- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 05:03 PMQuote from: L72cueak on Apr 28, 2002, 04:43 PM
George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?" Once again, you didn't answer that question... I would not do that - even without a confession. I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either. Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?
One consideration that may have made London hesitate to accuse John of having employed countermeasures absent his admission is that John was described as a "high-priority candidate for employment with the federal government."
If London were prepared to render a decision that countermeasures were employed absent any admission from John, then he need not have bothered with the post-"test" interrogation. He could have simply rendered his opinion and shown John to the door.
London & Krapohl also place some importance on obtaining an admission when they write:
QuoteSince this case, London has worked several other confirmed Cms cases and presented them as case studies to various gatherings of PDD examiners. From the feedback received during the conferences, those examiners who have suspected examinees of using Cms were reluctant to probe the issue because they lacked substantial evidence and a suitable interrogation strategy. This suggests a need for practical hands-on training for examiners on detecting Cms, employing validation procedures, and developing effective elicitation and interrogation strategies for handling Cms.
The emphasis on interrogation strategies suggests that admissions are indeed of some importance to rendering a determination that a subject employed countermeasures.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:47 PMQuote from: L72cueak on Apr 28, 2002, 04:38 PM
I concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that. By just applying common sense, what do you think?
What is common sense in the absence of reason? The available information about DoDPI's countermeasures course (that provided on DoDPI's webiste) doesn't give me any reason to think that those who matriculate from the course will be any more capable of detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector than they were before the course.
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:43 PMGeorge, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?" Once again, you didn't answer that question... I would not do that - even without a confession. I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either. Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:38 PMI concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that. By just applying common sense, what do you think?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:33 PMQuote from: L72cueak on Apr 28, 2002, 04:18 PM
You took a middle of the road type position on that one. Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed? That makes no sense.
When London & Krapohl write, "It was clear now that John was practicing Cms, but still there was no sign of any physical movement," they write with 20/20 hindsight. We cannot know what opinion London would have ultimately rendered absent "John's" admission that he employed countermeasures.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:19 PMQuote from: L72cueak on Apr 28, 2002, 03:51 PM
Again, you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if had a rational basis... I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question.
What you asked was:
QuoteDo you agree that an examiner trained in CM and CCM is more likely to detect and defeat CM than one who is not?
Again, I have no rational basis for concluding that the former would be able to detect countermeasures better than the latter, or that either would be able to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels. You may not be satisfied with that answer, but so be it.
I am struck by the irony of your remonstrance, "I didn't ask you if had a rational basis... I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question."
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:18 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 28, 2002, 02:36 PM
L72cueak,
You wrote:
We did not write that one will pass as long as one does not admit to using countermeasures. Our reference was only with regard to "John" in London & Krapohl's article. As we've discussed above, I now agree that John may or may not have passed had he not admitted to having employed countermeasures.
You took a middle of the road type position on that one. Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed? That makes no sense.
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 04:06 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 28, 2002, 02:53 PM
The examiners in Honts et al.'s latest countermeasure study to which I referred were not just DoDPI graduates, but DoDPI instructors.
It's interesting that you cite Avinoam Sapir, who runs a business he calls the "Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation." As chance would have it, I went through his week-long "Scientific Content Analysis" (SCAN) course some years ago. He's a former polygrapher, as I recall. In any event, there's nothing "scientific" about his theories of statement analysis, which seem to be unsupported by any scientific research whatsoever. But I digress.
As to whether attending DoDPI's countermeasure course improves one's ability to detect the kinds of counterrmeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I simply have no rational basis for concluding that it does. If DoDPI really believes it has a better than chance method for detecting countermeasures, it should seek to have it's research supporting that method published in a refereed scientific journal.
Because one was or is an instructor at DoDPI doesn't mean they have been trained in CM and CCM, or that they have even completed the CM course. I don't think there is anything scientific about statement analysis, it is an art - just like interrogation is an art. However, you illustrated Sapir's point well by not answering the question. I understand your apparent motive for doing so. The obvious answer is yes, the chances are probablly greater that a trained person would detect CM more readily than one who is not trained. The question is simple, but you are purposely avoiding answering it by trying to make it more complicated than it is.
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 03:51 PMAgain, you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if had a rational basis... I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 02:53 PMQuote from: L72cueak on Apr 28, 2002, 02:25 PM
You know what happened when one presumes... Just because one went through DoDPI doen't mean they were trained in CM and CCM. The CM course is a continuing education course. Regarding your response to my question, you didn't answer the question. According to Mr. Sapir (www.lsiscan.com), when somebody doesn't answer the question, they did! Apply a little common sense, what do you think? Are the chances better or not?
The examiners in Honts et al.'s latest countermeasure study to which I referred were not just DoDPI graduates, but DoDPI instructors.
It's interesting that you cite Avinoam Sapir, who runs a business he calls the "Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation." As chance would have it, I went through his week-long "Scientific Content Analysis" (SCAN) course some years ago. He's a former polygrapher, as I recall. In any event, there's nothing "scientific" about his theories of statement analysis, which seem to be unsupported by any scientific research whatsoever. But I digress.
As to whether attending DoDPI's countermeasure course improves one's ability to detect the kinds of counterrmeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I simply have no rational basis for concluding that it does. If DoDPI really believes it has a better than chance method for detecting countermeasures, it should seek to have it's research supporting that method published in a refereed scientific journal.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 02:36 PML72cueak,
You wrote:
We did not write that one will pass as long as one does not admit to using countermeasures. Our reference was only with regard to "John" in London & Krapohl's article. As we've discussed above, I now agree that John may or may not have passed had he not admitted to having employed countermeasures.
You wrote:
Quote...your current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, dated well after that post, said that as long as one doen't admit to CM they will "pass."
We did not write that one will pass as long as one does not admit to using countermeasures. Our reference was only with regard to "John" in London & Krapohl's article. As we've discussed above, I now agree that John may or may not have passed had he not admitted to having employed countermeasures.
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 02:25 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 28, 2002, 01:32 PM
And in the absence of any such research, what compelling reason is there to conclude that polygraphers can detect countermeasures at better than chance levels? (Note that in Honts' most recent study involving "spontaneous" countermeasures -- which polygraphers could not detect -- the examiners were all DoDPI instructors whose training in countermeasure detection was presumably state-of-the-art.)
You also asked:
I have no rational basis for concluding that the former would be able to detect countermeasures better than the latter, or that either would be able to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels.
You know what happened when one presumes... Just because one went through DoDPI doen't mean they were trained in CM and CCM. The CM course is a continuing education course. Regarding your response to my question, you didn't answer the question. According to Mr. Sapir (www.lsiscan.com), when somebody doesn't answer the question, they did! Apply a little common sense, what do you think? Are the chances better or not?
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 02:18 PMGeorge, thank you for the link. Interesting account. A good example of what happens when one does not achieve the sub-maximal level you recommend. I noticed that post was made in July, 2001. The author didn't admit to the CM, yet still "failed" the test. That's interesting, because your current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, dated well after that post, said that as long as one doen't admit to CM they will "pass." You and Gino obviously knew at the time you published your manual that the statement you made was not true, false, miseleading, etc. (also known as a "lie"). Why did you knowingly make that false statement? I see it as evidence of Lies contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2002, 01:54 PMQuote from: L72cueak on Apr 28, 2002, 01:32 PM
How much feedback have you received from those who reported not being successful? There are obviously those who have been detected.
Only one such report comes to mind, which you'll find in the message thread Taking One for the Team Part Two.
Posted by L72cueak
- Apr 28, 2002, 01:32 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 28, 2002, 01:25 PM
Probably not. For example, if a subject mistakes a relevant question for a "control" question and augments his reactions to it, he's likely to fail. However, the feedback we've received from those who report having employed countermeasures has been overwhelmingly positive.
How much feedback have you received from those who reported not being successful? There are obviously those who have been detected.