- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 30, 2002, 03:57 PMPDD-Fed,
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'll take them into consideration.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'll take them into consideration.
Posted by PDD-Fed
- May 30, 2002, 03:17 PMGeorge,
You seem to be under the opinion that an R&I examiner is looking for a consistant reaction to ONE particular question. Remember, a subject can respond consistantly to one, some, most, or all his relevants. When three charts are collected in which three or four relevant questions are asked, then the examinee has the opportunity to respond two or more times to each question (one asking per chart). If the examinee starts creating responses to a "different pair of questions" in each different chart, add to the responses we expect to see to relevants which would normally be significant in a deceptive perrson, then the examinee has just helped to drive himself DI by anyone's scoring criterior...
PDD-Fed...
You seem to be under the opinion that an R&I examiner is looking for a consistant reaction to ONE particular question. Remember, a subject can respond consistantly to one, some, most, or all his relevants. When three charts are collected in which three or four relevant questions are asked, then the examinee has the opportunity to respond two or more times to each question (one asking per chart). If the examinee starts creating responses to a "different pair of questions" in each different chart, add to the responses we expect to see to relevants which would normally be significant in a deceptive perrson, then the examinee has just helped to drive himself DI by anyone's scoring criterior...
PDD-Fed...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 29, 2002, 03:19 AMPDD-Fed,
You assume that a subject will react when answering relevant questions deceptively, but that is not necessarily the case. The rationale for producing reactions to a different pair of relevant questions during each chart collection is to prevent reactions to any single relevant question from being "consistent, specific, and significant" when the charts are scored globally.
If a polygrapher were to instead consider any reaction to any relevant question as a basis for a "deception indicated" opinion, whether or not it was "consistent, specific, and significant," then I admit there would be little merit in augmenting reactions to any relevant question. Is this the way you score R/I charts?
You assume that a subject will react when answering relevant questions deceptively, but that is not necessarily the case. The rationale for producing reactions to a different pair of relevant questions during each chart collection is to prevent reactions to any single relevant question from being "consistent, specific, and significant" when the charts are scored globally.
If a polygrapher were to instead consider any reaction to any relevant question as a basis for a "deception indicated" opinion, whether or not it was "consistent, specific, and significant," then I admit there would be little merit in augmenting reactions to any relevant question. Is this the way you score R/I charts?
Posted by PDD-Fed
- May 28, 2002, 05:55 PMGeorge,
Look at the math. If the examiner conducts a four relevant R&I test, where all four relevants are repeated over three to four charts, and the examinee creates reactions to different question pairs over each of the charts, he has just created his own "comsignificant" (DI) test. Not the mention the fact that he is already reacting the the areas he in deceptive to anyway. Admit it George, there are no effective point countermeasures in an R&I test (but I WELCOME your readers to try)..
Look at the math. If the examiner conducts a four relevant R&I test, where all four relevants are repeated over three to four charts, and the examinee creates reactions to different question pairs over each of the charts, he has just created his own "comsignificant" (DI) test. Not the mention the fact that he is already reacting the the areas he in deceptive to anyway. Admit it George, there are no effective point countermeasures in an R&I test (but I WELCOME your readers to try)..
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 10, 2002, 09:45 AMNot exactly. Our suggestion, if one is to use more than just behavioral countermeasures during a Relevant/Irrelevant "test," is to create reactions to a different pair of two relevant questions during each chart presentation in order to avoid a "con-spec-nificant" reaction to any one relevant question.
Posted by anon1
- Mar 07, 2002, 07:47 PMAm I correct in my understanding of the second addition of the Lie... regarding the R/I format that to countermeasure you would intentionally countermeasure (spike) a couple of the relevant questions the first time asked and then do not counter at all the second and or third time it is asked? This will create a dramatic reaction for the first one and then (no matter whether you tell the truth or not) drop off considerably on the second and third - which may indicate a strong initial reaction that then levels out to more acceptable levels thus not indicating deception. Am I close?