Hi!
I've not seen this covered elsewhere on the site (great site, BTW), but perhaps I'm overlooking it. So- I thought I'd ask here.
Let's suppose for one moment that polygraphy- the analysis of certain physiological data in response to a verbal query- is a science. That implies that a trained analyst should be able to interpret those data in a manner consistent with the finding of deceptive answers, of course- the basis of the entire industry.
Science is real big on "repeatability" and in interpretation of data. This is to say, if it's a science based on interpretation, barring any ideological notions to the opposite, two interpreters should be able to derive the same answer from the same set of data. Or so it goes in forensics: if two forensic analysts examine the same set of fingerprint data, they should be able to determine if one set of prints is consistent with another set of prints.
So my question is this: if polygraphy is considered a "science," rather than the reading of tea leaves, why is it that data are interpreted by an individual, rather than a panel? When a tumor is excised via biopsy and sent to the pathology lab, a small team of experts (3-4, I believe) must come to the same conclusion as to type and degree of changes in morphology for a cancer diagnosis. The reason is quite simple: if there is an error, a life may be lost.
Surely if polygraphy were to be considered a science, the experts in the field would agree that multiple independent examiners- say a panel of three certified individuals- could come to the same conclusion based on the same set of data. Has this been considered? If polygraphy were able to be derived from voodoo, then experts being able to arrive at consensus from the same set of data would seem to be a requirement. Instead, police departments and federal agencies continue to throw money down this well, hoping that the "new and improved" form of the Spanish Inquisition will somehow allow us to divine the truth- all on the basis of techniques that (by all manner of scientific inquiry) should be derided in the same vein as phrenology.
How is it in a modern society we can accept this junk science as truth-finding if it fails independent analysis?
Great point truckie. In many federal testing modalities such a small panel exists. I am all for consensus regarding chart interpretation. Again, fabulous point.
regards
QuoteIf polygraphy were able to be derived from voodoo, then experts being able to arrive at consensus from the same set of data would seem to be a requirement. Instead, police departments and federal agencies continue to throw money down this well, hoping that the "new and improved" form of the Spanish Inquisition will somehow allow us to divine the truth- all on the basis of techniques that (by all manner of scientific inquiry) should be derided in the same vein as phrenology.
First off, lets have this conversation without all the DRAMA! Polygraph is not the spanish inquisition. No one is killed or tortured. They spend money on it because its the best technology that exists at present. Because there is a yammering and drooling (drama, I know) for something better, you must be aware that everyone who can't think for themselves is vulnerable to being sold some form of snake-oil as a replacement.
Aside from all that, many programs include a QC component - which serves the same objectives as a panel.
Another approach in related sciences is to validate a method and then automate it, using computers (not just interns) which execute a process with theoretically perfect reliability.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 30, 2007, 03:36 PMQuote
Another approach in related sciences is to validate a method and then automate it, using computers (not just interns) which execute a process with theoretically perfect reliability.
That is the problem in a nutshell. Polygraphy is NOT science.
It has imperfect reliability. Therefore it is not a validated
scientific technology.
Who said so? - your favourite source of quotes did. NAS.
QuoteIt has imperfect reliability. Therefore it is not a validated
Right-e-O Chief.
By that definition every test in the social sciences (including education) is invalid.
Try again?
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 01, 2007, 08:49 AMQuoteIt has imperfect reliability. Therefore it is not a validated
Right-e-O Chief.
By that definition every test in the social sciences (including education) is invalid.
Try again?
You're running out of corners to paint yourself into.
You must be the only individual that ever categorised p/g as a social science.
Try to spin it anyway you like, but the real facts, not the facts of the
deluded, say that p/g is junk science.
Circular arguments : 'this is what works best so lets use it - dont throw
the baby out with the bathwater' BS are feeble.
So, right-e-O junior, take a goodly dose of brain growth hormones and
sit in the naughty corner till the haze clears.
OK, you sure taught me. Boy-o-boy I bet that felt good to call me junior, and drag out that junk-science rubber stamp (that's a reliable conversation killer anytime it gets too deep to contend with the argument). I'll sure be going to my room now.
Arrogance aside.
Do you really think there is any test anywhere with perfect reliability?
Which one? Where?
If you're going to have an intellectual conversation, then you have to do it without the rubber stamp labels. Otherwise, we might as well proceed directly to the
Oh yeah?
Says you.
Oh yeah?
Says you.
Portion of this exchange, 'cause this is simply a chest-beating and brow-bashing forum with no real interest in discussion.
Its fun though.
You're moving the goalposts now.
We've gone from science to tests.
Maths is a science and it withstands any validity test.
Biology is a verifiable, valid science.
Tests per se are not all scientific. they are what they are.
merely attempts to prove / disprove theory.
Stand still. No jumping around.
you know who i am and i know who you are.
We both know that what we did / do is purely a career.
If you were a 'sealer', would you try to justify clubbing seal pups?
Face your demons honestly.
QuoteTests per se are not all scientific. they are what they are.
merely attempts to prove / disprove theory.
I know, I know.
Things like theories and probabilities don't have much to do with science, now. Do they Chief?
Please direct me to validated research theories that prove a link between emotions and physiological responses.
Not postulation, but peer reviewed research by actual scientists.
I guess that in your mind people like Lykken and his peers were really just spoilers.
Way to bang the drum there, Buck-o.
Its nice to see you found some productive and satisfying activity for your retirement.
Some day you'll have to do your own homework and cease being Georgie's lap-dog with the rhetorical questions about validated studies.
That's not the kind of question that stimulates a real intellectual discussion. Its the kind of question intended to handicap a conversation.
The real concern is this:
Are there any valid theories that support the linkeage between stimulus (not emotion) and physiolgical response. The null hypothesis for which would be that there are no linkeages between stimulus and physiological response.
Lykken is a fine start. Are you suggesting that there are no generalizable conclusions from Lykken to modern polygraph???
You can start here for some basic information about physiology, psychology and stimulus response theory
www.google.com
just experiment with different keywords, and you'll see that there is an awful lot we know about things like emotion, physiology, stimulus, response, and measurement.
You're not seriously trying to have this conversation in an anti-polygraph circus are you.
If you were serious, you'd go back to school and start proving or disproving things for real.
Your just enjoying the opportunity to be self-righteous, and appease yourself of what you view as some form of personal shame for having got involved in polygraph.
There are more productive ways of improving things.
This is fun though.
Sooo, now you're making it personal because your psychobabble BS isnt
getting you anywhere...
Whats with all the "Boss, Chief, Bucko, " BS.
Its seriously not even slightly funny. Just because
your colleagues are wetting their pants doesnt make you comic of the year.
You're still just a deluded clown spewing out BS syllables.
If you're an example of the best & brightest in the APA circus,
then there is hope for everyone.
Bi now Jerry. I'm done wit you. Dont forget yr reading homework.
Ye-ah. Sorry Bub.
Nap time already?
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 01, 2007, 01:04 PMYe-ah. Sorry Bub.
Nap time already?
I think we've discovered the Big Bad Bully from the school ground sandbox... Whilst the other kids were napping were ya digging up some kitty poo poo and analysing it early on?
Lovely, another member of the villiage people ----sans the talent. Soooooooo....wiseup, what be your analysis? Care to comment on the topic of polygraph, or are you just stopping by for the food?
Wise up, RU 2Block in disguise?
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 01, 2007, 03:51 PMLovely, another member of the villiage people ----sans the talent. Soooooooo....wiseup, what be your analysis? Care to comment on the topic of polygraph, or are you just stopping by for the food?
No food here just BS folks are serving up. Your plate sounds full... Are you the butler?
Hello 2block. I knew it was you. ;) So why the name change. ...deleted cheap shot at 2block...
Deleted ad hom attack on wiseup's manhood. Sorry administrator!
Further posts to this message thread should substantively address the topic(s) raised by the initial poster.
Quote from: 1904 on Oct 01, 2007, 12:58 PMSooo, now you're making it personal because your psychobabble BS isnt
getting you anywhere...
Whats with all the "Boss, Chief, Bucko, " BS.
Its seriously not even slightly funny. Just because
your colleagues are wetting their pants doesnt make you comic of the year.
You're still just a deluded clown spewing out BS syllables.
If you're an example of the best & brightest in the APA circus,
then there is hope for everyone.
Bi now Jerry. I'm done wit you. Dont forget yr reading homework.
Good point what is with all this chief bucko stuff i remember doin and saying things like that in 8th grade... you know polys rely solely on someone being naive about how they work...
Quote from: tbld on Oct 04, 2007, 08:44 AMQuote from: 1904 on Oct 01, 2007, 12:58 PMSooo, now you're making it personal because your psychobabble BS isnt
getting you anywhere...
Whats with all the "Boss, Chief, Bucko, " BS.
Its seriously not even slightly funny. Just because
your colleagues are wetting their pants doesnt make you comic of the year.
You're still just a deluded clown spewing out BS syllables.
If you're an example of the best & brightest in the APA circus,
then there is hope for everyone.
Bi now Jerry. I'm done wit you. Dont forget yr reading homework.
Good point what is with all this chief bucko stuff i remember doin and saying things like that in 8th grade... you know polys rely solely on someone being naive about how they work...
If that were true, than why are hundreds if not several thousand polygraph examiners required to be polygraphed every year? Despite the mustard-covered horse shit you read around here, no one knows more about polygraph than polygraph examiners----yet we are tested, with knowledge of every aspect of construct. Could someone please answer my point without ad hom or kick-standing the point with distortion?
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 09:16 AMIf that were true, than why are hundreds if not several thousand polygraph examiners required to be polygraphed every year? Despite the mustard-covered horse shit you read around here, no one knows more about polygraph than polygraph examiners----yet we are tested, with knowledge of every aspect of construct. Could someone please answer my point without ad hom or kick-standing the point with distortion?
You mentioned this in another thread and I thought I addressed it.
It is completely irrelevant how many polygraph examiners are required to take polygraph tests.
What would be relevant is how accurate those polygraph tests were on the examiners.
The only people who could possibly give an answer on that would be the examiners themselves, and only if they lied (successfully) on their polygraph exam and then were willing to admit to that in order to provide proof that the polygraph is inaccurate.
It seems doubtful that such a scenario would ever occur.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:29 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 09:16 AMIf that were true, than why are hundreds if not several thousand polygraph examiners required to be polygraphed every year? Despite the mustard-covered horse shit you read around here, no one knows more about polygraph than polygraph examiners----yet we are tested, with knowledge of every aspect of construct. Could someone please answer my point without ad hom or kick-standing the point with distortion?
You mentioned this in another thread and I thought I addressed it.
It is completely irrelevant how many polygraph examiners are required to take polygraph tests.
What would be relevant is how accurate those polygraph tests were on the examiners.
The only people who could possibly give an answer on that would be the examiners themselves, and only if they lied (successfully) on their polygraph exam and then were willing to admit to that in order to provide proof that the polygraph is inaccurate.
It seems doubtful that such a scenario would ever occur.
Yes, I have mentioned it in an earlier thread and Unfortunately I will continue to mention it until someone answers the question without braking for kool aid. You have no more answered/addressed the point than you have merely asked a seperate question-----the kind of circular logic that I have come to master by this site's model. Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"? Can you even answer this one question, or are you going to private message George in a panic to ask for advice as the rest do.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 09:42 AMYes, I have mentioned it in an earlier thread and Unfortunately I will continue to mention it until someone answers the question without braking for kool aid. You have no more answered/addressed the point than you have merely asked a seperate question-----the kind of circular logic that I have come to master by this site's model. Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures? Can you even answer this one question, or are you going to private message George in a panic to ask for advice as the rest do.
I don't know that it is true that "thousands" of polygraph examiners are required to be polygraphed, but if it is I have no direct knowledge of why polygraph examiners are not waived from being tested. If you have such knowledge feel free to share it.
I did not mention countermeasures, so I am curious as to why you brought them up.
I was working on the belief that knowledge of the polygraph and its procedures (something an examiner should certainly have) makes it virtually impossible to "scare" them into believing the polygraph will detect deception. It is that knowledge, not the use of countermeasures, that makes them unsuitable test subjects.
I am certain you can see that the number of polygraph examiners that take the test is utterly irrelevant. Without knowing the percentage of test-takers that lied and the percentage of liars that were detected by the polygraph the mere number of people taking the test is useless.
If I said five thousand people were polygraphed last week, what possible legitimate conclusion could you draw regarding the accuracy or lack of accuracy of the polygraph?
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 09:42 AM...Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"?...
Polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are themselves required to submit to polygraph screening for the sake of keeping up appearances. How would it look to the rank-and-file if the polygraphers were themselves exempted?
But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but it is one that I have made before, and it is apt: polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 04, 2007, 09:56 AM
Oh Migod,
That breaks me up.
4 musketeers. 1x IP address. Same room.
Wooo hooo, you go boys.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 04, 2007, 09:56 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 09:42 AM...Soooooo, "Sarge", tell me-----why aren't polygraph examiners waived from being tested due to such "ease" of countermeasures and such "knowledge/awareness of construct detriment to accuracy(Lethe's dumb point)"?...
Polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are themselves required to submit to polygraph screening for the sake of keeping up appearances. How would it look to the rank-and-file if the polygraphers were themselves exempted?
But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but it is one that I have made before, and it is apt: polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.
Please site your source for such an accusation. You are essentially accusing the US government polygraph programs and all of its polygraph examiners of high treason, and I suggest you back up such a statement with facts.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 10:08 AMPlease site your source for such an accusation. You are essentially accusing the US government polygraph programs and all of its polygraph examiners of high treason, and I suggest you back up such a statement with facts.
Paradiddle,
Perhaps you have a point. It is not
entirely unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk a fellow polygrapher: in 2004, the CIA's polygraph division retaliated against retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3574.msg24735#msg24735) by "flunking" him after he wrote a book that some in the unit found unflattering. But by this time, Sullivan was no longer "part of the team."
If you or anyone else can cite any instance of a polygrapher failing to pass a polygraph screening examination, please enlighten us.
1st and foremost, you assume Mr. Sullivan was truthful on his test, despite the fact that you and all who've read the book know he revealed some things in that book that the agency disliked becoming revealed. I am not calling Mr. Sullivan a liar, but in classic anti-polygraph form, you assume the best of all "flunkee's" as it suits your needs. As an examiner, I do not make such assumptions truthful or deceptive. It would appear that you and minions are quit quick to coddle those that merely state that they were truthful and failed, based on your (and all human) ability to detect sincerety from a few paragraphs. You hear music in farts George.
PD,
No one has appointed me to be a spokesman for this board.
Where I address you in particular, it is only because you are to date the most lucid of the PP folk, although you do sometimes break the rules of common decency. (yes i have too)
I think it is fair to say most AP folk admire your unwavwering faith in the p/g system (man & box) although some will say it's blind faith and unjustified belief.
Nevertheless, it is your belief and of course you are fully entitled to uphold your beliefs with the passion you display.
But, lets cut out the mumbo jumbo, techno speak and calmly debate some of the issues that militate in favour of and against the use of the p/g system.
Firstly, i use the term 'system' because the p/g instrument is a cold instrument. it has no artificial intelligence. It measures physiological data which collection process is in the hands of sometimes skilled examiners and sometimes unskilled examiners. History tells us that there are too many unskilled examiners in this world.
Unskilled has many connotations. It refers not only to a keen eye and fine motor control. it also goes to the mind of the examiner. When past illuminaries of the APA start plastering themselves with phony
PHd's - that to me indicates an unsound intellect. A megalomaniac perhaps? The Idi Amin syndrome?
If such men rose to the top of the APA (the polygraph collective), that does not say much for the rank and file who voted these deluded (yes again) characters into office. Furthermore, how can the public
- future subjects - then be expected to trust polygraphers?
The APA likes to trot out the '98%' accuracy number, "in favour of the truthful subject". Yet from my own reading of APA journals over the years and the writings of the the anti scientists, laboratory achieved accuracy rates are closer to the order of 86-88%.
There are no validated field accuracy stats. Indeed it would be a mammoth task to undertake such an exercise, which would have to be managed closely by equally weghted numbers of Pro & Anti 'scientists'
Field Examiners have very little reliable feedback on which to base the accuracy of their Calls. Some might say " I know I'm right till proven wrong" - which is nothing more than hollow boasting.
I have also never been 'proven wrong' in a Call. In my earlier days of testing I was as gung-ho as some of your colleagues. I 'produced' a high DI Call rate. some 55% of my subjects were failing. The truth is, its extremely difficult if not impossible, for truthful subjects to PROVE that they have been given an incorrect DI Call.
I changed my mindset. changed the way I treated subjects. Ceased with the BS stim and card trick tests. Ceased with the "My p/g is now set to detect whenever you lie" BS. After that, my average DI
Call rate went down to approx 20%.
However, I still achieved the same number (%) of confessions and that opened my eyes to the fact that the p/g was merely a prop with which to obtain confessions. In truth, those that confessed usually did not require to be polygraphed. during the Pre-Test phase I encouraged subjects to talk and step by step obtained confessions. Verified confessions where subjects undertook in writing to make reparation.
NAS stated that the p/g (system) was imperfect but achieved levels of accuracy better or greater than chance. (Not a comforting reassurance surely). What is chance? where does 'level of chance' sit?
Theoretically chance is a 50-50 situation. In reality its not. Every single situation has significantly different levels of chance - ie - a level at which one could introduce an operant condition that will produce a result greater or lesser than chance for that particular situation.
Problem: Polygraphy does not have an established, verifiable level of chance. So where does it sit?
What is it? 30%, 35%, 50% ? How do we ascertain a level of chance for p/g?
Can we establish a level of chance for p/g by the coin toss test? Would that even out at 50% ?
Well i tried it. Take a coin and mark the sides A & B. flip it 100 times then change the markings.
Do that ten times, to achieve 1000 flips. Out of 1000 flips I achieved an average of 46%. Based on the number of times each side fell facing up and then averaged the two scores.
If we play around with numbers and accept that 86% is theoretically the accuracy as achieved in laboratory mock-crime settings, then the success over 'chance' (46%) is 40%. Is that good enough?
Is that significantly good enough to prejudice 14% of the population. (100 - 86 =14 )
How many hundreds of thousands does that equate to annually?
Of the potentially incorrect 14% Calls, at least 80% of those will represent truthful people that were
prejudiced by Incorrect Calls. And that should be a major concern to society as a whole.
The FBI /CIA et al quip, "We gotta get 100 in the front door to get 1 out the back door" is very interesting and most disturbing. The inference is that 90% of the US population are liars and cheats.
I dont think so. Why anyone would want to work for organisations with that mindset is a mystery to me.
To argue that polygraph results inter alia produce some 10% of confessions is not a convincing argument in favour of p/g. Most skilled interviewers could likely achieve the same or higher rates of
confessions without incurring false confessions.
The false polygraph induced confession rate is probably very low, (maybe 2% ?) but those are still dire consequences for that innocent 2%. One can only hope that the quality of investigators, interrogators and the justice system will one day improve to the level where skills will filterout the 2% false confessions.
It remains a fact that many thousands of people suffer the ignominy of incorrect p/g calls. To contend that it's (pg) all we got now and as we do catch some baddies its okay -- is simply not good enough.
You in particular come across as being highly intelligent and I think that if you had opted for main line investigation that you would have been a brilliant Investigator. I'm sure that locking away bad guys based on solid investigative results would produce a much higher degree of job satisfaction.
In the 16th Century, I'm sure the Pro & Anti torture groups had similar debates as we do today.
The Pro's, "whats wrong with torture? It works well. Dont mess with it. We apply some pain and some 90% of wicked men confess to heinous crimes. Firstly, with our scientific technique, we make them walk through a darkened tent and if they dont pull the donkeys tail, then we know they are guilty and we just
put their veggies in a vice -- and boy do they confess quick, and then we kill them. Why mess with this winner? We're taking bad guys off the streets all day long!! "
And the Anti guys would point out that 4 out of the 10 newly deceased were known by society at large to be unarguably innocent and in fact 2 of them were complete unknowns to the area, but 2 were definitely involved in the crime. So to get 2 bad guys off the street, 8 others had to be sacrificed in what is euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. And so that principle is perpetuated today by p/g.
Thats how it is with the p/g system. The collateral damage is far too high, no matter what % you want to spin on it, or what bow tie you dress it up in.
Which is all why, a lot of truthful folk come to the AP site (along with a fair share of bad guys for sure).
They have heard and read too many horror stories of prejudice against truthful, innocent persons that were administered p/g tests and then suffered under incorrect DI Calls. So, they come here wisely, to prepare for an unscientific test.
The old BS line given to subjects to 'tell the examiner everything about your past. Dont hold back anything, not even your little transgressions, otherwise you will fail, now you dont want to fail will you, because it will go on your record forever..' - its the biggest crock of BS told in the 21st Century.
All those 'little transgressions' will go into the examiners report, making you stink and him looking like
the mouse that got all the cheese. It makes the examiner look like he's really a hot shot, getting all these juicy titbits out onto your report. Ensures his prospects of further work from the same source, but without thought for the poor otherwise normal sap that just been denied a job or promotion or loss of liberty.
So Dear Readers,
If you are an ordinary person having a less than unblemished past, like maybe trying a bit of weed in college, or driven when perhaps a bit 'under the weather' - then you have every reason to prepare for a polygraph test, because the entire system, from start to finish, is insufficiently reliable.
I have read the TLBTLD. It has many valid, helpful suggestions. Read it. It will significantly improve your chances of not receiving a False and Incorrect DI Call. I am a retired polygraphist. I did not retire due to age. I retired due to conscience. My remaining sin is that I sold my testing business and had to teach the purchaser to ply my old trade.
To The Bad guys,
Nobody actually knows who you are nor how to differentiate between yourselves and normal folk on this site, therefore AP would not know who to bar from this site. One can only hope that the justice system
is skilled enough to to weed you out and deal with you appropriately.
PLEASE NOTE TYPO CORRECTED:
I have read the TLBTLD. It has many valid, helpful suggestions. Read it. It will significantly improve your chances of NOT receiving a False and Incorrect DI Call. I am a retired polygraphist. I did not retire due to age. I retired due to conscience. My remaining sin is that I sold my testing business and had to teach the purchaser to ply my old trade.
To '04 and others
I do not speak for any other polygraph examiners and anything I say, I speak for myself. I am sorry that polygraph has left you feeling empty and/or angry, as who hasn't felt that way about some behavior at one time or another. I too have mastered both arguments, and I secretly (until now) have been impressed with a few vehemently anti-polygraph posters----yourself included. I take no pride in the polygraph business, and my peers know me as wickedly critical of all weaknesses within our field, both the weaknesses of construct, and every thing up through some of the members of our ranks and their various intellectual and/or personal shortcomings. Hell, I might just be the most negativistic bastard anyone ever met---at least for a relatively young person anyway. If I believed polygraph were as fallible as you, I would certainly be amongst you on occasion lampooning the fools and their "jimmy boxes." Oh if it were true, life would be better, as I would be making great money in a more respected field, and I wouldn't be ashamed to tell strangers what I do for a living as they wouldn't make foolish statements and/or behave odd---like they were under investigation or something. No, if polygraph were what you and the sum of your experiences claim it to be, than I would be better off----much less all of those alleged "ruined lives." Your candor 1904, when you are done taking cheap shots and being wicked---is remarkable and very crisp. Although your contention of polygraph invalidity is purely anecdotal, it is worth a read---versus those that claim to have "passing ship" contact with the field and regurgitate endless platitudes by virtue of their brief and oft times confused perceptions. I too have read TLBTLD, and it impresses me in many parts, and not so much in other parts. TLBTLD is not a scientific document, and it is not a work of the dark arts either. It is rather, a prayer book. A book that should cause those that seek to undermine the test to pray that they aren't faced with the types of examiners that lecture and write on such countermeasures.
Paradiddle
Thank you for a candid and honest reply.
;)
Quotechanged my mindset. changed the way I treated subjects. Ceased with the BS stim and card trick tests. Ceased with the "My p/g is now set to detect whenever you lie" BS. After that, my average DI
Call rate went down to approx 20%.
However, I still achieved the same number (%) of confessions and that opened my eyes to the fact that the p/g was merely a prop with which to obtain confessions. In truth, those that confessed usually did not require to be polygraphed. during the Pre-Test phase I encouraged subjects to talk and step by step obtained confessions. Verified confessions where subjects undertook in writing to make reparation.
You sound like a rather weak and unsatisfied interviewer, who probably compensated by acting intimidating to your clients.
Now, if your overall % of confessions stayed the same, and the number of "DI calls" was reduced to 20%, then the number of admissions would be reduced while the volume is proportionally equivalent.
That would be hard to see anecdotally; d'you do the math on that there data? Or, d'ya just make that up?
If you have the data, then you should really write that up and publish it. Its quite interesting.
QuoteNAS stated that the p/g (system) was imperfect but achieved levels of accuracy better or greater than chance. (Not a comforting reassurance surely). What is chance? where does 'level of chance' sit?
That same statement could be said of so many other tests. Its really quite vague, if you care to think about it (not just read it.)
As for chance. That is another straw-man argument on your part, intended not to facilitate any further conversation or knowledge, but to handicap the conversation from progress.
There is a lot we don't know about base-rates. Similarly, there is a lot we do know about base rates, though not with absolute certainty. (thatsa whole 'nuther conversation)
The whole field of sex offender risk assessment struggles with this problem. Its really only an insurmountable problem if you can't comprehend anything except simplistic bayesian models. Signal detection models, for example, as used by Karl Hanson, allow us to make reasonable estimations of the accuracy of a sex offender recidivism risk assessment in the absence of clearly understood base-rates. His assessment is considered among the best, and has accuracy rates that were well above chance though well below perfection (Static 99 for example was about .77 or so).
QuoteTheoretically chance is a 50-50 situation. In reality its not. Every single situation has significantly different levels of chance - ie - a level at which one could introduce an operant condition that will produce a result greater or lesser than chance for that particular situation.
Problem: Polygraphy does not have an established, verifiable level of chance. So where does it sit?
What is it? 30%, 35%, 50% ? How do we ascertain a level of chance for p/g?
Dude. Go buy a book on Bayesian statistics, and go buy another on inferential stats. Absence of known base-rates is not an unaddressed or insurmountable issue – unless of course you want it to be one, because you can only engage in straw-man arguments.
QuoteCan we establish a level of chance for p/g by the coin toss test? Would that even out at 50% ?
Well i tried it. Take a coin and mark the sides A & B. flip it 100 times then change the markings.
Do that ten times, to achieve 1000 flips. Out of 1000 flips I achieved an average of 46%. Based on the number of times each side fell facing up and then averaged the two scores.
How convenient of you, now, to slip into a parametric/inferential example.
QuoteIf we play around with numbers and accept that 86% is theoretically the accuracy as achieved in laboratory mock-crime settings, then the success over 'chance' (46%) is 40%.
That's not very close to how we actually calculate an example of this type, but that's another mathematical matter that would require many minutes of mulling to mediate the myriad of mindlessness in your example,
(you can start by doing a google search on the good old fashioned z-test - go to www.google.com)
but if this works for your simplistic model, well, that's probably all we're gonna achieve right now.
QuoteIs that good enough?
Is that significantly good enough to prejudice 14% of the population. (100 - 86 =14 )
How many hundreds of thousands does that equate to annually?
Of the potentially incorrect 14% Calls, at least 80% of those will represent truthful people that were
prejudiced by Incorrect Calls. And that should be a major concern to society as a whole.
And now you have conveniently flip-flopped again from at discussion about math and science to a discussion about social ethics.
QuoteThe FBI /CIA et al quip, "We gotta get 100 in the front door to get 1 out the back door" is very interesting and most disturbing. The inference is that 90% of the US population are liars and cheats.
I dont think so. Why anyone would want to work for organisations with that mindset is a mystery to me.
More drama.
Please try to separate hyperbole from facts.
Otherwise, we ain't getting no-where.
QuoteTo argue that polygraph results inter alia produce some 10% of confessions is not a convincing argument in favour of p/g. Most skilled interviewers could likely achieve the same or higher rates of
confessions without incurring false confessions.
fact check please.
References?
Or is the the world according to 1904!
QuoteThe false polygraph induced confession rate is probably very low, (maybe 2% ?) but those are still dire consequences for that innocent 2%. One can only hope that the quality of investigators, interrogators and the justice system will one day improve to the level where skills will filterout the 2% false confessions.
You are again having a very one-sided conversation about these important ethical concerns.
Your heart is perhaps in the right place, and you might not be dumb, but this does not measure up to anything more than drama and editorializing.
Too bad too, 'cause in another context it could be a lot of fun to converse with you.
Still smartin' from the "gullible" thing ay?
Rather petty don't you think.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 04, 2007, 08:33 PMQuote
"Blah blah blah BS and humbug".
Summary Reply: " Tum podem extulit horridulum"
nanny-nanny-boo-boo to you to
Wassup 1904? You need a hug or sompin'?
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 08, 2007, 09:37 AMnanny-nanny-boo-boo to you to
Wassup 1904? You need a hug or sompin'?
Yes Please. And the hat.
Quote from: 1904 on Oct 04, 2007, 12:56 PMPD,
No one has appointed me to be a spokesman for this board.
Where I address you in particular, it is only because you are to date the most lucid of the PP folk, although you do sometimes break the rules of common decency. (yes i have too)
I think it is fair to say most AP folk admire your unwavwering faith in the p/g system (man & box) although some will say it's blind faith and unjustified belief.
Nevertheless, it is your belief and of course you are fully entitled to uphold your beliefs with the passion you display.
But, lets cut out the mumbo jumbo, techno speak and calmly debate some of the issues that militate in favour of and against the use of the p/g system.
Firstly, i use the term 'system' because the p/g instrument is a cold instrument. it has no artificial intelligence. It measures physiological data which collection process is in the hands of sometimes skilled examiners and sometimes unskilled examiners. History tells us that there are too many unskilled examiners in this world.
Unskilled has many connotations. It refers not only to a keen eye and fine motor control. it also goes to the mind of the examiner. When past illuminaries of the APA start plastering themselves with phony
PHd's - that to me indicates an unsound intellect. A megalomaniac perhaps? The Idi Amin syndrome?
If such men rose to the top of the APA (the polygraph collective), that does not say much for the rank and file who voted these deluded (yes again) characters into office. Furthermore, how can the public
- future subjects - then be expected to trust polygraphers?
The APA likes to trot out the '98%' accuracy number, "in favour of the truthful subject". Yet from my own reading of APA journals over the years and the writings of the the anti scientists, laboratory achieved accuracy rates are closer to the order of 86-88%.
There are no validated field accuracy stats. Indeed it would be a mammoth task to undertake such an exercise, which would have to be managed closely by equally weghted numbers of Pro & Anti 'scientists'
Field Examiners have very little reliable feedback on which to base the accuracy of their Calls. Some might say " I know I'm right till proven wrong" - which is nothing more than hollow boasting.
I have also never been 'proven wrong' in a Call. In my earlier days of testing I was as gung-ho as some of your colleagues. I 'produced' a high DI Call rate. some 55% of my subjects were failing. The truth is, its extremely difficult if not impossible, for truthful subjects to PROVE that they have been given an incorrect DI Call.
I changed my mindset. changed the way I treated subjects. Ceased with the BS stim and card trick tests. Ceased with the "My p/g is now set to detect whenever you lie" BS. After that, my average DI
Call rate went down to approx 20%.
However, I still achieved the same number (%) of confessions and that opened my eyes to the fact that the p/g was merely a prop with which to obtain confessions. In truth, those that confessed usually did not require to be polygraphed. during the Pre-Test phase I encouraged subjects to talk and step by step obtained confessions. Verified confessions where subjects undertook in writing to make reparation.
NAS stated that the p/g (system) was imperfect but achieved levels of accuracy better or greater than chance. (Not a comforting reassurance surely). What is chance? where does 'level of chance' sit?
Theoretically chance is a 50-50 situation. In reality its not. Every single situation has significantly different levels of chance - ie - a level at which one could introduce an operant condition that will produce a result greater or lesser than chance for that particular situation.
Problem: Polygraphy does not have an established, verifiable level of chance. So where does it sit?
What is it? 30%, 35%, 50% ? How do we ascertain a level of chance for p/g?
Can we establish a level of chance for p/g by the coin toss test? Would that even out at 50% ?
Well i tried it. Take a coin and mark the sides A & B. flip it 100 times then change the markings.
Do that ten times, to achieve 1000 flips. Out of 1000 flips I achieved an average of 46%. Based on the number of times each side fell facing up and then averaged the two scores.
If we play around with numbers and accept that 86% is theoretically the accuracy as achieved in laboratory mock-crime settings, then the success over 'chance' (46%) is 40%. Is that good enough?
Is that significantly good enough to prejudice 14% of the population. (100 - 86 =14 )
How many hundreds of thousands does that equate to annually?
Of the potentially incorrect 14% Calls, at least 80% of those will represent truthful people that were
prejudiced by Incorrect Calls. And that should be a major concern to society as a whole.
The FBI /CIA et al quip, "We gotta get 100 in the front door to get 1 out the back door" is very interesting and most disturbing. The inference is that 90% of the US population are liars and cheats.
I dont think so. Why anyone would want to work for organisations with that mindset is a mystery to me.
To argue that polygraph results inter alia produce some 10% of confessions is not a convincing argument in favour of p/g. Most skilled interviewers could likely achieve the same or higher rates of
confessions without incurring false confessions.
The false polygraph induced confession rate is probably very low, (maybe 2% ?) but those are still dire consequences for that innocent 2%. One can only hope that the quality of investigators, interrogators and the justice system will one day improve to the level where skills will filterout the 2% false confessions.
It remains a fact that many thousands of people suffer the ignominy of incorrect p/g calls. To contend that it's (pg) all we got now and as we do catch some baddies its okay -- is simply not good enough.
You in particular come across as being highly intelligent and I think that if you had opted for main line investigation that you would have been a brilliant Investigator. I'm sure that locking away bad guys based on solid investigative results would produce a much higher degree of job satisfaction.
In the 16th Century, I'm sure the Pro & Anti torture groups had similar debates as we do today.
The Pro's, "whats wrong with torture? It works well. Dont mess with it. We apply some pain and some 90% of wicked men confess to heinous crimes. Firstly, with our scientific technique, we make them walk through a darkened tent and if they dont pull the donkeys tail, then we know they are guilty and we just
put their veggies in a vice -- and boy do they confess quick, and then we kill them. Why mess with this winner? We're taking bad guys off the streets all day long!! "
And the Anti guys would point out that 4 out of the 10 newly deceased were known by society at large to be unarguably innocent and in fact 2 of them were complete unknowns to the area, but 2 were definitely involved in the crime. So to get 2 bad guys off the street, 8 others had to be sacrificed in what is euphemistically referred to as collateral damage. And so that principle is perpetuated today by p/g.
Thats how it is with the p/g system. The collateral damage is far too high, no matter what % you want to spin on it, or what bow tie you dress it up in.
Which is all why, a lot of truthful folk come to the AP site (along with a fair share of bad guys for sure).
They have heard and read too many horror stories of prejudice against truthful, innocent persons that were administered p/g tests and then suffered under incorrect DI Calls. So, they come here wisely, to prepare for an unscientific test.
The old BS line given to subjects to 'tell the examiner everything about your past. Dont hold back anything, not even your little transgressions, otherwise you will fail, now you dont want to fail will you, because it will go on your record forever..' - its the biggest crock of BS told in the 21st Century.
All those 'little transgressions' will go into the examiners report, making you stink and him looking like
the mouse that got all the cheese. It makes the examiner look like he's really a hot shot, getting all these juicy titbits out onto your report. Ensures his prospects of further work from the same source, but without thought for the poor otherwise normal sap that just been denied a job or promotion or loss of liberty.
So Dear Readers,
If you are an ordinary person having a less than unblemished past, like maybe trying a bit of weed in college, or driven when perhaps a bit 'under the weather' - then you have every reason to prepare for a polygraph test, because the entire system, from start to finish, is insufficiently reliable.
I have read the TLBTLD. It has many valid, helpful suggestions. Read it. It will significantly improve your chances of not receiving a False and Incorrect DI Call. I am a retired polygraphist. I did not retire due to age. I retired due to conscience. My remaining sin is that I sold my testing business and had to teach the purchaser to ply my old trade.
To The Bad guys,
Nobody actually knows who you are nor how to differentiate between yourselves and normal folk on this site, therefore AP would not know who to bar from this site. One can only hope that the justice system
is skilled enough to to weed you out and deal with you appropriately.
Bravo! Finally an honest post by an x-examiner. Thank you for the honesty 1904. WELL DONE! :)
Rice80,
Nice editorial but you sir, are full of shit! You say that you sold your polygraph business and then trained the guy who bought it?? Even George and Gino know that this is not how the polygraph industry works. You want us to buy your story that some Schmo walked in off the street and bought your business after YOU trained him to conduct polygraph exams.....???
If there is ANY truth to your story, then you should feel as bad as you do! I for one, am not buying it.....but thanks for trying!
Regards,
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 08, 2007, 11:30 PMRice80,
Nice editorial but you sir, are full of shit! You say that you sold your polygraph business and then trained the guy who bought it?? Even George and Gino know that this is not how the polygraph industry works. You want us to buy your story that some Schmo walked in off the street and bought your business after YOU trained him to conduct polygraph exams.....???
If there is ANY truth to your story, then you should feel as bad as you do! I for one, am not buying it.....but thanks for trying!
Regards,
MM
MM,
I diddn't post that article, 1904 did, I just replyed to it.
rice
rice80,
My mistake...sorry about that! Thank you for correcting me.
Regards,
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 08, 2007, 11:30 PMRice80,
Nice editorial but you sir, are full of shit! You say that you sold your polygraph business and then trained the guy who bought it?? You want us to buy your story that some Schmo walked in off the street and bought your business after YOU trained him to conduct polygraph exams.....???
If there is ANY truth to your story, then you should feel as bad as you do! I for one, am not buying it.....but thanks for trying!
Regards, MM
And your point is what...? I dont think even you know what point you are trying
to push here. Dilute your moonshine Tyrone.
You are so dumb, its scary.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 08, 2007, 11:30 PM
Nice editorial but you sir, are full of shit!
And you sir, are definitely not.
Quote
You say that you sold your polygraph business and then trained the guy who bought it?? Even George and Gino know that this is not how the polygraph industry works.
Well, just in case they don't, maybe you could enlighten the readers exactly how the p/g industry works.
Quote
You want us to buy your story that some Schmo walked in off the street and bought your business after YOU trained him to conduct polygraph exams.....???
Use it. Don't use it schmuck. Which part do you find to be incredulous..?
Quote
If there is ANY truth to your story, then you should feel as bad as you do! I for one, am not buying it.....but thanks for trying! Regards, MM
Tell someone who actually gives a s**t about yr whiny-assed opinion.
1904,
You sold your testing business and "had to teach the purchaser to ply my old trade". Nice. My heart goes out to you old man. Hang on-let me get a tissue.
What country are you in? Did the deal include any goats, chickens or other livestock? Either way, it is a releif to know that you are retired.
Regards,
MM
1904,
Sorry. I did not mean to make your pacemaker arc. Go into the kitchen and pour yourself a big glass of Calm Down Juice.
Have a special day!
MM
1904,
Is your name "John Grogan"? ::)
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 09, 2007, 07:23 PM1904,
Is your name "John Grogan"? ::)
Yes. how did you know??
Quote from: 1904 on Oct 10, 2007, 04:43 AMQuote from: nonombre on Oct 09, 2007, 07:23 PM1904,
Is your name "John Grogan"? ::)
Yes. how did you know??
Well, I did a little investigative work. But I wasn't sure. In any case, I can't go into it right now. More later...
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 10, 2007, 06:17 PM
Well, I did a little investigative work. But I wasn't sure. In any case, I can't go into it right now. More later...
Yeah Well. You got me but it wasnt fair to 'Out' me publicly.
Anyways, you're welcome to mosey over to my place anytime for a barbecue and a few Buds.
Come and spend a week or two with me and my little woman on our yacht off Coco Beach.
And I think every one knows my real identity by now----I am none other than George Maschke himself. I knew that would ruffle some feathers! Here is one of my latest poetic sonnets.
My Polygraph experience was very bad and on my test I tanked
So i moved to another country rather than be shanked
I started a website devoted to an antipolygraph cause
now I recommend countermeasures devised by Santa Clause
I intended on people to visit, who have a screening test,
but hey who cares if 1000 pedophiles show up to give it their best.
I spend my nights online, no wife, no kids, no meaning,
to give out a sum of bad advice with logic truly leaning.
I hate Ludovico Paradiddle and especially WW and Meat,
but I'll give them their say, and at the end of the day,
I'll lift weights and sniff my feet.
Dr. George W. Maschke
(I'm not actually George Maschke you morons----disclaimer for administrator satisfaction)
lol
Paradiddle RLRRLRLLRLRRLRLLRLRRLRLL
Paradiddle,
That's the best poem I ever saw. Are you really not George Maschke, or are you trying to throw us off the scent?
Please forgive, but this thread has been off topic for several days, and I thought I would have some fun at our gracious host's expense. So where were we 5 days ago with this topic? :-?
I don't think anybody cares about the topic. We all know that George and his band of nerds are totally ignorant about polygraph testing.
When two people disagree, and one of them is a pro in the field, who would be dumb enough to listen to the amateur.
Quote from: StudebakerHawk on Oct 11, 2007, 08:20 PMI don't think anybody cares about the topic. We all know that George and his band of nerds are totally ignorant about polygraph testing.
When two people disagree, and one of them is a pro in the field, who would be dumb enough to listen to the amateur.
Hmmm yea everyone is
''totally'' ignorant if everyone were totally ignorant no pgs would bother with coming to this site... Kryptonite for you...
GONG
Quote from: StudebakerHawk on Oct 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
I don't think anybody cares about the topic.
Then why're you here Einstein ?
Quote
We all know that George and his band of nerds are totally ignorant about polygraph testing.
Who died and made you class captain..?
Quote
When two people disagree, and one of them is a pro in the field, who would be dumb enough to listen to the amateur.
Apparently yourself. That's why you're here.
Free Tip Of The Day for you Junior:
Until you are as eloquent and knowledgeable as our resident ex's, I recommend that you listen and learn from the shadows.