- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Jane
- May 20, 2002, 12:44 PMDon't get me wrong. I was all for using CM's however becaue the test format wasn't exactly clear I didn't want to mess it up.
I must say that I read and re-read the advice given here. I was able to pass because I knew that my examiner was full of sh*t and trying to get me to "spill my guts" when there was nothing to spill. He pulled every tactic in the BOOK!
Thanks again. Again, had I found this website earlier I probably wouldn't have had to go back 3 times.
I must say that I read and re-read the advice given here. I was able to pass because I knew that my examiner was full of sh*t and trying to get me to "spill my guts" when there was nothing to spill. He pulled every tactic in the BOOK!
Thanks again. Again, had I found this website earlier I probably wouldn't have had to go back 3 times.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 20, 2002, 04:25 AMJ.B.,
In Honts et al.'s countermeasure studies, polygraphers were not able to detect polygraph countermeasures at better than chance levels.
You attempted to discredit Drew's opinion on the advisability of using countermeasures by attacking his status as a polygraph expert, rather than presenting any rational argument.
You haven't brought any evidence to the current discussion.
Quote1. There is data in Honts' studies of the examiners' ability to detect countermeasures. Not just can't but a certain statistical percentage. Regardless, Gino did not specify which of the many studies he was using for this assertion and/or provide a cite for readers to check the truth of his statement. If this is simply Gino¡¯s opinion, then it should be noted as such.
In Honts et al.'s countermeasure studies, polygraphers were not able to detect polygraph countermeasures at better than chance levels.
Quote2. I am not discrediting Drew as a scientist and/or attacking him personally in any way. I am simply pointing to the fact that he is an expert in Forensic Toxicology and too my knowledge only you have said he is one of the FBI's leading experts in polygraph. Drew's logic is always welcome in my opinion. I think Drew has some vary valid and sound points when it comes to polygraph. I agree with him on many issues. Even if I don't agree with something Drew says, I can appreciate his differing view and agree to disagree with him on ones that I find no evidence for the need to change. Some of my views have changed through discussions with him.
You attempted to discredit Drew's opinion on the advisability of using countermeasures by attacking his status as a polygraph expert, rather than presenting any rational argument.
QuoteI¡¯m not here to argue any further points with you. It is quite evident from reading your posts on here as well as, http://archives.his.com/intelforum/threads4.html#04192 , http://archives.his.com/intelforum/msg02979.html ,and various other sites that your views will not change no matter what evidence is provided.
You haven't brought any evidence to the current discussion.
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- May 20, 2002, 03:31 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on May 19, 2002, 03:47 PM
J.B.,
Had you bothered to read the referenced studies by Honts et al., you would not have asked such a question.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) noted in a 1997 letter to the director of the FBI Laboratory Division that "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs." To the best of my knowledge, Drew's only peer-reviewed article on polygraphy ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, 1993, 15, 263-67) is not a research study, but dealt with ethics. He co-authored it with Professor John Furedy, but the FBI forbade him from being cited as a coauthor. Nonetheless, Dr. Richardson's doctoral research (funded by the NSA polygraph unit) was on a polygraph-related topic. Dr. Richardson also served with the FBI Laboratory's (now defunct) polygraph research unit. I find it curious that you would question his qualifications as an expert in the field of polygraphy.
In any event, Dr. Richardson's criticisms of CQT polygraphy are not based on any argument from authority, but are instead grounded in reason and an understanding of the scientific method. Your ad hominem argument does nothing to undermine them.
1. There is data in Honts' studies of the examiners' ability to detect countermeasures. Not just can't[/u] but a certain statistical percentage. Regardless, Gino did not specify which of the many studies he was using for this assertion and/or provide a cite for readers to check the truth of his statement. If this is simply Gino's opinion, then it should be noted as such.
2. I am not discrediting Drew as a scientist and/or attacking him personally in any way. I am simply pointing to the fact that he is an expert in Forensic Toxicology and too my knowledge only you have said he is one of the FBI's leading experts in polygraph. Drew's logic is always welcome in my opinion. I think Drew has some vary valid and sound points when it comes to polygraph. I agree with him on many issues. Even if I don't agree with something Drew says, I can appreciate his differing view and agree to disagree with him on ones that I find no evidence for the need to change. Some of my views have changed through discussions with him.
I'm not here to argue any further points with you. It is quite evident from reading your posts on here as well as, http://archives.his.com/intelforum/threads4.html#04192 , http://archives.his.com/intelforum/msg02979.html ,and various other sites that your views will not change no matter what evidence is provided.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2002, 03:47 PMJ.B.,
Had you bothered to read the referenced studies by Honts et al., you would not have asked such a question.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) noted in a 1997 letter to the director of the FBI Laboratory Division that "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs." To the best of my knowledge, Drew's only peer-reviewed article on polygraphy ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, 1993, 15, 263-67) is not a research study, but dealt with ethics. He co-authored it with Professor John Furedy, but the FBI forbade him from being cited as a coauthor. Nonetheless, Dr. Richardson's doctoral research (funded by the NSA polygraph unit) was on a polygraph-related topic. Dr. Richardson also served with the FBI Laboratory's (now defunct) polygraph research unit. I find it curious that you would question his qualifications as an expert in the field of polygraphy.
In any event, Dr. Richardson's criticisms of CQT polygraphy are not based on any argument from authority, but are instead grounded in reason and an understanding of the scientific method. Your ad hominem argument does nothing to undermine them.
QuoteWhere does the evidence in this research study support that examiners' can't detect sophisticated countermeasures?
Had you bothered to read the referenced studies by Honts et al., you would not have asked such a question.
QuoteWho, besides you, has bestowed Drew with expert status in polygraph? What peer reviewed scientific 'physiological research' has Drew conducted and more importantly that which was specific to polygraph. Again, I respect Drew as a scientist. He has an extensive amount of experience in Forensic Toxicology. The prior remotely relates to polygraph and alone does not meet the normal criteria for being an expert in polygraph.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) noted in a 1997 letter to the director of the FBI Laboratory Division that "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs." To the best of my knowledge, Drew's only peer-reviewed article on polygraphy ("The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma: Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers," International Journal of Psychophysiology, 1993, 15, 263-67) is not a research study, but dealt with ethics. He co-authored it with Professor John Furedy, but the FBI forbade him from being cited as a coauthor. Nonetheless, Dr. Richardson's doctoral research (funded by the NSA polygraph unit) was on a polygraph-related topic. Dr. Richardson also served with the FBI Laboratory's (now defunct) polygraph research unit. I find it curious that you would question his qualifications as an expert in the field of polygraphy.
In any event, Dr. Richardson's criticisms of CQT polygraphy are not based on any argument from authority, but are instead grounded in reason and an understanding of the scientific method. Your ad hominem argument does nothing to undermine them.
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- May 19, 2002, 01:50 PMGeorge,
You wrote:
That they may. I think the evidence of the contradictory view to yours is overwhelmingly obvious.
You wrote:
Where does the evidence in this research study support that examiners' can't detect sophisticated countermeasures?
You wrote:
Who, besides you, has bestowed Drew with expert status in polygraph? What peer reviewed scientific 'physiological research' has Drew conducted and more importantly that which was specific to polygraph. Again, I respect Drew as a scientist. He has an extensive amount of experience in Forensic Toxicology. The prior remotely relates to polygraph and alone does not meet the normal criteria for being an expert in polygraph.
You wrote:
Quote
You say so, but the evidence is not compelling. (You and I have discussed this at length in the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. All who are interested may draw their own conclusions from our debate.)
That they may. I think the evidence of the contradictory view to yours is overwhelmingly obvious.
You wrote:
Quote
Gino is no doubt referring to the studies by Honts et al., which are referenced in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Where does the evidence in this research study support that examiners' can't detect sophisticated countermeasures?
You wrote:
Quote
What you're referring to here is my statement (in response to a question in the message thread Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge) that it is I who described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top polygraph expert on the AntiPolygraph.org home page. As I explained there, I did so on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the scientific principles underlying polygraphy. Whether one agrees with my characterization or not, I think it remains fair to describe Dr. Richardson as a polygraph expert.
Who, besides you, has bestowed Drew with expert status in polygraph? What peer reviewed scientific 'physiological research' has Drew conducted and more importantly that which was specific to polygraph. Again, I respect Drew as a scientist. He has an extensive amount of experience in Forensic Toxicology. The prior remotely relates to polygraph and alone does not meet the normal criteria for being an expert in polygraph.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2002, 05:03 AMJ.B.,
You say so, but the evidence is not compelling. (You and I have discussed this at length in the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. All who are interested may draw their own conclusions from our debate.)
Gino is no doubt referring to the studies by Honts et al., which are referenced in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
What you're referring to here is my statement (in response to a question in the message thread Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge) that it is I who described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top polygraph expert on the AntiPolygraph.org home page. As I explained there, I did so on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the scientific principles underlying polygraphy. Whether one agrees with my characterization or not, I think it remains fair to describe Dr. Richardson as a polygraph expert.
QuotePolygraph has been shown to have high validity, extremely higher then chance, under field conditions.
You say so, but the evidence is not compelling. (You and I have discussed this at length in the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. All who are interested may draw their own conclusions from our debate.)
QuoteI am not sure of what research you are speaking about in regards to sophisticated countermeasures and their detection?
Gino is no doubt referring to the studies by Honts et al., which are referenced in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
QuoteAlthough Drew is an expert in Forensic Toxicology, his expert status is not established under his connections with the FBI. George has already openly admitted that he is the one who gave Drew this status on this site.
What you're referring to here is my statement (in response to a question in the message thread Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge) that it is I who described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top polygraph expert on the AntiPolygraph.org home page. As I explained there, I did so on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the scientific principles underlying polygraphy. Whether one agrees with my characterization or not, I think it remains fair to describe Dr. Richardson as a polygraph expert.
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- May 19, 2002, 04:45 AMGino,
You wrote:
Polygraph has been shown to have high validity, extremely higher then chance, under field conditions.
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg1903#msg1903
I am not sure of what research you are speaking about in regards to sophisticated countermeasures and their detection?
Although Drew is an expert in Forensic Toxicology, his expert status is not established under his connections with the FBI. George has already openly admitted that he is the one who gave Drew this status on this site.
You wrote:
Quote
Let's see here....
Polygraphy has not been shown to be more accurate than chance under field conditions.
Peer reviewed research has shown that polygraphers cannot detect sophisticated countermeasures.
Polygraph has been shown to have high validity, extremely higher then chance, under field conditions.
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg1903#msg1903
I am not sure of what research you are speaking about in regards to sophisticated countermeasures and their detection?
Although Drew is an expert in Forensic Toxicology, his expert status is not established under his connections with the FBI. George has already openly admitted that he is the one who gave Drew this status on this site.
Posted by G Scalabr
- May 18, 2002, 06:27 AMQuoteYou passed your polygraph without using CMs!
Even a broken clock is right twice each day. That fact that someone passed a polygraph "test" without using countermeasures means nothing. Nowhere have we said that it is impossible to pass without countermeasures. If you read the site carefully, you will notice that we describe polygraphy as a procedure with random results.
We provide information on countermeasures for those who do not wish to chance their futures to an unreliable and fraudulent "test" with tremendous error rates.
QuoteThey have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness.
Or, perhaps we are expending our time, money, and energy to use our negative experiences in a positive way by attempting to prevent others from having to repeat them. Let's let the readers of this site decide for themselves.
QuoteThey seem willing to give you unfounded career advice
Let's see here....
- Polygraphy has not been shown to be more accurate than chance under field conditions.
- Peer reviewed research has shown that polygraphers cannot detect sophisticated countermeasures.
- Former FBI polygraph expert Dr. Drew C. Richardson and University of Minnesota Psychology Professor Dr. David Lykken have both publicly stated that they would use polygraph countermeasures if forced to submit to a pre-employment polygraph
Posted by eisenmann372002
- May 17, 2002, 09:11 PMBoy Wonder sputtered one of the stupidest things I've ever heard:
"Did any of your advisors on this web page offer to hire you if you did not. In other words do not become a "victim" of antipolygraph.org. They have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness."
If I could afford to start and maintain my own NON-PROFIT website, I don't think I would have bitterness towards anything. Perhaps I'm naive....but I doubt it. What the HELL will be offered to an honest person who is absolutely truthful on their pre-employment exam but fails wrongfully? NOTHING!!! They LOSE THEIR OPPORTUNITY. My GOD, what does it take to get this point across?
Again I ask, pro-polygraph soothsayers...if the polygraph is flawless, why does the possibility of countermeasures raise the hackles of pro-polygraphers? And again I state, because the polygraph does NOT detect LIES!
Boy Wonder...come on. You're not dealing with uneducated school children here. The polygraph MAY be useful in criminal interrogations, but it should NOT be used to qualify or disqualify ANYone going through a pre-employment screening. Dispute this all you want, but you and I both know that it's a complete sham in this regard. If you deny this, then what is your problem with countermeasures? Either the polygraph is flawless or not. Pick a side and stick with it.
"Did any of your advisors on this web page offer to hire you if you did not. In other words do not become a "victim" of antipolygraph.org. They have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness."
If I could afford to start and maintain my own NON-PROFIT website, I don't think I would have bitterness towards anything. Perhaps I'm naive....but I doubt it. What the HELL will be offered to an honest person who is absolutely truthful on their pre-employment exam but fails wrongfully? NOTHING!!! They LOSE THEIR OPPORTUNITY. My GOD, what does it take to get this point across?
Again I ask, pro-polygraph soothsayers...if the polygraph is flawless, why does the possibility of countermeasures raise the hackles of pro-polygraphers? And again I state, because the polygraph does NOT detect LIES!
Boy Wonder...come on. You're not dealing with uneducated school children here. The polygraph MAY be useful in criminal interrogations, but it should NOT be used to qualify or disqualify ANYone going through a pre-employment screening. Dispute this all you want, but you and I both know that it's a complete sham in this regard. If you deny this, then what is your problem with countermeasures? Either the polygraph is flawless or not. Pick a side and stick with it.
Posted by Anonymous
- May 17, 2002, 08:59 PMBoy_Wonder,
Even the most naive reader on this site can see through the shallow logic of your last post. George, Gino, and others have absolutely no motivation to do anything but help those who have been victimized or are about to be victimized by polygraph screening. Yes, they too have been victimized--they know of that which they speak. You, on the other hand, if you are a member of the polygraph community, most assuredly do NOT have Jane's or any other examinee's welfare as your primary motivating force, but your own financial interest, sense of professional self-survival and a futile search for a purpose in life.
Even the most naive reader on this site can see through the shallow logic of your last post. George, Gino, and others have absolutely no motivation to do anything but help those who have been victimized or are about to be victimized by polygraph screening. Yes, they too have been victimized--they know of that which they speak. You, on the other hand, if you are a member of the polygraph community, most assuredly do NOT have Jane's or any other examinee's welfare as your primary motivating force, but your own financial interest, sense of professional self-survival and a futile search for a purpose in life.
Posted by Boy_Wonder
- May 17, 2002, 08:29 PMJane
You passed your polygraph without using CMs! Did any of your advisors on this web page offer to hire you if you did not. In other words do not become a "victim" of antipolygraph.org. They have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness. They seem willing to give you unfounded career advice, but what will they offer when that advice fails?
BW
You passed your polygraph without using CMs! Did any of your advisors on this web page offer to hire you if you did not. In other words do not become a "victim" of antipolygraph.org. They have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness. They seem willing to give you unfounded career advice, but what will they offer when that advice fails?
BW
Posted by Jane
- May 16, 2002, 05:38 PM
Just wanted to pop in and say I PASSED my third poly (had a second one since my first post & it was "inconclusive"). Just got a call from my SSO and she said I was "successful"
I did not use countermeasures because I just couldn't figure out the format of the test (NSA). They only had relevant/irrevelant and no "control" questions.
Anyhow...it's over and I won't have to do the CI one again for 5 years.
Posted by Jane
- Feb 27, 2002, 01:00 PM ::)The chair looked an awful lot like that one, but much cushier. I don't think I can flex my spincter without flexing my buns, so that is out for me. I'm working on biting my tongue without it showing. I'm going to wear a turtleneck.
Another question, are they likely to change the kind of "test "they give me or stick with the same type as last time?
And, no, there was no type of stim test. My husband thought that was odd too. No picking numbers, no intentional lying, nothing. Just three rounds of questions for the CI part and 3 rounds for the lifestyle part.
I thought of another question & wanted to know if it is a control question. "In the past 5 years have you used drugs?" I had admitted to smoking pot in high school, but couldn't think of how many times. He made me come up with a number that it couldn't be more than. I started with 5 but then went up to 10 because I REALLY don't remember. I would assume that I would still have a "reaction" to the drug question because of my guilty conscience.
Finally, is it ok to think about things in between the questions. I have trouble focusing and my mind wanders. The examiner said I was "bringing stuff in" that was interfereing. Should I just sing a song in my head or something?
Another question, are they likely to change the kind of "test "they give me or stick with the same type as last time?
And, no, there was no type of stim test. My husband thought that was odd too. No picking numbers, no intentional lying, nothing. Just three rounds of questions for the CI part and 3 rounds for the lifestyle part.
I thought of another question & wanted to know if it is a control question. "In the past 5 years have you used drugs?" I had admitted to smoking pot in high school, but couldn't think of how many times. He made me come up with a number that it couldn't be more than. I started with 5 but then went up to 10 because I REALLY don't remember. I would assume that I would still have a "reaction" to the drug question because of my guilty conscience.
Finally, is it ok to think about things in between the questions. I have trouble focusing and my mind wanders. The examiner said I was "bringing stuff in" that was interfereing. Should I just sing a song in my head or something?
Posted by beech trees
- Feb 27, 2002, 12:05 PMQuote from: Jane on Feb 26, 2002, 07:09 PM
I had some "weak" areas in my first poly (3 weeks ago) as my SSO described.
Did your interrogator tell you in what areas you were 'weak'?
QuoteFirst let me say, I sure wish I had found your site before my first exam. It would have saved me all this trouble and worry. My examiner pulled all those tricks and basically beat me down. I don't have anything to confess but he sure did get me to tell more about my personal life than I would have liked. I was 100% truthful on the exam. I have read in other posts that this agency uses the MGQT format for their exams.
A well-timed, "You sure seem fascinated with the nuances of my sex-life. Your questions are bordering on sexual harassment. I'd hate to think of the civil liabilities you and your employer would face should a person inclined to litigation decide to make charges" would do wonders. Actually, no, you want to get the job obviously so you probably are resigned to playing the game. Oh well, nice to day-dream about.
QuoteI was never asked any direct lie questions and never given a stim test. Is that normal?
I find it highly suspicious that no stim test was given. Nothing?
QuoteHow about questions like "Is your name Jane Doe.?" Is this an Irrevalant question?
Yes.
QuoteThe chair I sat in was big and comfy. Could it have sensors in it?
Highly unlikely, although 'strain gauges' are used on some polygraph chairs in order to determine if one is pressing down with one's feet (I suppose to defeat the 'tack in the shoe' countermeasure). Such chairs are pretty easily spotted. The big comfy chairs are sometimes draped with placebo 'sensor pads' in an effort to intimidate the subject and cow him/her into not attempting various physical countermeasures. Don't fall for it.
QuoteI'm not as nervous about my second exam because from what I read the test is BS. I can't believe I fell for it the first time.
Good for you!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 26, 2002, 08:05 PMJane,
I'm glad you found AntiPolygraph.org. This website was created by polygraph victims to educate and protect those whose honesty and integrity our government has regrettably decided to assess through the voodoo science of polygraphy.
I don't know whether either of the national agencies that begin with an "N" (NSA and NRO) use the MGQT format (a probable-lie "control" question technique) in employee screening.
At the time of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report on polygraphy in 1983, the NSA used a Relevant/Irrlevant technique for screening, with a probable-lie "control" question being added at the end of a series if the subject showed no significant reaction to any question in the series. Perhaps the NSA still uses the R/I technique. I don't know.
At the time of the OTA report, the existence of the other agency, NRO, was an official secret. I don't know what technique that agency primarily uses, but in fall of last year, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute taught a R/I screening course in Chantilly, VA (where NRO is headquartered).
So, when you go back for your follow-up polygraph, you may encounter either a probable-lie or directed-lie "control" question "test" or a R/I "test."
The question "Have you been truthful on this exam today?" is perhaps the most commonly used "sacrifice" relevant question, frequently being the first relevant question asked in a series (after two irrelevant questions), and is not scored. However, in the General Question "Test," (GQT) this question serves as a "disguised control" question. While DoDPI claims that it no longer teaches the GQT and has discarded all documentation of it, it is conceivable that they made some minor changes and slapped a new name on it. Again, I don't know.
A question like, "Is your name Jane Doe?" is indeed an irrelevant question.
A CNN ran a report on the NSA a while back that showed a picture of what appears to be a big comfy polygraph chair, and it could indeed have sensors in it. They'd be easy to conceal:
Good luck next week, and please consider posting a note on how it went. And of course, feel free to post any additional questions you may have. At the appropriate time, you may wish to fill in your friends and co-workers regarding the polygraph.
I'm glad you found AntiPolygraph.org. This website was created by polygraph victims to educate and protect those whose honesty and integrity our government has regrettably decided to assess through the voodoo science of polygraphy.
I don't know whether either of the national agencies that begin with an "N" (NSA and NRO) use the MGQT format (a probable-lie "control" question technique) in employee screening.
At the time of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report on polygraphy in 1983, the NSA used a Relevant/Irrlevant technique for screening, with a probable-lie "control" question being added at the end of a series if the subject showed no significant reaction to any question in the series. Perhaps the NSA still uses the R/I technique. I don't know.
At the time of the OTA report, the existence of the other agency, NRO, was an official secret. I don't know what technique that agency primarily uses, but in fall of last year, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute taught a R/I screening course in Chantilly, VA (where NRO is headquartered).
So, when you go back for your follow-up polygraph, you may encounter either a probable-lie or directed-lie "control" question "test" or a R/I "test."
The question "Have you been truthful on this exam today?" is perhaps the most commonly used "sacrifice" relevant question, frequently being the first relevant question asked in a series (after two irrelevant questions), and is not scored. However, in the General Question "Test," (GQT) this question serves as a "disguised control" question. While DoDPI claims that it no longer teaches the GQT and has discarded all documentation of it, it is conceivable that they made some minor changes and slapped a new name on it. Again, I don't know.
A question like, "Is your name Jane Doe?" is indeed an irrelevant question.
A CNN ran a report on the NSA a while back that showed a picture of what appears to be a big comfy polygraph chair, and it could indeed have sensors in it. They'd be easy to conceal:
Good luck next week, and please consider posting a note on how it went. And of course, feel free to post any additional questions you may have. At the appropriate time, you may wish to fill in your friends and co-workers regarding the polygraph.