Soon, I'll be taking a polygraph for local law enforcement agency. I am concerned about the fact that my polygraph examiner knows I've been to this website. I created a new profile (the one I'm posting under) and deleted my original one.
I haven't posted here or even been to these message boards in over a year. Before deleting my profile, I searched for my posts to see if I may have said something I wouldn't want a BI or the examiner himself to read (like a very opinionated post about how I really feel about this whole polygraph process...). The search feature kept saying "please enter a string set" or something like that...so I just deleted the profile.
Anyway, I was informed that during my background they found out I posted here. I was asked why I would come to a website like this and I was honest that like every other phase of the process, I wanted to prepare myself for the polygraph because before my first polygraph, I did not know what to expect. Before coming here, I could vaguely recall seeing a polygraph done on TV but never paid attention to how the examinee was strapped in or whatever...
I intend to be truthful when strapped to the box. I've been polygraphed before and passed it without using the countermeasures suggested here. But my concern now is this:
It's been suggested here that if the polygraph examiner doesn't "like" you or believes you're being deceptive (which, coming to a site like this is probably viewed as a means to try and beat the box, before it's thought of a harmless preparation for a test...) that an applicant is pretty much screwed before even being strapped in.
Based on the above, what do you all think...am I screwed?
If not, any suggestions on how I can fix this so I get a fair reading and administration of the exam.
I've already got the conditional offer of employment, and of course, my upcoming polygraph is a condition of my employment. I've come to far to allow my harmless internet activity & surfing that was performed with a reasonable expectation that it would not be an issue in my background, application, or worse yet, the polygraph itself, blow my chances at being the police officer!
Quote from: sudeva on Jan 04, 2007, 10:23 PM
Anyway, I was informed that during my background they found out I posted here.
I would have asked how they were able to legally obtain that information (assuming you don't already know how).
Quote
I intend to be truthful when strapped to the box.
Better hope you're not given a PLCQT then.
sudeva,
Deleting one's profile does not delete one's posts. Your deletion of your profile may well have been counterproductive, as it might be construed as an eleventh hour attempt to "cover your tracks," as it were. The agency to which you are applying already knows about your posts here, so what did you hope to accomplish?
Moreover, if indeed the agency knows about your posts, and its polygrapher(s) are regular readers of this message board, they are likely to connect your present post under a new profile with your previous ones.
I think the best you can do is to be completely forthcoming about the fact that you've researched the polygraph and posted here. It is to be hoped that your honesty won't result in retaliation against you.
I don't know what my posts contained but I'm sure it wasn't anything "bad" but I could have made a few sarcastic comments that could be percieved as not being respectful of the entire procedure.
...At this point, I'm just mentally drained by the whole process...
For now, I'm letting it go and we shall see what happens.
Worse case scenario is they don't offer me the job...not the end of the world...disappointing yes but not something to aim at the temple for. LOL!
Thanks for your comments. I'm still interested in reading more feedback, especially from an examiner, if available.
just tell them that it is one of the first sites that comes up when one Googles "polygraph".( Currently #2)
naturally, you found the premise of the site provactive and then you posted to the board because of your concerns about the accuracy of the polygraph.
I am certain that for the majority of people facing a polygraph for the first time with no knowledge of it, this is what happens and how they end up at the site.
they are going to assume you were here anyway in the age of the internet unless you stone cold lie to them when they ask you if you had researched the polygraph.
Quote from: Bill Crider on Jan 05, 2007, 12:09 PMjust tell them that it is one of the first sites that comes up when one Googles "polygraph".( Currently #2)
naturally, you found the premise of the site provactive and then you posted to the board because of your concerns about the accuracy of the polygraph.
I am certain that for the majority of people facing a polygraph for the first time with no knowledge of it, this is what happens and how they end up at the site.
they are going to assume you were here anyway in the age of the internet unless you stone cold lie to them when they ask you if you had researched the polygraph.
This was, and remains my thought process about it. I've already admitted to being here for the very reason you just stated.
I just pray the examiner doesn't fail me because he's a prick, for lack of a better term this early in the a.m. LOL! I'll suck up and take some interrogation, I mean, I'M the one asking for a job. As long as he's fair, it's all good...
I hope that goodness prevails and that all positive principles are practiced!!
...i'm feeling naive... ;)
Happy New Year!
With the advent of a new year, one of my resolutions is that if I choose to continue posting on this forum I will try to be more objective and less rigid. EosJ, with his own objectivity, has been a positive influence on me in this way. I have honestly become quite bored with this forum lately after I achieved the title "Very Senior User," and part of that boredom is because it has become tedious to rigidly side with the pro-polygraph people simply because my experience gives me confidence in the polygraph process. My confidence may have more to do with my own skill as a polygrapher and interrogator than it does with polygraphers in general always performing at the same level across the board. The polygraph instrument is pure science. It does exactly what it is designed to do: it monitors and records the various physiological changes extremely well. However, the polygraph process is as much art as it is science. I will admit that, while many polygraphers will just sit on the science part while they put the art in a closet off to the side where you aren't supposed to notice it. And when the art is on, the science follows, in my opinion. When the art is on, the damn process works, in my opinion, nearly 100% of the time. However, when the art is off, the science is at best questionable and at worst, well . . . finish that sentence yourself. But the point is, when I post here on this forum in this new year, I intend to be very candid with you and tell it like it is--or at least with more objecitivity--than other polygraphers heretofore have done on this forum. Fair enough?
All of that said, let me now be frank about the subject of this thread, because it caught my interest.
Whenever I conduct a polygraph exam, I am well aware that this is the age of the Internet, and that chances are very, very good that my examinee has read this forum. I assume that most examinees who come into my office have read much that is on this forum. What I can't assume is how they will react to what they have read. Will they simply brush it off and decide to be honest and let the chips fall where they may? Will they let the information on this site bounce around in their minds until they are so mixed up that they can't think straight? Will they buy into the advice that they must use countermeasures to ensure that they pass the exam, thereby either fooling me (slim chance) or getting caught (better chance)? I have no way of knowing how each examinee will react to what they have read here.
But one thing is for sure: when I hear that an examinee has been reading or posting on this forum, red flags are raised and my inner radar flips to high-alert mode. You see, I know that I have to work harder with a knowledgable examinee, whether the knowledge is good or the knowledge is crap, and there are both types of knowledge readily available on this forum. With the information so readily available, it makes my job more difficult. It has no affect on the science part of the polygraph process, but it can affect how well the art will work if I am not vigilant.
I understand the motivation behind this website. I think the intentions of the authors are good. Some of them failed a polygraph, and they genuinely want to try to help others through the process. They believe that they are doing a service in an attempt to de-mystify the polygraph process and to de-bunk what they think is "junk science." However, in doing so, perhaps they unwittingly do a disservice to many examinees who would have easily passed the polygraph (whether it be legitimate or junk science) if this website didn't exist. Admittedly (and you should commend me on this admission because you won't get it from many people in my line of work), the art part of the process works best on people who are ignorant of the process. And in my opinion again, when the art is on, the science is very close to 100%.
I worry about people like this topic starter. He/she sounds like the kind of person who has good intentions and not much of a dishonest or criminal past to hide. Yet, here he/she is, worried to death that his/her newly acquired knowledge--as well as the polygrapher's knowledge of that knowledge--may keep him/her from acquiring the desired goal of being a police officer. God bless such a person, and I wish such people much luck and success. I just hope that despite having now acquired both good and bad knowledge from this website that he/she will still make it through the process. I hope that the polygrapher who conducts his/her exam is sufficiently skilled in the art to make the science work as it can. And I hope the polygrapher will perform the process with the same objectivity as I have shown you here today.
THe main problem with the polygraph as I see it is the assumption that physioligcal reaction is a consequence of lying. THat is not a valid assumption. I think knowledge of the process can lead to people "recognizing" the relevant questions and reacting to them not because they are lying, but because they realize that these are the money questions.
The underlying theory behind the polygraph I have never questioned, that people will "recognize" a question that is damaging to them and exhibit flight or fight response. THe question is, why do you feel it is damaging. Polygrpahers will assume because you are lying about it. But if you know there are 3 relevants on a test and you can pick them out when you hear them, reaction can be caused by a self defeating sort of performance anxiety. "Oh no. here come the 1 that counts, dont be nervous, dont be nervous......"
I believe this is what happened to me in my retests, which got progressively worse. However, I blame the faulty assumption of the polygraph for my failure because the polygraph community knows full well that there are no uniquely identifiable set of reactions attributable only to lying but in the case of screening exams at least, they dont seem to care.
the other big problem with the poly is the "probable lie". This can work in theory if the examinee is given control questions that hit his hot buttons. One of my control questions was about drinking and driving because I had mentioned pre-interview that I drink socially. However, I have always been, even as a teenaged underage drinker, very responsible about knowing my limit. Therefore what was supposed to be a vague, doubt raising question was for me a flatline answer on the polygraph only causing my score
Quote from: Bill Crider on Jan 05, 2007, 02:34 PMBut if you know there are 3 relevants on a test and you can pick them out when you hear them, reaction can be caused by a self defeating sort of performance anxiety. "Oh no. here come the 1 that counts, dont be nervous, dont be nervous......"
Exactly, Bill. You hit the nail on the head with the words "self-defeating." Whether a person recognizes and reacts to the relevant questions because he/she is guilty with regard to those questions, OR he/she simply recognizes and reacts to the relevant questions because he/she has been abnormally sensitized to worry about those particular questions due to the information found on this website, the questions are going to be a problem for the examinee. Thus, I believe that many examinees who would have clearly passed the exam had they not been "screwed up" by this website end up failing the exam due to overconcern where there was originally very little or no concern over those issues. This is why I believe examiners should approach each exam as if the examinee has already been "screwed up" by George and company's good intentions. The problem is whether an examiner is skilled enough in the art to overcome the examinee's having been poisoned by those good intentions and make the science work as it clearly should.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 05, 2007, 03:14 PM
Whether a person recognizes and reacts to the relevant questions because he/she is guilty with regard to those questions, OR he/she simply recognizes and reacts to the relevant questions because he/she has been abnormally sensitized to worry about those particular questions due to the information found on this website, the questions are going to be a problem for the examinee.
My friend, you have touched on a major reason why polygraph results are like, to quote Dr. Furedy, "entrails reading." A person subjected to a polygraph interrogation session does not have to have visited this site and learned about relevant/control questions to respond to the relevant question, e.g., did you steal the money? Any rational person would realize this is the operative question of the session.
Polygraphy is a sham. Misplaced reliance on this pseudo-science endangers national security. I applaud Mr. Maschke for his campaign to educate the public on the dangers of, what you call the "art" of interpreting polygraph lines.
Quote from: Meangino on Jan 05, 2007, 04:35 PM
A person subjected to a polygraph interrogation session does not have to have visited this site and learned about relevant/control questions to respond to the relevant question, e.g., did you steal the money? Any rational person would realize this is the operative question of the session.
Polygraphy is a sham. Misplaced reliance on this pseudo-science endangers national security. I applaud Mr. Maschke for his campaign to educate the public on the dangers of, what you call the "art" of interpreting polygraph lines.
Meangino,
Part of the "art" of the polygraph is how the questions are presented to the examinee during the pre-polygraph interview. You assume too much when you say that any rational person would realize the "relevant" questions are the operative questions of the session. When the "art" is performed correctly with any rational examinee who has not been "poisoned" by some of the information found on this website, the examinee is going to be
very convinced that the "comparison" questions are equally significant to the "relevant" questions, and the only thing that should make the examinee focus on the relevant questions more than the comparison questions is if the relevant issues have been violated by the examinee. How do I know this? Personal experience as both an examinee and as an examiner. I consider myself to be a rational person, and I don't recall ever having tested an irrational person, and the polygraph has worked multiple times on me and almost always on my examinees simply because the examinees' focus has almost always been directed to those questions, whether relevant or comparison, that were most significant to the examinees. There are only two ways that this should not be so: First, if the examiner focuses excessive attention to the relevant questions--which a skillful examiner will not do--OR, second, if the examinee has been told that certain questions matter and certain questions don't, thereby focusing only on what he or she has been told matters. If the latter is the case, then the "self-defeating" behavior described by Bill Crider comes into play.
I am tired of arguing over the validity of the polygraph. That's an endless argument between those with experience using it and those who, for the most part, have never used it, but who have failed a polygraph or simply jumped on the bandwagon of others who get their knowledge second-hand rather than through any personal experience. What we are talking about here at the moment is how an examinee may be influenced by information on this site that draws his/her focus where it would not otherwise be focused, as well as the examiner's skill--or lack thereof--in applying the "art" of the polygraph process so that the science works as it definitely does.
The polygraph process' biggest potential weaknesses are poor examiners and misinformed or "poisoned" examinees. Both of these things can adversely affect the outcome of a polygraph exam. If you have a good examiner and a "healthy" examinee, the process will work almost every single time.
while i will agree with you that this site and the knowledge gained therein could cause the issues previously discussed, I disagree that the blame should then fall onto the site. The issue is not that knowledge exists, but rather that the polygraph is not capable of discerning the cause of reaction, or that "having knowledge" puts you at greater risk of "failing" the test. If I know how a DNA test works inside and out, it doesnt help me change the results or hinder my ability to get an accurate result.
I think it is a bit innacurate to refer to the science of polygraphy and the art of polygraphy. the science is a very simple set of devices one might find in a doctors office. Everything that makes polygraphy polygraphy is deceiving the examinee to attempt to produce physiological responses on cue, one way or the other. that is in no way science. Polygraphy is closer to car sales than science. I dont mean that in a demeaning way either, its just that the only scientific part of polygraphy is the verifiable accuracy of how well the instruments measure change. what differentiates 1 polygraph from another is the skill of the examiner of creating psychological set and getting confessions, skills more apt to be held by a car salesman than a scientist.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 05, 2007, 03:14 PM
Exactly, Bill. You hit the nail on the head with the words "self-defeating." Whether a person recognizes and reacts to the relevant questions because he/she is guilty with regard to those questions, OR he/she simply recognizes and reacts to the relevant questions because he/she has been abnormally sensitized to worry about those particular questions due to the information found on this website, the questions are going to be a problem for the examinee. .
Your recongition of this problem reveals the true problem behind polygraphy: lying can result in a physiological response of some sort. So too, though, can being anxious, being oversensitized to a question, because one's mind is racing, etc, i.e., physiological responses of the type recorded by the polygraph DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE an attempt by someone to deceive the polygrapher.
Quote from: Bill Crider on Jan 05, 2007, 06:20 PMIf I know how a DNA test works inside and out, it doesnt help me change the results or hinder my ability to get an accurate result.
I think it is a bit innacurate to refer to the science of polygraphy and the art of polygraphy. the science is a very simple set of devices one might find in a doctors office. Everything that makes polygraphy polygraphy is deceiving the examinee to attempt to produce physiological responses on cue, one way or the other. that is in no way science. Polygraphy is closer to car sales than science. I dont mean that in a demeaning way either, its just that the only scientific part of polygraphy is the verifiable accuracy of how well the instruments measure change. what differentiates 1 polygraph from another is the skill of the examiner of creating psychological set and getting confessions, skills more apt to be held by a car salesman than a scientist.
Well, I don't recall ever feeling the desire to confess to a car salesman. :)
The "science" of polygraphy is more than just those simple instruments. The scientific justification for the polygraph is that when a person feels fear about getting caught in a lie, or when they feel guilt about a crime, or when something about a particular issue is signficant to them, an "orienting response" occurs, i.e., their attention is focused on that issue, which we know without a doubt causes physiological reactions to occur. The problem is that the strength of those physiological reactions vary from person to person, and even from question to question during a polygraph. For example, if you and I both participated in the murder of an individual, and we were both polygraphed, we would both have physiological reactions to the relevant questions about the murder. However, each of our reactions to the relevant questions would vary--my reaction to the relevant question might "spike" right off the chart, while your reaction might be only halfway up the page. The reaction would be there in both cases, but it would not be indentical. The reactions are easily predictable. But the magnitude of the reactions is variable, and this is where we can run into problems. It's not a matter of anxiety or nervousness--those things don't affect the reactions. Rather, it's a matter of focus and orienting response variables.
I admit that polygraph is as much an art as it is a science. I also admit that knowledge of the art can affect the validity of the science. I maintain that if the art is conducted by a skilled polygrapher, AND the examinee isn't unduly influenced to focus his/her orienting response on any particular question--either by the polygrapher or by outside sources such as the opinions of people on this and other websites--the polygraph will work almost every single time. I know that the polygraph process works. It truly does, but I also admit that there are variables that can affect it, and one of those variables is examinee knowledge of the art, which is where this website provides a disservice to the examinee.
You see, George and others here may very well have unjustifiably failed the polygraph for one or more than one of many reasons. It is understandable that they might want to help others avoid a similar failure. However, if knowledge of the art can cause an examinee to focus where he or she would otherwise NOT focus, thereby resulting in failure, good intentions turn out to be a disservice.
This topic starter's concerns that both his/her knowledge of the process and the polygrapher's knowledge of his/her knowledge are thus well-founded. He or she may still pass the exam. If so, it won't be because of the knowledge provided by this website, but rather in spite of it.
LieBabyCryBaby,
Question 1...
If lie detecting with a polygraph machine is an art, what purpose does the polygraph machine serve?
Question 2...
If lie detecting with a polygraph machine is a science, then cite a single double blind scientific study that validates it.
The exams I've undergone since visiting this site have been conducted with examiner knowledge of my participation here...because I disclosed it. I've had no problem telling the examiners my feeling on polygraphy which stems from my first exam in which I was false-positive. One examiner actually tried to brush over the subject while I was offering up complete honesty.
If anything, for me, the knowledge of the procedure and interrogation techniques has helped me calm myself while being polygraphed. I know going in what will take place, why and the proper end-result. The one test I took in which I had no knowledge is the one I failed. Why? Because I allowed myself to get hyped-up and the examiner added to it ten-fold.
I pick out the relevant questions by the seriousness of the subject matter. I couldn't care less about how many different ways an examiner is capable of re-wording the same question. It is ineffective. The subject matter always gives it away.
It is truly the only test I've ever heard of in which the testee is expected to refrain from study and go in blind. That goes against everything I learned from kindergarten through 12 and beyond.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Jan 05, 2007, 06:28 PM
Your recognition of this problem reveals the true problem behind polygraphy: lying can result in a physiological response of some sort. So too, though, can being anxious, being oversensitized to a question, because one's mind is racing, etc, i.e., physiological responses of the type recorded by the polygraph DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE an attempt by someone to deceive the polygrapher.
Well stated, Wallerstein. This is exactly what I wanted to say; you said it much better than I was able to. You have debunked LBCB's pro-polygraph drivel with his own words. :D
LBCB wrote:
"The polygraph process' biggest potential weaknesses are poor examiners and misinformed or "poisoned" examinees."
No, wrong again LBCB. The polygraph process' biggest weakness is its fundamental lack of validity.
Sudeva,
Depending on the age and education level of the polygrapher, in this case < 50 is your best bet, with a real academic degree. I know from the polygraphers I have talked too, obviously without their knowlege of who they were talking too, have on multiple occasions expressed the comment that they really expect most subjects (examinees), to have researched polygraphy.
But it puts up the warning signs and doubt, but its a double edge sword for them as they really believe that no knowlege is better then some. The older polygraphers are generally not going to be too tolerant of anyone who debunks their skills and machine. The reason I say 50, is that most of us younger than 50 have reasonable to exceptional computer skills and know that knowlege and research is part of what we do. The older we get the more rigid we get and less flexible on the use and understanding of technology and information. Even though I fully believe that the polygraph is a sham, the use of technology to research, understand and make your own decision about this machine will remain a personal one. And even though the polygraph is questionable. I believe no one likes having what they do laughed at. Which I can respect.
And the best part of this debate, I would tell that polygrapher everything. If for any reason, it forces him/her to make the judgement with a lot of stress on their shoulders, not yours. Much success to you.
Regards ....
Quote from: ecchasta on Jan 05, 2007, 09:02 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
Question 1...
If lie detecting with a polygraph machine is an art, what purpose does the polygraph machine serve?
Question 2...
If lie detecting with a polygraph machine is a science, then cite a single double blind scientific study that validates it.
I think these questions are a bit off track from my explanation about the science and art of the polygraph process. As I have said before, arguing over the validity of the polygraph process gets us nowhere. I use the polygraph, and it works. I know this by experience. The pro-people use their studies, and the anti-people use theirs, but the pro-people have one thing that almost none of you anti-people has on your side, and that is experience using the process and seeing that it works, while most of you are either simply spouting off second-hand opinion, or you failed a polygraph, or both. I know you hate hearing about experience, but really, there is no substitute for experience.
Let me repeat what I said previously in this thread so we can get back on track to where I was headed:
However, if knowledge of the art can cause an examinee to focus where he or she would otherwise NOT focus, thereby resulting in failure, good intentions turn out to be a disservice.
This topic starter's concerns that both his/her knowledge of the process and the polygrapher's knowledge of his/her knowledge are thus well-founded. He or she may still pass the exam. If so, it won't be because of the knowledge provided by this website, but rather in spite of it. Whether or not the polygraph process is valid is not the issue. This topic starter was concerned about how knowledge of the polygraph process, and the examiner's knowledge that the examinee possesses that knowledge, might affect the outcome of the exam. The art of the polygraph process can be positively affected by a certain degree of ignorance on the part of the examinee. If the examinee feels that ALL of the questions are important--which is the examiner's job to convey--then the science of the polygraph will work better. Yes, there are some weaknesses in the polygraph process, and yes, knowledge of the process can magnify those weaknesses. But let's face it--the polygraph is being used, and it will continue to be used. As long as it is used--valid or not, reliable or not--why do a disservice to those who have to take the exam by continually drilling into their heads the idea that only two or three questions are of any significance so that their focus is potentially drawn only to those questions, thereby likely causing those examinees to have trouble passing the exam when they would otherwise have had no trouble? Wouldn't it be ironic that you polygraph failures could sit there and bemoan the injustice of the polygraph process, and at the same time be the unwitting cause of others failing the polygraph, thereby effecting a sick self-fulfilling prophecy? See the point, or not?
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 08, 2007, 05:45 PMThe art of the polygraph process can be positively affected by a certain degree of ignorance on the part of the examinee.... why do a disservice to those who have to take the exam by [explaining how the polygraph works]
This is one of the many reasons why most curious and intelligent people are opposed to polygraph testing – the test is biased against them! (No doubt that is why our intelligence agencies choose to use it to screen applicants)
But why stop with the benefits of ignorance? What about the benefits of:
poor memory
willingness to lie to get what one wants
lack of reasoning skills
inability to question someone in a position of authority
inability to stand up for oneself
ability to do bad things without remorse
willingness to cheat to get what one wants
opposition to the first ammendment
etc.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 05, 2007, 05:02 PM...When the "art" is performed correctly with any rational examinee who has not been "poisoned" by some of the information found on this website, the examinee is going to be very convinced that the "comparison" questions are equally significant to the "relevant" questions...
I find it bizarre that you should liken knowledge of the truth about polygraphy to the "poisoning" of one's mind. All too often, when an examinee admits to having tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Polygraph Knowledge and to having seen the nakedness of the polygraphers, the infuriated reaction of a vengeful Polygraph God is to cast him or her into the Outer Darkness.
QuoteI am tired of arguing over the validity of the polygraph. That's an endless argument between those with experience using it and those who, for the most part, have never used it, but who have failed a polygraph or simply jumped on the bandwagon of others who get their knowledge second-hand rather than through any personal experience....
Perhaps we the unwashed, those of us ill-starred enough not to have been initiated into the Cult of Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=830.msg5256#msg5256), are doomed never to receive gnostic revelation of the Esoteric Wisdom of the Polygraph Sages (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=329.msg1488#msg1488). But having examined the Gospels of Marston (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3368.msg23428#msg23428), Keeler, Reid, and Backster (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg2012#msg2012), DoDPI's Book of Numbers (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-numerical-scoring-08-2006.pdf) and Book of Rites (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook-02-10-2006.pdf), as well as various and sundry other epistles of the Polygraph Faithful, I for one remain a polygraph infidel. And so do America's (not to mention the world's) best scientists (http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html).
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 10, 2007, 07:46 AM
Perhaps we the unwashed, those of us ill-starred enough not to have been initiated into the Cult of Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=830.msg5256#msg5256), are doomed never to receive gnostic revelation of the Esoteric Wisdom of the Polygraph Sages (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=329.msg1488#msg1488). But having examined the Gospels of Marston (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3368.msg23428#msg23428), Keeler, Reid, and Backster (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg2012#msg2012), DoDPI's Book of Numbers (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-numerical-scoring-08-2006.pdf) and Book of Rites (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook-02-10-2006.pdf), as well as various and sundry other epistles of the Polygraph Faithful, I for one remain a polygraph infidel. And so do America's (not to mention the world's) best scientists (http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html).
I do like this, George. Must have taken you hours to write it, but it is humorous. :)
I know you anti-polygraphites like to turn every topic posted into just one more attack on the polygraph's validity. But that's not the point here. The point I've been trying to make, apparently without the readers' comprehension, is that while it is a noble goal to try to debunk what many of you consider to be "junk science," continually reinforcing the idea that only certain questions are of any importance on a polygraph exam can contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. If a person who would otherwise not be concerned at all about a particular relevant issue is led, albeit by your good intentions, to focus on that relevant issue, then that relevant issue will naturally be the one that causes the greatest reaction. Therefore, the "knowledge" you impart to help examinees ironically contributes to their failure.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 10, 2007, 12:51 PM
Therefore, the "knowledge" you impart to help examinees ironically contributes to their failure.
Now we have a polygrapher who modifies Sir Francis Bacon's famous expression (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory54.htm), Knowledge is Power, to "knowledge contributes to failure." LOL!
Quote from: Meangino on Jan 10, 2007, 04:18 PM
Now we have a polygrapher who modifies Sir Francis Bacon's famous expression (http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory54.htm), Knowledge is Power, to "knowledge contributes to failure." LOL!
Still sidestepping the point.
As we all know, many things, not just guilt, can cause a physiological reaction. But we certainly know that one of the causes of physiological reaction during a polygraph exam is the "orienting response" caused by one question standing out from the others. When this orienting response occurs on one question and doesn't occur--or doesn't as strongly occur--on the surrounding questions, a CQT exam will be scored as positive for that question.
Countermeasures effect or lack thereof on a polygraph exam has nothing to do with my point. The validity of polygraph results or their lack of validity also has nothing to do with my point.
Here's my point said in a different way: When ANYTHING causes a physiological reaction to occur at a particular question where there is no reaction to the surrounding questions, then that particular question will "win" the contest. By causing an examinee to believe that ONLY the relevant questions are of significance, you can cause an examinee who would otherwise not be concerned with those relevant questions to fail the exam.
Now, if you want to come back and play the tired old recording again, which you probably will rather than addressing the real point, go ahead.
In reference to LBCB's statement:
"Still sidestepping the point."
It seems to me that your point is that the validity of polygraph should be accepted per your pronouncement that it is valid.
The point of the skeptics is that until you (someone, anyone) give proof of its validity via a double blind scientifically conducted study, it will be a junk science. Just as chiropractors declared a hundrd years ago (also without any scientific verification) that all disease are caused by "subluxations" in the spine, polygraphers declare that lies can be detected through physical responses of the liar.
Show the proof. I know you have it hidden somewhere!
Quote from: ecchasta on Jan 10, 2007, 10:14 PMIn reference to LBCB's statement:
"Still sidestepping the point."
It seems to me that your point is that the validity of polygraph should be accepted per your pronouncement that it is valid.
Ecchasta,
Are you really that dense, or is it all an act? You may want the point of EVERY thread on this website to be the invalidity of the polygraph. But the point I am making in this thread . . . AGAIN . . . is that whether or not the polygraph is valid, unwittingly causing examinees to focus on only the relevant questions--because they have been told that those are the only questions that matter--can cause those examinees to respond ONLY to those questions, thereby failing the exam, when without the "knowledge" they were given on this website they probably wouldn't have had trouble with those questions at all.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 11, 2007, 01:22 PM...the point I am making in this thread . . . AGAIN . . . is that whether or not the polygraph is valid, unwittingly causing examinees to focus on only the relevant questions--because they have been told that those are the only questions that matter--can cause those examinees to respond ONLY to those questions, thereby failing the exam, when without the "knowledge" they were given on this website they probably wouldn't have had trouble with those questions at all.
But AntiPolygraph.org
does not tell examinees that relevant questions are "the only ones that matter." Rather, we candidly explain the true rationale behind the "control" questions, physiological responses (but not answers) to which very much
do matter. So those who read and understand the information presented in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) will know that in order to pass, they must respond more strongly to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. It is not readily apparent to me why such foreknowledge of polygraph procedure would necessarily tend to cause a person to respond physiologically only to the relevant questions.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 11, 2007, 02:11 PMIt is not readily apparent to me why such foreknowledge of polygraph procedure would necessarily tend to cause a person to respond physiologically only to the relevant questions.
I think it will depend on the person's personality. In my case, when given an R/I test, I know quite clearly that responses to certain questions, especially those that can not easily be cleared up with a background investigation or ones that I have (allegedly) responded to in previous tests, will doom me to fail the polygraph test. This draws all my attention to these questions. Nothing else that my polygrapher says or does during the test, no matter how passionate, stupid, or humorous, matters.
By George, I think Onesimus has got it!
In this thread I have not been arguing the validity of the polygraph. I have not been arguing about whether a person can actually train himself well enough to fool the examiner through countermeasures. I've been frank and candid lately, and even admitted to some of the polygraph's potential weaknesses, but some of you can't accept those concessions and view an unbiased point for what it is.
My whole point has been that explaining the whole process of CQT polygraphy to potential examinees may very well cause them to focus ONLY on those relevant questions. If they are led to do that by the "knowledge" they obtained from this site, its proponents, its literature, etc., then they will almost suredly fail the polygraph or at best come up inconclusive, when without that "knowledge" they probably wouldn't have had a problem with those questions.
Knowledge is indeed power, but in this case it may very well empower examinees to fail, when without this particular "knowledge" they probably would have passed.
Just one more thing: Back when I had to take and pass polygraph exams rather than administer them, thank God I didn't know about the entire process. In fact, I deliberately avoided reading anything at all about the process. When I took those exams, I knew there was some "bullshit" going on, but I just didn't know what it was. Had I known the process, I truly believe my mind would have focused only on certain questions at the exclusion of the others, thereby causing me to either fail the exam or roll the dice by trying to fool the examiner. Knowledge may be power, but sometimes ignorance is bliss. How's that for being candid?
Quote from: Onesimus on Jan 11, 2007, 03:06 PM
I think it will depend on the person's personality. In my case, when given an R/I test, I know quite clearly that responses to certain questions, especially those that can not easily be cleared up with a background investigation or ones that I have (allegedly) responded to in previous tests, will doom me to fail the polygraph test. This draws all my attention to these questions. Nothing else that my polygrapher says or does during the test, no matter how passionate, stupid, or humorous, matters.
I agree that how knowledge of polygraph procedure affects an examinee's polygraph results will depend on the person's personality (among other things, such as whether the examinee consequently chooses to augment reactions to the "control" questions). But I don't see how such knowledge would necessarily tend to cause false positive outcomes in a probable-lie control question test, as LBCB suggests.
With regard to the (completely discredited) Relevant/Irrelevant technique used by NSA and CIA, even naive subjects are likely to understand that the only truly important questions are the relevant ones.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 11, 2007, 03:52 PM
I agree that how knowledge of polygraph procedure affects an examinee's polygraph results will depend on the person's personality (among other things, such as whether the examinee consequently chooses to augment reactions to the "control" questions). But I don't see how such knowledge would necessarily tend to cause false positive outcomes in a probable-lie control question test, as LBCB suggests.
George, you understand the theory of CQT better than many polygraphers. Therefore, I know you can see that an examinee's belief that certain questions are important and other questions aren't can easily cause a focus and consequent reaction where, were the examinee less "knowledgable," that focus and consequent reaction would be much less pronounced or wouldn't exist at all.
I believe that the "knowledge" you impart to potential examinees might leave them with no other recourse than to attempt countermeasures, and I know from sad experience what happens to some of those people when they get caught.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 11, 2007, 04:02 PM
George, you understand the theory of CQT better than many polygraphers. Therefore, I know you can see that an examinee's belief that certain questions are important and other questions aren't can easily cause a focus and consequent reaction where, were the examinee less "knowledgable," that focus and consequent reaction would be much less pronounced or wouldn't exist at all.
Yes, I concede it might, but again, the knowledgeable examinee will also understand that his or her
reactions to the control questions are of paramount importance for passing. I don't see any convincing rationale for concluding that foreknowledge of polygraph procedure will tend to produce false positive outcomes. To my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion, either.
What
is clear, however, is that examinee foreknowledge of polygraph procedure completely invalidates the (tenuous to begin with) theoretical assumptions behind CQT polygraphy. The polygraph community has yet to articulate how examiners are to handle examinees who, answering truthfully when asked if they've researched polygraphy, admit to knowing about polygraph procedure.
QuoteI believe that the "knowledge" you impart to potential examinees might leave them with no other recourse than to attempt countermeasures, and I know from sad experience what happens to some of those people when they get caught.
Indeed, I think that for the informed polygraph subject, countermeasure use is a prudent choice, notwithstanding the unsupported claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 11, 2007, 04:18 PM
Yes, I concede it might, but again, the knowledgeable examinee will also understand that his or her reactions to the control questions are of paramount importance for passing. .
The polygraph community has yet to articulate how examiners are to handle examinees who, answering truthfully when asked if they've researched polygraphy, admit to knowing about polygraph procedure.
Indeed, I think that for the informed polygraph subject, countermeasure use is a prudent choice, notwithstanding the unsupported claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures.
Thank you for your own limited concessions, George. I took the liberty of quoting you piecemeal not because I object to what you said, but simply in the interest of space and because what I have left quoted is obviously what I want to address.
When I say that examinees are led by your imparted "knowledge" to the belief that only certain relevant questions matter, I'm talking about which questions matter most to the examiner. If an examinee believes that the examiner only really cares about certain questions, then that examinee, being an intelligent, rational person, is going to find it nearly impossible to avoid reacting to those questions. Which leaves such an examinee with only two options:
Fail the exam or at best come up inconclusive because his/her reactions to those questions he/she knows matter to the examiner will cause them to be scored higher than the surrounding questions.
OR
Attempt countermeasures to augment the surrounding questions that the examinee now believes are of no importance to the examiner.
The ironic thing is, now that the examinee believes only those relevant questions really matter, his/her reactions to those questions are going to be much stronger than they would have been, leaving the examinee with the unenviable task of trying to augment the control questions to such a degree that they stand out as abnormal responses to a trained examiner, especially when taking into account what IS normal, i.e. normal habituation and normal variability of response to the same question presented at different times and in different orders throughout the exam.
No, I don't know of a good study that proves that all or even a majority of examiners can reliably detect countermeasures. But I do know from experience that I have been able to do so--and it wasn't guesswork--and it was not a fun experience for either myself or the examinee. If you feel that it was "prudent" in their case to employ countermeasures when all it did was lead to their failure, well, I don't know what to say.
Now, you say that the polygraph community has said nothing about how examiners should handle knowledgable examinees. Well, I'm part of the polygraph community, so I'll tell you what we have to do. We have to do our best to help those examinees pass the exam in spite of their knowledge. We have to try to erase the unfounded confidence that knowledge gives them, or at least cause them to question it. That's not an easy task, George. And it's not an easy task to have to fail an examinee when you know, as an experienced examiner, that had they not received well-meaning but damaging "knowledge" prior to the exam, they probably would have passed.
I suppose LBCB is planning on continuing the PLCQT even after the examinee admits to knowing how the test works?
If the examinee then chooses not to use countermeasures, it will be very difficult for him to pass the test as he cannot reasonably be expected to have higher responses to the control questions even if he is being truthful to the relevant questions.
But the real issue is who is really to blame for such an outcome...
edit: Looks like LBCB got in another post before mine.
Per LBCB
"Ecchasta,
Are you really that dense, or is it all an act? "
It's true! I'm so dense that I am unable to read people's minds and determine whether or not they are lying. But I'm not so dense as to believe that a person's (or machine's) ability to detect lies can not be verified through scientifically repeatable testing.
I stumbled across this website after watching a Dr. Phil show where Dr. Phil used polygraph results to implicitly conclude that a father was molesting his daughter. After seeing the show I was curious about the claims of the polygrapher that studies show that polygraph results were 90% accurate. I had no idea. (dense you know)
My entire goal here is to find such a study. In fact, all the studies that I have come across have concluded that polygraphy is nothing more than an interrogation. The instrumentation is superfluous.
I have never been polygraphed, nor am I aware of anyone who has. I have no bone to pick. You, LBCB, (or anyone else for that matter) has had ample opportunity to present credible scientific evidence validating polygraphic lie detection. You haven't. My search ends. Adieu.
Quote from: Onesimus on Jan 11, 2007, 04:47 PMI suppose LBCB is planning on continuing the PLCQT even after the examinee admits to knowing how the test works?
If the examinee then chooses not to use countermeasures, it will be very difficult for him to pass the test as he cannot reasonably be expected to have higher responses to the control questions even if he is being truthful to the relevant questions.
But the real issue is who is really to blame for such an outcome...
edit: Looks like LBCB got in another post before mine.
Sorry about that, Onesimus! Sometimes when we all post at the same time we step on eachother's toes.
You do understand my point, Onesimus, and I appreciate that very much, since I know you are in opposition to the polygraph.
Yes, who is to blame? That's a very good question. But the polygraph, whether you believe in it or not, will continue to be used--that's a given, at least within the next decade or so. And people will have to undergo polygraph exams to get certain jobs. Therefore, it's a shame, regardless of who is to blame, that some of those people will fail due to the good intentions of others like George Maschke.
Oh, adieu, Ecchasta. Nice to have made your acquaintance.
What are your thoughts about using R/I on the informed exmainee? Do you think PLCQT is still more reliable in that situation? Or are you not allowed to use anything but PLCQT where you work?, something else?
I am "allowed" to use whichever format I feel is best. I don't care for R/I, though, to be honest. I believe directed-lie comparison tests are a much better alternative to R/I. Your question is very valid. In some agencies even knowledgable polygraphers have to take a polygraph. It is my understanding that to be admitted to the Dept. of Defense Polygraph Institute, all students, even experienced former polygraphers, must take and pass a polygraph. I would not want to be the one conducting their polygraphs, that's for sure!
Hello guys!
I've been meaning to come back here but my DSL was down.
Anyway...
Boy has this thread grown!
I'm happy to report that I took and passed my polygraph! I could not have asked for a better examiner. He is top notch in the polygraph community. I'm sure some of you polygraphers on this site know him. (He knows you!) I was completely forthcoming with him about coming to this site, and others.
George, we discussed you and your book. He said it was an "interesting read." I haven't read it but I may check it out later...
My examiner already knew when he asked me if I had researched the internet re: the polygraph, because later in the exam he showed me printouts of MY posts!! But, it was ALL GOOD because I hadn't posted anything negative or incriminating.
He admitted being suspicious about knowing I had been here but after we talked he "vindicated" me. Because I was so forthcoming and had just passed an extremely extensive background investigation, he told me that he didn't believe I was trying to hide anything or that my intention was to be deception or beat the box. He even reworded questions for me that I told him I wasn't comfortable answering with certainty. He also admitted that the polygraph exam is not 100% but because he's being doing it longer than I've been alive (almost 30 years) he knows how to weed out bad candidates for the test. He gave the box a 95-98% accuracy rating.
Because I'm such a knowledge junkie, the examiner taking the time to explain to me the polygraph process in GREAT AND LENGTHY DETAIL, caused me to fear the process less and less. He explained to me how the test works, each part of the machine itself, and how he's spent almost 30 years reading examinees' body language, handwriting, voice tension, facial expressions, etc. (also that's been trained significantly in all of the above).
He SHOWED me my results after the test and how I reacted to each question. The responses measured and how there are recorded is quite amazing. I remembered one question that reeved me up (because I realized I forgot to tell him something during our conversation before the test...but it was okay because it was information I had already disclosed in my application, during the oral board, and with my background investigator) and I could see, ON THE CHART, how I spiked!!!!!!!
Ironically, when asked about countermeasures, I didn't spike at all, but I did spike on other questions. He explained to me that what "saved" me was that all of my charts were different. The only thing that was consistent was me showing no response to the countermeasures line of questioning.
After experiencing this process, my conclusion is that someone has to be psychotic to successfully "beat the box" with a veteran examiner!!
LieBabyCryBaby is right about the process being "an art" and "2 fold" (the science of the machine itself and the examiner's role). He is also right about the possibility that ignorance, in this case, is a better guarantee to passing than knowing about the test.
Another officer told someone told him not to look up the polygraph on the internet for the same reason. He passed his as well. If ever in a position to do so, I will certainly caution anyone interested in becoming a police officer for an agency that does polygraph, to NOT research the exam until after he/she takes it!!
For those of you thinking you WANT to employ countermeasures in order to get hired as a police officer because you DO have something to hide, please choose another profession! I don't want you getting me killed! And, for those of you who have bought into the notion that you HAVE to employ countermeasures because telling the truth will cause you to fail, DON'T DO IT!
My overall opinion about the polygraph is that although the science is not 100% accurate, the interrogation aspect of it IS 100% effective. If you are being completely honest, regardless if it's pre-employment, criminal interrogation, or whatever, you're screwed if you're a liar and you're more than likely okay if you're trustworthy.
By the way, I got my start date!!! I'm an official rookie :D that is now academy bound!!!! ;D
In closing, I'd like to THANK LieBabyCryBaby for his candid replies and everyone else who stayed on topic.
Sudeva,
The anti-polygraphites on this forum might expect me to come back here and gloat because of your newfound "come to Jesus" feelings about the polygraph process. However, I intend to do no such thing. As an experienced polygrapher, I know that the polygraph works when in the hands of a polygrapher who knows how to combine the art and science of the polygraph process so that the science works almost all of the time. But that doesn't mean that the polygrapher can't make a mistake and adversely affect someone's life. I have come to believe--and I hope I am not wrong--that George Maschke and some of the others on this forum were actually innocent victims of polygraphs gone wrong. As your examiner explained, it is not a perfect process by any means, but simply the best thing we have at this point in time.
I'm glad you had the benefit of a good, experienced and, might I say, fatherly type of polygrapher to help you through the process despite your possibly having been contaminated by the "knowledge" found on this website. I do commend you for listening to the advice of a polygrapher rather than many of the false "experts" on this website. And I wish you a long, successful career. God bless, and be safe out there.
congrats on passing so that you may now pursue your career ambitions
sudeva,
Congratulations on passing the polygraph, and I wish you all the best as you embark on your new career! With the polygraph now behind you, by all means do go ahead and look further into polygraphy. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) is a good start (and is readily available). I would also recommend the late David T. Lykken's seminal work on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998).
And a note to sudeva's polygraph examiner, should he read this and recognize himself: kudos for not retaliating against this applicant for having posted here, and please consider joining the discussions here yourself! Your participation would be welcome!
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 12, 2007, 10:29 AMI do commend you for listening to the advice of a polygrapher rather than many of the false "experts" on this website. And I wish you a long, successful career. God bless, and be safe out there.
Thank you for the well wishes. I'm glad I trusted my instincts to just be honest and didn't play into the fear
I caused myself as a result of surfing the net! Whether or not this site is more damaging that helpful is not a determination I'm comfortable making. So far, I've experienced both the positive & negative ripple effects this site can potentially have upon a reader...
I think this art and science argument is silly. If Polygraphy is art mixed with science, we have nothing more than wishful thinking that we can "detect" lies. Mixing the two categories will cause bizarre results.
Art:
Oil painting
Singing
Guitar playing
Dance
Sculpture
Astrology
Science:
Astronomy
Physics
Genetics
Chemistry
Biology
Where does Polygraphy fall? If it is art then it is interpretive in a subjective way. If it is science, it is the measurement of objective events. If the machine measures in a "scientific way" (observing physiological responses) and then the measurements are interpreted in an "artistic way," (discerning a lie from truth, nervousness or irrational response) then it is not science at all. It would be as astrology is used today. A scientific measurement (objective) of stars and planets interpreted (subjective) as to their affects upon our lives here on Earth. In fact, interpretation of the information produced by the polygraph is not art at all. It is nothing more than supposition. You suppose a certain response indicates truth or fiction. What happens when you are wrong? To rely upon such an odd pairing of science and art (and I am hesitant to say Polygraphy is art like Picasso or Beethoven's art is art) is to put in jeopardy an innocent man's reputation and our nation's security!
Biology, Chemistry and Physics don't need "art" to practice them successfully. Skill is necessary, but not artistic skills. To be a great artist requires no science. Beautiful music needs no scientific measurement. What about polygraphs? Do they function to detect a lie without subjective or artistic discernment? Sounds like astrology to me. I hope the person who reads the results of my test can paint like a master or I'm in big trouble with this artistic science!
Art in polygraph, as I am talking about, has to do with conducting the entire process with precision, finesse, and expertise. I'm not talking about being creative here. Creative art is something entirely different. The polygraph process IS scientific, in that there are certain scientific principles involved, and the data being monitored, measured and compared is certainly scientific data. However, there is also an "art" involved, and that is the art of interview/interrogation, as well as the art--or perhaps a better word would be skill--with which the polygrapher conducts the entire process, from greeting the examinee to writing good reports.
Don't assume that I don't know the weaknesses and limitations of the polygraph PROCESS. Because there are elements of skill, insight and, yes, intuition (oooh, there's a word that will definitely get a backlash from the anti- people) involved, the science can be affected by an examiner lacking in these elements. Also, I am well aware that innocent people may be hurt--as some of you claim to be--by a poorly conducted polygraph. But where YOU say it is "junk science," I would say it is simply a poorly conducted scientific process.
The problems with the polygraph, which I readily admit, are the following:
Polygraphers and examinees are of widely varying personalities, among other difficult-to-control factors such as education level, experience, expectations, etc.
Polygraphers vary in skill, i.e., "artistic ability."
The questions used on an exam, and the emphasis placed on each question by both the polygrapher and the examinee, vary. And I believe that in many cases an examinee can be oversensitized to particular questions, especially when he/she reads information found on this website and from other sources that tell the examinee that only certain issues (relevant issues) matter to the examiner.
And finally, the human mind and body are in a constant state of flux, which can create many other uncontrollable variables.
I admit all of these as weaknesses of the polygraph. Yet I can still be an advocate of the polygraph IF it is conducted by an "artful" and "scientific" examiner. Certified schools and quality control prorams are in place to try to minimize these weaknesses in the polygraph process, and I think these things work for the most part. If the conditions are right--which I believe they usually are because I have seen this through experience--the polygraph works almost all of the time.
You see, I understand all of these things because of my experience, not simply because I read some questionable lab study or obtain some secondhand knowledge from inexperienced sources. The polygraph works. Yes, it does. But without the "art" the science is questionable. But then you might say this about many other more scientific processes. If the person conducting the process isn't sufficiently skilled, and the conditions of the tools and the subject are not optimal, many scientific processes will fail or at least be hindered.
Hey LieBaby,
How can we make sure our examiner is skilled at what he is doing?
As I said, "Certified schools and quality control prorams are in place to try to minimize these weaknesses in the polygraph process."
These schools and quality control programs were set up to address the weaknesses I talked about in the polygraph process. If conducting the process in the optimal manner were easy, and if everyone who learned how to operate a polygraph machine could conduct the process with the same proficiency, then there would be no need for either of these things. The fact that they exist--to use a hackneyed phrase from this forum--"speaks volumes," don't you think?
LBCB,
Quality Control on an inaccurate and subjective set of data (artifacts). Not to belittle the point, but QC on a polygraph is not even possible, if you know anything about QC and IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) the premise of both techniques requires a known (proven process & stable data) result set with which to work against. Show me where in your polygraph process that is even possible. Not that I doubt your experience or judgement, no matter what you pro people say, your QC controls are no more than another smoke screen at trying to validate your process.
Regards ...
Quote from: EosJupiter on Jan 24, 2007, 09:35 PMLBCB,
Quality Control on an inaccurate and subjective set of data (artifacts). Not to belittle the point, but QC on a polygraph is not even possible, if you know anything about QC and IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) the premise of both techniques requires a known (proven process & stable data) result set with which to work against. Show me where in your polygraph process that is even possible. Not that I doubt your experience or judgement, no matter what you pro people say, your QC controls are no more than another smoke screen at trying to validate your process.
Regards ...
Eos,
Not to defend LBCB, but I think he's using QC in a different sense than what you're probably used to.
QC in this instance is basically an audit in that they have another examiner review a polygraph to simply ensure that the first examiner did what is required by their methodology. Also, with their schools and manuals they are attempting to solely get a "uniformity of process" rather than establishing that the machine is actually detecting lies based on an established sample.
This is different from a lab QA/QC process when you use NIST samples or other standards to make sure that the instrument is working correctly in addition to using a wide range of samples to ensure that the process works correctly between its detection limits. It is also different from manufacturing QA/QC where you sample from production lines to test if your products are conforming to standards.
I've seen other disciplines such as accounting and human resources misuse the term QC from what it originally meant in engineering/science.
Regards,
-digithead
Digithead,
Not to argue with you, but does not the polygraph industry and supporters tout the machine and its process as a science. If this is true, then it should be able to implement and pass true GC / IV&V scrutiny.
This is just another example of the polygraph not being able to standup to true scientific/engineering rigor. A toaster can pass this scrutiny, a polygraph cannot, with the exception of it passing the manufacturers operational test. Much success to you.
Regards EJ ...
Digithead is correct: The term "quality control" is actually a misnomer for the "second look" that is conducted by another polygrapher in many agencies. The polygraph "quality control" is nothing more than a second examiner scoring the same polygraph data a second time to make sure the first examiner's analysis is correct and his/her test was conducted within the acceptable measurement peramiters.
The polygraph process is often touted by insiders as a "scientific" process, and no doubt there is much science involved. There is also much theory involved, and there is an "art" to conducting a good polygraph exam. Therefore, using terms such as "quality control," "scientific process," and "art" to describe the polygraph process are a bit of a stretch if you define those terms by their true definitions, or even by their generally accepted definitions.
Not to beat a dead horse, but quality control offices (for those programs that have one), do more than conduct blind analysis. The responsibilities also include monitoring examiner performance, either live or reviewing audio/video tapes, and looking into complaints of misconduct against examiners. I have sat on several decertification boards (unfortunately) where my office has revoked the polygraph certification of incompetant or unethical examiners.
Quote from: quickfix on Jan 25, 2007, 08:35 PMNot to beat a dead horse, but quality control offices (for those programs that have one), do more than conduct blind analysis. The responsibilities also include monitoring examiner performance, either live or reviewing audio/video tapes, and looking into complaints of misconduct against examiners. I have sat on several decertification boards (unfortunately) where my office has revoked the polygraph certification of incompetant or unethical examiners.
Again, what you're stating is still within the purview of auditing and uniformity of process, not true QA/QC that occurs in engineering and science because you have no way of establishing ground truth and every subject serves as their own baseline. Hence, there are no standards on which to determine if someone's physiological responses are really indicative of deception. Ergo, true QA/QC can never be attained in a polygraph beyond uniformity of process...
Quote from: quickfix on Jan 25, 2007, 08:35 PMNot to beat a dead horse, but quality control offices (for those programs that have one), do more than conduct blind analysis. The responsibilities also include monitoring examiner performance, either live or reviewing audio/video tapes, and looking into complaints of misconduct against examiners. I have sat on several decertification boards (unfortunately) where my office has revoked the polygraph certification of incompetant or unethical examiners.
Sorry, but Digithead is right on this one. "Quality Control" in polygraph is an exaggeration of what is done when one polygrapher takes a second look at the first polygrapher's charts. This isn't true "QC." It is merely giving one polygrapher--who is often no more skilled at data analysis than the other--the power to say whether the first polygrapher's data analysis was correct. It might serve as a CYA (cover your ass) for the polygrapher who conducted the test because he/she can always claim that someone else (the "QC") made the final call, but it isn't true quality control.
When I have conducted "quality control," I have always tried to be as objective as possible, but I have seen instances where other "QC" people are much more subjective. Sometimes there are egos involved. Sometimes the "QC" might not like the polygrapher who conducted the exam. I have seen instances where the "QC" went to a different polygraph school than the conducting polygrapher, or when the "QC" was taught a particular set of testing criteria and the conducting polygrapher was taught another, and they argued over how the data should be analyzed. Just recently, as George Maschke pointed out on this forum, the Dept. of Defense Polygrapher Institute recently changed its data analysis criteria, eliminating or revising various criteria. Now isn't that interesting? What do you suppose might happen when a newly graduated polygrapher, trained in the new criteria, goes up against a "QC" who was trained with the old criteria?
When "QC" is given the power to advise and to suggest, that is probably a good thing. But when "QC" is given the power to override, sometimes it may not be a good thing at all. I have witnessed extremely close calls on polygraph exams where the conducting polygrapher gave the benefit of the doubt to the examinee, only to have the "QC" then turn around and be much more picky and take that benefit of the doubt away. I have also seen conducting polygraphers fail an examinee, only to have the "QC" then turn around and give the examinee the benefit of the doubt.
You think that watching a video of the exam and then critiquing the performance is "quality control"? Perhaps. But perhaps it is simply one polygrapher watching another polygrapher's performance and subjectively deciding if he/she likes it. If the polygrapher's performance conforms well enough to what the "QC" does in his or her own exams, then approval is probably granted. But if the "QC" just doesn't like the polygrapher's style, what do you think might happen? How objective do you think this process is?
The point is, when you have this type of "QC," you don't really have quality control. You simply have two subjective viewpoints, with the "QC" being given the power to override the conducting polygrapher based not on the entirety of the exam, but simply on the chart analysis. Who do you think is apt to be more blind in this case--the polygrapher who conducted the entire process and THEN analyzed the data, or the "QC" who wasn't there and analyzes only the data? One might say that the "QC" won't be biased by the polygrapher/examinee interaction that took place during the exam, but one might also say that the "QC" won't benefit from a complete picture.
My point is not to ridicule the so-called "quality control" process conducted in the polygraph community, but rather to show that it isn't quality control at all.
LieBabyCryBaby,
You write:
Quote
Sorry, but Digithead is right on this one. "Quality Control" in polygraph is an exaggeration of what is done when one polygrapher takes a second look at the first polygrapher's charts. This isn't true "QC." It is merely giving one polygrapher--who is often no more skilled at data analysis than the other--the power to say whether the first polygrapher's data analysis was correct. It might serve as a CYA (cover your ass) for the polygrapher who conducted the test because he/she can always claim that someone else (the "QC") made the final call, but it isn't true quality control.
When I have conducted "quality control," I have always tried to be as objective as possible, but I have seen instances where other "QC" people are much more subjective. Sometimes there are egos involved. Sometimes the "QC" might not like the polygrapher who conducted the exam. I have seen instances where the "QC" went to a different polygraph school than the conducting polygrapher, or when the "QC" was taught a particular set of testing criteria and the conducting polygrapher was taught another, and they argued over how the data should be analyzed. Just recently, as George Maschke pointed out on this forum, the Dept. of Defense Polygrapher Institute recently changed its data analysis criteria, eliminating or revising various criteria. Now isn't that interesting? What do you suppose might happen when a newly graduated polygrapher, trained in the new criteria, goes up against a "QC" who was trained with the old criteria?
When "QC" is given the power to advise and to suggest, that is probably a good thing. But when "QC" is given the power to override, sometimes it may not be a good thing at all. I have witnessed extremely close calls on polygraph exams where the conducting polygrapher gave the benefit of the doubt to the examinee, only to have the "QC" then turn around and be much more picky and take that benefit of the doubt away. I have also seen conducting polygraphers fail an examinee, only to have the "QC" then turn around and give the examinee the benefit of the doubt.
You think that watching a video of the exam and then critiquing the performance is "quality control"? Perhaps. But perhaps it is simply one polygrapher watching another polygrapher's performance and subjectively deciding if he/she likes it. If the polygrapher's performance conforms well enough to what the "QC" does in his or her own exams, then approval is probably granted. But if the "QC" just doesn't like the polygrapher's style, what do you think might happen? How objective do you think this process is?
The point is, when you have this type of "QC," you don't really have quality control. You simply have two subjective viewpoints, with the "QC" being given the power to override the conducting polygrapher based not on the entirety of the exam, but simply on the chart analysis. Who do you think is apt to be more blind in this case--the polygrapher who conducted the entire process and THEN analyzed the data, or the "QC" who wasn't there and analyzes only the data? One might say that the "QC" won't be biased by the polygrapher/examinee interaction that took place during the exam, but one might also say that the "QC" won't benefit from a complete picture.
My point is not to ridicule the so-called "quality control" process conducted in the polygraph community, but rather to show that it isn't quality control at all.
This and your immediately previous post on the subject/thread are perhaps the best posts of any polygrapher in the seven years of this message board's existence. Review of scoring by a second polygrapher is a straw-man activity. Polygraph chart scoring is fairly reliable (unless, as you point out, the community changes the rules midstream with new and better chart scoring criteria) and can be readily done by a third week polygraph student at DoDPI (at least when I was there).
The weak link as it were with control question test (CQT) polygraphy lies with the underlying theory and with what goes on during the pre-test setting of control questions, etc. Quite frankly, the polygraph community has no serious notion of what is the theoretical basis for the activity that they are engaged in which leaves it both collectively and individually with no objective measure of what they are trying to do with the setting of control questions and any real notion of when this might or might not be accomplished. Furthermore quality control groups with agencies such as the FBI (that do not audio/videotape their exams) are obviously relieved of such headaches (review of pre-test activity as well as meaningful review of allegations of impropriety, etc.) but are largely left with being engaged in such meaningless activity as to be embarrassing to any with a mind to reason and eyes to see.
You mention the notion of quality control review bias. As I mentioned before, I consider the present majority acitivity (chart rescoring) as an exercise of majoring on the minor. This is further made even more absurd with various biases that exist within quality control groups. In the mid 90's I was told that the Bureau's QC program was much more hesitant to overturn a DI call by the original examiner than a NDI opinion. As you can see and have pointed out, the combination of largely meaningless activity and bias leads to anything but quality control. Again, congratulations on your posts and shared insight. Regards...
LBCB: your points are well-taken; however, in a properly-conducted quality control procedure, one QC examiner alone cannot overcall a field evaluation, and further, should not even know who the examiner was. A proper QC review is an analysis of the data without any accompanying paperwork with the examiner's name, only a record or file number. If the first qc reviewer does not concur, it goes to a second look by another reviewer; the second reviewer does not know it was already reviewed and non-concurred with; he is evaluating the data as if he was the first look; if the second review non-concurs, then the exam is nont supported; if he does concur, it goes to a third review which in effect break the tie. Interestingly, if the first qc reviewer concurs with the field examiner that the examinee passed, case closed, which is actually a process favorable to the examinee. And yes, when DODPI scoring criteria changes, qc must follow suit and comply. I don't know what your program's qc process is like, but within DOD, that's how it's done. And when there's a perception that a qc reviewer doesn't like a particular examiner, a statistic review of how many times that qc person did not concur with that particular examiner, compared to other qc reviewers/examiners/etc, will bear that out. No program manager should tolerate a qc reviewer's bias toward an examiner he doesn't like; the only one who suffers is the examinee.
Drew Richardson,
What is your opinion on the DLQ developed by the Utah group. There is not deception by the examiner, only from the examinee.
I do agree that QC should be done by an individual that does not know the original examiner or examiee, is not a member of the organization the examiner belongs to and only the data should be reviewed to avoid any possible knowledge of the case. Just a review of the data using the new DODPI rules for scoring?
Lienot,
DLCQ's do in fact sidestep some of the problems with PLCQ's, but present some additional ones of their own. On the positive side, as you indicate, (1) the DLCQT does not require setting (beyond basic description and purpose) of the chosen DLQ's and further avoids the accompanying examiner deception/misrepresentation of the PLCQT as relates to the description of PLCQ's in the pre-test, (2) avoids some of the serious deficiencies of the PLCQT quality control process as outlined in my last response in this thread to LieBabyCryBaby, and (3) avoids some of the unnecessary trauma that innocent/non-deceptive examinees are subjected to and that occurs as a result of common practices that occur in both the pre-test and post-test phases of the PLQCT for even deemed to be NDI examinees.
The down side to the DLCQT relates basically to two issues: (1) countermeasures and (2) what I believe is the basic mechanism for ANS response for lie tests in general.
With regard to countermeasures, the would-be applicant of such procedures in a PLCQT is given but two tasks: (1) identify relevant and control questions, and (2) covertly produce appropriate responses to the latter. The first task is eliminated with the use of the DLCQT making the overall process that much easier for such an examinee.
The second and what I believe to be a fatal flaw relates to what I further believe is the underlying mechanism of polygraph question response in a lie test, that being fear of the consequences of having been found deceptive with regard to some important issue on the test. This is not to be confused with fear of being caught in a lie—this is really an academic issue—the real practical issue and concern for the examinee are the consequences of being thought to be deceptive (regardless of whether he/she actually is) to important issues. This, of course, is a relative issue as it relates to the inter-compared and scored relevant and control issues/questions. As I have stated many times in many places, I believe the relevant and control issues of a PLCQT are clearly distinguishable by the average examinee and that furthermore then consequences of being found deceptive to PLCQ's are both obvious and much less than the consequences of having been found deceptive to the relevant material in such a test. This consideration which would explain what I believe is the large occurrence of false positive exam results (particularly in a screening context) is only magnified in the DLCQT, in which the DLCQ's are intentionally made known to the examinee and for which the examinee is only following the instructions of the examiner who asks the examinee to lie to these questions (leading to the absence of any real or perceived consequences for the directed deception that occurs). It is for this latter reason that I believe all current paradigms for lie detection are flawed and highly recommend concealed information testing as an alternative.
This thread was hijacked in a big manner!
Regarding the original post topic... It is VERY unlikely that anybody knows you posted here. Unless they confiscated your personal computer or something.