- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Feb 03, 2003, 03:33 PMPublic Servant,
Thanks for your notes. Kleiner's compilation survey has an article by a Japanese researcher who details the use of GKT's in Japan. I would cite more details but they are not handy. I referenced the book in one of my earliest posts though. It may be that, since the poly did not come into wide use in Japan until long after the US, there was a natural proclivity to utilizing GQT which was widely considered superior by academics, if not pratitioners, and there was not the existance of a trained group reluctant to adopt something unfamiliar.
In any case, the author stated that CQT's were so rare in Japan that most polygraphers had never actually even given one. Amazing in that the GKT typically takes more preparation and is less widely applicable.
Fascinating dichotomy.
-Marty
Thanks for your notes. Kleiner's compilation survey has an article by a Japanese researcher who details the use of GKT's in Japan. I would cite more details but they are not handy. I referenced the book in one of my earliest posts though. It may be that, since the poly did not come into wide use in Japan until long after the US, there was a natural proclivity to utilizing GQT which was widely considered superior by academics, if not pratitioners, and there was not the existance of a trained group reluctant to adopt something unfamiliar.
In any case, the author stated that CQT's were so rare in Japan that most polygraphers had never actually even given one. Amazing in that the GKT typically takes more preparation and is less widely applicable.
Fascinating dichotomy.
-Marty
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 11:23 AMDrew,
I think we were typing replies here simultaneously and thus missed each other.
You certainly admonished me in a way that only a PhD could. Just glad I could attract you back to the conversation.
In my defense, I'd offer only that I never claimed this was scientific evidence. And I never saw where this heading stating it was for scientific analysis of your Polygraph CVSA Experience. My anecdote was just as supportive as other posts to threads on this heading, and just as un-scientific.
So can you get enough anecdotes here for a good statistic sampling?!
Hope to hear from you again!
PS
I think we were typing replies here simultaneously and thus missed each other.
You certainly admonished me in a way that only a PhD could. Just glad I could attract you back to the conversation.
In my defense, I'd offer only that I never claimed this was scientific evidence. And I never saw where this heading stating it was for scientific analysis of your Polygraph CVSA Experience. My anecdote was just as supportive as other posts to threads on this heading, and just as un-scientific.
So can you get enough anecdotes here for a good statistic sampling?!
Hope to hear from you again!
PS
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Feb 03, 2003, 11:08 AMPublic Servant,
I am afraid your demonstrated understanding of scientific evidence with regard to polygraph validity and countermeasure efficacy is severely lacking. Specifically, with regard to the latter, by convention you are blind to 100 percent of all who successfully (and I repeat, 100 percent of all who) utilize countermeasures in your polygraph suite. Without the benefit of ground truth, you are proving absolutely nothing there by simply performing your duties to the best of your abilities other than perhaps something about time and attendance for your employer's purposes. You may have a genuine desire to perform well, hope you have performed well, and in your gut feel you have performed well, but you have demonstrated precious little regarding your ability to detect countermeasures. The notion that you periodically put forth about polygraphers meeting the challenge on a daily basis in the real world in individual polygraph suites is complete balderdash. There may well be reasonable ways to do so other than through accepting and performing successfully with my challenge, but the nonsense you have suggested is nothing but either grand self-delusion or a desperate attempt at institutional mis/disinformation. Largely thanks to George et al your self-delusion will never again be pandemic.
I am afraid your demonstrated understanding of scientific evidence with regard to polygraph validity and countermeasure efficacy is severely lacking. Specifically, with regard to the latter, by convention you are blind to 100 percent of all who successfully (and I repeat, 100 percent of all who) utilize countermeasures in your polygraph suite. Without the benefit of ground truth, you are proving absolutely nothing there by simply performing your duties to the best of your abilities other than perhaps something about time and attendance for your employer's purposes. You may have a genuine desire to perform well, hope you have performed well, and in your gut feel you have performed well, but you have demonstrated precious little regarding your ability to detect countermeasures. The notion that you periodically put forth about polygraphers meeting the challenge on a daily basis in the real world in individual polygraph suites is complete balderdash. There may well be reasonable ways to do so other than through accepting and performing successfully with my challenge, but the nonsense you have suggested is nothing but either grand self-delusion or a desperate attempt at institutional mis/disinformation. Largely thanks to George et al your self-delusion will never again be pandemic.
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 11:04 AMGeorge,
Yes, you are quite correct, this story was purely anectdotal. ...By no means scientific validation of my assertion.
However, I assure you it is true and no more or less supportive of my position than other anecdotal contributions under this heading are of the opposing view.
Perhaps, we should compile similar anectdotes, pro- and anti- alike and have Drew, or someone well versed in statistics come up with probabilities for being caught, or rendered DI anyway, when using countermeasures to attempt concealment of guilt or deception.
Again, I maintain the only challenge this site poses to examiners is the challenge to accomplish our mission, objectively, in spite of those who may come in using your advice. Any other challenge is pure rhetoric. Those of us in the business of protecting the nation and society, can only afford to live in the real world. And that is where we meet this challenge every day.
Take care!
Yes, you are quite correct, this story was purely anectdotal. ...By no means scientific validation of my assertion.
However, I assure you it is true and no more or less supportive of my position than other anecdotal contributions under this heading are of the opposing view.
Perhaps, we should compile similar anectdotes, pro- and anti- alike and have Drew, or someone well versed in statistics come up with probabilities for being caught, or rendered DI anyway, when using countermeasures to attempt concealment of guilt or deception.
Again, I maintain the only challenge this site poses to examiners is the challenge to accomplish our mission, objectively, in spite of those who may come in using your advice. Any other challenge is pure rhetoric. Those of us in the business of protecting the nation and society, can only afford to live in the real world. And that is where we meet this challenge every day.
Take care!
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 10:51 AMMarty,
1.) I have little experience in utilizing the GKT. I have seen the assertion regarding its use by the Japanese. I am not sure if this is true. However, I was once told by a Japanese law enforcement officer (not an examiner) that they heard that the type of examinations used in the U.S. did not work on Japanese. This person was not an expert in the field and I believe did not understand what had been stated by a Japanese examiner. I believe, however, my acquaintance's examiner friend was alluding to a perceived cultural issue which might hamper the CQT technique. Purely my take on a brief conversation.
2.) Here's the problem with GKT, as I see it. First, finding characterisitics of an incident that only the perpetrator knows could be difficult. Impossible in some instances. ...More difficult with todays information saturation by media (as high profile cases would be) ...And especially if a thorough interview had been conducted with the suspect prior to offering examination (as usually is the case), and in an effort to give the suspect reason to confess by showing the suspect he is "caught", the interviewer tips his hand on what is known about the incident.
A GKT could also give the suspect "wiggle room" in post-test interview. He could say he only had tangential involvement and thus knew something about the scene. And in reality, the examiner would not know if the DI was due to actual perpetration or simply knowledge withheld. This is what I saw as the weakness to the Brain Fingerprinting Technique espoused by Drew. It might prove a memory of a fact about the crime scene, but does not put the gun in his hand. This is why I once asked him about a CNS monitoring technique getting to guilt, not knowledge/memory of characteristics of the incident. When a suspect is DI to CQT, he failed a "did you do it?" question(s). Claims of other tangential knowledge/involvement can be easily countered by the interviewer, because that was not what he responded to.
3.) I know that PhD types (actual ones, and those on both sides of the poly debate), advocate the GKT as likely more valid. I know that research seems easier to conduct in pursuit of validation (see earlier posts of mine in past threads for discussion of difficulties in proving CQT, specifically SI CQT). However, there is much more room for error in devising a good exam for each specific case (as you could also surmise from the above). I'd say practicality and cutting to the heart of the matter are why most agencies use CQT for SI exams (again I'd refer to the above). I could not comment on false positive rates, without sitting down in front of someone else's research (many persons', none of which is mine).
Again these are only my thoughts on the topic. I have provided them off the top of my head referring to no research literature and on a topic for which I am by no means an authority (I have offered my meager credentials in a previous discussion with Drew, which should serve as sufficient disclaimer). Hope I addressed them as you wanted.
Take Care!
Public Servant
1.) I have little experience in utilizing the GKT. I have seen the assertion regarding its use by the Japanese. I am not sure if this is true. However, I was once told by a Japanese law enforcement officer (not an examiner) that they heard that the type of examinations used in the U.S. did not work on Japanese. This person was not an expert in the field and I believe did not understand what had been stated by a Japanese examiner. I believe, however, my acquaintance's examiner friend was alluding to a perceived cultural issue which might hamper the CQT technique. Purely my take on a brief conversation.
2.) Here's the problem with GKT, as I see it. First, finding characterisitics of an incident that only the perpetrator knows could be difficult. Impossible in some instances. ...More difficult with todays information saturation by media (as high profile cases would be) ...And especially if a thorough interview had been conducted with the suspect prior to offering examination (as usually is the case), and in an effort to give the suspect reason to confess by showing the suspect he is "caught", the interviewer tips his hand on what is known about the incident.
A GKT could also give the suspect "wiggle room" in post-test interview. He could say he only had tangential involvement and thus knew something about the scene. And in reality, the examiner would not know if the DI was due to actual perpetration or simply knowledge withheld. This is what I saw as the weakness to the Brain Fingerprinting Technique espoused by Drew. It might prove a memory of a fact about the crime scene, but does not put the gun in his hand. This is why I once asked him about a CNS monitoring technique getting to guilt, not knowledge/memory of characteristics of the incident. When a suspect is DI to CQT, he failed a "did you do it?" question(s). Claims of other tangential knowledge/involvement can be easily countered by the interviewer, because that was not what he responded to.
3.) I know that PhD types (actual ones, and those on both sides of the poly debate), advocate the GKT as likely more valid. I know that research seems easier to conduct in pursuit of validation (see earlier posts of mine in past threads for discussion of difficulties in proving CQT, specifically SI CQT). However, there is much more room for error in devising a good exam for each specific case (as you could also surmise from the above). I'd say practicality and cutting to the heart of the matter are why most agencies use CQT for SI exams (again I'd refer to the above). I could not comment on false positive rates, without sitting down in front of someone else's research (many persons', none of which is mine).
Again these are only my thoughts on the topic. I have provided them off the top of my head referring to no research literature and on a topic for which I am by no means an authority (I have offered my meager credentials in a previous discussion with Drew, which should serve as sufficient disclaimer). Hope I addressed them as you wanted.
Take Care!
Public Servant
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 03, 2003, 05:18 AMPublic Servant,
Thank you for sharing this anecdote. But I believe that you attach to it a significance that it does not have. This sample of one does not demonstrate that "it is difficult to artificially create physiological response which is greater than response created by answering an important question deceptively -- especially in regard to commission of criminal offenses." The foregoing assertion is not "a point [you] made here long ago" (emphasis added). Rather, it is merely your conjecture. While this conjecture may enjoy the status of dogma amongst the polygraph community, it remains unsupported by any statistically meaningful research.
My conscience is in need of no "alleviation" for having made information regarding polygraphy, including polygraph countermeasures, publicly available.
No. It is not. Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge would provide some evidence as to whether the participating polygraph examiner(s) has the ability to reliably detect countermeasures (as opposed to occasionally guessing correctly). This is a challenge that has yet to be met by any polygrapher.
The undue significance you seemingly attach to the anecdote you've shared with us is a good example of the confirmation bias that is all too prevalent in the thinking of the polygraph community.
Thank you for sharing this anecdote. But I believe that you attach to it a significance that it does not have. This sample of one does not demonstrate that "it is difficult to artificially create physiological response which is greater than response created by answering an important question deceptively -- especially in regard to commission of criminal offenses." The foregoing assertion is not "a point [you] made here long ago" (emphasis added). Rather, it is merely your conjecture. While this conjecture may enjoy the status of dogma amongst the polygraph community, it remains unsupported by any statistically meaningful research.
QuotePerhaps this may alleviate some consciences reagrding ethical issues I have raised in the past. But, perhaps, it should not.
My conscience is in need of no "alleviation" for having made information regarding polygraphy, including polygraph countermeasures, publicly available.
QuoteIf nothing else, this is one example, of many, of how "the challenge" is being met.
No. It is not. Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge would provide some evidence as to whether the participating polygraph examiner(s) has the ability to reliably detect countermeasures (as opposed to occasionally guessing correctly). This is a challenge that has yet to be met by any polygrapher.
The undue significance you seemingly attach to the anecdote you've shared with us is a good example of the confirmation bias that is all too prevalent in the thinking of the polygraph community.
Posted by Marty
- Feb 03, 2003, 03:52 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Feb 03, 2003, 03:11 AM
I think this re-iterates a point I made here long ago, it is difficult to artificially create physiological response which is greater than response created by answering an important question deceptively -- especially in regard to commission of criminal offenses. Even with countermeasures, the exam worked.
Public Servant,
I, for one, have little problem with specific incident testing. Especially given fairly high confession rates. I do have a number of questions though.
1) have you any experience with GKT's? From what I understand they are dominant in Japan but rarely used in the US and they avoid the issue of a false positive due to fear of consequences.
2) SDPD did a pretty good job with Westerfeld, they tracked down info from his ex that he was violent at times when drunk and used it for a control question. Nice. They didn't get a confession but he pretty much collapsed. They also taped the whole thing (yay!). Do you think they might of gotten a confession if they had used a GKT based on details like the house's interior etc. It looked like a ripe candidate for GKT to me and since he was an engineer, he would likely find the results more compelling. If he confessed it would have saved the state millions.
3. Do you think false positives may be more common with forensic polygraph CQT's? I would think fear of consequences would create quite a reaction among purely innocent examinees. OTOH, you probably could come up with better control questions from the crime investigation than the guys that do screening.
-Marty
Posted by Public Servant
- Feb 03, 2003, 03:11 AMJust thought I'd share an interesting anecdote. I recently conducted a Specific Issue, criminal investigative exam, wherein the examinee attempted countermeasures. Though there was some enhancement of physiological activity (albeit obviously artificial in some cases), it still was insufficient to exceed the response to the relevant questions. In other words, the exam results, even with countermeasures, were Deception Indicated!!
The DI result was well corroborated by both investigation and post test admissions (it seems after one bit of advice from a site such as this failed, the examinee aborted all other advice). The examinee even spontaneously admitted to preparing for the exam by visiting sites such as this one. (I did not ask about CMs because with DI result, why stray from the relevant issue--commission of a felony. Examinee brought it up). I assume the examinee got his information from this site because what was said and done matched advice given here; and the examinee did not complain of being separated from his money for bad advice.
I think this re-iterates a point I made here long ago, it is difficult to artificially create physiological response which is greater than response created by answering an important question deceptively -- especially in regard to commission of criminal offenses. Even with countermeasures, the exam worked.
Perhaps this may alleviate some consciences reagrding ethical issues I have raised in the past. But, perhaps, it should not.
If nothing else, this is one example, of many, of how "the challenge" is being met.
The DI result was well corroborated by both investigation and post test admissions (it seems after one bit of advice from a site such as this failed, the examinee aborted all other advice). The examinee even spontaneously admitted to preparing for the exam by visiting sites such as this one. (I did not ask about CMs because with DI result, why stray from the relevant issue--commission of a felony. Examinee brought it up). I assume the examinee got his information from this site because what was said and done matched advice given here; and the examinee did not complain of being separated from his money for bad advice.
I think this re-iterates a point I made here long ago, it is difficult to artificially create physiological response which is greater than response created by answering an important question deceptively -- especially in regard to commission of criminal offenses. Even with countermeasures, the exam worked.
Perhaps this may alleviate some consciences reagrding ethical issues I have raised in the past. But, perhaps, it should not.
If nothing else, this is one example, of many, of how "the challenge" is being met.