- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Ex Member
- May 22, 2014, 09:32 PMQuote from: pailryder on May 22, 2014, 07:48 AMUnfortunately for Arkhangelsk we are not splintered into cultsI said "sects" not "cults." I don't think you guys pull down the shades, stand in robes in a circle rubbing a talisman to ward off the Maschke omen.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 22, 2014, 08:26 PMCLS,
Ask your attorney if he can get the charts for an unbiased 2nd Opinion.
Ask your attorney if he can get the charts for an unbiased 2nd Opinion.
Posted by CLS
- May 22, 2014, 01:43 PMResults arrived at attorney's office today. He ended up ruling it as "inconclusive", which is as bad as a fail in my case. Once again, thanks everyone for your feedback.
Posted by pailryder
- May 22, 2014, 07:48 AMQuote from: quickfix on May 21, 2014, 03:05 PMpailryder:not sure I agree with everything in your post
And that is a good thing. Unfortunately for Arkhangelsk we are not splintered into cults, but we are not monolithic in our thinking as many who post here appear to assume. Polygraph is a robust and flexible technique that is practiced worldwide.
Fix
I know DOD rules on DI, SR, NDI, INC, NO,NDI, NSR. I was explaining why I thought CLS's examiner distinguished Inc from NO.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 22, 2014, 04:19 AMQuoteI'm still wondering (and hoping) that all of this was just part of his normal interrogation strategy.Sorry CLS, you got brushed aside for a while. As pailryder noted, it appears that the polygraph community is splintering and adopting their own concepts on the fly. So, making you sweat a while could indeed be some strategy of the particular sect he happens to belong to. Please share with us what the ultimate result is.
Posted by pailryder
- May 21, 2014, 05:55 PMYes, you are correct, it's a good ol' boys club. I'm not saying federal influence, is a bad thing. But the history of the APA is it represents the federal governments interests.
The membership dues may not be paid by the agencies, but don't tell me seminar fees, travel, and lodging are not reimbursed for many from the training budget.
The membership dues may not be paid by the agencies, but don't tell me seminar fees, travel, and lodging are not reimbursed for many from the training budget.
Posted by quickfix
- May 21, 2014, 04:09 PMI don't know any federal examiners whose APA dues are paid for by their agency. None of the agencies I have ever worked for ever paid membership dues. I am no longer a member, since I got nothing of value for my $125.00 dues. It's a good ol' boys club with the same officers elected every time, who give each other the same awards year after year at their annual seminar. Any perceived affiliation with the federal gov't is simply because some federal examiners are members. There is no "controlling interest" over the APA.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 21, 2014, 03:26 PMMy understanding is that the American Polygraph Association also receives an indirect taxpayer subsidy, as numerous governmental agencies pay their polygraphers' membership fees.
Posted by pailryder
- May 21, 2014, 03:22 PMQuote from: quickfix on May 21, 2014, 03:05 PMWhat makes you say that the feds control the APA?
Well Fix, the private examiners don't control it. LEA guys control the AAPP. I guess the APA membership is in control and they are typically fed and retired fed.
Posted by quickfix
- May 21, 2014, 03:05 PMpailryder: not sure I agree with everything in your post; No Opinion, at least within the DOD polygraph community, applies to results where sufficient charts have been collected, and numerically scored as N.O.; N.O. also applies to exams where the exam was started but insufficient charts were collected to render any kind of opinion. If exam is terminated after the collection of an ACQT but before completion of any relevant testing to render an opinion, it is also called N.O.
What makes you say that the feds control the APA? APA is a private organization with no official connection/affiliation with the federal government; it is not subject to federal polygraph oversight or policy.
What makes you say that the feds control the APA? APA is a private organization with no official connection/affiliation with the federal government; it is not subject to federal polygraph oversight or policy.
Posted by pailryder
- May 21, 2014, 01:42 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 21, 2014, 11:28 AMSo, has the rest of the polygraph community added their own definitions which are in conflict with the Feds?
Yes, Angel, the polygraph community is neither monolithic nor static. The feds get the most run because they control most (all) research funding and the APA, but the federal way is not the only way. The discussions between Jim Matte and APA's Barry Cushman about Matte's technique have been heated and personal. Cut scores vary in almost every technique. The FBI still refuses to computer score. Some techniques still employ symptomatic questions.
The feds are slow to change. Private examiners have more freedom and greater incentive, avoiding lawsuits, to stay current with the latest research.
Posted by CLS
- May 21, 2014, 12:46 PMI'm still wondering (and hoping) that all of this was just part of his normal interrogation strategy. The reason I think this is a possibility is because after rendering the "NO OPINION" decision, he intensely persisted in trying to get me to make an admission. Also, at the very end, he told me that I could call him in the next few days if I decided I did want to make an admission. So, he left the interrogation "open-ended". I don't know the purpose of this, unless it's just a final attempt to get me to fold.
The most frustrating thing is that I didn't pay $500 for "NO OPINION". I didn't even previously know about "countermeasures" and had done no research. I wasn't aware of the fallible nature of polygraphy and always thought it was foolproof, which is why I jumped at the opportunity to take it voluntarily.
Thanks you guys for your feedback.
The most frustrating thing is that I didn't pay $500 for "NO OPINION". I didn't even previously know about "countermeasures" and had done no research. I wasn't aware of the fallible nature of polygraphy and always thought it was foolproof, which is why I jumped at the opportunity to take it voluntarily.
Thanks you guys for your feedback.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 21, 2014, 11:28 AMThanks for your input, but I have never heard of this.
A closer look at the Federal Polygraph Handbook reveals the following:
"The following opinions are those that may be rendered when sufficient test data is collected during a PDD examination: deception indicated (DI), significant responses (SR), no deception indicated (NDI), no significant responses (NSR), no opinion (NO)."
Notice that there is no "Inconclusive" and the "No Opinion" is used when there IS sufficient data, which conflicts with your post.
Further scrutiny shows:
"Administrative Opinions. These opinions reflect the results of a series or an examination that are not based upon physiological responses to the applied stimuli such as when the examinee terminates an examination or is practicing countermeasures. In such instances, administrative opinions such as inconclusive, purposeful non-cooperation, etc., are appropriate."
also:
"C8.5.4.3. No Opinion. If it is not DI or NDI, it is NO with the exception of administrative opinions."
So, has the rest of the polygraph community added their own definitions which are in conflict with the Feds? When did this happen? Who did it and where is it documented?
A closer look at the Federal Polygraph Handbook reveals the following:
"The following opinions are those that may be rendered when sufficient test data is collected during a PDD examination: deception indicated (DI), significant responses (SR), no deception indicated (NDI), no significant responses (NSR), no opinion (NO)."
Notice that there is no "Inconclusive" and the "No Opinion" is used when there IS sufficient data, which conflicts with your post.
Further scrutiny shows:
"Administrative Opinions. These opinions reflect the results of a series or an examination that are not based upon physiological responses to the applied stimuli such as when the examinee terminates an examination or is practicing countermeasures. In such instances, administrative opinions such as inconclusive, purposeful non-cooperation, etc., are appropriate."
also:
"C8.5.4.3. No Opinion. If it is not DI or NDI, it is NO with the exception of administrative opinions."
So, has the rest of the polygraph community added their own definitions which are in conflict with the Feds? When did this happen? Who did it and where is it documented?
Posted by pailryder
- May 21, 2014, 07:15 AMArkhangelsk
CLS is correct, inclusive and no opinion are not the same call. Inconclusive is used when the charts are evaluated and the score falls between the cut scores for DI and NDI. No opinion is used when the examiner's global evaluation indicates the collection of data should not be scored. Usually suspected cm but sometimes fatigue, medical or other problem.
CLS is correct, inclusive and no opinion are not the same call. Inconclusive is used when the charts are evaluated and the score falls between the cut scores for DI and NDI. No opinion is used when the examiner's global evaluation indicates the collection of data should not be scored. Usually suspected cm but sometimes fatigue, medical or other problem.
Posted by Doug Williams
- May 20, 2014, 01:55 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 20, 2014, 12:42 PMQuoteHe did say that there were 4 different possible outcomes, mentioning "no opinion" as a completely separate outcome as "inconclusive". He specifically said that it was not "inconclusive".
That is BS. And you are correct in your previous post in that if your reactions to control questions were stronger than the those of the relevant questions, then it should be an NDI chart.
However, polygraph operators are seeing countermeasures under their beds at night. Their only way of detecting them is if they can get somebody to confess to using them. From what you wrote previously, I do not think you attempted them. Therefore, you should have passed. If you are falsely accused of using countermeasures, I would look him right in the eyes and tell him you told the truth and that you plan to sue him for malpractice.
That is very good advice Arkhangelsk! It is past time for those who are abused by these polygraph thugs to get proactive! Stand up for yourselves and sue the bastards!