AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 13, 2007, 08:25 AM
In my experience, there are only two reasons why someone would fail ALL of the relevant questions on a polygraph screening exam.  First, they are actually lying on all of those questions, which in George's case I don't actually believe occurred.  Or second, and much more likely, they [the PLCQ examinee] have made the RELEVANT questions more significant to themselves by knowing or realizing that those are the only questions of true importance in the exam.

This is exactly correct, Baby.  A major theme of almost all of my posts on this forum is that simply by knowing how the PLCQ exam works that person's chances of producing accurate results suffers materially.  Thus your need to keep people ignorant, which can only be accomplished by discouraging curiosity and initiative--two things that we need rather more of, I'd aver.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Sep 13, 2007, 08:25 AM
I believe that a person's knowledge of countermeasures, and their attempts to amplify the reactions on the comparison questions can actually backfire because they make the relevant questions even more significant to themselves during the exam.

Now, you see, there you go again.  This happens every time I make this point too.  I present a very solid argument that mere knowledge of how the test works makes it difficult to pass and some polygraph simpleton blurts out "But... but... but countermeasures don't work!!!!"  Countermeasures, of course, don't need to work for my argument to work.  At least, none of you things has refuted it yet.  Maybe you can be the first?

So, Baby, do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

An examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works is, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works.

Do you or do you not agree with that statement?  It's a simple question.  So, yes--or no?  And, please, don't trot out the old countermeasures canard.

I have sucessfully polyed other examiners, experienced senior investigators, medical doctors and university professors.  The techniques are more robust than you suspect.  In a real crime investigation, I could not beat a well trained rookie examiner, but I would surely try.

Hey, pailryder.  As a polygrapher, you are--of course!--very welcome to address the question, just as LieBabyCryBaby is--and any other polygraphers.  But, I can't help but point out that, well, you didn't actually answer the question.  I request that you please do so.

It seems to me that the subject of a probable lie exam must be fooled so that he or she will be able to form the intent to deceive.  If you can't fool them using one set of tricks, you simply go to another set of tricks.  Isn't that the way it works?  I'm pretty sure that it is, since I never get any straight answers out of your polygraphers and the only reason to not explain things fully is if explaining things fully somehow introduces inaccuracies into the exam.  

So, pailryder: do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

Baby, do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

An examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works is, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works.

Yes, or no?

P.S. Are you related to palerider, pailryder?  Also, where does your screen name come from?  Would I be correct if I were to guess it was a reference to Revelation 6.8?

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Of course, it was the horse that was pale, not the rider.  And the rider of the pale horse was... death.  Anyway, just curious.  But you polygraphers don't seem to be very friendly folk.  You like to make small chit chat to build rapport with people, but if they go off script and start asking questions that aren't in your training manual, you guys become very uncomfortable.  But, please, don't let me make you uncomfortable.

No   Knowledge of how the techniques work, in my experience, does not alter outcome.  As for the screen name, I was raised on a dairy farm, think milk pail, and my favorite movie hero was Red Ryder, likely before your time.  Not related to palerider, who is an outstanding professional that I greatly respect, and has named me as a kiss ass examiner on another board.  Polygraph developed from practical application, not hypothetical speculation.  I have never heard an explanation of how it works that completely satisfies me, but that applies to all things psychological.  I am not uncomfortable answering your questions.  I have learned much from this board.  I was a reader long before I began to post.  If polygraph was banned tomorrow, I would need to change how I do, but not what I do because sometimes there is a need for independent, unbiased credibility assessments.  I am a private examiner, people do not pay me to abuse, confuse or trick them. Please remember I offer only my opinion, not a scarlet letter.  You are absolutely on point about one thing, as a group, polygraphers are not people I would seek out for a serious conversation.        

Lethe,
Consider that when a person contacts me and pays for someone else to take a polygraph they want to know if that person is lying to them.  The subject's lie to me is secondary.  The subject primairly fears the consequences of the target of their deception learning the truth.  

In my view the most telling portion of LBCB's quote is "... which in George's case I don't actually believe occurred."
This demonstrates that polygraphy is merely a prop assisted interrogation.  In this case the "machine" is not a polygraph machine, but the internet and George's posts!  The interrogators opinion is all that really matters.

Quote from: pailryder on Sep 22, 2007, 07:11 AMNo   Knowledge of how the techniques work, in my experience, does not alter outcome.  ... You are absolutely on point about one thing, as a group, polygraphers are not people I would seek out for a serious conversation.        

I wish to clarify what you are saying.  In your professional opinion, it would not effect the accuracy of the exam if the examinee:

(1) Knew how the test worked;
(2) Was able to identify the control questions; and
(3) Knew that she was

supposed to lie to the control questions?[/list]

That seems unlikely to me.  If you know that you're supposed to say "no" when asked this or that control question, it hardly seems possible to form the intent to deceive and it seems that we're dealing with a directed lie exam, not a probable lie one.  But I will await your clarification or confirmation before progressing.

Also, still waiting for LieBabyCryBaby.

There are some enterprises in which a careful disorder is the true method.
                                                                                          Herman Melville    Moby Dick (1851)

1.  Thanks to this site, I assume everyone coming to my office knows, or thinks they know, how the
    test works.  I attempt to answer, to the best of my limited ability, any and all questions from both
    client and subject.

2.  In the pretest I discuss the type of test I propose to use and explain the advantages and  
    disadvantages of each and explain, review, and unlike Dr. Rovner, properly identify each
    question according to type.  

3  I allow the subject to decide on the technique, PLC, DLC, I/R, MGQT, if they are uncomfortable with
   my choice.  

Quote from: pailryder on Sep 24, 2007, 07:28 AMThere are some enterprises in which a careful disorder is the true method.
                                                                                          Herman Melville    Moby Dick (1851)

1.  Thanks to this site, I assume everyone coming to my office knows, or thinks they know, how the
    test works.  I attempt to answer, to the best of my limited ability, any and all questions from both
    client and subject.

2.  In the pretest I discuss the type of test I propose to use and explain the advantages and  
    disadvantages of each and explain, review, and unlike Dr. Rovner, properly identify each
    question according to type.  

3  I allow the subject to decide on the technique, PLC, DLC, I/R, MGQT, if they are uncomfortable with
   my choice.  

Thanks for the Moby-Dick quote.  But you didn't actually answer my question(s).  I didn't ask how much you think your subjects know about the test, I asked if you think that them having detailed knowledge of it will impact the accuracy.  I didn't ask if you reviewed the questions with the subject in advance (I believe that all polygraphers do that).  Rather, if the subject knows which are the control questions, and that the polygrapher simply won't take "yes" for an answer to them and will assume that any "no" answer is a lie, will that effect the psychophysiological response of the examinee and thus the accuracy of the exam?  

I see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.

Thank you for your patience, I will try again.  As to question one, no, I have not found, in my experience, that even a detailed knowledge of the techniques effects accuracy.  Question two, I will identify for the subject in the pretest the comparison questions and why they are used in scoring and no, all examiners do not do that!  Question three, (as you first asked it) I do not agree that, all else being equal, an examinee with knowledge of how a PLC test works is less likely to produce an accurate result than the same examinee ignorant of how the test works.  Question three (as you changed it) If an examinee insisted on answering yes to a comparison question, I would first explain why it is important that her answer should be no, and if still unable to agree on a suitable wording for the question I would suggest a DLC instead.  If you are asking if an improper abusive pretest interview or bullying by the examiner could effect the examinee's psychophysiological response, sure it could.  

 

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 24, 2007, 02:43 PMI see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.

Thanks for your input.

It must be tiresome to spend your time perusing a site filled with fables and posters with a lack of knowledge.

Feel free to move along.  

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 24, 2007, 02:43 PMI see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.

Indeed, the rationale for probable-lie "control"/comparison questions put forth by proponents of CQT polygraphy doesn't require that the examinee's answer to the control question be a willful, knowing lie. It is considered sufficient that the subject have sufficient doubt regarding the truthfulness of her answer such that the innocent examinee will react more strongly to the control question than to the corresponding relevant question. But CQT theory remains implausibly simplistic and depends in fundamental ways on examiner deception and examinee ignorance of the procedure (this latter being harder to safely assume with the advent of the Internet and sites such as AntiPolygraph.org).

I don't think it's proper to speak of an "orienting response" with regard to the asking of a series of previously reviewed questions during the course of a polygraph chart collection. An orienting response is what one might expect to observe, for example, if, behind the subject's back, a heavy book were to be dropped to the floor, or if the lights were suddenly flashed on and off.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 25, 2007, 04:40 AM

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 24, 2007, 02:43 PMI see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.

Indeed, the rationale for probable-lie "control"/comparison questions put forth by proponents of CQT polygraphy doesn't require that the examinee's answer to the control question be a willful, knowing lie. It is considered sufficient that the subject have sufficient doubt regarding the truthfulness of her answer such that the innocent examinee will react more strongly to the control question than to the corresponding relevant question. But CQT theory remains implausibly simplistic and depends in fundamental ways on examiner deception and examinee ignorance of the procedure (this latter being harder to safely assume with the advent of the Internet and sites such as AntiPolygraph.org).

I don't think it's proper to speak of an "orienting response" with regard to the asking of a series of previously reviewed questions during the course of a polygraph chart collection. An orienting response is what one might expect to observe, for example, if, behind the subject's back, a heavy book were to be dropped to the floor, or if the lights were suddenly flashed on and off.

Point well taken. Polygraph procedures do contain a number of barrowed terms such as "orienting response" and even the misuse of the word "control" regarding comparison questions.
On knowledge of procedure, please site a peer reviewed study that suggests that mere knowledge of the CQT negates successful determinations. Do you plan on indefinitely ignoring the relatively recent Honts study regarding such "TLBTLD education" affects on accuracy? I certainly won't ignore NAS---the good and the bad. By virtue of your static and inflexible hatred for polygraph, you demonstrate the very same stubborness which some examiners who think they are gods demonstrate. How about some give and take? Your stated philosophies on polygraph remind me of GW Bush's absolutism policy on "evil." You are either with us or against morality. This thinking is commonly known as arrested development.

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 25, 2007, 10:00 AMOn knowledge of procedure, please site a peer reviewed study that suggests that mere knowledge of the CQT negates successful determinations.

I am aware of no studies from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effect of examinee knowledge of CQT procedure on polygraph results in the field. The few existing laboratory studies in this regard have weaknesses in design that make generalization to field conditions problematic.

QuoteDo you plan on indefinitely ignoring the relatively recent Honts study regarding such "TLBTLD education" affects on accuracy?

I haven't ignored it at all. The citation for  the study to which you refer is: Honts, Charles R. and Wendy R. Alloway. "Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test," (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/lcp/2007/00000012/00000002/art00010) Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320. You'll see I mentioned it, and cited the abstract, in the message thread, Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25539#msg25539). As I mentioned there, this study has serious methodological shortcomings that will be addressed in detail at a future point.

QuoteI certainly won't ignore NAS---the good and the bad. By virtue of your static and inflexible hatred for polygraph, you demonstrate the very same stubborness which some examiners who think they are gods demonstrate. How about some give and take? Your stated philosophies on polygraph remind me of GW Bush's absolutism policy on "evil." You are either with us or against morality. This thinking is commonly known as arrested development.

If polygraphers could demonstrate that the polygraph can actually detect deception, and that it is robust against countermeasures, this website would not exist. I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but the polygraph community has yet to provide it.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 25, 2007, 10:30 AM

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 25, 2007, 10:00 AMOn knowledge of procedure, please site a peer reviewed study that suggests that mere knowledge of the CQT negates successful determinations.

I am aware of no studies from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effect of examinee knowledge of CQT procedure on polygraph results in the field. The few existing laboratory studies in this regard have weaknesses in design that make generalization to field conditions problematic.

QuoteDo you plan on indefinitely ignoring the relatively recent Honts study regarding such "TLBTLD education" affects on accuracy?

I haven't ignored it at all. The citation for  the study to which you refer is: Honts, Charles R. and Wendy R. Alloway. "Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test," (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/lcp/2007/00000012/00000002/art00010) Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320. You'll see I mentioned it, and cited the abstract, in the message thread, Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25539#msg25539). As I mentioned there, this study has serious methodological shortcomings that will be addressed in detail at a future point.

QuoteI certainly won't ignore NAS---the good and the bad. By virtue of your static and inflexible hatred for polygraph, you demonstrate the very same stubborness which some examiners who think they are gods demonstrate. How about some give and take? Your stated philosophies on polygraph remind me of GW Bush's absolutism policy on "evil." You are either with us or against morality. This thinking is commonly known as arrested development.

If polygraphers could demonstrate that the polygraph can actually detect deception, and that it is robust against countermeasures, this website would not exist. I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but the polygraph community has yet to provide it.

Thanks for the speedy reply. But could you please site the methodological weakness in the study which you refer? I get the impression that you hold a PHD in a research bolstered science----contrary to your (personal webpage)assertion that you hold a PHD in Near Eastern Studies. I do not have a PHD in a research field, so please enlighten me as to the stated weakness.
Since it is you who hold here in this realm that polygraph does not have a robust mechanism for thwarting countermeasures, isn't it fair for me to ask that you prove such a contention? Your site here is similar to a UFO site which constantly challenges authorities to prove UFO's DO NOT EXIST---rather than simply proving that they do exist. All your site has proven is what we already know about polygraph art----it isn't perfect, but it is remarkable.

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 25, 2007, 11:04 AMThanks for the speedy reply. But could you please site the methodological weakness in the study which you refer? I get the impression that you hold a PHD in a research bolstered science----contrary to your (personal webpage)assertion that you hold a PHD in Near Eastern Studies. I do not have a PHD in a research field, so please enlighten me as to the stated weakness.

As I stated earlier, a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway will be forthcoming. You'll have to be patient.

QuoteSince it is you who hold here in this realm that polygraph does not have a robust mechanism for thwarting countermeasures, isn't it fair for me to ask that you prove such a contention? Your site here is similar to a UFO site which constantly challenges authorities to prove UFO's DO NOT EXIST---rather than simply proving that they do exist. All your site has proven is what we already know about polygraph art----it isn't perfect, but it is remarkable.

What I'm arguing is that the polygraph community has provided no evidence that polygraphic lie detection is robust against countermeasures. In particular, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. We're not asking polygraphers to prove a negative. Rather, we insist that they prove that which they claim to be able to do, including most importantly: 1) lie detection (or detection of deception, or truth verification, or whatever euphemism you may prefer) and 2) countermeasure detection.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 25, 2007, 11:23 AM

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 25, 2007, 11:04 AMThanks for the speedy reply. But could you please site the methodological weakness in the study which you refer? I get the impression that you hold a PHD in a research bolstered science----contrary to your (personal webpage)assertion that you hold a PHD in Near Eastern Studies. I do not have a PHD in a research field, so please enlighten me as to the stated weakness.

As I stated earlier, a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway will be forthcoming. You'll have to be patient.

QuoteSince it is you who hold here in this realm that polygraph does not have a robust mechanism for thwarting countermeasures, isn't it fair for me to ask that you prove such a contention? Your site here is similar to a UFO site which constantly challenges authorities to prove UFO's DO NOT EXIST---rather than simply proving that they do exist. All your site has proven is what we already know about polygraph art----it isn't perfect, but it is remarkable.

What I'm arguing is that the polygraph community has provided no evidence that polygraphic lie detection is robust against countermeasures. In particular, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. We're not asking polygraphers to prove a negative. Rather, we insist that they prove that which they claim to be able to do, including most importantly: 1) lie detection (or detection of deception, or truth verification, or whatever euphemism you may prefer) and 2) countermeasure detection.

If you are referring to Mr. Drew Richardson's challenge, I would like you to weigh Mr. Richardson's credibility as a result of the declaration I posted just a half hour ago. Since your challenge is predicated on Mr. Richardson's challenge, and Mr. Richardson's expertise is now in question, perhaps we should wait to hear from Drew. If the allegations prove true, than perhaps antipolygraph should find a another "expert" who claims to have changed from pro to anti polygraph. Where did you dig up Drew anyway?

Chow, Paradiddle

Paradiddle,

No, I was not referring specifically to Dr. Richardson's unanswered polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) when I mentioned that we are not calling on the polygraph community to prove any negative (as you wrongly asserted), but rather to prove its claimed ability to detect 1) lies and 2) countermeasures.

Polygraph techniques have not been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. And no polygrapher has ever demonstrated an ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, nor are there any articles or book chapters in the polygraph literature that even purport to explain how to do so.

Perhaps you would care to answer the question Lethe raised in starting this discussion thread:

Quotedo you or do you not agree with the following statement:

An examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works is, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works.

Ciao.

A fair Question George. I will not speak on behalf of the polygraph Community on this, but I will speak for myself.

There are two global (big picture) types of tests that I administer---and as of the last 4 years, they are fast becoming diffused (joined) into one test. They are the following;

1. The test given to an examinee that is unlikely to understand the CQT method.
2. The test given to informed or probably informed examinees.

Both tests work quite well, but I will concede that I have been treating many examinees if not most as "informed" examinee's in that the Controls are very hot, and the construct of the test is nearly a mirror of the R&I test. I will not reveal any specifics, but TLBTLD doesn't reflect the kinds of modalities that tests are being administered in this day and age. Simply put, polygraph tests these days are beginning to be administered in similar fashion as they are on when we test fellow polygraph examiners----a modality that your manual doesn't really "remedy." The modality that your manual explains is (for me) reserved for illiterate hermits.


The answer to your question is "no"----I have adjusted my methods to reflect the emerging challenges and widespread CQT education.

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 24, 2007, 02:43 PMI see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.

Why would I have a significant response if I'm told to say "no" when asked if I've ever said a lie to anyone?  I know that I have.  The examiner knows that I have.  We both know that everybody has and that they are only playing make believe when they claim that anyone who has ever told even a single lie would probably sell out both his country and his own mother for a dime and thus wouldn't be hired.  

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 08:26 AM
There are two global (big picture) types of tests that I administer---and as of the last 4 years, they are fast becoming diffused (joined) into one test. They are the following;

1. The test given to an examinee that is unlikely to understand the CQT method.
2. The test given to informed or probably informed examinees.

Both tests work quite well, but I will concede that I have been treating many examinees if not most as "informed" examinee's in that the Controls are very hot, and the construct of the test is nearly a mirror of the R&I test. I will not reveal any specifics, but TLBTLD doesn't reflect the kinds of modalities that tests are being administered in this day and age. Simply put, polygraph tests these days are beginning to be administered in similar fashion as they are on when we test fellow polygraph examiners----a modality that your manual doesn't really "remedy." The modality that your manual explains is (for me) reserved for illiterate hermits.

Why won't you reveal any specifics?  If the tests are so great, you should tell us about them so that we may have the confidence that you do in the process.  I can see no reason for not sharing information about these new and improved techniques unless it is that doing so would lessen their accuracy.  This proves my main point: knowledge of how the exam works lessens it's accuracy.  Thanks for helping me demonstrate that!

Lethe, I answered your question unambiguously. Now you want nuances and details. I would be happy to refer you to a polygraph school so that you can answer your own questions. Anyone who is willing to answer your questions deserves at the very least a free bottomless cup of coffee, but more fittingly, an instructors fee.

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 06:47 PMLethe, I answered your question unambiguously. Now you want nuances and details. I would be happy to refer you to a polygraph school so that you can answer your own questions. Anyone who is willing to answer your questions deserves at the very least a free bottomless cup of coffee, but more fittingly, an instructors fee.

One of my basic claims is that having knowledge about how a particular exam works makes it less likely that you will produce accurate results if subjected to that type of test.  You seem to agree with this--to a point.  You appear to be saying that this is true only of certain types of exams and that you simply use a different type of exam to overcome this defect.  However, I think the new and improved test is subject to the same fault: if the subject knew how it really worked, it wouldn't work very well either.  Do you deny this?  If you do deny it, why not tell us how the exam works so that we will be less ignorant?  

So, either tell us how these great tests work or tell us why you can't tell us how they work.  I think that's a fair question.  If you need to be paid to answer it, why are you trolling around here?

Quote from: Lethe on Sep 26, 2007, 09:45 PM

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 06:47 PMLethe, I answered your question unambiguously. Now you want nuances and details. I would be happy to refer you to a polygraph school so that you can answer your own questions. Anyone who is willing to answer your questions deserves at the very least a free bottomless cup of coffee, but more fittingly, an instructors fee.

One of my basic claims is that having knowledge about how a particular exam works makes it less likely that you will produce accurate results if subjected to that type of test.  You seem to agree with this--to a point.  You appear to be saying that this is true only of certain types of exams and that you simply use a different type of exam to overcome this defect.  However, I think the new and improved test is subject to the same fault: if the subject knew how it really worked, it wouldn't work very well either.  Do you deny this?  If you do deny it, why not tell us how the exam works so that we will be less ignorant?  

So, either tell us how these great tests work or tell us why you can't tell us how they work.  I think that's a fair question.  If you need to be paid to answer it, why are you trolling around here?

Your basic "claims" and what you "think" is a "fair question" is all----hold on---let me take another bong hit....cough cough.........gasp.....really wild man. What do you do for a living? What exactly sort of shit do you give as to the micro-nuances of how educated examinees are tested? Are you in a fantasy world, or do you have a job in an industry that is NOT eager to dislose every little secret to success? I answered the question. You are asking me a question that you know in the fanboy forensic world isn't a modality that you need to know about----UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXAMINER.  Come up with your own 11 herbs and spices there colonal, get off the bong, and turn off those A&E crime shows.

Lethe, pardon my sardonism, but you have to understand that I test many sex offenders. I don't care to give even one single herb nor spice to any of those Offenders. Don't you have kids man?

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 10:07 PM
Your basic "claims" and what you "think" is a "fair question" is all----hold on---let me take another bong hit....cough cough.........gasp.....really wild man. What do you do for a living? What exactly sort of shit do you give as to the micro-nuances of how educated examinees are tested? Are you in a fantasy world, or do you have a job in an industry that is NOT eager to dislose every little secret to success? I answered the question. You are asking me a question that you know in the fanboy forensic world isn't a modality that you need to know about----UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXAMINER.  Come up with your own 11 herbs and spices there colonal, get off the bong, and turn off those A&E crime shows.

Lethe, pardon my sardonism, but you have to understand that I test many sex offenders. I don't care to give even one single herb nor spice to any of those Offenders. Don't you have kids man?

If having knowledge of the exam decreases its accuracy then, insofar as preserving the accuracy of the exam is important, that knowledge should be preserved from dissemination.  So, does knowledge of even the other types of polygraph lessen their accuracy?  Is there any sort of polygraph exam where the accuracy cannot be diminished by the subject having certain knowledge of the exam?

If telling us how the exam would work would help bad people then, sure, don't tell us.  But do tell us that giving out that information would help bad people so that we can understand your position.  Acting secretive and almighty is lots of fun (what kid didn't get a kick out of starting a secret and exclusive club, however short-lived?) but it's bad policy when you need the public to trust you so that you can protect society from bad people.

So, would me having knowledge of how the exam works lessen it's accuracy vis-a-vis myself?  

Quote

Lethe asked yet again despite being answered; "So, would me having knowledge of how the exam works lessen it's accuracy vis-a-vis myself?"


no....as my hyper-vigilant style would assume that if you or your sister or your mama has a pc, than I'll err on the side of caution-----caution that is based on anecdotal theory that knowledge poses a risk if not treated and proceeded with caution----which such fear is not empirically justifiable. Why be cautious, I dunno----I guess I want to stretch the very limits of construct validity---get the most accurate results possible----this is serious stuff and I never forget that this work is perilous if I am not sharp and sensetive to the examinee's persona. Regarding CQT and TLBTLD knowlege, the recent Honts/Alloway study is encouraging-----are you treating that study as the "lone gunman against JFK" of conclusions---in that your G W.Bushesque "gut" feeling is "telling you" that you are right and scientific method is wrong? Not once in all of your posts that I have read have you even once so much as flirted with "science." You know Lethe....television doesn't make sense either, but it works regardless of whether your instinct tells you it is impossible or unlikely.

Does your gut feeling also tell you that Adam and Eve road dinosaurs to church? lol

If telling us how the exam works won't impact the accuracy thereof, then why not just tell us how it works and enhance our knowledge?  Why all the secrecy and insults?  Why are you trying to tie me to George W. Bush and to young Earthers?  If this exam is so good, tell us how it works so that we'll know it's really good.  Otherwise, your refusal to disclose information which you claim to have no reason for concealing is quite puzzling indeed.  

Since you sure as hell aren't going to answer my questions, your next insult?

Paradiddle, here is the basic conversation we're having, though I don't think you'll be honest enough to either (1) admit it or (2) correct the record.

ME: Isn't it true that knowing how a polygraph exam works can negatively impact the results?

YOU: No, that is not true.  What an examinee knows about the exam can't possibly impact the results.

ME: Well, then, why do polygraphers go to so much trouble to trick examinees?

YOU: Oh, well, there are two types of polygraph exams. One type doesn't work very well if the subjects knows how it works, the other is uneffected by a subject's knowledge; it is the later type that we now chiefly use.

ME: Oh, that's good news.  How does this other type of exam work?

YOU: Do you want all of our wives to be raped and our children sodomized?! How dare you ask that!

ME: What?  What are you talking about?

YOU: I can't tell you how those other exams work.

ME: Why not?  Doing so can't impact the accuracy, you said so yourself.

YOU: I've changed my mind; telling you could imperil their accuracy after all.

So, those other exams which you say are so great, does knowledge of how they work negatively impact their accuracy or not?  

If not, then the only reason you're left with for not telling us about them is that "we don't need to know."  That is a claim of such profound asininity that I hesitate to answer it.  First of all, it is arrogant of you to presume that you know what I need to know, since you haven't the slightest idea who I am or what my circumstances are.  Second, if you eliminated from your head everything that you didn't absolutely need to know in order to eat, sleep, work, and procreate, your mind would be an impoverished and desolate place.  I rather seriously doubt you follow your own advice and avoid learning anything that you don't "need to know."  There are other points that could be made, but I think this deals decisively with your pathetic attempt at evasion.  If that is the sort of thing they teach in polygraph school, I'll save my money and be glad that I got a proper education, thanks.

Quote from: Lethe on Sep 27, 2007, 12:28 AMParadiddle, here is the basic conversation we're having, though I don't think you'll be honest enough to either (1) admit it or (2) correct the record.

ME: Isn't it true that knowing how a polygraph exam works can negatively impact the results?

YOU: No, that is not true.  What an examinee knows about the exam can't possibly impact the results.

ME: Well, then, why do polygraphers go to so much trouble to trick examinees?

YOU: Oh, well, there are two types of polygraph exams. One type doesn't work very well if the subjects knows how it works, the other is uneffected by a subject's knowledge; it is the later type that we now chiefly use.

ME: Oh, that's good news.  How does this other type of exam work?

YOU: Do you want all of our wives to be raped and our children sodomized?! How dare you ask that!

ME: What?  What are you talking about?

YOU: I can't tell you how those other exams work.

ME: Why not?  Doing so can't impact the accuracy, you said so yourself.

YOU: I've changed my mind; telling you could imperil their accuracy after all.

So, those other exams which you say are so great, does knowledge of how they work negatively impact their accuracy or not?  

If not, then the only reason you're left with for not telling us about them is that "we don't need to know."  That is a claim of such profound asininity that I hesitate to answer it.  First of all, it is arrogant of you to presume that you know what I need to know, since you haven't the slightest idea who I am or what my circumstances are.  Second, if you eliminated from your head everything that you didn't absolutely need to know in order to eat, sleep, work, and procreate, your mind would be an impoverished and desolate place.  I rather seriously doubt you follow your own advice and avoid learning anything that you don't "need to know."  There are other points that could be made, but I think this deals decisively with your pathetic attempt at evasion.  If that is the sort of thing they teach in polygraph school, I'll save my money and be glad that I got a proper education, thanks.

You; So, Iam interested in large retail store security.

Me; Cool, that's my business, my specialty---it is quite interesting how sytems have advanced to address the growing numbers of secure-savvy interlopers.

You; Could you tell me if your state of the art security apparatus works, even if the customers and/or potential criminals are aware of it's workings?

Me; Well, since we installed the systems, we have caught more thieves, assaults, and sex crimes both in the store and in the parking lots----even though we have posted signs everywhere in and out of the stores.

You; Great...but can you tell me how it works?

Me; Yeah sure...we use motion sensors, magnetic tag detectors, infrared cameras with 18 phase autozoom with audio, and axis points of manned 2-way mirrors.

You; huh. Interesting. But can you tell me how they are managed and how do you know they work?

Me; Sure. They work very well as we have seen a substantial increase in crimes caught, and a dramatic decrease in inventory shrinkage. If you go to the technical school which teaches you the basics, then get employed with a secretive and/or elite institution---you will learn many of the nuanced tricks of the trade.

You; Right, but can you tell me why this incredible system works even if the criminals see the cameras, the doorway magnetics, the motion detectors and the two-way mirrors?

Me; Well, they just work very well. I hope that was helpful.

You; OK, but how can you catch the bad guys if they know about the stuff-----and how do you monitor the good guys too----what kinds of software do you use----how many security staff----what kinds of hours do you security staff work-----who holds the combination to the cash safes....

Me; Hey buddy, I answered your questions----there is the aspect of business trade secrets here and...

You: Oh, if they are such secrets, than they must be weak. Tell us oh retail giant how you run this super de duperdy new security apparatus?

Me; Uh hang on a second. You are beginning to seem well...kinda put off. What is it that you do? Are you a forensics or security specialist---we could use good people.

You; I don't want to work in the field of security---it's not my business----I just want to know details and trade secrets of the security apparatus.

Me; As you have indicated, it is none of your business sir, literally and figuratively speaking.

The reason that a security person wouldn't give out certain information is because doing so would help potential thieves.  Are you saying that giving out certain information about the polygraph would lessen its accuracy?  You're trying to have it both ways, Paradiddle.  On the one hand, you want us to think that there is no knowledge that a subject could possess which would lessen the accuracy of the exam.  But on the other hand you refuse to tell us how your awesome test works because doing so could lessen its accuracy.  Well, which is it?

As for "trade secrets", that applies to intellectual property.  The reason KFC doesn't give out the Colonel's recipe is so that you have to go to them to get the chicken.  Are you saying that if you told me how the process worked that that little bit of knowledge would allow me to become a polygrapher and start competing with you?  Surely not.  The claim is disingenuous.  

I think one of the problems that we're having here is that you're programmed to view any questioning of the polygraph to be an attempt to destroy it.  So you're assuming that that's where I'm going with this.  Why don't you set those assumptions aside and just answer my questions directly and honestly and then if I start saying that the costs of the polygraph outweigh the benefits we can have a proper, informed discussion of the matter?

Quote from: Lethe on Sep 27, 2007, 11:22 AMThe reason that a security person wouldn't give out certain information is because doing so would help potential thieves.  Are you saying that giving out certain information about the polygraph would lessen its accuracy?  You're trying to have it both ways, Paradiddle.  On the one hand, you want us to think that there is no knowledge that a subject could possess which would lessen the accuracy of the exam.  But on the other hand you refuse to tell us how your awesome test works because doing so could lessen its accuracy.  Well, which is it?

As for "trade secrets", that applies to intellectual property.  The reason KFC doesn't give out the Colonel's recipe is so that you have to go to them to get the chicken.  Are you saying that if you told me how the process worked that that little bit of knowledge would allow me to become a polygrapher and start competing with you?  Surely not.  The claim is disingenuous.  

I think one of the problems that we're having here is that you're programmed to view any questioning of the polygraph to be an attempt to destroy it.  So you're assuming that that's where I'm going with this.  Why don't you set those assumptions aside and just answer my questions directly and honestly and then if I start saying that the costs of the polygraph outweigh the benefits we can have a proper, informed discussion of the matter?

3. Countermeasures, like the tests that they invite (any test has countermeasures) change, necessitating countercountermeasures----and then new 2.0 countermeasures. This process is unending. It is interesting that so many antipolygraph people are not in the profession of human testing--of any kind---be it student aptitude testing,  drug testing, or polygraph testing. There is an entire field of epistemology dedicated to human testing theories---which extends into many fields both social/phsych and the hard sciences. Plainly said, the "testing science/art" is a worrisome activity, and that will never change, as humans are not silicone based lifeforms (no shit, right.)


Now, please all, stop the platitudes and the rhetoric that you all understand precisely what threats  that certain cm's and education actually pose---in theory. Here is the absolute codified phylosophy on countermeasures. Note that it is behavioral countermeasures that post the greatest risk. Remember, to refuse a test altogether is the ultimate  and most commonly effective behavioral countermeasure.

COUNTERMEASURES MIGHT IN IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES BE SUCCESSFUL, ALTHOUGH THIS NOTION IS NOT BACKED UP WITH RESEARCH----AND THE FIELD OF EXPERTS AREN'T IN FULL AGREEMENT AS TO CM EFFICACY, AND SO POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS SHOULD EXCERCISE CAUTION, NOT TERROR---AND STAY ABREAST OF LATEST TESTING METHODS AND COUNTERMEASURE RESEARCH. HOWEVER, WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN TREATMENT, WHERE THE INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURE PROCESS IS VITAL TO THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE PROCESS OF COGNITIVE THERAPIES FOR THE OFFENDER HIM OR HERSELF IS CONCERNED, BEHAVIORAL COUNTERMEASURES PRESENT WITH A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. LIKEWISE, BEHAVIORAL COUNTERMEASURES ENGAGED IN BY APPLICANTS ATTEMPTING EMPLOYMENT WITH SENSETIVE CLEARANCES PRESENT WITH A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO NATIONAL SECURITY, AS MANY APPLICANTS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO IDENTIFY/DISCLOSE THEIR OWN EMPIRICALLY PROVEN RISK MANAGEMENT CONCERNS.

Paradiddle, you're trying to shift the topic to countermeasures.  Are you guys specifically trained to do that?  Or do you just do so because you are only trained to deal with questions based on countermeasures?  

Anyway, I think you're still trying to have it both ways.  But I'm going to skip over much of what you've said because I think I can cut the gordian knot with a single challenge to you.  Now, let us recall the original question that this thread was designed to seek the answer to:

Is an examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works?

You keep answering "no, no, no" but then go on to say stuff which seems to contradict that denial.  But I will give you an excellent chance to demonstrate the truth of what you claim.  Responding to this opportunity won't even take much of your time, it will be quite simple.  All you need to do is this: give us a list of five of your best control questions.  If, as you claim, knowing what those questions are doesn't decrease accuracy, I see no reason for you to decline this request.  If there is some other reason why you can't share them (they're under copyright, perhaps?) then you are invited to share that reason with us.

As you said previously:

Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 24, 2007, 02:43 PM[It is incorrect that] an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response.

It seems to me that if you know you're supposed to lie and that you will indeed be maneuvered until you finally relent and tell a lie, that it would be difficult to form an intent to deceive or to be sufficiently anxious about your answer.  Thus it seems important that the subject not know which questions are controls and which questions are relevant in order that his or her physiological reactions be as natural as possible.  Also, the length to which polygraphers go in order to trick their subjects about the control questions seems to belie the claim that knowing what they are wouldn't effect the test.

So, Paradiddle, what are some of the cool control questions that you use?  

Or will you abandon this farce and simply admit that a subject who knows the control questions is less likely to produce an accurate chart, even without any countermeasures attempts?

Lethe

While reading your posts regarding comparison questions, I could not help but recall my experience in trade school when the instructor first explained to our class what our moderator calls the lie behind the lie detector test.  I was taught that the purpose of manipulating a subject into lying to a comparison guestion was to pull the truthful subject's attention away from the relevant issue by providing another point of focus.    

There are many lists and even entire books with commonly used generic comparison questions and I am sure that you will find them on this site.  My point is, no one can give you the five best CQ's, because the best comparison questions are not canned, they must be developed during discussion with the subject in pretest because they must be meaningful to that individual subject.  A subject can understand the purpose of CQ's, as would I if I were tested, but such understanding alone does not preclude the developement of meaningful CQ material.    

QuoteIs an examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works?

An equally good question would be,


Is an examinee who has attempted to educate himself about polygraph, all else being equal, more likely to produce non-deceptive results than other examinees?

It seems there is some research and inquiry into that, though people here don't like the results. I believe it was the NRC that admonished that claims that it is easy to train people to defeat the polygraph require supporting research. At present there is none.

Have fun passing your polygraphs boyz and girlz.

Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 10:11 AM

QuoteI believe it was the NRC that admonished that claims that it is easy to train people to defeat the polygraph require supporting research. At present there is none.

See?  It's always about countermeasures to a polygrapher.  The original question had nothing to do with countermeasures but these polygraph folk can't seem to stay away from the topic.  I imagine that if I inquired of a polygrapher what the weather was likely to be on the morrow I would more probably receive a denunciation of countermeasures than I would his opinion on the possibilities of sunshine or rain.

Anyway pailryder (I keep picturing someone sitting atop an overturned bucket when writing that), I did not intend to imply that there was a hierarchy of control questions with some of them being demonstrably the best.  I'm just looking for a number of control questions that tend to be used frequently; I know that which ones are employed depends on the specifics of the case and individual in question.

So, how about it? Can you give us 5 of the control questions that you find yourself most frequently using and explain to us what makes them good control questions?

Lethe:

QuoteSo, how about it? Can you give us 5 of the control questions that you find yourself most frequently using and explain to us what makes them good control questions?

Did you steal the tests in school too?

Its no big deal, you were supposed to learn those spelling words anyway. You were just not wasting excess time studying words that weren't on the test. Right?

Its not cheating. Is it? Its just studying for the test. Right?

Are spelling test results as informative to teachers when they teach the test?

Get real, and get honest.

If having knowledge of how the test works has no effect on it working, why should knowing the 5 favorite controls have any effect on it?  You're talking out of the side of your mouth.

Studying the words for the spelling test provides the answers to the test without disinformation, opinion of the tester and interpretation.  Your analogy fails.

While we're at it, would you like us to post the questions and answers to the SAT? That couldn't hurt. Could it? It would only improve people's test scores. Right Chief?

Well Lethe it helps to know what different professions tend to lie about, or at least, what makes them uncomfortable.  As a general rule we tend to develope theft comparisons for theft cases, sex comparisons for sex cases, apple comparisons for apple cases.  Relevant Q "Did you do the bad thing you are accused of?"  Comparison Q "Did you ever do any other bad thing like that?  Relevant Q "Did you cheat on this wife?" Comparison Q "Did you ever cheat on your first two wives?"  Relevant Q "Did you touch that child in a sexual manner?"  Comparison Q "When you worked at Little Angels Day Care, did you ever become sexually arouse by any of those children?"

My test yesterday for an attorney whose 18 yr old client was identified by the store clerk who was robbed at gunpoint.  RQ  Are you the person that robbed the Dollar General?  RQ  On date in question did you take a gun into the DG and rob it?    CQ  When you were in high school did you ever break into a locked room or automobile to steal something?  Irrelevant but interesting detail, he had a tat on his neck that read  NOT GUILTY.

Two cousins dealing drugs together. One finds the other's dead body(shot) and is the prime suspect. RQ  Did you shoot your cousin?  answer no  CQ Did you and cousin ever deal drugs? answer no and produced a larger response than RQ.  Easy NDI later confirmed by real killers confession.  

Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 01:25 PMWhile we're at it, would you like us to post the questions and answers to the SAT? That couldn't hurt. Could it? It would only improve people's test scores. Right Chief?

You really are comparing apples to oranges here, and I think you know it.  You're being purposely obtuse and that leads the reader to see your mass arrogance.  You are trying to use tests in which the test taker has to study and the answers are found.  Yet, for polygraph the testee is not supposed to do any type of studying.  Why the hell is that?  Is it because knowledge of the test lessens the ability of the examiner to attempt discerning fact from fiction?  Bullshit is bullshit no matter how much rubbing compound is used.

Wow!  I really am flattered to have such an oft-read thread dedicated to me!  I just noticed it, and I was shocked at how many times it has been viewed by so many people other than myself.  I read a lot today, and I am enjoying the discussion, although I don't currently have the time or the desire to play post-minton with everyone on the anti-side right now.  Fortunately, it appears I don't have to.  Please, continue the game, and I'll just sit here on the sideline for awhile and watch the ball go back and forth from paddle to paddle.   :D

Quote from: pailryder on Sep 29, 2007, 05:28 PM
Two cousins dealing drugs together. One finds the other's dead body(shot) and is the prime suspect. RQ  Did you shoot your cousin?  answer no  CQ Did you and cousin ever deal drugs? answer no and produced a larger response than RQ.  Easy NDI later confirmed by real killers confession.  

You: Bill, did you shoot your cousin?

Bill: No.

You: Did you and your cousin ever deal drugs?

Bill: Yeah, we did.

You: Uh... you're supposed to say no.

Bill: But we did.  We was selling drugs all the time.

You: But... if you sold drugs with your cousin, that means you must have murdered him!

Bill: That is not a logical conclusion.  Can I get a new polygrapher?

What do you do then?  Let me guess, you can't tell me because that would be tantamount to taking the head of the College Board hostage and forcing him (or her) to give you a perfect score on your SATs.  

Oh, and LieBabyCryBabe, I'm glad you found the thread, I hope it's amused you.  (Didn't you get the PM from me with the URL for it?)  Feel free to jump in anytime.

Lethe,

I have tried over and over again to try to follow where you are coming from with your latest post. I am going to take some Prosac and have another beer. I'll log back on in half an hour and see if your post makes any sense after that.

Thank you for being here and giving me something to do on a Saturday night.

Regards,

Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 29, 2007, 11:11 PMLethe,

I have tried over and over again to try to follow where you are coming from with your latest post. I am going to take some Prosac and have another beer. I'll log back on in half an hour and see if your post makes any sense after that.

Thank you for being here and giving me something to do on a Saturday night.

Regards,

Is Prosac and alcohol a wise combination?

The gist of the post is simple: what do you do when the stupid examinee actually tells the truth when presented with the control question.  Can you get good results without getting him to lie?  If not, then how do you get him to lie?

Anyway, glad to entertain you, but I've gotta turn in.  10pm is my bedtime.  Sleep well everyone.

Lethe,

You are correct. Alcohol and Prosac are not the best combination- but they work for me.  I am new to this site and enjoy the debate. What are your thoughts about Dr. Drew Richardson? It is kind of funny that George slaps polygraphers around for having a training program that is shorter than Beauty School. George then puts Dr. Drew Richardson on his web site as an "expert" when Dr. Richardson barely graduated from from a federal polygraph training program with a 70% GPA?? Was Dr. Richardson's training program longer than beauty school? Should I let Dr. Drew perm my hair, tweeze my brow or wax my lip?

George condems people who "mis-use" the FBI symbol and then he posts his own picture in front of the American flag. Talk about mis-use of a symbol?? And why is George always looking down on you in his picture? Why is George always changing his picture? Why is George's picture the only one that is ever posted? What ever happened to that Gino Scalopini guy?

I like an healthy open debate and that is why I like this site.

Take care and have a good night.

Regards,

MM

You guess wrong, Lethe.  You dared me to provide an example pf an actual CQ and to explain why I thought it was a good CQ.  If, as in your hypo conversation, the subject had admitted dealing drugs with her cousin, then that issue would not have been good CQ material, and I would have move on and found another issue to develope for that purpose.

Unlike many who visit the board, I am here to learn.  I am not here to advocate or convince or change anyones mind.  I am not interested in zinging anyone.  I am willing to openly share the knowledge I have gained from more than twenty years of pratical experience with polygraph with any interested party.  But I do enjoy thoughtful intelligent conversation, and for the first time I was a little disapointed in the lack of understanding shown in your last post.  Maybe you would now answer a question for me?  Is there anyone so blind as she who refuses to see?

QuoteI like an healthy open debate and that is why I like this site.

Let's not be naive folks. This site is not a healthy open debate. Its fueled by resentment, and fixed agendas.

It is simply the boulevard that rival groups cruise for cheap entertainment, and notoriety.

No one here is going to be convinced of much, and it is the newcomer - innocent job seeker who wants to pass a test, or probationer who wants to reside in the community - who gets to be the fodder as a result of the all the noise this site adds to the situation.

With that...

g'mornin mate.

nice work

Quote from: pailryder on Sep 30, 2007, 09:15 AMYou guess wrong, Lethe.  You dared me to provide an example pf an actual CQ and to explain why I thought it was a good CQ.  If, as in your hypo conversation, the subject had admitted dealing drugs with her cousin, then that issue would not have been good CQ material, and I would have move on and found another issue to develope for that purpose.

Unlike many who visit the board, I am here to learn.  I am not here to advocate or convince or change anyones mind.  I am not interested in zinging anyone.  I am willing to openly share the knowledge I have gained from more than twenty years of pratical experience with polygraph with any interested party.  But I do enjoy thoughtful intelligent conversation, and for the first time I was a little disapointed in the lack of understanding shown in your last post.  Maybe you would now answer a question for me?  Is there anyone so blind as she who refuses to see?

I am here to learn to, and so I appreciate your more honest approach.  Many of your colleagues prefer to obfuscate and hurl insults about and you have avoided that.

But your response to my last question doesn't satisfy me.  "I'd find another control question that would work."  With polygraphers, it seems that it is always about the next thing.  The next book or study that I read will contain all the answers that I seek.  The next person that I ask will be willing to answer my question.  The next control question they come up with will be perfect.  Et cetera.  

To my understanding--and I seek correction if I am wrong--a suitable control question must have the following characteristics.

(1) It must concern an action which the subject may or may not have done in the past;
(2) Said action must be at least nominally bad;
(3) Said action must have been done by almost everyone in the subject's circumstances OR you must have solid information that the subject has done the action; and
(4) You must be able to maneuver the subject into lying to the question.

The first two criteria are shared with relevant questions.  The third most certainly is not.  An intelligent and informed subject is able to distinguish between control and relevant questions with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Your example question ("Did you and your cousin deal drugs together?") is obviously a control question and therefore the knowledgeable subject would know that she is expected to lie on it.  It would therefore be difficult, to say the least, to form the intent to deceive or to feel the fear of detection.  Thus, it seems that the control question in question is no more likely to produce the response needed for an accurate test than a denial to the question "Are you Napoleon Bonaparte?"

Other polygraphers have explained that I am wrong about this because they have some new and improved special control questions that no one could ever figure out were control questions.  I asked for some examples of these magic control questions.  Nope.  They can't be a shared.  Why?  Because if you know what they control questions are, you won't produce the responses needed for an accurate exam.  This leads us back to my initial observation: if you know how the test works, it looks like you're screwed.

Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 30, 2007, 12:13 AMWhat are your thoughts about Dr. Drew Richardson? It is kind of funny that George slaps polygraphers around for having a training program that is shorter than Beauty School. George then puts Dr. Drew Richardson on his web site as an "expert" when Dr. Richardson barely graduated from from a federal polygraph training program with a 70% GPA?? Was Dr. Richardson's training program longer than beauty school? Should I let Dr. Drew perm my hair, tweeze my brow or wax my lip?

I don't really know anything about Richardson, except what you've put there.  I have no opinion on him.  As for beauty services, if you're into that sort of thing, go for it.  As for myself, I'm no metrosexual.

Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 30, 2007, 12:13 AM
George condems people who "mis-use" the FBI symbol and then he posts his own picture in front of the American flag. Talk about mis-use of a symbol?? And why is George always looking down on you in his picture? Why is George always changing his picture? Why is George's picture the only one that is ever posted? What ever happened to that Gino Scalopini guy?

Polygraphers who use the symbol you refer to on their websites are doing so, I guess, to say "I worked for this agency, so you can be assured that I will do a good job."  George appearing with the U.S. flag could, I suppose, be taken to convey "I am an American, so you can trust what I say."  But, more likely, I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.  I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself.

As for your other questions, I hope that they are offered at least half in jest.  If not, they are simply ad hominem.  But I like good satire, so I'll view them as such unless corrected.

'George appearing with the U.S. flag could, I suppose, be taken to convey "I am an American, so you can trust what I say."  But, more likely, I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.  I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself. '


George with an american flag - while hiding in the Netherlands...okay

' I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.' When did anyone state you have to be a government employee to be patriot?  Also the definition of Patriot states - a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life.  Once again, George is in the Netherlands.  The only thing he is a proud supporter of is his attempts to help liars and sex offenders pass polygraphs.  

'I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself. '     Go ahead LETHE call someone out if thats the case.  If it is who I think you are referring to, I would watch your false allegations....just ask George about making false allegations.

QuoteI am here to learn to, and so I appreciate your more honest approach.  Many of your colleagues prefer to obfuscate and hurl insults about and you have avoided that.

Obsequiousness will get you nowhere. Well. OK. Some folks do like to have a nose jammed up their keester. Maybe it does work.

QuoteI don't really know anything about Richardson, except what you've put there.  I have no opinion on him.  As for beauty services, if you're into that sort of thing, go for it.  As for myself, I'm no metrosexual.

<snip>

As for your other questions, I hope that they are offered at least half in jest.  If not, they are simply ad hominem.  But I like good satire, so I'll view them as such unless corrected.

Can we get an Emmy in here?

Quote from: Lethe on Sep 30, 2007, 02:03 PM

Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 30, 2007, 12:13 AMWhat are your thoughts about Dr. Drew Richardson? It is kind of funny that George slaps polygraphers around for having a training program that is shorter than Beauty School. George then puts Dr. Drew Richardson on his web site as an "expert" when Dr. Richardson barely graduated from from a federal polygraph training program with a 70% GPA?? Was Dr. Richardson's training program longer than beauty school? Should I let Dr. Drew perm my hair, tweeze my brow or wax my lip?

I don't really know anything about Richardson, except what you've put there.  I have no opinion on him.  As for beauty services, if you're into that sort of thing, go for it.  As for myself, I'm no metrosexual.

Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 30, 2007, 12:13 AM
George condems people who "mis-use" the FBI symbol and then he posts his own picture in front of the American flag. Talk about mis-use of a symbol?? And why is George always looking down on you in his picture? Why is George always changing his picture? Why is George's picture the only one that is ever posted? What ever happened to that Gino Scalopini guy?

Polygraphers who use the symbol you refer to on their websites are doing so, I guess, to say "I worked for this agency, so you can be assured that I will do a good job."  George appearing with the U.S. flag could, I suppose, be taken to convey "I am an American, so you can trust what I say."  But, more likely, I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.  I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself.

As for your other questions, I hope that they are offered at least half in jest.  If not, they are simply ad hominem.  But I like good satire, so I'll view them as such unless corrected.

Lethe you probably have no opinion, cuz you are foregetful or oblivious from drinking your own bath water.

So... apparently anyone who works outside of the country of his or her birth is... I dunno, a bad person?  I guess we ought to round up all of those Mexicans and ship them south of the Rio Grande, if they're working in our country they're obviously hiding or otherwise up to no good.

As for Richardson, if you want to slam him that's your deal.  But I really don't have much of an opinion about him and don't particularly feel a need to develop one.  Don't hijack my thread with personal and professional insults, it could make it look like you're purposefully trying to get the conversation off track, even if you're not.  

Anyway, I would have thought that said agency would have a policy about unofficial use of it's logo.  NASA has such a policy (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html):

This general permission [to use NASA materials] does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored.

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes,

especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. [emphasis added] [/list]
Anyway, why are we talking about this stuff?  I've never said anything about Richardson, though he did post in the same thread that I did on one occasion.  And I'm sure that I've never said anything about people using the logos of government agencies on their websites or promotional material.  My preference is to stick, in this thread, to the topic under discussion, which is how to conduct a PLCQ exam when the subject isn't ignorant of the procedures and control questions.  If you want to argue with George, go argue with George.  Don't try to get me to study everything he's ever said and to defend all of his statements.  What, do you want me to critique his poetry (http://www.georgemaschke.net/sundry-writings/) too?

QuoteLethe you probably have no opinion, cuz you are foregetful or oblivious from drinking your own bath water.

That's just gross. I was trying to enjoy my lunch.

Do you really do that, Lethe?

If so, you need help. Maybe some therapy, or something.

jeeze

Deleted cheap shot regarding George's poetry and a random low blow to Two Block. Sorry all.

corrections as per your request

1  no doesn't have to be an action  can concern a purely mental state  such as  have you ever considered blank
2 doesn't have to be bad but usually is
3 doesn't have to be done by everyone and can be neutral   example Have you ever been a suspect in a workplace theft? can be answered yes or no with no implication of wrongdoing
4  no doesn't have to be a lie  see ex 3

The most challenging and creative part of polygraph is developing the RQs and CQs.  The books do not have the answers as each interview is unique, as are the two parties involved.  Developing the questions is a process of negotiation, a give and take between examiner and examinee.  When something doesn't work in a negotiation I try another way.  A cookie cutter, forced or canned approach will not suffice.  Imho, the only thing required of a good CQ is that it exerts a pull on the truthful examinees attention.

Quote from: pailryder on Sep 30, 2007, 04:36 PM
corrections as per your request

1  no doesn't have to be an action  can concern a purely mental state  such as  have you ever considered blank
2 doesn't have to be bad but usually is
3 doesn't have to be done by everyone and can be neutral   example Have you ever been a suspect in a workplace theft? can be answered yes or no with no implication of wrongdoing
4  no doesn't have to be a lie  see ex 3

The most challenging and creative part of polygraph is developing the RQs and CQs.  The books do not have the answers as each interview is unique, as are the two parties involved.  Developing the questions is a process of negotiation, a give and take between examiner and examinee.  When something doesn't work in a negotiation I try another way.  A cookie cutter, forced or canned approach will not suffice.  Imho, the only thing required of a good CQ is that it exerts a pull on the truthful examinees attention.

Well, if it doesn't have to be bad, would you say that it does need to carry at least some sense of ignominy or disapproval?  There has to be some reason for the person to lie, right?  

So, if someone answers your CQ ("Have you ever previously been suspected of workplace theft?") with an affirmative, that would still produce the necessary reactions to use as a control?  I'm not certain I understand what you're saying.

Also, why, as a knowledgeable subject, is my attention going to be significantly more attracted to the control questions than to the relevant ones?  Whether or not I've done those things in the CQs is irrelevant to determining my suitability for employment or my guilt or innocence in an investigation.  They only reason I have to worry about concerning them is whether or not I'll produce the correct responses, and that applies equally well to the relevant questions.  

As an aside, it seems like this thing works mainly because most people are stupid and easily manipulated by people in authority who apparently know what they're doing.  People can often be made to believe pretty silly things if they either want those things to be true or fear them to be true, especially if isolated, not given time for rational thought, and put under pressure.  Let me ask you this, with your knowledge and experience, does it surprise you that, in a series of well known experiments (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm), it was demonstrated that 61-66% of American adults would apply potentially lethal electrical shocks to a stranger... just because a guy in a lab coat told them to?

I would thank you for avoiding personal attacks and insults, but that would probably prove too tempting to those who cannot avoid such.

I dont't know where you reside, but in the state where I live most people are not stupid and are not eaisly manulated into doing something against their own self interest.  I have lived in the same area for a long time and if I had mistreated my friends or neighbors, I would not be able to make a living here.  Examinees have told me that I got it wrong.  Some have made sure that I knew I made a mistake, but no examinee has ever accused me of treating them with anything less than dignity and respect.    

The study you mentioned is very troubling for any thinking, careing person.  I can't honestly say it surprises me, but it truly saddens me to comptemplate the implications.  

I may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?

Quote from: Lethe on Sep 30, 2007, 05:36 PM
As an aside, it seems like this thing works mainly because most people are stupid and easily manipulated by people in authority who apparently know what they're doing.  People can often be made to believe pretty silly things if they either want those things to be true or fear them to be true, especially if isolated, not given time for rational thought, and put under pressure.  Let me ask you this, with your knowledge and experience, does it surprise you that, in a series of well known experiments (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm), it was demonstrated that 61-66% of American adults would apply potentially lethal electrical shocks to a stranger... just because a guy in a lab coat told them to?

Lethe,
I'm glad someone said it. Some 65% of American adults are gullible. That grouping is specifically the p/g examiners target market. It is the other 35% that have the guts to tell them they're screwing up and are
indeed screwed up.

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 02, 2007, 11:52 AM

Lethe,
I'm glad someone said it. Some 65% of American adults are gullible. That grouping is specifically the p/g examiners target market. It is the other 35% that have the guts to tell them they're screwing up and are
indeed screwed up.

Oh, please. Don't you know that "gullible" not even a real word. Its not even in the dictionary.

Lets keep this on topic.

Both Milgram and Zimbardo are important lessons for all.

But tell us, Lethe - o - Lethe, o concealed and forgetful one: about your experience. Or do you only come here only to editorialize?

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 01, 2007, 09:13 AMI may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?

I can certainly appreciate your attempts at thoughtful discourse, but I believe that you are bargaining with Stone Henge. Lethe is attempting a futile exercise which does nothing but begs a question that isn't a question at all. It is rather a statement that he has a 12" hard-on for polygraph, and no matter how you scoop your response, he will use his intentionally impersonal pseudonyme to further his endeavor----an endeavor which is self serving and circular. It is like talking to an elderly lady in a nursing home that doesn't want you to leave her alone, so she keeps you captive with shallow, spurious, previously answered questions. Who said you can't make perpetual motion?----as Lethe has demonstrated such with his upside down argument.

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 01, 2007, 09:13 AMI may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?

Excellent.  Let us examine how the control question will appear to both an ignorant and to an informed subject.  We'll continue to use the murder/drug dealing situation so that we have something concrete to talk about.  

Now, as you know, it is not just the question itself, in a vacuum, which is important vis-a-vis producing the correct response.  The tone and circumstances in which it is asked, the polygrapher's body language, the consequences that the polygrapher attaches to both an affirmative and negative response, the rationale given to the question, both explicit and implied, and the reasonable inferences that the examinee can draw from these are all important factors.  So, how will the control question, "did you ever deal drugs with your cousin?" appear to the ignorant examiner?  I think basically like this:

"Well, Sue, you are suspected of killing your cousin, Regina, and this exam will help tell whether or not you did and will be used by police and prosecutors as they decide how to handle the investigation and case.  I will, of course, ask you if you killed Regina, but I'll also ask some less direct questions.  Because, you see, we know that people who are involved in other crimes, like drug dealing, are much more likely to commit murder, especially against their partners.  So, if you and Regina sold drugs together, Sue, we'll know that there is a very good chance that you killed her.  If you did kill her, the best possible outcome for you, if you take a good plea deal and then get out on parole at the earliest date, will be about 20 years in prison.  So, Sue, did you and Regina sell drugs together?"

Again, the polygrapher wouldn't be asking precisely that question, but that is what the implications of the question would be.  A yes answer will be tantamount to providing significant evidence against herself to a crime that would earn her decades in jail.  That's a pretty big threat to a person.  

So, how would the question appear to a knowledgeable examinee?  I think something like this:

"Well, Sue, you say that you didn't kill Regina.  I am here to determine if that claim is a lie or not.  To tell if you are trying to deceive me with that claim or if you feel uncomfortable about it, I need you to attempt to deceive me on another question.  Of course, we have, through our investigation, very good evidence that you and Regina sold drugs together.  I need you to tell me that you two didn't sell drugs together, okay?  Now, when you deny that you were drug dealers, I need you to feel uncomfortable about that answer.  So, just think of how much more difficult it would be to deal drugs if the police were 100% certain that you used to deal drugs with her instead of only 80% certain of that.  Your ability to sell drugs in the community has already been degraded as a result of this investigation, so just imagine that trend continuing.  If you do that, your body will produce the natural response that we need.  Sounds silly?  Well, nevermind that and don't worry about your body producing the correct response on the relevant questions.  Sure, if it doesn't, you'll produce a deceptive result which would carry consequences even greater than admitting that you dealt drugs together but trust me, I'm a professional."

If these characterizations are broadly accurate, as I think they are, then it seems that the knowledgeable examinee will be much less threatened by the control question and a little bit more threatened by the relevant question when compared with the ignorant examinee.  And, pretty much by definition, when you lower someone's response to the CTs and/or raise their response to the RQs, you make it more likely that they will produce a deceptive result.  Thus, a knowledgeable examinee who is truthful is less likely to produce an accurate result than an ignorant and truthful examinee.  Q.E.D.

There are two main ways to attack this particular argument that immediately occur to me:

(1) You can demonstrate that the ignorant and/or knowledgeable subjects will not understand the control question in question in the ways indicated; OR
(2) You can argue that the size of the threat to him- or herself that the subject perceives doesn't make any difference, the smallest threat is as useful as the largest threat;

I look forward to your corrections and response.

To my detractors, who flatter me by their number and attentions, your ad hominem attacks and insults will all be read but only the most clever will be responded to.  Originality and wittiness will earn you bonus points and increase the likelihood of a response.  If you wish to join the conversation, note that questioning a person's motivation for making a particular argument does not constitute a valid critique of that argument.

Quote from: Lethe on Oct 02, 2007, 05:24 PM

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 01, 2007, 09:13 AMI may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?

Excellent.  Let us examine how the control question will appear to both an ignorant and to an informed subject.  We'll continue to use the murder/drug dealing situation so that we have something concrete to talk about.  

Now, as you know, it is not just the question itself, in a vacuum, which is important vis-a-vis producing the correct response.  The tone and circumstances in which it is asked, the polygrapher's body language, the consequences that the polygrapher attaches to both an affirmative and negative response, the rationale given to the question, both explicit and implied, and the reasonable inferences that the examinee can draw from these are all important factors.  So, how will the control question, "did you ever deal drugs with your cousin?" appear to the ignorant examiner?  I think basically like this:

"Well, Sue, you are suspected of killing your cousin, Regina, and this exam will help tell whether or not you did and will be used by police and prosecutors as they decide how to handle the investigation and case.  I will, of course, ask you if you killed Regina, but I'll also ask some less direct questions.  Because, you see, we know that people who are involved in other crimes, like drug dealing, are much more likely to commit murder, especially against their partners.  So, if you and Regina sold drugs together, Sue, we'll know that there is a very good chance that you killed her.  If you did kill her, the best possible outcome for you, if you take a good plea deal and then get out on parole at the earliest date, will be about 20 years in prison.  So, Sue, did you and Regina sell drugs together?"

Again, the polygrapher wouldn't be asking precisely that question, but that is what the implications of the question would be.  A yes answer will be tantamount to providing significant evidence against herself to a crime that would earn her decades in jail.  That's a pretty big threat to a person.  

So, how would the question appear to a knowledgeable examinee?  I think something like this:

"Well, Sue, you say that you didn't kill Regina.  I am here to determine if that claim is a lie or not.  To tell if you are trying to deceive me with that claim or if you feel uncomfortable about it, I need you to attempt to deceive me on another question.  Of course, we have, through our investigation, very good evidence that you and Regina sold drugs together.  I need you to tell me that you two didn't sell drugs together, okay?  Now, when you deny that you were drug dealers, I need you to feel uncomfortable about that answer.  So, just think of how much more difficult it would be to deal drugs if the police were 100% certain that you used to deal drugs with her instead of only 80% certain of that.  Your ability to sell drugs in the community has already been degraded as a result of this investigation, so just imagine that trend continuing.  If you do that, your body will produce the natural response that we need.  Sounds silly?  Well, nevermind that and don't worry about your body producing the correct response on the relevant questions.  Sure, if it doesn't, you'll produce a deceptive result which would carry consequences even greater than admitting that you dealt drugs together but trust me, I'm a professional."

If these characterizations are broadly accurate, as I think they are, then it seems that the knowledgeable examinee will be much less threatened by the control question and a little bit more threatened by the relevant question when compared with the ignorant examinee.  And, pretty much by definition, when you lower someone's response to the CTs and/or raise their response to the RQs, you make it more likely that they will produce a deceptive result.  Thus, a knowledgeable examinee who is truthful is less likely to produce an accurate result than an ignorant and truthful examinee.  Q.E.D.

There are two main ways to attack this particular argument that immediately occur to me:

(1) You can demonstrate that the ignorant and/or knowledgeable subjects will not understand the control question in question in the ways indicated; OR
(2) You can argue that the size of the threat to him- or herself that the subject perceives doesn't make any difference, the smallest threat is as useful as the largest threat;

I look forward to your corrections and response.

To my detractors, who flatter me by their number and attentions, your ad hominem attacks and insults will all be read but only the most clever will be responded to.  Originality and wittiness will earn you bonus points and increase the likelihood of a response.  If you wish to join the conversation, note that questioning a person's motivation for making a particular argument does not constitute a valid critique of that argument.

Who is us----you? Who are you----not your identity---but your point of vantage? Are you a criminologist, a scientist, a caddy....what? Why do you want to examine polygraph....to what ends? It would be helpful in understanding the context of your question if you shed even a pinpoint light at just what you're attempting---other than your knowledge of test theory. You don't actually believe that you are having new and original thoughts and questions here, do you? We don't need your help in understanding CQ testing.

Quote
Originality and wittiness will earn you bonus points and increase the likelihood of a response.  If you wish to join the conversation, note that questioning a person's motivation for making a particular argument does not constitute a valid critique of that argument.

Oh please. Oh please, oh please, pick me to respond to.

Pick me. Pick me. Pick me.

[I just gotta be picked, I'm sure I know the answer...]

First off, I would not ask a drug selling question in a murder investigation unless it was a drug deal gone bad..pop pop.  Pailryder was just showing you an example so you could 'understand' the process o'wiseone.  Only you would want to beat this one to death.  Each case is different and I sure as hell won't be sharing this info with you!   You would turn it around, and roll it, roll it, and cut it in two and throw it in the oven for Georgie and you.  Sorry Drew, I would have included you but hey, haven't heard from you in a while.  

So, Lethe, Whats your angle?  Who craped in your cherrios?  I tend to believe Sarge's story, but you....not so much.  

BTW please pick Ludovico.  He is quite original and you know he is witty.

Oh! Oh. Oh!

(raises hand)

pick me, please (hoping)

I would actually rather be stuck in a nursing home.

There I was waiting anxiously to be picked to discuss this important topic, and I noticed something strange about Lethe's avatar.

I'm using this as an example because it was provided and since polygraph exams involve asking real questions we can discuss those questions.  Consider this a case study.

If you think my analysis is off, please explain why it is so.  It appears to have some explanatory value so far as I can see and the inability of so many illustrious polygraphers to adequately respond to it seems odd, if one assumes that they possess the ability to do so.  

My puzzlement is not based on the apparent inadequacy of this particular CQ but on the probability that any possible CQ would suffer from the same exact pitfalls.  If you'd like to suggest another CQ and other circumstances surrounding an exam, I would be very happy to discuss that situation instead.

Me. Me. Pick me.

[I know]

(stands up, to raise hand even higher)

[why won't he call on me?]

Lethe, instead of reiterating your reiteration....pick Ludovico!

Excellent Lethe, a thoughtful reasonable reply.  As you see from WW's comment, poly exs often don't agree on what makes good CQ material, so why should we?  Your presentation to the ignorant subject was not bad.  As to the knowledgeable, well, one small correction.  Again you repete your oft stated error that the knowledgeable subject (KS) must provide a deceptive answer to a CQ and since they are knowledgable, you reason, the response will be diminished.  Flawless logical reasoning, but reread George's earlier post, since you don't seem to believe me.   KS's answer to the CQ doesn't have to be deceptive.  That's as plain as I can say it!  It can be, it usually is, but it is not required.   All that is required is that the CQ produces sufficent emotional response in a truthful KS.  
 
Missing from your logical analysis is one important aspect of the real life, butt on the line, down and dirty polygraph pretest interview.   It is not solely an intellectual excercise, there are considerable emotions involved, and neither the ignorant or the knowledgeable, logical subject is able to completely control or chose the emotions they feel.  

I wish I had an avatar.

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 02, 2007, 12:43 PM

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 02, 2007, 11:52 AM

Lethe,
I'm glad someone said it. Some 65% of American adults are gullible. That grouping is specifically the p/g examiners target market. It is the other 35% that have the guts to tell them they're screwing up and are
indeed screwed up.

Oh, please. Don't you know that "gullible" not even a real word. Its not even in the dictionary.

Lets keep this on topic.

Both Milgram and Zimbardo are important lessons for all.

But tell us, Lethe - o - Lethe, o concealed and forgetful one: about your experience. Or do you only come here only to editorialize?

REFER: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gullible
One entry found for gullible.

Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 02, 2007, 12:43 PM

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 02, 2007, 11:52 AM


Both Milgram and Zimbardo are important lessons for all.

Most P/G examiners suffer from the Zimbardo effect.
You Sir are a typical example.
Give a decent man a polygraph and 10 weeks of brainwashing
and he becomes holier than everyone....A do-gooder from hell.
The Power to devastate others simple dreams and hopes feeds
his putrid ego.

Karma will get ya in the end. Wait and see. Your numbers coming
up.

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 03, 2007, 04:32 AM
REFER: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gullible
One entry found for gullible.

Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb

You actually checked????????

That joke never works!!!!!!!

LOL

cost of an old joke = nothing

cost of a few moments of typing in Interschmet = .01

cost of knowing that 1904 actually looked up "gullible" to verify it is in Merriam-Webster Onlkine = PRICELESS


smile 1904, I gotcha on that one

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 03, 2007, 04:48 AM

Most P/G examiners suffer from the Zimbardo effect.
You Sir are a typical example.

You traded in your polygraph for some mind reading device???

Tell us what it is, ay Boss?

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 02, 2007, 10:36 PMExcellent Lethe, a thoughtful reasonable reply.  As you see from WW's comment, poly exs often don't agree on what makes good CQ material, so why should we?  Your presentation to the ignorant subject was not bad.  As to the knowledgeable, well, one small correction.  Again you repete your oft stated error that the knowledgeable subject (KS) must provide a deceptive answer to a CQ and since they are knowledgable, you reason, the response will be diminished.  Flawless logical reasoning, but reread George's earlier post, since you don't seem to believe me.   KS's answer to the CQ doesn't have to be deceptive.  That's as plain as I can say it!  It can be, it usually is, but it is not required.   All that is required is that the CQ produces sufficent emotional response in a truthful KS.  
 
Missing from your logical analysis is one important aspect of the real life, butt on the line, down and dirty polygraph pretest interview.   It is not solely an intellectual excercise, there are considerable emotions involved, and neither the ignorant or the knowledgeable, logical subject is able to completely control or chose the emotions they feel.  

I wish I had an avatar.

Anyone else notice that Pailryder and Lethe are locked into an almost symbiotic conversation here?

Its like they'r joined at the hip or sompin'

Now I'm pretty sure that Pailryder issn' LCBC's alter ego.

Hey Waitress! can we get an IP check?


Here. Try this for an avatar.

(http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/954/confederateflagthli7.jpg)

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 03, 2007, 08:57 AM

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 03, 2007, 04:32 AM
REFER: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gullible
One entry found for gullible.

Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb

You actually checked????????

That joke never works!!!!!!!

LOL

cost of an old joke = nothing

cost of a few moments of typing in Interschmet = .01

cost of knowing that 1904 actually looked up "gullible" to verify it is in Merriam-Webster Onlkine = PRICELESS


smile 1904, I gotcha on that one

No you didn't.
I truly thought you were stupid.
But you cant blame me for thinking in that direction.

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 03, 2007, 09:02 AM

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 03, 2007, 04:48 AM

Most P/G examiners suffer from the Zimbardo effect.
You Sir are a typical example.

You traded in your polygraph for some mind reading device???

Tell us what it is, ay Boss?

Yes Rasputin,
I did acquire new mind reading skills.
So can you. But first you have to throw away your snake-oil box.
Read the following authors:
Aldert Vrij; Undeutsch; Steller; Trankell - to name but a few - just to whet yr appetite.
It will also make you feel better about yourself.
Peace.

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 03, 2007, 09:32 AM
No you didn't.
I truly thought you were stupid.
But you cant blame me for thinking in that direction.

Lemme get this straight.

You though I was stupid,

and you looked up "gullible" to verify it is actually in Merriam Webster Online????


bzzzzt.

Lethe
        If a burglar understands how to disarm an intruder detection alarm, is the scientific validity of the system effected or is it the system's utility that is effected?  

Hey "Pailryder", look up at the top of your screen in the grey stripe and you should see that you have private messages. Click on the word "messages" and read and respond to your mail.

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 02, 2007, 10:36 PMExcellent Lethe, a thoughtful reasonable reply.  As you see from WW's comment, poly exs often don't agree on what makes good CQ material, so why should we?  Your presentation to the ignorant subject was not bad.  As to the knowledgeable, well, one small correction.  Again you repete your oft stated error that the knowledgeable subject (KS) must provide a deceptive answer to a CQ and since they are knowledgable, you reason, the response will be diminished.  Flawless logical reasoning, but reread George's earlier post, since you don't seem to believe me.   KS's answer to the CQ doesn't have to be deceptive.  That's as plain as I can say it!  It can be, it usually is, but it is not required.   All that is required is that the CQ produces sufficent emotional response in a truthful KS.  
 
Missing from your logical analysis is one important aspect of the real life, butt on the line, down and dirty polygraph pretest interview.   It is not solely an intellectual excercise, there are considerable emotions involved, and neither the ignorant or the knowledgeable, logical subject is able to completely control or chose the emotions they feel.  

I wish I had an avatar.

I understand that the response to the CQ need not be a lie, that the subject must simply be more uncertain and anxious about the response than she is about her responses to the RQs.  I don't think anything in my prior post betrays the opposite belief.  (However, I don't see how the subject in our case study here could be uncertain about whether or not she dealt drugs with her cousin, that seems like an all-or-nothing, clear cut situation to me.)

In any event, why will the knowledgeable subject be more anxious about the CQs than the RQs?  It seems to me that the possibility of losing a source of income is only a minor annoyance compared with the threat of decades in prison.  The threat posed by the CQ in question is much, much lower to the informed subject than to the ignorant subject.  So, does the size of the threat not matter?  If not, then perhaps getting them to believe that they'll be charged $5 more for the exam if they lie would be sufficient?  Or if it is simply uncertainty that is desired, why not get the person to estimate how many times he or she exceeds the speed limit during the average week, or for every 1000 miles they drive?  No one could have great confidence in his or her answer to that, you've got instant uncertainty if that is all you need.

So, does the size of the threat matter?  Why would I be significantly more anxious and concerned about the CQ than the RQ here?

Clearly, you are working on a book, eh GM?

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 03, 2007, 09:51 AMLethe
        If a burglar understands how to disarm an intruder detection alarm, is the scientific validity of the system effected or is it the system's utility that is effected?  

Are you admitting that someone who knows how the test works and knows, or can easily determine, the control questions will produce significantly less accurate results on a poly?  I can think of no other valid reason for you to make that statement.

But we are not just dealing with a security system that many burglars can undermine.  What we are dealing with is more along the lines of a security system that goes off when someone who knows how it works walks by.  It is not just that the system doesn't stop all of the burglars, but that it results in harm to innocent people.  

Please do check your private messages.  I'm sure that Paradiddle has some good advice for you.  Probably along the lines of "shut the hell up, will ya?"  Doing so would be a rational choice for someone in your situation; you really are giving away far too much, both by what you say and what you refuse to say.  The more people know about the polygraph, the less accurate it will be.  That is unfortunate, I myself would wish it otherwise, but it is the way things are.  Out of curiosity, where did you receive your polygraph training, and how long ago?  And were you ever with the feds?

Anyway, it seems fairly likely that this shit won't work for me.  This shit being, of course, a PLCQ exam.    So, for me, the rational choice is simply not to take such an exam and suffer the reduced opportunities that I will then face.  This is, perhaps, a pity.  With my keen sense of humor, I could have made an excellent federal employee.

Its uncanny.

Almost like you two (Lethe and PailRyder) are reading each other's thoughts...

Lethe, are you GM in disguise?????

I was studying your avatar for clues and I noticed some things.

***[deleted bad taste photoshop of Lethe's avatar with a drag fest pic - sorry Lethe]***

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 03, 2007, 06:29 PMIts uncanny.

Almost like you two (Lethe and PailRyder) are reading each other's thoughts...

Lethe, are you GM in disguise?????

I was studying your avatar for clues and I noticed some things.

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4254/lethekj4.gif)

If by GM you mean George Maschke then no, I am not GM.  And, offhand, I cannot think of any GM that I would be.  I am, however, glad that you like my avatar.

Now, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

I have seen no one who has yet been able to explain this to me.  If you were to be the first, I would be quite greatful.  Sadly, these conversations all start out with the polygrapher swearing that what the subject knows can't effect the accuracy of the exam.  He then proceeds to conceal as much as he can, though by his own claim there is no reason for him to be doing so, while mainly ignoring the real argument.  He then falls back on a reserve position, usually something that amounts to "the polygraph isn't perfect but it's still awesome," or "if you keep asking questions, you're helping the rapists and pedophiles."  There are other varieties as well, including personal attacks, but almost always my motivations are called into question, as if it is curiosity and not the exercise of power over others that must continually be justified.  

At this phase in the discussion, pailryder is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Due to his training and socialization, he "knows" that the polygraph's accuracy isn't undermined by one's knowledge of it.  It is, for several reasons, necessary that he himself believe this and great trouble is taken to make sure that the lesson takes.  He would swear that my knowledge of the poly couldn't make it inaccurate vis-a-vis myself and he has been told all the correct things to say and do, many of which are mentioned above, in order to counter arguments against this noble lie.  He is not accustomed to having these challenged, since he's usually ensconced behind his black box facing a helpless subject when the matter comes up.  Thus, the way he has always convinced people in the past that their knowledge can't hurt them has served to make him even more certain of that "fact."  But now, on this forum, his arguments are exhausted and cannot stand up to logic, which he has also been told to understand and respect.  Logic indicates that, given what we appear to agree on in this thread about how the polygraph works, it will not work very well, if at all, with a knowledgeable subject.  If pailryder were a large, clanking robot from a 1950s science fiction movie, at this point smoke and sparks would be pouring forth from his head and his arms would be wildly flailing about as he mechanically said "Does not compute!  Does not compute!"

Now, do you want to keep blowing smoke up each other's asses, or do you want to explain to us (us being anyone reading this thread) how it is that the polygraph's accuracy is not degraded by knowing how it works?

QuoteNow, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

No thanks, you're having a fine conversation with the confederate (whom I don't believe is a polygraph examiner - call me suspicious like that)

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 03, 2007, 08:09 PM

QuoteNow, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

No thanks, you're having a fine conversation with the confederate (whom I don't believe is a polygraph examiner - call me suspicious like that)

Yeah, he may not be.  For one, he's much more loquacious than you are and for a second thing he's not so much of a dick.

Anyway, what, if anything, that he has said would you say is inaccurate or deficient?  If everything that he has said is accurate a conversation with him suits my purposes just fine, since I want to learn about the polygraph, not just talk with people who are practicing polygraphers.  

Anyway, is "confederate" a term used in polygraph circles to refer to folks who give up too much info on the polygraph?  Or were you just using it of your own initiative?  I'm guessing that the Confederate Naval Ensign was your own device.

Hmm.  Maybe LieBabyCryBaby will come out of hiding now and pitch in here.  After all, we still have zero sensical explanations for how the polygraph doesn't lose accuracy with a knowledgeable subject.

QuoteYeah, he may not be.  For one, he's much more loquacious than you are and for a second thing he's not so much of a dick.

Abuse.

(where's a moderator when you need one.)

"confederate" is the planted audience member, who's in on the gag - the crying girl for Sangya, and PailRyder for you.

Lethe

I have been advised not to twist Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.  Any comment?

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:11 AMLethe

I have been advised not to twist Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.  Any comment?

No, none.  Except to wonder why you do not either (1) admit frankly that the polygraph doesn't work well on people who know how it works, thus the necessity of keeping such information from the masses or (2) explaining how the knowledgeable person will be sufficiently anxious about the control questions to produce a chart not significantly inferior in accuracy to that of an ignorant subject.

It seems that you are now goose stepping in line with the rest of your profession.  What took you so long?

Your confederate started to realize we are on to his gag.

Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 08:31 PMYour confederate started to realize we are on to his gag.

And what, precisely, was his gag?  He was simply responding to the questions that I was posing to him.  I deny that he and I were in collusion, nor do I see what either of us would gain thereby.  

But regardless of whether we were colluding or not, his responses were either accurate, inaccurate, or a combination of both accurate and inaccurate responses.  If inaccurate, was he attempting to mislead me?  Or were both he and I trying to mislead people?  If the later, why would I not just create another account--it would be simple enough--and run both sides of the conversation?  That would ensure consistency and that the point that I wanted to get across would prevail; involving a confederate would simply make carrying any plot into execution more difficult with no gain.  

And if the information that he was giving was accurate, wherein lies the gag?  Really, that is simply too much violence for even polygraphers to do to the truth, to call accurate answers to meaningful and important questions a gag.  But the logic of the polygraph demands that, doesn't it?  You must cover up the truth in order for the lie detector to work with any degree of accuracy.  In your own minds, you are helping people by attacking those who are spreading the truth and, to be sure, there is some accuracy to these claims; ignorant people are more likely to produce accurate results than informed people.  Polygraphers are perforce anti-education.

Lethe-Argic,

Where the HAALE are you coming from?? Your posts continue to deteriorate in intelligence! Speak to a topic or find another cause!

MM

No, no, go not to Lethe, neither twist
Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.

Keats Ode on Melancholy (1820) st. 1

Damn, maybe I'm not a polyex after all!  Everyone knows they don't read poetry.  As for the Rebel flag avatar, Hoddy Toddy, Ludovico.  Hell boys, I've been a confederate all my life.  If people on this board would stop treating the truth like toilet tissue, maybe, no sorry, ignore that.  Discussion on this board will never rise above the level of clone on clone violence on Jim Rome's sports radio show.  

But that gullible gag was funny.

I forgot to answer your questions.

1. it does
2. I did

Just so everyone knows, Lethe and I are not confederates, and I'd be willing to take a polygraph test to prove it.  Before you ask, no Ludovico, not from you.

Quote from: pailryder on Oct 05, 2007, 02:31 AMI forgot to answer your questions.

1. it does
2. I did

If you're talking to me, I'm not sure which questions this paltry answer is in response to.  It certainly does nothing to explain how the polygraph can work on a knowledgeable person, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.  Really, I don't know what makes you guys think you can get away with claiming that I don't want to have a serious discussion, if indeed that charge was leveled at me.

Maybe we need to back up a few steps and go through this more slowly.  How about we start simple?  Let's try this one: does the size or magnitude of the threat that the subject feels from either the control and/or the relevant questions have to be taken into account when setting up an exam, or is the magnitude of the threat irrelevant?  

Here are some other questions that you could explore as you talk me through this and try to make your case, assuming you stick to your story:  

(1) Isn't the whole idea that the innocent subject will be more threatened by the controls and the guilty subject will be more threatened by the relevants?    
(2) If so, what would happen if an innocent subject, being knowledgeable of the way the exam works and being able to identify the control questions, felt no more threat or anxiety from them than from the relevant questions?

We stand in readiness to receive the knowledge which you are able to impart to our ignorant minds.  Remember, since you claim that knowing how the exam works doesn't effect its accuracy, you have no reason to not share the information with us.  Also, if you are correct in that, sharing the information won't help rapists and pedophiles pass the exam.  If you cry uncle and admit that knowing how the exam works significantly degrades its accuracy, I'd be happy to bring this thread to a close.

I must ask. Lethe, why don't you just admit that you are George's alter-ego. Your posts are intentionally cold and inhuman, and George himself never seems to have comment---this being the only long-game thread he has not posted onto---and the diction and rythmic value of your "Lethe" literary style matches that of George's posts and also his sophomoric poetry.

Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 11:51 PMI must ask. Lethe, why don't you just admit that you are George's alter-ego. Your posts are intentionally cold and inhuman, and George himself never seems to have comment---this being the only long-game thread he has not posted onto---and the diction and rythmic value of your "Lethe" literary style matches that of George's posts and also his sophomoric poetry.

Whether it is sophomoric or not I don't know, but I find George's playful verse to evince more talent than anything I could come up with.  As for what you mean by my posts being "intentionally cold and inhuman" I don't know either.  I don't see what would be added to my posts by imitating the insulting, juvenile style that other members of this forum take.

Now.  Will you answer the actual questions about this thread?  In this single thread alone you polygraphers have commented on or asked questions about my avatar, my screen name, my motivations, my background, why I want to know about the polygraph, my opinion of Drew Richardson, whether I interpret Genesis literally, what Richardson's qualifications are or aren't, whether gullible is in the dictionary or not, whether I am pailryder, whether I am George, and on the size of my erect penis.  In short, you have talked about just about everything except what I started this thread to talk about: whether or not and how the polygraph works on a perfectly knowledgeable subject who knows how it works and can identify the control questions.  And, somehow, Ludovico has it in him to insinuate that I am the one who doesn't want to have a good faith discussion.  

Now, let's set that all aside.  I don't want to talk about talking about the question that I raised.  I want to have it answered.

Lethe

I am sorry that I my answers have not been helpful.  You come at this from an intellectual position with valid thoughtful questions and I can only offer answers based on my observations and experience.  Some time ago, I decided to see how an open approach might effect my practice.  The other examiners who post here will be horrified when they read this, but I fully discuss with my subjects the role of the CQ, how and why I developed the CQ, and how I expect it to use it to evaluate their response to the RQ.  I no longer lie to my subjects and I have observed only positive effects from this change.  I have not seen any evidence that this knowledge helps the guilty or hinders the truthful or adversly effects my ability to discriminate between the two.  True knowledge, I think, seldom works that way.  I know this is not what you want, but it is all that I have.  I am not a reseacher, not a scientist, not a logician.  Just a guy with a job that goes to the office each day and tries to treat others as I would have them treat me and mine if our roles were reversed.  

Thank you for your question and for our discussion.