- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Jan 16, 2003, 04:14 AMQuote from: Guest_65 on Jan 16, 2003, 03:37 AM
Marty, I'm sorry for not knowing all there is to know about this subject, But I never really found a need to know it before... But what I do know is, "I should never have to lie to prove i'm telling the ttruth!"
Man! I can relate to that! First, don't feel bad for the polygraphers. For the most part they do the best they can. The problem here is that there is so much variability in the way people respond to questions that what the polygraphers have come up with is an odd sort of compromise.
They basically try to get you to not only lie about something unimportant, but feel bad about it. The presumption is that your response to this lie will give them an idea about whether you are lying about what they are really testing for. That may be whether a person has murdered a girl, or it may be whether someone has smoked more pot than they think reasonable. (kinda hard to believe the response would be similar!)
So what it comes down to is that polygraphers utilize a certain amount of deception in order to elicit and determine the truth of what an examinee says. It's imperfect. error prone, sometimes degrading, but it actually seems to work to some degree. However, in working, it sometimes is the most inaccurate with a trully honest persons such as you appear to be.
Don't feel bad. For some bizarre reasons this has captured my attention. I am an EE with some interest in the technologies involved and also some desire to see the polygraph used resposnisbly - or not at all. I really hate to see the innocent pilloried and the polygraph has a certain propensity to do so even though I believe it has some value for specific incident testing.
-Marty
Posted by Guest_65
- Jan 16, 2003, 03:37 AMMarty, I'm sorry for not knowing all there is to know about this subject, But I never really found a need to know it before... But what I do know is, "I should never have to lie to prove i'm telling the ttruth!"
Posted by Guest_65
- Jan 16, 2003, 03:31 AMMarty, I agree with you, And I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with anyone. I have found that the polygraph examiners are the most common liar in the room! But I have also found that there is not an equal ground. I came to this site in search of answers (having never been through this before). Aside from all the technical jargon, I was screwed for telling the truth... And it seems that everyone here wants to prove how smart they are. Or Contest anothers wits... Screw all that! it's not worth my time. I didnt come to learn to pass the test. or to learn all the tech BS that goes along with it or to learn that so-in-so is smarter than XYZ... LEt's get to the point guys. LIE DETECTORS ARE A LIE! in my opinion. If a person has to lie to pass, and an examiner has to lie to get you to lie then what good are they??? Next the thing that dissapoints me the most is hearing about potential police officers lying to pass. If you feel you have something to lie about dont take the test... And if you do lie, you dont need to be in that capacity! thank you Marty for your input, but I really just wanted to know why I told the truth and was told I was lying...Thanks Again.
1 last thing, I WILL NEVER TAKE ANOTHER ONE!!!
1 last thing, I WILL NEVER TAKE ANOTHER ONE!!!
Posted by Marty
- Jan 16, 2003, 03:02 AMQuote from: guest_65 on Jan 16, 2003, 02:49 AM
...My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar!....
You might want to read the literature on polygraphs. The most common test (CQT) expects you to lie (to the controle question, not the relevant question) in order to pass. There are tests "that" don't expect you to lie, but they are less common. The reason is that if they can get you to lie about something they make you believe is important but isn't, it is easier to calibrate the relevant questions and the more likely a deceptive response to a relevant question will produce larger responses.
I just don't like the "small detail" that the polygraphs works best on people who lie about the smaller things.
Liars are liars. Sadly, many polygraphers are as well. If you are not one, you are at a disadvantage.
-Marty
Posted by guest_65
- Jan 16, 2003, 02:49 AMOK people, Let me introduce myself. I am now a person who obey's the law.(yeah, I know we're all innocent right?) But let me finish. I have had a childhood that was not the Mother's dream. In other words, I was not the perfect child! I had my run in with stealing, Lying, and some minor drug use. My opinion on drugs is anything you put in your body that is not acceptable by Christ, police, and anything you have to buy on the corner in secret... IE: Marijuana, all the crystals, alchohol, and pharmacuticals if not prescribed to you!
Now, I am not going to preach, But let me say this. I too have quit my ways. I stopped all the bullshit that was destroying my life. I found a better way. I have 3 wonderful children, A VERY beautiful wife of 14 yrs. And sometimes I look back on myself and ask how can this be true? All these good things in my life. Finding my wife was what did it. when I found her she taught me to be a better person. I no longer needed the fullfilment of the buzz, Thats what she gave me!!! a killer buzz! Then I had kids. Even more BUZZ!!! I receive respect from people when I Introduce myself and I have something to offer them, " WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET"! I don't have to lie For the respect. I am not faking a personality! I have learned from my mistakes and will learn more everyday. And to be honest with you, I have always known you can't trust everyone. And for the past couple of days I've learned that even though you tell the truth on polygraphs it can make you out to be a liar. Even when your not.
Now, I know that most of the people on this site are peace officers. And the honest ones who risk their lives everyday for our well being and to keep illegal acts to a minimum are under a blanket of GRATITUDE from me. THANK YOU!
If you have had some problems in the past. and worked your way through it and found some peace in your life and no longer need the bullshit. Congratulations!
Now, there have been times when I said,"I'd love to be a cop".
But let me say this. In my opinion, It's commendable to want to make something of yourself, and that you quit the drugs or alchohol and made a better life for yourself.
I just read a thread stating,"who better to find the stash than someone who used to hide it". I believe that... But I also believe that a cop that lied about it or deceived an examiner to get the position is just as bad. If you want to be a cop for respect, then you just lost it! the respect that is... My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar! And I don't believe that is what I want for a peace officer! And About that stash, be it money or drugs if you found it and turned it in, How much did you really find???
Now, I am not going to preach, But let me say this. I too have quit my ways. I stopped all the bullshit that was destroying my life. I found a better way. I have 3 wonderful children, A VERY beautiful wife of 14 yrs. And sometimes I look back on myself and ask how can this be true? All these good things in my life. Finding my wife was what did it. when I found her she taught me to be a better person. I no longer needed the fullfilment of the buzz, Thats what she gave me!!! a killer buzz! Then I had kids. Even more BUZZ!!! I receive respect from people when I Introduce myself and I have something to offer them, " WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET"! I don't have to lie For the respect. I am not faking a personality! I have learned from my mistakes and will learn more everyday. And to be honest with you, I have always known you can't trust everyone. And for the past couple of days I've learned that even though you tell the truth on polygraphs it can make you out to be a liar. Even when your not.
Now, I know that most of the people on this site are peace officers. And the honest ones who risk their lives everyday for our well being and to keep illegal acts to a minimum are under a blanket of GRATITUDE from me. THANK YOU!
If you have had some problems in the past. and worked your way through it and found some peace in your life and no longer need the bullshit. Congratulations!
Now, there have been times when I said,"I'd love to be a cop".
But let me say this. In my opinion, It's commendable to want to make something of yourself, and that you quit the drugs or alchohol and made a better life for yourself.
I just read a thread stating,"who better to find the stash than someone who used to hide it". I believe that... But I also believe that a cop that lied about it or deceived an examiner to get the position is just as bad. If you want to be a cop for respect, then you just lost it! the respect that is... My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar! And I don't believe that is what I want for a peace officer! And About that stash, be it money or drugs if you found it and turned it in, How much did you really find???
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 05, 2003, 09:43 PMQuote from: steincj on Jan 03, 2003, 05:48 PMDear Chris,
Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong.
To anyone who has been wrongfully accused, your quote hits the core of the argument. Look me in the eye and tell me that you do not want to hire me and justify your decision, do not hide behind some bogus "scientific" exam.
Regards.
Posted by Marty
- Jan 03, 2003, 06:07 PMIf in fact the number of failed polygraphs has increased to 50% from 20% then one would expect the polygrapher workload to have increased nearly 70%. Since a failed polygraph would normally also include an elongated post test interrogation, the workload increase would even be higher. And then if hiring itself increases.....
Does this imply there are a lot of new, inexperienced polygraphers or just the same number of very tired people.
-Marty
Does this imply there are a lot of new, inexperienced polygraphers or just the same number of very tired people.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 03, 2003, 05:54 PMI have a sneaking suspicion that the counterintelligence right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. They know they like polygraphs (both because of appearances and likely because at least some of the decisionmakers believe they work). They know that they have more applicants than positions, and a limited budget. So I think someone said "get rid of some of the applicants as cheaply as possible", and someone else translated this into "let's use the polygraph to thin the population".
Skeptic
Skeptic
Posted by steincj
- Jan 03, 2003, 05:48 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Jan 03, 2003, 12:48 PM
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process. How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings? I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins. The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters. Your thoughts?
Breeze,
Simple fix. Raise the cut off scores at Phase II. Let less people get to the polygraph.
Three Agents do the interview in Phase II. They are well trained in fairness. Their scores can be trusted.
An applicant who fails to achieve a passing score in Phase II has no further career ramifications. An apllicant who fails a polygraph, however . . .
Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong. Labelling epople as spies and druggies and liars when there may or may not be SUFFIECIENT proof is wrong. And posting these results as fact on the FBI public record, preventing other career opportunities is also wrong.
Chris
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 03, 2003, 05:38 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Jan 03, 2003, 12:48 PM
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process. How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?
What's illegal about hiring the number you need on a first-come, first-serve basis? Whatever happened to sending the time-honored "we had many more qualified applicants than positions, and at this time we cannot hire everyone. Thank you for applying and we invite you to return in the future" letter?
Either this is a shining example of bureaucratic stupidity or there's more than a little attempt to score extra political points involved, as well. "Look! we have polygraphs in our building! We're one security conscious organization (and they smell nice, too)!"
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Jan 03, 2003, 05:21 PMBreeze and George,
A remarkable point of agreement. This apparently expedient mechansim has extremely adverse consequences. It is not a simple thing as where one isn't hired due to nebulous chemistry or instinct. If I interview 2 people and hire the one that I think best fits the needs of the dept., the emotional hurt to the one not hired is far less than if I polygraph the applicants and say the one not hired failed the polygraph. There is little that causes more pain than having one's integrity questioned. There is little that does more damage than promulgating that to other potential employment opportunities.
-Marty
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 03, 2003, 04:43 PM
Yes. I think it's likely that the high FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate (currently over 50%) is the result of a deliberate decision made by FBI management suddenly faced with a surfeit of qualified applicants following the tragic events of 11 September 2001. At some time prior to that date, the polygraph failure rate had "only" been about 20%.
A remarkable point of agreement. This apparently expedient mechansim has extremely adverse consequences. It is not a simple thing as where one isn't hired due to nebulous chemistry or instinct. If I interview 2 people and hire the one that I think best fits the needs of the dept., the emotional hurt to the one not hired is far less than if I polygraph the applicants and say the one not hired failed the polygraph. There is little that causes more pain than having one's integrity questioned. There is little that does more damage than promulgating that to other potential employment opportunities.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 03, 2003, 04:43 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Jan 03, 2003, 12:48 PM
George
You still seem angry.
I take umbrage at your unfounded accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint."
QuoteFaulty: "having a fault or faults, defective". Like all who post here, I am stating an opinion. Posting here can never be mistaken for actual proof, although you evidently believe your words meet that standard. Yes, I do believe that your and others advice could hinder, confuse or delay fact finding in a criminal or screening exam. So, I find that faulty in the sense that it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous. It is defective in my view because our culture is filled with selfish examples, and the over riding importance of the one.
So when you earlier spoke of "[my] crew...disepensing faulty advice," you didn't mean to say that anything we are saying here is untrue?
QuoteYou claim I am boasting when I simply point out that my experience base on this topic is much greater than yours- then you immediately throw up a few texts that you have skimmed as an example of your detailed research. I have read all but the Reid text (although I have others by this author team) I would not consider this extensive, and it is clear from reading your work (yes I have) that you needed to provide authoritative descriptions and test sequences. You were not looking for a discussion on possible efficacy, just detail to reinforce your pre-existing view.
Your assumption that I have merely "skimmed" the works referenced above is erroneous, as is your assumption that I was just looking for "detail to reinforce [my] pre-existing view." I approach the subject of polygraphy with an open mind, and am willing to change my views in light of new evidence. But at this point, I find that the case against CQT polygraphy (and especially, polygraph screening) is compelling.
You say you've read the Polygraph archive, Matte's Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, Harrelson's Lie Test, and the DoDPI documentation referenced in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (as well as The Lie Behind the Lie Detector itself). I invite you then to please point out any factual error(s) you believe you may have found in the latter.
QuoteLet me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion:
Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool? I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences. Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue.
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process. How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings? I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins. The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters. Your thoughts?
Yes. I think it's likely that the high FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate (currently over 50%) is the result of a deliberate decision made by FBI management suddenly faced with a surfeit of qualified applicants following the tragic events of 11 September 2001. At some time prior to that date, the polygraph failure rate had "only" been about 20%. Note, however, that no admission(s) is/are necessary for an applicant to be accused of deception and/or countermeasures by the polygrapher, rejected for FBI hire, and blacklisted from employment with other federal agencies.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 03, 2003, 04:02 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Jan 03, 2003, 12:48 PMDear Breeze,
.
Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion:
Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool? I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences. Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue.
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process. How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings? I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins. The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters. Your thoughts?
Without getting into any polygraph validity discussion, your statement could be a good supposition.
I would add "no other cheaper alternative" and it would be a hard argument to fight considering my three experiences and the whole FBI procedure of hiring applicants.
Regards.
Posted by Marty
- Jan 03, 2003, 02:09 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jan 03, 2003, 09:53 AMI believe some of these signatures are differential, in that they are distinct from CNS controlled autonomic responses. I think this is dependent on the type of countermeasure. Drew's challenge, and other comments in the literature, aludes to this. This is one reason I believe research here would be more productive and cheaper.
Dear Marty,
Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions.
Regards.
Also, Drew has stated he had at one time believed that more channels would provide higher polygraph reliability but has concluded the additional information is redundant and of little value. The same may not be the case re some types of CM detection.
Agreed. If anyone wants to discuss detection of CM's specifically we should start a thread specifically on this. Just wanted to clarify I was not talking about general polygraph measurements and DI which I think are close to impossibly complex.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 03, 2003, 01:22 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jan 03, 2003, 09:53 AM
Dear Marty,
I agree that there are much more sophisticated means of measuring physiological reactions instead of the current polygraph sensors. The problem has always been trying to interpret this information.
Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions. This argument being similar to which directions someone moves there eyes after a question indicating truthfulness or deception.
Autonomic nerve "imprinting" is not consistant within cultures. A child who is farsighted cannot read their own writing. They imprint their writing through muscular motion differently than one who gets feed back with their eyes and this will affect their writing until they "retrain" their muscle imprinting. There muscle reaction will be repeatable and consistant but incorrect. The same can be created for emotional reactions which will be interpreted as "countermeasures" instead of truth.
This is a discussion better for another thread. Start one and I will answer more there.
Regards.
Indeed, the human nervous system is a wonderfully complex and flexible thing.
One thing that does seem remarkably consistent, though, are certain reactions to recognition. Combined with the fact that tests may be designed such that the likelihood of false positive "recognition" reactions are almost nil, "recognition testing" could be a truly valuable tool for law enforcement. Not useful for screening, though. Unfortunately, there appears no substitute for good old fashioned background investigations.
Give Dr. Richardson the chance, and he'll talk at length about recognition testing.
Skeptic