... The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving, your body reacts to the mental developement of a lie because we subconsciously know it's wrong (based on the natural thought process being truthful and the sociological reinforcement throughout our life that lying is wrong). All societies in the world have the same basic premise. The correlation is clear and obvious. BTW, why do we have the ANS reaction versus maintenance of homeostasis when seeing a cop? What is it about a guy on the side of the road, in a marked car, with a radar gun that poses the threat. We have that reaction before going through even the first of cognitive thoughts of, what is my speed? Did he get me? How much is the ticket, etc? (Also equivalently post presentation thought to, am I going to be falsely accused a liar, etc)
You and others like to address lying as the sole act of saying something (out of your mouth) that is not true. This allows for the further premise that, I told the truth and they called me a liar. The facts is, withholding, minimizing, rationalizing and avoidance are also manners of lying through the natural thought process. All of this are causes for the mental conflict resulting in the ANS reaction. Are there other reasons for ANS reaction? Yes!, but not generally in a polygraph suite.
Besides, you can't give yourself an ANS reaction voluntarily. You can't think through the question of, "did you do___..?." and later cause a ANS reaction if you have no recollection of the incident and/or conflict arising from the answer of no." Meanwhile, you know if you're not telling everything which you have knowledge of about an issue and are withholding that information. This knowledge is a reason for the ANS reaction.
Finally, as I've already discussed in previous postings, the general nervous system, i.e., cognitive thought, residual to a question and answer will not cause the same ANS reaction, though it will certainly effect the GNS. BUT, that effects the whole system, and throughout the entire test, not specifically to one question or the other.
I hope that explain things stisfactorily enough. If not, I can not make it any more easier to understand, and I give up trying to get through to you and your anti-buddies.
Sackett
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 09, 2008, 12:31 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:52 AMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:05 AM The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!!
Sackett
What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements. This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 09, 2008, 10:52 AMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:05 AM The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!!
Sackett
What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?