A few questions for the lurking p/g examiners:
1 Why can't the examinee have an independent person watching over the examiners shoulder?
(just to ensure that we dont hit the space bar too late or too early )
2 Why wont p/g examiners provide the examinee with copies of his/her charts immediately
following the examination?
3 Why not place the videocam directly behind the examiner, so that the examiners movements
- as well as those of examinee can be later observed?
4 Why is it necessary to use the old card trick or stim test ? what is the real purpose thereof?
5 How come most of the complaints on this site relate p/g examiners telling the examinee immediately
after the exam that he has failed..? No QC procedures in place.?? Using software scoring..??
Weren't you guys taught to score your charts manually?
6 What is the APA's latest position on utilising scoring software?
Finally, some advice to all examiness - when you are told that you have to undergo p/g examination
make the request that you would like a copy of your charts immediately the examination concludes.
Tell him you will bring a CD with in case his printer suddenly breaks down.
Take a blank CD with in case - tell the examiner that it is your constitutional right to have copies.
Let him know that you will have the tests independently verified and scored.
1904
Don't hold your breath while waiting on intelligent answers to your questions.
Suppling a copy of the chart along with a couple of your other questions have been asked here before. I don't remember any positive responses.
Hey Nonombre
Care to take a shot at answering these quesions? They all sound logical to me.
Quote from: 1904 on Jun 11, 2007, 12:44 PMA few questions for the lurking p/g examiners:
1 Why can't the examinee have an independent person watching over the examiners shoulder?
(just to ensure that we dont hit the space bar too late or too early )
2 Why wont p/g examiners provide the examinee with copies of his/her charts immediately
following the examination?
3 Why not place the videocam directly behind the examiner, so that the examiners movements
- as well as those of examinee can be later observed?
4 Why is it necessary to use the old card trick or stim test ? what is the real purpose thereof?
5 How come most of the complaints on this site relate p/g examiners telling the examinee immediately
after the exam that he has failed..? No QC procedures in place.?? Using software scoring..??
Weren't you guys taught to score your charts manually?
6 What is the APA's latest position on utilising scoring software?
Okay, I'll give this a try...
1. Why can't the examinee have an independent person watching over the examiners shoulder?
A. I have run countless polygraph examinations with the subject's defense attorney staring at me through a two-way mirror. I can't think of a more significant guardian to have watching a polygraph exam. Can you?
2. Why wont p/g examiners provide the examinee with copies of his/her charts immediately following the examination?
A. Why does'nt your doctor provide you with your own personal autographed copy of your colonscopy pictures? If you should need a copy of those very attractive snap shots, (for a second opinion), your doctor can make them available. I have provided polygraph charts many times.
3 Why not place the videocam directly behind the examiner, so that the examiners movements as well as those of examinee can be later observed?
A. That depends on the set-up of the room. In my polygraph room, the camera picks up my profile during the exam (I've been told I look like George Clooney from that side)
4. Why is it necessary to use the old card trick or stim test ? what is the real purpose thereof?
A. I have never used a "card trick." I run ACQT tests for several reasons. One reason is to see if the examinee cooperates and follows directions.
5 How come most of the complaints on this site relate p/g examiners telling the examinee immediately after the exam that he has failed..? No QC procedures in place.?? Using software scoring..?? Weren't you guys taught to score your charts manually?
A. That was more than one question, but here goes: I have the advantage of working in an office with several examiners, so I always have someone available to Q.C. my work before my diagnosis is final. (built in 2nd opinion) and NO, I never use computerized scoring algorithms.
6 What is the APA's latest position on utilising scoring software?
A. Good question. I'll have to ask.
Now I have a question for you:
Why are you on the internet advising people to abuse prescribed drugs? How would you feel if some poor kid overdosed based on your asinine advice? AND don't even try to suggest that someone can't overdose on those medications. I once responded to a college dorm where a freshman died from a Motrin overdose....
Regards,
Nonombre 8-)
Quote from: nonombre on Jun 11, 2007, 10:30 PMQuote from: 1904 on Jun 11, 2007, 12:44 PMA few questions for the lurking p/g examiners:
1. Why can't the examinee have an independent person watching over the examiners shoulder?
A. I have run countless polygraph examinations with the subject's defense attorney staring at me through a two-way mirror. I can't think of a more significant guardian to have watching a polygraph exam. Can you?
1904: Staring at you from a distance aint the same thing and dont you just know it. Watching over
the shoulder would keep gung-ho p/g examiners in line.
[/quote]
2. Why wont p/g examiners provide the examinee with copies of his/her charts immediately following the examination?
A. Why does'nt your doctor provide you with your own personal autographed copy of your colonscopy pictures? If you should need a copy of those very attractive snap shots, (for a second opinion), your doctor can make them available. I have provided polygraph charts many times.
[/quote]
1904: You didnt answer the question, because you dont want to divulge the real reason. examiners
dont want to run the risk of being second-guessed or even shown up as a-holes.
[/quote]
3 Why not place the videocam directly behind the examiner, so that the examiners movements as well as those of examinee can be later observed?
A. That depends on the set-up of the room. In my polygraph room, the camera picks up my profile during the exam (I've been told I look like George Clooney from that side)
[/quote]
1904: Again, you didnt answer the question. Refer my response to Ans 2 above.
[/quote]
4. Why is it necessary to use the old card trick or stim test ? what is the real purpose thereof?
A. I have never used a "card trick." I run ACQT tests for several reasons. One reason is to see if the examinee cooperates and follows directions.
[/quote]
1904: You must be one of the very few that doesn't start with the old BS right from the outset.
[/quote]
5 How come most of the complaints on this site relate p/g examiners telling the examinee immediately after the exam that he has failed..? No QC procedures in place.?? Using software scoring..?? Weren't you guys taught to score your charts manually?
A. That was more than one question, but here goes: I have the advantage of working in an office with several examiners, so I always have someone available to Q.C. my work before my diagnosis is final. (built in 2nd opinion) and NO, I never use computerized scoring algorithms.
[/quote]
1904: You're fairly unique then. No BS stim test; no reliance on scoring software.....mmmmmm??
[/quote]
6 What is the APA's latest position on utilising scoring software?
A. Good question. I'll have to ask.
[/quote]
1904: None have been validated. Yet most examiners (except nonombre) rely on BS software scoring.
[/quote]
Now I have a question for you:
Why are you on the internet advising people to abuse prescribed drugs? How would you feel if some poor kid overdosed based on your asinine advice? AND don't even try to suggest that someone can't overdose on those medications. I once responded to a college dorm where a freshman died from a Motrin overdose....
[/quote]
1904: Very emotional outburst...! I didnt encourage anyone to ABUSE. I did say that a limited one-off
dosage will help. Once-off use of any of those meds can hardly be termed abuse. One would have
to imbibe a months worth to OD. Seeing as how non of those meds gets you "high" - It is difficult
to imagine why one would want to overdose. But I guess if one wanted to, one could swallow 100
Tylenols and hope to see dragons in the kitchen . And if that doesn't do it, swallow a gallon of
kerosene and stick a lit match up the rear end - maybe get to see the northern lights. Maybe not.
[/quote]
May I say first, I am a Civilian. just like most of you here on this site. I don't like lairs, but doesn't mean I don't lie myself. WE ALL DO. Sometime or another, we do. The Bush Lies. I bet there are hundreds of things he has lied about and no one has caught him or bothered to something about. But when taking a P/G, Why lie to beat it? WHY LIE AT ALL? WHY USE C/M's TO THROW IT OFF? really. if you are telling the truth, WHY DO IT? There is one REAL way to beat it, tell the truth and you win. That's all it takes. The Truth. Didn't mommy and daddy teach you to be honest? or just some liar that cheats his/her way into or out of things? I'm not saying they are good, I am not saying they are bad. I just think that People should GROW UP and HAVE SOME IN INTEGRITY. Truly, If I was an empolyer OR an DA or anything that needed someone to take a P/G, I would take the honest one over the liar because at least I could count on hearing the truth about things when I need it.
Quote from: someoneunimportant on Jun 19, 2007, 05:24 AMMay I say first, I am a Civilian. just like most of you here on this site. I don't like lairs, but doesn't mean I don't lie myself. WE ALL DO. Sometime or another, we do. The Bush Lies. I bet there are hundreds of things he has lied about and no one has caught him or bothered to something about. But when taking a P/G, Why lie to beat it? WHY LIE AT ALL? WHY USE C/M's TO THROW IT OFF? really. if you are telling the truth, WHY DO IT? There is one REAL way to beat it, tell the truth and you win. That's all it takes. The Truth. Didn't mommy and daddy teach you to be honest? or just some liar that cheats his/her way into or out of things? I'm not saying they are good, I am not saying they are bad. I just think that People should GROW UP and HAVE SOME IN INTEGRITY. Truly, If I was an empolyer OR an DA or anything that needed someone to take a P/G, I would take the honest one over the liar because at least I could count on hearing the truth about things when I need it.
How cute. A real Civilian. A real live, breathing HONEST civilian that doesn't live in a lair. Cutesy Pie doesn't like liars, but does lie him/herself.
You see, cute one, it's those lies that you also sometimes tell, that you may
just at some stage in your life want to keep out of the public domain or from
a potential empolyer.
Now, if you have been actually reading past posts, you would have observed
that cute people as yourself have told tiny little white lies under p/g examination - and were consequently denied empolyment or advancement.
However, methinks that you might just be a student p/g examiner, bored,
and playing on the internet at tea time.
Basically, your advice on how to deal with the p/g is shite.
Quote from: someoneunimportant on Jun 19, 2007, 05:24 AMMay I say first, I am a Civilian. just like most of you here on this site. I don't like lairs, but doesn't mean I don't lie myself. WE ALL DO. Sometime or another, we do. The Bush Lies. I bet there are hundreds of things he has lied about and no one has caught him or bothered to something about. But when taking a P/G, Why lie to beat it? WHY LIE AT ALL? WHY USE C/M's TO THROW IT OFF? really. if you are telling the truth, WHY DO IT? There is one REAL way to beat it, tell the truth and you win. That's all it takes. The Truth. Didn't mommy and daddy teach you to be honest? or just some liar that cheats his/her way into or out of things? I'm not saying they are good, I am not saying they are bad. I just think that People should GROW UP and HAVE SOME IN INTEGRITY. Truly, If I was an empolyer OR an DA or anything that needed someone to take a P/G, I would take the honest one over the liar because at least I could count on hearing the truth about things when I need it.
I told the truth on all four of my polygraphs and failed the first three. I have concluded that passing a polygraph has nothing at all to do with telling the truth.
I agree that a person should be honest. But your simplistic notion of,
"There is one REAL way to beat it, tell the truth and you win. That's all it takes." is laughable.
Do you truly imagine that every single person on this message board who claims to have told the truth and failed is lying? Every single one? That all of them actually lied on their polygraph and are lying now when they say they told the truth? In order to write that childish drivel you have posted you must believe that, because if you believe that even a single person told the truth and failed anyway then your idea that 'all it takes to beat the polygraph is to tell the truth' would have to be wrong, wouldn't it?
Wow. Nonombre, a polygrapher, actually answered questions about the polygraph in a substantial manner. But here is a question that I
guarantee he
can't possibly answer:
If a subject's knowledge of the polygraph does not effect the accuracy of results, what then is the purpose of the deception that is used by polygraphers when conducting exams?
I have asked that question or its equivalent to over two score polygraphers and none has been able to give an answer; most haven't even tried. Such unanimity cannot be happenstance; it is certainly designed. I have no doubt that nonombre, while knowing the answer as well as any thinking and informed person, will not give it. He is a polygrapher, and a polygrapher cannot answer the question without undermining the basis of his own profession and practice.
Of course, the reason that deception is used during polygraph exams is that it
does influence accuracy. Deception is needed to get the subject to attempt her own deception and creating the correct psychological set within the subject aids in the creation of psychophysiological responses that can be read and analyzed. And if the deceived subject creates more accurate results, the non-deceived subject creates less accurate ones. Thus the polygraph is biased against people who know how it works. People who are dumb, who don't think for themselves, who accept things on authority, and who are not curious are all
less qualified to have important jobs in public service but are the only people who can pass the polygraph that is required for so many of those jobs.
At least, that is the
only conclusion that makes any sense of the facts. I am open to any reasonable alternative but polygraphers, while denying the hypothesis, refuse--completely refuse--to provide any sensible explanation. I think that refusal should be made clear. So, let's all wait to see whether nonombre (1) ignores the question or (2) offers some pitiful sophistry in an attempt to pretend he's answered it. Personally, I hope he goes route (2) so we can pick apart his little lies. Actually, they won't be his lies; they always seem to be the same so I'm sure that polygraph school and/or the seminars they go to teach them how to respond to questions like this. Very well, we'll see how good of a parrot he is. He certainly won't take option (3): telling the truth.
Whatever course you take, nonombre, you'll be damned. You can't answer without producing ridiculous lies that I will take the greatest pleasure in picking apart, piece by piece. And you can't ignore the question without lending further credence to the conclusion that your little box doesn't work on people who know how it works. If you posit as a brute fact that it does work equally well if the deception is understood and that the deception is done for no reason at all and you ask us to take that on your authority, or the authority of some article in an out of print and unaccessible journal published by your polygraph pals, then I shall respond by asking "Well, then, why go to all the trouble of deceiving the subjects of your exam and trying to hide the fact that you do so?" and you'll be worse off than before you proffered that paltry response.
Yes, there's really no good alternative for you here. You can't give the honest answer to the question without admitting that your profession is built on a lie and doesn't work on intelligent, skeptical people who think for themselves and research things. And you can't use any of your lies (well, you can, but they'll be detected and make you look silly for insulting our intelligence). And not responding is as good as an admission that I'm right and you're wrong. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I'm betting that you try to pretty much ignore this question, nonombre. That you'll try to brush it off some how. But I won't let you do that. I'll harry you from this forum with the question. I'll hang it around your neck like an albatross; I'll pin it to your chest like a scarlet letter that'll show everyone that you are a liar and a fraud, unable to answer the most basic question that any thinking person would have about polygraphy. I'll chase you round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I let you avoid this question. So run away. Go hide. That's what you do. That's what you people always do when faced with questions that you can't answer. That's what you'll do in the end, so do it now and never post on this forum again because this question will pop up on every thread you post to, showing people that you're a liar. A liar, liar, liar.
Dear Mr. Lethe,
Who urinated in YOUR corn flakes? You seem a bit, let's say, "emotional?"
Well Mr. Lethe, as seems to be my reputation around here, please humor me by allowing me to answer your rather drawn out, rambling, and truly sad commentary with a small question of my own. (wouldn't want to make this interaction too easy now would I?):
If your assertion is correct, then why do some governmental agencies require their polygraph examiners to be tested periodically? After all, if a subject's knowledge of the polygraph DOES effect the accuracy of results (as you imply), what then is the purpose of an agency testing their polygraph examiners every few years?
Now what I expect from you and others on this site is the usual, "oh, it's just a good old boy network, they always pass each other."
Actually, I happen to know for a fact these examinations are almost always administered by very senior polygraph personnel, issues do indeed come up (as they do with a lot of people), and examiners required to undergo this process are usually pretty nervous about their upcoming tests. The ones I know very much "bare their souls" when they get in the room.
That is called "THE TRUTH" and it is what we live by. How about you?
And perhaps you further would like to explain to me specifically what "deceptions" a trained, experienced, senior polygraph examiner would be able to inflict on another trained, experienced, senior polygraph examiner
Hmmm???? ;D
nonombre,
Your reply does not substantially address Lethe's question: "If a subject's knowledge of the polygraph does not effect the accuracy of results, what then is the purpose of the deception that is used by polygraphers when conducting exams?"
In federal agencies with polygraph screening programs, polygraphers must also be polygraphed for the sake of keeping up appearances. But it's all for show. The polygraphed polygrapher will always pass (unless, perhaps, he has written a book (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3574.msg24735#msg24735) that pisses off the senior polygraphers of whom you speak).
Now, how about answering Lethe's question?
Lethe,
Deception is not needed for an examination. One can simply chose meaningful comparison questions that can cause a physiological response based on the salience of them to the individual.
The Concealed Information Test does in no form use deception.
Please cite for me research and subsequent validation studies that have shown that deception is unequivocally necessary to create accurate results.
J.B.,
Note that Lethe's question implicitly concerns control question test (CQT) polygraphy, not concealed information tests. You maintain that "deception is not needed." If this is so, then could you please answer Lethe's question: "If a subject's knowledge of the polygraph does not effect the accuracy of results, what then is the purpose of the deception that is used by polygraphers when conducting exams?"
J.B.,
Of course examiner deception occurs each and every time a lie test is performed (see below for my considerably earlier discussion (post) of same with a polygraph examiner). I would suggest that this contorted conditioning not only applies to the examinee, but to the examiner. Perhaps you and I are aware of one examiner whose boss believes he might lose his "true believer" status and become confused/polluted if he were to speak to a critic of polygraphy, yes? The aforementioned post regarding examiner deception:
Quote
Examiner:
You say in part:
"...Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here..."
You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
For a number of years I have called for the abolition of polygraph screening. I have done so for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is what I believe to be the large scale victimization of people, many of whom have presented their relevant testimony on this web site and message board. I am also offended by any negative impact that pseudoscience has on legitimate science and in particular on meaningful and legitimate forensic science as practiced in the crime laboratory.
Although I hope my expanded ability to opine as a recently retired employee of the FBI will augment the voices of those already carrying the torch and lead to the aforementioned abolition, let me begin by suggesting an intermediate step. Although I do not believe for a minute that all of the deception, lack of due process, etc. that accompanies polygraph screening is justified (even when practiced by law enforcement and/or intelligence officers), for the sake of immediate conversation, let's assume that it is. If in fact it is proper practice and the realm of the law enforcement officer, then it resides within the realm of an advocate, i.e., those who would investigate and prosecute crime. As such it is clearly not a role for a neutral party and in the realm of the amicus curiae expert of the forensic science community. Aside from clearly falling within the role of an adversary and not a neutral forensic expert, I would further maintain, that in the numerous disciplines and sub-disciplines now recognized as being a part of forensic science (my background has largely revolved around the practices of forensic chemistry and toxicology), there is no accepted role for deception in any of these disciplines. Far from being accepted, any such deception would likely be (and has been) the subject of administrative or criminal inquiry.
Let me summarize what I have just said...the deceptions such as are used in polygraphy, if they are to be accepted, belong in the realm of advocates, like police interrogators and prosecutors and not with parties that are supposed to be neutral, like forensic laboratories. Before we examine further whether polygraph screening merits continuation in any setting based on the complexities of validity, utility, and deterrence, let's begin by removing it from that setting where it clearly has no role—the forensic crime laboratory and related professional scientific bodies... Although there is a clear role for scientific inquiry into polygraph practices, there is no basis for polygraphy being a part of the forensic family or the forensic crime laboratory.
Hi Nonombre,
I see that you somewhat skillfully sidestepped my question regarding 'Instant Results'
My contention being that for an examiner to provide instant results to an examinee it
is safe to assume that said examiner has used a software scoring program - none of
which have been validated by APA research.
APA Standards of Practice refer:
3.10.1 Examiners conclusions and opinions are required to be based on quantitative or numerical scoring for all evidentiary examinations and for all specific issue investigative examinations. The scoring method and decision rules shall have been validated through published and replicated research demonstrating that they are valid and reliable, and appropriate for the type of examination.
Further: Examiners are bound by rule 3.9.3 to use only 'validated testing techniques' for the resolution of Specific Issues. At last inquiry made, only 3 testing protocols carried APA validation. Bacskters x2 and
Reid x1. Yet, many or most examiners use arbitrary variants of an MGQT , particularly USAF MGQT
and ZOC protocols dreamed up by themselves.
But why would we expect anything more from P/G examiners.??
The BS rolls onwards, it's evil smelling cloud contaminating the innocent.
Ooh! An ad hominem attack! If someone asks you a question that you can't answer without destroying your life's work, just call them emotional and sad. That'll make it all go away. Oh, wait... Hmm. Upon examination, it appears that that is not a valid way to support a point or to argue. And, as George pointed out, you have not answered the question. Score: Lethe: 1, nonombre: 0
The only real point you bring up is the old one: "If the polygraph didn't work on those who know how it works, why would it be used on polygraphers, who know how it works?" As George pointed out, this is largely for appearance sake. How would they explain not using the awesome, lie-detecting polygraph on polygraphers? There's really no excuse they could offer that would make any sense, so they put you guys on the box too.
Also, I suspect you are misunderstanding the subtleties of my argument, which doesn't surprise me since I don't think you can really allow yourself to question your profession too deeply. For my argument to prevail, it is not necessary for me to prove that the polygraph is no more accurate than pure chance when the subject knows how it works. It is only necessary for me to demonstrate that the polygraph is significantly less accurate when the subject knows how it works. And that is indeed what I believe, that it has some slight ability to detect deception even with knowledgeable subjects, but not enough to outweigh the costs of using it. So it can still detect some issues with very senior polygraphers, but their exams will be less accurate than those of people who come in with a blank slate vis-a-vis the polygraph upon which you guys can create the correct psychological set. There's nothing to lose by polygraphing polygraphers and much to lose in terms of credibility if they don't, so they do. Your argument therefore gains no traction and does nothing to help you out here. Time for round two.
Again: it is obvious that the Probable Lie Control Question test involves deception on the part of the examiner. That is not in doubt nor in question. Secondly, you claim--and correct me if I am wrong!--that knowledge of the polygraph does not effect the accuracy of results. Fine. Let us assume, arguendo, that that is correct. But in that case, nonombre--now attend, sir, most carefully, for I want a considered answer--what, then, is the purpose of the deception? I pause for a response.
I suggest you resign and leave immediately. It is better to be silent and thought a liar and a fraud than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. But silence shall be no salvation for you--no refuge can save the hireling and slave. So, c'mon, nonombre. What else you got? Oh, and who peed in my cornflakes? You did. You and all your vile kind. So, nonombre: bring it on.
Quote from: Lethe on Jun 26, 2007, 12:35 PMYou and all your vile kind. So, nonombre: bring it on.
You didn't talk nice to me and you are obviously NOT a very nice person. Now if you want to talk to ME you gotta be nice. Are you gonna apoligize?
:'(
A predictable response. Make it about me, not the question which you cannot answer. Not just will not answer but
cannot answer--under any circumstance. I don't know whether or not you perceive fully the situation that you are in, nonombre. The question (What is the purpose of the deception used by polygraphers if not to increase accuracy?) is a sticky tar baby and in dealing with it you have precious few options. If you just leave now--and you should have never become mixed up in this to begin with--whether announced or unannounced, that'll be a tacit acknowledgment that you can't answer the question and we'll draw our conclusions accordingly. That is, I think, the best outcome that you can hope for in this situation and the sooner you take it, the better it will be for you. On the other hand, if you make further attempts at sophistry, obfuscation, and delay you will simply become more and more ensnared, more and more stuck. There will be--and there is--only one thing that can rescue you from that mess. The truth. The truth will set you free, nonombre.
But let us set aside the wisdom of that Jewish rabbi and use a more concrete argument. You are an investigator so suppose you were a policeman investigating a murder. And when you question the prime suspect and ask where he was at the time of the murder he provides no alibi, instead simply asserting again and again that he wasn't at the murder scene and could, when needed, supply an air tight alibi. Would that or would that not make you suspect that he couldn't provide an alibi and was stalling for time, hoping that he would eventually be able to cobble some story that might pass together? Unless you are a blithering idiot, his refusal to clear himself, as he claims he can do, would raise bright red flags in your mind.
The situation here is the same. You claim to have an alibi--an explanation for the deception that doesn't involve it increasing accuracy. Why do you not provide it? We stand in readiness to receive it--try us! What? I'm not nice? I tell you the truth, I'd be a hell of a lot nicer if your livelihood didn't screw over people like me. You claim it doesn't, so just answer my question, I'll admit you're right, and I'll be much nicer to all of you and do just penance to atone for the error of my ways.
If my language seems bombastic, it is by design. I'm handing you your excuse on a silver platter. Eventually you
will claim that I am simply unreasonable, won't accept any answer whatsoever (never mind that you won't have presented a single true answer), and that nothing further can be gained by continuing the discussion. In the end, you will do that. But of course, your knowledge of my prediction introduces a new variable, one that likely invalidates my prediction of your behavior and makes new calculations much more difficult. So, perhaps you'll just decide to ignore me after all.
And the second reason for my language is that I am having an immense amount of fun. I enjoy the classics, don't you? Or have you never read
Moby-Dick?
All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it.
The white whale took Ahab's leg; your kind has taken something equally valuable from me. Maybe not you personally, but you'll do for a start. You see, I hate you very, very deeply. Yes, hate--it is not too strong a term for that which I feel towards you and your kind. You have chosen to be that which you are, to remain such, and to pretend that you are otherwise. Just admit it. Just say
"Yeah, Lethe, you did get screwed unfairly. People who know how the polygraph works are indeed at a serious disadvantage when taking it and when you came to us with those concerns before hand we were forced to dismiss them and pretend that they were baseless. I'm sorry, but the polygraph demands that certain people be sacrificed so that other advantages can be obtained, there is no way out of it. I think, on balance, the cost-benefits analysis comes out in favor of using the polygraph and I hope that eventually some lie-detector can be found that won't screw over smart people like yourself.
If you could do that, you would atone for all the sins of your profession, from Adam on down. Maybe you really do feel bad for those who must be sacrificed; maybe a part of you even wants to apologize. But here's the real crime of the polygraph: you can't. You are not your own master, you are a slave to the polygraph. Nonombre, those who would detect liars should look to it they themselves do not become liars. You have gazed long into the abyss, and the abyss has gazed also into you.
We all have limitations placed upon us; here, you are a bigger slave than I, thus my allusion to our National Anthem's third verse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Spangled_Banner#Lyrics). And your chains severely constrict your freedom of action. I've dealt with many like you before, nonombre, and I have a pretty good idea how you'll probably respond to this. I'll not say what my prediction is, since that'd invalidate it, but I'll tell you afterwards if I was right. Of course, you'll have to take my word for it.
Now, I will try to be nice. Let me start by apologizing for my hatred. It goes against my most important moral principles to hate you; I should love even my enemies and do good to those who hurt me, groups into which you most certainly fall. But I am weak and fall far short of that ideal and having that pointed out by the situation which you put me in, oddly, makes me hate you even more. And you know, I trust, how
Moby-Dick ends. I am sorry that I have discomforted you with my strong language. And that I am not the person that I wish I were. And I will say no more on that at this place.
Nonombre, I would indeed be more appreciative if, in your expertise, you could enlighten us on a very, very important matter. If the deception used in PLCQ exams is not used to increase the accuracy of the exam, what then is its purpose? Can you answer that for us? Please. I would be most appreciative of either an answer, or a specific statement that the polygraph's workings do not permit you to give one.
George,
I have re-read Lethe's original question and was unable to find where he specifically stated that he was referring to a "CQT". He in fact generalized the question by indicating he was speaking of "knowledge of the polygraph", which to me indicates the instrument, and "conducting exams" (nonspecific). Regardless, I have stated, as I have here before, that I am of the opinion that one's knowledge of the examination process does not effect the examination and that deception is not required to conduct it. Both of which I thought answered the question posed by Lethe by negating that which he thought was necessary. The Concealed Information Test was offered by me as an example because it is an "exam" that is "conducted" utilizing the "polygraph" (as well as with other instrumentation).
If still need be answered, the only purpose I can think of for one's continued use of deception, if used, would be to conform with the examination method as it was originally validated. However, I am not convinced that this change in variable would cause a "significant deviation" as to invalidate the method.
Quote from: Lethe on Jun 27, 2007, 12:35 AMNonombre, I would indeed be more appreciative if, in your expertise, you could enlighten us on a very, very important matter. If the deception used in PLCQ exams is not used to increase the accuracy of the exam, what then is its purpose? Can you answer that for us? Please. I would be most appreciative of either an answer, or a specific statement that the polygraph's workings do not permit you to give one.
Although I still detect a hint of sarcasm, I do very much appreciate your move to a more civil tone. This enables us all to be more objective and thoughtful. Now the answer I am going to provide to you may still be not exactly as you seek, but it is my immediate thought out answer on this very warm summer evening. My response is designed to address not just the question posed above, but will address the original accusation (by many on this site) that because deception is sometimes part of some polygraph procedures, polygraph examiners are therefore all "frauds" and "liars.":
There are certain polygraph methodologies in which the true nature of the process and analysis is not to be shared with the examinee (the PLC formats for instance).
First of all, as you may know, the entire structure of this much maligned (by APG.org) PLC process (to include how the nature of the examination is presented to the examinee) is actually geared toward helping the innocent/truthful examinee successfully pass the test (a point quickly lost during all the "fraud" and "liar" accusations).
Next, I believe it important to point out that there are several procedures currently administered by psychologists and psychiatrists in which the true nature of the data pursued and the analysis of the data received is deliberately hidden from the examinee (take MMPI for instance). In other psychological endeavors, the examinees are blatantly lied to and misled (certain psychological research comes to mind). Does that mean the psychologists, psychiatrists, and practitioners in these cases are all "frauds" and "liars?" If not, then why not? After all, they are LIEING to the examinees are they not?
So, does a PLC examinee armed with information regarding the "true" nature of how a PLC examination is administered/analyzed, somehow cause the results of his examination to be less accurate? I do believe that polygraph examiners are concerned that PLC procedural information provided by this and other "anti" polygraph sites as a "public service" has in fact "served" to do nothing more than make it more difficult for innocent examinees to get through the test (I argue strongly this information has HURT a lot more folks than he has helped).
I also know that polygraph examiners who use the PLC test have lately taken great pains to design comparison questions that don't SOUND like comparison questions. In fact, the ones I have been exposed to of late sound quite "relevant" indeed (and no, I am not going to give you any examples). So therefore, no, I don't think that as a whole the PLC process has become any less accurate. As I see it, in the end it has plainly become the responsibility of the polygraph community to help the people you thought you all were "helping," but actually hurt. I know you will never accept that as fact, but that is how I view this question.
Regards,
Nonombre :-?
That's not the response I was expecting, but it suits my purposes better than what I'd anticipated.
J.B.'s newest comment is, like its predecessors, worthless. When the question is basically "Why do some polygraph techniques use deception?" you cannot answer it by shrugging and saying "Well, some don't." No further comment is necessary on his last post.
Now, nonombre, you ask if the fact that someone lied makes him a liar? Well, yes.
By definition. Case closed? Nope, the discussion is just beginning at this point. Most polygraphers seem under the impression that all people opposed to the polygraph do so on the grounds that it involves lies and, therefore, is
ipso facto bad. Maybe a few do, but most don't. Be careful that you do not mischaracterize the arguments of your opponents; that's intellectually dishonest.
You have admitted that knowledge of how the polygraph works makes the results less accurate (at least for honest people and, I think it's safe to say it can't make it any more accurate for the dishonest subjects).
- "the entire structure of this much maligned (by APG.org) PLC process (to include how the nature of the examination is presented to the examinee) is actually geared toward helping the innocent/truthful examinee successfully pass the test"
- "polygraph examiners are concerned that PLC procedural information ... [does] nothing more than make it more difficult for innocent examinees to get through the test"
- "I argue strongly this information [on how the PLCQ test works] has HURT a lot more folks than he has helped."
Your pre-emptive refusal to discuss the great new relevant-sounding control questions demonstrates what all of the above quotes demonstrate: knowledge of how the PLCQ exam works makes it less accurate, hurting honest examinees.
And I'm glad that you alluded to "certain psychological research" because it provides us another avenue to demonstrate that knowledge of the exam makes the results inaccurate. In all of the most interesting psychology experiments, the subject was totally unaware of what was actually being tested. Consider the well-known Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Had the subject known what was going on the results would have been worthless. Or the Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment). Had the participants been told "We want to see how sadistic you become," the results would have been worthless. The same principle applies with the polygraph. You can't lie if you're told to lie. That doesn't involve the intent to deceive and the fear of discovery.
You polygraphers know all of this, of course. But, the benefits of a lie detector being good, all else being equal, you then do whatever is necessary to preserve that detection device. I've never seen any evidence that any of you stop to reconsider if the polygraph is still good once all the lies, propaganda, and reprogramming of people is added into the equation. My position is that it's not. The Romans made a desert and called it peace; you take away critical thinking and call it truth.
The
fact of the matter, as you now admit, is that the polygraph is biased against people who know how it works. And people who are curious, who take the initiative, and who think for themselves are all more likely to find out how it works than people who are not those things. And aren't those precisely the people that we should, if they are honest, most want to pass the exam? How perverse that they are those who are least likely to do so! We need more people who think for themselves, not less. Nazi Germany had plenty of people who were capable of "just following orders."
This is a problem that polygraphers have not, to my knowledge, dealt with at all. There is a large-scale, systematic bias in the polygraph against the sorts of people that are best qualified to be entrusted with power over others. In the long-term, that's going to cause problems for us all. No dictator could possibly hope for a better tool.
Now, tell me, had you ever considered that before, nonombre? Be honest now. And, if you have, I'd give a penny for your thoughts.
Quote from: Lethe on Jun 27, 2007, 07:56 PMThe fact of the matter, as you now admit, is that the polygraph is biased against people who know how it works. And people who are curious, who take the initiative, and who think for themselves are all more likely to find out how it works than people who are not those things. And aren't those precisely the people that we should, if they are honest, most want to pass the exam? How perverse that they are those who are least likely to do so! We need more people who think for themselves, not less. Nazi Germany had plenty of people who were capable of "just following orders."
Don't you believe it to be a bit of a stretch to compare taking or giving a polygraph examination to Nazi Germany?
A bit absurd, nonetheless, I do find myself interested in the details of your arguments...Hmmm. And how do you address the statements by the NAS that specific issue polygraph (of the PLC variety) in fact detected deception at levels FAR above chance (albiet not perfect).
Based on your position, we should throw the tool out anyway....Why? Because the polygraph examiner chose not to give an detailed blow by blow description to the examinee of exactly what was going on during the testing process??? Or that a group of disgruntled former examinees decided to get on the internet and "let the poverbial cat out of the bag?"
So the polygraph community, learned, adjusted, and reloaded.... Accuracy and utility still in place (if ever actually in question), now more robust then ever...
You know the truth is that this website is the best thing that ever happened to polygraph. You all have made us better, stronger. I am not trying to taunt you here. You all truly made us take a look at what we were doing, much like how even a borderline successful hack by a computer hacker forces a company take a closer look at it's own security and close the open ports...
Forensic polygraph version 2.0, now available at a police department or governmental agency near you... :)
Regards...
Nonombre
Lethe,
In your last post you indicated that I did not answer your question of,
QuoteWhy do some polygraph techniques use deception?
I purport that the answer to this question was is in my last post with this,
Quote...use of deception, if used, would be to conform with the examination method as it was originally validated.
Yes, it would be more than a bit much to draw close parallels between polygraphers and Nazis, and I don't think that I do that in the above post. I try to follow this rule of thumb: If someone isn't advocating the murder of millions of people in gas chambers and a global Reich for the White Man I don't assume he's a Nazi because it's pretty damn evil to call him one.
However, totalitarians do like to eliminate critical thought and get people to take things purely on their authority and "just follow orders" (the defense given by many concentration camp guards when tried at Nuremburg). Polygraphers don't set out to do that, but that is an incidental side effect of what they do. People who go out and get information, instead of just taking what is grudgingly given to them, and who then apply their own rationality to said data, instead of simply accepting the proffered explanations, are--as you admit--at a disadvantage on the polygraph. Thus, we can expect to have fewer of those sorts of people at a polygraphing agency than we expect to find there if it were a nonpolygraphing agency. I don't see how that conclusion can be escaped. Do you find it valid? If so, I'm guessing that you find it deplorable but you think the benefits still outweigh even that cost (which I think is pretty high).
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the NAS review, the executive summary of which says the polygraph detects deception "well above chance, though well below perfection." I think that George and I differ a lot in that I believe that
under ideal conditions it might be possible that the polygraph could obtain the 90% accuracy levels that polygraphers like to cite. The ideal circumstance requires many things under the tester's control: environment of exam, well-trained polygrapher, good equipment, adequate background info, etc. But it also includes one major element that cannot be easily controlled by the tester: the examinee's knowledge of the exam. You will be right far less than 90 times if you put 100 people who know how the polygraph works and doubt its accuracy. My guess would be that the accuracy in that circumstance--with examinees furthermore hostile to the examiners who have been lying to them and insulting their intelligence--will be little better than chance.
The problem is not that examinees are not told how the test works. The problem is that those examinees who find out how it works are at a huge disadvantage--and they're precisely the sorts of people that we most want in the sorts of jobs that we feel we have to polygraph for.
One solution is just to keep everyone ignorant. If you can do that with total success, you can return to the 90% success rate. But, if the method for keeping people ignorant has other negative drawbacks you need to run through the cost-benefits analysis again. And how are you going to get people to think critically about everything
except this one little thing that they can never question or look into? I don't think it's possible; either everything is fair game for skeptical inquiry or you must muzzle critical thinking. Otherwise, eventually it'll start asking "Why is it that this one thing we can never think about? What is so special about it that we must never question it, even though we are told to think rationally about everything else?" And at that point you must either banish the voice of reason or embrace it. Woe to those who send it away.
Again, I can provisionally accept a 90% accuracy rate for the polygraph under ideal conditions, if inconclusive results are left out. But when an inconclusive conclusion is results in the same thing for the examinee as a failure it's dishonest to pretend the polygraph didn't fail when an honest person comes up inconclusive. To honestly debate the widespread use of the polygraph, it seems to me, we need to know the following three things:
- the accuracy rate with ignorant subjects;
- the accuracy rate with knowledgeable subjects; and
- what percentage of examinees are knowledgeable
If we don't have those three bits of information, I don't see how we can estimate what the
real world accuracy rate is. And that's what is important, not what rate some guy got in a laboratory. It's not people who may or may not have stolen $5 out of a desk who are a danger to anyone.
It's like when you go to a car dealership and look at the stickers. They don't just say "30 mpg." They will indicate the car gets 30 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg in city driving. Then you, the consumer, knowing that you do 80% of your driving in-town, can calculate what your real mileage will be (23.6 mpg, if my hasty math is correct). Again, it is dishonest to cite the accuracy under ideal conditions if only 30% of the real world tests can be done under those conditions.
Anyway, this website is the best thing that ever happened to polygraph? I don't think anyone should be surprised that the free exchange and competition of ideas leads to better ideas. Personally, I'd like to see it practiced on an even wider scale.
J.B. I hardly know what to say. I mean... this is the conversation we're having:
Lethe: Why do some polygraphers deceive their subjects?
J.B.: Some don't.
Lethe: Alright. But what about the ones that do?
J.B.: They've always done it that way.
Lethe: Uh... okay. But
why have they always done it that way?
[/list]
There are two possibilities, J.B. Either you think that you're providing valid answers or you don't. If you do think that, you're a fool. If you know that these answers are invalid and simply efforts in obfuscation, you're a deceiver. And, I think, that furthermore makes you a fool anyway for thinking that I'll accept that line. Maybe others do, but you need to know your audience. And I don't eat bullshit for breakfast.
Drew,
I would think that we can both agree that a lie is not necessarily what is measured or deception necessary in a procedure of testing for deception. In fact, concealing information is in itself a form of deception. Although I do believe that conditioning is a part of the procedure (e.g. orienting response is a form of conditioning), it needn't be "contorted".
I am not sure what it is that you were trying to accomplish with your last thought of the examiner and the critic but I personally have had many personal discussions with David Lykken, some with Bill Iacono, and some with John Furedy (some of the harshest opponents of CQT polygraph). In fact, I corresponded with David up until a day or two before he passed away. I neither agree nor subscribe to the ideology that one should isolate themselves from someone just because they do not agree with you or have different beliefs than you.
Lethe,
I find no rationalization to continue to engage in discourse with you, as you appear to be pressed to make this into a flippant debate. If you are indeed an educated audience rather than that which you latter purposed, the answer to your question lies within my answer and the research/reading you have yet to do.
J.B. I stand by my analysis of your posts, which you've done nothing to refute. When put into plain language, they really are that vacuous. But, I know, the answer to all my questions is always in the next article or book. Well, here's an article for you to read: Politics and the English Language (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit), by George Orwell.
Lethe,
First off let me say welcome and its good to have another highly trained mind on the board. I have enjoyed the discourse !!
What your going to find from these two resident polygraphers (JB and Nonombre inparticular), is that they will on most occasions to the best of there ability answer your questions. I will caveat that with, the information will not cross into the antipolygraph realm, as both are true believers in their chosen profession. But from my experience over the last few years and even before I came to find this board. Which is a great amount of fun especially for debating, which I do cherish as a fun passtime. Is that detailed/indepth polygraph knowlege does greatly effect the polygraphs outcome. I have tutored many in the last few years on the polygraph and its process. I direct them to this website and have them read everything they can get on the polygraph. Then we go to work on how to dissect the polygraphers process, and how to mentally counter each point in the process. Not one has had DI (Deception Indicated) or SR (Significant Response) since I began. All have either passed, or had Inconclusive. The reason for this, is that once the fear and anxiety levels are reduced significantly, the end result has to be the two latter outcomes. What I have done is simplify the requirements for a successful polygraph exam, (This is what the polygrapher must have in place to be successful), you alluded to them in your posts.
These 3 requirements are strictly my perspective to the problem:
1. The subject must have and maintain a level of fear and anxiety: Accomplished with the early notification of the exam and enhanced with the pretest song and dance, finished off with the acquaintance test (stim test).
2. Subject must believe that the polygraph really can detect deception: Part 1 and polygraphers ability to get you to buy into the show. Also other ploys during the in-test phase about breathing and stopping the polygraph to get things off your chest. Its all a show.
3. Subject believes that there are consequences for failure: Loss of job, or not getting a job. This enhances the fear and anxiety level. But once they fully understand, they relax and this fear goes away too. The realization that not getting this job because of being subjected to this process may not be really worth it. those that think independently and have cognitive abilities actually see it for what it is. And some have walked away. Some of my folks basically just stopped the job process because they disliked being deceived by a potential employer.
Also with the addition in some cases of SA (Statement Analysis) & KA (Kinesic Analysis) also thrown into the mix, which is done without the subjects knowlege, it adds to the point that they (polygraphers) believe they are unbeatable. The bottom line is that the great minds who take nothing at face value will always find away to get around totalitarian systems. But if the attempt is tried by someone not cognitively equipped, the polygrapher will always win. Bottom line is they like stupid, naive, and unread.
Any one of these requirements not met by the polygrapher, effects its outcome. Mostly to the inconclusive side of the decision. And if countermeasures are used, it heavily sways the decision to the subject.
Our resident polygraphers will not respond to this as it would violate their rules and they must always defend their machine and process.
And them giving in would make this no fun at all !!
Again Welcome and Regards ....
Quote from: nonombre on Jun 27, 2007, 06:31 PM
Whew. That is the biggest crock of horse manure I have read in a long time.
If you sincerely believe that this site and TLBLD has actually made it more difficult
for innocent subjects to pass a p/g examination, then you are seriously deluded and
are definitely No Friend of anyone who visits here for advice.
Wow. The scary thing is that you may even believe this rubbish that you posted.
No. I dont think you believe your own ramblings. You're just stuck in a rut with no
alternative but to wallow in it long-term.
How sad. Just at a point where I thought you had some real life in you.
0/10 for the BS
But 10/10 for effort.
I will conjure up your image in my mind and send you peace and blessings.
Palerider, polygraphers ... etc.
It does make it more difficult for you as the truth we post, your training academies provide. In reference:
American International Institute for Polygraph - Morrow, GA.
Link: http://www.polygraphschool.com/catalog.htm
about 3/4's of the way down the page.
QuotePre and Post Test Interviews: Student understanding of and ability to conduct proper pretest interviews to psychologically prepare the examinee for testing; and, student understanding of and ability to conduct appropriate post test interviews to resolve polygraph issues.
So what part of being able to reduce the fear and anxiety which learning and becoming versed in the polygraph procedure isn't understood ? If you can't get the adrenal levels high enough it doesn't work. It will be inconclusive everytime. Knowlege is power and the more the examinee has, the less pressure you can apply. And I don't give a damn about how much experience you may have with Reids or Honts techniques. So my 3 rules above apply and have proven validation thanks to this polygraph school. Its way too easy when your adversaries provide you with the ammunition. And I know I got you cold !!!
Regards ....
I found you reference to the American International School Of Polygraph to be an interesting choice. This week I met 2 persons that have qualified from that school and neither can score
charts properly or at all; neither can formulate proper Relevant Questions and neither can identify basic, overt countermeasures.
A third person, also having 'qualified' from that great institution, offered a client the choice
of rendering an NDI or DI - wichever the client would prefer.
Otherwise they're all in good shape and ready to wreck careers and lives.
I found your reference to the American International School Of Polygraph to be an interesting choice. This week I met 2 persons that have qualified from that school and neither can score
charts properly or at all; neither can formulate proper Relevant Questions and neither can identify basic, overt countermeasures.
A third person, also having 'qualified' from that great institution, offered a client the choice
of rendering an NDI or DI - wichever the client would prefer.
Otherwise they're all in good shape and ready to wreck careers and lives.
Quote from: Kalex on Jul 21, 2007, 05:23 AMI found your reference to the American International School Of Polygraph to be an interesting choice. This week I met 2 persons that have qualified from that school and neither can score
charts properly or at all; neither can formulate proper Relevant Questions and neither can identify basic, overt countermeasures.
A third person, also having 'qualified' from that great institution, offered a client the choice
of rendering an NDI or DI - wichever the client would prefer.
Otherwise they're all in good shape and ready to wreck careers and lives.
Kalex,
If you have artifacts to post, then send them to George, he has various means to acquire them. It would be good to see them, and be disputed by our resident polygraphers. But on the same note, as is true of most "trade schools - ACICS accredited, don't you know !!", this includes DACA (formerly DODPI), and of course the highly and academically respected, American Polygraph Association (yes, this is satire), if your breathing and have money, guess what your in, no brains required. Just flash the cash and wahlah !!! Your a certified polygrapher, or any other one liners you care to add. So it really does not surprize me from your statements. Its not much of a leap from asking "Are the lights on in the room", (obvious irrelevent question), to "Would you like that supersized with fries". And I have more respect for the laters ability to get the order right. Thanks for a highly entertaining post, I haven't had the chance to do satire in a while.
Regards ....
Dear EOS,
I spoke to the persons concerned. (note the use of persons instead of people)
They are scared to become embroiled and ultimately to have their identities known.
The American International bunch may find reasons to revoke training certiticates...
So unfortunately, that saga wont go much further for now ( later,,,, maybe )
The one that offered the choices (Results R' Us ) might be an easier one to finger
as the 3 have become 2 / and as you may well know, when the bones are bare,
the hyenas turn upon themselves.
I will keep you informed of new developments.
Rgds,
Kalex,
When its possible post what you can. The biggest fear the polygraph industry hides is MASS non-acceptance or belief in their process and methods. They have spent 70 years building up this fassad, it will take time for the public to fully realize that they are being lied too. But once the mass majority of average citizens disbelieves and says so, the polygraph will cease to exit. Polygraphers fear an informed, intelligent, well read subject, that is not afraid to speak the truth and tell them what a crock their polygraph and process are. And so inclined audacious, skilled, and intelligent individuals armed with countermeasures, are even a bigger fear and threat. It all depends to what level your willing to take the struggle too. Using a lie to catch a liar is a fools errand.
The polygraph industry is always trying to find new venues to exercise the trade, an example are fishing tournaments and other types of events where they can sow suspicion and fear that a contestant might cheat. Cheaters, like liars, and other lower life forms always get caught, what they are selling is just a theory of quicker self gradification.
Regards ..
Quote from: EosJupiter on Jul 23, 2007, 06:12 PMKalex,
When its possible post what you can. The biggest fear the polygraph industry hides is MASS non-acceptance or belief in their process and methods. They have spent 70 years building up this fassad, it will take time for the public to fully realize that they are being lied too. But once the mass majority of average citizens disbelieves and says so, the polygraph will cease to exit. Polygraphers fear an informed, intelligent, well read subject, that is not afraid to speak the truth and tell them what a crock their polygraph and process are. And so inclined audacious, skilled, and intelligent individuals armed with countermeasures, are even a bigger fear and threat. It all depends to what level your willing to take the struggle too. Using a lie to catch a liar is a fools errand.
The polygraph industry is always trying to find new venues to exercise the trade, an example are fishing tournaments and other types of events where they can sow suspicion and fear that a contestant might cheat. Cheaters, like liars, and other lower life forms always get caught, what they are selling is just a theory of quicker self gradification.
Regards ..
Hi EOS,
I have the names of 5 examiners who qualified 'there' over the years, but who were not actually able to go out and test anybody, without remediation from colleagues.
They were happy to dish the dirt to myself and others, but not keen to tackle the Instructors and maybe put their 'accreditation' on the line.
Ditto for some of 'The truth doctor' courses. Seems like the Marston syndrome was a festering sore all this time.
APA Accreditation is as worthless as the Phd's of some the leading lights in the DOD industry.
Sincerely,
Quote from: Kalex on Jul 26, 2007, 11:01 AMQuote from: EosJupiter on Jul 23, 2007, 06:12 PMKalex,
When its possible post what you can. The biggest fear the polygraph industry hides is MASS non-acceptance or belief in their process and methods. They have spent 70 years building up this fassad, it will take time for the public to fully realize that they are being lied too. But once the mass majority of average citizens disbelieves and says so, the polygraph will cease to exit. Polygraphers fear an informed, intelligent, well read subject, that is not afraid to speak the truth and tell them what a crock their polygraph and process are. And so inclined audacious, skilled, and intelligent individuals armed with countermeasures, are even a bigger fear and threat. It all depends to what level your willing to take the struggle too. Using a lie to catch a liar is a fools errand.
The polygraph industry is always trying to find new venues to exercise the trade, an example are fishing tournaments and other types of events where they can sow suspicion and fear that a contestant might cheat. Cheaters, like liars, and other lower life forms always get caught, what they are selling is just a theory of quicker self gradification.
Regards ..
Hi EOS,
I have the names of 5 examiners who qualified 'there' over the years, but who were not actually able to go out and test anybody, without remediation from colleagues.
They were happy to dish the dirt to myself and others, but not keen to tackle the Instructors and maybe put their 'accreditation' on the line.
Ditto for some of 'The truth doctor' courses. Seems like the Marston syndrome was a festering sore all this time.
APA Accreditation is as worthless as the Phd's of some the leading lights in the DOD industry.
Sincerely,
KALEX,
Whether or not I judge the person as a "Doctor of Philosophy" or a Piled Higher and Deeper type, boils down to the level and quality of research produced. Not the volume of worthless research that seems to be prevelent and done by many of the DOD (self deemed) elite. DOE is also now suffering from this same affliction, many of the great minds and scientists are bailing and going elsewhere. Soon like DOD, the best and brightest will only be 40 watt bulbs. The only saving grace are our men/women in uniform who have to execute and produce, These folks are the true national assets. But again, the best and brightest leave, leaving mainly non-performers and ticket punchers, when we need combat commanders and combat leaders, who don't give a damn about political correctness or expediency.
Regards ....
Today I met a polygraphist who told me that in his/her opinion, VSA is total BS, but that she/he was
going to acquire that technology as he/she discovered a huge, regular demand for that service.
Isn't that just so hypocritical of all us Lie-Detectors....?
We know/knew that we are/were dabbling with smoke and mirrors, yet we allowed nothing to stop us.
We justified what we did. We quoted the scientific research of our church, the APA.
We ruined lives, families and society. But we were unstoppable.
Maybe if we repent now, heaven will still let us into the room reserved for INC's.
Hello nonombre:
I am not ashamed of my name, it is Lloyd Ploense and I have nothing to hide from anyone.
You seem to be infected with fervor for divination in an almost religious manner. Do you recall one Reverend Jim Jones?
As a scientist, I recognize that cold scientific instruments present many false positives and negatives. To utilize the results of such devices one must demonstrate reasonable correlation coefficients. Also, hypothesis testing must be performed where the statistical significance of the results are evaluated against standards, spikes and blanks.
In the case of mass spectroscopy, only a great fool would assert that detection of a peak at 28 AMU confirmed the presence of nitrogen. We know "cold scientific instruments" have both positive and negative interferences. Through what religion do you claim the capacity to interpret human stress responses as falsehood?
InnocentWithPTSD
Boy, you boggled his brain with that one. He may/may not get back to you in a month or two after he gets someone to explain, in detail, your post. He might even try to use it as a positive for polygraphy.
Quote from: Twoblock on Aug 02, 2007, 11:44 AMInnocentWithPTSD
Boy, you boggled his brain with that one. He may/may not get back to you in a month or two after he gets someone to explain, in detail, your post. He might even try to use it as a positive for polygraphy.
I agree. I read it 30 mins ago and I'm still laughing my ass off.
Never wake a sleeping giant.
Quote from: InnocentWithPTSD on Aug 02, 2007, 08:42 AM
I am not ashamed of my name, it is Lloyd Ploense and I have nothing to hide from anyone.
InnocentWithPTSD,
Are you the same Lloyd Ploense that did the research work on "Spectroscopic promoted alkene isomerizations".
A very interesting read, and if it is, some great work.
Another trained mind joins the fight.
Best Regards ....
I am he Sir.
The attached file reveals why I feel strongly about the misuse of stress responses.
Lloyd Ploense
Attachment deleted at poster's request -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Quote from: InnocentWithPTSD on Aug 03, 2007, 09:52 AMI am he Sir.
The attached file reveals why I feel strongly about the misuse of stress responses.
Lloyd Ploense
Lloyd,
After reading your attachment, I can understand your polygraph position. The upside of you being here is, their is not a polygrapher who can could even match you in discourse. Nor do I think any would even try. Some of the Phd polygraphers might, but I even doubt that too. You should contact a Dr. Alan Zelicoff, Link: http://www.zelicoff.com
You and he will have many great conversations, he is another great scientist and doctor that is strongly antipolygraph. He has some great papers on the subject too.
Welcome again and regards .....