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:
What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by beech trees
 - Jun 27, 2003, 10:42 PM
Hey Saidme, we're all wondering when you're going to come arrest us all for discussing polygraphy. When is that going to be?

Quote from: Saidme on Jun 27, 2003, 04:25 PMWombat

I posted this on another thread but still wondering.  When are you going to take this examination?  We are all anxiously awaiting your results.

Human Subject

How noble of you to be so concerned about national security.  Are you saying you didn't use CM's during your examination?  Did you pass?
Posted by Saidme
 - Jun 27, 2003, 04:25 PM
Wombat

I posted this on another thread but still wondering.  When are you going to take this examination?  We are all anxiously awaiting your results.

Human Subject

How noble of you to be so concerned about national security.  Are you saying you didn't use CM's during your examination?  Did you pass?
Posted by Human Subject
 - Jun 23, 2003, 11:41 PM
Quote from: wombat on Jun 23, 2003, 07:22 AMIm glad there is some one like Saidme on this board. reading the @#$# he writes strengthens me:)

Whenever I need to console myself for being so stupid as to NOT employ CMs during my exam, I come here and read some of the pro-polygraphy drivel and feel much much better.  (Though I get a little more nervous thinking about the national security and law enforcement implications of our reliance on this "technology".)
Posted by wombat
 - Jun 23, 2003, 07:22 AM
Im glad there is some one like Saidme on this board. reading the @#$# he writes strengthens me:)
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jun 23, 2003, 03:38 AM
Quote from: Saidme on Jun 22, 2003, 08:57 PMWombat

Your psychological tie to the relevant issues won't allow you to pass the test.  The mere fact that you're coming to this website is testimony by itself that you've got major issues with some relevant questions.  You can practice all you want and read all you want.  When the test begins your performance (CM's) will fall apart.  Trust me, I've seen it happen many times.

Saidme,

The foregoing is a nice attempt at instilling fear -- a key element of the polygraph process -- but it's junk psychology.

Convicted spies Aldrich Ames, Karel Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Ana Belen Montes in the U.S., and Marcus Klingberg in Israel, all managed to pass their polygraph "tests," despite the fact that they were committing espionage against their governments.

QuoteGeorge

Bravo with your word games.  You must be excellent at scrabble.  Maybe we shouldn't play that since we haven't seen any scientific studies.  Since I've employed polygraph for some time now and have observed it work and work well, I don't need a scientific study to tell me polygraph does or doesn't work.  I'll continue to use it.  Can you tell me about your experiences as a polygraph examiner?  I didn't think so.  You experience lies (pun intended) with your own deceptions during your examination.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) But let's get real: CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method. It's in the same league as such quackeries as phrenology and graphology.

To whom do you refer when you say that "we haven't seen any scientific studies?" Perhaps you haven't. But I have. So have many other polygraph critics, including the scientists and engineers at the national laboratories. And so has the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.

I'm not saying that polygraphy should definitely not be used to interrogate criminal suspects. It does have some value as an interrogational ruse for getting confessions/admissions from the naive and the gullible. But CQT polygraph chart readings are completely unreliable as an indication of truth versus deception.

You conclude saying that, "You [sic] experience lies (pun intended) with your own deceptions during your examination." Actually, I answered all relevant questions truthfully and was also candid in answering the "control" questions. The experience of being nonetheless branded as a liar (and essentially, a spy) by the polygraph prompted me to learn more about polygraphy.

My experience lies not merely in having been the victim of a false positive outcome, but also in extensive review of the polygraph literature. See the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a partial listing. You, too, would do well to research the scientific underpinnings (or lack thereof) of your chosen profession.
Posted by orolan
 - Jun 23, 2003, 12:48 AM
QuoteFrom my viewpoint, I could care less whether it's proven scientifically valid or not, all I know is it "works and works well"
Saddam Hussein had a 100% confession rate using cattle prods, bolt cutters and a .45 Auto. Not a shred of scientific validity to any of them, but they sure did "work and work well".
Posted by Saidme
 - Jun 22, 2003, 11:01 PM
My definition of "work and work well" would be the countless confessions I've obtained as a result of polygraph examinations.  Those same confession have landed murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and thieves in jail.  Some for life.  Several of these folks are folks who have relied on TLBTLD (or something like that) to get them through the examinations.  These admissions came from the examinees themselves.  Some have even provided me with copies of George's little book.  Regarding scientific validity.  You guys seem to be hung up on that statement.  From my viewpoint, I could care less whether it's proven scientifically valid or not, all I know is it "works and works well" (see above).  

We apparently agree on one point:  "while good at extracting confessions"
Posted by s-X-e
 - Jun 22, 2003, 09:33 PM
Quote from: Saidme on Jun 22, 2003, 08:57 PMSince I've employed polygraph for some time now and have observed it work and work well, I don't need a scientific study to tell me polygraph does or doesn't work.  I'll continue to use it.  Can you tell me about your experiences as a polygraph examiner?  I didn't think so.  You experience lies (pun intended) with your own deceptions during your examination.

What exactly is your definition of, "work and work well?" A simple prop can elicit confessions from those who believe it is capable of catching them in a lie, but that does not mean that any such prop is based on any scientifically valid theory.

Also, how do you know polygraphs work? You may be completely oblivious to those who have passed using countermeasures simply because they were able to effectively use them without you knowing it. Can you say with full confidence that you have detected every single person to ever employ countermeasures? If so, why don't you take Dr. Drew's challenge?

I don't think it's fair to say that a device, while good at extracting confessions by duping examinees through fear, "work[s] and work[s] well," if it also is responsible for providing false results on examinees who are being completely truthful.

I'm also curious as to how you can so easily snub your nose at the findings of NAS. Why exactly do you believe your conclusions are more valid than their conclusions?
Posted by Saidme
 - Jun 22, 2003, 08:57 PM
Wombat

Your psychological tie to the relevant issues won't allow you to pass the test.  The mere fact that you're coming to this website is testimony by itself that you've got major issues with some relevant questions.  You can practice all you want and read all you want.  When the test begins your performance (CM's) will fall apart.  Trust me, I've seen it happen many times.

George

Bravo with your word games.  You must be excellent at scrabble.  Maybe we shouldn't play that since we haven't seen any scientific studies.  Since I've employed polygraph for some time now and have observed it work and work well, I don't need a scientific study to tell me polygraph does or doesn't work.  I'll continue to use it.  Can you tell me about your experiences as a polygraph examiner?  I didn't think so.  You experience lies (pun intended) with your own deceptions during your examination.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jun 22, 2003, 04:26 PM
Saidme,

You write, "It goes without saying they definitely should use [polygraphy] for criminal specific issue testing." Considering that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis and zero diagnostic value, one could say that the notion that it should "definitely" be used for criminal specific issue testing only "goes without saying" for those who "go without thinking."
Posted by wombat
 - Jun 22, 2003, 03:56 PM
saidme,

if you dont know any thing about the reliability of the polygraph in pre job testing how can you be so confident at suggeting that i will fail mine???
Posted by Saidme
 - Jun 22, 2003, 03:49 PM
PK

I don't know the reliability of polygraph on pre-screening exams.  I think LE should use it only to resolve derogatory information obtained as the result of a background investigation.  It goes without saying they definitely should use it for criminal specific issue testing.
Posted by Poly-Killer
 - Jun 22, 2003, 05:03 AM
Saidme,

In your reply to suethem, you stated you don't conduct screening polys, and never have.

I'm curious...

What is your opinion on the validity/reliability of poly-screening?

Should LE agencies keep using it? If so, why?

I'm curious to see your response to these questions.

Best,
PK
Posted by Saidme
 - Jun 19, 2003, 10:44 PM
Gino and George

Although I disagree with Gino's characterization of the polygraph, I applaud your advice (honesty) to Intrigued.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jun 19, 2003, 06:11 AM
Intrigued,

I also agree with the points Gino raised.