To all Concerned,
Found this last night doing some research. Its not as robust or detailed as our beloved TLBLD, but not a bad tutorial, and it references this website. And again more information is always better.
Links: This one takes you to the next one ...
http://www.lonnypaul.com/lonny.paul/2006/08/02/wikihow-explains-cheating-a-polygraph-test/
--- Direct
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28-Lie-Detector-%29
Regards .....
EosJupiter,
The wikiHow article was added to the AntiPolygraph.org News blog (http://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=58) yesterday. Since then, that article has been viewed more than 50,000 times.
:-)
Fifty thousand times. Tres bon ;D
To anyone who sees this post: keep reading anti-poly, CM literature. Read about what the box cannot do. Read what the polyman represents his magic box to be versus what it is. Read multiple sources, and assimilate the facts into a personal corpus of info on the poly.
Once you have that information down, plus the knowledge of CM's, you have won. And as Sun-Tzu said, "Every battle is won before it is ever fought." How true.
Knowledge is power, friends...
To all Concerned,
This article more or less hits home on all levels.
It is from one of the chief scientists at Sandia National Labs. And just eviserates the polygraph.
Link: http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/polygraph.html
------ Article Follows ------
Polygraphs and the National Labs: Dangerous Ruse Undermines National Security
Alan P. Zelicoff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ancient Rome, emperors would divine truth by reading the entrails of animals or vanquished foes. The twists and turns of the digestive guts held secrets that only "experts" could see. No self-respecting general would take his legions into battle before seeking the wisdom of the shamans who predicted the battle's outcome from the appearance of the intestines of chickens and men. It was a brutal approach, and not at all effective. In the end, we all know what happened to the Roman Empire.
Today, under the mandate of the Congress and in the name of "national security," the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is using much the same technique with a little box wired to unwary subjects: the polygraph. The polygraph has its own colorful history, not unlike its Roman predecessor. In 1915, a Harvard professor named William Moulton Marston developed what he termed a "lie detector" based on measurements of blood pressure. A few other bells and whistles were added over time, but for all intents and purposes the polygraph has remained unchanged over the past eighty-five years. Marston went on to gain fame not as the inventor of the polygraph, but from the cartoon character he created: Wonder Woman, who snapped a magic lasso that corralled evildoers and forced them to tell the truth.
Perhaps polygraphers would do better with Wonder Woman's lasso than they have been doing with their box. The secret of the polygraph-the polygraphers' own shameless deception-is that their machine is no more capable of assessing truth telling than were the priests of ancient Rome standing knee-deep in chicken parts. Nonetheless, the polygrapher tries to persuade the unwitting subject that their measurements indicate when a lie is being told. The subject, nervously strapped in a chair, is often convinced by the aura surrounding this cheap parlor trick, and is then putty in the hands of the polygrapher, who launches into an intrusive, illegal, and wide-ranging inquisition. The subject is told, from time to time, that the machine is indicating "deception" (it isn't, of course), and he is continuously urged to "clarify" his answers, by providing more and more personal information. At some point (it's completely arbitrary and up to the judgment of the polygrapher), the test is stopped and the polygrapher renders a subjective assessment of "deceptive response." Even J. Edgar Hoover knew this was senseless. He banned the polygraph test from within the ranks of the FBI as a waste of time.
Every first-year medical student knows that the four parameters measured during a polygraph-blood pressure, pulse, sweat production, and breathing rate-are affected by an uncountable myriad of emotions: joy, hate, elation, sadness, anxiety, depression, and so forth. But, there is not one chapter-not one-in any medical text that associates these quantities in any way with an individual's intent to deceive. More important, dozens of studies over the past twenty years conducted in psychology departments and medical schools all over the world have shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling and lying. Despite testimonials from polygraphers, no evidence exists that they can find spies with their mystical box. Indeed, their track record is miserable: Aldrich Ames and the Walker brothers, unquestionably among the most damaging of moles within the intelligence community, all passed their polygraphs-repeatedly-every five years.
The truth is this: The polygraph is a ruse, carefully constructed as a tool of intimidation, and used as an excuse to conduct an illegal inquisition under psychologically and physically unpleasant circumstances. Spies know how to beat it, and no court in the land permits submission of polygraphs, even to exonerate the accused.
Many innocent people have had their lives and careers ruined by thoughtless interrogation initiated during polygraphy. David King, a twenty-year Navy veteran suspected of selling classified information, was held in prison for 500 days and subjected to multiple polygraphs, many lasting as long as nineteen hours. A military judge dismissed all evidence against him. Mark Mullah, a career FBI agent, was the subject of a massive, nighttime surprise search of his home, followed by a review of every financial record, appointment book, personal calendar, daily "to-do" list, personal diary, and piece of correspondence-all as a result of a "positive" polygraph test. He was then placed under surveillance around the clock, and was followed by aircraft as he moved about during the day. Nothing was ever proved, and his FBI badge was restored, without apologies. But his career was destroyed, and he was never again above suspicion, all because a polygrapher-with eighty hours of "training"-asserted that he had lied. Even barbers must have 1,000 hours of schooling before earning a license to cut hair.
And yet the polygraph is one of the major tools in the new DOE program to bolster security at the nation's nuclear weapons labs: Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore. In the wake of the Wen Ho Lee debacle in 1999, bureaucratic Washington, in search of a "quick fix," made the classic bureaucratic mistake: doing something first, and thinking later. It was the high point of the election cycle, and then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson was hoping to be nominated as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate. But Richardson, reeling from massive cost-overruns on a gigantic laser project in Livermore, calculated that he needed to show toughness rather than intelligence. Instead of doing the difficult but correct thing-reinstating guards at entry points into the Labs that had been eliminated by his predecessor Hazel O'Leary-Richardson elected to recommend a widespread, screening polygraph program throughout the DOE. Congress went along, and real security was sacrificed on the altar of politics.
The response among the scientific staff at the Labs was universal and united: polygraphs should be avoided at all costs because they undermine national security. The scientists reasoned as follows: first, polygraphs create a false sense of security. As the Aldrich Ames scandal showed so clearly, even when repeated many times, polygraphs are incapable of ferreting out spies. Second, polygraphs would drain enormous resources from sensible security measures and replace them with a feckless deterrent. And finally, polygraphs would demoralize staff, and threaten the vital work of guaranteeing the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons.
After days of official hearings before polygraphs became official policy, neither the DOE nor the Congress paid any attention to the scientists' concerns. Each of the predictions has come to pass. Wen Ho Lee passed, then failed, then again passed a polygraph, and his polygraphers (both of whom are still working for the DOE) disagree to this day on his veracity. The DOE polygraph program has wasted millions of dollars during the past six months, and will squander $10 million more before the first phase of testing is finished. And, most disturbing of all, the majority of Sandia engineers and scientists who service nuclear weapons in the field have refused to take the test, and the DOE is suddenly without authorized staff to deal with a nuclear weapons emergency. Recruitment of new scientists to this program and to the Labs in general has become nearly impossible. The Laboratories' leaders are learning that no one feels valued if they are presumed guilty until "proven" innocent by a disreputable test.
But the damage and foolishness doesn't stop there. The DOE has run roughshod over the sensibilities of scientists through a continuous series of distortions over implementation of polygraphs. For example, DOE polygraphers claim that there are but four questions to the examination, all directly related to national security. This is a lie. In each and every polygraph exam, the subject will invariably be told something like this: "You've done pretty well, but there is a problem here with question number 3. Is there something you were thinking or worried about that you would like to get off your chest before we continue?" This isn't directed questioning; it is a fishing expedition, and has no place among loyal scientists nor in civil society.
Further, during the public hearings, polygraphers admitted that there was no scientific evidence that medical conditions (such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease) affected the outcome of the polygraph. Yet, they still insist that each subject provide a list of all prescription medications and a complete history of medical conditions. The reason they do so is to maintain the aura of the magical polygraph: "We need to know about medications," said David Renzelman, chief of the DOE polygraph program, "so we can adjust our machine and our readings." Really? I must have slept through that lecture in medical school.
But things are changing. At the recommendation of Sandia National Laboratories' chief medical officer, who has determined that polygraphs are a risk to the health and safety of employees, President C. Paul Robinson has informed the DOE that intrusive medical questions will stop, or he will instruct Sandians not to take the polygraph. This principled action may precipitate Congressional hearings-long avoided by polygraphers-which could finally reveal the truth about the polygraphs grave effects on national security.
Protecting secrets is a challenging task. Spies, particularly those operating within the national security establishment, are very difficult to find. But certainly we should not make their task easier with measures like the polygraph that are, in the end, self-defeating. The scientists at the national laboratories are willing to sacrifice some of their constitutional protections for meaningful benefits to security, but they are unwilling to do so for nonsense. It is time to relegate the polygraph-the fanciful creation of a comic book writer-to the ash heap of bad ideas and misplaced belief.
About the Author
Alan P. Zelicoff, a physician and physicist, is Senior Scientist in the Center for National Security and Arms Control at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1203.
------------------------------
Regards ....
The wikiHow.com article "How to Cheat the Lie Detector" (http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28-Lie-Detector-%29) has now had over 100,000 page views in the six days since it was added to the AntiPolygraph.org News blog.
George,
Thats an impressive run up of hits, since I found it. The genie will never be put back in the bottle with numbers like that. The more that know the better.
Regards ....
Eos
Dream on. Since 911 the polygraph has seen a resurgence in use and will continue to spiral upward.
Have a good day.
It is interesting that retcopper and nonombre resort to the tactic of ad hominem attacks and the "nyahhh" approach to defend their arguments. I really don't hear that from the antipoly crowd.
For example, when retcopper responds to a comment about 100,000+ hits on a anti-poly page, he doesn't say that the information included therein is wrong, or why someone should think that. He proceeds simply by saying that polys have increased in usage since 9/11.
Okay, fine. That fails to address the purpose of that post, the page with all the hits, or indeed this site, though: all endeavor to show the fraud that is the poly and the arguments behind it. Mr. nonombre made a similar assertion, which I won't debate here.
What difference does the usage of a failed instrument make if everyone knows it's a failure? I pose that one to both retcopper and nonombre. If this nation, to a man, knew (1) what the poly really does and does not do, and (2) knew CM's and read TLBTLD until they had it down pat, what would it matter how expansive your program was?
Augury, the reading of entrails for purposes of divination, was discredited ages ago. Suppose you brought it back now, government-wide. Nobody would believe it, and nobody would rely upon the readings in conducting their daily lives or making important decisions. This site is about relegating the poly to the same junk heap of non-science.
My hope? That as many people as possible come to this site; read TLBTLD; read that wikisite on CM's and beating the poly; and view and engage in the discussion on these boards. Very soon, you would have a device scorned at from all quarters. I'm sorry, that's just what enlightened research and debate according to the scientific method does to false propositions.
Let the poly expand. Sooner or later, public knowledge will "out" the deceptive techniques of the polygraphy field on a much wider scale.
That, too, is just a matter of time...
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 08, 2006, 05:18 PMEos
Dream on. Since 911 the polygraph has seen a resurgence in use and will continue to spiral upward.
Have a good day.
RetCopper,
Funny I don't see any data to support the increase you say is there. Proof is always hard for you isn't it !!
Here we are again dimetrically opposed. Let the useage increase on the polygraph. As the number of people abused by it, will also increase. They will come here and our ranks will continue to grow. On a personal note I could care less about its growth, as I have successfully used the information from this website on multiple occasions. Each time with splendid results. And I will continue to do so as the need arises, unmoved I remain.
Regards ....
Eos:
I think I posted before that I enjoy the philosophical discussions about polygraphy more than the "nuts and bolts" part of polygrapghy that most people here are interested in. That is why I do not post evidence or studies to refute a lot of what is posted here. On this particular point I have the information regarding studies about increasing usage but do not want to take the time to look for it and post it.
It's funny how people here complain about the abuse of polygraph and how evil we are but when certain individuals here "mock" handicaped people not one word of disgust is rasied. Kind of hypocritical. Don't you think?
In any event Eos it is fun chatting with you.
Take care.
Quote from: cesium_133 on Aug 08, 2006, 07:06 PMMy hope? That as many people as possible come to this site; read TLBTLD; read that wikisite on CM's and beating the poly; and view and engage in the discussion on these boards.
Every once in awhile I visit this site. For quite some time now, I have found this site boring and stale. Same old people who failed polygraphs and get their "knowledge" second-hand or third-hand, vs. same old people who actually know about the polygraph because they use it. The discussions are like Philosophy 101: Much debate, with no one proving anything. Only ignorant people would come to this site and think they found the "holy grail" of how to pass a polygraph; and only ignorant people would take everything either side says as more than biased opinion.
One thing that continually amuses me is how the "Very Senior" users and "Especially Senior" users have posted on this site hundreds of times--enough that they should have bored themselves to tears--yet they still hang around this site as if the whole world actually pays attention to them. That's the funny thing about internet forums, whether they be polygraph forums, religious forums, teen forums, game forums, etc.--the people who hang around those forums voicing their opinions devote so much of their own time and energy to the forum that they over-inflate the importance of the forum, thinking that the rest of the world is as focused on their daily drivel as they are. The fact is that the vast majority of examinees who undergo polygraph screening exams--suprise, surprise--PASS the exam. Compared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.
But I guess this site serves a purpose, despite its merely placebo effect for worried people who have to take a polygraph: It makes the tiny minority of polygraph failures feel better about themselves, and it acts as a catharsis as they voice their woes.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 09, 2006, 12:33 PMSame old people who failed polygraphs and get their "knowledge" second-hand or third-hand
Sorry, but people who have taken polygraph tests have first-hand knowledge of what occurred. Do you also consider rape victims second-hand witnesses to what occurred? Are homicide detectives not qualified to do their job unless they themselves have killed 1000s of people?
Quotesame old people who actually know about the polygraph because they use it.
Saying that polygraphers know about polygraph machines because they use it to detect lies on a regular basis is like saying someone that uses sugar to brush their teeth every night is an expert on sugar because they use it every day.
QuoteOnly ignorant people would come to this site
Welcome to the site, LieBabyCryBaby.
QuoteCompared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.
The majority of technical people that I know consider polygraph testing a crock, including those that have passed on their first try. However, I make the mistake of hanging around software engineers, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, etc. instead of the types of people polygraphers are always chirping about.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 09, 2006, 12:33 PMBut I guess this site serves a purpose, despite its merely placebo effect for worried people who have to take a polygraph: It makes the tiny minority of polygraph failures feel better about themselves, and it acts as a catharsis as they voice their woes.
What purpose does this site serve for you? Apparently you visit it frequently enough to have formed fairly strong negative opinions about the people who post here. Spending that much time in a place where you find nothing of value seems odd, don't you think?
Why would you continue to visit a site you find "boring and stale"? And why would you take the time to post paragraphs worth of drivel on a site such as this, given your stated opinion?
I can only hope for your sake that your opinion of this site and its members does not sink any lower, or you will have to spend
all of your free time here, feeling superior and writing about how boring and stale we all are.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Aug 08, 2006, 07:27 PM
RetCopper,
Funny I don't see any data to support the increase you say is there. Proof is always hard for you isn't it !!
Here we are again dimetrically opposed. Let the useage increase on the polygraph. As the number of people abused by it, will also increase. They will come here and our ranks will continue to grow. On a personal note I could care less about its growth, as I have successfully used the information from this website on multiple occasions. Each time with splendid results. And I will continue to do so as the need arises, unmoved I remain.
Regards ....
Have you looked at the homepage of the American Polygraph Association? Half-way down, under "Examiners Wanted".
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 09, 2006, 03:51 PM
Have you looked at the homepage of the American Polygraph Association? Half-way down, under "Examiners Wanted".
Quickfix,
Yes I have been there and seen it. To me it shows me they are sucking wind on getting anyone to become a polygrapher. More are leaving than they are getting. Not an increase in the overall useage. The telltale give away is how long the want adds are posted and they have been there for quite some time. From my point of view not much upside to being a polygrapher, its like being a CID or NCIS agent in the Army or Navy. Everyone dislikes you except other agents. And the government is trying hard to find other technologies to get away from the polygraph. I wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about any job security either. Just my observation.
Regards ....
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 09, 2006, 11:11 AMEos:
I think I posted before that I enjoy the philosophical discussions about polygraphy more than the "nuts and bolts" part of polygrapghy that most people here are interested in.
Well, fine. Debate consists of four levels of argument: propositions of definition (most basic), of fact, of values (your preferred mode of discussion), and policy (overarching them all).- source: I debated in high school. Loved it. The regular posters here do not shy from a debate, and some of us will even use rather blunt language and situational similes to make our points. I know I will.
QuoteThat is why I do not post evidence or studies to refute a lot of what is posted here.
I find that very interesting for someone who is so involved with the topic. I personally love arguments in the pure style of Aristotle, but give me sound evidence any day of the week to back my assertions up. I love quoting facts. This also, with the utmost respect, seems to be a recurring way for the pro-poly side to beg off a true, intellectual debate. If you have the facts to support your argument (for a proposition of fact argument), lay them out, I urge you! Who knows what you, we together, might uncover? If you have it, by golly, flaunt it! Values only go so far in influencing a discussion on policy, as it's very hard to debate a nebulous concept like a "value".
QuoteOn this particular point I have the information regarding studies about increasing usage but do not want to take the time to look for it and post it.
Why not? You took the time to come here and make a case. Do you not believe in it enough, or care about it enough, to see it through? Man, I sure would want to. I love winning. Do you have a URL for it? If it's in your possession, it's a few clicks of the keyboard to post it. C'mon, big guy, humour us :) I swear I will read every word of what you post (I already do).
QuoteIt's funny how people here complain about the abuse of polygraph and how evil we are but when certain individuals here "mock" handicapped people not one word of disgust is rasied. Kind of hypocritical. Don't you think?
Objection, irrelevant. I don't think that polymen are evil per se, and certainly not all of them. I think a certain number of you truly believe that you're doing a service to the country and that your results are reliable. We here dispute that, but constructively.
The ones I have problems with are the ones who continue to promote the box to be what it is not, and egregiously: able to tell lie from truth. Accurate 90-98% of the time. Objective rather than subjective. Usable by itself, without having to rely on the polyman to divine the results. Omitting that the main purpose of the poly is the facilitation of interrogation. Also, those in the poly community who spread (and intentionally) disinformation about what the human body does in response to being polyed, in response to lying or truth, and about what they expect from an examination (what CQ's and IQ's do, e.g.) I find to be rather distasteful.
The remark about handicapped people is directed at me. I stand by my remarks. I have the utmost sympathy for both disabled people and their families, and it grieves me to my core when I see a person, esp a child, who is handicapped (like those twins in Utah). However, the farce of FC has parallels to polygraphy that cannot be ignored, and I stated my case thereon using mental imagery and descriptiveness that some might balk at. Well, I call 'em as I see 'em, and part of making a case is using every tool at your disposal. I don't hold back, and am proud to say so.
I continue to debate the anti side. Without regret...
Quote from: EosJupiter on Aug 09, 2006, 04:03 PM
Quickfix,
Yes I have been there and seen it. To me it shows me they are sucking wind on getting anyone to become a polygrapher. More are leaving than they are getting. Not an increase in the overall useage. The telltale give away is how long the want adds are posted and they have been there for quite some time. From my point of view not much upside to being a polygrapher, its like being a CID or NCIS agent in the Army or Navy. Everyone dislikes you except other agents. And the government is trying hard to find other technologies to get away from the polygraph. I wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about any job security either. Just my observation.
Regards ....
Job security is just fine. Virtually all federal agencies are paying 15-25% special polygraph pay, above regular federal civil service salaries. We have several dozen applicants vying for a few positions, which affords us the luxury to select the most qualified. Reason is not that polygraphers are leaving (non have left us), but because the mission is increasing 20% per year. The APA website is not updated regularly, so some of the announcements are probably out of date. Agree with you on one thing, we're not well-liked outside our own; that's okay, I'll just hug my LES!!
Regards
Dear Quickfix,
No contest from me, the polygraph usage in pre-screening employment and regular employment in the federal agencies is expanding.
I believe the current frame of mind in usage will not change until there are not enough "qualified" candidates approved through polygraph exams. Do you believe that this will be a problem that will need to addressed within the next three years?
Have you noticed in your exams that an unusual amount of applicants have not met basic security concerns in the past five years regardless of polygraph usage?
Do you think your answer to the previous question is more to due with lax hiring standards for basic qualifications or an overall decline in the background litmus test for the basic hiring standard?
Is there a solution in sight or is this just an indication of problems that the government is going to have in general in trying to hire so many people requiring Top Secret Clearances with SCI and additional letters?
If we threw away the polygraph tomorrow, what do you think the major challenges of gaining federal employment with a clearance would be?
Regards.
Please bear in mind that my opinion is based on DOD knowledge/experience, which doesn't include the hiring practices of non-DOD entities such as FBI, USSS, etc.
I don't think there is a lack of qualified personnel within DOD military, civilian or contractor ranks; there is a severe shortage within the linguist pool; one problem is that many are non-US born naturalized US citizens, which makes conducting the normal background checks impossible; background investigators cannot travel to Iran, Afghanistan, etc, to conduct records checks, interview previous employers, etc; thus the reliance of other vetting tools such as polygraph testing. The shortage of linguists will get worse in the next three years before it gets better as long as the US is involved in military operations in those areas. Yes, I've seen some that have not met the basic security concerns since 9/11; clearance adjudicators do everything they can to ensure that issues of concern are addressed prior to the granting of clearance/access.
Regarding possible lax hiring standards..., those being hired are not immediately given the "keys to the kingdom"; access is confined to the lowest level required to perform the duties of the job. Based on the applicants I've seen in the past 5 years, the majority of applicants are of high caliber, but their BIs cannot be performed to the same extent as a US-born applicant.
Is there a solution in sight? In the short term, I don't think so; it is going to take some major changes in attitudes and policies of agency heads to improve the procedures of granting clearances and access, particularly at the TS/SCI level.
Throw away polygraph tomorrow, and I think the adjudication process time will probably significantly increase, as background checks take longer to take up the slack.
One comment needed here is that most positions require a urinalysis as a condition of employment; why then do some agencies polygraph on past drug usage if the urinalysis comes back negative. An applicant's marijuana use 5, 10, 15 years ago is irrelevant to today's society. Other agencies do not polygraph on past drug use, one less obstacle to overcome in the polygraph process.
Regards
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 09, 2006, 07:10 PM
Job security is just fine. Virtually all federal agencies are paying 15-25% special polygraph pay, above regular federal civil service salaries. We have several dozen applicants vying for a few positions, which affords us the luxury to select the most qualified. Reason is not that polygraphers are leaving (non have left us), but because the mission is increasing 20% per year. The APA website is not updated regularly, so some of the announcements are probably out of date. Agree with you on one thing, we're not well-liked outside our own; that's okay, I'll just hug my LES!!
Regards
quickfix,
I will hold judgement on the 1/2 full or 1/2 empty scenario and let the events happen as they may. Again if you have data to post to support your position then post it. But I have to agree with Fair Chance, that at some point saturation and the law of diminishing return will set in. And just for the sake of argument, it is rather disconcerting to know that my tax dollar is being spent on a process that is truly worthless. Bet if you polygraphed congress or the senate who have clearances you folks would be out of business. You seem to avoid those of power and process. Again good debate and only time will tell.
Regards ...
Dear Quickfix.
You answered my questions directly. Right or wrong, the answers are appreciated and your opinion is listened to. I think it is going to be a very interesting time in government security in the next five years. While I will not throw stones at you and we will not likely share a meal together, we can at least converse which is much better than most of the world at this time.
Regards.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 09, 2006, 12:33 PM
The fact is that the vast majority of examinees who undergo polygraph screening exams--suprise, surprise--PASS the exam. Compared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.
Really? Where did you get those numbers? I'd love to read that very incorrect source... of course, you won't provide it because you just made it up!
Lie Baby, George is an expert. He's self-taught and self-experienced through the tests he took.
Benjamin Franklin taught himself French and the arts of diplomacy, as well as other fields of expertise. He didn't have the schooling that Jefferson or Adams did. Would that have made Franklin less authoritative on French or diplomatic protocol?
Again, a sure sign of an argument lost: ad hominem insults. An unsupported assertion, without sources or figures, and then a "polygraph failures who think they are experts" comment. Shoot the messenger when the message is not to the King's liking.
I say again: George knows his stuff. I will go as far as to call myself a lay source on this topic- not an expert, but someone you could come to with a general question. I've not failed any tests. Am I suspect, too? As always, inquiring minds want to know...
Quote from: Fair Chance on Aug 10, 2006, 01:16 AMDear Quickfix.
You answered my questions directly. Right or wrong, the answers are appreciated and your opinion is listened to. I think it is going to be a very interesting time in government security in the next five years. While I will not throw stones at you and we will not likely share a meal together, we can at least converse which is much better than most of the world at this time.
Regards.
Thanks; I will say for the record that polygraph testing is not the end-all/be-all, and doesn't take the place of good investigative work in the criminal arena, and doesn't substitute for THOROUGH background investigations in the security world. I also readily admit that false positives do occur, although not to the extent that many claim. The fact is, in the screening world, the vast majority of examinees do satisfactorily complete their exams. Where's the proof? Search for on the internet and open up any of the annual "DOD Polygraph Reports to Congress" submitted each year and the statistics are readily available. Anecdotal facts are also included in these reports to show the utility of polygraph testing. Certainly a strong argument against the cry of "no better than a coin-flip". And before anyone attacks this stance, be advised that the DoD report does NOT include non-DOD agencies such as FBI, USSS, etc.
It's not a perfect solution to national security, but research continues and technology continues to get better.
Regards
Quick fix,
You write in part:
Quote
...(polygraph) research continues and technology continues to get better....
I am reasonably familiar with the history of polygraph research and practice over the last 75 years. I am not aware of anything that would lead me to share in any optimism that might stem from your assertion(s). The basic paradigm(s) of lie detection are incredibly theoretically weak (and not getting any more robust). Some bad ideas even continue to cycle in and out of favor with passing generations, e.g., the relevant irrelevant (RI) test format. Please share with us what us what is the source of your optimism. Regards...
Drew:
Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world.
Retcopper,
You write:
Quote
Drew:
Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world.
Neither a dangerous nor a safe world is per se a call for foolishness on the part of those who see themselves wearing white hats. Hopefully, Quickfix (to whom the question was addressed) will have a more substantive and meaningful reply. With regard to eggheads and dangerous times, perhaps you are familiar with the Manhattan Project, yes? lol
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 11, 2006, 11:15 AMDrew:
Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world.
We'd be happy to read YOUR self-serving studies, theories, and idealisms. Where are they?
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 11, 2006, 11:15 AMDrew:
Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world.
RetCopper,
I couldn't help myself on this one, but here goes. I will gladly take the title egghead, being both a scientist and an engineer. To the betterment of mankind I submit that it applies to all mankind, good or bad. The polygraph by its inherent nature to cull and villify just one person, again diminishes your intended statement. Just one false positive or negitive and your basis for being a good guy is gone. Any process or system where human interpretation is the final answer is endemic of failure. For we as humans are inherently flawed. I submit that such a flawed system can and never will be of any use in a society based on laws, democratic ideals, and the betterment of mankind. Its the intelligencia that must be the guardian and voice of these principles not the functionaries that try to dispense the rule of law. So Egghead as I may be, I would rather be known for my intellect and compassion, than for my ability to use a flawed tool that has dangerous ramifications. This is long winded I know, but the point is neccessary when discussing GOOD vs BAD.
Regards
What was the question? I forgot already.
OK, now I remember. To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods. When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train. Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned. I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube; then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel; Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners. Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL. Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph. Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads. So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago. But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology. Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all. PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT. TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services. The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.
That's my source of optimism.
Regards
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 11, 2006, 06:57 PMYes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all.
Does R/I move to the top of your list / other polygraphers' list when the subject knows what PLCQT is all about?
only as a last resort, which is not often. There are other methods available.
Quickfix,
You write:
Quote
What was the question? I forgot already.
OK, now I remember. To Dr. Richardson, my optimism is based on continuing research, both at DODPI and universities trying such methods as brain-scanning, eye movement, and other non-traditional lie-detection methods. When the day comes that current polygraph technology can be replaced by better technology, I'll hop on the train. Lokking back at history, if I remember my DODPI history classes, polygraph instruments began with a glass jar filled with water, watching it rise and fall while a subject was questioned. I recall a three-channel instrument, with one pneumo tube; then came four and five-channel instruments with electronic pneumo and cardio channel; Lafayette had an adjustable discrotic notch, Stoelting had a "quality watch" feature which prevented manipulation of sensitivity settings by examiners. Circa 1993, Axciton and other manufacturers produced the computerized polygraph program based upon, if I recall correctly, algorithms developed by Johns Hopkins APL. Now Limestone is out with the next generation of computerized polygraph. Earlier movement bars are now replaced with Piezo movement pads. So, technology is advancing compared with what was the standard 75 years ago. But I think your assertions are more along the lines of methodology vice technology. Yes, I agree that the R/I technique is the least desirable and least accurate of all. PLCs have been around for decades, some techniques evolving from the original ZCT. TES, derived from the DLCT, which has been used for 30+ years, came along in 1993, after extensive research, and is widely used among the military services. The next technique developed may be extremely accurate compared to what we have now.
That's my source of optimism.
Regards
Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed. The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control. No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation.
With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's). The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary. I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.
This is of course the same Shiela Reed, who herself was subsequently discredited, disavowed, and thrown out of DODPI (quite literally). Regardless, TES works quite well, has for the past 13 years, and is the test of choice in military screening. When you yourself come up with a better solution, let us examiners know.
Quickfix,
I will repost my last post in that you apparently forgot to comment on the first paragraph:
Quote
Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed. The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control. No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation.
With regard to the TES (which you seem to indicate is still the mainstay of military personnel screening), it has been completely discredited and disavowed by Dr. Sheila Reed (the scientist in charge of the various DoDPI validation studies in the early 90's). The notion that our nation is being protected by this application/format is just plain silly/scary. I hope you understand why I don't begin to share your optimism stemming from the research and technological advances you cite.
With regard to your last reply, you are almost totally wrong. I am quite familiar with Sheila Reed, the circumstances surrounding her leaving DoDPI, DoDPI's shameful role in that matter, DoDPI in the early 90's, and the validation studies regarding TES. You are wrong on all counts. All that you are presumably correct regarding (I certainly don't know and don't dispute) is that the military is currently using the ridiculous TES format for the completely useless application of personnel screening.
I didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 12, 2006, 07:15 PMI didn't forget, I simply ignored your nonsense.
Regards
On what ground do you dismiss Drew's commentary as "nonsense?" With a doctorate in physiology and relevant training and experience in polygraphy, he knows that of which he speaks.
On the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997, and the DOE two years later; long on theory, short on proof.
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 11, 2006, 11:15 AMDrew:
Why would the polygrpagh industry want to share anything with you? You get caught up in all your self serving studies, theories and idealism, clouding your perception of polygraphy. Get out of the lab, see the real word which is a dangetrous place rigt now and ask your egg head friends to help make it safer rather than tearing down the tools the "good guys" are using to help make it a better world.
A good response to you is from Justice Brandeis in his dissenting Olmstead (277 U.S. 438) opinion:
"
t is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
That's basically how I, an egghead statistician, view polygraphers - zealous and well meaning but totally without understanding...
Indeed, because if they and you had understanding, they and you would realize that CQT and its variants are pseudoscience, biologically and psychologically implausible, and extremely harmful to public safety...
Digithead
I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion. Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement" I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 14, 2006, 04:29 PMDigithead
I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion. Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement" I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.
I guess you missed where I said "Brandeis' dissenting Olmstead decision", i.e, a dissenting opinion is done by the minority...
I support all the legal tools for law enforcement that are based on science and evidence. Otherwise, let's just become fascist or totalitarian...
As for survivors of 9/11, you're appealing to emotion rather than logic and logic tells us that one of the major reasons for 9/11 was the territorialism that existed (and still exists) between our various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All the tools in the world can't overcome basic human error and hubris, including your own. The terrorists are well aware of it and rely on it...
So if you can figure out how to get LE to share information rather than engaging in territorial pissings, you'd go a long way to making the world safer...
And from this board, there certainly seems to be plenty of hubris from the polygraph community...
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 14, 2006, 04:29 PMDigithead
I want to remind you that Brandeis wrote the "minority" opinion. Tell the surviviors of 911 that "the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement" I think you will find that they all support the tools at our disposal to fight terrorism. I forget which judge wrote the minorty opinion in Miranda but just like your minority opinion, so what.
retcopper,
Our government's reliance on such quackery as polygraphy (and voice stress analysis) for counterterrorism purposes should outrage all who know the truth about lie detectors.
The first World Trade Center bombing might well have been prevented had not the FBI, relying in part on polygraph chart readings, decided to terminate a confidential informant named Emad Salem who had penetrated the group that eventually carried out the 1993 bombing. See the message thread, FBI Polygraphing of Confidential Informants (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=952.msg6839#msg6839) for more on this.
Moreover, America's jihadist adversaries know that the lie detector is a sham, as is made clear in a relevant section (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/al-qaeda-lie-detection.shtml) of the
Encyclopedia of Jihad and a jihadist article titled, "The Myth of the Lie Detector." (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/myth-of-the-lie-detector.shtml)
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 12, 2006, 07:50 PMOn the same grounds that the US Senate dismissed his arguments in Sep 1997...
This post seems to suggest that the U.S. Senate only makes well-reasoned, nonpartisan decisions that are well grounded in logic and science, which is why (in your opinion) they dismissed Drew's arguments.
Is the decision-making ability of the Senate really the horse you want to hitch your wagon to?
Generally, I would agree with you; however, in this case I believe they were correct.
Quickfix,
Once again, you know not of which you speak. I wouldn't even address the subject except to clarify for the good sergeant who commented on your assertion. My testimony before the U.S. Senate was not in a hearing dealing specifically with polygraphy (in fact of the members of four testifying panels, my testimony was the only which related to polygraph screening). The hearing in which I was subpoenaed to testify dealt with various whistleblower issues. That which others and I testified to (i.e., bureaucrats not listening to subject matter experts) has been born out again and again since the time of that hearing. Apparently my testimony was sufficiently compelling as to lead to the committee chairman (Charles Grassley) and the ranking member (Dick Durbin) both to write me personal letters of thanks and congratulations. In fact the testimony regarding polygraphy was again sufficiently convincing as to lead to a request by the Senate to the then Assistant Director of the FBI's Laboratory Division to explain the Bureau's polygraph procedures in light of my testimony. The fact that the Bureau did not abandon its polygraph program at the time is no reflection on the concerns rightfully held by members of the Senate regarding that program.
What you and many readers undoubtedly do not know is that Louis Freeh (the Director of the FBI at the time and the Director who implemented the polygraph screening program for applicants) has since had a change of heart about that decision and later (2001) instructed his National Press Office to have me give interviews with the media expressing the views that I have consistently expressed regarding polygraphy.
Perhaps now, you might care to address the subject of my previous post and response to you:
Quote
...Absolutely none of the dependent variable measures you mention nor the computerized data acquisition and various scoring algorithms are worth a tinker's damn as long as the basic application is flawed. The relationship between relevant and control/comparison question responses has no similarity to analyte and control in an assay with true scientific control. No tinkering with dependent variables, data transformations, scoring algorithms, etc. will improve the state of things until major (to include basic theoretical understanding) advances occur with the independent variable (basic paradigm) side of the equation....
Regards...
Nothing has changed. My optimism remains the same for this profession (high), and my opinion remains the same that your assertions that polygraph screening is invalid and should be discontinued is baseless. You speak the words of a scientist, but offer little in the way of proof (no disrespect intended). It would explain why the Dep't of Energy went forward with their polygraph program, despite your advice to them not to. I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena. Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other? Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.
Regards
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 15, 2006, 05:22 PMNothing has changed. My optimism remains the same for this profession (high), and my opinion remains the same that your assertions that polygraph screening is invalid and should be discontinued is baseless. You speak the words of a scientist, but offer little in the way of proof (no disrespect intended). It would explain why the Dep't of Energy went forward with their polygraph program, despite your advice to them not to. I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena. Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other? Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.
Regards
Quickfix,
By all accounts from individuals that were there, is that Intel folks put extreme pressure on the DOE to not get rid of the polygraph. As it would have set an example that certain agencies couldn't handle. Let alone the largest customer to the polygraph manufactures losing all that business. And to make that kind of decision would have taken someone with audacity and courage. Something that is sorely lacking by most civilian bureaucrats in the country. DOE lost many first rate scientists and engineers because of that decision. Two of the scientists that left were friends of mine and their loss was extreme on some very neccessary projects. Which to this day are still unfinished. Most of the Engineering and Scientific community members that I have talked to are fully ready to refuse the polygraph on any level. See how far all these agencies get or are able to work without its science and engineering staff. A complete refusal by the engineers and scientists will definately get congresses attention. But this for now is a pipe dream as most who work for the government will not risk there pensions and job security. But a few have and the number keeps growing.
Regards ...
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 15, 2006, 05:22 PM I also find it strange that you advocate the abolishment of polygraph screening, but support its use in the criminal arena. Why does it work in one discipline, but not the other? Perhaps you could enlighten us on your theory.
Regards
Quickfix,
It took me awhile to ponder your question and come up with a sufficient responce. A good question equally deserves this attention.
1- Criminal investigations are just that, dealing with criminals. Most criminals in my opinion are lower mental life forms and are easily fooled into the aura of the polygraph being a true lie detector. When in fact its a great prop for extracting a confession. Putting the screws to a criminal is not a problem for me. This sharply contrasts its use in the employment arena, where there is definately more protections to a suspect, then to a job candidate. Also the consequences of a confession in the venue carries a much stiffer penalty. Again the suspect can always use his rights, request a lawyer and refuse any more questioning. Without any consequences.
2-Potential employees should never be treated as criminals, or even at a minimum treated as suspect until judged worthy. No one should have their honor or integrity challeged based on a test that is inherently flawed. The reason the polygraph is used this way is because its cheaper and easier to disqualify someone.
And in some cases the penalty for failure is grotesque, and haunts this person the rest of their lives. The FBI being the most henious offender of these agencies in that they keep the record on file for life. There is no recourse, no rights to remove this file, no way to counter the findings. Where its better to spend the time and money neccessary in a background investigation, and prove or disprove the subjects honesty. The polygraph also insulates bureaucrats should something bad happen, it allows them denial, this person passed a polygraph and its not their fault this person went bad. Numerous heads rolled in the fallout of the Ames Case. All of them saw this and now want to protect their sorry butts. And since this website exists and expands the public knowlege on the polygraph, more and more people know it can be beaten. Real spys know this too, and do not fear it, and the polygraph makes it easier for a real spy to slip through, because its possible to be defeated and the US relies on this device.
3-The polygraph is a culling tool used by the FEDS and LE to weed out what they deem as not desireable employees. Potential employees should be weeded out based on true proven facts, not the result of electronic rubber hose confessionals, or because one person (the polygrapher) believes this person to be less than honest. And like any employer they want the best available. To this point I do not have a problem, but let it be based on facts from real research. Proof over opinion in all cases.
Regards ....
To all,
I checked the link and the number of hits to this expose on anti-polygraph:
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28-Lie-Detector-%29
text:
This page has been accessed 252,770 times. This page was last modified 12:32, 12 October 2006.
It is now up to over 250 K. And growing daily. Lets see, what are the derivations and permutations on 250K ? Actually to huge to even bother calculating. So it appears as the polygraph use increases so does the number of people who research it. Quite cool actually.
And they will end up here eventually too.
Regards ...
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Aug 09, 2006, 12:33 PM
One thing that continually amuses me is how the "Very Senior" users and "Especially Senior" users have posted on this site hundreds of times--enough that they should have bored themselves to tears--yet they still hang around this site as if the whole world actually pays attention to them. That's the funny thing about internet forums, whether they be polygraph forums, religious forums, teen forums, game forums, etc.--the people who hang around those forums voicing their opinions devote so much of their own time and energy to the forum that they over-inflate the importance of the forum, thinking that the rest of the world is as focused on their daily drivel as they are. The fact is that the vast majority of examinees who undergo polygraph screening exams--suprise, surprise--PASS the exam. Compared to the number who pass the exam, the few disgruntled polygraph failures who pose as experts on this site are a TINY minority.
LBCB, congratulations on hanging around long enough to be promoted to "senior user" on the forum...
Posters,
I am a senior user. I try and be truthful in evey post. My integrity was accused, tried, and judged by one person who had complete faith in the results of his polygraph exam.
It is a life altering experience for someone who has faith in his country and the American way to be convicted by polygraph.
Every time I see this awful situation repeated year after year, it saddens me.
I do not stay here to be important.
I stay here to encourage those who are falsely accused to believe in themselves.
Regards.
I note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 612,293 times:
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
The above article is the most concise ,yet thorough advice I've seen on how to survive a polygraph. Everyone having to take a polygraph should study it.
TC
I note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 1,186,762 times:
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 04, 2011, 09:59 AMI note that the WikiHow.org article, "How to Cheat a Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)" that was the original topic of this thread has now been viewed some 1,186,762 times:
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)
Good. Keep it rolling. Might just add your site to my FB and be done with it.