Mr Maschke,
On your home page, you make the statement:
"Did you know it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts? The longest polygraph school (run by the U.S. Government; perhaps its students are slow learners) produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college."
Well, I thought I would do a little research, so I accessed the website of the DoD Polygraph Institute (DoDPI). This is the "U.S. government" school you are clearly alluding to and you might be interested to learn that this is a school that requires a B.A. degree to get into, and then teaches well in excess of 500 hours of GRADUATE LEVEL material. In fact, the DoDPI graduate walks out the door more than half way to a Master's degree from a fully accredited university.
Now, I have never been to barber school, but I am pretty sure that barber school does not require a B.A. degree to get in, nor does it teach graduate level material, nor is it affiliated to a graduate level accredited university program.
Mr. Mashcke, clearly you are being dishonest in the statement you make on your home page. For proof, I offer the material below:
This is what I found of the DoDPI website:
"The Forensic Psychophysiology Program is an academically challenging 520-hour comprehensive series of courses that prepares the student to begin a polygraph career in law enforcement or counterintelligence. This graduate level program consists of courses in psychology, physiology, and research methods, as well as polygraph history, theory, and methodology. Realistic scenario-based practical exercises are conducted throughout the program to provide the students with hands-on instruction in polygraph techniques and instrumentation.
Continuing Education Program
This program, established in 1996, requires every federal examiner attend a minimum of 80 hours of continuing education every two years. This educational requirement can be met through attendance at DoDPI sponsored or approved courses and seminars such as those provided by the University of Virginia, or one of the 26 continuing education courses taught on campus at DoDPI or at other locations.
Course Descriptions
Core Requirements:
26 Semester Hours
PHY 501 PHYSIOLOGY OF PDD 4 credit hours
This course integrates an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the major human physiological systems as they pertain to the clinical applications of PDD. Emphasis is placed on the integrated functions of the nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, and integument systems, with some attention given to the skeletal and muscular systems. Special attention is placed on the physiology of the neuron resting and action potentials, synaptic transmission, sensory and motor pathways, brain lateralization, and autonomic nervous system modulation. Cardiovascular and respiratory system dynamics are described with an emphasis on neural integration. Eccrine gland dynamics and its innervations is the focal point of the integument system. The physiological dynamics of this systemic approach to human body function are described with respect to PDD assessment. Computerized CDs, PowerPoint, videos and handouts are used extensively in the lecture presentations as learning aids.
PSY 501 PSYCHOLOGY OF PDD 3 credit hours
The psychological theories and processes underlying human behavior and its relationship to PDD are examined. Topics include sensation, perception, human learning, memory, cognition, motivation, emotion, stress, personality, psychological disorders, social processes, and social psychology. All topics covered will be developed specifically with respect to their relevance to the PDD process. In addition, topics of relevance will be developed in relation to causes and explanations for criminal behavior. Finally, psychological concepts relevant to extraction and retention of information of criminal incidents as perceived by eyewitnesses will be covered.
Recommended Prerequisite: Introduction to Psychology
PDD 501 INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES 4 credit hours
Interviewing skills facilitate and complement the PDD process from the pre-test development of suitable test questions to the post-test discussion of the examination results. Through class lecture and live exercises, this course provides the student examiner with a foundation for building rapport with examinees, preparing them for testing. Dependent on the testing format utilized, students are taught how to encourage self-report of behaviors relevant to the test issues. Students learn to become sensitive to nonverbal cues, tailoring their approach according to individual characteristics, and consider cultural aspects that may pertain to an examinee. Several methods of pre-test and post-test interviews are presented to students, who practice them under field-like conditions in mock crime scenarios.
Prerequisite: PSY 501
PDD 502 PDD ANALYSIS I 2 credit hours
Constructing proper test interrogatives is an important and integral part of the PDD examination process. If inappropriate or improper interrogatives are used, it could have a significant impact on the outcome of a PDD examination. This course studies the theory and formulation of PDD interrogatives based upon case investigative analysis. The students are acquainted with the use and purpose of all types of interrogatives utilized in specific issue and expanded counterintelligence (CI) screening PDD examinations. The various types of relevant questions utilized in specific issue and expanded CI examinations are discussed in detail. The students are acquainted with the various categories of comparison questions authorized for most major crime specific issue and expanded CI examinations. They will then learn how to formulate the most appropriate comparison questions based upon an examinee's personal history and tested relevant issue for all DoDPI specific issue PDD formats. From a discussion of the basic principles of psycholinguistics, the students will apply these attributes in developing specific issue and expanded CI examination interrogatives. For investigative matters having multiple relevant issues, the students will utilize the concepts of relevant target selection in determining the primary issue for initial testing. Through a review of investigative mock-crime scenarios, the students will learn how to construct the most appropriate relevant and comparison interrogatives for selected specific issue major crimes and CI matters.
Prerequisite: PSY 501
PDD 503 PDD ANALYSIS II 2 credit hours
This course teaches the student the DoDPI Three- and Seven-Position Numerical Evaluation Scoring System. It prepares the student examiner to recognize and evaluate each of the recording channels and associated physiological phenomena, or diagnostic features, of interest in the psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD). The decision rules for various PDD testing formats are presented and the means for rending a diagnostic opinion are taught. Using the knowledge gained in Physiology of PDD and Psychology of PDD, the student examiner gains a greater understanding and appreciation for the inter-relationship between physiology, psychology, and PDD.
Prerequisites: PSY 501 and PHY 501
PDD 504 PDD METHODS I 2 credit hours
This course provides the student with the historical aspects of PDD from the crude methods of detecting deception during the days of the Inquisition to the present. The student examiner is acquainted with the early pioneers of PDD who had a tremendous influence in the development of physiological research leading to the development of modern-day sensors and PDD instrumentation. They also become familiar with significant personalities who had an impact on the development of the various PDD testing formats. Beginning with the early 1900s and leading up to present day, the student is presented with information about significant and high profile cases having a profound affect on modern day PDD practices.
The student is exposed to various PDD instrumentation, ranging from the traditional analog instrumentation to proper utilization and operation of the various present day computerized polygraph systems (hardware) and associated software programs. The student is taught acquaintance test protocols (ACQT); selected intelligence and screening PDD formats (TES, LEPET, and R/I Screening); Specific Issue R/I PDD format and usage; along with associated operational methodologies currently being taught at the DoDPI.
Prerequisites: PSY 501 and PHY 501
PDD 505 PDD METHODS II 2 credit hours
This course acquaints the student with the various specific-issue PDD testing formats utilized within the Federal Government. It also introduces the student examiner to the various types of mental, physical, and pharmacological countermeasures that might be encountered in PDD testing and provides counter-countermeasures an examiner might utilize to neutralize these countermeasures. The course provides insight into the utilization of interpreters in conducting PDD examinations of an examinee whose primary language capability is something other than what the examiner possesses. Additionally, the relationship is explored between the field examiner and quality control aspects of their work to ensure that adequate standards and controls are maintained at all times.
Prerequisite: PDD 504
PDD 506 PDD LABORATORY 4 credits hours
Students are introduced to state-of-the-art instrumentation available to PDD examiners. Hands-on experience with examinees enables students to apply the principles, theory, and methodology gleaned from their studies of PDD to simulated law enforcement and counterintelligence scenarios. Students will be graded on their ability to utilize, interpret, analyze, and evaluate specific PDD methods of investigation.
PDD 507 FIELD FAMILIARIZATION LAB 1 credit hour
This course familiarizes the student examiner with field applications of PDD formats and testing techniques. Under the supervision of DoDPI faculty, student examiners conduct PDD examinations and evaluations utilizing their agency's PDD formats and procedures under the auspices of a representative from the students' parent organization.
LAW 501 LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS OF PDD 1 credit hour
This course acquaints the student examiner with ethical and legal issues affecting PDD. During the ethics portion, students are furnished information and practical dilemmas in an effort to acquaint them with situations they may be confronted with in field PDD procedures. Students are also exposed to various readings and may be required to research an ethical issue on a current PDD situation. During the legal aspects of PDD, students are provided case law on PDD issues and the Federal court systems starting with the first attempt to enter PDD evidence into a court environment in 1923. Additionally, the student examiner is provided information on the legal and technical applications involved in qualifying as an expert witness for PDD issues that the courts have articulated through their various decisions.
RES 501 RESEARCH THEORIES AND ISSUES IN PDD 1 credit hour
This course exposes the student examiner to the various research theories and issues of PDD. Students are acquainted with scientific research terminology and the procedures for conducting laboratory and field PDD research. They are provided with information on the relative merits of the different types of PDD research. Through assigned readings and individual research, students are expected to recognize and articulate differences between scientific and unscientific PDD research.
PDD 600 PDD 3 credit hours
This internship gives the student supervised practical application of previously studied PDD knowledge, tools, skills, and experiences. The student can synthesize in-class learning while gaining meaningful professional work experience. The student works with his or her academic advisor throughout this internship period. This course is open to students working with criminal justice, intelligence, counterintelligence or security agencies only.
Prerequisite: Certificate of Graduate Study in the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception from DoDPI.
------------------------------------------
WHEW! Seems a bit more involved than any BARBER SCHOOL I can think of.
By the way, are barbers required to have 80 hours of follow on training every two years?
Don't you think that based on your dishonest , untrue, and self serving statement, you owe the graduates of DoDPI an apology and a retraction?
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 19, 2005, 12:22 AMMr Maschke,
On your home page, you make the statement:
"Did you know it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts? The longest polygraph school (run by the U.S. Government; perhaps its students are slow learners) produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college."
Well, I thought I would do a little research, so I accessed the website of the DoD Polygraph Institute (DoDPI). This is the "U.S. government" school you are clearly alluding to and you might be interested to learn that this is a school that requires a B.A. degree to get into, and then teaches well in excess of 500 hours of GRADUATE LEVEL material. In fact, the DoDPI graduate walks out the door more than half way to a Master's degree from a fully accredited university.
Nonombre:
Well, I don't know how "typical" California is but this is from the Dept. of Consumer Affairs which licenses just about everything including acupuncturists.
(for a Barber's license)
Experience Requirement: Must have completed a course in barbering, not less than 1500 hours, from a school approved by the Program.
I must admit. It comes as something of a surprise to me that it (barber license school) is so long.
I can certainly understand your feelings that polygrapher's academic accomplishments have been slighted, but really, that is no justification for such a putdown of barbers. Perhaps you owe them, or at least the ones on California an apology.
Marty
Nonombre,
Does polygraph school really require a BS degree? That would be fitting, at least the BS portion. The state of Minnesota requires a BS degree in Mortuary Science or a four year degree in addition to mortuary school. Much more than is required of a polygraph examiner. We morticians are dealing with dead persons and have a more extensive educational requirement. I am required to meet continuing educational requirements which are some of the strictest in the nation. I too had courses in phsychology and physiology in addition to many others. With that I could simply enroll in polygraph school? Questionable isn't it?
QuoteMr. Mashcke, clearly you are being dishonest in the statement you make on your home page. For proof, I offer the material below:
How do you figure? Is this another twisted interpretation? It is clearly stated that this is the curriculum for polygraph school. No statement is made regarding previous educational requirements. This means that anyone with a 4 year degree in any pursuirt could become a polygraph examiner. Perhaps this is where I could utilize a four year degree in under-water basket weaving. The requirement for a BS degree as you have stated, does not have a specific requirement with regard to previous educational pursuits. Even an uneducated, party animal, college attending baffoon could meet these requirements. Your point?
Nonombre,
To graduate from a typical barber college, one needs to undergo, as Marty points out, something on the order of 1,500 hours of training. To graduate from the longest polygraph school, only 520 hours are required. You do the math. I think it's fair to say that it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts.
I believe the comparison is especially apt because both barber colleges and polygraph schools are vocational schools. A key difference, however, is that while graduates of barber colleges can cut hair, graduates of polygraph schools cannot detect lies.
While DoDPI and some other polygraph schools may require enrollees to have a bachelor's degree, no background in psychophysiology is required. (Remember, DoDPI touts polygraphy as the "psychophysiological detection of deception.") As Brandon points out, the area of one's degree is immaterial. Indeed, it is dangerous for DoDPI to accept students with hard science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science) degrees who understand the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method), as they are apt to see through the bullshit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit) (pardon my French) that DoDPI is passing off as science.
George,
You write:
Quote
Nonombre,
To graduate from a typical barber college, one needs to undergo, as Marty points out, something on the order of 1,500 hours of training. To graduate from the longest polygraph school, only 520 hours are required. You do the math. I think it's fair to say that it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts.
I believe the comparison is especially apt because both barber colleges and polygraph schools are vocational schools. A key difference, however, is that while graduates of barber colleges can cut hair, graduates of polygraph schools cannot detect lies.
While DoDPI and some other polygraph schools may require enrollees to have a bachelor's degree, no background in psychophysiology is required. (Remember, DoDPI touts polygraphy as the "psychophysiological detection of deception.") As Brandon points out, the area of one's degree is immaterial. Indeed, it is dangerous for DoDPI to accept students with hard science degrees who understand the scientific method, as they are apt to see through the bullshit (pardon my French) that DoDPI is passing off as science.
That which you, Marty, and Brandon have written on this subject so captures the essence of the reality of polygraph "education" that I can add very little to your analysis. There is little left for me to do but to reaffirm that which has been written which I heartily do.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 19, 2005, 05:14 AMNonombre,
To graduate from a typical barber college, one needs to undergo, as Marty points out, something on the order of 1,500 hours of training. To graduate from the longest polygraph school, only 520 hours are required. You do the math. I think it's fair to say that it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts.
Mr. Maschke,
I was truly astounded to discover that to be a barber in certain states (I think California is the example given) it takes some 1,500 hours of training. That sure is a whole lot of hours in the classroom. This revelation has caused me to reflect and consider how much classroom time does it take to train for some of our most respected occupations? So I did a little research. Since California is the state used in the example (I'm sure different states have deferring requirements) , I thought I would stick with California for my research:
1. How long does it take to become a cop? I know how long it takes in my state, but how about California? I checked the LAPD web site. Obviously, police work is a critically important job in which lives are clearly very much at stake. So how long is the LAPD academy? 808 hours to be exact. Hmm, longer than DoDPI, but only about half that of Barber school.
2. I then thought, how about EMT? You know the highly trained professional who responds to your house and jump-starts your heart, thereby saving your life? I checked out the fully accredited Santa Barbara County Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Basic Training course. Turns out this course is 8 weeks long at the end of which the student can take the certification test and become a Certified EMT in the state of California. Let's see, at 40 hours of classroom time per week that equals 320 hours of classroom time. Not bad to enter into a profession in which your whole purpose of existence is to save people's lives.
3. Finally, I thought I would check out the training required for a basic firefighter in the state of California. Once again, here is a difficult complex job requiring extensive training. Once again, people's lives are at stake. It turns out several California community colleges have excellent certification programs. All offer the state requirement of 240 hours of firefighter training (plus a six-month internship.)
So Mr. Maschke, as a result of my somewhat limited research, I have come to the following conclusions.
#1. Of all the examples considered, only the Federal Polygraph Examiner Training requires a Bachelor's Degree as a pre-requisite to training (regardless of the major)
#2. Other than Polygraph Examiner, only the position of Firefighter requires a formal internship (interestingly, both are at least six months in length)
#3. Only the Federal Polygraph Training is taught at the graduate degree level (In conjunction with a fully accredited graduate degree granting institution).
#4 Bottom line, it takes longer to become a barber in the state of California, than it does to become a police officer, a Emergency Medical Technician, a firefighter, or a polygraph examiner. This leads me to the conclusion that we polygraph examiners are in some very respectable company.
#5. I have a new respect for barbers. Maybe I'll leave a bigger tip next time.
Nonombre ;)
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 21, 2005, 03:54 PM
Mr. Maschke,
I was truly astounded to discover that to be a barber in certain states (I think California is the example given) it takes some 1,500 hours of training. That sure is a whole lot of hours in the classroom. This revelation has caused me to reflect and consider how much classroom time does it take to train for some of our most respected occupations? So I did a little research. Since California is the state used in the example (I'm sure different states have deferring requirements) , I thought I would stick with California for my research:
1. How long does it take to become a cop? I know how long it takes in my state, but how about California? I checked the LAPD web site. Obviously, police work is a critically important job in which lives are clearly very much at stake. So how long is the LAPD academy? 808 hours to be exact. Hmm, longer than DoDPI, but only about half that of Barber school.
2. I then thought, how about EMT? You know the highly trained professional who responds to your house and jump-starts your heart, thereby saving your life? I checked out the fully accredited Santa Barbara County Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Basic Training course. Turns out this course is 8 weeks long at the end of which the student can take the certification test and become a Certified EMT in the state of California. Let's see, at 40 hours of classroom time per week that equals 320 hours of classroom time. Not bad to enter into a profession in which your whole purpose of existence is to save people's lives.
3. Finally, I thought I would check out the training required for a basic firefighter in the state of California. Once again, here is a difficult complex job requiring extensive training. Once again, people's lives are at stake. It turns out several California community colleges have excellent certification programs. All offer the state requirement of 240 hours of firefighter training (plus a six-month internship.)
So Mr. Maschke, as a result of my somewhat limited research, I have come to the following conclusions.
#1. Of all the examples considered, only the Federal Polygraph Examiner Training requires a Bachelor's Degree as a pre-requisite to training (regardless of the major)
#2. Other than Polygraph Examiner, only the position of Firefighter requires a formal internship (interestingly, both are at least six months in length)
#3. Only the Federal Polygraph Training is taught at the graduate degree level (In conjunction with a fully accredited graduate degree granting institution).
#4 Bottom line, it takes longer to become a barber in the state of California, than it does to become a police officer, a Emergency Medical Technician, a firefighter, or a polygraph examiner. This leads me to the conclusion that we polygraph examiners are in some very respectable company.
#5. I have a new respect for barbers. Maybe I'll leave a bigger tip next time.
Nonombre ;)
Nonombre:
With all due respect, I believe your police officer and fire/rescue examples are a bit over simplified. Now, I must admit that I am not familiar with the rules and regulations in the state of California governing such occupations, but I would think that most states/localities are somewhat similar in regards to requirements. When an officer candidate graduates from the academy, the department does not turn him loose on the streets to become a cop the next day. Instead, the officer receives literally hundreds of hours of on the job training before actually becoming a full- fledged officer. Now, I am by no means downplaying the importance of the classroom and hands-on academy experiences. Both are indeed very valuable. However, it seems you have overlooked the extensive real life experience training newly minted officers receive before they are turned loose to practice their professions. The same holds true for fire and rescue personnel. They too, receive extensive training before they are trusted with the lives of others. This training is beyond the classroom experience and never stops as LE officers and fire/rescue personnel continue to undergo a great deal of training throughout their professional careers.
If I were you, I wouldn't be so fast to pat myself on the back for practicing polygraphy. No offense, but the two examiners I had the displeasure to deal with were miles away from being intellectuals. You are in denial if you truly believe that you are in respectable company with other polygraph examiners.
QuoteTo graduate from a typical barber college, one needs to undergo, as Marty points out, something on the order of 1,500 hours of training. To graduate from the longest polygraph school, only 520 hours are required.
...and graduating from barber school you actually have a SKILL. A poly examiner is nothing more than a professional LIAR and BS artist.
Quote from: hwsternfan on Aug 21, 2005, 05:21 PM
...and graduating from barber school you actually have a SKILL. A poly examiner is nothing more than a professional LIAR and BS artist.
Doing a bit of personalizing and stereotyping here, aren't we? Hmmm,
I guess that according to you, since I am Hispanic, that makes me a "Wetback" and an illegal alien too?
Nonombre
Quote from: polyfool on Aug 21, 2005, 05:16 PM
Nonombre:
With all due respect, I believe your police officer and fire/rescue examples are a bit over simplified. Now, I must admit that I am not familiar with the rules and regulations in the state of California governing such occupations, but I would think that most states/localities are somewhat similar in regards to requirements. When an officer candidate graduates from the academy, the department does not turn him loose on the streets to become a cop the next day. Instead, the officer receives literally hundreds of hours of on the job training before actually becoming a full- fledged officer. Now, I am by no means downplaying the importance of the classroom and hands-on academy experiences. Both are indeed very valuable. However, it seems you have overlooked the extensive real life experience training newly minted officers receive before they are turned loose to practice their professions. The same holds true for fire and rescue personnel. They too, receive extensive training before they are trusted with the lives of others. This training is beyond the classroom experience and never stops as LE officers and fire/rescue personnel continue to undergo a great deal of training throughout their professional careers.
Polyfool,
Are you dismissing the 6-12 month internship federal examiners undergo before they are "turned loose" as you have put it? Are you dismissing the career long REQUIRED annual continuing education training? Are you dismissing the quality control oversite of every SINGLE polygraph examination a federal examiner conducts?
Nonombre
Nonombre,
Although amusing, the number of hours of training for polygraph examiners vs. barbers is not the really serious problem with polygraph education. It, I believe, is that there is virtually no prerequisite science education required to matriculate into the educational process for a profession whose underpinnings are supposedly science based. As a result the educational process takes the direction that the lowest common denominator would dictate. I have witnessed this happening leaving that process that you describe as being the basis in part for the awarding of a master's level degree in reality being little more than eighth grade health science level teaching. Nothing will change as long as the entrance requirements are as they are (i.e., one can enter polygraph school with an undergraduate degree in criminal justice or sociology or none at all for that matter), and, as George has pointed out, if a serious science background was a requirement for entering polygraph school, the house of cards would quickly collapse when serious scientists saw the vacuum of scientific support for what was being taught. Regards...
Dr Richardson,
I understand your arguement regarding the lack of a requirement for science based courses prior to enrolling at the Polygraph Institute. I don't agree, but I see your point.
My point was that The splash page of this web site makes a very insulting comment regarding the number of hours required for polygraph school verses barber school. I was simply responding that there are a number of professions, some of which literally involves people's lives, that require less time in the classroom than barber school. (Some less time than polygraph school) Are all these professionals thereby inferior to barbers? If the web page makes that arguement against polygraph examiners it should also provide a similiar list to the one I have provided and then stand by to take the heat.
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre,
Quote
Nonombre,
Although amusing, the number of hours of training for polygraph examiners vs. barbers is not the really serious problem with polygraph education. It, I believe, is that there is virtually no prerequisite science education required to matriculate into the educational process for a profession whose underpinnings are supposedly science based. As a result the educational process takes the direction that the lowest common denominator would dictate. I have witnessed this happening leaving that process that you describe as being the basis in part for the awarding of a master's level degree in reality being little more than eighth grade health science level teaching. Nothing will change as long as the entrance requirements are as they are (i.e., one can enter polygraph school with an undergraduate degree in criminal justice or sociology or none at all for that matter), and, as George has pointed out, if a serious science background was a requirement for entering polygraph school, the house of cards would quickly collapse when serious scientists saw the vacuum of scientific support for what was being taught. Regards...
What about my comments do you understand but disagree with and why do you disagree? What was your educational background prior to polygraph school?
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 21, 2005, 06:25 PMMy point was that The splash page of this web site makes a very insulting comment regarding the number of hours required for polygraph school verses barber school. I was simply responding that there are a number of professions, some of which literally involves people's lives, that require less time in the classroom than barber school. (Some less time than polygraph school) Are all these professionals thereby inferior to barbers? If the web page makes that arguement against polygraph examiners it should also provide a similiar list to the one I have provided and then stand by to take the heat.
This web page is neither about barbers, police officers nor firefithers. It is about the lack of any scientific basis or proof for the fraud known as polygraphy. The comparison of Polygraph school to barber college is an apt and valid comparison. It illustrates that Polygraphics is simply a job that any monkey can be trained to do; not a hard science.
I'm sorry you find the comparison of polygraph school to barber college an insult. Considering even a very bad haircut lasts at most 2-3 months until it grows back, the life long damage caused by abuses in your profession should dictate better training for those who practice it -- or better yet -- abolition entirely.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Aug 21, 2005, 07:05 PMNonombre,
What about my comments do you understand but disagree with and why do you disagree? What was your educational background prior to polygraph school?
Dr. Richardson,
I had a B.A. degree in Psychology, and a M.S. degree in Criminal Justice (with a Forensic Science emphasis) prior to attending polygraph school.
The reason I do not agree with your statement regarding material prior academic work is that it is my understanding that most of the positions in the federal government (I am not a federal agent) that require B.A. degrees, do not require it to be in any particular area.
Primarily I believe that enough material can be taught in an intense graduate level resident program, to make up for the lack of same material in a candidate's undergraduate work. If you believe I am wrong here, I am open to discussion.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: Jeffery on Aug 21, 2005, 07:07 PM
This web page is neither about barbers, police officers nor firefithers. It is about the lack of any scientific basis or proof...It illustrates that Polygraphics is simply a job that any monkey can be trained to do; not a hard science.
And specifically what scientific/academic training have you had that enables you to make such an informed statement?
P.S. Please slow down or use a dictionary. I have never heard of a "firefither."
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre,
Yes, I do believe you are wrong. Presumably most of the positions you refer to in the federal government are generalist positions and are not presumed to be science-based activities. I have no problem with these positions (to include general law enforcement entry positions) being filled with those with minimal or no scientific education, but I have serious problems with a profession which touts itself as resting on serious scientific principles being staffed with those lacking scientific credentials. The average polygraph school does not begin to have the time for remedial education and therefore results in an education that neither meets the needs of the educationally deficient nor advances the education of the very small minority of those who matriculate with reasonable entry level education. Regards...
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 21, 2005, 07:16 PM
And specifically what scientific/academic training have you had that enables you to make such an informed statement?
MS in EE.
Quote
P.S. Please slow down or use a dictionary. I have never heard of a "firefither."
Calling attention to an obvious typo is a poor way to deflect the argument at hand.
Nonombre
I have been away for a few months and had to do some "reading up" when I returned.
Permit me to make some personal observations.
You started out on this site as an intelligent debator. Then, as is the custom of most polygraphers, you digressed to bashing when you started loosing some debates. Most polygraphers start out bashing. Dark Cobra is a case in point. However, he took the time to investigate George's situation and found the truth. Now he has a different attitude.
Second. You wanted to hold Dr. Richardson's feet to the fire about divulging certain countermeasures but, when asked to take his challenge, you stuck your feet in an ice bag.
Third. You failed to comment on the FBI's failure to supply George with his charts. What is the scuttlebut in polygraph circles about this? They say they lost it. BS. It's a cover up of which they are masters. It appears to me that he passed it, hence, their refusal. If he failed it, what's their problem.
Fourth. All of you say George and this site is having no effect on the polygraph community. A kicked dog yelps. All of you have and are still trying to discredit George and this website. If you are not concerned, why spend so much time bashing.
Question. How much of you time spent on this site is at taxpayers expense?
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 21, 2005, 08:14 PMNonombre
I have been away for a few months and had to do some "reading up" when I returned.
Permit me to make some personal observations.
1. You started out on this site as an intelligent debator. Then, as is the custom of most polygraphers, you digressed to bashing when you started loosing some debates. Most polygraphers start out bashing. Dark Cobra is a case in point. However, he took the time to investigate George's situation and found the truth. Now he has a different attitude.
2. Second. You wanted to hold Dr. Richardson's feet to the fire about divulging certain countermeasures but, when asked to take his challenge, you stuck your feet in an ice bag.
3. Third. You failed to comment on the FBI's failure to supply George with his charts. What is the scuttlebut in polygraph circles about this? They say they lost it. BS. It's a cover up of which they are masters. It appears to me that he passed it, hence, their refusal. If he failed it, what's their problem.
4. Fourth. All of you say George and this site is having no effect on the polygraph community. A kicked dog yelps. All of you have and are still trying to discredit George and this website. If you are not concerned, why spend so much time bashing.
Question. How much of you time spent on this site is at taxpayers expense?
Twoblock,
Wow, that stung a little. Okay, let me try and address your observations.
#1. Thank you for your comment about me being an "intelligent debator. " I believe that I try to be such and try to stay at that level. I do admit that I have let a poster or two get "under my skin" from time to time. In the future, I will try and stay at an appropriate place. I'm sure you and others will let me know if I fail in that regard. As far as "losing debates." I am afraid that is in the eyes of the beholder. I do feel I have won more than I have lost.
#2. Regarding Dr. Richardson's challenge. I admit that I have not seriously considered it. In that regard, let me ask you a question. How do you suppose we introduce the "fear of consequences" so not present in a mock situation? After all, If I or any other examiner would bet the farm so to speak on the outcome, than Dr. Richardson has to be scared to death he is going to lose something valuable by failing the test. Let's make it real. Any suggestions?
#3. I truly have no idea what the truth is about that. I know that we keep all charts for seven years in my agency, we then dispose of them in accordance with agency procedures. I can not speak for the FBI.
$#4. I ain't "bashing." At least I don't think I am. Mostly I tune in to see what's going on. However, if I see something that really bothers me or that I feel is untrue or unjust, I speak up. However, I once again admit that sometimes my tone can get caustic and I will double my efforts to be more dispassionate in the future.
Regards,
Nonombre
P.S. I NEVER post from work. Look at the times of my postings. They speak for themselves. How 'bout you?
Nonombre
Re: your PS. My shortcomings. I didn't take the time to notice post times.
Outside of 4 years in the military, "48-'52 I have never been on a taxpayer payroll. My ambitition ran much higher. In fact, I have been on my own payroll since 1972. Yes, I am slightly aged but, I still work rings around young asses. I spend 100 days in Alaska working my mine. In the winter I work at my research lab and refinery turning dust into bars.
My wife is calling me to supper. I will try to cover the other points as time allows.
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 21, 2005, 08:48 PM#2. Regarding Dr. Richardson's challenge. I admit that I have not seriously considered it. In that regard, let me ask you a question. How do you suppose we introduce the "fear of consequences" so not present in a mock situation? After all, If I or any other examiner would bet the farm so to speak on the outcome, than Dr. Richardson has to be scared to death he is going to lose something valuable by failing the test. Let's make it real. Any suggestions?
How about the fear of losing (and losing all bragging rights as one of the foremost anti-polygraphers out there?)?
Of course, then there is the question of what you test him on... I know! Let's set up a mock crime test -- the same tests DoD points to to verify the polygraph's reliability! Surely if it is good enough for the Grand Master's of the Polygraph Clan, it would be good enough for our test here!
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 21, 2005, 06:06 PM
Polyfool,
Are you dismissing the 6-12 month internship federal examiners undergo before they are "turned loose" as you have put it? Are you dismissing the career long REQUIRED annual continuing education training? Are you dismissing the quality control oversite of every SINGLE polygraph examination a federal examiner conducts?
Nonombre
Nonombre:
You could have years and years of education, training and all the quality control you so desire. It still doesn't change the fact that what you do for a living lacks scientific validity.
I thought we had all gotten past the insults. Pointing out Jeffery's typo in what was obviously meant to be "firefighter" was really immature on your part. I wasn't nasty to you last month when you mistakenly wrote, "cooberative" instead of "corroborative." You were way off compared to Jeffery's simple typo--and weren't you a trained investigator who at one time conducted criminal and background investigations? Yet, you couldn't get the word "corroborative" correct. Seems like you could use the help of a dictionary yourself. I suppose George could install a spell check on the site and solve the insults over misspellings. But then again, when a poster misspells a particular word, it does provide some insight into his credibility. For example, when a trained investigator misspells the word "corroborative."
I agree with TwoBlock--your intelligent debating skills have suffered a considerable setback.
I will give you this--atleast you care enough about what you do for a living to spend some time on this site. I won't presume to know why--whether it's an internal struggle over your profession or your desire to learn more about examinees using countermeasures? You are obviously passionately committed to your profession, however bogus it may be, and that is a quality to be respected.
Quote from: polyfool on Aug 22, 2005, 12:11 AM
Nonombre:
You could have years and years of education, training and all the quality control you so desire. It still doesn't change the fact that what you do for a living lacks scientific validity.
I thought we had all gotten past the insults. Pointing out Jeffery's typo in what was obviously meant to be "firefighter" was really immature on your part. I wasn't nasty to you last month when you mistakenly wrote, "cooberative" instead of "corroborative." You were way off compared to Jeffery's simple typo--and weren't you a trained investigator who at one time conducted criminal and background investigations? Yet, you couldn't get the word "corroborative" correct.
Okay, okay. I was out of line regarding the typo. I am truly sorry.
Now regarding your first paragraph. I would argue that it is unfair to bring to my attention all the follow on training and mentoring police officers, fire fighters, etc have endure to be credible in their chosen professions. Then, when I respond by pointing out the all the follow on training and mentoring polygraph examiners go through, you immediately fall back on some old tired anti-poly diatribe. Motivates me to not want to continue the discussion.
You know fairness in debate goes both ways. I would suggest that part of the reason other examiners have walked away from posting on this site is a feeling that no matter what, the people who reside around here refuse to accept any part of an opposite point of view. It's like they stick their fingers in the ears and sing "la, la, la."
Food for thought.
And one more point if I may. If you were to analyze all my posts, you would discover that virtually each time I was ever less than objective, respectful, or dispassionate, it was in direct response to someone who (with no provocation) was less than objective, respectful, or dispassionate in a posting directed at me. Not every single time, I admit, but the vast majority of times.
Now, as I have indicated in a previous post, from this point forward, I shall double my efforts to remain above all that. All I ask is that others have the same respect towards me and the others who post here with differing points of view.
Regards
Nonombre :-/
Quote
A key difference, however, is that while graduates of barber colleges can cut hair, graduates of polygraph schools cannot detect lies
damn that was funny
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 22, 2005, 01:29 AM
Okay, okay. I was out of line regarding the typo. I am truly sorry.
No worries mate; I no I no how to spil. [sic]
Quote
Now regarding your first paragraph. I would argue that it is unfair to bring to my attention all the follow on training and mentoring police officers, fire fighters, etc have endure to be credible in their chosen professions. Then, when I respond by pointing out the all the follow on training and mentoring polygraph examiners go through, you immediately fall back on some old tired anti-poly diatribe. Motivates me to not want to continue the discussion.
True, the training program (apprenticeship period for federal prolygraphers), the so-called QA review process and continuing education requirements are items present in many professions. It still does not change the fact that the science behind polygraphics is non-existent, and to claim that field as a science is disingenious.
This thread is about polygraphics NOT being a true science, and illustrates the fact that the prerequisites for becoming a polygrapher are A: not that hard to meet and B: not what one would expect of a true scientific career path and C: less time required than somebody entering barber college.
No, regarding the other issue you raise: I can only speak from my own experience and that compels me to believe that polygraph is nothing more than chance -- but the level of damage it can cause is significant.
I do enjoy your posts, and though I don't think we'll ever agree on the issue of polygraphics, I can concede that we'd probably be good friends if we laid this issue aside.
Nonombre,
I have just viewed the various posts from the weekend. The race card? That was truly unwarranted. Who cares if you are a euro-mexican-russo-germanic-asian-feline-american? I am an iguana with ever-changing skin color...who cares? The broad sweeping brush had nothing to do with your particular heritage, but that of painting a broad portrait of polygraphy.
Yes, you are correct that many professions, or jobs at least, require less classroom training than that of the polygrapher. But if you use that as an example, you would have to concede that a phrenologist with more classroom time holds more worth than a paramedic. Even an imbocile would not argue for this. Yes, I agree that the statement on the homepage is inflamatory. It is supposed to be in order to call to attention the downfall of polygraphy. Also my internship (apprenticeship at the time I completed it) was 1 year following formal training. Then another year as a licensed embalmer was needed in order to obtain my funeral director license. It took me 2 years before I was loosed to do my work and this was following my college education. How long before you were loosed?
QuoteAre you dismissing the 6-12 month internship federal examiners undergo before they are "turned loose" as you have put it?
An internship on how to use scare tactics to convince the examinee that my quack machine is actually working. Are you sure it isn't and acting course?
QuoteAre you dismissing the career long REQUIRED annual continuing education training?
Hmmm...How to BS someone Chapter 2.
QuoteAre you dismissing the quality control oversite of every SINGLE polygraph examination a federal examiner conducts
?
Ok lets watch this guy...make sure he knows how to be 110% full of shytte!
Quote from: hwsternfan on Aug 22, 2005, 04:55 AM
An internship on how to use scare tactics to convince the examinee that my quack machine is actually working. Are you sure it isn't and acting course?
Hmmm...How to BS someone Chapter 2.
?
Ok lets watch this guy...make sure he knows how to be 110% full of shytte!
See guys? This is exactly what I mean. Now I know this idiot doesn't represent the average poster to this site, who I believe are mostly good people who have actually or by at least by perception been wronged by the polygraph process (or is worried he/she might be wronged).
But "jeez," can somebody please reel this Neanderthal in so those of us with intellects can continue an honest, intelligent debate?
Nonombre
Okay everybody, let's cut Nonombre some slack. Sounds like he needs a break.
Nonombre: Posters on this site sometimes get a little upset, but you should understand that polygraph screening is a very emotionally charged issue, especially for those whose lives have been forever changed by its practice. It's difficult for you to understand because you are sitting on the other side of the fence and can't possibly imagine what it's like to have your integrity wrongly questioned by a sleazy, lying, crooked polygraph examiner. I can tell you firsthand, it can be downright ugly. No one has the right to do that to people. A job application process shouldn't be unethical and so unprofessional. Private industry would never be able to get away with such behavior. I honestly would never have imagined this kind of thing was going on unless I'd been through it myself.
Your point about the number of required classroom hours for polygraph examiners, cops, firefighers, EMT's is noted. However, you admitted yourself that George's statement about it taking longer to become a barber in CA is in fact, true and therefore, you must admit that he's not being a little dishonest here.
Anyway, moving on... I know you've said that polygraphs should not be the sole determining factor in employment, but is it used that way by your employer? Instead of using polygraphs for screening, why not use background investigations to bluff job candidates into admitting to things that they withold during the application process? It seems like it that would be just as useful since polygraphs are used for the same purpose.
Dear nonombre,
That is what makes this site so unique. Only in very rare circumstances is anything edited. The good, the bad, and the ugly are exposed for what they are.
Let the people read and decide for themselves.
As always, "genius is limited but stupidity is not thus handicapped." It just depends upon your definition of genius and stupidity.
Your threads as well as others are always welcomed.
Regards.
Polyfool, Fair Chance
I appreciate your kind words. Unfortunately, my wife kept me up late tonight watching a Toby Keith special on CMT, so I will have to defer posting until tomorrow night.
As I have previously stated, I NEVER waste the taxpayer's money by posting from work...
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 23, 2005, 01:19 AMAs I have previously stated, I NEVER waste the taxpayer's money by posting from work...
Woah! Since your entire profession is a waste of taxpayer's money, I'd have no problem with you posting from work.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :P
QuoteWoah! Since your entire profession is a waste of taxpayer's money, I'd have no problem with you posting from work.
How does he sleep at nite?
nonombre,
In your post starting this message thread, you wrote, among other things:
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 19, 2005, 12:22 AMMr. Mashcke, clearly you are being dishonest in the statement you make on your home page....
I think it has been adequately demonstrated that the statement on the home page is factual. I will allow that the relative lengths of polygraph schools and barber colleges is not the strongest argument against polygraphy. We make the point in order to dispel any misperception amongst the general public that it takes a great deal of training to become a polygraph operator.
QuoteDon't you think that based on your dishonest , untrue, and self serving statement, you owe the graduates of DoDPI an apology and a retraction?
As I haven't been dishonest, perhaps you might reconsider who owes whom an apology?
As for DoDPI (and other polygraph school) graduates, I would suggest that it is
they who owe an apology to all the truthful persons whose reputations they have besmirched with false accusations of deception.
Nonombre,
Well, at least this little tangent about barber college gave you a good reason not to respond to this thread: https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2498.msg17605#msg17605.
You are the best when it comes to answering questions with questions and subtly diverting the flow of a discussion. My hat is off to you! :)
I very much appreciate nonombre's participation on these message boards. I wish more polygraphers and pro-polygraph folks would also participate. I'm learning a great deal from his/her comments especially regarding the mindset of those involved in this type of work.
It seems the quest for the truth trumps all other considerations.
Polyrized,
You write:
Quote
I very much appreciate nonombre's participation on these message boards. I wish more polygraphers and pro-polygraph folks would also participate. I'm learning a great deal from his/her comments especially regarding the mindset of those involved in this type of work.
It seems the quest for the truth trumps all other considerations.
You raise an important point, but you don't follow through with the obvious following consideration: The quest for truth in and of itself is not a bad thing--in fact it is a good thing. What you don't mention is that all is for naught and the costs you allude to are incurred with no compensating benefit if that quest is one which can be categorized apriori as foolish and destined for routine failure, e.g., a search for the truth utilizing a polygraph examination in one of the various formats and applications for which it is completely lacking in validity as a diagnostic instrument.
Quote from: hwsternfan on Aug 23, 2005, 01:52 AM
Quote:
How does he sleep at nite?
Doc deny everything. Never admit...stay strong and read the Lie behind the lie detector!
Actually its attributable to the fact that the lie detector doesn't detect shyte!
Just never ADMIT to anything DURING the exam that you did not admit to in the pre screening or on your application. If you don't ADMIT they can still fail you but on what basis? Then they are opening themselves up to lawsuits. The problem is MOST people ADMIT to things during the exam when they are accused of lying or being deceptive.
Just hope you didn't admit to anything to the exam or admit to anything you didn't state on your application/pre poly questionaire. If you did you are done...if not...its all based on the poly...not you.
They just use the polygraph to eliminate who they don't want. It doesn't detect shyte!
The key to beating a polygraph "test" is 1) to make no damaging admissions DENY DENY DENY! and 2) to subtly augment one's physiological responses to the "control" questions.
tell them nothing. Deny everything. But be sure your applications match up to prior police applications.
don't admit ANYTHING duringthe exam. If they accuse you of lying DENY IT. Even if they keep accusing you of lying DENY IT! Stick to your guns!
Just deny everything...don't admit anything during the exam...you will be fine...DENY DENY DENY
Just never ADMIT to the examiner. If they fail you they fail you...just don't admit during the exam. All the exam is anyway is an EXCUSE for them to unload anyone they really don't like and have no reason to disqualify them...so they use the polyscam.
When in doubt...DENY DENY DENY.
NEVER ADMIT!
Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies
Do not admit to anything you did not state in that pre interview during the actual poly exam.
If they acuse you of lying during the exam...deny it....do not let them force you into ADMITTING anything!
Where do I learn about mental countermeasures?
Never admit to anything and never sign anything the poly guy gives to you during the exam. Thats a sure cause for failure.
hwsternfan,
You ask how (as a polygraph examiner) I "sleep at night." Well, after doing a little research into what you seem to be about (After reading your posts, I believe you have some real "issues.") Please allow me to fill you and the others here in on a little of what I am about.
I have many years experience as a law enforcement officer. Like most, I started in patrol, spent some time in the evidence locker (Couldn't maintain my tan in a 12' X 12' room), did backgrounds for awhile, and finally ended up in Criminal Investigations. It was in Investigations that I started watching the agency's polygraph examiners at work.
These guys amazed me. Maybe it was mostly interrogation ability, but they seemed able to accomplish during a four-hour polygraph examination, what the investigative unit could not accomplish in a hard worked investigation over several months.
Solve the case, recover the evidence, and assemble a prosecutable case where all had been lost prior to their involvement. And I watch them do it over and over.
I admit. I was impressed.
Keep in mind, we are not some small "Podunk" department. As detectives, we went to all the schools, we were good, and we knew what we were doing.
But "damn" these polygraph guys were VERY good. AND I wanted to be just like them.
So, I completed by degree and I went to polygraph school. The school was run by professionals who cared what they were doing and cared about producing the best product.
Upon graduation, I was assigned to a pretty good-sized polygraph unit (for a non-federal agency) and went to work. I had two responsibilities. Criminal Specific Issue testing and Pre-employment screening of police candidates.
I have to admit, I have enjoyed criminal testing the best, for now I am one of the guys who ride in on the white horse and solve that "unsolvable" case. A real "high", I must admit.
I also do pre-employment screening. I will say that by the nature of the beast, screening is not as rewarding as criminal testing. One reason being, as I have posted now several times, I have a real concern about false positives. I do not want to deny a qualified candidate a shot at being a police officer.
So, in my small way, I try to do what I can for the people I test. If I get a DI or Inc call, I talk with the person. I try to work out whatever might be troubling them, and in a good number of the cases, what is causing them a problem is not significant enough to keep them from the job. They are ultimately successful in passing the exam and I have since seen several of them in uniform.
In other cases, their "problem" is indeed disqualifying and they don't get the job. I don't revel in this, but I record the information and the job goes to a better-qualified candidate.
The bottom line is (at least in my case) I have very, very few police candidates that simply "fail" the polygraph examination with no additional reasons for their problems. I take the extra time. I do everything I can to help. I have worked late many nights, working with a candidate who has walked into the exam room with "issues."
Bottom line is I sleep pretty well at night. I have put a lot of real bad guys into prison, I have kept some definate losers from carrying a badge, and I have helped a whole lot of people realize their law enforcement dreams.
Yes, I Sleep quite well indeed, thank you.
Now, not to go on the attack, but since you have come at me several times since I have started posting on this site, I would like to make one small statement about your posts I have denoted above....
Damn! exactly what are you afraid of? I mean, the bulk of your posts consist of "don't confess, don't confess, don't confess!
Don't confess to what? Now don't get me wrong here, but after many years as a criminal investigator, when I run into an attitude like yours, it is generally not for any reason at all. I believe there is a story there and I am pretty sure it is not "I failed for no reason."
hwsternfan, I feel in your case there is "more to the story." Wanna share?
Nonombre
Nice post nonombre.
For the record -- most cops I've hung around are the ones that stick to the "Deny Deny Deny" mantra more than any other. And this is in conversation not relating to polygraphics; rather to their involvement with internal affairs (and these are good cops truly with "nothing to hide").
I think if somebody were every the subject of an investigation, little can be gains by cooperating. One is better off with "dney deny deny" or simply keeping their mouths shut.
"I have to admit, I have enjoyed criminal testing the best, for now I am one of the guys who ride in on the white horse and solve that "unsolvable" case. A real "high", I must admit"
NoNombre,,,,you should get off of your hgh horse and realize that the polygraph is in fact, HORSESHIT.
Quote from: gelb disliker on Oct 19, 2005, 02:04 PM
NoNombre,,,,you should get off of your hgh horse and realize that the polygraph is in fact, HORSESHIT.
Gelb Disliker,
Please allow me to disagree. Like most of the other "pro" polygraph posters on this site, I have seen polygraph solve many, many cases when EVERY other investigative technique has failed. So, I will continue to use polygraph in my department's investigations when appropriate. Contraversial? Yes. Accurate? Not always. Effective? Definately.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 19, 2005, 11:38 PM
I have seen polygraph solve many, many cases when EVERY other investigative technique has failed. So, I will continue to use polygraph in my department's investigations when appropriate. Contraversial? Yes. Accurate? Not always. Effective? Definately.
Nonombre and to DarkCorba as well, I applaud the fact that your LEO's. As a matter of fact every criminal you guys bag is worth the salaries you make. I have no problem with you using a polygraph on a dumb criminal (redundant I know), Myself and others on this board abhore the use of the Polygraph for employment screening. I am only speaking for myself, but I am sure others will chime in. But you both seem to miss the point of the antipolygraph movement, Until you have a tool that is 100% effective, reliable, and truthful, then the collateral damage to an innocent person being branded a liar or cheat, or criminal is wrong. Remember this web site only exists because your brethern examiners screwed over the wrong person. I know your not feds, but they are the majority of the complaints, how they administer the test and use them as a way to circumvent fair hiring and EEO laws.
Doesn't it bother you that you could cause grevious harm to someone with a polygraph test that shows deception and the person is 100% telling the truth.
Consciences I doubt you have.
If your feelings are hurt DarkCobra, for that I do apologize. BUt I make no apologies for believing that you support and endorse a device that is completely invalid and worthless. You have my respect as a LEO, and its a job I wouldn't do, and it takes a special individual to be a cop, I state again that everytime you nail a criminal, your doing all of us a great service. Have you ever DI'd a person and later found out it was wrong. And what did you do to make amends. If you sat back and just said oh-well, collateral damage, then the whole premise you support and the machine that did the damage is wrong. If you corrected the situation then your a person of worth and honor. Qualities I can respect. You do say that you work at being more professional by reading and participating on this board.
It just is amazing that you write and speak well and are most likely well educated. And still support a Kluge technology.
Darkcobra,
You write in part:
Quote
I have made mistakes with polygraph, I am human. The remedy is to admit to the mistake and make amends....
While your sense of humility regarding your mistakes is quite commendable, I suspect the nature of those mistakes is different than you suggest or even believe. I would strongly suggest that your mistakes are largely not a reflection of your isolated actions on the day of a wrong answer, but that you use invalid techniques on a daily basis.
Darkcobra,
You are correct in your assessment that we can agree to disagree and presumably set aside those things that we disagree about. But there are consequences to such an arrangement. We are left largely with only discussing our mutual interest in concealed information testing. And as you correctly state, I give very little credence to much of the polygraph research literature. Because it has largely been performed or paid for by the industry that depends on it for its life blood (of concern to the National Academy of Sciences review panel as well), it suffers from irreparable bias and because it (simulated crimes) has no external validity it, by definition, has no bearing on real life (and from my point of view) adds little to no support to anything which is currently be operationally done in the field with regard to lie detection. And because of all the aforementioned, it is my strong belief that your apparently quite genuine concern for those who have suffered from polygraphy's errors will in no way translate to an improved environment for future examinees as long as you and others continue to use flawed techniques. I don't believe the remorse you have expressed for your colleague's errors merely amounts to crocodile tears, but unfortunately if you continue to utilize and support other's use of the various generally applied lie-detection formats your concern will quite sadly never be enough.... Ok, so how are you applying the GKT to your specific incident testing? Care to share any investigative situations and test constructions with us? Regards....
Darkcobra,
I am afraid your comparison between medicine and polygraphy is more specious than I can bear. Although the former does contain aspects of art as well as science, it universally recognized as a serious body of knowledge and practice. This is most certainly not the case for polygraphy. In fact, surveys have indicated that a majority of the members of what would be the parent science of polygraphy (if polygraphy had any connection to science), psychophysiology, believe (CQT) lie detection to be invalid, easily manipulated, and lacking a theoretical basis for practice. Interestingly enough, both the medical (A.M.A.) and the psychological (A.P.A.) communities that you mention have called for and end to polygraph screening in years past. I suppose it is best said by Al Zelicoff (M.D.) when he says (quoted on the home page): "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
Darkcobra,
A quick correction. Dr. Lykken (according to himself) has never been a polygraph examiner. He has conducted studies involving polygraphy, however he has never been employed as a polygraphist. Through his research he developed (as we all know) the "Guilty Knowledge Test" as a means of detecting knowledge of a certain event rather than deception. Interestingly, polygraphy has only made up approximately 25% of his academic research.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 23, 2005, 04:39 PM
The only argument now is the Control Question Technique, which is controversial because we don't know ground truth as we do in the GKT examination, therefore we do have false positives, false negatives and inconclusive results.
Research, under ASTM guidlines, has demonstrated 90 to 95% accuracy which few examiners dispute, however academics dispute. Most have not been involved with polygraph as a trained and seasoned examiner. I have the utmost sympathy for those that are called untruthful when in fact they have been truthful, it does occur. In comparrison, we have persons convicted of crimes based on "eye witnesss" testimony that are innocent. Should we eleminate all eye witness testimony in court cases? We know it is not 100% accurate information.
DarkCobra,
Eyewitness testimony is only so good anyways and a good defense lawyer stands a chance of nullifying it to a jury. But as we all know the Polygraph test is not admissable in a court of law unless all three parts of the proceeding agree, Judge, prosecutor, and defense. And at best with all three in agreement its a rare occurance.
And I would never suggest to my client that he ever take a polygraph, unless 1- its with an examiner of my choosing, 2 - in a neutral or positive location to my client.
3 - without any distractions of a law enforcement official being present. ANd it would only be used if the Outcome is NDI. Otherwise it won't be used. And by your own admission the CQT has faults ... unless its 100% accurate its worthless. And I have had this discussion with other lawyers and those of us soon to be. We all believe that the polygraph flaws are actually a help to getting rid of foul device. Keep putting the guilty in jail and be a real interrogator, most really good interrogators I know, from my military experience don't need a polygraph to get the results desired. Thoughts worth pondering ....
Dear EosJupiter,
I have advocated your points many times. A good professional interrogator would have elicitated the same responses from me without the pretense of a machine which is an "art form" instead of science.
I have three degrees in technology and science.
Do not insult me and my talents with the assumption that the polygraph as it is used is scientific.
The FBI will never get the best minds capable of solving their huge technoligical problems by pretending to potential applicants that they believe in this "science".
Regards.
In my opinion, what renders the polygraph utterly worthless is not that it and its operator fail to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects. What renders the polygraph worthless is that in addition to failing to detect 100% of the deceptive subjects, it also erroneously "fails" or labels as deceptive a certain percentage of truthful subjects.
If the sole accuracy issue with the polygraph were that it was unable to detect all of the deceptive subjects but it never falsely "failed" any truthful subjects, I doubt I would have a problem with it.
If that were the case there would be some degree of certainty in those tests where deception was detected. If there were no chance of a false positive then the polygraph would at least be of some use.
In those cases were deception was indicated there would be certainty that the subject was, in fact, deceptive. In those cases where no deception was indicated there would still be the uncertainty of whether the subject was being truthful or whether his deception simply went undetected. Even so, there would be some degree of utility if the polygraph and polygraph examiners were capable of this degree of accuracy.
However, the actual accuracy of the polygraph, which includes an unknown false-positive rate, renders it worthless.
Given the actual accuracy of the polygraph, a test result indicating deception means that either the subject was deceptive, or that the subject was truthful but is part of the unknown percentage of subjects who register as a false-positive. A test result indicating no deception means that the subject was truthful, or that the subject was deceptive but successfully employed countermeasures, or that the subject was deceptive but is part of the unknown percentage of subjects whose deception will not be detected.
The percentages of false-positives and the percentages of deceptive subjects who escape detection are hotly debated, but I cannot recall any polygraph supporters who claimed that the correct figure for either percentage is zero.
That being the case, what more do you know after a polygraph exam than you did prior to it? If the subject "passed" it means he could have been truthful or he could have been deceptive. If he "fails" it likewise means he could have been truthful or he could have been deceptive.
It is not the inability of the polygraph to detect 100% of deceptive subjects that causes the problems. It is the unknown percentage of false-positives that renders all non-specific issue polygraph test results suspect.
Quote from: Fair Chance on Oct 23, 2005, 08:12 PM
Do not insult me and my talents with the assumption that the polygraph as it is used is scientific.
Regards.
I insulted you FairChance ??? I am a strong antipolygraph person on this board ... If I did then please accept my apologies. And as a soon to be lawyer I plan on making it a point to dissect any and all
bogus type attempts of polygraph, CVSA use. Everyone gets a good defense no matter what .
Now as for you DarkCobra, you would not even be chosen as a possible candidate to give a potential client a polygraph, As you are a LEO ...... Part 3 of my last post explains why, No interference by Law enforcement.
Bottom line on interrogation ... the polygraph is the last desperate attempt to pressure someone into an admission. Its a pressure tool no more, no less. And it will work on the weak minded, naive, and inexperienced.
As a matter of fact any interrogator counts on at least one of these short comings to break the subject THats why this web site is so vitally important to make sure that none are ever unprepared for the discord of a polygraph (electric rubber hose).
To the most extent possible my clients will be so prepared to handle any type of interrogation, its amazing that my military interrogation training works both ways. It can be put to such good use as to circumvent any attempts by the likes of a polygrapher to break them. Every day the number of people grows who know how to beat that kluge machine. I plan on making sure it increases expotentially.
Dear EosJupiter,
My apoligies for the way my last statement was presented.
I am insulted by any agency or polygraph examiner to use such instrument in a "scientific" manner, not by your presentations or opininions (which I was trying to agree with).
That line was presented for the agency advocates of the polygraph prescreening process.
You have been polite and professional with your post.
Regards.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 24, 2005, 01:37 AM You may well prepare your clients to face a skilled interrigator, and by doing so get guilty clients off the hook. If that is your lifes ambition, go for it and do well.
My personal belief is that we are responsible for our actions and the consequences that follow. I'm a bit old fashioned in that respect.
So the premise of the polygraper shows through finally.
Guilty until polygraphed innocent !!. As a future officer of the court, it is my sworn duty to defend the rights of those I am either charged with helping or who pay me to help. The premise that I am not responsible for my actions, well that is rather funny because as a military officer I have had as many lifes in my care, and never lost a single one. With the exception of losing good people to a ridiculous machine called a polygraph, who for no other reason than, they are nervious or inexperienced, and thus were unduly accused and chastized by certain elements of various security services, and clearances lost. Hence the reason I am so vocal on the removal of the polygraph from pre-employment and post hiring (5 year updates) within any level of government. As a law enforcement tool, well that I leave to others to decide on how they want to handle that situation. But I will never let a polygrapher or a test ever go unchallenged. Everyone deserves fairness in all things. ANd if a person is guilty, then the evidence will convict him. And it shows that a good cop did the right work, and it won't matter what I have done as a defense attoney. For I know I can be impartial, guilty or not. And good cops don't need a polygraph to get the evidence they need.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 24, 2005, 01:37 AMMy personal belief is that we are responsible for our actions and the consequences that follow. I'm a bit old fashioned in that respect.
So do you require examinees to sign a waiver of liability before you will agree to polygraph them, as is standard operating procedure amongst polygraphers? Why would you do such a thing if you truly accept responsibility for your actions and their consequences?
It seems to me that the polygraph community has collectively shirked any and all responsibility for its failures and the consequences thereof.
How should polygraphers who falsely accuse the truthful of deception be held accountable?
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 24, 2005, 03:10 AMI did not state "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT", you ass/u/med that from my post.
DarkCobra,
Over the course of my last few posts, I have interrogated you, and found you to be deceptive, not much fun is it ? And you got ticked off, by that assuption. And I have read everything you have posted here and you appear to be genuine in your belief that your fair and doing whats right. And doing assumptions is what polygraphers do isn't it ? Its just opinions that you give on your test. As George's ID states, Who polygraphs the polygraphers. Now if your mad enough maybe some sobering thoughts from our little conversations will ring true ... I respect you for being a LEO, never once did I assume you to be unprofessional in your beliefs. But in order to crack this wall of belief sometimes demolition is needed. Do what you do, but be willing to listen. When a technology that is 100% proven to determine deception is invented, I will be more than willing to support its use. Game, set, match.
On the amends side:
DarkCobra,
its not personal, I would never be that unfair .... regards
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 24, 2005, 03:20 AMYou may sign an informed consent form prior to taking a polygraph examination, it is at best worthless!! All attorneys I have spoken with inform me that I can be sued and held accountable for errors and ommissions I make regardless of the informed consent signed by the examinee. State Law mandates a release be signed prior to any examination, giving the name, address and telephone number of the State Polygraph Examiners Board. (Texas).
I'm not talking about "informed consent" statements. I'm talking about waivers of
liability. It is standard practice amongst polygraphers to require examinees to hold harmless the polygrapher and his employer from any and all liability claims arising from the polygraph examination. My question to you is whether you require examinees to sign a waiver of
liability, and, if so, why, if it is indeed the case that you accept responsibility?
QuoteI am responsible for my actions and accept responsibility....
Would you then go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed? What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers? How can such a requirement be ethically justified? Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions?
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 24, 2005, 03:58 AMThe informed consent form is the form that has a release and hold harmless statement in it, and as I stated, many attorneys have reviewed it and informed me it is worthless when it comes to being taken to court. We are not immune from suit, many have been filed against examiners and some have been awarded damages. If State Law mandates the form and even words it for you as a matter of law, it would be illegal not to get it signed. I have had examinees refuse to sign the form and that ends the examination before it starts.
If the form is worthless, then why make examinees sign it? While state laws may require a consent statement be signed before a polygraph examination is administered, they most certaintly
don't require polygraphers to demand a waiver of
liability from examinees.
Why do most polygraphers demand such waivers of liability? It is clearly
not a matter of law. It is a matter of choice. Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Again I ask:
1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?
2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?
3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?
4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 24, 2005, 04:01 AMOne point I missed, all doctors have you sign a release also when they treat you for any illness, especially hospitals that have many releases that must be signed, are doctors also unethical?
While I think any comparison of polygraphy to medicine is entirely inappropriate, I would be skeptical of any doctor who required me to sign a liability waiver before administering a non-invasive, non-experimental diagnostic test. I've never been asked to sign a liability waiver for a urine test. Why should I (or anyone) have to sign one for a polygraph "test?"
Quote
If the form is worthless, then why make examinees sign it? While state laws may require a consent statement be signed before a polygraph examination is administered, they most certainly don't require polygraphers to demand a waiver of liability from examinees.
Why do most polygraphers demand such waivers of liability? It is clearly not a matter of law. It is a matter of choice. Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Again I ask:
1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?
2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?
3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?
4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?
While I think any comparison of polygraphy to medicine is entirely inappropriate, I would be skeptical of any doctor who required me to sign a liability waiver before administering a non-invasive, non-experimental diagnostic test. I've never been asked to sign a liability waiver for a urine test. Why should I (or anyone) have to sign one for a polygraph "test?"
George,
You are precisely correct. In addition to a Comprehensive Polygraph Protection Act, everyone here should be pressing and insist on legal accountability. If and when polygraphers are held personally accountable for their mistakes, I believe the whole charade that we know as polygraph-business-as-usual will crumble on that day. Polygraphers could not practice their trade for a single day if daily mistakes were not bureaucratically and legally ignored. When I worked as a forensic toxicologist, it was clear to me and my colleagues that if we were ever publicly shown to have made a mistake in our work product, that we would have no credibility and our career as a toxicologist was over. No less should be expected of a group with as much influence on people's lives and the security of our nation as the polygraph community. Perhaps a place to begin is with a listing of those polygraphers who either through subsequent investigation or victim claims are identified as having made mistakes as well as the details that would serve as supporting evidence of such mistakes. Because of the seriousness of such charges against a polygrapher, I think it only right that a real (and verifiable) name be attached to such a charge when solely supported by a victim allegation. Perhaps you might care to start such a list (both applicant and specific-incident testing) and consider making it available to various national organizations of both prosecutors and defense attorneys. If the polygraph community is genuine in its desire to have only good work emanating from its practitioners, it should welcome such an idea. And of course, those polygraphers who are identified as in any way deficient should have full opportunity to respond and counter any such claims.
I think what you will see happen over a period of time, as polygraphers are held personally responsible for their mistakes, is that considerably more will publicly agree with me that their industry-approved techniques are faulty/invalid and that their mistakes are not merely due to their own personal error. Perhaps Mark Mallah and other attorneys who follow this message board might like to comment and add their suggestions regarding any such effort.
Dr. Richardson,
I like the idea and hope that something like this would come to pass. Especially for the Legal community where the list could be referenced. ANd used for both sides of any legal proceeding, that could potentially have an impact because of a polygraph test.
V/R EJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DarkCobra ....
I may have been a little harsh and judgemental with you, but do come back and play. I will behave myself. I do still think as a LEO you have a lot to offer this board.
Regards
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 26, 2005, 09:40 PMGeorge,
There is no need debate release forms, I am subject to suit for errors and ommisions regardless of the release. Therefore I consider this a dead issue with me. To discuss it further would not benefit anyone on the site or either of us.
darkcobra2005,
Your refusal to answer these four questions is answer enough:
1) Will you go on the record as releasing all examinees you have polygraphed from any liability waivers they may have signed?
2) What do you have to say to your colleagues in the polygraph community who routinely demand that examinees sign such liability waivers?
3) How can such a requirement be ethically justified?
4) Why do your colleagues shirk responsibility for their actions (by demanding such waivers)?
Your silence speaks volumes.
I will apologize up front, but while reading through this particular discussion thread I saw something I just had to comment on.
George, you said:
QuoteI believe the comparison is especially apt because both barber colleges and polygraph schools are vocational schools. A key difference, however, is that while graduates of barber colleges can cut hair, graduates of polygraph schools cannot detect lies.
Now, while I'm certainly not qualified to determine if a polygraph school graduate can or cannot detect lies, I can say with certainty that a large number of barber college graduates
cannot cut hair! :P
You guys who were in the military should be able to identify. Ever try to get a "real" haircut that isn't a flat top or high and tight on a military post? ;D
Ok, I know, I know, this post is completely off topic and does nothing to further the discussion, but maybe it will provide some much needed comic relief. :-/
darkcobra2005,
You initially offered the absurd explanation that state laws require polygraphers to obtain a waiver of liability from examinees. When called on this, you refused further comment. Now you aver that it is insurance companies that require polygraphers to demand waivers of liability from examinees -- waivers that you nonetheless maintain have no legal force. Sorry, I'm not buying it, at least not without proof. As an investigator, wouldn't this sound fishy to you, too? I recall that you earlier asserted (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2513.msg18619#msg18619) that the American Polygraph Association prohibits any member from accepting Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge, an assertion that you later conceded (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2513.msg18654#msg18654)was unfounded.
If you would fax the terms and conditions of your polygraph insurance policy to AntiPolygraph.org at (206) 984-4872, I'll confirm the liability waiver requirement and apologize for having doubted you. I'm asking for only the policy terms and conditions -- not any personally identifying information. Other polygraph examiners reading this are also invited to fax us the terms and conditions of their policies, with personally identifying information redacted.
You ask:
QuoteOn this web site there are postings by attorneys that have filed law suits, in spite of the waiver signed by the examinee. Why then is it offensive or unethical in your opinion?
To the best of my recollection, the only attorney who has posted on this website who has filed a polygraph-related lawsuit is Mark Zaid. The plaintiffs he represents are suing the FBI and other federal agencies that rely on polygraph screening to make hiring decisions, not the individual polygraph examiners involved. I believe that these agencies
do not require applicants to sign any waiver of liability, although they do require that a consent statement be signed.
I think the main ethical concern regarding such waivers of liability is that, at least where pre-employment polygraph screening is concerned, they are coerced: sign the waiver or you won't get the job. In addition, requiring examinees to sign a liability waiver is a flight from accountability that I find unacceptable. Again, applicants don't have to sign such a waiver before submitting to a urinalysis test (a common requirement for public safety hiring). Why should they be required to sign one for a polygraph "test?"
You also write:
QuoteI do agree with Dr. Richardson that any complaint or suit should be recorded on a national registery and maintained. The examiner should be able to respond and profer evidence regarding the complaint.
I am glad that we are all in agreement on this point. AntiPolygraph.org will soon establish a polygraph complaint registry. It's long overdue. I agree that examiners should be informed of, and allowed to respond to, complaints. Watch for a new message thread on this topic soon. Commentary and feedback from the polygraph community will be most welcome.
Quote from: Mercible on Oct 27, 2005, 08:37 PMI will apologize up front, but while reading through this particular discussion thread I saw something I just had to comment on.
George, you said:
Now, while I'm certainly not qualified to determine if a polygraph school graduate can or cannot detect lies, I can say with certainty that a large number of barber college graduates cannot cut hair! :P
You guys who were in the military should be able to identify. Ever try to get a "real" haircut that isn't a flat top or high and tight on a military post? ;D
Ok, I know, I know, this post is completely off topic and does nothing to further the discussion, but maybe it will provide some much needed comic relief. :-/
Point well taken. But while the difference between a good haircut and a bad haircut is about two weeks, the adverse consequences of an erroneous polygraph result may last a lifetime.
George,
True enough! Although, if my wife gets a bad hair cut you would think it was a life altering event.
I guess the lesson in this is many people go to school for many different things. Having a certificate on your wall doesn't mean you are competent, just that you passed the exam to get the certificate.
I guess a better example would be a Medical Doctor. Doctors spend many years earning their degree, becoming licensed to practice medicine, yet you and I both know there are doctors out there that we wouldn't want cutting off a hang-nail much less any other type of medical proceedure.
Now, I know the comparison from a polygraph examiner to a medical doctor is weak at best, so let's look at something a little closer in nature. Let's say a sonigram technician. A person using a machine to interpret signals from that machine in order to help make a diagnosis. Sounds almost like a polygraph. Technically a sonigram would be a monograph (single output).
The instrument or device isn't the issue. Both are machines, which if the machine itself is calibrated properly is unbiased and infallible. It's the technician behind the machine. One technician can look at the output and come up with a different diagnosis than another. The same issues arise with sonigrams as with polygraph. All humans have similar anatomy, but they do differ from person to person. Sonigrams aren't 100% either and the decisions made using a sonigram can be the difference between life and death, yet we continue to use them too.
But, here's the difference... The medical community has many different tests they can run to diagnose a problem. None of those tests on their own are 100% accurate. They combine the use of several tests to make a diagnosis. One test may be an indicator of a medical problem, but one or two more tests will be done to confirm and or clarify the issue.
That's why I believe the conclusion of any polygraph test should be validated by other means. Background check, drug testing, interrogation. The polygraph alone should not be the sole determining factor in any decision, be it legal or employment related.
I beleive the polygraph exam has a place and that it will never be eliminated. I do believe that the use of polygraph exams should be strictly regulated to the same standars of other diagnostic testing such as sonograms, cardiograms. Those tests are highly standardized and therefore less likely to produce errors in the results. I think the underlying issues with polygraph exams is there is not true standardization.
If the standardization ever happens, the I think you will see a drastic improvement in both the quality and effectiveness. But, for now, you have some states, like Arizona where you don't even have to be licensed. You buy a machine, take a couple of courses and put your add in the yellow pages. Tada! Your an examiner.
But, I do believe there are examiners out there who are competent, and can effectively use the device to identify deception. Unfortunately they are few and far between, in my opinion. Most of them prefer not to engage in the discussions on this site, and I think that is a pitty.
So, where does that leave all of us???? Well, that's the real question. I'm not saying if you can't beat them, join them. But I don't see anyone gaining any ground at this point. Since we know that polygraph is going to be around for a long time, shouldn't we at least be attempting to get the standardization in place first? At the same time, loby for laws which will prevent polygraph from being used as a sole determination for employment? The law should include language which would prevent a DI or Inconclusive exam from being used against a person where there is no other evidence of deception found by other methods.
Ok, I ran out of ideas and need to eat lunch anyway. I look forward to the replies I'm sure this post will generate. Hopefully this post will add to meaningful discussion rather than my last post made strictly for comic relief.
Have a great weekend everyone!!!
Mercible,
I believe the polygraph has a place too... in the dumpster. Sure the polygraph, as a machine, can accurately measure your blood pressure, breathing rate, etc. Lots of devices can do those things. But tell us, what makes the polygraph a lie detector??
Go ahead and standardize it, but it doesn't change the fact that it can NOT detect deception.
DarkCobra,
No one is degrading the poster. The polygraph is being degraded. Mercible makes valid points. But the question remains, what makes the polygraph a lie detector? How can a few lines on a sheet of paper say that someone is lying when he or she is being truthful? How can they say someone is truthful when he or she is lying? Could it not be confusion, anger, sadness, love, hate, anxiety, nervousness, fear, excitement, adrenaline, ambivalence, frustration, happiness, uncertainty, stress, exhaustion, or place-your-emotion/feeling-here that causes a particular reading or reaction? How does spending a few months in a polygraph school (to get back towards the original topic ;)) make someone an expert in reading minds? How does that person account for all human emotions and possibilities?
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 29, 2005, 05:53 PMMustbealiar
Polygraph is not a "Lie Detector", it is an emotional stress monitor if we get technical. And examiners do not read minds, they analyze the data from the "Lines" you describe to determine if there is "emotional stress" being displayed during the asking of questions.
From the stress displayed, questions are asked regarding why this is occuring, in many instances admissions are obtained that show the individual was in fact lying, in other cases no admissions are obtained, but we know that the question produced some stress to the person being questioned.
Does that better answer the questiion, "What is a polygraph".
darkcobra2005,
As John Furedy has observed, the problem with polygraphy is that, absent an admission/confession, polygraphers have no way of differentiating between an an anxious-but-innocent subject and an anxious-and-guilty one.
I offer a short poem of my own:
Polygraph HaikuWhat is Polygraph?
The Greek means "many writings"
But who can read them?I am ever amazed by the ability of most polygraphers to readily acknowledge -- indeed, to emphatically insist -- that the polygraph is not a "lie detector" even while simultaneously maintaining that polygraphy is a valid and reliable method of detecting deception (or, alternatively, "verifying the truth"). Such a feat of doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink) must require uncommon proficiency in crimestop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimestop).
George,
Loved the Haiku, with your permission I would like to use it in one of my classes. because it presents an interesting Dicotomy. Darkcorba is at least consistant with his undying support for the polygraph. And he and nonombre have the courage to openly support there positions. But all we ever seem to get is local LEO polygraphers, with the nerve to post here. I would like to see a FED post here, but then again I do truly believe that the best and brightest are not working for the feds.
ANd if they are, they don't stay long because of the beatings, they get from the masses of mediocrity. Or are the FED examiners that scared to come out from behind the bureacratic vail. But alas none ever come to play.
and again George ... Loved the HAIKU !!!
Pardon the spelling George ... fingers not working today.
EosJupiter,
I'm glad you enjoyed the haiku, and of course you're welcome to cite it in your class.
With regard to federal polygraphers not having the courage to post here, that does indeed seem to be the case.
As for typos, note that you can go back and correct them by clicking on the "modify" link within the relevant post.
Thanks George !! Fixed the posting !!
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 29, 2005, 05:53 PMMustbealiar
Polygraph is not a "Lie Detector", it is an emotional stress monitor if we get technical. And examiners do not read minds, they analyze the data from the "Lines" you describe to determine if there is "emotional stress" being displayed during the asking of questions.
From the stress displayed, questions are asked regarding why this is occuring, in many instances admissions are obtained that show the individual was in fact lying, in other cases no admissions are obtained, but we know that the question produced some stress to the person being questioned.
Does that better answer the questiion, "What is a polygraph".
Darkcobra,
Thanks for your response. You must be the only polygrapher that thinks the polygraph is NOT a lie detector. The few I've had the privilege of meeting were convinced I was "hiding something" or "not being honest" with them.
So are you saying that the polygraph is only effective when the examinee admits to something?
When a question produces "some stress" in an examinee and he or she does not offer an admission, is the subject lying, in your opinion?
Nice Haiku, George.
mustb
darkcobra2005
Been out of town for a couple of weeks and in the process of catching up.
Thanks for confirming what I have advocated for years. "Polygraphers are NOT immune to lawsuits". I have always said that the waiver is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is almost impossible to insulate onesself or origanization from being sued. Even states lost their 11th. Amend. qualified immunity under ADA Title 11.
Well, hope everyone had a great weekend. I see some of you spent a portion of your weekend posting some very interesting responses.
So, let me delve further into the discussion. Essentially you have agreed with my point that the machine itself isn't the issue. So, the real delimma is whether or not a person can review the machine's output to draw a reasonable conclusion as to deception.
Darkcobra states that the output of the machine can indicate stress. I think we can all agree that his statement is true, at least I didn't see anyone who opposes that statement. So, now it boils down to whether the indication of stress on the charts can be reasonably interpreted to find a person deceptive or truthful.
So, it's time to use another analogy. Navy submarines use sonar. If you have ever seen the output of a sonar system, it looks much like a bunch of garbled static on a screen. To the untrained eye, this waterfall display looks really neat, but doesn't mean a thing. With just a "few months of training" a sonar technician can use the data on the screen to draw conclusions about the output. What kind of contact they are seeing, man-made or natural. Whether the contact is on the surface or submerged. Where the contact is located, what speed and heading the contact is on. They can use a sophisticated computer to help them identify which ship they are looking at too. Yet, even this multi-million dollar system is not 100% accurate and the consequences of "getting it wrong" are much more dire than that of a botched polygraph exam.
So why do I use this analogy, you ask? Because, similar to polygraph, this interpretation of what appears to be nonsensical visual data is really more art than science. Even though a sonar technician only has a few months of in-class training, it takes a few years of patrols for a sonar tech to truly be competent. In other words "Experience" is needed. Even then, some sonar technicians are horrible at the job. They just don't have the knack for this kind of thing.
I put forth that an examiner, even with in-class training still has to have some real world experience and must be naturally inclined to this kind of work. I would submit that the vast majority of examiners don't fall into this category and therefore are the root cause of the problems you see with the exams. They simply cannot use the "wavy lines" on the page to draw a reasonable conclusion, much less an accurate conclusion.
I would submit to you that there are a few examiners out there who do have what it takes. They have real world experience both before and after polygraph school as well as a natural inclination to "reading" people. I don't think that kind of thing can be taught.
George, I think that you would be that kind of person. Because of your background in interrogation, you naturally know how to read people. You would know how to prepare a subject for the exam. You would know how to get them to focus on the relevant information. When you saw the "stress" reaction on the chart, you would not immediately assume the subject was lying to you, instead you would know how to properly probe for additional information to either account for or discount the reaction.
As stated in my earlier post, the medical community does not rely on a single medical test to make a diagnosis. One test simply becomes an indicator of something that needs to be further examined. A series of tests may need to be conducted to finally come to a reasonable diagnosis. Even then, they are sometimes wrong too.
In conclusion, I believe that the "machine" in the hands of the right person CAN be used to accurately detect deception. Even then, a further examination through interrogation, background check and other resources should be used to verify a "reaction" on a chart.
I do not advocate the use of a polygraph exam to determine someone's guilt or innocence. Also I do not advocate the use of the exam in determining someone's suitability for employment. I do advocate the continued use of polygraph as a part of a larger process in getting to the truth.
But, that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Quote from: Mercible on Oct 31, 2005, 02:03 PMNavy submarines use sonar. If you have ever seen the output of a sonar system, it looks much like a bunch of garbled static on a screen. To the untrained eye, this waterfall display looks really neat, but doesn't mean a thing. With just a "few months of training" a sonar technician can use the data on the screen to draw conclusions about the output. What kind of contact they are seeing, man-made or natural. Whether the contact is on the surface or submerged. Where the contact is located, what speed and heading the contact is on. They can use a sophisticated computer to help them identify which ship they are looking at too. Yet, even this multi-million dollar system is not 100% accurate and the consequences of "getting it wrong" are much more dire than that of a botched polygraph exam.
So why do I use this analogy, you ask? Because, similar to polygraph, this interpretation of what appears to be nonsensical visual data is really more art than science. Even though a sonar technician only has a few months of in-class training, it takes a few years of patrols for a sonar tech to truly be competent. In other words "Experience" is needed. Even then, some sonar technicians are horrible at the job. They just don't have the knack for this kind of thing.
I put forth that an examiner, even with in-class training still has to have some real world experience and must be naturally inclined to this kind of work. I would submit that the vast majority of examiners don't fall into this category and therefore are the root cause of the problems you see with the exams. They simply cannot use the "wavy lines" on the page to draw a reasonable conclusion, much less an accurate conclusion.
I would submit to you that there are a few examiners out there who do have what it takes. They have real world experience both before and after polygraph school as well as a natural inclination to "reading" people. I don't think that kind of thing can be taught.
George, I think that you would be that kind of person. Because of your background in interrogation, you naturally know how to read people. You would know how to prepare a subject for the exam. You would know how to get them to focus on the relevant information. When you saw the "stress" reaction on the chart, you would not immediately assume the subject was lying to you, instead you would know how to properly probe for additional information to either account for or discount the reaction.
As stated in my earlier post, the medical community does not rely on a single medical test to make a diagnosis. One test simply becomes an indicator of something that needs to be further examined. A series of tests may need to be conducted to finally come to a reasonable diagnosis. Even then, they are sometimes wrong too.
In conclusion, I believe that the "machine" in the hands of the right person CAN be used to accurately detect deception. Even then, a further examination through interrogation, background check and other resources should be used to verify a "reaction" on a chart.
I do not advocate the use of a polygraph exam to determine someone's guilt or innocence. Also I do not advocate the use of the exam in determining someone's suitability for employment. I do advocate the continued use of polygraph as a part of a larger process in getting to the truth.
But, that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Good analogy, Mercible. I would add however, that independent of the "art" as practiced by accomplished polygraph examiners, there is a body of research that indicates (at least in the case of criminal specific issue testing) that a properly administered CQT polygraph examination will detect deception at levels significantly above chance.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: Mercible on Oct 31, 2005, 02:03 PMDarkcobra states that the output of the machine can indicate stress. I think we can all agree that his statement is true, at least I didn't see anyone who opposes that statement.
I wouldn't disagree that reactions recorded by a polygraph
can be indicative of stress, but reactions might also be attributable to emotions such as fear, anger, or embarrassment or they could be the result of purposeful manipulation by the examinee.
QuoteSo, now it boils down to whether the indication of stress on the charts can be reasonably interpreted to find a person deceptive or truthful.
It can't. The examiner has no way of knowing what caused a reaction. There is no "Pinnochio response" measurable by the polygraph that people produce only when they answer a question deceptively.
QuoteSo, it's time to use another analogy. Navy submarines use sonar. If you have ever seen the output of a sonar system, it looks much like a bunch of garbled static on a screen. To the untrained eye, this waterfall display looks really neat, but doesn't mean a thing. With just a "few months of training" a sonar technician can use the data on the screen to draw conclusions about the output. What kind of contact they are seeing, man-made or natural. Whether the contact is on the surface or submerged. Where the contact is located, what speed and heading the contact is on. They can use a sophisticated computer to help them identify which ship they are looking at too. Yet, even this multi-million dollar system is not 100% accurate and the consequences of "getting it wrong" are much more dire than that of a botched polygraph exam.
So why do I use this analogy, you ask? Because, similar to polygraph, this interpretation of what appears to be nonsensical visual data is really more art than science. Even though a sonar technician only has a few months of in-class training, it takes a few years of patrols for a sonar tech to truly be competent. In other words "Experience" is needed. Even then, some sonar technicians are horrible at the job. They just don't have the knack for this kind of thing.
Your analogy is a false one. The principles of underwater sound propagation and the variables affecting it, such as pressure, temperature, and salinity, are well understood, and logical inferences can be made based on the data collected by active and passive sonar systems. The same is not true with regard to polygraphy, where 1) the psychophysiology of human deception is not well understood and 2) there is no clear correlation between the data collected by the polygraph instrument and lying.
Attempting to infer truth or deception by examining polygraph charts is more akin to trying to assess a person's character by feeling bumps on the head (phrenology (http://skepdic.com/phren.html)).
QuoteI put forth that an examiner, even with in-class training still has to have some real world experience and must be naturally inclined to this kind of work. I would submit that the vast majority of examiners don't fall into this category and therefore are the root cause of the problems you see with the exams. They simply cannot use the "wavy lines" on the page to draw a reasonable conclusion, much less an accurate conclusion.[/url]
The problem is that the underlying procedure is without validity.
QuoteI would submit to you that there are a few examiners out there who do have what it takes. They have real world experience both before and after polygraph school as well as a natural inclination to "reading" people. I don't think that kind of thing can be taught.
It has not been established that an interrogator who consults polygraph charts makes better determinations of truth versus deception than an interrogator who doesn't.
QuoteGeorge, I think that you would be that kind of person. Because of your background in interrogation, you naturally know how to read people. You would know how to prepare a subject for the exam. You would know how to get them to focus on the relevant information. When you saw the "stress" reaction on the chart, you would not immediately assume the subject was lying to you, instead you would know how to properly probe for additional information to either account for or discount the reaction.
My experience at the poker table has given me a healthy skepticism regarding my ability to read people. And again, with regard to reactions on polygraph charts, there is simply no way of knowing what caused them. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that the absence of a reaction means the subject is telling the truth (a notion implicit in your post).
QuoteAs stated in my earlier post, the medical community does not rely on a single medical test to make a diagnosis. One test simply becomes an indicator of something that needs to be further examined. A series of tests may need to be conducted to finally come to a reasonable diagnosis. Even then, they are sometimes wrong too.
As previously discussed, polygraph "testing" bears no semblance to medical testing. As with your sonar reference, you again make a false analogy.
QuoteIn conclusion, I believe that the "machine" in the hands of the right person CAN be used to accurately detect deception. Even then, a further examination through interrogation, background check and other resources should be used to verify a "reaction" on a chart.
And I believe that astrological charts, in the hands of the right person CAN be used to accurately predict the future. Even then, a further examination through cold reading (http://skepdic.com/coldread.html) and other resources should be used to verify the results.
Okay, I don't really believe the foregoing. The point is, how does one identify the "right" person of whom you speak?
I think the comparison between sonar and the polygraph is incomplete. Sonar does a very good job of collecting data, and an experienced sonar operator can interpret that data to determine what object has been encountered. Where the comparison falls apart is that the sonar operator does not take his collected data and attempt to determine what the commander of the detected vessel is thinking.
If polygraphs were solely used to determine a subject's heart rate, respiration rate, and galvanic skin response I'm sure they would function admirably in that capacity. That is what they are designed to do and I'm sure that an experienced operator would be able to collect that data on a subject with a high degree of accuracy.
Sergeant1107,
You write:
Quote
I think the comparison between sonar and the polygraph is incomplete. Sonar does a very good job of collecting data, and an experienced sonar operator can interpret that data to determine what object has been encountered. Where the comparison falls apart is that the sonar operator does not take his collected data and attempt to determine what the commander of the detected vessel is thinking.
If polygraphs were solely used to determine a subject's heart rate, respiration rate, and galvanic skin response I'm sure they would function admirably in that capacity. That is what they are designed to do and I'm sure that an experienced operator would be able to collect that data on a subject with a high degree of accuracy.
Bravo! Excellent analysis.
Ok,
I'll concede that the sonar comparison was far reaching, but I'm sticking with subjects I'm familiar with. I like to compare and contrast. I don't think the comparisons necessarily have to match one another to gain insight and understanding.
George, the comparison of phrenology (bumps on the head) and Astrology (telling the future) are also vastly different from an actual polygraph exam, yet you use them to make a point. That's all I was trying to do as well.
Let me make another attempt: It's a reflex test where the doctor hits you in the knee joint with a rubber hammer. Either the knee jumps or it doesn't. If it does, the doctor is looking to see how much it jumps. Now, based on that one test, the doctor can tell if your reflex reaction is abnormal. Only problem is, that one test alone cannot tell you why. The doctor has to perform additional examinations, tests and such to zero in on a diagnosis.
As you can see, my overarching theme is that polygraph is only one test. Everyone agrees that the machine can capture a physiological reaction to a question. What that reaction means has to be taken into context with the other factors surrounding the test. In my opinion, the right examiner knows how to take those other factors into consideration. Does that mean he can tell you 100% if the person is lying or telling the truth? No, he can only say that "Deception is Indicated" It's an opinion, much like a doctor would give a medical "opinion." How many people get a second "opinion" from another doctor? I find it curious that the medical profession uses that exact term, "opinion." They know that NOTHING is 100%.
You say, "So what!" I say, there's something there to be learned. Something is happening on those charts. Science does tell us that people do react physiologically to stress. That's a proven fact that is beyond dispute. From what I know, polygraph is used in an attempt to capture that stress reaction, put it into context to determine if a subject is being deceptive. Are they going about it the right way? I haven't a clue, but I don't think the argument is that polygraph is useless. I think the argument is can it be improved to the point of reliability? I think it can, but again, I'm in the insurance business, what do I know?
George, you ask, who can? Well, the answer is, you can. Have you made it a point to meet face to face with an examiner who believes as strongly as you do, just not the same as you do. I'd say Darkcobra and Nonombre are good candidates. They seem to understand some of the limitations of polygraph and are willing to be in the debate.
I don't think they would be willing to do it publicly, but perhaps if the circumstances were right, they would meet with you privately and perhaps be involved in some research. Maybe as they gain more confidence in you and you in they, a public forum might not be impossible. But, you have to build trust first.
Who knows, you may both learn something in the process, even if you don't reach the same conclusions.
I'd even volunteer to help mediate the process.
Alright, it's lunchtime again and I need to go. ;D Look forward to continuing the discussion later.
Mercible.
Mercible,
You write in part:
Quote
In my opinion, the right examiner knows how to take those other factors into consideration.
Wrong. There is no right examiner or wrong examiner. This is not about malpractice or the lack thereof. This (lie detection) is about quackery. Because there is no demonstrated relationship between the monitored physiology and deception, the other factors (although they may well affect the examination environment) become secondary at best to the lack of a primary theoretical construct for the intended experiment.
You further write:
Quote
George, the comparison of phrenology (bumps on the head) and Astrology (telling the future) are also vastly different from an actual polygraph exam, yet you use them to make a point.
George's criticism and Sergeant1107's analysis regarding your sonar analogy are quite on track. Your further comparison of that analogy to any reference George has made to astrology again misses the mark. Lie Detection is quackery and the parallel to astrology is much more apt than your references to sonar or the patellar reflex. I must admit though that a representative of the astrology industry recently let me know that they take offense at being compared to polygraphy. :)
Quote from: Mercible on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMYou say, "So what!" I say, there's something there to be learned. Something is happening on those charts. Science does tell us that people do react physiologically to stress. That's a proven fact that is beyond dispute. From what I know, polygraph is used in an attempt to capture that stress reaction, put it into context to determine if a subject is being deceptive. Are they going about it the right way? I haven't a clue, but I don't think the argument is that polygraph is useless. I think the argument is can it be improved to the point of reliability? I think it can, but again, I'm in the insurance business, what do I know?
Mercible,
It's too bad that you've never taken a polygraph without prior knowledge and then been falsely deemed "deception indicated." The real life experience would provide you with valuable insight and give you a true appreciation of the instrument's limitations. It's also unfortunate that examiners can't have this same experience as it would provide a unique perspective to the whole process. I realize that examiners typically have to pass polygraphs to become examiners, but that's only after they've learned about polygraphy, which is vastly different from an uninformed examinee undergoing the procedure.
I agree there is something happening on those charts, but the causes of the reactions vary just as widely as do the people behind them.
Dr Richardson,
So glad to have you in on the conversation.
You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe... ;) Don't you love that song? It really does sum up many of the posts I have read on this site. You have so much common ground with those you oppose, but you fail to really see it for what it is.
As far as the analogies I've put forward, they are there to compare and contrast. In the end, I still give the benefit of the doubt to the polygraph community. Why is that?
- The position of the anti-polygraph community is that polygraph is quackery and there is no scientific basis. So What?
- The position of the polygraph community is there is a scientific basis and the problems with polygraph is the examiner, possibly even the exam method. Again, I say So What?
And here I am in the middle to tell you the general public really isn't paying attention to either argument. You can analogize, analyze, theorize, and even fantasize, but if you aren't winning the hearts and minds of the average registered voter, then you certainly aren't going to get the politicians to change a thing.
You have your experts and the polygraph community also has their experts. The general public doesn't have the time to take an in-depth look at the research. Hell, half the things you say on this site go right over my head. You may technically win the debate, but for all I know it's just a bunch of fancy lingo that gets you nowhere with the common voter.
Even though I disagree with many of the things you say, I
am on your side when it comes to stopping the use (and abuse) of polygraph in the sole determination of guilt/innocence or even the suitability for employment.
Do you want to know why that is? I have no stake in the game. I'm not an examiner, I never took a polygraph, I've never been affected by one. So why would I care about your cause? It's the
human factor. George Maschke's story made me angry! Not at George, but at the government. George's story and those like his are your
real ammunition. All the psycho-babble and scientific tests mean nothing to me or the average voter. You show me how an American patriot who has served his country well and is then dragged through the mud for no good reason and I am on your side!
The average voter will give the benefit of the doubt to the police and the government, even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Why, well because the government and the police protect them. Besides, they know going head-to-head with any authority is an uphill battle and best left to attorneys and politicians who have the financial wherewithal to fight those types of battles.
If the ACLU isn't even interested in taking up the fight, the that tells you one very clear thing. You aren't making your case very well. You have to tell the
Story, not give them scientific
mumbo-jumbo. The
Story has gotten lost in all the white noise of the debate. Remember people like a good.....
Story
You need publicity. Hire a public relations firm to help you spread the
Story effectively and you might actually gain some traction.
One of the many points I try to make is that demonizing the other side doesn't help your cause. It only makes you look weak. They certainly look weak when they do it to you. Be willing to engage the other side, not challenge them to a dual. If they believe their cause is noble and just, then attacking them only strengthens their resolve.
So how do you get the other side to listen to your cause? I suggest Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People." It's an old book, but many of the lessons in that book are as true today as when it was written. I try to read it once every couple of years to remind myself that just because I think I'm right, doesn't mean everyone else will agree. You have to get them on your side.
You already have a couple of examiners on your side, Darkcobra and Nonombre. And that is despite some of the ugly attacks they have endured on this site. They must be truly sick individuals to keep coming back for more. But, that makes me believe they too care about those who have suffered at the hands of a bad examiner.
Well, so long for now. Keep the debate lively but civil!
Regards,
Mercible...
:D
Bravo!
Darkcobra has extended the olive branch.
He is your opponent, your sworn enemy in the fight against polygraph. I am very curious to see how those on the opposite side of the fight will respond.
Will you disregard him, ignore him, question his motives, question his sincerity, attack him, twist his words? OR... will you accept the outstretched hand of friendship and work with him to gain mutual understanding and additional knowlege?
I know which I would choose, but then I'm just a spectator sitting in the stands watching the game unfold. :-/
Alas, the choice is yours. Choose wisely.......
Mercible
Mercible,
You are a little late or at least unaware regarding you most recent advisement. Months ago Darkcobra and I began talking about our views of polygraphy. It may be no surprise that we disagree on quite a few points, however we agree on others. Darkcobra is quite different from many of the other examiner's I have communicated with in that there is the absence belief in the polygraph as an absolute. This is not an admission that many a polygrapher would offer as most seem to be under the impression that this would destroy credibility on their part.
I do thing you are correct in that the general public is quite disinterested in this debate about polygraphy. Most of the population has no actual knowledge regarding polygraph examining other than what little snippets they have read or seen in the news as well as the fictional dramas and comedies which are loosely based on real-life polygraphy. In addition, the vast majority of the general population will never undergo a polygraph examination. I never had an interest either way until becoming a false postive.
I agree that common ground or a least a general air of civility is needed in order to reform or do away with polygraphy. It truly has no place in employment screening which is my largest concern with polygraphy.
Quote from: Mercible on Nov 03, 2005, 08:38 PMBravo!
Darkcobra has extended the olive branch.
He is your opponent, your sworn enemy in the fight against polygraph. I am very curious to see how those on the opposite side of the fight will respond.
Will you disregard him, ignore him, question his motives, question his sincerity, attack him, twist his words? OR... will you accept the outstretched hand of friendship and work with him to gain mutual understanding and additional knowlege?
I know which I would choose, but then I'm just a spectator sitting in the stands watching the game unfold. :-/
Alas, the choice is yours. Choose wisely.......
Mercible
Mercible,
You're a little late on the scene. Perhaps, you should do a search of Cobra's posts. He has been enaged in civil poly discussion with many users of this board for several months. He has said that he's concerned about preventing false positives and that the poly should not be used as the sole determining factor in employment. Hopefully, he and his examinees have benefited from information gleaned during these exchanges and I think his presence here has been beneficial to those shafted by unethical examiners by allowing them to see that not all examiners are the same.
And just so we won't have to repeat this conversation, Nonombre is also a polygrapher who posts here and engages in civil discussions with users on a regular basis. That's the beauty of this board--a free exchange of ideas with mutual respect regarding differences of opinion. You might want to do a search on his posts as well. Happy reading!!
Now, a question for you. Why are you so interested in polygraphy? You say you're not an examiner, you've never taken one, yet you obviously feel passionate about it. Why?
darkcobra2005,
You earlier wrote that your insurance company required you to demand waiver liabilities from applicants:
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 27, 2005, 06:33 PMGeorge,
As you well know, my insurance would cancel me if I released anyone from filing suit, as well as the entire polygraph community. This is business, not a game.
The requirement that the release be signed is a matter of business, required by any insurance company insuring a polygraph examiner....
I still have not received from you any documentation of that claim. But I did succeed in obtaining a sample copy of the terms and conditions of the standard policy for American Polygraph Association members offered by Complete Equity Markets, Inc. of Wheeling, Illinois, who are listed on American Polygraph Association website (http://www.polygraph.org/insurance.htm).
The conditions of that policy do not require the examiner to make the examinee sign any waiver of liability:http://antipolygraph.org/documents/cem-polygraph-insurance-policy.pdf
To recap, you initially offered the implausible explanation (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2524.msg18824#msg18824) that state laws require polygraphers to obtain a waiver of liability from examinees. When called on this, you initally refused further comment (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2524.msg18859#msg18859). You then adopted the position that it is insurance companies that require polygraphers to demand waivers of liability from examinees. But you wouldn't provide a copy of your insurance policy to prove it. And now we see that a major provider of polygraph liability insurance has no such requirement. Your credibility is wearing thin.
If you (and other polygraphers) truly accept responsibility for your actions and omissions, you have no excuse for demanding liability waivers from examinees.
darkcobra2005,
I'm not suggesting that you have stated anything that you didn't believe to be true. But it seems to me that in rationalizing the practice of demanding liability waivers from examinees, you jumped from one argument of convenience to another without adequately checking your facts.
Thank you for explaining the situation with your own liability insurance. It does seems odd to me that your insurance company would require you to obtain liability waivers that have no legal force. But I have no further questions of you in this regard.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Nov 03, 2005, 03:39 AMTo state the polygraph is 100% accurate is of course pure non-sense. The studies conducted have demonstrated 90-95% accuracy in controlled studies.
Real Life studies are much more difficult to conduct since ground truth is not available in most cases. If the controlled studies, in which little is at stake are 90 to 95% accurate, as demonstrated in the research, then I would suggest the real life examinations would be higher in the accuracy level.
Everyone's opinions are shaped by their experience.
Based on my own experiences with the polygraph, I would place their accuracy at 25%, since I failed three out of four tests while giving the same truthful answers on all of them.
I find it impossible to dismiss the large amount of anecdotal evidence on this site from people who, like myself, told the truth and were wrongly labeled as "deceptive."
I suppose it is possible that some of the people who claim to have been falsely accused of deception were truly being deceptive during their examination. But I think it is highly unlikely that everyone (or even a significant percentage) making that claim was actually deceptive.
I also believe that the accuracy of the polygraph must include the false-positive rate. To me, the most problematic aspect of the polygraph is the fact that false-positives happen. The rate at which they occur is debatable, but I have yet to encounter a single examiner who claims they don't happen at all.
As soon as you encounter a false-positive rate, the rest of the process quickly becomes meaningless. If there were absolutely no chance that a truthful person could be labeled as "deceptive" then the rate at which polygraphs and their operators detected deception would be an actual accuracy rate. Perhaps not all deceptive people would be detected, but at least you would know that when deception was detected it meant, with 100% certainty, that the person had been deceptive during the examination.
With an unknown rate of false-positives it becomes impossible to come to any conclusion after a polygraph, regardless of the result. A "deception indicated" result means that the subject was deceptive, or the subject was truthful but is coming up as a false positive. A "no deception indicated" results means that the person was truthful, or the person was deceptive but it was not detected, or that the person successfully utilized countermeasures.
In the end you have nothing but the guess, educated though that guess may be, of one person with regards to what another person was thinking. You can achieve exactly the same results in a normal interview and I believe they would be just as accurate. But they wouldn't have the aura of accuracy which the polygraph promises but fails to deliver.
Brandon & Polyfool,
This is a long post, so you may want to get a cup of coffee first. I apologize, up front, but when I get on a roll, I just have to let it all out......
Yep, I'm certainly late to the table, no denying that at all. As I write this, there are 19,140 posts and counting. Darkcobra has 165 posts. Unfortunately, my work schedule and family life have precluded me from reading the vast majority of them, but I'm catching up as quickly as I can.
Brandon, you say:
QuoteDarkcobra is quite different from many of the other examiner's I have communicated with in that there is the absence belief in the polygraph as an absolute. This is not an admission that many a polygrapher would offer as most seem to be under the impression that this would destroy credibility on their part.
I would agree, Darkcobra seems to me to be very open-minded individual. I think it is wonderful that he has the courage to state in no uncertain terms that polygraph is not an absolute. But, what I'm not seeing is folks on the other side of the debate concede that there is any possibility that there may be some validity to polygraph. They keep using the terms
"Quackery" and
"Junk Science." Again, that kind of inflammatory language doesn't move the debate forward, it only alienates possible allies.
Brandon, I agree entirely with the remainder of your post. Thank you for being one of the civil folks.
Polyfool, you say:
QuoteYou're a little late on the scene. Perhaps, you should do a search of Cobra's posts. He has been enaged in civil poly discussion with many users of this board for several months. He has said that he's concerned about preventing false positives and that the poly should not be used as the sole determining factor in employment. Hopefully, he and his examinees have benefited from information gleaned during these exchanges and I think his presence here has been beneficial to those shafted by unethical examiners by allowing them to see that not all examiners are the same.
I would agree that "some" have engaged him in civil discussion, but here are some excerpts of posts that gave me the negative impressions I have so far:
Administrator 4-18-05:
QuoteHow appropriate that this polygrapher has chosen a venomous snake for his/her new user name.
George: 4-19-05:
QuoteDrew is not out of touch. Rather, you are a shameless liar too clever by half.
Anxietyguy 4-24-05:
QuoteYour profession is full of jesters and hypocrites.
Bill Crider 5-7-05:
Quotei tried honesty 4 times and failed all 4, so F*#k you.
Anxietyguy 5-10-05:
QuoteFor your sake I hope so, because after all what is a polygrapher qualified to do? Maybe you will be taking my order at the drive through. Try looking in the mirror the next day when the polygraph is exposed,wish I could be there to see the look on your face.
Anxietyguy 5-10-05:
QuoteWon't be long till everyone knows your game and you will be in the unemployment line. Cheers*
Anxietyguy 5-11-05:
QuoteOh I forgot you only need a GED to perform polygraphs.
Bill Crider 5-25-05:
This one is my favorite, very creativeQuoteDarkCobra, you are an idiot, wrapped in a moron, covered by a fool. take your polygraph and shove it up your @ss.
Polyfool 5-26-05:
QuoteI suppose expecting a little intelligence from you is too much to ask. I apologize for the mistake. It won't happen again.
Now, I will admit that the ferociousness of the comments has gotten better, but I think you have a long way to go overall. I'm sure many of you have gained some respect for the "Shady Snake," I know I have. I have respect for many of the non-examiners as well. I hope I have shown that respect on all occasions when posting here.
Polyfool, you say:
QuoteNow, a question for you. Why are you so interested in polygraphy? You say you're not an examiner, you've never taken one, yet you obviously feel passionate about it. Why?
I thought the answer would be obvious based on my very first posting to the site. My father is an examiner. He has been in the industry as an independent examiner for many years. His life's work is of interest to me. He believes polygraph to be a useful tool and can, in the hands of the right person, be used to accurately detect deception. I, of course, believe him. Why should he lie to me about it? He's never lied to me before. Besides, the man is a human lie detector himself. Long before going to polygraph school he could sniff out a lie like a hound dog on the trail of a fox.
So then, I find this site and decide to see what the opponents have to say. The more I read, the more I was intrigued. Yes, the snide comments by both polygraph proponents and opponents tick me off. But, the underlying debate has merit on both sides. After reading George's story, I decided I needed to pay careful attention to his postings. I read TLBTLD. Then I re-read it.
I then asked myself, can I help? Is it possible to bring the two sides together to further the debate and gain true understanding? I can tell you, the resistance I've met so far makes me think it is possible, but very unlikely. But, being the eternal optimist that I am, I decided to wade into the debate and try it anyway.
So, here I am. I'm your average citizen who is now tuned into the debate. I'd like to help. I don't have any scientific or psychological background, but I can sure tell you what the average person will or won't buy into. I think you guys need an outside perspective. Granted, I am biased towards the use of polygraph, but I have a lot of strong views about the use of it being very limited and much regulated. But, because polygraph isn't my lively hood, the abolishment won't affect me. It won't really even affect my father as he is slowly scaling back the number of tests he runs and will eventually retire altogether. Also, I haven't had the misfortune to be the subject of a botched exam. I know that makes you feel very strongly about the issue, but perhaps it also taints your view a bit too.
For those of you who are still skeptical about my intentions, or that maybe I'm one of those dubious polygraph examiners who are just posing as someone else. Feel free to ask the Administrator of the site whether the IP address I'm posing from doesn't match my story. I happen to know the IP address should actually tell him which Insurance company I work for.
Speaking of Insurance... George, you said:
QuoteThank you for explaining the situation with your own liability insurance. It does seem odd to me that your insurance company would require you to obtain liability waivers that have no legal force. But I have no further questions of you in this regard.
Thank God! Something I can speak with authority on. Professional Liability insurance policies (also called E&O policies) vary from company to company. Each company also decides their underwriting requirements for their policies. There is no true "standard" in the industry as professional Liability policies are very unique and pose the greatest risk in most instances. The policy language may not require that a waiver be signed by a subject; the policies are usually worded very broadly. But, the underwriter of the policy can always require proof of certain documents used in the course of conducting certain types of business.
As Darkcobra states, these waivers are as worthless as the paper they are written on. Similar waivers and release documents are signed in the course of settling claims, but they are just as worthless. I've seen them defeated in court many times. Yet, the insurance companies still use them. It amounts to a handshake agreement and makes the person who received the settlement a little less likely to reopen the claim. The only waiver or release forms that do withstand the scrutiny of the courts are the ones where the lawyer of the person who signs the form also signs off on the form. This indicates that the person's lawyer was there to fully explain the language to his client before the client signed the form. I doubt many people who take a polygraph bring their lawyer with them to co-sign any documents. Maybe they should?
Next time you rent a car, take a look at the waivers and releases in that agreement. Yikes!
Anyhow, the weekend is finally here. I hope everyone has a great weekend.
Mercible
Mercible,
I find it, um...interesting...that all of the "excerpts of posts that gave [you] the negative impressions [you] have so far" -- excerpts that you chose to quote out of context without regard to the remarks that prompted them -- just happen to be replies to darkcobra2005.
In your first post to this message board, you wrote "My Dad is a polygraph examiner and has been for the last 20 years!" Earlier in this message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2524.msg18872#msg18872), darkcobra2005 wrote," I will state for the record that I have never had a complaint filed against me by an examinee in 20 years of polygraph." All this makes one wonder whether perhaps the polygraph examiner who is your father is none other than...darkcobra2005 himself! True?
Why would you choose to hide your relationship to darkcobra2005? It only creates doubts about your motivations for posting. If you are darkcobra2005's son, why not say so? There's no shame in it.
Mercible
Funny thing is you do know alot about insurance ...
hmmm one does wonder ...
IP addresses and subnet masks don't lie either
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 05, 2005, 03:49 AMMercible,
I find it, um...interesting...that all of the "excerpts of posts that gave [you] the negative impressions [you] have so far" -- excerpts that you chose to quote out of context without regard to the remarks that prompted them -- just happen to be replies to darkcobra2005.
In your first post to this message board, you wrote "My Dad is a polygraph examiner and has been for the last 20 years!" Earlier in this message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2524.msg18872#msg18872), darkcobra2005 wrote," I will state for the record that I have never had a complaint filed against me by an examinee in 20 years of polygraph." All this makes one wonder whether perhaps the polygraph examiner who is your father is none other than...darkcobra2005 himself! True?
Why would you choose to hide your relationship to darkcobra2005? It only creates doubts about your motivations for posting. If you are darkcobra2005's son, why not say so? There's no shame in it.
George,
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Mercible is in fact, somehow connected to DarkCobra 2005. If he is Cobra's offspring, I suppose he gets the lying and game playing honest. If my memory serves me correctly didn't Cobra begin posting on this site as "vet2" and "checking"under the ruses that he didn't know anything about polygraph and was just trying to learn more about it? He kept up the charade and even gave out bad advice designed to trip up examinees, giving himself away in the process. That is, before you outed him after you checked his IP address showing that he had posted under more than one user name? I think that's how it went. Anyway, that would certainly explain Cobra junior's IP address comment. I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.....
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Nov 07, 2005, 05:29 PMDon't be suprised, it is a fact that I am Mercible's father, and your problem with that is?
You weren't honest. And now that your secret is out, I see you are deleting all your posts, to destroy the evidence, as it were. I suppose you do have a sense of shame.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Nov 07, 2005, 07:05 PMI was not asked a question, where was I dishonest. The removing of posts is not to destroy evidence (what is the crime), I simply wish to withdraw from posting and participation on this site, I will, if allowed, monitor postings, however when you make it a "Family" issue, I don't care to participate further. I did attempt to help persons on the board, but have found that now my family has been attacked and don't care to participate. ANd no I am not ashamed, simply don't care to participate further. Thank you for allowing me to have posted on your site in the past.
Goodbye, darkcobra2005.
George,
I've responded to you privately, but you admonished me to respond publicly as well. So, here it is....
Darkcobra2005
IS my Father. Now doesn't that sound like something off of Star Wars? "Luke, I AM Your Father..." ;D
All kidding aside, there was no game playing or collusion here. Dad (darkcobra) wanted me to see the website and see the postings he had done. Without his knowledge or consent, I joined the site and started posting myself. I'm sure he was surprised when I did. And, you are right, there is no "shame" in it for me. I'm very proud of my father and the person he is. Yes, he started out on this site under "false" pretense as you call it, but I think he was just bored and wanted to be a pain in the A**, which he is good at sometimes. :o (Sorry Dad, remember I have to be honest here)
Since he started posting as Darkcobra, it appears he is genuinely engaged in the debate and is seeking to truly help people who have been falsely accused of being deceptive. I'm sure Brandon Hall and others can attest to that.
So, why did I not immediately make my family connection known? Simple enough, I wanted my thoughts, comments, arguments to stand or fall on their own. Also, didn't want to be found
"guilty" by association as Polyfool has already done now:
QuoteIf he is Cobra's offspring, I suppose he gets the lying and game playing honest.
That really hurt my feelings... :'(
QuoteI suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.....
True in some respects, but my wife swears I was adopted.
Polyfool, for someone who hated being called a liar, you sure are quick to point the finger without any proof. >:( Are you just trying to get under my skin or do you really believe I lied to you or anyone else on this message board? If so answer the following:
Where have I lied on this site?
(better be able to back is up with more than just speculation) What game(s) have I played?
Everything I have written was exactly how I feel and what I believe. All the info I have given about myself it true and correct. Had I been interested in deceit, I would have never said the things I did about myself or my father which led George to be able to connect the dots. I figured someone would eventually make the connection and I was pretty sure I'd get some derogatory reactions such as Polyfool's. But Polyfool's post only confirms the points I made earlier about there being a propensity for people who are not 100% anti-poly to get attacks leveled at them on this site. Had anyone of you suspected my relation to Darkcobra and asked me directly, I would have replied honestly as I did with George when he e-mailed me privately. I've got nothing to hide, so ask away!
George, Polyfool, and everyone else.... I
whole-heartedly apologize that my relation to Darkcobra was withheld. :-[ I don't see why it really matters, but apparently it does to you and I have to respect your feelings in the matter. If this causes you to doubt my motivations for my posts then please re-read my last post answering the direct question from Polyfool:
QuoteNow, a question for you. Why are you so interested in polygraphy? You say you're not an examiner, you've never taken one, yet you obviously feel passionate about it. Why?
If you want me in the debate, I'll gladly continue to post. If you don't, just say so and I'll just as gladly leave you alone. As you can see above, I've already changed my personal text under my Icon to state the following
"Darkcobra IS My Father." Hopefully that will avoid any confusion for new folks who visit the site.
So, where do we go from here? Don't know, but it should be interesting either way!
Sincerely,
Mercible (a.k.a. Darkcobra Jr.)
(http://www.cobras.org/images/cobra5.jpg)
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 07, 2005, 07:06 PM
Goodbye, darkcobra2005.
You folks just lost your best ally in the fight to banish the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening. What a shame!
Well that's too bad in my opinion. I thought Darkcobra2005 added to the conversations and in many instances contributed useful information. Although I didn't agree with him on many points, it was nice to have the point of view of a polygrapher. One that was not "militant" in his defense of polygraphy.
I must mention that I did not see an out and out family issue brought up or an attack, only the possibility of a familial relation between Darkcobra2005 and Mercible. The mention was that there stood a possibility of a parent/child relationship which was not being disclosed. The problem many of the posters have on this site with limited disclosure is our previous experiences with polygraphers in which we were advised to hold nothing back, to provide full disclosure. It would be along the same lines as having one of my family members log on to agree with me on my points and give credibility to my statements. That would seemingly be faux agreement. According to what you have written, Mercible, that was not exactly the case.
Mercible, I am sure now that you know of my story with polygraphy. Does that help you understand the viewpoints of the many anti-polygraph posters on this site (those who have been refused further application processing due to a false-positive result)?
I may be in the minority but personally, I would like to see Darkcobra2005 continue to contribute. However, ultimately that decision is not mine.
Quote from: Mercible on Nov 07, 2005, 07:38 PM
You folks just lost your best ally in the fight to banish the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening. What a shame!
I have found the majority of the posts under the name "DarkCobra" to be fair-minded and informative.
However, I do not see him as an ally to the antipolygraph crowd. He has recently written that he believes the accuracy of the polygraph to be greater than 90-95% if a skilled examiner is involved. I do not believe someone could claim that the polygraph is more than 95% accurate and still be in favor of abolishing its use.
Quote from: Mercible on Nov 07, 2005, 07:29 PMGeorge,
So, why did I not immediately make my family connection known? Simple enough, I wanted my thoughts, comments, arguments to stand or fall on their own. Also, didn't want to be found "guilty" by association as Polyfool has already done now:
That really hurt my feelings... :'(
True in some respects, but my wife swears I was adopted.
Polyfool, for someone who hated being called a liar, you sure are quick to point the finger without any proof. >:( Are you just trying to get under my skin or do you really believe I lied to you or anyone else on this message board? If so answer the following:
Where have I lied on this site? (better be able to back is up with more than just speculation)
What game(s) have I played?
Everything I have written was exactly how I feel and what I believe. All the info I have given about myself it true and correct. Had I been interested in deceit, I would have never said the things I did about myself or my father which led George to be able to connect the dots. I figured someone would eventually make the connection and I was pretty sure I'd get some derogatory reactions such as Polyfool's. But Polyfool's post only confirms the points I made earlier about there being a propensity for people who are not 100% anti-poly to get attacks leveled at them on this site. Had anyone of you suspected my relation to Darkcobra and asked me directly, I would have replied honestly as I did with George when he e-mailed me privately. I've got nothing to hide, so ask away!
George, Polyfool, and everyone else.... I whole-heartedly apologize that my relation to Darkcobra was withheld. :-[ I don't see why it really matters, but apparently it does to you and I have to respect your feelings in the matter. If this causes you to doubt my motivations for my posts then please re-read my last post answering the direct question from Polyfool:
If you want me in the debate, I'll gladly continue to post. If you don't, just say so and I'll just as gladly leave you alone. As you can see above, I've already changed my personal text under my Icon to state the following "Darkcobra IS My Father." Hopefully that will avoid any confusion for new folks who visit the site.
So, where do we go from here? Don't know, but it should be interesting either way!
Sincerely,
Mercible (a.k.a. Darkcobra Jr.)
(http://www.cobras.org/images/cobra5.jpg)
Cobra Jr.,
Both you and your father misrepresented yourselves on this site and hid your relationship while you backed him up, making him out to be the poor victim being attacked by other posters--LIES, LIES, LIES. The definition of a misrepresentation is the sense of presenting information in a way that does not accord with the TRUTH.
As for the games, allow me to refer to the "Baad feeling in my stomach" thread where you quoted dear old dad about how he's so concerned about false positives and you go on to coyly ask him what he does to help prevent false positives, does he report them--blah, blah blah.
DarkCobra Sr.,
It was difficult to get past your initial FALSE postings, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt as many other fair minded posters on this site and engaged in some discussion. After I said, all polygraphers are not the same and even defended you, I now find myself eating those words. You should be ashamed of yourself--pretending to be concerned about false positive victims. Why should anyone believe anything you say? You're probably just here to gather ammo to better catch examinees in your trap. I hope you've had a really good time playing with people, but the posters on this site are real victims who have suffered at the hands of an invalid testing procedure and/or unethical examiners. There's nothing funny or entertaining about that. I'm glad you won't be posting anymore disingenuous entries here. What a total waste of everyone's time. And don't think we didn't all notice how often you declined to respond to counterpoints and questions about polygraphy. I for one, regret wasting my time on you. Why don't you crawl back underneath the rock from which you slithered?
As for you Cobra Junior,
I have zero interest in conversing with someone reared by a snake. You know what they say, "Like father, like son..." ;)
Posting privileges of darkcobra2005 (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=darkcobra2005) and Mercible (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Mercible) have been permanently suspended. This father-son tag team misrepresented their relationship and only acknowledged the truth when it was presented to them with irrefutable evidence (not all of which has been publicly posted). At that point, darkcobra2005 promptly deleted all of his roughly 165 posts. Note that darkcobra2005 is a repeat offender. He previously forged posts as thevet2/checking (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2290.msg16253#msg16253). Such game-playing violates the trust of all who read this message board and will not be tolerated.
My Haiku ...
Apply named Ode of the Cobra :
Never trust a snake
The look is sincere but fake
The mongoose will win
Couldn't resist the opportunity !! hehehe
It seems that deception detection is better with thorough analysis, non-arguable evidence, and of course the human brain. Again I see no polygraph in sight and the SR & JR Cobra got bagged. Oh thats right I found them deceptive earlier the same way. hehehe
I love little gifts from heaven ...