- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 08, 2013, 01:38 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 06, 2013, 04:50 PMYes, I strayed a bit from the topic. The point I was trying to make is that even statistical analyses are bunko if not based on sound scientific principles.In my cases, I was told that it was accurate, but no figures were given. I was confronted a few >:(times by accusations that I was lying about things.
I again, would like to hear from examinees as to whether they were given a sober assessment of the polygraph capabilities, or if claims of polygraph infallibility were used to elicit admissions.
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 08, 2013, 01:35 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 03, 2013, 09:56 PMI doubt if most examinees would have an understanding of discriminate analysis and probability density functions. I don't think you would get many admissions by saying "the polygraph says you are probably lying."
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on May 03, 2013, 09:56 PMI doubt if most examinees would have an understanding of discriminate analysis and probability density functions. I don't think you would get many admissions by saying "the polygraph says you are probably lying.""Gentleman Polygrapher" - talk about an oxymoron!
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher?
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 07, 2013, 11:13 AMThe whole CIA employment application process, of which the polygraph is just one part, is wholly fucked up.
The background check is essentially a popularity contest. As has been said numerous times here, the polygraph is merely a tool to intimidate.
I find it hilarious how many "moles" have been found in the supposedly "impenetrable" CIA security system.
The background check is essentially a popularity contest. As has been said numerous times here, the polygraph is merely a tool to intimidate.
I find it hilarious how many "moles" have been found in the supposedly "impenetrable" CIA security system.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 06, 2013, 04:50 PMYes, I strayed a bit from the topic. The point I was trying to make is that even statistical analyses are bunko if not based on sound scientific principles.
I again, would like to hear from examinees as to whether they were given a sober assessment of the polygraph capabilities, or if claims of polygraph infallibility were used to elicit admissions.
I again, would like to hear from examinees as to whether they were given a sober assessment of the polygraph capabilities, or if claims of polygraph infallibility were used to elicit admissions.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 06, 2013, 02:39 PMI didn't go into computer algorithms because they are not important to me at all. I hand score charts and then look at the computer analysis later. My scoring of the charts is what I go by. We were discussing examiners and their claims to accuracy.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 05, 2013, 03:32 PMBill_Brown,
Just as the polygraph license gives false credibility to polygraph operators, so does computerization to chart scoring. Any waveform can be digitally sampled and have such samples manipulated by algorithms in just about any fashion. Having a computer score polygraph charts lends no more credence than a similar program to read astrology or tarot cards would. If the underlying principles are not scientific, then the computer is just crunching a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Just as the polygraph license gives false credibility to polygraph operators, so does computerization to chart scoring. Any waveform can be digitally sampled and have such samples manipulated by algorithms in just about any fashion. Having a computer score polygraph charts lends no more credence than a similar program to read astrology or tarot cards would. If the underlying principles are not scientific, then the computer is just crunching a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 04, 2013, 01:39 AMArkhangelsk,
You may be surprised to learn most examiners inform you in advance that polygraph is not 100% accurate. Some put high percentages on their accuracy or validity, others use the studies conducted to show the accuracy/validity and others make no claims. Very few would give anything near perfection. Examiners and polygraph schools have learned lessons from past mistakes such as claiming perfection and then being proven wrong. It is not a common practice and has not been for some time.
It appears that you may have some statistical analysis training and expertise, I'm sure you are aware of current research and standards of the polygraph industry, none of which supports 100% accuracy claims.
You may be surprised to learn most examiners inform you in advance that polygraph is not 100% accurate. Some put high percentages on their accuracy or validity, others use the studies conducted to show the accuracy/validity and others make no claims. Very few would give anything near perfection. Examiners and polygraph schools have learned lessons from past mistakes such as claiming perfection and then being proven wrong. It is not a common practice and has not been for some time.
It appears that you may have some statistical analysis training and expertise, I'm sure you are aware of current research and standards of the polygraph industry, none of which supports 100% accuracy claims.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 03, 2013, 09:56 PMI doubt if most examinees would have an understanding of discriminate analysis and probability density functions. I don't think you would get many admissions by saying "the polygraph says you are probably lying."
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher?
I'd like to hear from some examinees if they were treated with such consideration or were they intimidated by claims that the polygraph is 100% accurate. Is Pailryder the one gentleman polygrapher?
Posted by pailryder
- May 02, 2013, 06:19 AMArkhangelsk
No need to apologize for your assumptions, I agree that examiners in the past made, and some continue to make, the claim of perfection. Any thinking person knows perfection is not possible. Also, I am aware that I have personally made every EE (exmanier error) in the book. I present my results and the software scores as probabilities, not certainties.
Countermeasures are not always detected, but sometimes can be because of the Goldilocks factor. CM can't be too cold or too hot, has to be just right. Difficult to acheive without practice.
By the way, many trained interviewers can detect lies at levels greater than chance by interview alone, without collection of poly data, and so can some spouses!
No need to apologize for your assumptions, I agree that examiners in the past made, and some continue to make, the claim of perfection. Any thinking person knows perfection is not possible. Also, I am aware that I have personally made every EE (exmanier error) in the book. I present my results and the software scores as probabilities, not certainties.
Countermeasures are not always detected, but sometimes can be because of the Goldilocks factor. CM can't be too cold or too hot, has to be just right. Difficult to acheive without practice.
By the way, many trained interviewers can detect lies at levels greater than chance by interview alone, without collection of poly data, and so can some spouses!
Posted by Ex Member
- May 01, 2013, 01:29 PMQuote from: pailryder on May 01, 2013, 10:59 AMI can detect lies at rates better than chanceThis is untrue if only for the fact that you cannot be sure if someone is using countermeasures or not. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that, during the course of your interrogations, you do not present the polygraph as being an infallible "lie detector"; this would be charlatan-like behavior. If my assumptions are wrong, then I apologize.
Posted by pailryder
- May 01, 2013, 10:59 AMArkangelsk
I do not pass myself off as divining anything. I can detect lies at rates better than chance but less than perfection. My assessment is better with the polygraph than with an interview alone.
I do not pass myself off as divining anything. I can detect lies at rates better than chance but less than perfection. My assessment is better with the polygraph than with an interview alone.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 01, 2013, 10:22 AMQuote from: pailryder on May 01, 2013, 07:35 AMI am a well trained and skilled interviewer/interrogratorThis is the truth, this is exactly what you are. But, passing yourself off as someone who can divine truth or lies is what makes you a charlatan.
Posted by pailryder
- May 01, 2013, 07:35 AMDr Maschke
No one who hires me thinks I am a scientist. I do not pose, or present myself, as such. I am a well trained and skilled interviewer/interrogrator who forms an opinion based on the best currently available technology and technique. I am properly licensed in accordance with the laws of my state of residence so anyone who felt defrauded could complain to our state regulatory board, but for thirty years no one has. I fail to see how any of that makes me a charlatan.
Encouraging people to talk is a good thing and one example where the expected utility may exceed the scientific validity of the technique.
Thank you for providing this forum to us all.
No one who hires me thinks I am a scientist. I do not pose, or present myself, as such. I am a well trained and skilled interviewer/interrogrator who forms an opinion based on the best currently available technology and technique. I am properly licensed in accordance with the laws of my state of residence so anyone who felt defrauded could complain to our state regulatory board, but for thirty years no one has. I fail to see how any of that makes me a charlatan.
Encouraging people to talk is a good thing and one example where the expected utility may exceed the scientific validity of the technique.
Thank you for providing this forum to us all.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 30, 2013, 10:02 AMIf polygraphy is, as polygraphers claim, a scientifically valid test for deception, then what need is there for encouraging subjects to talk?
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 30, 2013, 07:12 AMTo me, that was the value of the polygraph: Encouraging the subjects to talk [/quote]
So is encouraging subjects to talk a good thing or a bad thing?
So is encouraging subjects to talk a good thing or a bad thing?