- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by billson
- May 14, 2009, 03:02 PMHave you filled out your paperwork truthfully and completely?
Other than what you've told me have you ever used illegal drugs?
Other than what you've told me have you ever used illegal drugs?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 13, 2009, 09:19 PMSo, which relevant questions did you actually lie to when you used your countermeasures, billson? Studies show that countermeasures do nothing to help the innocent pass an exam, so I assume that you were guilty to the relevant issues. Otherwise, you're about as believable as the guy who says his lucky rabbit's foot helps him avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Posted by billson
- May 13, 2009, 09:09 PMI think I've been lurking here long enough...
First I have taken no less than three polygraphs for Federal Agencies. I passed all of them using the techniques I learned here. They used the "Butt Pad" on all of them FYI. So mental/breathing CMs only.
My problem is I did LSD twice when I was a teen. It's something I have to hide because it is an automatic DQ in ANY LEO position. The Federal Government is all about avoiding blame. So even if there is a miniscule chance of a flashback one year after LSD use they still don't want to take the chance of hiring someone like me for the sole reason of covering their collective rears.
I have seen guys hired for LEO positions that had a DUI two years before applying which I find appauling. These people are usually in their mid twenties and should know better.
If I could be given a chance to acknowledge my mistakes with out being shut out of a career I would.
I think polygraph examiners come on this board for the sole reason of trying to instill doubt in their future "Subjects". Only problem with that is the test they give you is straight out of the appendix of TBTLD.
First I have taken no less than three polygraphs for Federal Agencies. I passed all of them using the techniques I learned here. They used the "Butt Pad" on all of them FYI. So mental/breathing CMs only.
My problem is I did LSD twice when I was a teen. It's something I have to hide because it is an automatic DQ in ANY LEO position. The Federal Government is all about avoiding blame. So even if there is a miniscule chance of a flashback one year after LSD use they still don't want to take the chance of hiring someone like me for the sole reason of covering their collective rears.
I have seen guys hired for LEO positions that had a DUI two years before applying which I find appauling. These people are usually in their mid twenties and should know better.
If I could be given a chance to acknowledge my mistakes with out being shut out of a career I would.
I think polygraph examiners come on this board for the sole reason of trying to instill doubt in their future "Subjects". Only problem with that is the test they give you is straight out of the appendix of TBTLD.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 10, 2009, 10:05 PMFunny how you would say that my posting on this forum subtracts from my credibility, when you have absolutely no credibility yourself, Sergeant.
I'm big enough to apologize if my strong, experienced opinion comes across as "flaming." However, when you say that "Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack," you give yourself more credit than is due. I don't "perceive" you to lack experience or qualifications at all; it is without question that you have none of either, and I sometimes become impatient with ignorant (and that's not a "flame" or an ad hominem attack, but simply the truth) people who make statements as if they are fact, when those people have absolutely no training or experience to make such statements.
My reasons for coming to this forum are:
1. For entertainment. It is quite entertaining, at least for a little while, to ruffle the parrots' feathers on this forum. Sometimes the spiteful side of me enjoys baiting and hooking little fish who want to be big fish.
2. I sincerely wish to educate ignorant, naive, gullible--but sincerely concerned--future polygraph examinees so that maybe they won't screw themselves when they come to take a polygraph. You see, I don't enjoy warning people before they take a polygraph that they should simply follow my instructions and they'll do fine, and then watching them fall into the trap they set for themselves.
3. I enjoy exchanges with intelligent, experienced people who also come here for entertainment and to enlighten others.
But you are right about something: I will grow weary of my time on this forum after a little while longer, and then I'll leave for a few days, weeks, or even months. Then you won't have to deal with trying to put out my fires each day, and you, George et. al can go back to patting each other on the back and giving future polygraph examinees poor, ignorant advice.
Perhaps I can save a few people, but I'm not going to make it my mission to save them all. Unlike George, I've got better things to do with my life than sit all day on a forum in an obscure website such as this. If you don't think it's obscure, and that it's readership is going down, check out the following link:
http://www.quantcast.com/antipolygraph.org
Half of the posts are by regulars like you and, yes, like me. Kind of puts things into perspective, which I think you lack.
I'm big enough to apologize if my strong, experienced opinion comes across as "flaming." However, when you say that "Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack," you give yourself more credit than is due. I don't "perceive" you to lack experience or qualifications at all; it is without question that you have none of either, and I sometimes become impatient with ignorant (and that's not a "flame" or an ad hominem attack, but simply the truth) people who make statements as if they are fact, when those people have absolutely no training or experience to make such statements.
My reasons for coming to this forum are:
1. For entertainment. It is quite entertaining, at least for a little while, to ruffle the parrots' feathers on this forum. Sometimes the spiteful side of me enjoys baiting and hooking little fish who want to be big fish.
2. I sincerely wish to educate ignorant, naive, gullible--but sincerely concerned--future polygraph examinees so that maybe they won't screw themselves when they come to take a polygraph. You see, I don't enjoy warning people before they take a polygraph that they should simply follow my instructions and they'll do fine, and then watching them fall into the trap they set for themselves.
3. I enjoy exchanges with intelligent, experienced people who also come here for entertainment and to enlighten others.
But you are right about something: I will grow weary of my time on this forum after a little while longer, and then I'll leave for a few days, weeks, or even months. Then you won't have to deal with trying to put out my fires each day, and you, George et. al can go back to patting each other on the back and giving future polygraph examinees poor, ignorant advice.
Perhaps I can save a few people, but I'm not going to make it my mission to save them all. Unlike George, I've got better things to do with my life than sit all day on a forum in an obscure website such as this. If you don't think it's obscure, and that it's readership is going down, check out the following link:
http://www.quantcast.com/antipolygraph.org
Half of the posts are by regulars like you and, yes, like me. Kind of puts things into perspective, which I think you lack.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 10, 2009, 09:44 PMPerhaps the following definitions of "ad hominem" may be useful:
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Civilized debate should consist of addressing the arguments or points proposed by whomever you are debating, not denigrating the debater himself.
I really don't understand why you would even come to this message board if you have no wish to be burdened by the opinions of people who are not professional polygraph operators. There are closed boards for polygraph operators where you need never engage in what you obviously consider the mundanity of uninformed posters.
I guess you are simply posting flame bait rather than engaging in a debate or answering questions. Feel free to continue, if you must, but I do hope you grow weary of it before too long. It does nothing to further any intelligent debate, but it does subtract from your credibility with each new flaming post.
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Civilized debate should consist of addressing the arguments or points proposed by whomever you are debating, not denigrating the debater himself.
I really don't understand why you would even come to this message board if you have no wish to be burdened by the opinions of people who are not professional polygraph operators. There are closed boards for polygraph operators where you need never engage in what you obviously consider the mundanity of uninformed posters.
I guess you are simply posting flame bait rather than engaging in a debate or answering questions. Feel free to continue, if you must, but I do hope you grow weary of it before too long. It does nothing to further any intelligent debate, but it does subtract from your credibility with each new flaming post.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 10, 2009, 12:28 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 10, 2009, 09:58 AMPeople arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.
JPW already explained what an actual ad hominem attack is, so if you don't understand it, why do you keep using the term? It is not an ad hominem attack to disparage the credentials or qualifications of people have who none. A spade is a spade. An ignoramus is an ignoramus. When you make statements about something with which you have no experience, as if your opinion is factual, then you are indeed an ignoramus, and you should be disparaged.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 10, 2009, 09:58 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on May 09, 2009, 03:29 PMPeople arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.I have noticed that, too.
People arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.
If people who believe the polygraph is not accurate are wrong it should be relatively easy to prove that, logically and scientifically, if the polygraph is in fact a scientific instrument that accurately detects deception.
Any neutral reader to this board will immediately notice the plethora of personal attacks made by polygraph supporters at a large number of people who simply post their opinion that the polygraph is not an accurate method of detecting deception. Such attacks do nothing for their cause except lower their credibility.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 09, 2009, 03:29 PMQuote. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.
He pontificates most arrogantly here, and goes on and on about his vast experience, yet he resorts to such dishonesty. People arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.
Shameful!
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 09, 2009, 05:52 AMLieBabyCryBaby,
You write, among other things:
The NAS report does not assert that use of the countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by innocent persons results in an increased risk of their failing the polygraph. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.
Let's look at the first part of your citation. The following text appears at p. 147 of the NAS report:
Now let's look at the second part of your citation from the NAS report, which you present as if it immediately followed the preceding text:
However, the above portion actually appears on page 140, seven pages before the earlier cited text. And you omitted an in-text citation to the studies referenced by the foregoing passage (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001), neither of which addressed the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
It is fair to say that the NAS report questions the ease with which countermeasures can be learned. What we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is that in peer-reviewed laboratory studies by Charles Honts and collaborators, some 50% of programmed guilty examinees were able to fool the lie detector after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction, and even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect their countermeasures. It can be (and has been) argued that under field conditions, where the consequences of being judged deceptive are more serious, genuinely guilty persons would have a harder time producing strong enough reactions to the control questions to overcome any reactions to the relevant questions. On the other hand, those facing a polygraph under field conditions typically have much more than 30 minutes to prepare themselves and considerably greater motivation to do so than participants in a laboratory experiment. The ease with which countermeasures may be learned and successfully applied may also depend on the intelligence and educational background of the individual. As the NAS report correctly notes, research in this regard is wanting.
It's worth mentioning here the closest thing we have to a field study of countermeasures, which David Lykken relates in Chapter 19 (How to Beat the Lie Detector) of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998):
You write, among other things:
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 08, 2009, 09:34 PMI would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.Could it be any clearer than this?
Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.
However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
What part of that don't you understand, George?...
The NAS report does not assert that use of the countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by innocent persons results in an increased risk of their failing the polygraph. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.
Let's look at the first part of your citation. The following text appears at p. 147 of the NAS report:
QuoteAuthors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.
Now let's look at the second part of your citation from the NAS report, which you present as if it immediately followed the preceding text:
QuoteThere is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
However, the above portion actually appears on page 140, seven pages before the earlier cited text. And you omitted an in-text citation to the studies referenced by the foregoing passage (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001), neither of which addressed the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
It is fair to say that the NAS report questions the ease with which countermeasures can be learned. What we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is that in peer-reviewed laboratory studies by Charles Honts and collaborators, some 50% of programmed guilty examinees were able to fool the lie detector after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction, and even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect their countermeasures. It can be (and has been) argued that under field conditions, where the consequences of being judged deceptive are more serious, genuinely guilty persons would have a harder time producing strong enough reactions to the control questions to overcome any reactions to the relevant questions. On the other hand, those facing a polygraph under field conditions typically have much more than 30 minutes to prepare themselves and considerably greater motivation to do so than participants in a laboratory experiment. The ease with which countermeasures may be learned and successfully applied may also depend on the intelligence and educational background of the individual. As the NAS report correctly notes, research in this regard is wanting.
It's worth mentioning here the closest thing we have to a field study of countermeasures, which David Lykken relates in Chapter 19 (How to Beat the Lie Detector) of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998):
QuoteMethods Taught by Floyd Fay
I mentioned earlier my correspondence with Floyd Fay while he was serving the first two years of a life sentence for murder. His conviction, since proven to have been in error, resulted in large part from testimony by a polygrapher that this defendant had failed a stipulated lie test. At his request, I had sent Fay some information about polygraphic interrogation, including an article of my own that explains how one might attempt to "beat" the Control Question Test. After some months, I received from Fay a letter that read, in part, as follows:
"Since reading the article that you sent me ... I have been running my own experiment. The prison that I am in forces anyone that is suspected of violating a prison regulation into taking a polygraph. I have been able to get to nine of these people prior to their taking a test. Out of the nine that I KNOW were guilty of the 'offense' that they were accused of, nine have beat the test! I realize that this is a small group to work with, but the 100% 'hit rate' is nothing to laugh at. All I have done is have them read the article that you have sent me and then explain exactly what you were saying and they have all beat the test."
It would be difficult for a researcher to set up a controlled study to determine whether guilty suspects, to be tested under real life conditions, could be trained to beat the lie test. Fay does not claim to be a scientist but I think he has helped to illuminate an inaccessible corner. As he remarks, nine out of nine is nothing to laugh at. Attorney F. Lee Bailey once offered a prize of $10,000 to "anyone who can beat the lie detector." I think that it would be only fair if Mr. Bailey would pay off this bet to Mr. Fay, in wholly inadequate compensation for Fay's two years spent in prison, falsely convicted by the lie detector Bailey claims to be almost infallible.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 09, 2009, 04:17 AMQuoteI would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website. And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures. Could it be any clearer than this?
Beware of atheists who quote the bible, and beware of polygraphers who quote the NAS Report.
The NAS report also stated:
"[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
So maybe the best way to stop people from using CMs (and improve national security at the same time) would be to take the NAS advice to heart and stop using polygraphs to screen applicants and current employees. Maybe they would have caught Aldrich Ames sooner.
Then again, using your absurd logic, the NAS had no business rendering such an opinion as they have absolutely NO EXPERIENCE conducting polygraph interrogations.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 09, 2009, 02:16 AMIf countermeasures don't work, what are you worried about? You seem intensely fixated on the advice given in TLBTLD, especially the part about CMs, and this website in general. If the polygraph is so accurate, then a bunch of "bogus" information and advice provided here should not be a problem for you.
If CMs are so easily detected, they shouldn't be that much of a problem for you, should they? It should just make it that much easier for you to catch applicants silly enough to follow the advice on this board.
OTOH, if CMs do work, and knowing ahead of time that the polygraph is all about INTERROGATION and applicantrs are duly forewarned to watch what they say (like a criminal suspect advised by his lawyer), and informed that the polygraph has NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY according to the nations top scientists, that WOULD be a problem for you, and might explain your fixation with this site. Just a thought.
BTW, what evidence do you have that you can even detect countermeasures?
TC
If CMs are so easily detected, they shouldn't be that much of a problem for you, should they? It should just make it that much easier for you to catch applicants silly enough to follow the advice on this board.
OTOH, if CMs do work, and knowing ahead of time that the polygraph is all about INTERROGATION and applicantrs are duly forewarned to watch what they say (like a criminal suspect advised by his lawyer), and informed that the polygraph has NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY according to the nations top scientists, that WOULD be a problem for you, and might explain your fixation with this site. Just a thought.
BTW, what evidence do you have that you can even detect countermeasures?
TC
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 08, 2009, 10:50 PMCullen, you've just revealed the fourth favorite defense that you and the "anti-" group on this website use when you're losing an argument: you throw out a meaningless post in an effort to quickly put some distance between an opponent's successful argument so that astute, perceptive readers might not go back and look at it and see what a fool you are. In this case, JPW blew you fools out of the water, so you hope to throw up a smoke screen so that readers might not notice.
(Hint for readers: go back and read JPW's last couple of posts, and you'll find Cullen's latest idiotic attempts very amusing.)
Now, I've already stated many times that it would be foolish to take the advice posted on this website to try to "beat" the polygraph. And I also stated that perhaps anyone who takes such advice deserves what they get when they sit in the polygraph chair and screw themselves. However, I never EVER said that I don't care if given applicants are hired or not. While any good polygrapher should go into the exam room with an impartial mind, not caring whether the examinee passes the exam or not, as I stated before, I always want the examinee to pass because it makes everyone happy, a good person cleared another hurdle toward getting a job he or she wants, and it makes my job easier and my day brighter. But if an examinee chooses to ignore my instructions and attempts to implement faulty advice he or she read on a website such as this, full of ignorant, inexperienced, self-portrayed experts, THEN I definitely would NOT want such a naive, dishonest person working for my employer, and I would indeed be satisfied to thwart such a person's goal.
Of course, YOU will probably come back putting more words in my mouth because you have absolutely no knowledge, training or experience that would qualify you to make any claim whatsover about the polygraph process.
(Hint for readers: go back and read JPW's last couple of posts, and you'll find Cullen's latest idiotic attempts very amusing.)
Now, I've already stated many times that it would be foolish to take the advice posted on this website to try to "beat" the polygraph. And I also stated that perhaps anyone who takes such advice deserves what they get when they sit in the polygraph chair and screw themselves. However, I never EVER said that I don't care if given applicants are hired or not. While any good polygrapher should go into the exam room with an impartial mind, not caring whether the examinee passes the exam or not, as I stated before, I always want the examinee to pass because it makes everyone happy, a good person cleared another hurdle toward getting a job he or she wants, and it makes my job easier and my day brighter. But if an examinee chooses to ignore my instructions and attempts to implement faulty advice he or she read on a website such as this, full of ignorant, inexperienced, self-portrayed experts, THEN I definitely would NOT want such a naive, dishonest person working for my employer, and I would indeed be satisfied to thwart such a person's goal.
Of course, YOU will probably come back putting more words in my mouth because you have absolutely no knowledge, training or experience that would qualify you to make any claim whatsover about the polygraph process.
Posted by T.Cullen
- May 08, 2009, 10:30 PMReaders might well conclude, based on the amount of time and effort you spend here, that you are in fact worried about the efficacy of the countermeasure techniques GM teaches, as well as the facts he has exposed about the true nature of the art of polygraphic interrogations.
A contrarian might well ask: "If CMs are so ineffective, and the info about the polygraph on this website were so bogus, why is LBCB so neurotically fixated on this board. I think GM has struck a real nerve. Especially since banning/exposing your pal Ed Van Arsdale in Ponca City OK. (aka. Sancho Panza, Ed Earl, Phillip Queeg, Anonymous too).
You'll probably come back claiming it's because you are "concerned" about applicant's unwittingly ruining their chances for employment by following such "nonesense" advice provided here. But you have already admitted you really don't care if given applicants are hired or not. Which is one of the true things you've said. Besides, you would probably dance in glee, and make it into the polygraph "Hall of Fame" if you caught an applicant "red handed" attempting the CMs listed in GM's book (which we know you can't really do anyway). So, if you REALLY thought using GM's CMs were highly ineffective, you would probably WANT applicants to use them, so you could "catch on of GM's arrogant little punks"! And what a great little feather that would be in your professional "cap".
TC
P.S. But, please, don't you or JPW go away. Keep posting. Readers need to see just how arrogant old time polygraphers are, BEFORE being tested. They need to get a glimse of the type of huge EGOs they will be up against. Let's see, you know more about science than the NAS. You know more about the human mind than Professor Zimbardo at Stanford. I could go on and on. A picture is worth a thousand words, so keep posting.
A contrarian might well ask: "If CMs are so ineffective, and the info about the polygraph on this website were so bogus, why is LBCB so neurotically fixated on this board. I think GM has struck a real nerve. Especially since banning/exposing your pal Ed Van Arsdale in Ponca City OK. (aka. Sancho Panza, Ed Earl, Phillip Queeg, Anonymous too).
You'll probably come back claiming it's because you are "concerned" about applicant's unwittingly ruining their chances for employment by following such "nonesense" advice provided here. But you have already admitted you really don't care if given applicants are hired or not. Which is one of the true things you've said. Besides, you would probably dance in glee, and make it into the polygraph "Hall of Fame" if you caught an applicant "red handed" attempting the CMs listed in GM's book (which we know you can't really do anyway). So, if you REALLY thought using GM's CMs were highly ineffective, you would probably WANT applicants to use them, so you could "catch on of GM's arrogant little punks"! And what a great little feather that would be in your professional "cap".
TC
P.S. But, please, don't you or JPW go away. Keep posting. Readers need to see just how arrogant old time polygraphers are, BEFORE being tested. They need to get a glimse of the type of huge EGOs they will be up against. Let's see, you know more about science than the NAS. You know more about the human mind than Professor Zimbardo at Stanford. I could go on and on. A picture is worth a thousand words, so keep posting.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- May 08, 2009, 09:34 PMJPW,
Yes, I feel the same as you when it comes to spending more than a few days posting on this forum. As I said in a previous post, I enjoy coming here from time to time and ruffling these parrots' feathers, but then I become bored and move on to some other entertainment. Perhaps we polygraphers shouldn't abandon naive readers to these self-portrayed experts; however, perhaps anyone who can't distinguish between actual experience and wishful thinking deserves what they get when they sit in that polygraph chair and screw themselves. If I asked 1000 polygraph examiners whether they've seen an increase in failed polygraphs due to attempted countermeasures, I think at least 800 of them would answer in the affirmative.
I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website. And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures. Could it be any clearer than this?
Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.
However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
What part of that don't you understand, George? I know that one of the main pillars of this website is that anyone can easily learn to beat the polygraph simply by reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and putting its lessons into practice. In fact, one of the first links people find when they look up the word polygraph on the internet proclaims "Learn how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test." Another advises people to "download our little book" (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) and learn how to beat a polygraph test. However, the truth, as those of us with actual experience know (and as the NAS, even without actual experience with the polygraph process, has figured out), is that the real lie is your claim, George. Sure, there's some truth in your little book, and there's some good information, but there is also a lot of faulty information, poor advice, and outright lies. My mom used to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "The Devil is a liar, but he doesn't get anyone to follow him through lies alone. He sprinkles his lies with a little truth, so if someone's not careful, they'll swallow it whole." The Lie Behind the Lie Detector appears like a well-written instruction manual, and it contains just enough good information that the unsuspecting, the frightened, and the foolish will indeed swallow it whole. And I've personally seen these people come to a polygraph exam and choke on what they swallowed. Often it's glaringly obvious, which of course falls in line with what the NAS has said.
You're peddling lies, George. Years ago, you didn't get hired by the FBI because you failed every relevant question on a polygraph exam, and now you're responsible, whether you can accept it or not, of causing others to do the same.
JPW, what has never ceased to amaze me since I first visited this website is how someone like George, not to mention these ignorant fools who keep him regular company on this forum and treat him like an expert, could waste so much time and effort in a worthless cause, especially when we polygraphers regularly see the damage caused when examinees take his advice. Seriously, what a pathetic loser! George is the perfect example of someone investing so much of his time in a worthless endeavor, that he is no longer capable of seeing how worthless it is, and he just can't give it up because he's invested so much of himself and his time that quitting would be admitting that so much of his life was wasted.
Yes, I feel the same as you when it comes to spending more than a few days posting on this forum. As I said in a previous post, I enjoy coming here from time to time and ruffling these parrots' feathers, but then I become bored and move on to some other entertainment. Perhaps we polygraphers shouldn't abandon naive readers to these self-portrayed experts; however, perhaps anyone who can't distinguish between actual experience and wishful thinking deserves what they get when they sit in that polygraph chair and screw themselves. If I asked 1000 polygraph examiners whether they've seen an increase in failed polygraphs due to attempted countermeasures, I think at least 800 of them would answer in the affirmative.
I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website. And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures. Could it be any clearer than this?
Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.
However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.
What part of that don't you understand, George? I know that one of the main pillars of this website is that anyone can easily learn to beat the polygraph simply by reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and putting its lessons into practice. In fact, one of the first links people find when they look up the word polygraph on the internet proclaims "Learn how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test." Another advises people to "download our little book" (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) and learn how to beat a polygraph test. However, the truth, as those of us with actual experience know (and as the NAS, even without actual experience with the polygraph process, has figured out), is that the real lie is your claim, George. Sure, there's some truth in your little book, and there's some good information, but there is also a lot of faulty information, poor advice, and outright lies. My mom used to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "The Devil is a liar, but he doesn't get anyone to follow him through lies alone. He sprinkles his lies with a little truth, so if someone's not careful, they'll swallow it whole." The Lie Behind the Lie Detector appears like a well-written instruction manual, and it contains just enough good information that the unsuspecting, the frightened, and the foolish will indeed swallow it whole. And I've personally seen these people come to a polygraph exam and choke on what they swallowed. Often it's glaringly obvious, which of course falls in line with what the NAS has said.
You're peddling lies, George. Years ago, you didn't get hired by the FBI because you failed every relevant question on a polygraph exam, and now you're responsible, whether you can accept it or not, of causing others to do the same.
JPW, what has never ceased to amaze me since I first visited this website is how someone like George, not to mention these ignorant fools who keep him regular company on this forum and treat him like an expert, could waste so much time and effort in a worthless cause, especially when we polygraphers regularly see the damage caused when examinees take his advice. Seriously, what a pathetic loser! George is the perfect example of someone investing so much of his time in a worthless endeavor, that he is no longer capable of seeing how worthless it is, and he just can't give it up because he's invested so much of himself and his time that quitting would be admitting that so much of his life was wasted.
Posted by JPW
- May 08, 2009, 05:23 PMLBCB thank you, for your comments. Please don't stop posting. Your posts were what inspired me to comment in the first place. Besides, I may be close to done here for a while because I find repeating myself to those who seem unable or unwilling to grasp simple mathematics or rudimentary logic an exercise in futility.
Some of the posters here seem overly willing to proclaim success based solely on repetition of fallacious arguments gleaned by deck stacking and Ad Populum assertions. I have yet to see them come up with anything significantly different, in the last week or so, than the same stuff, they were spouting 5 or 6 years ago. So keep your pencil sharp, I may decide to leave at anytime. Of course, I would be willing to bet they trample each other in an effort to claim credit for my absence.
I am weary, and I suspect you are as well, of the nearly psychotic behavior (secondary rather than primary) of one poster in particular who appears incapable of refraining from feeble attempts at juvenile one-upmanship in an obvious effort to compensate for his/her lack of knowledge regarding the topic of discussion. I suspect that everyone who is familiar with this website, Pro or Anti Polygraph, may guess who I am talking about. Everyone but him of course
G.M., welcome back to our discussion. Your claim regarding the value DoD reports to Congress in estimating false positive rates associated with other polygraph programs might carry more weight if you were able to produce substantial evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you are qualified to conduct a qualitative comparison of polygraph programs utilized by different agencies.
You also appear to be accusing the Department of Defense of lying to Congress, by reporting an artificial failure rate. If you have substantive proof that is the case, please present it. If it is simply conjecture, resulting from your inability to explain the reason behind their high accuracy rate you should identify it as opinion.
If I get the opportunity to speak to Donald Rumsfeld in the next few weeks, I will ask him if he recalls reading your letter and let you know if your comments made any significant impact on his opinion of polygraph. Do not expect too much though, he is an attorney and you know how they are about examining one's credentials before acknowledging their opinion has value.
Your statement "This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts." is misleading. While it is entirely probable that decisions concerning whether or not someone is placed under a full blown investigation or subsequently adjudicated are likely made based on a combination of several factors which, by the nature and subject matter of the report, include polygraph, you have presented no proof that the results of the polygraph examination itself are based on anything other than the data collected on the charts.
If you have some substantive proof that the nature of the transgressions addressed by polygraph examinations have some effect on the results based on some type of measurable or perceived intensity, I would be somewhat more interested in your, so far, unsupported assertion that addressing more common transgressions than espionage have some quantifiable correlation to failure rate.
I would ask that you identify your comments regarding the scientific underpinnings of polygraph as personal opinion or conjecture unless you provide some evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you have sufficient scientific underpinnings to do otherwise. Simply voicing someone else's' opinion does not imbue you with their qualifications and tends to sound like you are trying to assume their expertise and represent it as your own. If only we were able to ask Dr, Lykken his opinion of your expertise regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology. Whether one agrees with him or not he often exhibited a singular ability to separate wheat from chaff, oh well, one shouldn't spend too much time mourning missed opportunities.
But, getting back to the topic of this thread.
The NAS report says what it says. Since the exact language they used is indisputable, I choose to characterize their comments to mean that your claims regarding the effectiveness and ease of learning and applying countermeasure were not credible because they were unsupported by scientific research. I believe that this a reasonable characterization.
In other words, I interpret the NAS to mean that the countermeasures you teach in your book and on your website lack sufficient "Scientific Underpinnings" to be considered credible when weighed against NAS perception of the several aspects of manipulation that must be accomplished simultaneously in order to successfully apply countermeasures.
Their comments regarding countermeasures increasing the likelihood of someone failing their polygraph appears based on all of the scientific research made available for their consideration. If you have anything other than your opinion, perhaps some scientific evidence, that refutes their findings, I would certainly be interested.
You are of course perfectly entitled to interpret their comments however you wish, but for you to continue to imply expertise regarding polygraph absent a clear statement of your qualifications is intellectually questionable.
Some of the posters here seem overly willing to proclaim success based solely on repetition of fallacious arguments gleaned by deck stacking and Ad Populum assertions. I have yet to see them come up with anything significantly different, in the last week or so, than the same stuff, they were spouting 5 or 6 years ago. So keep your pencil sharp, I may decide to leave at anytime. Of course, I would be willing to bet they trample each other in an effort to claim credit for my absence.
I am weary, and I suspect you are as well, of the nearly psychotic behavior (secondary rather than primary) of one poster in particular who appears incapable of refraining from feeble attempts at juvenile one-upmanship in an obvious effort to compensate for his/her lack of knowledge regarding the topic of discussion. I suspect that everyone who is familiar with this website, Pro or Anti Polygraph, may guess who I am talking about. Everyone but him of course
G.M., welcome back to our discussion. Your claim regarding the value DoD reports to Congress in estimating false positive rates associated with other polygraph programs might carry more weight if you were able to produce substantial evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you are qualified to conduct a qualitative comparison of polygraph programs utilized by different agencies.
You also appear to be accusing the Department of Defense of lying to Congress, by reporting an artificial failure rate. If you have substantive proof that is the case, please present it. If it is simply conjecture, resulting from your inability to explain the reason behind their high accuracy rate you should identify it as opinion.
If I get the opportunity to speak to Donald Rumsfeld in the next few weeks, I will ask him if he recalls reading your letter and let you know if your comments made any significant impact on his opinion of polygraph. Do not expect too much though, he is an attorney and you know how they are about examining one's credentials before acknowledging their opinion has value.
Your statement "This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts." is misleading. While it is entirely probable that decisions concerning whether or not someone is placed under a full blown investigation or subsequently adjudicated are likely made based on a combination of several factors which, by the nature and subject matter of the report, include polygraph, you have presented no proof that the results of the polygraph examination itself are based on anything other than the data collected on the charts.
If you have some substantive proof that the nature of the transgressions addressed by polygraph examinations have some effect on the results based on some type of measurable or perceived intensity, I would be somewhat more interested in your, so far, unsupported assertion that addressing more common transgressions than espionage have some quantifiable correlation to failure rate.
I would ask that you identify your comments regarding the scientific underpinnings of polygraph as personal opinion or conjecture unless you provide some evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you have sufficient scientific underpinnings to do otherwise. Simply voicing someone else's' opinion does not imbue you with their qualifications and tends to sound like you are trying to assume their expertise and represent it as your own. If only we were able to ask Dr, Lykken his opinion of your expertise regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology. Whether one agrees with him or not he often exhibited a singular ability to separate wheat from chaff, oh well, one shouldn't spend too much time mourning missed opportunities.
But, getting back to the topic of this thread.
The NAS report says what it says. Since the exact language they used is indisputable, I choose to characterize their comments to mean that your claims regarding the effectiveness and ease of learning and applying countermeasure were not credible because they were unsupported by scientific research. I believe that this a reasonable characterization.
In other words, I interpret the NAS to mean that the countermeasures you teach in your book and on your website lack sufficient "Scientific Underpinnings" to be considered credible when weighed against NAS perception of the several aspects of manipulation that must be accomplished simultaneously in order to successfully apply countermeasures.
Their comments regarding countermeasures increasing the likelihood of someone failing their polygraph appears based on all of the scientific research made available for their consideration. If you have anything other than your opinion, perhaps some scientific evidence, that refutes their findings, I would certainly be interested.
You are of course perfectly entitled to interpret their comments however you wish, but for you to continue to imply expertise regarding polygraph absent a clear statement of your qualifications is intellectually questionable.