- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 11, 2003, 03:05 AMCanadian Crusader,
What you speak of could only be done by adding sensitivity (and this would only work for the EDA tracing). When sensitivity is added, the software notes this on the chart. If someone increased sensitivity right before the key number, the examinee would see it on the chart and more importantly, so would the QC. Such an ethical violation, though it might not change the result of the actual exam, could result in the termination of the examiner's certification, or employment with his agency. That you should be able to fiind in DoDPI literature; it was addressed in detail in a course I attended.
Also, a flat chart with one "spike" is not the typical stim result. A peak of tension type response is much more likely.
Anonymous,
While a bliind test may be a better way of proving to someone the exam works, the present method is by no means a fraud. Yes, you have to "sell" the stim chart by DoDPI guidelines regardless of how obvious the response is (or is not). But it is not a flim flam. Most examiners I know do something similar to what I explaiined or at least show the examinee the chart.
The reason most agencies did away with blind stim tests was the thought that a stim might not always produce a strong response, since this "deception" has no consequence. The fear is that instead of doing good for the examinee's psychological set, it might do harm if the examiner has trouble determining the number. That may or may not be a valid concern
Also, the purpose of the exam is to determine the truthfulness of the examinee, not impress him with the ability to identify a concealed number. That runs the risk of turning the exam into a side show act.
While the "selling" of the stim might have some value, I don't think it's essential to running a valid, accurate exam. I believe the value of running a chart to make adjustements, and identify potential artifact problems, is the main benefit of the stim. And like I said, the stim charts usually sell themselves.
I often see a correlation of weak response to the stim key and strong response to one or the other type of CQT question. This, to me, indicates that a person who is concerned about a certain type of exam question is so psychologically focused on that issue, that the stim causes less psycho- or physiological response. So it really wasn't needed. In other words, you guys are making too much of the significance of the stim.
Mark,
I like how you put that. And I'd agree that other factors can cause a response -- though as in the past, I'd argue they would not be as consistant a factor (throughout the exam) as deception-- and could account for the relatively small number of errors.
I like your idea for the blind stim with no number as a choice. However, that looks like a research study idea, not a part of each exam. You make a good point by menthioning three charts. A blind stim is a searching Peak of Tension, which should require three charts to make a good determination. But that seems like a lot of wasted time and effort for something I don't feel is that important to the accuracy of the results of the actual examination.
Regards to all. Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
What you speak of could only be done by adding sensitivity (and this would only work for the EDA tracing). When sensitivity is added, the software notes this on the chart. If someone increased sensitivity right before the key number, the examinee would see it on the chart and more importantly, so would the QC. Such an ethical violation, though it might not change the result of the actual exam, could result in the termination of the examiner's certification, or employment with his agency. That you should be able to fiind in DoDPI literature; it was addressed in detail in a course I attended.
Also, a flat chart with one "spike" is not the typical stim result. A peak of tension type response is much more likely.
Anonymous,
While a bliind test may be a better way of proving to someone the exam works, the present method is by no means a fraud. Yes, you have to "sell" the stim chart by DoDPI guidelines regardless of how obvious the response is (or is not). But it is not a flim flam. Most examiners I know do something similar to what I explaiined or at least show the examinee the chart.
The reason most agencies did away with blind stim tests was the thought that a stim might not always produce a strong response, since this "deception" has no consequence. The fear is that instead of doing good for the examinee's psychological set, it might do harm if the examiner has trouble determining the number. That may or may not be a valid concern
Also, the purpose of the exam is to determine the truthfulness of the examinee, not impress him with the ability to identify a concealed number. That runs the risk of turning the exam into a side show act.
While the "selling" of the stim might have some value, I don't think it's essential to running a valid, accurate exam. I believe the value of running a chart to make adjustements, and identify potential artifact problems, is the main benefit of the stim. And like I said, the stim charts usually sell themselves.
I often see a correlation of weak response to the stim key and strong response to one or the other type of CQT question. This, to me, indicates that a person who is concerned about a certain type of exam question is so psychologically focused on that issue, that the stim causes less psycho- or physiological response. So it really wasn't needed. In other words, you guys are making too much of the significance of the stim.
Mark,
I like how you put that. And I'd agree that other factors can cause a response -- though as in the past, I'd argue they would not be as consistant a factor (throughout the exam) as deception-- and could account for the relatively small number of errors.
I like your idea for the blind stim with no number as a choice. However, that looks like a research study idea, not a part of each exam. You make a good point by menthioning three charts. A blind stim is a searching Peak of Tension, which should require three charts to make a good determination. But that seems like a lot of wasted time and effort for something I don't feel is that important to the accuracy of the results of the actual examination.
Regards to all. Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jul 10, 2003, 09:43 PMPublic Servant,
I would repeat what I said before: I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test.
It's the truth that's the problem. The stim test gives no assurance that you will be able to recognize the truth.
I suggest this, as an improvement: do several blind stim tests. Give the subject the option of picking a number between 1 and 9, or no number at all. I'd be curious to see if the examiner can tell when the subject picks no number at all.
I would repeat what I said before: I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test.
It's the truth that's the problem. The stim test gives no assurance that you will be able to recognize the truth.
I suggest this, as an improvement: do several blind stim tests. Give the subject the option of picking a number between 1 and 9, or no number at all. I'd be curious to see if the examiner can tell when the subject picks no number at all.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jul 09, 2003, 01:32 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 02, 2003, 05:39 PMMark,
Very interesting. A truly blind stim test is a risky gambit for the polygrapher, because if he calls it wrong, he loses credibility.
Apart from a hidden camera, another way the kind of stim test you mention can be rigged is by having you write your number between 1 and 10 on a steno pad with a sheet of carbon paper inserted a few sheets down.
Mine was a number from "three to seven". I believe that the examiner was counting the strokes of the pen and direction since some numbers require lifting the pen and straight then curved stokes. The whole thing was geared for "fear" factor.
Regards.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 08, 2003, 02:32 PMPublic Servant,
If it works and you would have us believe this charade not to be some poorly performed side show magic show why not risk your reputation and routinely do blind stim tests?? Although your reported method of having subjects pick reactions (does raise the question of why you go to polygraph school if the examinee can identify deception with no instruction
) is somewhat better than the typical open stim test, it does not (for several reasons) replace the integrity and significance of a truly blind stim test. Would you chategorize that which is done by many examiners (open blind test with examiner explaining reactions) to be the fraud we believe it to be. George posted something from DoDPI literature in this thread. What is your reaction to those purported instructions (not a rhetorical question by the way)?
If it works and you would have us believe this charade not to be some poorly performed side show magic show why not risk your reputation and routinely do blind stim tests?? Although your reported method of having subjects pick reactions (does raise the question of why you go to polygraph school if the examinee can identify deception with no instruction
) is somewhat better than the typical open stim test, it does not (for several reasons) replace the integrity and significance of a truly blind stim test. Would you chategorize that which is done by many examiners (open blind test with examiner explaining reactions) to be the fraud we believe it to be. George posted something from DoDPI literature in this thread. What is your reaction to those purported instructions (not a rhetorical question by the way)?Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Jul 08, 2003, 01:45 PMHas anyone ever heard of the polygraph machines or the software having some sort of override that can be used during these so called stim tests like the one Public Servant describes? The polygrapher knows what number the examinee picks, hits a button or key when the examinee is asked about the number in question? Public Servant shows a relatively flat graph with a pronounced spike underwhich is "magically" written the number the examinee chose. Sounds relatively easy to me and much more convincing than the card trick to the uninformed. Maybe the polygrapher prints off a generic chart with one pronounced spike and writes and asks the numbers so the spike conveniently coincides with the number the examinee picked? Sounds logical.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 08, 2003, 10:44 AMAnonymous,
No embarrassment, just didn't see anything in your post that called for reply. The only questions appeared to me to be rhetorical in nature. I didn't want to beat this dead horse further (especially since this topic was tangential at best, to the original discussion). But, hey, I'll give it another kick.
George, Mark, and Anonymous,
I personally do not use a blind stim, however, after I run and print the chart, I fold the bottom to conceal the numbers. Then (with minimal to no explanation of the charts at that point), I have the examinee locate where the deception occurred, or what stands out. And I can't remember anyone having any problems finding a spot, which when unfolded is revealed to be the number they lied about.
The stuff works, my friends. It's not some side show magic act.
Regards.
No embarrassment, just didn't see anything in your post that called for reply. The only questions appeared to me to be rhetorical in nature. I didn't want to beat this dead horse further (especially since this topic was tangential at best, to the original discussion). But, hey, I'll give it another kick.
George, Mark, and Anonymous,
I personally do not use a blind stim, however, after I run and print the chart, I fold the bottom to conceal the numbers. Then (with minimal to no explanation of the charts at that point), I have the examinee locate where the deception occurred, or what stands out. And I can't remember anyone having any problems finding a spot, which when unfolded is revealed to be the number they lied about.
The stuff works, my friends. It's not some side show magic act.
Regards.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jul 02, 2003, 06:17 PMGeorge,
It was the second polygraph exam I had in 1995. The first was a general screening test, and this one, about two weeks later, was a follow up.
It was the second polygraph exam I had in 1995. The first was a general screening test, and this one, about two weeks later, was a follow up.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 02, 2003, 06:14 PMMark,
Was this the FBI polygraph examination you had in 1995? It's interesting, because my FBI pre-employment polygraph was the same year, but the examiner used the textbook DoDPI "numbers test," where you write the number and it's posted on the wall in front of you, such that the polygrapher knows the number you've written.
Was this the FBI polygraph examination you had in 1995? It's interesting, because my FBI pre-employment polygraph was the same year, but the examiner used the textbook DoDPI "numbers test," where you write the number and it's posted on the wall in front of you, such that the polygrapher knows the number you've written.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jul 02, 2003, 06:02 PMGeorge,
In my case, I didn't write it on carbon paper.
In my case, I didn't write it on carbon paper.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 02, 2003, 05:39 PMMark,
Very interesting. A truly blind stim test is a risky gambit for the polygrapher, because if he calls it wrong, he loses credibility.
Apart from a hidden camera, another way the kind of stim test you mention can be rigged is by having you write your number between 1 and 10 on a steno pad with a sheet of carbon paper inserted a few sheets down.
Very interesting. A truly blind stim test is a risky gambit for the polygrapher, because if he calls it wrong, he loses credibility.
Apart from a hidden camera, another way the kind of stim test you mention can be rigged is by having you write your number between 1 and 10 on a steno pad with a sheet of carbon paper inserted a few sheets down.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jul 02, 2003, 05:31 PMI do have to add that I was given a blind stim test, where I was told to write down a number between 1 and 10, stick it in my pocket, and not tell him what the number was. Then he tested me (I responded no to each number), and correctly identified the number I chose.
It is possible that he somehow saw the number, because he briefly left the room. He could observe me through the one way mirror or the camera, but that would seem a little risky to rely on that.
Of course, I always believed he would be able to tell if I lied. I knew I would react. The problem was, and is, that they cannot identify the truth. So I was completely unimpressed.
It is possible that he somehow saw the number, because he briefly left the room. He could observe me through the one way mirror or the camera, but that would seem a little risky to rely on that.
Of course, I always believed he would be able to tell if I lied. I knew I would react. The problem was, and is, that they cannot identify the truth. So I was completely unimpressed.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 02, 2003, 12:03 PMPublic Servant (and any other DoDPI trained polygraphers reading this),
Weren't you taught at DoDPI to tell each and every subject that he/she responded strongly when "lying" during the stim test, whether or not such is the case?
That the stim test is but a cheap parlor trick intended to bamboozle the subject into believing that the polygraph can actually detect deception is borne out by DoDPI's own instructional literature. The following is from DoDPI's Test for Espionage and Sabotage Administration Guidelines :
And the following is an excerpt from Appendix B of the Texas Joint Polygraph Committee on Offender Testing's Recommended Guidelines for Clinical Polygraph Examinations of Sex Offenders, which is based on a 1997 DoDPI handout:
Who do you think you're fooling? The stim test is just another ruse in the polygrapher's armamentarium of flimflam.
Weren't you taught at DoDPI to tell each and every subject that he/she responded strongly when "lying" during the stim test, whether or not such is the case?
That the stim test is but a cheap parlor trick intended to bamboozle the subject into believing that the polygraph can actually detect deception is borne out by DoDPI's own instructional literature. The following is from DoDPI's Test for Espionage and Sabotage Administration Guidelines :
Quote6. Administer a standard known solution numbers test-- using the rationale below. DO NOT show the test to the examinee, but convince the examinee that deception was indicated. NOTE: be sure to use the word acquaintance or demonstration test when discussing this with the examinee.
I'm now going to demonstrate the physiological responses we have been discussing. This test is intended to give you the opportunity to become accustomed to the recording components and to give me the opportunity to adjust the instrument to you before proceeding to the actual test. In addition, this test will demonstrate to me that you are capable of responding and that your body reacts when you knowingly and willfully lie.
The standard four components (two pneumograph tubes, electrodermal plates, and cardiovascular cuff) are attached at this time, followed by the acquaintance test. The acquaintance test should be conducted in the manner taught at DoDPI and during TES training. The results will be discussed with the examinee as follows:
That was excellent. It is obvious that you know lying is wrong. You're not capable of lying without your body reacting. You reacted strongly when you lied about that number. Even though I asked you to lie and it was an insignificant lie, you still responded. That will make this examination very easy to complete as long as you follow my directions.
And the following is an excerpt from Appendix B of the Texas Joint Polygraph Committee on Offender Testing's Recommended Guidelines for Clinical Polygraph Examinations of Sex Offenders, which is based on a 1997 DoDPI handout:
QuoteOne of the most important aspects of the stimulation test is the post-test interview phase. It is during this phase that the polygraph examiner must "SELL" the Stim test to the examinee. If accomplished properly, this will show the examinee the polygraph procedure works and it should also help to reinforce examinee's psychological set.
Who do you think you're fooling? The stim test is just another ruse in the polygrapher's armamentarium of flimflam.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 01, 2003, 12:11 PMPublic Servant (and other polygraphers),
I have noted that your community is generally fairly quick to respond to posts that place you in a poor light and perspective. Public Servant, in contrast, I notice that you have responded to other posts in the last 24 hrs, but apparently don't know what to do with my recent post confronting you with the obvious fraud we are now encouraged to refer to as an acquaintance test. I will repost it again to see if repetition will lead you to overcome your embarrassment...
I have noted that your community is generally fairly quick to respond to posts that place you in a poor light and perspective. Public Servant, in contrast, I notice that you have responded to other posts in the last 24 hrs, but apparently don't know what to do with my recent post confronting you with the obvious fraud we are now encouraged to refer to as an acquaintance test. I will repost it again to see if repetition will lead you to overcome your embarrassment...
Quote...I am glad to know that you do not confuse stim tests with medical diagnosis, although, because of a lack of any true understanding of what goes on during a stim test for "normals" (and most particularly for your given examinee in the absence of whatever condition is disclosed), you have no ability to accomplish your quoted task.
The stim test is largely a bungle in the jungle, most frequently done in an "open" fashion in which the examinee is asked for the identity of his chosen number following the test and with the examiner then attempting to bluff the examinee regarding the "obvious' changes in physiology occurring at the asking of that number. The examiner would routinely look like a fool if he tried independently and without any fraud, (e.g. marked deck, all numbers being the same, etc.) to identify the chosen number without the examinee first revealing the number. If you believe that I am wrong, then you will be willing to recommend that all examiners perform blind stim tests absent any fraud to really demonstrate some sort of pre main-event truth telling and physiology change-recognition ability, yes? If you truly want to indicate to this audience that your stim (now renamed acquaintance) test is anything but some combination of fraud and bluff (perhaps less of the former and more of the latter in your case), perhaps you will condemn the sort of "open" stim bluff I have previously described and call for "blind/closed" testing to demonstrate to all the merits of your procedure, yes? Until such time, this exercise is little more than a poorly performed carnival stunt for which you and others (if done at a carnival) would have rotten fruits and vegetables hurled at you...
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 30, 2003, 12:47 PMPublic Servant,
You write:
I am glad to know that you do not confuse stim tests with medical diagnosis, although, because of a lack of any true understanding of what goes on during a stim test for "normals" (and most particularly for your given examinee in the absence of whatever condition is disclosed), you have no ability to accomplish your quoted task.
The stim test is largely a bungle in the jungle, most frequently done in an "open" fashion in which the examinee is asked for the identity of his chosen number following the test and with the examiner then attempting to bluff the examinee regarding the "obvious' changes in physiology occurring at the asking of that number. The examiner would routinely look like a fool if he tried independently and without any fraud, (e.g. marked deck, all numbers being the same, etc.) to identify the chosen number without the examinee first revealing the number. If you believe that I am wrong, then you will be willing to recommend that all examiners perform blind stim tests absent any fraud to really demonstrate some sort of pre-main event truth telling and physiology change-recognition ability, yes? If you truly want to indicate to this audience that your stim (now renamed acquaintance) test is anything but some combination of fraud and bluff (perhaps less of the former and more of the latter in your case), perhaps you will condemn the sort of "open" stim bluff I have previously described and call for "blind/closed" testing to demonstrate to all the merits of your procedure, yes? Until such time, this exercise is little more than a poorly performed carnival stunt for which you and others (if done at a carnival) would have rotten fruits and vegetables hurled at you...
You write:
Quote...I would only use the acquaintaince [sic] test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have...
I am glad to know that you do not confuse stim tests with medical diagnosis, although, because of a lack of any true understanding of what goes on during a stim test for "normals" (and most particularly for your given examinee in the absence of whatever condition is disclosed), you have no ability to accomplish your quoted task.
The stim test is largely a bungle in the jungle, most frequently done in an "open" fashion in which the examinee is asked for the identity of his chosen number following the test and with the examiner then attempting to bluff the examinee regarding the "obvious' changes in physiology occurring at the asking of that number. The examiner would routinely look like a fool if he tried independently and without any fraud, (e.g. marked deck, all numbers being the same, etc.) to identify the chosen number without the examinee first revealing the number. If you believe that I am wrong, then you will be willing to recommend that all examiners perform blind stim tests absent any fraud to really demonstrate some sort of pre-main event truth telling and physiology change-recognition ability, yes? If you truly want to indicate to this audience that your stim (now renamed acquaintance) test is anything but some combination of fraud and bluff (perhaps less of the former and more of the latter in your case), perhaps you will condemn the sort of "open" stim bluff I have previously described and call for "blind/closed" testing to demonstrate to all the merits of your procedure, yes? Until such time, this exercise is little more than a poorly performed carnival stunt for which you and others (if done at a carnival) would have rotten fruits and vegetables hurled at you...
Posted by Public Servant
- Jun 30, 2003, 01:17 AMOK, perhaps what I left out is what I thought was obvious -- During the pre-test the examinee is asked about health issues, and specific disorders of concern would be mentioned. If the examinee indicated he had a disorder which might be of concern, coordination would be made with the appropriate health care professional to determine if the person is fit for examination.
In no way do I seek to diagnose disorders. If someone chooses not to disclose a problematic disorder, there is little I can do. Of course, if the person displays obvious signs of some possibly disqualifying disorder, I would seek the assistance of an appropriate professional and/or discontinue the exam.
No where did I say I would, or could, diagnose a physical or psychological disorder. I must be dealing with media professionals here. The SPIN is quite professional and deviously deceptive.
Guest from Canada, if you were not asked of your health, then your exam was not conducted properly.
Anonymous, again I would only use the acquaintaince test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have. It would not be used to diagnose a person's condition.
Beech, before you go back to Fox or CNN, you might want to clean up your potty mouth. And seek therapy and a physical exam. It does not take all that post graduate training Canada spoke of, to see you have issues and your Blood Pressure must be at a dangerous level. Get well soon!!
In no way do I seek to diagnose disorders. If someone chooses not to disclose a problematic disorder, there is little I can do. Of course, if the person displays obvious signs of some possibly disqualifying disorder, I would seek the assistance of an appropriate professional and/or discontinue the exam.
No where did I say I would, or could, diagnose a physical or psychological disorder. I must be dealing with media professionals here. The SPIN is quite professional and deviously deceptive.
Guest from Canada, if you were not asked of your health, then your exam was not conducted properly.
Anonymous, again I would only use the acquaintaince test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have. It would not be used to diagnose a person's condition.
Beech, before you go back to Fox or CNN, you might want to clean up your potty mouth. And seek therapy and a physical exam. It does not take all that post graduate training Canada spoke of, to see you have issues and your Blood Pressure must be at a dangerous level. Get well soon!!