- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 26, 2003, 12:56 PMShadow,
If the (FY 2000) report is taken at face value, it would indeed mean that 7,688 showed no significant response to the relevant questions and provided no substantive information. However, because of the high false positive rates to be expected with CQT polygraphy, DoD's claim of a 0% false positive rate is highly suspect. Many of the 7,688 may have indeed shown no signifigant response and as a consequence have been spared a post-test interrogation and hence made no "substantive admissions." But it is hardly conceivable that such would be the case for all of them. Note that in the Department of Energy polygraph program, which, like DoD, uses the TES format, some 20% of examinees showed "significant responses" to the relevant questions, but were somehow "cleared" after additional polygraphic interrogation. (See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of this.)
The plain language of the report does not mean that the other 202 individuals all had greater responses to the relevant questions. Again, the other 202 showed "significant responses" and/or provided substantive information. I don't see any reason to suppose that "and/or" means anything other than what it means in common English usage. This chosen wording of the report would include such cases as where an examinee makes a "substantive admission" during the pre-test phase and the subsequent chart collections yield a "no significant response" outcome. The "and/or" formulation would also account for cases such as that of Daniel M. King, the U.S. Navy cryptologist who, following an "inconclusive" polygraph examination, was subjected to a coercive interrogation that included threats against his family and sleep deprivation, and ultimately made "substantive admissions." (This shameful episode was never mentioned in any of DoD's polygraph reports to Congress. You'll find it documented in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) Note also that this "and/or" formulation appears in successive DoD polygraph program reports to Congress, and not just in the FY 2000 report.
I stand by my initial assessment that it appears that it is the presence or absence of "substantive admissions" that ultimately decides whether subjects pass or fail the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph.
QuoteThe report claims that 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information. Doesn't that mean that those people passed the test and the other 202 individuals had greater responses to the relevant questions?
If the (FY 2000) report is taken at face value, it would indeed mean that 7,688 showed no significant response to the relevant questions and provided no substantive information. However, because of the high false positive rates to be expected with CQT polygraphy, DoD's claim of a 0% false positive rate is highly suspect. Many of the 7,688 may have indeed shown no signifigant response and as a consequence have been spared a post-test interrogation and hence made no "substantive admissions." But it is hardly conceivable that such would be the case for all of them. Note that in the Department of Energy polygraph program, which, like DoD, uses the TES format, some 20% of examinees showed "significant responses" to the relevant questions, but were somehow "cleared" after additional polygraphic interrogation. (See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of this.)
The plain language of the report does not mean that the other 202 individuals all had greater responses to the relevant questions. Again, the other 202 showed "significant responses" and/or provided substantive information. I don't see any reason to suppose that "and/or" means anything other than what it means in common English usage. This chosen wording of the report would include such cases as where an examinee makes a "substantive admission" during the pre-test phase and the subsequent chart collections yield a "no significant response" outcome. The "and/or" formulation would also account for cases such as that of Daniel M. King, the U.S. Navy cryptologist who, following an "inconclusive" polygraph examination, was subjected to a coercive interrogation that included threats against his family and sleep deprivation, and ultimately made "substantive admissions." (This shameful episode was never mentioned in any of DoD's polygraph reports to Congress. You'll find it documented in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) Note also that this "and/or" formulation appears in successive DoD polygraph program reports to Congress, and not just in the FY 2000 report.
I stand by my initial assessment that it appears that it is the presence or absence of "substantive admissions" that ultimately decides whether subjects pass or fail the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph.
Posted by The Shadow
- Apr 26, 2003, 01:32 AMGeorge,
You wrote:
I am of the understanding that when a DoD TES test is determined to be NSR that indicates the three askings of the relevant questions were less significant than the DLC questions that bracketed each asking, ie. the combined numeric score applied to the TES Test was a total of +4 or better for both questions. A TES test that results in a determination of SR had a -3 or less at one question (total score from all three askings) or a total combined score of -3 or less for both questions (all three askings combined) If the reactions are significant at the DLC questions it is a NSR test, if the reactions are significant at the relevant questions it is SR test. If the reactions are middle of the road, it is a No Opinion and further testing is conducted.
The report claims that 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information. Doesn't that mean that those people passed the test and the other 202 individuals had greater responses to the relevant questions?
You may be correct in your explanation of how the term "and/or" is used in the real world; however, I just don't think that is what the DoD report is trying to imply (purely my own opinion). I wish to state that I'm not a big fan of the TES technique. . I feel that it is important not to put spin on the information. The polygraph has enough flaws that no spin is needed to show its weaknesses and faults. Report just the facts and let them speak loud and clear.
You wrote:
QuoteIn addition, the claim in the report that "7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information" is simply not credible. The only way one obtains such a low false positive rate (0%) is by deeming reactions to relevant questions as "insignificant" if the examinee provides no "substantive information." Which is precisely what it appears the DoD is doing.
I am of the understanding that when a DoD TES test is determined to be NSR that indicates the three askings of the relevant questions were less significant than the DLC questions that bracketed each asking, ie. the combined numeric score applied to the TES Test was a total of +4 or better for both questions. A TES test that results in a determination of SR had a -3 or less at one question (total score from all three askings) or a total combined score of -3 or less for both questions (all three askings combined) If the reactions are significant at the DLC questions it is a NSR test, if the reactions are significant at the relevant questions it is SR test. If the reactions are middle of the road, it is a No Opinion and further testing is conducted.
The report claims that 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information. Doesn't that mean that those people passed the test and the other 202 individuals had greater responses to the relevant questions?
You may be correct in your explanation of how the term "and/or" is used in the real world; however, I just don't think that is what the DoD report is trying to imply (purely my own opinion). I wish to state that I'm not a big fan of the TES technique. . I feel that it is important not to put spin on the information. The polygraph has enough flaws that no spin is needed to show its weaknesses and faults. Report just the facts and let them speak loud and clear.
Posted by orolan
- Apr 26, 2003, 12:24 AMGotcha. Sorry about that :-/
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 25, 2003, 08:48 PMOrolan,
In the first message in this thread, I cited figures from DoD's polygraph report for FY 2000. In the second, I cited the report for FY 2001.
In the first message in this thread, I cited figures from DoD's polygraph report for FY 2000. In the second, I cited the report for FY 2001.
Posted by orolan
- Apr 25, 2003, 07:47 PMGeorge and Shadow,
Now I'm confused. One quote indicates "The DoD conducts CSP examinations on military personnel, DoD civilian employees, and DoD contractor personnel. Of the 7,890 individuals examined under the CSP Program in Fiscal Year 2000, 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information. The remaining 202 individuals provided substantive information."
I also find another quote stating "There were 7,688 individuals whose polygraph examination results were evaluated as no significant response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive). The remaining 202 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information."
These appear to be discussing the same group of examinees, with a little added clarification in the second quote in regards to responses and information.
And then I read this quote "There were 8,494 individuals whose polygraph examination results were evaluated as no significant response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive). The remaining 290 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information. "
It seems that there are two different groups here. Any idea what is going on?
Now I'm confused. One quote indicates "The DoD conducts CSP examinations on military personnel, DoD civilian employees, and DoD contractor personnel. Of the 7,890 individuals examined under the CSP Program in Fiscal Year 2000, 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information. The remaining 202 individuals provided substantive information."
I also find another quote stating "There were 7,688 individuals whose polygraph examination results were evaluated as no significant response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive). The remaining 202 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information."
These appear to be discussing the same group of examinees, with a little added clarification in the second quote in regards to responses and information.
And then I read this quote "There were 8,494 individuals whose polygraph examination results were evaluated as no significant response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive). The remaining 290 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information. "
It seems that there are two different groups here. Any idea what is going on?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 25, 2003, 04:19 PMShadow,
You write:
No. As the report makes clear, "The ... 202 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information." The "and/or" indicates that while some of the 202 yielded significant responses and provided significant information, others merely provided substantive information. The one feature all of the 202 had in common was that they provided "substantive information." That is what it took to "fail."
In addition, the claim in the report that "7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information" is simply not credible. The only way one obtains such a low false positive rate (0%) is by deeming reactions to relevant questions as "insignificant" if the examinee provides no "substantive information." Which is precisely what it appears the DoD is doing.
You write:
QuoteI read it as the 202 individuals that provided substantive information were called SR by the examiner and provided the information when questioned about the SR results.
No. As the report makes clear, "The ... 202 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information." The "and/or" indicates that while some of the 202 yielded significant responses and provided significant information, others merely provided substantive information. The one feature all of the 202 had in common was that they provided "substantive information." That is what it took to "fail."
In addition, the claim in the report that "7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information" is simply not credible. The only way one obtains such a low false positive rate (0%) is by deeming reactions to relevant questions as "insignificant" if the examinee provides no "substantive information." Which is precisely what it appears the DoD is doing.
Posted by The Shadow
- Apr 25, 2003, 01:54 PMGeorge,
First off, I didn't interpret your response as flippant. I have re-read the post and I still don't see your point. You quoted the DoD Report as stating:
I read it as the 202 individuals that provided substantive information were called SR by the examiner and provided the information when questioned about the SR results. Would that not mean that the individual's charts were used to make the SR determination? Could it be the 5 that are pending investigation provided no admissions and that is why they are under investigation?
I'm not taking sides here, just asking the question. I await your response. Until then, take care and be well.
First off, I didn't interpret your response as flippant. I have re-read the post and I still don't see your point. You quoted the DoD Report as stating:
QuoteApproximately 71 percent of our polygraph tests are conducted as a condition for access to certain positions or information under the DoD Counterintelligence-Scope Polygraph (CSP) Program. The DoD CSP Program is authorized by Public Law 100-180. The purpose of the CSP Program is to deter and detect activity involving espionage, sabotage, and terrorism.
The DoD conducts CSP examinations on military personnel, DoD civilian employees, and DoD contractor personnel. Of the 7,890 individuals examined under the CSP Program in Fiscal Year 2000, 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information. The remaining 202 individuals provided substantive information. Of these 202 individuals, 194 received a favorable adjudication, three are still pending adjudication, five are pending investigation, and no one received adverse action denying or withholding access. [emphasis added]
I read it as the 202 individuals that provided substantive information were called SR by the examiner and provided the information when questioned about the SR results. Would that not mean that the individual's charts were used to make the SR determination? Could it be the 5 that are pending investigation provided no admissions and that is why they are under investigation?
I'm not taking sides here, just asking the question. I await your response. Until then, take care and be well.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 25, 2003, 01:38 AMShadow,
I am indeed the one who originated this message thread. I don't mean to be flippant, but I suggest that you carefully re-read the first post in this thread.
I am indeed the one who originated this message thread. I don't mean to be flippant, but I suggest that you carefully re-read the first post in this thread.
Posted by The Shadow
- Apr 25, 2003, 01:16 AMTo "George Maschke (Guest)" If this is the real George, you have really put a spin on the DoD report!
I may not be the smartest animal cracker in the box, but I don't see where the text states that the polygraph charts were not being used to pass or fail a person.
The remaining 202 individuals yeilded SIGNIFICANT RESPONSES (I beleive that's a TES term for Failed the test)
Please correct me if I am wrong.
QuoteThe report goes on to clarify:
Quote:There were 7,688 individuals whose polygraph examination results were evaluated as no significant response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive). The remaining 202 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information.
This report makes it clear that the polygraph charts are not being used to determine whether individuals pass or fail: if the individual provides no "substantive information," then any physiological responses he/she may have shown to the relevant questions are deemed not to be significant, and the individual "passes." If the individual provides substantive information, then he/she "fails," regardless of polygraph chart readings, and further investigation is conducted by more conventional means
I may not be the smartest animal cracker in the box, but I don't see where the text states that the polygraph charts were not being used to pass or fail a person.
QuoteThere were 7,688 individuals whose polygraph examination results were evaluated as no significant response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive). The remaining 202 individuals yielded significant responses and/or provided substantive information
The remaining 202 individuals yeilded SIGNIFICANT RESPONSES (I beleive that's a TES term for Failed the test)
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by rabican
- Apr 24, 2003, 09:51 PMthe arrest is ok, but dealing...........
Posted by orolan
- Apr 24, 2003, 08:58 PMrab,
I don't see how you can lie your way through this if you have a drug possession arrest. If you have somehow gotten this far without your prospective employers finding out about the arrest, rest assured that they will find out at some point. And if they do already know about it, what do you have to lie about? In your case I can't condone the usage of countermeasures, and I doubt others will either.
I don't see how you can lie your way through this if you have a drug possession arrest. If you have somehow gotten this far without your prospective employers finding out about the arrest, rest assured that they will find out at some point. And if they do already know about it, what do you have to lie about? In your case I can't condone the usage of countermeasures, and I doubt others will either.
Posted by rab
- Apr 24, 2003, 05:07 PMHmmmmmm countermeasures is the only solution i guess :-/
Posted by Fair Chance
- Apr 24, 2003, 04:19 PMDear Rabican,
I believe that it will be hard if not impossible to truthfully get "how many times" you used any drugs with any accuracy.
Almost all law enforcement applications will have an extreme problem with an applicant who sold drugs. There is no time limit or amount limit concerning being an illegal drug dealer.
Regards.
I believe that it will be hard if not impossible to truthfully get "how many times" you used any drugs with any accuracy.
Almost all law enforcement applications will have an extreme problem with an applicant who sold drugs. There is no time limit or amount limit concerning being an illegal drug dealer.
Regards.
Posted by rabican
- Apr 24, 2003, 03:55 PMQuote from: orolan on Apr 24, 2003, 03:50 PMRabican,
You obviously don't need to be a cop. I would consider a change in career plans if I were you.
I have changed i have stoped smoking since i was arrested with a gram and changed my life alot and now i think i would make a good cop
Posted by orolan
- Apr 24, 2003, 03:50 PMRabican,
You obviously don't need to be a cop. I would consider a change in career plans if I were you.
You obviously don't need to be a cop. I would consider a change in career plans if I were you.