- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 18, 2003, 04:46 PMGeorge
Are you telling me you don't have to be experienced to be an interviewer/interrogator? By the way, you failed to provide your experience. Or did you fail to provide it? Maybe if you'd have passed your polygraph back whenever, you'd have some experience under your belt. Couldn't resist taking that little shot.
Are you telling me you don't have to be experienced to be an interviewer/interrogator? By the way, you failed to provide your experience. Or did you fail to provide it? Maybe if you'd have passed your polygraph back whenever, you'd have some experience under your belt. Couldn't resist taking that little shot.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 18, 2003, 02:43 AMSaidme,
I see... In order to be able to understand how a polygrapher can so condition a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions such that the subject will respond differentially to "control" versus relevant questions, it is not enough to "understand the dynamics involved in interviews and interrogations and with human behavior," one must also be an experienced criminal interrogator and be a polygraph examiner.
Utter nonsense and shameless excusemaking, Saidme. (I also note that the conditions you've set forth would tend to exclude polygraphers from intelligence agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and DIA.)
I see... In order to be able to understand how a polygrapher can so condition a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions such that the subject will respond differentially to "control" versus relevant questions, it is not enough to "understand the dynamics involved in interviews and interrogations and with human behavior," one must also be an experienced criminal interrogator and be a polygraph examiner.
Utter nonsense and shameless excusemaking, Saidme. (I also note that the conditions you've set forth would tend to exclude polygraphers from intelligence agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and DIA.)
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 17, 2003, 06:24 PMGeorge
How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you conducted? How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you personnally observed? If the answer is none than you don't really understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogations and human behavior. Maybe I should have been more specific and put the word "criminal" in that sentence. Sorry if I was vague. If you have substantive experience in these areas, I stand corrected.
Regarding your questions: "What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?"
Regardless of what I respond with you will somehow twist and mold and reform and blah, blah, blah until it fits your little view of the world. Therefore I won't respond. That in and of itself should give you ample ammo to tell everyone how we (examiner's) can't answer your silly questions.
Shouldn't you be in bed.
How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you conducted? How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you personnally observed? If the answer is none than you don't really understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogations and human behavior. Maybe I should have been more specific and put the word "criminal" in that sentence. Sorry if I was vague. If you have substantive experience in these areas, I stand corrected.
Regarding your questions: "What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?"
Regardless of what I respond with you will somehow twist and mold and reform and blah, blah, blah until it fits your little view of the world. Therefore I won't respond. That in and of itself should give you ample ammo to tell everyone how we (examiner's) can't answer your silly questions.
Shouldn't you be in bed.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 17, 2003, 06:13 PMSaidme,
You write:
I am indeed familiar with the dynamics involved in interviews and interrogations and with human behavior. While I'm not a polygraph examiner, why not try me? What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?
You write:
QuoteTo really understand it George you would need to understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogtions, human behavior, and be a polygraph examiner yourself.
I am indeed familiar with the dynamics involved in interviews and interrogations and with human behavior. While I'm not a polygraph examiner, why not try me? What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 17, 2003, 05:35 PMGeorge
To really understand it George you would need to understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogtions, human behavior, and be a polygraph examiner yourself. With regards to your question: DI suspects will take care of themself. NDI suspects are the responsibility of the examiner (that art stuff). I know that's not the answer you would like to have but sometimes things aren't just black and white. Not everything needs to be scientifically valid, have empiracal evidence and be peer reviewed for it to work. I truly believe those topics were created to keep academians gainfully employed. I'm sure you've heard the term, if you can't do it, teach it.
Present facts even if it's to further criminal enterprise! I think you're rationalizing.
I agree the CQT is the best thing going. I just wanted to make sure we had the record straight that R&I is still widely used and in my opinion effective.
To really understand it George you would need to understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogtions, human behavior, and be a polygraph examiner yourself. With regards to your question: DI suspects will take care of themself. NDI suspects are the responsibility of the examiner (that art stuff). I know that's not the answer you would like to have but sometimes things aren't just black and white. Not everything needs to be scientifically valid, have empiracal evidence and be peer reviewed for it to work. I truly believe those topics were created to keep academians gainfully employed. I'm sure you've heard the term, if you can't do it, teach it.
Present facts even if it's to further criminal enterprise! I think you're rationalizing.
I agree the CQT is the best thing going. I just wanted to make sure we had the record straight that R&I is still widely used and in my opinion effective.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 17, 2003, 05:24 PMSaidme,
Perhaps you could explain why a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions would respond more strongly to them than to the relevant questions if truthful, but if deceptive would instead respond more strongly to the relevant questions? What effort can a polygrapher exert to ensure such differential responding?
I'm not here to "throw stones" at you or anyone else, but rather to present facts, engage in rational discourse, and exchange ideas.
With regard to the use of R/I polygraphy, I think we can agree that it has largely been supplanted by CQT polygraphy. Of course it is still used. For example, DoDPI continues to teach it, and the NSA continues to use it for employee and applicant screening purposes. But R/I polygraphy has no plausible theoretical basis or support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Perhaps you could explain why a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions would respond more strongly to them than to the relevant questions if truthful, but if deceptive would instead respond more strongly to the relevant questions? What effort can a polygrapher exert to ensure such differential responding?
I'm not here to "throw stones" at you or anyone else, but rather to present facts, engage in rational discourse, and exchange ideas.
With regard to the use of R/I polygraphy, I think we can agree that it has largely been supplanted by CQT polygraphy. Of course it is still used. For example, DoDPI continues to teach it, and the NSA continues to use it for employee and applicant screening purposes. But R/I polygraphy has no plausible theoretical basis or support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 17, 2003, 05:08 PMGeorge
I can tell you from experience (conducting polygraph examinations) that examinees do continue to respond to CQT, even armed with knowledge. Again, it goes to the art and effort put forth by the examiner. Every exam I go into, I go into it with an open mind and remain totally neutral. If your statement ".....then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them." ...were true, then those examinee's I've conducted exams on who were familiar with polygraph should have probably ended up DI. However, that was not always the case and those who were NDI were later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing through other evdience; some obtained as the result of the polygraph.
It's easy to sit in your armchair and throw stones at those of us who are trying to do good work. My only problem with you George is why do you do it? Is there more to it than just a failed pre-employment polygraph? Maybe there's other issues that should be explored.
Regarding R&I: It's used much more than you know.
I can tell you from experience (conducting polygraph examinations) that examinees do continue to respond to CQT, even armed with knowledge. Again, it goes to the art and effort put forth by the examiner. Every exam I go into, I go into it with an open mind and remain totally neutral. If your statement ".....then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them." ...were true, then those examinee's I've conducted exams on who were familiar with polygraph should have probably ended up DI. However, that was not always the case and those who were NDI were later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing through other evdience; some obtained as the result of the polygraph.
It's easy to sit in your armchair and throw stones at those of us who are trying to do good work. My only problem with you George is why do you do it? Is there more to it than just a failed pre-employment polygraph? Maybe there's other issues that should be explored.
Regarding R&I: It's used much more than you know.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 17, 2003, 04:45 PMSaidme,
Certainly there is a difference between knowledge of a technique and intimate familiarity with it. But as I noted above, when a subject understands the function of the "control" questions (and they are relatively easy to pick out), then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them.
As for the relevant/irrelevant technique that you suggest would work best on polygraph examiners, the theory of R/I polygraphy depends on wildly implausible assumptions, and the technique is widely discredited even among polygraph examiners themselves, who have for the most part abandoned it in favor of the CQT...
Certainly there is a difference between knowledge of a technique and intimate familiarity with it. But as I noted above, when a subject understands the function of the "control" questions (and they are relatively easy to pick out), then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them.
As for the relevant/irrelevant technique that you suggest would work best on polygraph examiners, the theory of R/I polygraphy depends on wildly implausible assumptions, and the technique is widely discredited even among polygraph examiners themselves, who have for the most part abandoned it in favor of the CQT...
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 17, 2003, 04:31 PMGeorge
I would argue that there's a difference between knowledge of a technique and being intimately familiar with a technique. I concur a CQT exam would probably not be the best examination for a polygraph examiner. However, I have conducted several polygraph examinations (specific issue) on law enforcement personnel who had knowledge of polygraph. CQT's worked great on them. R&I would work best on polygraph examiners.
I would argue that there's a difference between knowledge of a technique and being intimately familiar with a technique. I concur a CQT exam would probably not be the best examination for a polygraph examiner. However, I have conducted several polygraph examinations (specific issue) on law enforcement personnel who had knowledge of polygraph. CQT's worked great on them. R&I would work best on polygraph examiners.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 17, 2003, 04:14 PMSaidme,
If the subject admits to knowledge of the function of the "control" questions, then even by CQT theory, there is no rational basis for the expectation that truthful subjects will respond more strongly to the "control" questions while deceptive subjects will respond more strongly to the relevant questions.
Public Servant understands this, I think, which is why I've asked him which technique, if any, he believes would be appropriate for use with such subjects.
If the subject admits to knowledge of the function of the "control" questions, then even by CQT theory, there is no rational basis for the expectation that truthful subjects will respond more strongly to the "control" questions while deceptive subjects will respond more strongly to the relevant questions.
Public Servant understands this, I think, which is why I've asked him which technique, if any, he believes would be appropriate for use with such subjects.
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 17, 2003, 04:04 PMGeorge
Knowledge of CQT wouldn't necessarily cause an examinee problems (meaning the examiner could still use it). Knowledge about a technique and the technique being performed on you are two entirely different affairs.
Knowledge of a surgical procedure you're about to undertake and surgery being conducted on you are two totally different scenarios. I don't care how much reading your criminals on this site do, it's not going to properly prepare them for their examination. I believe deep down you know that to be true, particularly in light of how much study you've conducted regarding the topic.
Knowledge of CQT wouldn't necessarily cause an examinee problems (meaning the examiner could still use it). Knowledge about a technique and the technique being performed on you are two entirely different affairs.
Knowledge of a surgical procedure you're about to undertake and surgery being conducted on you are two totally different scenarios. I don't care how much reading your criminals on this site do, it's not going to properly prepare them for their examination. I believe deep down you know that to be true, particularly in light of how much study you've conducted regarding the topic.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 17, 2003, 03:22 PMPublic Servant,
The question I asked you on the 13th was not a rhetorical one, but rather one of fundamental importance for the polygraph field. What polygraph technique (if any) do you think would be appropriate for a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
The question I asked you on the 13th was not a rhetorical one, but rather one of fundamental importance for the polygraph field. What polygraph technique (if any) do you think would be appropriate for a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
Posted by Marty
- Jul 13, 2003, 01:46 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 13, 2003, 01:10 PMPublic Servant,
I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?
Ah, that's the rub. The reason the PLCQT is so widely done is that it is considered the most reliable technique available applicable to screening. Presumably then, knowledge, in and off itself, reduces the effectiveness of the polygraph as the examiner reverts to a less desirable and less practiced protocol. Reminds me of a Fed. Civil Statue I ran across that specifically ordered that a jury was not to be informed of a specific portion of said statue.
Directed ignorance. How nice.
-Marty
Posted by Marty
- Jul 13, 2003, 01:37 PMQuote from: Public Servant on Jul 13, 2003, 11:13 AMI was also amused by the story for the same reasons. Interesting and somewhat intense personality.
George,
There are formats that do not use CQT. In fact, looking at the excerpt from this book, I don't think the exam mentioned was CQT. Makes it even more humorous that she was practicing such countermeasures...
Quote
I have one concern. The man who shot up his co-workers in AL last week was named Doug Williams (presumably it was not our friend the "stinger"). This name is also shared by a former Super Bowl hero for the Redskins (obviously not the "stinger"). Possible sources for a false positive to such a GKT?!...Hard to say for sure.
ROFLMAO, I nearly mentioned the same thing myself! It would be intriguing to see what the time frame and recognition rate of the Doug Williams name would cause. Seriously, it would be ill advised to use the same terms in a GKT set given each individual. Assuming a reasonably large question set it would be fairly easy to identify and discard material fluctuations in the stochastics given a reasonable population sample size.
I am by nature an engineer-entrepreneur (therefore private sector - lol) and am always looking for ways to improve things. I rather like Drew's area of work, which looks to be a potentially improved GKT. I also truly think the GKT would be a lot more reliable in forensic work if somehow the examiners could be trained and critical mass reached. It is very natural to fall back on what one knows and no doubt CQT examiners have a strong gut belief in their abilities, warranted or not. Speaking of deluding oneself, so called "quants" and traders in the capital markets are such a group rife with them - the psychology is fascinating. And they tend to be quite bright.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 13, 2003, 01:10 PMPublic Servant,
I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?
I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?