- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sie
- Mar 25, 2003, 10:06 AMTo Antiploygh.org,
I ________________, unequivocally state that science can correspond physiology to specific emotions and that these emotions produce distinctive chart patterns when measured - recorded by the polygraph instrument rendering the polygraph an infallible forensic tool in the detection of deception.
Any takers?
To those who attack this site on the basis of providing information with regards to countermeasures my response to you is this:
1) This information, back by the scientific community, reveals the vulnerability of this test and the serious threat it poses to our national security and public safety.
2) The assumption that only liars, thieves or those with something to hide would be the ones to employ the use of countermeasures shows your total and complete comtempt for those who have a gunuine fear of the consquences of a false positive outcome.
3) To protect ones self from being falsely accused of deception during a psychological interrogation would be in my view a justifiable use.
I ________________, unequivocally state that science can correspond physiology to specific emotions and that these emotions produce distinctive chart patterns when measured - recorded by the polygraph instrument rendering the polygraph an infallible forensic tool in the detection of deception.
Any takers?
To those who attack this site on the basis of providing information with regards to countermeasures my response to you is this:
1) This information, back by the scientific community, reveals the vulnerability of this test and the serious threat it poses to our national security and public safety.
2) The assumption that only liars, thieves or those with something to hide would be the ones to employ the use of countermeasures shows your total and complete comtempt for those who have a gunuine fear of the consquences of a false positive outcome.
3) To protect ones self from being falsely accused of deception during a psychological interrogation would be in my view a justifiable use.
Posted by steincj
- Mar 17, 2003, 02:38 AMBatman,
I think our views on the polygraph are much closer than we first believed. And I want to say "thank you" up front for your sincere reply.
Quote from: Batman on Mar 16, 2003, 03:14 PM
It appears we also agree the inherent weakness is with the Examiner. If an Examiner allows a bias to play a role in his administration of a polygraph, that certainly could have an impact on the outcome.
Given the amount of polygraphs given by so many examineres, if there is a bad apple out there, don't you think that some of the people on this site might have a legitimate bone to pick? Or when you hear someone scream "false positive," do you immediately assume it was their "baggage?"
QuoteThere is also a large degree of uncertainty created by each individual Examinee and the personal "baggage" they bring into the room. Experience and expertise of the Examiner also plays a major role, however for those programs that have a stringent quality control process, this particular aspect can be somewhat controlled.You speak of an ideal system. I only wish that all polygraph examiners worked this way. From my personal polygraph experience, there was NO quality control, and it was examiner bias that deemed me deceptive.
If quality control is such an important part of the complete polygraph test, then how can an agency like the FBI have no quality control, and then take results of a PLCT polygraph as THE determining factor in the fate of an applicant? I don't expect you to answer that, Batman, you don't have to speak for the FBI (I can't find anyone who will). I'm just trying to show you how frustrating a polygraph experience can be -- a polygraph experience that is nothing like the one you describe.
QuoteI guess the real point of contention lies in two areas. First, the techniques utilized (PLCT v GQT for example), and the application of polygraph (screening v specific issue testing).No argument from me, pre-employment screening is a joke -- I know! But you mention using the polygraph to resolve information surfaced in a bagkground check (the best way, in my opinion, to use the polygraph as a pre-employment tool). If you have information from the background check, wouldn't you then switch to a GKT to confrim/deny it? Wouldn't that be prudent, rather than use a PLCT?
I am not a supporter of utilizing polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool, unless it is to resolve credible derogatory information that surfaces during a background investigation.
QuoteI have no reservations what so ever with the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, whether it is on Subjects, Victims, or Witnesses.I second that, with an addendum -- teh results of the polygraph administered to the individuals is not the final say for the investigation, rather, a guide as to where the investigation should initailly focus. And this should also be a GKT.
QuoteAs for PLCT v GQT, my experience and training is with PLCT's, however I believe the GQT may be less susceptible to the use of countermeasures.If it is less suceptible, shouldn't it be used more? Shouldn't the PLCT be used lees, to avoid the possibility of countermeasures being used?
QuoteAs for countermeasures, I believe trained; experienced Examiners can detect them.I'm not going to ask you how - that's like asking the Colonel which eleven herbs and spices are in his Fried Chicken.
QuoteLastly, I believe the promotion of the use of countermeasures is wrong. . . . . There a many ways to go about changing or improving the societal system then to advocate the use of something that could be very harmful to that same society.As you know, I am not in favor of countermeasures. I think they perpetuate an already corrupt system.
Countermeasures are most effecitive, if I understand you correctly, on the PLCT. And again, if I understand you correctly, the PLCT is not a well respected and effective test. Given both of these statements, do you think the PLCT should be eliminated? Is there another way to solve this problem?
I also want to ask a personal question for myself -- if I get a second polygraph, how am I going to NOT be accused of using countermeasures, since the FBI knows I am on this site? Since I failed because of my alleged "unauthorized contact with foreign nationals" and "release of classified infromation to unauthorized foreign nationals," should I request that the FBI give me a GKT to resolve these issues?
Chris
Posted by Batman
- Mar 16, 2003, 03:14 PMSteincj,
Not exactly sure where you want to go with this. It appears we agree the polygraph instrumentation works for what it is designed to do, record/measure physiological activity of the individual attached to it. It appears we also agree the inherent weakness is with the Examiner. If an Examiner allows a bias to play a role in his administration of a polygraph, that certainly could have an impact on the outcome. There is also a large degree of uncertainty created by each individual Examinee and the personal "baggage" they bring into the room. Experience and expertise of the Examiner also plays a major role, however for those programs that have a stringent quality control process, this particular aspect can be somewhat controlled.
I guess the real point of contention lies in two areas. First, the techniques utilized (PLCT v GQT for example), and the application of polygraph (screening v specific issue testing).
I am not a supporter of utilizing polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool, unless it is to resolve credible derogatory information that surfaces during a background investigation. I have slightly less reservation with it's use in support of SAPs, however I believe additional research needs to be conducted to develop a better technique than TES. I have no reservations what so ever with the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, whether it is on Subjects, Victims, or Witnesses.
As for PLCT v GQT, my experience and training is with PLCT's, however I believe the GQT may be less susceptible to the use of countermeasures.
As for countermeasures, I believe trained; experienced Examiners can detect them.
Lastly, I believe the promotion of the use of countermeasures is wrong. I can't say it is unethical, unless someone within the polygraph profession is advocating/teaching their use. Someone like George M. is under no obligation to be ethical. In a different thread he stated he thought it prudent for "anyone" taking a polygraph to utilize countermeasure. I asked him to clarify his use of the term "anyone" (he has yet to do so). By normal standards the word "anyone" would include everyone from a potential employee to a child abuser, from someone who is innocent to someone who is very guilty of a specific crime. He would like folks to believe he is striving for some greater good, and that in order to reach that level if a few bad guys get away with a crime, well so be it. I personally find this argument weak, and this attitude detrimental to society as a whole. There a many ways to go about changing or improving the societal system then to advocate the use of something that could be very harmful to that same society.
Batman
Not exactly sure where you want to go with this. It appears we agree the polygraph instrumentation works for what it is designed to do, record/measure physiological activity of the individual attached to it. It appears we also agree the inherent weakness is with the Examiner. If an Examiner allows a bias to play a role in his administration of a polygraph, that certainly could have an impact on the outcome. There is also a large degree of uncertainty created by each individual Examinee and the personal "baggage" they bring into the room. Experience and expertise of the Examiner also plays a major role, however for those programs that have a stringent quality control process, this particular aspect can be somewhat controlled.
I guess the real point of contention lies in two areas. First, the techniques utilized (PLCT v GQT for example), and the application of polygraph (screening v specific issue testing).
I am not a supporter of utilizing polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool, unless it is to resolve credible derogatory information that surfaces during a background investigation. I have slightly less reservation with it's use in support of SAPs, however I believe additional research needs to be conducted to develop a better technique than TES. I have no reservations what so ever with the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, whether it is on Subjects, Victims, or Witnesses.
As for PLCT v GQT, my experience and training is with PLCT's, however I believe the GQT may be less susceptible to the use of countermeasures.
As for countermeasures, I believe trained; experienced Examiners can detect them.
Lastly, I believe the promotion of the use of countermeasures is wrong. I can't say it is unethical, unless someone within the polygraph profession is advocating/teaching their use. Someone like George M. is under no obligation to be ethical. In a different thread he stated he thought it prudent for "anyone" taking a polygraph to utilize countermeasure. I asked him to clarify his use of the term "anyone" (he has yet to do so). By normal standards the word "anyone" would include everyone from a potential employee to a child abuser, from someone who is innocent to someone who is very guilty of a specific crime. He would like folks to believe he is striving for some greater good, and that in order to reach that level if a few bad guys get away with a crime, well so be it. I personally find this argument weak, and this attitude detrimental to society as a whole. There a many ways to go about changing or improving the societal system then to advocate the use of something that could be very harmful to that same society.
Batman
Posted by steincj
- Mar 15, 2003, 04:46 PMQuote from: Batman on Mar 14, 2003, 05:15 PM
Lets start small and work our way up. Do I understand you correctly when you say that you failed your polygraph exam, not because of the inaccuracies of the polygraph instrument itself, but because of errors by the examiner?
If I misunderstood please clarify for me.
Batman,
Like I said, I am always willing to clarify.
I did not fail because of inaccuracies int he instrument. I have never maintained that the instrument has any flaws. Many times I have said that I believe the instrument works, but it is the interpretation of the instrument readings that I take issue with, especailly when tactics such as the PL CQT ar employed.
Because I'm sure you don't want to read my personal statement, I'll tell you how I failed.
Pre-poly interview (application review): Agent misreads an application question, then accuses me of omitting information from my application. The question in question involves foreign contacts. I provide the information they request.
Pre-poly interview (with polygrapher): Polygrapher tells me that he knows of my omission on my application.
Polygraph: Polygrapher tells me (day one) I am having problems with questions about foreign contacts. I am deemed inconclusive and told to retun the following day.
Polygraph (day two): Polygrapher tells me I am still having problems with foreign contacts. More testing, then he tells me I am a "conclusive failure."
Post-test interrogation (polygrapher and Agent from pre-test interview): I am given pen and paper and told to write every instance I have had involving a foreign contact. 6 pages later, the polygrapher reads it, tells me that I am obviously omitting something, and if I do not tell him, I will fail.
I told him, "In order to tell you the things you want to hear, I will have to lie." I am shuffled out like a criminal.
Wrote letter of appeal #1: FBI loses it, attributes it to "confusion in the change of applicant coordiantors."
Introduce myself to new applicant coordinator: New AC immediately admonishes me for my personal statement here on AP.org. Tells me that names of FBI Agents / polygraphers are not public knowledge. (Is that why my polygrapher's name is used in this article from 2 weeks ago?
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/03/04/1046809584.00353.0127.0432.html
I think it is pretty clear who the FBI polygrapher is from this story)
Wrote letter of appeal #2: At he request of the new AC, he asked for a new letter of appeal, addressed to him. He promised to personally handle the situation. Have heard nothing from him for 2 months. He has not returned my messages.
So Batman, does that clear it up for you? I don't blame the instrument, I blame the "test." The polygrapher was biased by the misinformation he recieved before I sat in his chair. And for that, I failed.
And Batman, don't sell yourself short on your intellectual debating abilities. I have seen your posts, and I know you have an ability to write well. But your personal attacks and backhanded insults cause others to get mad at you, and I think you take pleasure in that. But if that were the only reason you posted here, I'd be calling you "Torpedo." Let's keep the BS out of this discussion, OK?
Chris
Posted by Batman
- Mar 14, 2003, 05:15 PMCaptain,
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, but you do apply a lot of pressure. First you wanted "intellectual insight", and now you want a "scholary reply". Give me a break will ya?
Lets start small and work our way up. Do I understand you correctly when you say that you failed your polygraph exam, not because of the inaccuracies of the polygraph instrument itself, but because of errors by the examiner?
If I misunderstood please clarify for me.
Batman
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, but you do apply a lot of pressure. First you wanted "intellectual insight", and now you want a "scholary reply". Give me a break will ya?
Lets start small and work our way up. Do I understand you correctly when you say that you failed your polygraph exam, not because of the inaccuracies of the polygraph instrument itself, but because of errors by the examiner?
If I misunderstood please clarify for me.
Batman
Posted by steincj
- Mar 12, 2003, 07:51 PMQuote from: Batman on Mar 12, 2003, 05:34 PM
I must have stupid written all over my cape. If I understand you correctly, you want my, "intellectual insight...(so) we can create a feasable solution to the polygraph problem."? . . . .What if I don't think there is a "polygraph problem"?
Batman,
I'm going to disregard all of the other crap you wrote and get right to the points, of which I have 2.
1) You did not address any of the issues I discussed at the top of this thread. These were the very same issues YOU asked ME for clarification on. I gave it, no mud slung your way either. I would appreciate it if you could keep the weak insults at home and get to the point with a valid argument.
2) There is most certainly a "we" to the "polygraph problem." Anti-polygraph types oppose the test and the faith given to the system. Pro-polygraph types oppose the use and eduaction of the use of countermeasures to the polygraph. This encompasses the "polygraph problem," and you are most certainly part of the "we" who should try and solve it.
I am eagerly awaiting your scolarly reply.
Chris
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 12, 2003, 06:21 PMQuote from: Batman on Mar 12, 2003, 05:34 PM<snip an excessive load of Bat-drivel>As for joining the "we", I don't think that would work out. Could you imagine me being on the same team as Septic, Beech Nut, or you? Hell, I'd be surrounded, no room for escape, I'd be the outsider, and I'd end up puking all over myself after the first "I love you George; Good point George; you're right George", love fest. And, I don't own a copy of the anti-bible (Sorry George, I'm not one of the 60,000 who have allegedly downloaded it).
Well, that's certainly a fascinating admission. Forgive me, but your longstanding history of clever, Clinton-like parsing of meaning and hair-splitting of word definitions to avoid revealing your actual profession leads me to ask directly: Does this mean you haven't even read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?
Posted by Batman
- Mar 12, 2003, 05:34 PMDear Capt Numbnuts,
I must have stupid written all over my cape. If I understand you correctly, you want my, "intellectual insight...(so) we can create a feasable solution to the polygraph problem."?
Wow, my intellectual insight! That's going to be a tough one.
I love these "no-win" puzzles. If I partake and provide my "intellectual insight" then I am participating in creating a "feasable solution to the polygraph problem." What if I don't think there is a "polygraph problem"?
On the other hand, if I don't partake, then I guess I don't have any "intellectual insight".
Decision, decisions.
Help me out here Captain. What should I do? Should I join the team so I can be a part of the "we" you mentioned? Do I really want to become part of the "we". Sounds kind of scary. But then again, Batman ain't scared of nuthin'. However being part of the "we" can't be a good thing, and I don't know if I have the qualifications. After all, I passed all my polygraph examinations (without the use of countermeasures), my life isn't in ruins, I'm not a cry-baby (but I can be an asshole), and I'm not sure who the other members of the "we" are.
How about this Captain? You mentioned you have some questions. Well, what are they and I'll see if I can muster up the intellect to answer them, however, as with others who frequently post here, I reserve the right to not answer if one, I don't like your question, or two, I think the answer is going to make me look bad, or three, I don't know the answer.
As for joining the "we", I don't think that would work out. Could you imagine me being on the same team as Septic, Beech Nut, or you? Hell, I'd be surrounded, no room for escape, I'd be the outsider, and I'd end up puking all over myself after the first "I love you George; Good point George; you're right George", love fest. And, I don't own a copy of the anti-bible (Sorry George, I'm not one of the 60,000 who have allegedly downloaded it).
One last thing, always remember, Robin was a sidekick. Batman is the real attraction. Batman is who people come to see. Batman doesn't play second fiddle to anyone, so he won't be joining the "we".
Batman
I must have stupid written all over my cape. If I understand you correctly, you want my, "intellectual insight...(so) we can create a feasable solution to the polygraph problem."?
Wow, my intellectual insight! That's going to be a tough one.
I love these "no-win" puzzles. If I partake and provide my "intellectual insight" then I am participating in creating a "feasable solution to the polygraph problem." What if I don't think there is a "polygraph problem"?
On the other hand, if I don't partake, then I guess I don't have any "intellectual insight".
Decision, decisions.
Help me out here Captain. What should I do? Should I join the team so I can be a part of the "we" you mentioned? Do I really want to become part of the "we". Sounds kind of scary. But then again, Batman ain't scared of nuthin'. However being part of the "we" can't be a good thing, and I don't know if I have the qualifications. After all, I passed all my polygraph examinations (without the use of countermeasures), my life isn't in ruins, I'm not a cry-baby (but I can be an asshole), and I'm not sure who the other members of the "we" are.
How about this Captain? You mentioned you have some questions. Well, what are they and I'll see if I can muster up the intellect to answer them, however, as with others who frequently post here, I reserve the right to not answer if one, I don't like your question, or two, I think the answer is going to make me look bad, or three, I don't know the answer.
As for joining the "we", I don't think that would work out. Could you imagine me being on the same team as Septic, Beech Nut, or you? Hell, I'd be surrounded, no room for escape, I'd be the outsider, and I'd end up puking all over myself after the first "I love you George; Good point George; you're right George", love fest. And, I don't own a copy of the anti-bible (Sorry George, I'm not one of the 60,000 who have allegedly downloaded it).
One last thing, always remember, Robin was a sidekick. Batman is the real attraction. Batman is who people come to see. Batman doesn't play second fiddle to anyone, so he won't be joining the "we".
Batman
Posted by steincj
- Mar 11, 2003, 12:42 AMAll,
I am a big MORON!!!
Yes, it should be titled pro-poly people . . .
This thread is intended for Batman, Torpedo, or any other Pro poly person to come and enter into mud-sling-less (hey, if I'm calling myself a moron, at least let me make up my own words!!) debate. I will be sure to admonish anyone who throws personal attacks toward anyone else (as per Torpedo's request), rgardless of your poly views.
It is intended to allow Batman and Tropedo to present points without overzealous anti-polygraph rebuttal. The course of this discussion shouldn't lead to "writing on bathroom walls."
I have some questions that I would like answered by those on the other side. As Batman, Torpedo, and I have engaged in some intellectual discussion (though I rarely add intellect to it), I would like this thread to remain intellectual.
As many of you know, I have my own opinions about various polygraph issues. Sometimes I seem pro-poly, but most times I seem anti-poly. Read my personal statement, I am anti-poly. But to me, a crusade to eliminate the polygraph in one stroke is probably in vain. The most debateable type of polygraph is the pre-employment screening test. I have already had polygraphers tell me their feelings on pre-employment screening and the PL CQT, and I hope that with the intellectual insight provided by Batman, Torpedo and the likes, we can create a feasable solution to th polygraph problem.
And to the Administrators of AP.org, is there anyway this humble dimwit can get the name of this thread changed from Anti to Pro?
Captain Numbnuts
I am a big MORON!!!
Yes, it should be titled pro-poly people . . .
This thread is intended for Batman, Torpedo, or any other Pro poly person to come and enter into mud-sling-less (hey, if I'm calling myself a moron, at least let me make up my own words!!) debate. I will be sure to admonish anyone who throws personal attacks toward anyone else (as per Torpedo's request), rgardless of your poly views.
It is intended to allow Batman and Tropedo to present points without overzealous anti-polygraph rebuttal. The course of this discussion shouldn't lead to "writing on bathroom walls."
I have some questions that I would like answered by those on the other side. As Batman, Torpedo, and I have engaged in some intellectual discussion (though I rarely add intellect to it), I would like this thread to remain intellectual.
As many of you know, I have my own opinions about various polygraph issues. Sometimes I seem pro-poly, but most times I seem anti-poly. Read my personal statement, I am anti-poly. But to me, a crusade to eliminate the polygraph in one stroke is probably in vain. The most debateable type of polygraph is the pre-employment screening test. I have already had polygraphers tell me their feelings on pre-employment screening and the PL CQT, and I hope that with the intellectual insight provided by Batman, Torpedo and the likes, we can create a feasable solution to th polygraph problem.
And to the Administrators of AP.org, is there anyway this humble dimwit can get the name of this thread changed from Anti to Pro?
Captain Numbnuts
Posted by Marty
- Mar 10, 2003, 11:35 PMXXX,
Worse than that, if one is so honest that the examiner's choices of comparison Q's do not produce a lie, then you are HIGHLY likey to be found deceptive.
-Marty
Quote from: triple x on Mar 10, 2003, 11:11 PM
2) Simply telling the truth is no absolute guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.
Worse than that, if one is so honest that the examiner's choices of comparison Q's do not produce a lie, then you are HIGHLY likey to be found deceptive.
-Marty
Posted by triple x
- Mar 10, 2003, 11:11 PMsteincj,
I realize that this thread is intended primarily for Batman and Torpedo... I'm a little confused, but I will speak up anyway...
1) Polygraph testing is unreliable and relies on trickery and deceit.
2) Simply telling the truth is no absolute guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.
3) False positive results [DI] are not uncommon.
4) Polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures.
Chris, my apologies if I'm out of line here; not real sure who you are looking for responses from.
Respectfully,
triple x
I realize that this thread is intended primarily for Batman and Torpedo... I'm a little confused, but I will speak up anyway...
1) Polygraph testing is unreliable and relies on trickery and deceit.
2) Simply telling the truth is no absolute guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.
3) False positive results [DI] are not uncommon.
4) Polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures.
Chris, my apologies if I'm out of line here; not real sure who you are looking for responses from.
Respectfully,
triple x
Posted by Seeker
- Mar 10, 2003, 10:31 PMChris:
Let me see if I have this right...this thread is for Batman and Torpedo? But the topic of the thread is Anti-Poly people. SO, does that mean that this is where Batman and Torpedo are to come to bash those of us who are Anti-polygraph?
Just a tad confused, Captain.
Regards,
Let me see if I have this right...this thread is for Batman and Torpedo? But the topic of the thread is Anti-Poly people. SO, does that mean that this is where Batman and Torpedo are to come to bash those of us who are Anti-polygraph?
Just a tad confused, Captain.
Regards,
Posted by steincj
- Mar 10, 2003, 09:59 PMBatman and Torpedo,
I have watched the two of you sling mud around this site for a while. I have even slung some your way myself. But when it was all said and done, we got down to actual debate.
You both presented some poignant points to me, and asked for me to clarify my opinions. I have done so, and am eagerly awaiting your responses. Now I've even created a thread JUST for the two of you. Now you won't have to worry about arguing off-topic. We are the topic.
Time and time again I have asked you both, respectfully, to share your opinions. You did, but now have not responded to my debate. Well, in this new thread, I have re-posted my open responses to you both.
Speak up, and maybe people on this site will learn to respect what you both write. Or stay quiet, and remain in contempt.
Your choice.
Chris
I have watched the two of you sling mud around this site for a while. I have even slung some your way myself. But when it was all said and done, we got down to actual debate.
You both presented some poignant points to me, and asked for me to clarify my opinions. I have done so, and am eagerly awaiting your responses. Now I've even created a thread JUST for the two of you. Now you won't have to worry about arguing off-topic. We are the topic.
Time and time again I have asked you both, respectfully, to share your opinions. You did, but now have not responded to my debate. Well, in this new thread, I have re-posted my open responses to you both.
Speak up, and maybe people on this site will learn to respect what you both write. Or stay quiet, and remain in contempt.
Your choice.
Chris
Posted by steincj
- Mar 10, 2003, 09:50 PMTorpedo,
For once you write with content. I applaud you for that.
Actually, Torpedo, it is funny you mentioned initiation, because, in my opinion, I was going after the person who initiated the personal attacks. Had the roles been reversed, I would have done the same.
You know that I am not extremely one-sided when it comes to the polygraph. I do believe you and Batman even suggested that I join your treehouse club (Justice League). I prefer to remain independant (and leaning heavy toward the anti-poly side), thank you.
First off, know your audience whenyou are making comments. You have no idea what "whipping boy" means until you have been an intelligence officer in an Armor unit, especially the most brazen, lethal Armor unit in the world (3rd ACR). I would have enjoyed being the "whipping boy" -- it would have been a step up from the way I was treated.
Anyway, I'd like to ask what the "standardized manner" is.
And as far as your agency treating you as a "whipping boy," those that make such accusations have too much faith in a sketchy system. I fully believe that given a polygraph examination, an interview, and a background investigation, the interview should be given the most weight, followed by the BI, and then the polygraph. Those who blame you were probably once interviewers / BI agents, and believe themselves to be most thorough and infallible. They can't be wrong, so you must be.
Again, I feel that BI's and interviews are better tools than the polygraph for screening. The screening test is too broad, and too many innocent applicants are falsely accused (see the NAS report.)
I agree, but again, it can't be the end all to an investigation, rather a tool to guide investigators to the proper conclusion. The human element of investigation is the most important.
This is a circular argument. Basically, the entire system is corrupt, from the unreliable results of the polygraph (see the NAS report) to the ability of countermeasures to manipulate the test. That is whay I believe that the polygraph should be eliminated in total. The only way to eliminate both problems is to eliminate the root cause -- the polygraph.
I'm going to ask a sincere question here -- I know that countermeasures work best against a CQT test. How well do countermeasures work on an event specific test? Can the PL CQT be eliminated, rendering CM's useless, and still allow for the effective use of event specific testing?
Well, I guess you think that after every 5 words I type, I get back to grinding my axe. Interesting. I continue to ask that you put yourself in my shoes, and honestly, if you did, wouldn't you be grinding an axe as well?
Well, if you are so confident that you have done everything to protect the innocent examinee, I suggest you try and convey the same to others in your trade. After what I went through, I don't know how my examiner can lay his head on a pillow and feel good about himself. There was no protection in that exam room that day.
Chris
For once you write with content. I applaud you for that.
Quote from: Torpedo on Mar 03, 2003, 06:17 PM
You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them.
Actually, Torpedo, it is funny you mentioned initiation, because, in my opinion, I was going after the person who initiated the personal attacks. Had the roles been reversed, I would have done the same.
You know that I am not extremely one-sided when it comes to the polygraph. I do believe you and Batman even suggested that I join your treehouse club (Justice League). I prefer to remain independant (and leaning heavy toward the anti-poly side), thank you.
Quote
And for the record:
Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed. We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board. When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.
First off, know your audience whenyou are making comments. You have no idea what "whipping boy" means until you have been an intelligence officer in an Armor unit, especially the most brazen, lethal Armor unit in the world (3rd ACR). I would have enjoyed being the "whipping boy" -- it would have been a step up from the way I was treated.
Anyway, I'd like to ask what the "standardized manner" is.
And as far as your agency treating you as a "whipping boy," those that make such accusations have too much faith in a sketchy system. I fully believe that given a polygraph examination, an interview, and a background investigation, the interview should be given the most weight, followed by the BI, and then the polygraph. Those who blame you were probably once interviewers / BI agents, and believe themselves to be most thorough and infallible. They can't be wrong, so you must be.
Quote
Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said
Again, I feel that BI's and interviews are better tools than the polygraph for screening. The screening test is too broad, and too many innocent applicants are falsely accused (see the NAS report.)
Quote
Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here. Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.
I agree, but again, it can't be the end all to an investigation, rather a tool to guide investigators to the proper conclusion. The human element of investigation is the most important.
Quote
Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it. I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures. I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it. I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.
This is a circular argument. Basically, the entire system is corrupt, from the unreliable results of the polygraph (see the NAS report) to the ability of countermeasures to manipulate the test. That is whay I believe that the polygraph should be eliminated in total. The only way to eliminate both problems is to eliminate the root cause -- the polygraph.
I'm going to ask a sincere question here -- I know that countermeasures work best against a CQT test. How well do countermeasures work on an event specific test? Can the PL CQT be eliminated, rendering CM's useless, and still allow for the effective use of event specific testing?
Quote
I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind. That's okay, I can deal with that.
Well, I guess you think that after every 5 words I type, I get back to grinding my axe. Interesting. I continue to ask that you put yourself in my shoes, and honestly, if you did, wouldn't you be grinding an axe as well?
QuoteWhen your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.Don't worry, I hang my head in shame too, sometimes (but I still won't join your treehouse club).
QuoteI can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing. I work hard to protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.
Well, if you are so confident that you have done everything to protect the innocent examinee, I suggest you try and convey the same to others in your trade. After what I went through, I don't know how my examiner can lay his head on a pillow and feel good about himself. There was no protection in that exam room that day.
Chris
Posted by steincj
- Mar 10, 2003, 09:49 PMBatman,
Clarification is my middle name . . .
2. You know what happens when you make assumptions, Batman. I am not "employed" by the DoD. I once was on Active Duty, but now am a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, basically on Inactive Reserve status. The DoD has control of me, but I do absolutely nothing (and receive no pay or benefits). Recall of the IRR is the last step before a draft.
3. The failure of my polygraph HAS affected my ability to apply for other government postions. See my personal statement for details.
"Please write a number from 1 to 7 on a card. I'm going to run a test to calibrate the machine." HA!
"This test is about to begin" -- don't you mean "This test began the moment I hooked you up"
Must I go on? Read TLBTLD for more details. Better yet, go back to your DoDPI handbook. It's all in there.
Without that paperwork error, I'm sure I would have passed. The PL CQT relies on too many outside factors to judge results on, rather than using straight polygraph readings, like CKT (event specific). The PL CQT is straight up fishing. My polygrapher was told where the fish were, went there, didn't get a bite, and chose to believe that there were fish in the water, rather than refute what he was told. It is crazy.
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 final authority on an individual. It's the whole pie, not even a piece of it!
The system itself SUCKS. And countermeasures are living proof that the system is totally unreliable. Using countermeasures corrupts the system even more. Well, if a system is corrupt, we ought to get rid of it!!
Why do I tell people not to use countermeasures? If good people, those with nothing to hide, use countermeasures to ensure they pass a polygraph, years later, when they are a asset to the agency they work for, everyone will assume that the polygraph worked well, and let in a real winner.
When that happens, NOBODY wins, becasue the broken, corrupt system perpetuates.
Chris
Clarification is my middle name . . .
Quote from: Batman on Mar 06, 2003, 03:58 AMOr the agency you are applying for will process you for clearance as part of their application process . . .
If Steincj is correct that, "Federal Agencies could care less about a Security Clearance." then you have nothing to worry about, because if one is required for the job you want, and you don't have or can't get one, then you won't get the job. No problem.
QuoteStein has an issue with the polygraph because he supposedly failed a pre-employment exam with the FBI. He believes this has impacted him in some negative way, however he is still employed, as I understand it, with the DoD.1. Not supposedly, I did fail. If you want proof I will gladly send you a scanned copy of my letter rescinding my offer of emplyment because of the polygraph.
2. You know what happens when you make assumptions, Batman. I am not "employed" by the DoD. I once was on Active Duty, but now am a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, basically on Inactive Reserve status. The DoD has control of me, but I do absolutely nothing (and receive no pay or benefits). Recall of the IRR is the last step before a draft.
3. The failure of my polygraph HAS affected my ability to apply for other government postions. See my personal statement for details.
QuoteYou asked me,Oh, I believe him. I just want your reaction to the possibility that the polygraph test is widely abused and mishandled around the nation. I want you to know that there are many, many reasons why people are being bounced by the polygraph, and not all of them are based on pure machine readings.
"Hey Batman, is it standard procedure for federal polygraphers to sensitize their subjects to the nature of the test PRIOR to hooking them up? Shouldn't this alone make the test invalid?"
You then stated,
"A member of your beloved APA and former Federal Polygrapher told me it does."
It appears you already have your answer. Do you not believe him? Is that why you are seeking my opinion or input?
QuoteYou're damn right it is. The PL CQT is based solely on a unknowing subject falling for all the tricks employed on them. Why can't a screening or pre-employment test be based solely on the machine readings? Because the machine readings don't tell you squat unless you compare them to other questions to which you ASSUME the subject is lying. Tha is BOGUS!!!
You also stated and then asked,
"If the machine itself TRULY works, then the outcome of the "test" shouldn't be affected by the subject having prior knowledge of the polygrapher's mind tricks.
Don't you agree, Batman?"
Well that's a pretty loaded question Stein.
QuoteWhat "mind tricks" are you referring to? I am not aware of any "mind tricks" that are utilized during the course of a polygraph examination. Maybe you could elaborate."Let me explain to you the imprtance of honesty and integrity" -- a phrase used when administering a Probable Lie Control Question test. Emphasize honesty but assume that the subject will lie. If that isn't the most ass backward thing . . .
"Please write a number from 1 to 7 on a card. I'm going to run a test to calibrate the machine." HA!
"This test is about to begin" -- don't you mean "This test began the moment I hooked you up"
Must I go on? Read TLBTLD for more details. Better yet, go back to your DoDPI handbook. It's all in there.
QuoteIn my opinion, I believe that countermeasures that are used on a first polygraph are undetectable. However, if an individual tried to use countermeasures on a second polygraph, after not using them on the first, well, a comparison of the charts wouls CLEARLY indicate an improvement in test results. The marked improvement could only be attributed to 2 things - substantially less anxiety as to the polygraph experience or use of countermeasures. Countermeasure-paranoia among polygraphers will always lead them to the second conclusion.
You advised Smirky,
"...don't be scared with Batman's words about countermeasures. My opinion, don't use them if you don't need to."
Why would you advise Smirky not to use countermeasures? If they can not be detected then why shouldn't Smirky, or anyone for that matter, utilize countermeasures?
QuoteMy case is very different than others. You assume (again, Batman, assumptions mare bad) that I am just someone who claims a false positive but really had some issues during my test. I had nothing to hide during my poly, but a PAPERWORK error by the agency created misleading information which swayed the polygrapher into calling me deceptive. Remember, my polygraph took TWO days, and at the end of day one, I was deemed "inconclusive." But at the end of day two, I was a "definitely conclusive, a conclusive failure." The polygrapher was looking for information from me that he believed, from a PAPERWORK error, to be true, and when he didn't find it, he failed me.
Lastly, you told Smirky,
"If you truly have nothing to hide, then I believe you have nothing to worry about."
Based on your alleged experience with polygraph, and that of several others who post on this site, I would think Smirky would have a whole hell of a lot to worry about, wouldn't you agree?
Without that paperwork error, I'm sure I would have passed. The PL CQT relies on too many outside factors to judge results on, rather than using straight polygraph readings, like CKT (event specific). The PL CQT is straight up fishing. My polygrapher was told where the fish were, went there, didn't get a bite, and chose to believe that there were fish in the water, rather than refute what he was told. It is crazy.
QuoteCome on, Batman. You know I am a man of my word, despite what your silly PL CQT says about me. I don't skate around or ignore arguments. Hell, I'll even include a point from your second post:
Now I know you will undoubtedly respond to my question about the "mind tricks". That's fair, but if you do, please answer the other questions I have posed to you.
QuoteIt someone firmly believes the polygraph does not work, that it is based on a pseudo-science, then how can that same person tell someone not to worry and not to use countermeasures?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 final authority on an individual. It's the whole pie, not even a piece of it!
The system itself SUCKS. And countermeasures are living proof that the system is totally unreliable. Using countermeasures corrupts the system even more. Well, if a system is corrupt, we ought to get rid of it!!
Why do I tell people not to use countermeasures? If good people, those with nothing to hide, use countermeasures to ensure they pass a polygraph, years later, when they are a asset to the agency they work for, everyone will assume that the polygraph worked well, and let in a real winner.
When that happens, NOBODY wins, becasue the broken, corrupt system perpetuates.
Chris