- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anonymouse1
- Jan 13, 2003, 09:08 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Jan 13, 2003, 07:41 PM
Batman,
Yes, I believe our examination of Jacko's remarks and thoughts has probably run its course. And I'm afraid you will remain curious...until I should decide to argue based on authority rather than the logic and merits of a given point of view under discussion...
Ouchie.... a small flying mammal just got swatted with a tennis racket... nice backhand anonymous
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 13, 2003, 07:41 PMBatman,
Yes, I believe our examination of Jacko's remarks and thoughts has probably run its course. And I'm afraid you will remain curious...until I should decide to argue based on authority rather than the logic and merits of a given point of view under discussion...
Yes, I believe our examination of Jacko's remarks and thoughts has probably run its course. And I'm afraid you will remain curious...until I should decide to argue based on authority rather than the logic and merits of a given point of view under discussion...
Posted by Batman
- Jan 13, 2003, 07:16 PMAnonymous,
That is one big mouthful for simply wanting to say you believe Jacko was referring to the comparison (control) questions as compared to my stance. Regardless, only he really knows.
I have been in the Law Enforcement profession since 1978, and have been a polygraph examiner since 1984 (so I have just hit my 19th year in that speciality). Courious as to a little hint regarding your credentials.
Batman
That is one big mouthful for simply wanting to say you believe Jacko was referring to the comparison (control) questions as compared to my stance. Regardless, only he really knows.
I have been in the Law Enforcement profession since 1978, and have been a polygraph examiner since 1984 (so I have just hit my 19th year in that speciality). Courious as to a little hint regarding your credentials.
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 12, 2003, 05:34 PMQuote from: Jacko on Jan 10, 2003, 09:11 PM
I just took a polygraph, and was as honest as possible, and I was not confronted. After the second pass of the same 10 questions I was told it went ok, and he would pass on the results to the PD. Does this mean I pass? It is my understanding that he would confront me with any problems he saw. Is this correct? Thanks for the awesome info on this site!
Jacko,
It appears that you passed, based on your polygrapher's assurance that "it went ok" and the absence of an accusation of deception and "post-test" interrogation.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 12, 2003, 05:20 PMBatman,
Well, let me be the first to congratulate you on your official status within the antipolygraph.org (I assume this is what you mean rather than the different and questionable antipolygraph.com domain, yes?) community. My position (that you inquire regarding the foundation of) is not an argument based on authority (although I suspect my credentials would hold up quite well in this exchange), but is based on what I believe to be the logic of the situation and the limited number of possible scenarios related to Jacko's appreciation of control and relevant questions during and following his exam. Again, assuming we are talking about a probable-lie control question test, if prevailing industry theory is correct with regard to underlying principles and, if the exam was conducted properly (again, according to accepted practices), Jacko should not have recognized which questions were relevant and which were control/comparison questions. If this is not the case, one would have to postulate incompetence on the part of the examiner or a serious deficit in polygraph theory which does not take into account the obvious transparency between control and relevant questions and the obvious implications for chart scoring, etc. of such a shortcoming. I don't believe you have the evidence to conclude the former and it would appear to be quite unlike you to admit the latter. So again, if Jacko could and did exclusively focus on relevant questions/areas then only one of the two latter scenarios is possible. If you see a flaw in this reasoning, please explain. I assume that if you say that you have 19 plus years of polygraph experience that you have 19 plus years of polygraph experience, but this now accepted statistic is irrelevant to the logic of that which we discuss.
Well, let me be the first to congratulate you on your official status within the antipolygraph.org (I assume this is what you mean rather than the different and questionable antipolygraph.com domain, yes?) community. My position (that you inquire regarding the foundation of) is not an argument based on authority (although I suspect my credentials would hold up quite well in this exchange), but is based on what I believe to be the logic of the situation and the limited number of possible scenarios related to Jacko's appreciation of control and relevant questions during and following his exam. Again, assuming we are talking about a probable-lie control question test, if prevailing industry theory is correct with regard to underlying principles and, if the exam was conducted properly (again, according to accepted practices), Jacko should not have recognized which questions were relevant and which were control/comparison questions. If this is not the case, one would have to postulate incompetence on the part of the examiner or a serious deficit in polygraph theory which does not take into account the obvious transparency between control and relevant questions and the obvious implications for chart scoring, etc. of such a shortcoming. I don't believe you have the evidence to conclude the former and it would appear to be quite unlike you to admit the latter. So again, if Jacko could and did exclusively focus on relevant questions/areas then only one of the two latter scenarios is possible. If you see a flaw in this reasoning, please explain. I assume that if you say that you have 19 plus years of polygraph experience that you have 19 plus years of polygraph experience, but this now accepted statistic is irrelevant to the logic of that which we discuss.
Posted by Batman
- Jan 12, 2003, 04:38 PMAnonymous,
Like I said, we'll jsut have to wait and see if Jacko chooses to reply, as honestly as he can, as it pertains to which type questions he was referring to.
As for polygraph theory, I didn't develop it, so I can not take credit for it when you refer to it as "(your)" theory.
As for your assumption as to what questions he was referring to, what do you base this on? I base mine on 19+ years of dealing with a wide variety of examinee's under an even wider variety of circumstances. My money is still on the relevant issues, whatever they may have been.
Batman (Now a registered member of the Antipolygraph.com community.)
Like I said, we'll jsut have to wait and see if Jacko chooses to reply, as honestly as he can, as it pertains to which type questions he was referring to.
As for polygraph theory, I didn't develop it, so I can not take credit for it when you refer to it as "(your)" theory.
As for your assumption as to what questions he was referring to, what do you base this on? I base mine on 19+ years of dealing with a wide variety of examinee's under an even wider variety of circumstances. My money is still on the relevant issues, whatever they may have been.
Batman (Now a registered member of the Antipolygraph.com community.)
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 12, 2003, 04:04 PMBatman,
Unless you're suggesting the polygrapher conducting Jacko's exam was incompetent, then according to (your) polygraph theory (of probable-lie CQT exams), he (Jacko) should not have known which questions were relevant and which were control. If this were not the case there would be no basis for current scoring systems (apples would be being compared with oranges) and the test would be even more easily countermeasured than I and others have suggested in the past. If the relevant and control questions are indistinguishable to the examinee, then it would be quite unlikely that he was referring to relevant questions exclusively, and in fact, more plausible if not probable that his comment was triggered by the intentionally vague-in-nature control/comparison questions.
Unless you're suggesting the polygrapher conducting Jacko's exam was incompetent, then according to (your) polygraph theory (of probable-lie CQT exams), he (Jacko) should not have known which questions were relevant and which were control. If this were not the case there would be no basis for current scoring systems (apples would be being compared with oranges) and the test would be even more easily countermeasured than I and others have suggested in the past. If the relevant and control questions are indistinguishable to the examinee, then it would be quite unlikely that he was referring to relevant questions exclusively, and in fact, more plausible if not probable that his comment was triggered by the intentionally vague-in-nature control/comparison questions.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Jan 12, 2003, 09:00 AMAnonymous,
Doubt very much Jacko was referencing the comparison questions, if that technique was utilized, when he talked about being as honest as possible.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what, if anything, he has to say. But after 19 plus years of engaging in this voodo science, my money says he was referring to relevant questions.
Batman
Doubt very much Jacko was referencing the comparison questions, if that technique was utilized, when he talked about being as honest as possible.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what, if anything, he has to say. But after 19 plus years of engaging in this voodo science, my money says he was referring to relevant questions.
Batman
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 11, 2003, 12:09 PMBatman,
I don't think it necessary to look for a nefarious explanation for Jacko's wording when using the phrase "as honest as possible." The intentionally vague and general nature of CQT polygraph exam control questions leading an examiner to have an examinee "search his conscience" for any acts which might match control areas will naturally lead to this sort of thing. Any uncertainty about the completion of that process (the very questionable but frequently cited basis for the use of these questions) will almost certainly lead to the mindset if not the specific wording used by Jacko. If you are going to engage in gamesmanship, don't be surprised when the language of those around you reflects it.
I don't think it necessary to look for a nefarious explanation for Jacko's wording when using the phrase "as honest as possible." The intentionally vague and general nature of CQT polygraph exam control questions leading an examiner to have an examinee "search his conscience" for any acts which might match control areas will naturally lead to this sort of thing. Any uncertainty about the completion of that process (the very questionable but frequently cited basis for the use of these questions) will almost certainly lead to the mindset if not the specific wording used by Jacko. If you are going to engage in gamesmanship, don't be surprised when the language of those around you reflects it.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Jan 11, 2003, 11:01 AMJacko,
After reading your post I was curious, how does one go about being "as honest as possible"? I always thought that a person either answered a question or addressed an issue honestly or dishonestly. But to be "as honest as possible", well that does leave a little wiggle room doesn't it.
Just an interesting choice of words on your part. You might as well have said that you were as dishonest as you thought you could be without getting caught. Same thing as "honest as possible", just a little more of a negative ring to it.
I guess liars who are also optimists would prefer your wording.
Batman
After reading your post I was curious, how does one go about being "as honest as possible"? I always thought that a person either answered a question or addressed an issue honestly or dishonestly. But to be "as honest as possible", well that does leave a little wiggle room doesn't it.
Just an interesting choice of words on your part. You might as well have said that you were as dishonest as you thought you could be without getting caught. Same thing as "honest as possible", just a little more of a negative ring to it.
I guess liars who are also optimists would prefer your wording.
Batman
Posted by Jacko
- Jan 10, 2003, 09:11 PMI just took a polygraph, and was as honest as possible, and I was not confronted. After the second pass of the same 10 questions I was told it went ok, and he would pass on the results to the PD. Does this mean I pass? It is my understanding that he would confront me with any problems he saw. Is this correct? Thanks for the awesome info on this site!