Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Skeptic
 - Jan 10, 2004, 11:19 AM
Quote from: Anonymous on Jan 10, 2004, 01:29 AMWhen are you going to advertise your countermeasures to the urinalysis test. Oh thats right, if I do drugs and I'm wrong I will need them. I guess you will want to damage private property and ask people to write this on bathroom walls. I understand making a buck, but your ethics leave something to be desired.

If you're referring to The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it should be noted that 1) no one has asked anyone to vandalize property in the spreading of information about the polygraph and 2) the book is free; there is no "making a buck" involved.  Do these facts address your concerns about ethics?

If not, we could point out that 1) unlike urinalysis, the polygraph is not grounded in scientific evidence and solid theory backing its efficacy (in fact, quite the opposite is true), 2) if urinalysis produced a false positive, one would have the chance and the means to demonstrate this fact, and 3) information on "beating" a urinalysis test is already out there, and the methods and ways to counter the countermeasures are well-known.

In contrast, polygraphers appear to have no known way to counter countermeasures with any certainty of success, beyond bluff, based as the test is on a foundation of sand.  Were this the case with urinalysis, it would be worthwhile to point out that that test could easily, undetectably and unstoppably be fooled and it were therefore unwise to depend upon it.

Skeptic
Posted by Anonymous
 - Jan 10, 2004, 01:29 AM
When are you going to advertise your countermeasures to the urinalysis test. Oh thats right, if I do drugs and I'm wrong I will need them. I guess you will want to damage private property and ask people to write this on bathroom walls. I understand making a buck, but your ethics leave something to be desired.
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 06, 2003, 11:35 PM
Quote from: Anonymous on Mar 06, 2003, 10:39 PM
Marty,

Having a subject answer "no" to a series of questions is a poor way to conduct a concealed information test.  It mixes modes (as you suggested) and leads to questionable results.  A better and I would think  preferred way of conducting the exam would be to have the examinee repeat the multiple choice item (correct answer and alternatives) following the examiner's oral presentation of each.  Again detection of information tests are not detection of deception tests  (even for autonomic let alone CNS-based tests), in spite of the fact that the nomenclature and even some aspects of the procedure can be inappropriately confused for the two.  That's all for me tonight, but we can continue tomorrow if you like...

I largely agree though I think that asking a person to repeat each statement would best be done by not having the statement in query form. I note that the query form is likely the typical format in Japan, where the CIT in fact dominates.  [Nakayama, in Kleiner's Handbook of Polygraph Testing, 2002] . Whether one includes CIT in the category of PDD mechanisms perhaps is a matter of jargon and custom. I gather, reading the DOD's document that the term PDD applies to almost anything which the instrument is used with. Even their own manual on the polygraph is presented as the PDD manual and I certainly assume the CIT, as well as all their other more widely used techniques are described even if rarely used. More specifically, Chapter 5 [Kleiner] is titled "Physiological Detection of Deception in Psychological Perspectives" and discusses GKT(called also CIT and CKT), CQT, as well as some interesting things that interfere in various ways with the polygraph.  It's clear that the CIT falls within the rather broad scope of PDD.


It's too bad the CIT is not used more often as it has the potential to be validated and requires no examiner deception though of course it is fairly useless as a screening tool.

See you tomorrow, though it appears we are more in agreement than not.

-Marty
Posted by Anonymous
 - Mar 06, 2003, 10:39 PM
Marty,

Having a subject answer "no" to a series of questions is a poor way to conduct a concealed information test.  It mixes modes (as you suggested) and leads to questionable results.  A better and I would think  preferred way of conducting the exam would be to have the examinee repeat the multiple choice item (correct answer and alternatives) following the examiner's oral presentation of each.  Again detection of information tests are not detection of deception tests  (even for autonomic let alone CNS-based tests), in spite of the fact that the nomenclature and even some aspects of the procedure can be inappropriately confused for the two.  That's all for me tonight, but we can continue tomorrow if you like...
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 06, 2003, 10:26 PM
Quote from: Anonymous on Mar 06, 2003, 09:52 PM
Marty,

I don't know who uses the "CKT PDD examination" phrase that you referred to in your last post, but it is a major confusion of terms.  An information/knowledge test is not a test of deception (psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD)).

Why not? The standard format is that the person responds "NO" to each of a series of question groups. The CIT works by detecting the higher level of response rendered when a person recognizes the specific information named while also saying no. Sounds like a PDD to me. Perhaps there are variations where a person doesn't have to say anything and hence it would be inappropriate to call it a PDD since the term is something of a catchall.  You will please note that in my citation the research study was funded by DOD.

Here is the full quote and title of the document it came from:

         Department of Defense
         POLYGRAPH PROGRAM
ANNUAL POLYGRAPH REPORT TO CONGRESS
      Fiscal Year 1997

--------- Research--------

Effects of Misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test (CKT). This study, completed under contract with the University of North Dakota, was designed to examine the effect of misinformation on subjects undergoing a CKT PDD examination. The CKT is used when subjects deny knowing specific details about a crime, which only a guilty person would know, such as the type of weapon used. Subjects were given false information concerning a videotaped crime they observed a week earlier. Those who remembered the false information were less likely to be detected, when deceptive, during a PDD examination than those who did not remember the false information. A final report has been completed and is available through the Defense Technical Information Center.


-Marty
Posted by Anonymous
 - Mar 06, 2003, 09:52 PM
Marty,

I don't know who uses the "CKT PDD examination" phrase that you referred to in your last post, but it is a major confusion of terms.  An information/knowledge test is not a test of deception (psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD)).
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 06, 2003, 09:41 PM

Quote from: Anonymous on Mar 06, 2003, 09:13 PM
Marty,

Commonly used nomenclature/acronyms would include Concealed Information Test (CIT) and Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT).  Although I can/did guess at what Chris had in mind,  I am not aware of CKT being a part of commonly utilized polygraph nomenclature.

Well, the use of GKT has been discouraged due to it's obvious bias. But it would appear that both CIT and CKT are used to mean the same thing. Often CQT is used to mean PL CQT where it could also mean DL CQT or simply DLT (or, alternately PLT).



SEE:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-1997.html

Effects of Misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test (CKT). This study, completed under contract with the University of North Dakota, was designed to examine the effect of misinformation on subjects undergoing a CKT PDD examination.

-Marty
Posted by Anonymous
 - Mar 06, 2003, 09:13 PM
Marty,

Commonly used nomenclature/acronyms would include Concealed Information Test (CIT) and Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT).  Although I can/did guess at what Chris had in mind,  I am not aware of CKT being a part of commonly utilized polygraph nomenclature.
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 06, 2003, 08:50 PM
Quote from: Anonymous on Mar 06, 2003, 08:44 PM
Chris,

Your write:


Although your intentions are good and instincts largely on track, your attention to detail, i.e. appreciation of the difference between polygraph questioning formats and applications, misuse and creative use (what is a CKT??) of nomenclature, etc leaves much to be desired.  The confused nonsense that you have assembled in this last bit of writing makes even Batman look educated.  Back to the drawing board with this one, lad....


I would say if you don't know what a CKT (Concealed Knowledge Test) perhaps you are less than well equipped to comment on Chris's post. Perhaps you should spend some time reviewing things.


-Marty
Posted by Anonymous
 - Mar 06, 2003, 08:44 PM
Chris,

Your write:

Quote...

Ahh, see, I believe that the polygraph MACHINE does work.  It can measure the physiological responses of the human body.  What does NOT work is the person sitting behind the machine, trying to interperet another human's autonomic nervous system measurements down to a 50/50, truth or lie result.  
Now in the CKT, the measurements are overwhelming, and the questions are specific.  But I would never believe guilt or innocence based on the test result; it is only another piece to the comlete investigation pie.
Of course the PL CQT is nothing like the CKT.  Truth or lie is determined by answers to a question in which the polygraph examiner ASSUMES (there's that word again) that a previos answer given by a subject is a lie.  How crazy is that?  And to boot, some agencies use these test results as the be all and all to an individual.  It's the whole pie, not even a piece of it!
...

Although your intentions are good and instincts largely on track, your attention to detail, i.e. appreciation of the difference between polygraph questioning formats and applications, misuse and creative use (what is a CKT??) of nomenclature, etc leaves much to be desired.  The confused nonsense that you have assembled in this last bit of writing makes even Batman look educated.  Back to the drawing board with this one, lad....
Posted by steincj
 - Mar 06, 2003, 08:13 PM

Quote from: Boy1der on Mar 06, 2003, 04:34 PM

Advertising on bathroom bulletin boards?!?  The credibility of this site has found its place.  All that needs to be done now is flush and wash your hands.

BoyBlunder,

Perhaps, if you could have gotten over the excitement that you were about to "write a funny," you would have underdstood wht Seeker was saying, as I think her sentiment is echoed by most of us on this site.

First she provides an alternative to the wanton graffiti by saying:
QuoteFor $20 / year, you can now have your advertisement placed onto their bathroom wall stalls.

Then she concludes with rather clever disdain for the suggestion:
QuotePerhaps this is an option, but I would strongly suggest that Mission Poly-Ban missed the mark with the suggestion of joining in on the wall writings.

But, BoyBlunder, if you wish to pitifully attack us all, be forewarned.  I will continue to divulge your foolishness.

Chris
Posted by Boy1der
 - Mar 06, 2003, 04:34 PM

Quote from: Seeker on Mar 03, 2003, 09:44 AM
While I find this suggestion to be lacking in ethics, I would like to suggest that there is a much more reasonable alternative. . .For $20 / year, you can now have your advertisement placed onto their bathroom wall stalls.

Advertising on bathroom bulletin boards?!?  The credibility of this site has found its place.  All that needs to be done now is flush and wash your hands.
Posted by Seeker
 - Mar 03, 2003, 09:44 AM
Quote from: MissionPoly-ban on Apr 26, 2002, 10:14 PM
Also,  carry a magic marker with you every where you go.  In each public bathroom that you visit,  Write (in a stall or two)
"Discover the truth about Lie Detectors:  Visit Antipolygraph.org"

While I find this suggestion to be lacking in ethics, I would like to suggest that there is a much more reasonable alternative.

Here locally where I live, local restaurants and nightclubs have their bathroom stall walls filled with advertisements.  This of course was the gracious response to all of the "wall writers" where folks like Batman found their significant others (read prior post).  

For $20 / year, you can now have your advertisement placed onto their bathroom wall stalls.  As it currently stands, I am seeing only Bail Bonding, Palm Readers, and public service ads (those ones that warn against domestic violence, alcoholism, and aids).

Perhaps this is an option, but I would strongly suggest that Mission Poly-Ban missed the mark with the suggestion of joining in on the wall writings.

Regards,
Posted by Batman (Guest)
 - Oct 04, 2002, 09:07 PM
Hey George,

What's up with this post?  It keeps popping up, like my first girlfiend's phone number on the walls of all the mens rooms in New York City.

I haven't written on many outhouse walls lately but I might start.  How about, "Netnintubooly is a good candidate for Foreman of the Jury!"

Batman
Posted by Karl Lafong
 - Oct 02, 2002, 03:15 PM
You should not be advocating breaking the law to further your own small-minded goals.