- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anonymous000
- May 10, 2008, 07:54 PMThe questions were pretty vague. They were mostly asking if i filled out my app correctly. I can't remember being asked any specific questions... Maybe once or twice asked about drug use specifically but everything else was vague and about the application.
Thank you George and Sackett for answering my questions with no sarcasm.
Thank you George and Sackett for answering my questions with no sarcasm.
Posted by anonymous000
- May 10, 2008, 05:39 PMWOW the thread I started has been busy.
Okay I took my polygraph last week. It was actually a breeze, I didn't feel worried at all. The polygrapher put me at ease. I was asked 10 questions, repeat. Then 10 different questions, repeat.
I was then thanked for coming and shown out.
I answered completely honestly and didn't minimize anything. We went over things i've never told another human being. I guess we will see!
I feel confident I will make it to the next phase. You never know though!
Okay I took my polygraph last week. It was actually a breeze, I didn't feel worried at all. The polygrapher put me at ease. I was asked 10 questions, repeat. Then 10 different questions, repeat.
I was then thanked for coming and shown out.
I answered completely honestly and didn't minimize anything. We went over things i've never told another human being. I guess we will see!
I feel confident I will make it to the next phase. You never know though!
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 09, 2008, 02:05 PMI've been telling people for quite some time that the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation, and not a test for truthfulness. It requires the interrogator to PURPOSELY lie about the accuracy of the machine to "trick" the test subject into volunteering information. If the person tested KNOWS the examiner is lying, he/she will not be intimidated into making insignificant statement in response to relevant test questions which the unscrupulous examiner can blow out of all proportion to fail the person. They will NOT be intimidated!
If the person tested knows that the statement: "Look, you are reacting to that question. That means you are being deceptive. We want to help you, but you are going to have to open up to us.", is a lie and a come on, they will be less likely to fall for the con.
And NOT falling for such a con should not disqualify an applicant the hiring committee is "hot to hire". It could, however, be of some use to an investigator doing a BI. Problem is, once a fail or inconclusive is pronounced, the application process if over. No BI, no follow-up. So they end up moving to Shanghai, or Shenzhen to work in the private sector within easier access to foreign CI operatives.
TC
If the person tested knows that the statement: "Look, you are reacting to that question. That means you are being deceptive. We want to help you, but you are going to have to open up to us.", is a lie and a come on, they will be less likely to fall for the con.
And NOT falling for such a con should not disqualify an applicant the hiring committee is "hot to hire". It could, however, be of some use to an investigator doing a BI. Problem is, once a fail or inconclusive is pronounced, the application process if over. No BI, no follow-up. So they end up moving to Shanghai, or Shenzhen to work in the private sector within easier access to foreign CI operatives.
TC
Posted by pailryder
- May 09, 2008, 12:03 PMNG1
I have been a polygraph examiner for more than twenty years and the next polygraph examiner that I meet who introduces himself to me as a scientist will be the first. We are speaking of interview and interrogation techniques. People evaluating other people based on an interview that may or may not include the collection of psychophysicological data. More than ever we are research driven and try to learn from and fit in with other discplines. The last time I checked the Am Poly Assoc membership I counted members from 43 other countries. Why did the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute change its name to the Defense Academy for Credibility Asscessment? New techniques are coming faster than ever, they will not be called polygraph, but all will require some level of person to person interaction that may never be completely scientific in the way a chemistry experiment is.
I have been a polygraph examiner for more than twenty years and the next polygraph examiner that I meet who introduces himself to me as a scientist will be the first. We are speaking of interview and interrogation techniques. People evaluating other people based on an interview that may or may not include the collection of psychophysicological data. More than ever we are research driven and try to learn from and fit in with other discplines. The last time I checked the Am Poly Assoc membership I counted members from 43 other countries. Why did the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute change its name to the Defense Academy for Credibility Asscessment? New techniques are coming faster than ever, they will not be called polygraph, but all will require some level of person to person interaction that may never be completely scientific in the way a chemistry experiment is.
Posted by notguilty1
- May 09, 2008, 11:24 AMQuote from: sackett on May 09, 2008, 08:09 AMNG1
The fact that many LEA's use the techniques mostly as a confession wedge, does not negate legitimate use for detection of deception. Many agencies with that mindset have changed to some form of voice analysis for a faster wedge. The PCASS seems to me to be the polygraph industry's answer to the challenge of VS.
In the private field we are have less interest in confession and thus less need to inflate expected accuracy, though many still do, as old habits are hard to break.
The fact that many anti's seem unwilling to grasp, is that there is a need for independent credability asscessments in our society. We can and should argue over who is to do them and how, but the need is there.
If polygragh were banned tomorrow, it would not change what I do, just how I do it. The credability asscessment that includes a psychophysiological component is more reliable than one which does not.
Pailryder,
We can agree on this and the anti's (at least the ones I read) do not dispute the "need" for any scientific test we just point out the inaccuarcy of polygraphs. I agree ...... find a proven scientific test that accually does what it claims, in this case detect deception and it can be an awsome tool that can be vital in ALL areasof society.
Imagine the uses: Politics, Criminal investigation ( and admisability in court), jurors etc etc.
Fact is the current Polygraph is so inaccurate that it does little to help in any way. I know this first hand since if the police could use the (fasle) results of my Polygraph I would be arrested.
Ultimatly, you cannot use snake oil in place of a proven scientific test and expect not to be called on it because, as you say the need is there and this is all we have now.
Posted by pailryder
- May 09, 2008, 08:09 AMNG1
The fact that many LEA's use the techniques mostly as a confession wedge, does not negate legitimate use for detection of deception. Many agencies with that mindset have changed to some form of voice analysis for a faster wedge. The PCASS seems to me to be the polygraph industry's answer to the challenge of VS.
In the private field we are have less interest in confession and thus less need to inflate expected accuracy, though many still do, as old habits are hard to break.
The fact that many anti's seem unwilling to grasp, is that there is a need for independent credability asscessments in our society. We can and should argue over who is to do them and how, but the need is there.
If polygragh were banned tomorrow, it would not change what I do, just how I do it. The credability asscessment that includes a psychophysiological component is more reliable than one which does not.
The fact that many LEA's use the techniques mostly as a confession wedge, does not negate legitimate use for detection of deception. Many agencies with that mindset have changed to some form of voice analysis for a faster wedge. The PCASS seems to me to be the polygraph industry's answer to the challenge of VS.
In the private field we are have less interest in confession and thus less need to inflate expected accuracy, though many still do, as old habits are hard to break.
The fact that many anti's seem unwilling to grasp, is that there is a need for independent credability asscessments in our society. We can and should argue over who is to do them and how, but the need is there.
If polygragh were banned tomorrow, it would not change what I do, just how I do it. The credability asscessment that includes a psychophysiological component is more reliable than one which does not.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 09, 2008, 05:28 AMQuote from: sackett on May 08, 2008, 03:46 PMYes, but if you had the wisdom of george, cullen and others, you would know Pailryder, that anything which is not perfect and without error can not possibly be a scientific test; and therefore must be discarded by all humankind...
Sackett
Jim,
It's not the fact that polygraph testing has an error rate associated with it that makes it unscientific. No one is making such an argument, and it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest such. You're merely setting up a straw man to knock down.
Here's what the National Academy of Sciences concluded regarding the scientific standing of polygraphy (at pp 212-13 of The Polygraph and Lie Detection):
QuotePolygraph Accuracy Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.
Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.
Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.
Future Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
Posted by notguilty1
- May 09, 2008, 12:18 AMQuote from: sackett on May 08, 2008, 10:46 AMNG1
More properly you can only say, from your direct experience, the polygraph you took failed to accurately classify you. The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results, but to significantly reduce them, would increase the false negative rate, a trade-off deemed unacceptable to LEA's.
Yes, I can only directly speak for my own case, however I have read much about people that have experienced the same thing.
The original respose that I got from people like Sackett was that I must be with holding something!!
So what I hear you saying is the "test" is as good as the odds are that its accurate which can't really be established.
Leading to the fact that it cannot be relied upon to detect any measure of truth or deception.
It's best use, as I see it is a tool to get confessions and even that has been shown to be unrealiable in many criminal cases.
Posted by notguilty1
- May 09, 2008, 12:08 AMQuote from: sackett on May 08, 2008, 03:46 PMYes, but if you had the wisdom of george, cullen and others, you would know Pailryder, that anything which is not perfect and without error can not possibly be a scientific test; and therefore must be discarded by all humankind...
Sackett
See Sackett ..... You had me believing for a moment that you may accually want to intelligently discuss this but..... as usual you have to resort to remaks that point to your close minded ingnorance and utter disregard for the opinions, experiences and statements of others.
But though I have strayed from my original advise to you ... here it is again..... Keep talking, you are the best anti polygraph poster we have here and it seems like, you can't help yourself
BTW, TM Cullen was making a correct observation of the Poly industry claiming 95-98% accuaracy I was told exactly that too.
Oh and thanks Pailryder for your comments seems like you have something constructive to add to the disscussion.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 08, 2008, 04:41 PMQuoteIt is difficult for any examiner to know exactly his own accuracy rate, as in so many cases ground truth is never resolved to a certainty. Like you, I would be inclined to view claims in excess of 95% as wishful bs. And, I have had my share of both confirmed false positives and false negatives.
Then there a lot of polygraphers out there spreading BS, starting with Trimarco. Thank you for being honest.
Our thesis here at AP, is that is more or less a necessity for polygraphers to dupe people into believing the test is so accurate. And that it is precisely the innocent, naive, law abiding people who are the most likely to come up FP.
Our goal here is to dispel this accuracy myth.
TC
Posted by sackett
- May 08, 2008, 03:46 PMYes, but if you had the wisdom of george, cullen and others, you would know Pailryder, that anything which is not perfect and without error can not possibly be a scientific test; and therefore must be discarded by all humankind... 
Sackett
Sackett
Posted by pailryder
- May 08, 2008, 02:23 PMMr Cullen
It is difficult for any examiner to know exactly his own accuracy rate, as in so many cases ground truth is never resolved to a certainty. Like you, I would be inclined to view claims in excess of 95% as wishful bs. And, I have had my share of both confirmed false positives and false negatives.
It is difficult for any examiner to know exactly his own accuracy rate, as in so many cases ground truth is never resolved to a certainty. Like you, I would be inclined to view claims in excess of 95% as wishful bs. And, I have had my share of both confirmed false positives and false negatives.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 08, 2008, 01:42 PMQuote..........The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results...........
Polygraphers routinely claim 95-98% accuracy, and that false positives are not a problem. They make this claim both publically, and during tests to bolster belief in the test by the public at large, and test subjects in particular.
TC
Posted by pailryder
- May 08, 2008, 10:46 AMNG1
More properly you can only say, from your direct experience, the polygraph you took failed to accurately classify you. The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results, but to significantly reduce them, would increase the false negative rate, a trade-off deemed unacceptable to LEA's.
More properly you can only say, from your direct experience, the polygraph you took failed to accurately classify you. The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results, but to significantly reduce them, would increase the false negative rate, a trade-off deemed unacceptable to LEA's.
Posted by notguilty1
- May 07, 2008, 10:20 PMQuote from: sackett on May 07, 2008, 11:43 AMQuote from: Anonymous000 on May 07, 2008, 10:58 AMSackett.... any comment on my last post?
What could I possibly say that would have any impact?
Sackett
I don't know.... your the expert I thought I was finally having an intellgent converstaion with you.
I can say from direct experience that Poygraphs don't work.
If you have no further comment about this case i put foward I can't say I'm surprized.