I think George quoted some document in which a claim was made the the polygraph was particularly poorly suited for application on scientifically-minded test subjects. Maybe it was the NAS doc? I seem to recall it was related to DOE testing.
I thought this was a very interesting point. It's not merely that polygraphy is a crapshoot. It's that it can be systematically biased against people whose minds are geared toward the scientific analysis of information -- something you'd think all these various agencies would be looking for.
Instead they have a screening procedure suited to the selection of people who are more likely to be fooled by a cheap parlor trick.
Anyway, anybody recall this quote and where it appeared? I tried using the search function, but no luck.
I can't help you with that particular quote, but your question reminded me of an old thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=659.msg3656#msg3656)(back when the pro-polygraph side actually put up the semblence of a decent counterpoint), in which the polygrapher or polygrapher wannabe 'public servant (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=6.0)' wrote this:
Lastly the examinee. Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.
I'm still amazed at that whopper. Imagine a scientific test that is wholey reliable except when the interrogation subject is:
- too intellectual
- too introspective
- too passionate
- too well-educated
- most incredibly, built physically 'improperly' or
- mentally 'unsuitable'.
Gee, is there anyone in the US populace who DOESN'T belong in one of the above-cited demographics? And would a potential polygraph examinee get a pass on his polygraph interrogation if he laid claim to one or more of the characteristics mentioned above? Or, would they simply conclude he or she was 'trying to hide something' and thus heighten the suspicions of that person, further prejudicing the examination?
TWO sets of rules: One for the polygrapher to make his CYA blanket excuses, and another for the examinee when he protests his innocence when the polygrapher is wrong.
That wasn't the quote I was looking for, but it is interesting and certainly in the same vein.
You're right, it is a whopper.
Human Subject,
Sorry for the delay in replying to you. I've been trying to think of such a document I may have cited, but am at a loss.
I have observed in the past that a person's ability to pass a polygraph examination (absent countermeasure use) may be inversely proportional to a person's IQ. But I think a person's critical thinking skills, skepticism, and education level are more important factors than IQ.
Thanks guys.
I'll keep looking too. If I find it I will post it here.
Beech,
I just happened upon this thread. At first I was flattered that you thought of me when refering to "back when the pro-polygraph side actually put up the semblence of a decent counterpoint." Then you had to throw in such hurtful words as "wannabe." Not me my friend... I am the real McCoy, Guilty as charged, the devil incarnate, in your myopic view, no doubt.
Thanks for finding my inaugural thread for me. It was too long to scan. But whether it was actual quote, taken out of context; or self-serving paraphrasing, it is a misleading of my assertions. Here is a quote I found in the first post
QuoteSome may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.
I merely gave a few things about examinees that could contribute to inconclusive or false results. This said nothing about an intellectual being unable to pass the test. What I was attempting to explain (perhaps poorly) that trying to out think the examiner, and or rationalize (control material) could adversely affect the exam. Obviously emotional, psychological, or physical issues could affect the exam. They could affect any exam, even a simple test in school. Put this in context of the whole posting, and you'll see I addressed two other factors, the examiner and the exam, as well.
Though your post was misdirecting to Human Subject, and misleading to all, I will take it as a compliment that while George quotes PhDs, you (attempt to) quote me! But, you might want to talk to Ms Dowd of the NY Times regarding misleading quotes with omitted context.
Regards!
Public Servant
Quote from: Public Servant on Jun 02, 2003, 11:31 AMBeech,
... Then you had to throw in such hurtful words as "wannabe." Not me my friend... I am the real McCoy, Guilty as charged, the devil incarnate, in your myopic view, no doubt.
I didn't recall you ever conclusively stating that you were a polygrapher, thus I felt it necessary to qualify my description of you. Although your style and bitter, accusatory, self-serving writing always struck me as typical of a polygrapher, better safe than sorry, especially on these boards.
QuoteThanks for finding my inaugural thread for me. It was too long to scan. But whether it was actual quote, taken out of context; or self-serving paraphrasing, it is a misleading of my assertions.
It was a verbatim quote of what you wrote sir.
QuoteI merely gave a few things about examinees that could contribute to inconclusive or false results. This said nothing about an intellectual being unable to pass the test.
You and I differ, then, over how a person who 'think[s] into it too much' or who 'know[s] too much' should be labeled. How would you describe these kinds of people, if not as intellectuals?
QuoteWhat I was attempting to explain (perhaps poorly) that trying to out think the examiner, and or rationalize (control material) could adversely affect the exam. Obviously emotional, psychological, or physical issues could affect the exam.
So if an examinee told you prior to your polygraph interrogation that were mitigating circumstances involving their emotions, their physchology, or their physique, you would give that person a waiver?
QuoteThough your post was misdirecting to Human Subject, and misleading to all, I will take it as a compliment that while George quotes PhDs, you (attempt to) quote me!
Again, I quoted you VERBATIM sir. In addition, I provided a hyperlink to the entire thread in which you posted the above assertions and to your post in its entirety in my original posting.
Beech,
Yes, you put in a verbatim quote, but this part, seemingly attributed to me (as a paraphrase), was an ad lib on your part:
QuoteI'm still amazed at that whopper. Imagine a scientific test that is wholey reliable except when the interrogation subject is:
- too intellectual
- too introspective
- too passionate
- too well-educated
- most incredibly, built physically 'improperly' or
- mentally 'unsuitable'.
Trying to over-analyze everything is a sign of distrust at a minimum, paranoia in some cases. It does not equate intellect. Many intelligent, intellectual persons can follow along in a conversation, without turning it into a competition of wits. In fact, those who lack confidence in their intelligence are usually the ones who try so hard to show superior intellect.
And to answer your final question, I would not run an examination on someone with mitigating psychological, emotional, or physical (health) problem. I'm not sure I'd term that a waiver, since I run only criminal specific exams. Perhaps if you were to come into my office, you could avoid examination. Certainly your waiver would not be for intellect (because that is not a trait warranting such a "waiver", but take the meaning as you like).
QuoteAlthough your style and bitter, accusatory, self-serving writing always struck me as typical of a polygrapher, better safe than sorry, especially on these boards.
So what are you concerned about being safe from "on these boards." Do I make you feel insecure?
If you look back at my posts, the only time I might have exuded the mentioned traits was in response to you. And, in fact, I'd argue, that's a perception on your part, rarely my intent. What you sow, so shall you reap.
Take care, my entertaining friend!
Public Servant
Quote from: Public Servant on Jun 02, 2003, 11:55 PMBeech,
Yes, you put in a verbatim quote, but this part, seemingly attributed to me (as a paraphrase), was an ad lib on your part:
"I'm still amazed at that whopper. Imagine a scientific test that is wholey reliable except when the interrogation subject is:
- too intellectual
- too introspective
- too passionate
- too well-educated
- most incredibly, built physically 'improperly' or
- mentally 'unsuitable'. "
And 'ad lib'? No, it was a conclusionary statement based upon your assertions. Now you're quibbling over assertions you made yourself, it would appear.
QuoteTrying to over-analyze everything is a sign of distrust at a minimum, paranoia in some cases.
And at the other end of the scale, blind obeisance to an archaic, deeply flawed, unscientific and inaccurate testing procedure is insanity.
Regardless, you are now engaging in a strawman argument-- your original assertion was NOT that a person who 'over analyzes
everything' would fail a polygraph interrogation based upon that characteristic-- your assertion was that a person who 'thinks too much into it' [ 'it' being the polygraph] would possibly fail because of that specific 'thinking'.
QuoteIt does not equate intellect. Many intelligent, intellectual persons can follow along in a conversation, without turning it into a competition of wits. In fact, those who lack confidence in their intelligence are usually the ones who try so hard to show superior intellect.
I'm sure you would know more about lacking confidence than I, so I will defer to your superior knowledge with that assertion. As an aside, I will apologize to you if a simple debate that arose out of your assertions challenges you to the point where you feel your intellect is being put to the test in some sort of 'competition'.
QuoteAnd to answer your final question, I would not run an examination on someone with mitigating psychological, emotional, or physical (health) problem.
Would you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?
QuoteSo what are you concerned about being safe from "on these boards." Do I make you feel insecure?
My comment was aimed at the fact that polygraphers and their sympathizers on these boards are quick to jump on even the slightest mischaracterization of themselves, even if innocently made. I'm thinking of poster 'The_Breeze' who went totally ballistic when a simple question about his prior law enforcement experiences was posted. I'm also thinking of poster 'Batman' who threatened me with gross physical violence when he misread a post of mine to read that I was accusing him personally of professional misconduct. These experiences, combined with the fact I didn't recall a specific post by you conclusively stating you are a polygraph interrogator led me to post my all encompassing description of you as a polygrapher or polygrapher 'wannabe'. I see now that the term 'wannabe' is particularly offensive to law enforcement, because they themselves use it frequently as a term of derision when they cannot answer direct questions posed to them here, so again I apologize. I didn't mean to stoop to your side's level.
And to answer your question, no, you do not make me feel 'insecure'.
Quote from: Public Servant on Jun 02, 2003, 11:55 PMAnd to answer your final question, I would not run an examination on someone with mitigating psychological, emotional, or physical (health) problem.
We're still waiting for polygrapher 'Public Servant' to answer my question,
Would you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?Twelve days and counting...
Beech,
Turn off "the challenge" - like time clock. I haven't responded because I have a life and don't visit this site religiously.
First of all, your "conclusions" are a bit over-reaching if you wish to attribute them to what I wrote. Enough said.
And to answer your question
QuoteWould you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?
:
Instead of listing specific disorders, I will give you the standards I apply to determining suitability.
Psychological disorders: The main standard in reference to mental health would be, "does the person know what is reality and what is not?" . Can the person differentiate between what is truthful and what is not truthful? Can the person recall the period of time in question? And, is the person medicated to the point of being unable to meet the above criteria.
Obviously a person who can not distinguish reality, is unfit for examination. In the screeening world, such a disorder would likely disualify an applicant. However, persons under the care of a psychology professional often become suspects of criminal investigations. Evaluating sutiability might include coordination with the caregiver (consent of subject is usuaully necessary). Inability to determine for sure if the person meets the criteria, while there is reason to believe he may not, would be sufficient to cause me to refrain from running the exam.
Physical Conditions: Two criteria--
Ensuriing the process of examination is not life-threatening (or would not exacerbate the condition) would be my primary concern. Obviously the stress of an examination could be detrimental to someone in a severely weakened or vulnerable condition. Secondly, ensuring the physical condition does not affect the collected data to the point that a conclusive determination could not be made. Obviously there are numerous ailments which could cause problems in both areas, especially cardiovascualr or respriatory disease. A disorder such as MS could cause dysfunction in the correlation of psychological stimulus (question) to physiological response. Severity of the condition, and it's effect on this individual, is the key. Again coordination with caregiver may be necessary. And, the Acquaintance test can be used to gauge the effect on tracings (and this site says it's just part of some ruse!). Of course, I'd also apply the reality criterion here as well -- a physical ailment (such as head injury, stroke, etc) could cause symptoms similar to that of psychological ailments.
Lastly, emotional condition: Obviously some emotional conditions can elevate to the need for psychological care. For that, see the above paragraph on psych. condition. In addition, I would never conduct an exam on a person who is overly angry or distraught. If possible, I would try to get the person back into a calm state before trying to conduct the exam. If necessary, I could re-schedule. This could be for an outside issue (ie illness/death of a family member, sudden loss of job, etc) or for emotion attached to the issue at hand (ie a person just confessed to an offense, or part of an offense, is now distraught, possibly crying, but there are more issues to be tested). If a person is the suspect of the murder/serious injury of a loved one, the exam should be conducted after a resonable time for a reasonable person to grieve or obtain closure. Gauging of emotional suitability is obviously an ongoing process throughout the exam.
I did not list specific conditions, because no specific condition automatically renders a person suitable or unsuitable for examination. It is a combination of training and common sense; and is an ongoing process throughout an examination.
As for sources; I am a
public servant. I have no authority to release such information. You and George are obviously skilled at FOIA requests. The info I provide is my personal, unofficial take on the issues presented.
Beech, I can only surmise that your motives for requesting a listing of conditions which would preclude one from taking an exam, include avoiding further exams. Perhaps with your delusions of self importance, you could convince a psychology professional to assert that you do not meet the reality criterion. Or perhaps you could make a show of emotion with belligerence or crying -- you're quite good at both!! :)
Regards.
Public Servant
Public Servant
I have been waiting a long time for this post. It is heartening to see that a polygrapher recognizes that certain physical and mental conditions affect the outcome of a polygraph test. It is, also heartening to see that you do not attempt to diognose and leave that up to the caregiver. In addition, you stated that anger and stress are two of the mental conditions. I will state again that if I was ever falsely accused of a sex crime or asked any question about it on a job screening test, I don't think I could pass a polygraph because of my extreme anger, for obvious reasons also stated here, of that crime. The mere thought of it makes my blood boil.
I have no reason to believe that you don't practice what you preach and that Bud, makes you an examiner instead of an operator in my mind. Question though: How many polygraphers do you think meets your modus operandi? By their posts, not very many. It seems their thinking is "sit in my chair dumbass I'm going to find you guilty".
Thanks guy for your post.
Public Servant,
Although your stated intentions with regard to physical/emotional/psychological disqualifying factors are indeed commendable, my friend, TwoBlock, has overlooked the fact that you are ill equipped to diagnose virtually all of the conditions you describe and has therefore mistaken good intentions with the skills that lead to meaningful follow through. Your gut feeling about any of these issues is not a substitute for proper medical and psychiatric analysis and diagnosis. And with regard to the acquaintance (stim) test you refer to--whether or not it is a simple and routine rouse and con (it is), it is most certainly is not a diagnostic test for any or all problems connected with multiple sclerosis or any other disease. That which you have done admirably is to describe a variety of problems (aside from the basic theoretical flaws) that make CQT polygraph testing problematic--you have in no way given any evidence or indication of your (or any other polygrapher's) ability to recognize/diagnose and render sound judgment regarding these issues.
Quote from: Public Servant on Jun 23, 2003, 03:52 AMBeech,
Turn off "the challenge" - like time clock.
My goodness Public servant, you consistently perceive and are alarmed by 'competitions' and 'challenges' arising from simple posts and responses to your assertions. While for some time I've known you're a simple low to mid level government bureaucrat-- and thus not only deeply fearful of the concept of personal responsibility but also deeply suspicious of those of us who revel in it-- it's only in these past several posts I've seen the true childish horror you feel at the thought of having to actually prove what it is you write about. Hence your misperceptions that simple responses are 'challenges' and 'competitions'. Rest easy my friend: There is no competition here, and we only hold you accountable insofar as you are comfortable (which is not very, apparently). What you write, however, is so very illustrative of the mindset of the polygrapher that I hope you will forgive me if I press on.
QuoteFirst of all, your "conclusions" are a bit over-reaching if you wish to attribute them to what I wrote. Enough said.
Perhaps, for the purposes of explaining to the Disinterested Third Parties what is it we're discussing, I will simply repost what it is you wrote during one of the those infrequent breaks in your rich, full life away from this message board (we'll call it the 'Catchall It's Not My Fault, It's The Examinees Fault Excuse' (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=659.msg3656#msg3656):
QuoteLastly the examinee. Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.
To which I originally responded:
QuoteSo if one is too intellectual or introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, built physically improperly or mentally 'unsuitable', the polygraph won't work? Gee, is there anyone in the US populace who DOESN'T belong in one of the above-cited demographics?
I will let the Gentle Reader sort it out as he may whether or not my characterizations of what you wrote are over reaching.
Quoting Public servant again:
QuoteInstead of listing specific disorders, I will give you the standards I apply to determining suitability.
<snip for brevity>
Thanks for that response, in which you broadly categorize possible pre existing psychological disorders, physical conditions, and emotional conditions that may preclude a successful polygraph exam from taking place.
With regard to psychological disorders: May I ask, in which state(s) are you liscensed/board certified to practice Psychiatry or Psychology?
With regard to physical conditions: May I ask, in which state(s) are you liscensed as a physician?
QuoteI did not list specific conditions, because no specific condition automatically renders a person suitable or unsuitable for examination.
Is this soley your personal opinion? If not, is it the official opinion and what is taught whatever school of polygraphy you attended? (If you know), is it also the official opinion of the APA?
Anonymous,
Health care professionals are little better-suited than polygraph practitioners to determine whether any particular person is a suitable candidate for a polygraph "test." Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., has explained the reasons for this in a letter to Dr. Grant LeFarge (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-013.shtml), Secretary of the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners.
Two Block,
Thanks for the complimentary remarks. To answer your question, I would assert that any examiner who worked for a legitimate, reputable organization would apply similar standards for suitability.
Regards.
Anonymous and Beech Trees,
You obviously read over my post quickly. I said the caregiver (that would be a psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician) would be consulted. I did not say anything about making such a diagnosis myself. If I were to suspect a psychological or physiological disorder not disclosed by the examinee (perhpas not diagnosed), which might cause a problem, I would discontinue examination until a healthcare professional could be consulted.
In the case of emotional distress: regardless how ignorant you'd like to believe I am, I am fully capable of recognizing obvious outward signs of emotional distress which might be counter-productive to valid polygraph results. If the examinee chooses to conceal some sort of emotional issue, despite my asking about such in pre-test, there's is little I can do (and that would not change if I had an MD or PhD). This could also be appied to any other possibly problematic disorder (Phys. or Psych).
My citing of the acquaintance exam, was not as a diagnostic exam, but merely an opportunity to see if distortions due to physiological conditions, might limit my ability to analyze the polygraph charts.
Beech, I put "the challenge" in quotes because I was referring to the so-called counter-measure challenge time clock. It is quite the annoying, over beaten, dead horse; and I'd hate to see another start here. I am neither alarmed , nor significantly challenged by your rantings here. You are the one who has expressed concern about safety on these boards. I have no fear of a battle of wits with such a meagerly armed person as yourself.
Perhaps, over-reaching was not the appropriate word. SPIN better describes your methods. You put your spin on everything I write here, and it is no less dishonest than actual mis-quoting. Don't worry Beech, I have no plans to file suit.
Yes, let the gentle reader (and not so gentle readers as well) read the actual thread (if they have not already done so). They will see that I was not engaging in the "blame the examinee" excuse. You pulled out a small exerpt, wherein I addressed the examinee as one of three major variables involved in a polygraph examination. A fair minded individual will see right through your tactics, regardless of their beliefs on the issues.
To answer your last question, Beech, these are my personal opinions, represented here. Of course, they are based, to a degree, on my training and regulatory guidance of my employer. However, if you want official positions of DoDPI, APA, etc, I suggest you go to their official sources. I represent neither. I post here as a private citizen, not part of a government agency nor interest group.
Good Day.
Public Servant,
The problem with your use of the stim (acquaintance) test as u describe is that it does not work for those without the various physical and mental problems previously referred to. Using it with one you may suspect (again, as you correctly admit, with no meaningful diagnosis) as having some problem, adds nothing to the polygraph process (no baseline established for "normals") nor does it serve as any first line of diagnosis to be followed up by a medical professional. Again, we are simply left with it being fraud in the hands of some (I would guess that you do not fall in this category), bluff, and a cheap parlor trick in the hands of the balance.
Public Servant,
You slay me!! LOL. What is your educational background. What credentials do you have that make you even the least bit capable to determine a subjects psycological, emotional, and/or physical condition so as to determine whether someone is fit to take your polygraph without worry that their current mental, emotional, and/or physical state may alter the "results". I took a preemployment polygraph and never once was I asked or tested for my physical, emotional, and/or mental state. All that mattered to the polygrapher was that I had an arm with a pulse.
You would have to take approximately 15 to 20 years post secondary education to be able to make those claims. Far short of the 400 hours you probably took to gain your "ticket" in polgraphy. Don't go blowing sunshine up our A$$e$ by implying you are deeply concerned with the emotional, physical, and/or mental state of your test subjects.
Judging from your posts I can only assume that your reputable establishment requires the examinee to take and pass a physical and phycological evaluation both tailored to determining a candidates suitability for taking the poly?
Quote from: Public Servant on Jun 27, 2003, 03:42 AM
You obviously read over my post quickly. I said the caregiver (that would be a psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician) would be consulted.
Actually Public servant, no you did not. You wrote:
QuoteEvaluating sutiability might include coordination with the caregiver (consent of subject is usuaully necessary).
This statement you actually wrote is a far cry from what you ASSERT you wrote now. 'Might include coordination with the caregiver' is not 'the caregiver will be consulted', right? Time again to tell me that what I'm reading isn't what you actually wrote? Let's have no more of your slippery bullshit, 'Public servant'.
How ironic that I am chastised for quoting a paragraph in full from you, then you squirm and bleat as to its true meaning (which is quite plain for everyone to see) yet YOU take substantial liberties with your own writings and tell us you wrote something that any one can plainly see you did not write. Do you think us all blind?
Regardless, in what percentage of interrogations do you conclude a psychological, emotional, or physical impediment that precludes a 'scientifically accurate' polygraph exam without the benefit of an actual liscensed physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist? You just finished asserting that in some cases you do not 'coordinate', so how often do you just do your level best and make a clinical diagnosis that has no basis in liscensing, practice, or education? More than half the time? All but a fraction of the time?
OK, 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!!
Public Servant,
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...
Public 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...
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...
Public 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 (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi97-p-009-appendix-i.shtml) :
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 (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/csotpoly.pdf), 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.
I 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.
Mark,
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.
George,
In my case, I didn't write it on carbon paper.
Mark,
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.
George,
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.
Anonymous,
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.
Has 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.
Public 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)?
Quote 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.
Public 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.
Canadian 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.