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 Marty
 - Mar 13, 2003, 04:49 PM
Beech trees,

Well, for a profession dedicated to "The Truth" polygraphy utilizes a lot of deception in an effort, often successful, to psychologically condition receptivity.  It's universally agreed that if people didn't believe the polygraph worked. It simply woudn't work.  Given that, the task has always been to magnify the belief that it works otherwise it's just a multichannel worthless instrument.

Still, the one "trick" that you can't drag out of them kicking and screaming is that they depend on you lying on a control question all the while drawing your attention to it and suggesting anyone who did ....(whatever is specificed by the control)... is the type of person who would do ....(topic of relevant).  If they can't get you to lie to the control, the polygraph can't be scored.  And of course they *assume* you are lying to the control if you say "no" so it WILL be scored and God help you if your "no" was the truth.

This *trick* secrecy is so ingrained that there are CM research studies where they didn't even explain to the subjects how the CQT is scored. Useless research.

-Marty
Posted by beech trees
 - Mar 13, 2003, 04:18 PM

Quote from: Marty on Mar 13, 2003, 01:25 PM
Good article. The anonymous author maintains the professional silence of the "trick" even while castigating much of the way the polygraph is used.

Marty, I took away a different impression after reading the article. It seems to me he very clearly illustrated the trick via the sham 'stim test', as well as a few of the many lies the polygraph interrogator will tell the test subject over the course of an interrogation.

QuoteOne of the problems with using it widely in screening is that the percentage of the general population that understands the trickery increases and as it increases it reduces it's value in criminal investigations.

And a commensurate rise in antipathy aimed at this website, which can be aptly seen in the regular moronic postings by the various anonymous State employees driven here for God knows what reasons.
Posted by Marty
 - Mar 13, 2003, 01:25 PM
Good article. The anonymous author maintains the professional silence of the "trick" even while castigating much of the way the polygraph is used. He/she also does a good job of pointing out examiner bias but also notes that the polygraph is highly effective in criminal investigation largely because people blindly believe in it.

I got a chuckle out of the one way mirror stories.  Very clever. A lot more use than the instrument itself.

One of the problems with using it widely in screening is that the percentage of the general population that understands the trickery increases and as it increases it reduces it's value in criminal investigations.

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 13, 2003, 11:40 AM
Oregonians for Rationality has published an article by a disaffected polygrapher titled, "Polygraph: Take It or Leave It."