- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 01, 2002, 04:15 PMCure-E-US in C-Att-Tell,
In my response to you I made the following comment. It occurred to me that I should offer a further note of explanation:
Prior to the time polygraph examiners started guessing about countermeasures, those who performed narrowly focused specific-issue CQT exams had essentially only one source of error, i.e., their wrongful determination of examinee truthfulness or deception regarding exam issues. Polygraph screeners, of course, have had a wealth of opportunity for error--they needn't look for additional opportunities
. These specific-issue testers, whether they have doubled their pleasure or not, have most assuredly doubled their potential for error with their new consideration/focus (a wrongful determination regarding countermeasure useage by examinees now added to the mix). Now that antipolygraph.org and similar sites have been in existence for some time, and as polygraphers furiously grope in the dark with their new "countermeasure problem," I am now hearing from those who have been falsely accused of countermeasure usage in addition to the continual stream of those who are falsely accused of being deceptive regarding exam issues. Although, the issue may appear a bit complex at first blush, I hope you can understand why I believe it is necessary to utilize an experimental paradigm which addresses all of the various issues I mentioned in the last post. Again, thank you for your interest. Regards,
Drew Richardson
In my response to you I made the following comment. It occurred to me that I should offer a further note of explanation:
Quote...And the most serious drawback to your suggested scenario is that it would be difficult to duplicate the real world setting in which a polygraph examiner is forced to decide between a true negative, a false negative (no countermeasures used), and a false negative (countermeasures applied) for any given set of NDI charts...
Prior to the time polygraph examiners started guessing about countermeasures, those who performed narrowly focused specific-issue CQT exams had essentially only one source of error, i.e., their wrongful determination of examinee truthfulness or deception regarding exam issues. Polygraph screeners, of course, have had a wealth of opportunity for error--they needn't look for additional opportunities
. These specific-issue testers, whether they have doubled their pleasure or not, have most assuredly doubled their potential for error with their new consideration/focus (a wrongful determination regarding countermeasure useage by examinees now added to the mix). Now that antipolygraph.org and similar sites have been in existence for some time, and as polygraphers furiously grope in the dark with their new "countermeasure problem," I am now hearing from those who have been falsely accused of countermeasure usage in addition to the continual stream of those who are falsely accused of being deceptive regarding exam issues. Although, the issue may appear a bit complex at first blush, I hope you can understand why I believe it is necessary to utilize an experimental paradigm which addresses all of the various issues I mentioned in the last post. Again, thank you for your interest. Regards,Drew Richardson
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 01, 2002, 12:38 PMQuote from: Cure-E-US in C-Att-Tell on Aug 31, 2002, 09:37 PM
How confident are each of you that if given the chance to take a polygraph, that you could produce passing results, regardless of guilt or innocence? Maybe this is a reasonable alternative to the Poly Challenge?
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
Your suggestion is not, in my opinion, a reasonable alternative. It is incumbent upon those who lay claim to scientific validity, accuracy, and reliability to prove their (to date) gratuitous assertions. Until such time, I will continue to hold the opinion that polygraphy as it is largely practiced today is less than worthless- it is a moral travesty foisted upon the American public by strutting martinets like batman, polycop, pdd fed, et. al.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 01, 2002, 08:29 AMCure-E-US in C-Att- Tell,
I'm similarly quite confident that, if given the chance to take a polygraph, I could produce passing results, regardless of guilt or innocence. But for the reasons that Drew has explained above, I don't think this is a reasonable alternative to his unanswered polygraph countermeasure challenge (216 days and counting).
I'm similarly quite confident that, if given the chance to take a polygraph, I could produce passing results, regardless of guilt or innocence. But for the reasons that Drew has explained above, I don't think this is a reasonable alternative to his unanswered polygraph countermeasure challenge (216 days and counting).
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 01, 2002, 01:49 AMCure-E-US in C-Att-Tell,
As I have said before, I am confident I can teach people to quickly and easily produce NDI charts--so needless to say, I believe I can do it myself. In fact, it would be very easy to produce both very good DI charts (admittedly not many real world applications) and/or NDI charts for any given set of circumstances being investigated through CQT polygraphy.
Because I am well known within the polygraph community and specifically with regard to my views regarding polygraph countermeasures, it would be difficult for me to take such an exam without routinely being accused (in the absence of any objective and demonstrable evidence of such) of using countermeasures. Furthermore, it would be impossible to demonstrate the limited training necessary to successfully utilize countermeasures with me serving as an (the) examinee. And the most serious drawback to your suggested scenario is that it would be difficult to duplicate the real world setting in which a polygraph examiner is forced to decide between a true negative, a false negative (no countermeasures used), and a false negative (countermeasures applied) for any given set of NDI charts. This requires a scenario such as "the challenge" which entails having the participation (as examinees) of multiple people, none of whom is more likely (than other participants) to use or to have been trained in the use of countermeasures, some who will be programmed guilty (the balance being innocent), and some of whom will be taught and will use countermeasures (the balance not).
It is also necessary for purposes of maintaining external validity that examiners not be aware what percentage of examinees are guilty/innocent as well as the percentage who will utilize countermeasures. For these various reasons I believe your scenario would be unlikely to obtain results for much of what the challenge was designed to investigate and be directly confounded in several respects through my participation as an examinee. However, thank you very much for your time and thoughts... Regards,
Drew Richardson
As I have said before, I am confident I can teach people to quickly and easily produce NDI charts--so needless to say, I believe I can do it myself. In fact, it would be very easy to produce both very good DI charts (admittedly not many real world applications) and/or NDI charts for any given set of circumstances being investigated through CQT polygraphy.
Because I am well known within the polygraph community and specifically with regard to my views regarding polygraph countermeasures, it would be difficult for me to take such an exam without routinely being accused (in the absence of any objective and demonstrable evidence of such) of using countermeasures. Furthermore, it would be impossible to demonstrate the limited training necessary to successfully utilize countermeasures with me serving as an (the) examinee. And the most serious drawback to your suggested scenario is that it would be difficult to duplicate the real world setting in which a polygraph examiner is forced to decide between a true negative, a false negative (no countermeasures used), and a false negative (countermeasures applied) for any given set of NDI charts. This requires a scenario such as "the challenge" which entails having the participation (as examinees) of multiple people, none of whom is more likely (than other participants) to use or to have been trained in the use of countermeasures, some who will be programmed guilty (the balance being innocent), and some of whom will be taught and will use countermeasures (the balance not).
It is also necessary for purposes of maintaining external validity that examiners not be aware what percentage of examinees are guilty/innocent as well as the percentage who will utilize countermeasures. For these various reasons I believe your scenario would be unlikely to obtain results for much of what the challenge was designed to investigate and be directly confounded in several respects through my participation as an examinee. However, thank you very much for your time and thoughts... Regards,
Drew Richardson
Posted by Cure-E-US in C-Att-Tell
- Aug 31, 2002, 09:37 PMHow confident are each of you that if given the chance to take a polygraph, that you could produce passing results, regardless of guilt or innocence? Maybe this is a reasonable alternative to the Poly Challenge?