AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society


Abstract:
Purpose: Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.

Method: Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behavior and perceptions during their examination.

Results: There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to support predictions made by the theory of the CQT.

Conclusions: Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the CQT critics.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1348/135532506X123770


Submitter's note:

The participants were given the downloadable manual "The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test.  After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book.  However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate  (false positives) than the innocent group without the book.  Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good.  If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book?  This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen! :'(

Quote from: skip.webb on Oct 15, 2007, 02:40 PMInformation does not affect the validity of a comparison question test
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society


Abstract:
Purpose: Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.

Method: Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behavior and perceptions during their examination.

Results: There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to support predictions made by the theory of the CQT.

Conclusions: Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the CQT critics.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1348/135532506X123770


Submitter's note:

The participants were given the downloadable manual "The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test.  After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book.  However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate  (false positives) than the innocent group without the book.  Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good.  If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book?  This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen! :'(

Thank you Mr. Webb.

tap tap tap.............George?
Mrs. Maschke, can George come out and play?
He can bring his inhaler.

Quote from: skip.webb on Oct 15, 2007, 02:40 PMInformation does not affect the validity of a comparison question test
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society


Abstract:
Purpose: Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.

Method: Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behavior and perceptions during their examination.

Results: There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to support predictions made by the theory of the CQT.

Conclusions: Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the CQT critics.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1348/135532506X123770


Submitter's note:

The participants were given the downloadable manual "The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test.  After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book.  However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate  (false positives) than the innocent group without the book.  Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good.  If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book?  This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen! :'(

Now boys, how are you going to spin this one?  Anyone thinking about using CM's you have been warned.  We have been saying this site does a dis-service to applicants for months.  I also believe Dr. Lou Rovner (a real Ph.d.) did a similar study before this one and Honts/Alloway's study confirmed it again. Thanks Skip for citing the study.  

If that study is accurate, and the information on this site doesn't help the guilty pass, then I assume everyone who has accused George of "helping child molesters" will apologize?  Apparently the information he collected doesn't do anything to "help child molesters" after all.

I will come out and play. roughly 4 years ago, on 3 different occasions, with 3 different tests, 3 different FBI polygraphers accused me of lying about selling and using drugs. Ok, 1 was "inconclusive" , so he wasnt sure. Just turned 39 years old and still haven't sold or used an illegal drug in my entire life. I still think about this injustice every day. 4 years later and the smug self-rigtheousness of this thread has reawakened the pissed-off in me.

What you fail to realize is that this site is not the product of disgruntled liars. This site exists because of the falsely accused. when we cant imagine why we fail, we look for answers and we find them here. we find that the liars were on the other side of the machine.

I have nothing to hide. my real name is on this posts. My whole story is on this site. SOmeone investigate me and find my drug selling. WHy don't you do it, Mr webb. or Wonder Woman. Do you realize how stupid you look to equate a comic book magical artifact to a law enforecement interrogation technique?

So, F$@K you and your study Mr. Webb. You bastards and your piece of S&%T machine stole a career for which I had spent 14 years pursuing. I really don't give a damn about your study or your proof. These idiots dared to look me in the eye and call me a drug dealer when they have no idea except a few scribbles on a page they mistake for mind reading.

My deepest wish is that one day one of you or a loved one is falsely accused of a crime based on polygraph evidence and sent away for a very long time at a prison infested with gay gangs. Then we will see what you think about your studies when it actually affects you. For now though, remain in your ivory tower with your studies and papers and tell people like me how wrong we are about people who were so wring about us.

Bill,

I believe that Skip's post was clear that this is simply information that directly answers one of George's long burning questions as to whether or not knowledge of the polygraph and a given format used with it (its procedure) might affected the outcome of an examination.  There was no purporting about false positives or your examination outcome by Skip or anyone else for that matter.

I in fact indicated the same information as that regarding the aforementioned research did in a post some time ago.  The fact of the matter is that there are at least two studies that specifically address this very question and both purport the same findings.

I am sorry for the loss of your dream.  I doubt that anything or anyone but you could change your thoughts and beliefs about polygraph.

To the last part of your post.  I am unaware of any case where an individual was convicted based solely on the results of a polygraph examination or any other single source of forensic evidence.

Dear Mr. Webb,

First, I'd like to welcome you to AntiPolygraph.org message board! Your views and perspective are most welcome. (I'd like to point out to readers who may not recognize Mr. Webb's name that we have the rare honor of speaking with a past president and executive director of the American Polygraph Association.)

The Honts & Alloway study whose abstract you've cited has previously been the subject of brief discussion 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.msg25493#msg25493), where I also posted the article abstract (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25539#msg25539). As I noted then, the 2007 Honts & Alloway study has serious methodological shortcomings. A question I raised then, and raise again here, is: if Lou Rovner truly believed that knowledge of polygraph procedure and countermeasures has no effect on polygraph accuracy, why did he tell the court that the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is breathtakingly "good and accurate" but tell his examinee (Sahil Sharma) that it's "bogus?" It would seem that Dr. Rovner is skeptical of Honts & Alloway's titular conclusion that "Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test." And with good reason. Shortcomings in Honts & Alloway's experimental design make generalization to real world (field) conditions problematic. Study participants were 40 students in an introductory psychology course who participated for class credit. The authors describe their experimental design thus (at pp. 313-15):

QuoteProcedure

Participants responded to a call for participants posted in a common area for students in the lower division classes. Participants were screened on this initial contact. Potential participants who reported being under the care of a physician were excluded from participation. Acceptable participants were then given individual appointments to report to a psychology laboratory on campus. Each participant was greeted by a research assistant and was asked to watch a brief video on the computer located in the room. The video described the basic parameters of the study and described the possible conditions of assignment. After watching the video, the participant reviewed a consent form with the assistant and signed the form if he or she agreed to participate in the study. The participant was then asked to randomly choose a manila envelope from a box. There were ten envelopes for each of the four conditions shuffled in the box. Random assignment was thus constrained by the number of envelopes in the box. Each envelope contained instructions for the participant to watch a particular video on the computer, as well as a password for that video. The second video informed the participant about the condition to which he or she was assigned and then provided instructions regarding what to do next.

Participants in the guilty conditions were instructed to go to the psychology department, located in another building, and steal an envelope containing movie pass vouchers and labelled with the name Sam Stone. Participants in the innocent conditions were instructed to leave an envelope in a box on a door in the psychology department. The destination door was the same for all participants and thus they had the same experience except for the act of stealing the Sam Stone envelope. All participants were informed to return to the psychology laboratory after 20 minutes. Those assigned to one of the information conditions were given a copy of The lie behind the lie detector (Maschke & Scalabrini, 2000) upon their return to the laboratory. The lie behind the lie detector is an extensive treatment of the CQT and includes specific information about the directed lie variation, the TES and possible countermeasures. The instructions for our information participants indicated that the book contained information that might help them pass their polygraph. Participants were encouraged to study the book before taking their examination. All participants were told that in addition to receiving course credit for their participation, if they could pass their polygraph, they would receive movie passes as a bonus. All participants were then given a second appointment to take their polygraph test at a later date.

Participants returned individually at least 1 week later for their second appointment. After a brief discussion of the procedure with the examiner, the participants were asked to sign a consent form. They were then given a CQT about the theft of the movie passes. The CQT in this study took the form of the TES and was modelled as closely as possible on the protocol used by the US Government (Dollins, 1997). During the pre-test interview of the TES, participants were asked questions regarding their general health, demographic information and past experience with polygraph examinations. The polygraph instrument and the sensors were then described and placed on the participant. An acquaintance (stimulation) test was then administered to the participant (Dollins, 1997; Raskin & Honts, 2002) as a demonstration of the validity of polygraph. All of the questions to be used in the examination were then reviewed with the participant. The question list from this experiment is reproduced in Table 1.

Table 1. The questions used in the TES polygraph examination

Question Type	Question Wording
Relevant	Did you take the movie pass vouchers? Do you know where the missing movie pass vouchers are right now? Do you know for sure who took the missing movie pass vouchers? Did you take the missing movie pass vouchers from that door in the Education Building?
Comparison	Before the year 2000, did you ever say anything that you later regretted? Before the year 2000, did you ever make a mistake? Before the year 2000, did you ever tell even one lie in your entire life? Before the year 2000, did you ever violate even one law, regulation, or rule?
Neutral	Does 2 + 2 = 7? Are we in Idaho?

Participants were then administered a polygraph examination that consisted of two
periods of data collection. Each period of data collection contained two relevant
questions, each of which was repeated three times. Following the data collection, the
examiner ran the CPS discriminant analysis classification software (Kircher & Raskin,
1988). Participants who produced probabilities of truthfulness of .7 or greater were told
they passed and were given the movie pass bonus. All participants were then debriefed....

Weaknesses of this methodology include:

• Motivational conditions were low. Participants were students who volunteered their time in exchange for class credit. There were no adverse consequences for failing to pass the polygraph, and the only "reward" for passing was paltry (movie passes);
  
  
• Although participants provided with copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were "encouraged to study the book before taking their examination," there is no way of knowing to what extent they actually did so. Students received class credit whether or not they read the book. While participants reported spending an average 1.58 hours reading it (with a standard deviation of .96), these self-reported study times may well have been overstated by participants wishing to be perceived as having heeded the encouragement to study the book;
  
  
• The study relied on examinee self-reporting of whether examinees used countermeasures. Perhaps this was unavoidable, as there is no reliable technique for detecting countermeasures. Nonetheless, such self-reporting may or may not have been truthful;
  
  
• There is no indication that examiners were blind with regard to examinee status (e.g. guilty/innocent, informed/uninformed). And examiners were almost certainly not blind with regard to base rates for each category.

It should be noted that although the study purports to use the Test for Espionage and Sabotage format (which is a screening test for conduct not known to have occurred), the polygraph examinations administered were not screening examinations, but rather concerned a specific incident known to have occurred. 35% of innocent examinees failed the polygraph, and overall correctness of classification obtained in this study was only 72%.

Finally, the number of study subjects was low, and the study likely lacks statistical power. Regarding the claim that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector "hurts the innocent," it should be noted that only 2 of the 10 "innocent" study subjects who were provided with a copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector reported using countermeasures. The study does not indicate whether they passed or failed. The study data is insufficient to support any conclusion that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector hurts the innocent

George,  Thank you for commenting on the study I posted.  It appears to have struck a nerve!  Your comments about the value of the study require some explanation to those who might not routinely avail themselves of research and prefer to accept what they read on the internet as the Gospel.

You stated the following:

Weaknesses of this methodology include:

Motivational conditions were low. Participants were students who volunteered their time in exchange for class credit. There were no adverse consequences for failing to pass the polygraph, and the only "reward" for passing was paltry (movie passes);

RESPONSE: George to be fair, you should point out that virtually all mock crime studies, indeed all psychological studies usually involve students as participants who volunteer their time in exchange for class credit or a minor monetary reward or token.  This certainly isn't a weakness in this or any other study.


Although participants provided with copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were "encouraged to study the book before taking their examination," there is no way of knowing to what extent they actually did so. Students received class credit whether or not they read the book. While participants reported spending an average 1.58 hours reading it (with a standard deviation of .96), these self-reported study times may well have been overstated by participants wishing to be perceived as having heeded the encouragement to study the book;

RESPONSE:  The conditions you describe are exactly the same as the "real" people who come onto your site and read your book.  There is no way to determine the amount of time they spend or the degree to which they "study" the book prior to their examination.


The study relied on examinee self-reporting of whether examinees used countermeasures. Perhaps this was unavoidable, as there is no reliable technique for detecting countermeasures. Nonetheless, such self-reporting may or may not have been truthful;
RESPONSE:  Now George, let's don't even go there.  Everything on your site is self reporting and there is certainly no way to determine the truth about what the people on your site report when they deny crimes or allege successful countermeasures used.


There is no indication that examiners were blind with regard to examinee status (e.g. guilty/innocent, informed/uninformed). And examiners were almost certainly not blind with regard to base rates for each category.

RESPONSE:  Now George, that was beneath you.  You are much smarter than that and so are most of the people who read the information on this site.  You certainly know that Dr. Honts would not bother to conduct a study in which the examiners were not blind to the condition of the participants.  That's simply reaching on your part.  I'm embarrassed for you on that one.

Finally, studies are just that...studies.  They allow thoughtful people to form conclusions and opinions based upon what they see happen in the scenario presented.  This one was particularly insightful as it replicated a previously conducted study that indicated the same result.  I placed the study here so that thoughtful people might read it and make decisions for themselves about the use of countermeasures.  Many, like you, won't change their mind but some smart, truthful people might just read this and decide that they don't want to put their career and their fate into the hands of someone who has become so entangled in his own web that he can no longer step back and look objectively at anything that challenges his belief system.  Smart people might just decide not to drink the kool aid George.

Mr. Webb,

I also thank you for choosing to participate here in this forum. I feel that it is important for all points of view to be properly represented.

QuoteMany, like you, won't change their mind but some smart, truthful people might just read this and decide that they don't want to put their career and their fate into the hands of someone who has become so entangled in his own web that he can no longer step back and look objectively at anything that challenges his belief system.

Everyone who submits an application for employment where there is a requirement to "pass" a polygraph screening "examination" does just this. It's simply playing Russian roulette with your reputation.

QuoteEveryone who submits an application for employment where there is a requirement to "pass" a polygraph screening "examination" does just this. It's simply playing Russian roulette with your reputation.

That is simply an excess in drama.

Russian roulette is a potentially deadly game. Even the people who whine regularly on this site about their polygraph experiences seem to have no such extreme impact.

The point is that this website is not in fact providing a helpful service to its readers. In fact there is evidence that the information on this website is hurtful to decent people.

Mr. Scalabrini, I don't argue with your contention that polygraph is an imperfect tool, nor do I think that any intelligent examiner would argue that it is a perfect one.  Most of us understand that there is no perfect test or tool and that polygraph, when used as a method of screening, should be one part of a process not the deciding factor.  I think we can also agree that there is no perfect psychological tool or test one can use to make a decision concerning someone's suitability to hold a particular position of trust, yet it is also used by most of the same agencies to make hiring decisions as are written tests and interviews which are surely subjective and subject to abuses as well.  I argue only with your methods.  Were you and George to direct your efforts towards insuring that polygraph tests not be used as the sole deciding factor in hiring decisions then we would have little with which to disagree.  I think both of you are intelligent people.  I find it difficult, therefore to believe that you can read study after study that clearly shows that polygraph works and the underlying theories, contrary to George's constant assertions, are well founded in both psychology and physiology and then deny those facts or attack the methods or procedures used.

There are countless medical tests in use that don't rise to the level of 100% perfection with no chance of false positive or false negative.  We depend on the results of those "imperfect" tests daily and make life and death decisions based, in part, upon those results.  In that they are imperfect would you have them thrown out or discontinue their use? The reality is that the most accurate medical test for determining a given condition is the autopsy.  Most people don't want to undergo the test, however as it is somewhat intrusive.  It is, however, extremely accurate.

The reality is that in a world where 1000 people compete for 100 positions, 900 won't be selected.  Many of those 900 will be disqualified for obvious, undeniable reasons and others will not be selected based upon some very subjective decision rules concerning their college grades, past credit history, psychological testing scores, their responses during interviews, physical attributes and abilities and, yes, their results on a polygraph test.  Some or those not selected will walk away believing they were better qualified than some of the people selected and they may be correct in their belief.  

In short, Mr. Scalabrini, life is not fair.  We all know that but we also know that cheating as a method of trying to level the playing field isn't right either.  Neither you nor George would ever turn in the academic work of another because a professor was overly subjective or unfair nor would you submit someone else's urine sample for a drug test because you were disagreed with the test.   You wouldn't falsify your credentials in an effort to obtain a position of trust.  Those tests aren't perfect either and they are subject to errors of decision and judgment because they are performed by humans.  No one can take your integrity from you.  It must be given away.  Why then would you urge others to give away the one thing that no one can take away from them by attempting deceit on the polygraph?

 

Mr Webb,

A posting such as yours is long over due. Thanks!

SC

Who is Gino Scalabrini anyway?  Another "expert" like "Dr." Richardson?  

Quote from: skip.webb on Oct 16, 2007, 12:44 PMIn short, Mr. Scalabrini, life is not fair.   

Is this sort of rationalization indicative of the mindset a polygraph examiner has when they fail someone?  That a false positive is acceptable because life is not fair?  Is it common for an examiner to think, "I have no idea how many of the DI's I scored today were false positives, but I'm not concerned about it because life isn't fair."?

I have no experience with the use of polygraphs in anything other than pre-employment screening.  However, with regards to pre-employment screening, I know they do not work, because I failed three out of four while telling the truth and not withholding any information.  Your comments seem to indicate that you are aware of the polygraph's shortcomings in this regard, yet you still have no problem with them being used for such purposes.

Your analogy regarding 900 of 1000 applicants being disqualified due to credit scores and physical testing is flawed, I believe.  In my experience the polygraph is random in its results on pre-employment screening.  A more accurate analogy would be if all 1000 applicants were subjected to a coin toss and everyone who came up "heads" were automatically disqualified.  You could pass that off by saying "life isn't fair" as well, but that wouldn't change the fact that using such a process is wrong.

Regarding your comments about integrity and the polygraph, I believe that the only requirement for ethical behavior on the part of the test subject is to tell the truth.  If the subject is truthful and does not withhold any information, he or she is fulfilling their responsibility to behave morally and ethically.  If they choose to do long division in their head, or bite their tongue, or recite poetry or song lyrics after answering each question, how can you consider that to be "giving away their integrity?"

QuoteWere you and George to direct your efforts towards insuring that polygraph tests not be used as the sole deciding factor in hiring decisions then we would have little with which to disagree.

Mr. Webb, we definitely have some common ground here.

Still, had the polygraph industry kept its own house in order by auto imposition of a common sense policy like the one you describe, we would not even have any efforts to direct. This organization simply would not exist.

The regulatory bodies that govern polygraphy have failed due to inaction on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

First, and foremost, the APA could have completely distanced itself from polygraph screening. While we can agree to disagree about the validity of specific issue testing, there is unanimous contempt among scientists and researchers for polygraph screening.

For this to have been more than lip service, it would have required serious sanctions against any members conducting such "exams" (e.g. one warning and then the boot).

Short of that, the APA could have taken the advice you just gave us and insisted that polygraph screening never be used as a sole determining factor in making any kind of adverse employment decision.

Again, for this to have been substantive, it would have involved speaking out against the FBI and Secret Service (who have done this for years), coming to the support of applicants who were wrongly dismissed following a single failed polygraph, and most importantly, the issuance of severe sanctions (e.g. expulsion) against any APA member who performed screening "exams" for an agency using them as a sole determining factor in employment.

Lastly, with so many members polygraphing applicants and asking questions about deception on employment applications, the APA can have no public credibility whatsoever while looking the other way against verified allegations of "luminaries" in the field who have presented demonstrably false educational credentials (read: FAKE PhDs) to examinees, clients and even the courts. Again serious sanctions against violators would have been the only way to communicate sincerity here.

This could have been done tactfully... For example phone calls could have been made to people like "Dr." Ed Gelb giving a 48 hour period to make a public statement retracting the false credentials (e.g. "I was unaware my school was unaccredited...", "I didn't know that you can't use the prefix if your degree is from an unaccredited school...", etc) before an APA public statement echoing this information.

Yet, the APA did not implement any of these common sense ideas. In addition to hurting job applicants and depriving the government of highly capable employees, the damage done to the former by the inaction of polygraph organizations pales in comparison to the damage that has been done to CQT polygraphy as a whole.

All of this brings me back to the following statement...

Quotesomeone who has become so entangled in his own web that he can no longer step back and look objectively at anything that challenges his belief system

If some in your industry had not been so greedy and taken an objective look at what was happening (namely, the rampant abuse of polygraph screening) and actually done something to curtail the problem, this huge threat to polygraphy would not exist (and your members could make better use of their evenings than an organized effort participating here in an attempt to do damage control).

In the six years since the initial publication of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it is no surprise that the primary response from polygraph operators has come in the form of ad hominem attacks.

Who I am is irrelevant to my criticism of polygraphy. My writing is well-referenced and stands on its own.

It should be noted that despite the platitudes of Mr. Scalabrini, the point of this thread is to discuss the study and it's implications, not to air Gino's ancient vendetta (hard on) for polygraph screening and APA politics. Although a fascinating read  :P, I am inclined to say that Gino is "decompensating."

Skip wrote;

QuoteThe participants were given the downloadable manual "The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test.  After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book.  However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate  (false positives) than the innocent group without the book.  Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good.  If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book?  This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen!

Gino;

QuoteFirst, and foremost, the APA could have completely distanced itself from polygraph screening. While we can agree to disagree about the validity of specific issue testing, there is unanimous contempt among scientists and researchers for polygraph screening.  

Please site in a seperate thread your sources for this "unanimous contempt for applicant screening." There are many questions, but unanimous contempt-----you should temper your bluster with facts and not mere wartime projection. Some choose not to run those tests for reasons other than the test's construct or validity.

QuoteShort of that, the APA could have taken the advice you just gave us and insisted that polygraph screening never be used as a sole determining factor in making any kind of adverse employment decision.

They did give such advice and the advice has been taken for years now.

QuoteAgain, for this to have been substantive, it would have involved speaking out against the FBI and Secret Service (who have done this for years), coming to the support of applicants who were wrongly dismissed following a single failed polygraph, and most importantly, the issuance of severe sanctions (e.g. expulsion) against any APA member who performed screening "exams" for an agency using them as a sole determining factor in employment.

Who on earth has ever been able to pierce the veil of secret operations of the FBI and Secret Service? Your statement is embarrassingly naive, and your surmise that the APA has some sort of power over federal agencies is pure folly. If anything, it has been my impression that the APA has been pushed around more than they have been able to push back when it comes to Fed Bureaucracy. My opinion though.

QuoteLastly, with so many members polygraphing applicants and asking questions about deception on employment applications, the APA can have no public credibility whatsoever while looking the other way against verified allegations of "luminaries" in the field who have presented demonstrably false educational credentials (read: FAKE PhDs) to examinees, clients and even the courts. Again serious sanctions against violators would have been the only way to communicate sincerity here

You clearly have mistaken the APA for a licensure/certification body. They have zero power regarding sanctions in many states and can only suspend memberships. Perhaps Ed could have been suspended (membership)---and perhaps he was suspended as when a member is suspended, it is a confidential matter----either way---it is off topic. The topic is that studies show that the use of countermeasures by innocent individuals oftentimes results in a failed attempt.

QuoteIf some in your industry had not been so greedy and taken an objective look at what was happening (namely, the rampant abuse of polygraph screening) and actually done something to curtail the problem, this huge threat to polygraphy would not exist (and your members could make better use of their evenings than an organized effort participating here in an attempt to do damage control).

No one is doing damage control, we are taking back our profession. We have learned a valuable lesson from you that we need to better self-evaluate our members and our methods. But for you to state with braggadocio that this site is a "huge threat to polygraphy" is very grandiose. What is a threat is that countless good applicants are failing tests (as indicated by research) by way of countermeasure temptations and overthinking the test. You and your narrow crusade have created far more errors in polygraph than normative errors from construct weaknesses. And don't get me started on the fact that this site encourages  sex offenders to disengage from treatment process and disclosure protocol thereby putting children at risk, as we know from research that treatment-engaged sexual predators show less recidivism. I have 3 kids, how many do you have? This fact is what keeps me participating. You sir are apparently oblivious to your clumsy crusade and furthermore, it is you who are damaged, not the polygraph profession.

This study seems to have the anti-polygraph folks at a loss for words. I hope it does not over shadow the fact that we are still waiting for any posts that support Dr. Drew's claims of being an expert.

I also hope that first time visitors to this site are seeing it for what it really is-a bunch of "smoke and mirrors".

Regards,

The Squeeze

I knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

Quote from: Squeezecheeze on Oct 16, 2007, 10:13 PMThis study seems to have the anti-polygraph folks at a loss for words. I hope it does not over shadow the fact that we are still waiting for any posts that support Dr. Drew's claims of being an expert.

QuoteI also hope that first time visitors to this site are seeing it for what it really is-a bunch of "smoke and mirrors"

Nothing has me at a loss for words.. there is always point counter points to everything.. Anti folk will post something..and the pg's will come out with their ad homs and their same song and dance... I can finally attest to what a joke the polygraph is its not accurate its not effective too many good people get tossed from a hiring process because of it. Im not impressed by Skips post just another counter point. Someone could come out tommorow with a study that totally debunks the polygraph and someone would still try to say it works.  If you think a polygrapher is effective I got some swamp land in death valley if anyone is interested

T

Gentlemen,

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself.  My experiece with the polygraph screening process was completely inaccurate.  At this point, I do not need pro-polygraph or anti-polygraph advocates to argue anything concerning my experiences.  They were wrong in their assumptions.  It was not scientific.  The expense was not necessary.  It was a waste of time and money.  I cannot endorse its use in any way, shape or form in its current use as a stand-alone pre-screening tool deciding the fate of an FBI applicant.  The FBI as an agency and the nation as a whole are losing valuable applicants to the irrationale trust placed in this procedure.

Regards.

Quote from: skip.webb on Oct 16, 2007, 08:46 AMGeorge,  Thank you for commenting on the study I posted.  It appears to have struck a nerve!  Your comments about the value of the study require some explanation to those who might not routinely avail themselves of research and prefer to accept what they read on the internet as the Gospel.

Skip, I would never suggest that anyone uncritically accept anything they read on the Internet (or elsewhere) as the Gospel (not even the Gospel). It is for this reason that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) is documented with ample citations that skeptical readers may (and are encouraged to) check for themselves. It is also for this reason that (unlike any pro-polygraph organizations), we keep our message board open to dissenting viewpoints.

QuoteYou stated the following:

Weaknesses of this methodology include:

Motivational conditions were low. Participants were students who volunteered their time in exchange for class credit. There were no adverse consequences for failing to pass the polygraph, and the only "reward" for passing was paltry (movie passes);

RESPONSE: George to be fair, you should point out that virtually all mock crime studies, indeed all psychological studies usually involve students as participants who volunteer their time in exchange for class credit or a minor monetary reward or token.  This certainly isn't a weakness in this or any other study.

Skip, that study subjects were student volunteers with virtually nothing at stake is a weakness of this study to the extent that it makes generalization to field conditions, where stakes are typically high, problematic.

QuoteAlthough participants provided with copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were "encouraged to study the book before taking their examination," there is no way of knowing to what extent they actually did so. Students received class credit whether or not they read the book. While participants reported spending an average 1.58 hours reading it (with a standard deviation of .96), these self-reported study times may well have been overstated by participants wishing to be perceived as having heeded the encouragement to study the book;

RESPONSE:  The conditions you describe are exactly the same as the "real" people who come onto your site and read your book.  There is no way to determine the amount of time they spend or the degree to which they "study" the book prior to their examination.

It's true that we don't know how much time visitors to AntiPolygraph.org who face polygraph "testing" spend reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. But it seems reasonable to suppose that those for whom the outcome of a polygraph examination may have life-changing consequences are likely to devote more time and attention to studying the material than undergraduate students with precious little to gain or lose, and who will receive their class credit whether or not they read and master the material.

QuoteThe study relied on examinee self-reporting of whether examinees used countermeasures. Perhaps this was unavoidable, as there is no reliable technique for detecting countermeasures. Nonetheless, such self-reporting may or may not have been truthful;
RESPONSE:  Now George, let's don't even go there.  Everything on your site is self reporting and there is certainly no way to determine the truth about what the people on your site report when they deny crimes or allege successful countermeasures used.

Skip, the AntiPolygraph.org message board is a discussion forum, not a scientific study, and it is presented as nothing more than a discussion forum. The fact that the Honts & Alloway study concerns (among other things) self-reported countermeasure use, as opposed to independently verified countermeasure use, is salient.

QuoteThere is no indication that examiners were blind with regard to examinee status (e.g. guilty/innocent, informed/uninformed). And examiners were almost certainly not blind with regard to base rates for each category.

RESPONSE:  Now George, that was beneath you.  You are much smarter than that and so are most of the people who read the information on this site.  You certainly know that Dr. Honts would not bother to conduct a study in which the examiners were not blind to the condition of the participants.  That's simply reaching on your part.  I'm embarrassed for you on that one.

The blindness of examiners to a particular test condition is something that is commonly explicitly stated in scientific studies. Google "examiners were blinded" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22examiners+were+blinded%22&btnG=Google+Search) (in quotation marks) and you'll find numerous examples. The Honts & Alloway study makes no mention of the examiners' blindness to any condition.

QuoteFinally, studies are just that...studies.  They allow thoughtful people to form conclusions and opinions based upon what they see happen in the scenario presented.  This one was particularly insightful as it replicated a previously conducted study that indicated the same result.  I placed the study here so that thoughtful people might read it and make decisions for themselves about the use of countermeasures.  Many, like you, won't change their mind but some smart, truthful people might just read this and decide that they don't want to put their career and their fate into the hands of someone who has become so entangled in his own web that he can no longer step back and look objectively at anything that challenges his belief system.  Smart people might just decide not to drink the kool aid George.

Skip, I would point out for those who might not be aware that what you've posted (in the opening post of this thread) is not the entire study, but only the article abstract. This is certainly nothing that we would wish to hide from our readers, and as I noted above, I previously posted the same abstract in my Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25493#msg25493), as Rovner made reference in his testimony to this then-in-press article.

As for entanglement in webs and drinking of Kool-Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool_Aid#.E2.80.9CDrinking_the_Kool-Aid.E2.80.9D), I'll let others draw their own conclusions. But with regard to the Honts & Alloway article, it is worth noting (as the authors properly do in their "Declaration of interests"), that "Charles Honts is a licensed polygraph examiner and derives income from the conduct of polygraph examinations and giving testimony in courts of law." His recent testimony regarding the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences report led to his being discredited by a federal judge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3392.msg23536#msg23536).

QuoteI knew it!  Mr. Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

The first thing we know is that we have the courage to post under our own names.

Something that cannot be said for virtually every polygraph supporter who has posted here besides Dr. Gordon Barland (real Ph.D, not fake) and Skip Webb.

Quote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Oct 17, 2007, 07:44 AM

QuoteI knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

The first thing we know is that we have the stones to post here under our real names.

Something that cannot be said for virtually every polygraph supporter who has posted here besides Dr. Gordon Barland (real Ph.D, not fake) and Skip Webb.

Being called names by anonymous cowards is actually kind of amusing for me, really.

So what you are saying is that Digithead, EosJupitor, tlbd, BeachTrees, Fairchance, Sergeant, Administrator---and the rest of the crew here "have no stones" due to not wanting to be identified? And I suppose that all of the above except for Amdin and Sarge are cowards as they throw stones, call names, delete posts, ridicule and condescend our field from their squeeky chairs?
You are "amused" eh?
I suspect you are not amused at all. Your pencil is running out of lead pison.

The posters you listed are adding the discussion by posting substance that adds to the discourse here. The same cannot be said of your own.

Quote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Oct 17, 2007, 12:38 PMThe posters you listed are adding the discussion by posting substance that adds to the discourse here. The cowards such as yourself are keyboard warriors, throwing personal insults while hiding behind a veil of anonymity.

And yes, you are cowards.

Uh....yeah......rrrright. Gee, I have been reading this site for 5 years now and I have seen examiners suffer adhom attacks without them even being able to defend themselves. I have seen tireless circular argument that polygraph is pseudoscience from people who spell science as "siance." I along with other examiners have been called frauds, charlatans, tea-leaf readers, idiots, phonies--and now add "cowards" to the list of "thoughtful discussion" and "substance." Spare me your sanctimonious cherub impression. The anti-members have long been throwing turds at us year after year. We have been above the fray. But your time of reckoning has begun. Sure, we have lampooned you critters for a few months---as you can't debate a broken record. I have seen some really informative posts from Examiners who at last have decided that this cozy little place should not exist soley for absentee bashing.
You sir are the coward who ignores the fact that you are a direct contributer for sexual predators disengaging from treatment, good applicants who get screwed by taking horrific advice from you and others as evidenced by the forementioned research study, and let's not even begin to account for the scores of inconclusive tests by murderers and their ilke who decide to not stay still for a test. Your cause is the embodiment of narcissism, plain and simple.

Hello all,

The conversation is, at times, interesting here, so I thought I'd join the discussion now and then (time allowing, of course).  For the record, I am a polygraph examiner from Portland, Maine.  Some of you know me already.  Before I decided on polygraph, I too conducted my own research, and I read this site and George's book back then, so I do recall what it was like to come here "blind" so to speak.  I appreciate the opportunity to offer the thoughts and reasoning of "the other side" as time permits.  On some things we agree; on others, well, no so much agreement.

As far as Charles' study goes, I don't think it matters much if the examiners (or examiner) were (was) blind to ground truth.  The tests were "scored" by the computer.  As long as the data was collected correctly (and I hope we're not ready to say Charles was up to something), then scoring reliability is as good as it can be.  Charles, who at one time considered CMs a threat to polygraph, wouldn't write up a doctored study in which the examiners influenced the results.  (It would be difficult to do even on a subconscious level with this study.)  Keep in mind that the peer-reviewed journal in which this was published apparently doesn't share your views that the study's methodology was seriously flawed.

This isn't a new study by the way.  Charles and Wendy released this info in 2002 in a paper presented to the Rocky Mountain Psych. Assoc. in April of that year.  This has gone five years without a challenge, and now, after a substantial delay, I find it odd that only George Mashke has serious reservations about the study.

I've got to run.

Barry

Sorry George.  I just noticed my fingers didn't work when I typed your last name.

Barry,

In the Honts & Alloway study, blinding with regard to subject status would have been desirable to avoid the possibility of examiner bias influencing the outcome, notwithstanding that chart scoring was done by computer, because such variables as the examiner's demeanor, tone of voice, and so forth can influence outcomes.

I haven't seen the 2002 paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association meeting (which I did not attend), and thus have not been in a position to comment on it.

Questions for Barry:

1   Were there any software scoring systems that were APA accredited or scientifically verified in 2002 ?

2   Are there sss that are sc verified and / or APA accredited in 2007 ?

3   Are there any peer-reviewed studies that will tell us who scores more accurately...
   namely, the examiner or the software ?

1904,

Yes, yes, and off the top of my head, I think so.  

The APA doesn't "accredit" scoring systems.  There are two that have been "validated" scientifically: the Utah Scoring System and the (now) DACA Scoring System.  There is another that shows much promise (and perhaps better reliability), but that's not my work, so it would be improper for me to comment.  One could argue that the Backster system has been validated as well; however, it isn't as accurate as the other two.  (There are many variables to consider when talking about a scoring system, and sometimes decisions come down to one's philosophical perspective.  For example, there will always be an error rate in any test.  The question is then, what types of errors is one willing to make.  With polygraph, the question revolves around the perceived costs of false positives and false negatives.)

The Utah clan has consistently shown that the computer outperforms all but the best hand-scorers.  Whether that was published in a peer-reviewed journal escapes me, but science is science whether or not it's peer-reviewed.  (I think that's a straw man often raised.  With that said, peer review is an essential part science.)

Okay, back to work.  Pray I don't throw a computer out the window - although, I do feel a little better now.

Barry,

The UTAH 7 point system is not peer-reviewed. It is their own invention. Did any independent
scientific body validate the UTAH system ?

To the best of my knowledge, no computerised scoring system has been independently verified to date.

It concerns me when you say that scoring sometimes comes down to the examiners philosophical perspective.
It would be far more comforting to a prospective examinee to know that scoring (resulting in a life changing call) was scientifically quantifiable, rather than hinging on the examiners beliefs / life values.

What type of errors are you willing to make ?

What is your perception iro false positives? The human collaterla damage ?

Regards...

Perhaps you should start a new topic as we are off this one.  Until then, I'm not sure where to begin to address the errors in your post.

The Utah system is the most researched system in the world.  To say it's not peer-reviewed is just wrong.  It's not "their" invention - whoever "their" are.

The system was built upon Backster's; however, scientists found his system to be lacking in some areas, so they set out to come up with a scoring system that is empirically based, which is what we have today.  You can read about it in the works of Raskin, Honts, Kircher, Barland, Rovner, Horowitz, Ginton, Horvath, Iacono, Patrick etc, etc, etc....  You'll note the last two are not friends to the CQT.  (Sorry, friends if I missed your name, but I've got to order dinner and pay attention to my kids.)  DACA, based on a study by John Hopkins University has recently adopted the same criteria as the Utah criteria.

Just because research is done at a single university by separate researchers doesn't mean the research wasn't done independently.  (In fact, some of the "Utah" researchers did their research at DACA!)  Also, it is common (actually necessary) in science to set aside a portion of a data set in order to validate findings from the first portion of data to make sure they generalize.  I'm working on a project now that involves both Drs. Kircher and Honts, but I've never been to Utah.  Will this not be independant? Of course it is.

I believe the CPS (computer) scoring was published in a peer-reviewed journal.  I'd have to check.  It was written in the 80's if you want to hunt it down yourself.

What errors?  That's a philosophical question, and it really doesn't matter what I think.  It matters what my employer thinks.  

With that said, it depends.  In a criminal test where there is no real risk of "failing" (at least in my state), then an error only means you wait two hours for the interrogation that was going to happen anyhow.  In a screening situation (and that's what seems to irk you), you're dealing with a different animal.  I have the freedom to take all the time I need with candidates, and as a result I can get almost everybody through - eventually.  That doesn't mean they get hired.  It just means we can get to the point of truthfulness.

For those agencies that have 100 people in line, 99% of whom are more than qualified for the job, then you can set the bar high and only accept those that can make it through a test extremely biased against the truthful (which means better at catching liars).  The cost of errors there is that you lose good people (probably), but you replace them with equally qualified people.

So you see this isn't really a polygraph question.  It's philosophical, and most examiners aren't in positions to make those decisions.

I'm sorry for the brevity, but I've got a child tapping on me for my attention.

Perhaps more later in a new post.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 18, 2007, 06:43 PM

The Utah system is the most researched system in the world.  To say it's not peer-reviewed is just wrong.  It's not "their" invention - whoever "their" are.

Once having said Utah, 'their' would refer to Utah. Try to keep up.
Utah = Utah uni crim faculty.
Did Backster or Utah develop 7 point ?

Quote
The system was built upon Backster's; however, scientists found his system to be lacking in some areas, so they ......

Who are 'they'....? What is 'the system' ?
Who found 'it' to be lacking and why?

Quote
I believe the CPS (computer) scoring was published in a peer-reviewed journal.  I'd have to check.  It was written in the 80's if you want to hunt it down yourself.

Computerised polygraphs first appeared in 1992.
Polyscore was developed in 1993 by 2 statisticians from Hopkins uni.
I would be v interested to see peer-reviewed studies from the 80's.

Quote
What errors?  That's a philosophical question, and it really doesn't matter what I think.  It matters what my employer thinks.

I guess it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks outside of a narrow world.
Your response smacks of arrogance & egotism.

Quote
With that said, it depends.  In a criminal test where there is no real risk of "failing" (at least in my state), then an error only means you wait two hours for the interrogation that was going to happen anyhow.  In a screening situation (and that's what seems to irk you), you're dealing with a different animal.  I have the freedom to take all the time I need with candidates, and as a result I can get almost everybody through - eventually.  That doesn't mean they get hired.  It just means we can get to the point of truthfulness. For those agencies that have 100 people in line, 99% of whom are more than qualified for the job, then you can set the bar high and only accept those that can make it through a test extremely biased against the truthful (which means better at catching liars).  The cost of errors there is that you lose good people (probably), but you replace them with equally qualified people.
So you see this isn't really a polygraph question.  It's philosophical, and most examiners aren't in positions to make those decisions. I'm sorry for the brevity, but I've got a child tapping on me for my attention.

Talk about getting off topics......I bet you recite the magna carta in your sleep.
Thank goodness I never asked you a long question.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 18, 2007, 06:43 PMFor those agencies that have 100 people in line, 99% of whom are more than qualified for the job, then you can set the bar high and only accept those that can make it through a test extremely biased against the truthful (which means better at catching liars).  The cost of errors there is that you lose good people (probably), but you replace them with equally qualified people.

Since you admit there are errors in the polygraph screening process, what makes you believe that when you lose a "good" (truthful) person you are replacing them with another "good" (truthful) person?

How do you know you are not disqualifying a truthful applicant and replacing them with a deceptive one?

What would the difference be in the results if, instead of a polygraph, every applicant who passed the background investigation had to flip a coin?  If the coin lands on "heads" the applicant is disqualified.

If there are "bad" applicants remaining after the BI, the coin toss method would stand a decent chance of eliminating them.  It would also stand a decent chance of eliminating "good" applicants.  However, any "good" applicants that were lost would probably be replaced with another "good" applicant.

How would the results of such an obviously unfair and ill-conceived test be significantly different from the results of polygraph screening applicants who have already passed the BI?

Howdy Sarge,

The "Professor" talked himself into a cocked hat.
nice when they screw up isn't it..
Rgds

QuoteThe "Professor" talked himself into a cocked hat.
nice when they screw up isn't it..

Who told you I was a professor?

Now that's arrogance.  I think you might want to look that one up.  (You'll find it before "gullible," but do you really need to be obnoxious?)

I'll answer and respond to intelligent and cordial questions, but I don't have time for foolishness.  You sound much like Gizmo...?

QuoteSince you admit there are errors in the polygraph screening process, what makes you believe that when you lose a "good" (truthful) person you are replacing them with another "good" (truthful) person?

I work along side them.

QuoteWhat would the difference be in the results if, instead of a polygraph, every applicant who passed the background investigation had to flip a coin?  If the coin lands on "heads" the applicant is disqualified.

If polygraph and coin-flipping were the same, then there would be no difference, but that's not the case.

QuoteHow would the results of such an obviously unfair and ill-conceived test be significantly different from the results of polygraph screening applicants who have already passed the BI?

Polygraph is part of the BI, so to say one "passed" that portion isn't necessarily true.  (I realize it may be in some places, but that's not the norm.  BI's may continue after polygraph based on what is learned at that phase.)  About 50% of the people that "pass" BI's admit to more drug involvement during the polygraph, so how effective is the BI?  When it comes to spies (a different animal, I agree), how many have been caught by an interview?  I haven't seen one published interview success story.

You are going to lose good people at every stage of the process, and not everybody is going to agree that is fair.  How good caandidates don't make ot through the interview... the test... psych / suitability... etc?  Do I like that? No, but it is a reality.

QuoteOnce having said Utah, 'their' would refer to Utah. Try to keep up.
Utah = Utah uni crim faculty.

Again, why be obnoxious?  "Their" could refer to the cumulative findings of the UU researchers, or any mixed group.  After all, they didn't all walk the halls together, but I know what you mean now.

Backster came up with the idea of the seven-point system.  Utah modified it based on scientific findings.

QuoteComputerised polygraphs first appeared in 1992.
Polyscore was developed in 1993 by 2 statisticians from Hopkins uni.

What's your point?  Computerized polygraphs were available to examiners in 1992, but CPSLAB has been in continual development for about 30 years.  Computers were used in the lab before 1993, which is how examiners got them.

You try to sound as if you keep up with the research literature, but you fail to be aware of some of the more common studies.  Why is that?

The paper to which I referred was published in 1988, and yes, it was a peer-reviewed publication, and yes, it was a comparison of computers verses humans.

QuoteI guess it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks outside of a narrow world.  
Your response smacks of arrogance & egotism.

Read my response again.  Following legal orders is not arrogance.  Deciding I know better than my superiors about how to do their jobs would be arrogance.  I can voice my concerns, opinions, etc, but how they make decisions about whom to hire and where to draw the cut-off lines is up to them - not you and me.

QuoteTalk about getting off topics......I bet you recite the magna carta in your sleep.
Thank goodness I never asked you a long question.

I responded to your questions.  Have you any formal college education?  If so, go and review the basics.  If not, I don't have time to teach you statistics, research methodology and a host of other topics you need for a foundation to have some of the discussions you would like.  

Now, let's get back to the topic.  The computer was able to score charts in which CMs were employed, and they CMs didn't help the guilty, and they hurt the innocent.  As we speak, there are people working on computer algorithms to evaluate how computers could better do that task.  Someday, maybe we'll be able to save the innocent who are mislead and encouraged to try to "help" themselves.

I'm off for a while, and I don't know that I'll have access to a computer.

Take care.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 19, 2007, 09:23 AM

Quote
Who told you I was a professor?

Your pomposity suggests that you think you are one.

Quote
Now that's arrogance.  I think you might want to look that one up.  (You'll find it before "gullible," but do you really need to be obnoxious?)

Well, most folk who read your para above might come to the conclusion that you are indeed arrogant
and overflowing with self admiration. ( I guess someone has to )

Quote
I'll answer and respond to intelligent and cordial questions, but I don't have time for foolishness.  You sound much like Gizmo...?

Thats because I am Gizmo. You aint bright Noddy.

Quote
Backster came up with the idea of the seven-point system.  Utah modified it based on scientific findings.

Took you awhile. First had to finf that old 1980's journal?

Quote
What's your point?  Computerized polygraphs were available to examiners in 1992, but CPSLAB has been in continual development for about 30 years.  Computers were used in the lab before 1993, which is how examiners got them.

Computerised polys were in the lab circa 1992. Not prior. So how did your scientists use CPS together
with analogue polygraphs ?

Quote
You try to sound as if you keep up with the research literature, but you fail to be aware of some of the more common studies.  Why is that?

Arrogant. Obnoxious. You sound like doos Barry, why is that?

Quote
The paper to which I referred was published in 1988, and yes, it was a peer-reviewed publication, and yes, it was a comparison of computers verses humans.

What was that...? Survivor Laboratory Series...starring Barry 'C'

Quote
Deciding I know better than my superiors about how to do their jobs would be arrogance.

I think you've crossed the rubicon already Professor. 

Quote
I can voice my concerns, opinions, etc, but how they make decisions about whom to hire and where to draw the cut-off lines is up to them - not you and me.

Tell someone who actually cares about your drivel.

Quote
I responded to your questions.  Have you any formal college education?

No. I only read Captain Marvel comic books.

Quote
I don't have time to teach you statistics, research methodology and a host of other topics you need for a foundation to have some of the discussions you would like.  

Actually, I think the only things you could teach me are traits that get one bitch slapped on a Friday night.

Quote
Now, let's get back to the topic.  The computer was able to score charts in which CMs were employed, and they CMs didn't help the guilty, and they hurt the innocent.

Yadda Yadda Yadda. Dont you ever get tired of that boring old refrain.
You wouldnt / couldnt detect a good CM if it bit you in the ass.

Quote
As we speak, there are people working on computer algorithms to evaluate how computers could better do that task.  Someday, maybe we'll be able to save the innocent who are mislead and encouraged to try to "help" themselves.

And Icarus will fly to the sun and back.

Quote
I'm off for a while, and I don't know that I'll have access to a computer.

Hopefully.

Methinks you just want to argue.  You seem to be all (erroneous) talk and no substance.  Why is that?

QuoteComputerised polys were in the lab circa 1992. Not prior. So how did your scientists use CPS together
with analogue polygraphs ?

That is one of the reasons I asked if you were educated.  You can transform analog data into digital form.  Moreover, they used computers prior to the date you stated, but you I can't help you in your denial of reality.

George,

Why the double standard?  When pro-polygraphers get a little obnoxious they are instantly banned, but this guy seems to speak with impunity.  There's noting in his posts but insults and errors, but you, by your silence, appear to support it.

I have knowledge of polygraph that many here do not.  I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion, but I don't have time to waste.

QuoteYadda Yadda Yadda. Dont you ever get tired of that boring old refrain.
You wouldnt / couldnt detect a good CM if it bit you in the ass.

There's no way you could know that, and experience speaks against it.  The beauty is, even if true, the research shows it doesn't matter if I can spot them or not as the guilty still fail in spite of their attempts.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 19, 2007, 11:06 AMThere's no way you could know that, and experience speaks against it.  The beauty is, even if true, the research shows it doesn't matter if I can spot them or not as the guilty still fail in spite of their attempts.

What is it that leads you to believe that any significant percentage of people who attempt countermeasures are caught doing so?

It seems that the reason examiners believe CM's are detectable is because a percentage of the subjects they accuse of using CM's admit to doing so.  Am I correct about that?  Countermeasure detection data comes from those subjects who are accused of using CM's and admit that they did?

If countermeasure detection data comes from another source, such as the number of people accused of countermeasures (without any admission of same by the subject), how accurate could that be?  What's the difference between a guess regarding CM usage and a guess regarding truth or deception?

If the data comes from subjects who are accused and admit to using CM's, how accurate is that?  I'm sure the number of people who admit to CM use can be quantified, but my point is that you have no idea what percentage of people actually used CM's - you only know the people didn't use them well and who were foolish enough to admit to them when accused.

For example, 100 people are given pre-employment polygraph sceening exams, and 50 of those people produce charts that (in the examiner's opinion) indicate no deception and no use of countermeasures.  The other fifty subjects are accused of lying and/or countermeasures, and twenty of those people admit they had been using countermeasures.  

Based on what has been written here before, the examiner would take that example and tout it as proof that countermeasures are detectable and don't work anyway.  But how do you know the true number of people who were using countermeasures?  It could have been the twenty who admitted to it, the fifty who were accused of it, the fifty who showed no deception at all, or (most likely) some combination thereof.

That's a very well thought out question and observation.  I agree.  We can't determine too much from only the self-reported CM users.  (We can determine some things, depending on how much data we have, but it still requires some speculation.)

The research shows many examiners aren't good at detecting CMs, but thankfully the research shows, as this topic points out on post number one, it doesn't matter since they don't work.  We don't need to speculate.  We have data.

You'll find that the only CMs that were effective (in the Honts study touted here so often) were those for which the subjects had hands-on training - not likely in the field, unless one hires the gentleman from the other site, but his suggestions are laughable.  Then, it's still unknown if one could augment CQ reactions that look real AND are greater than the RQs AND be timely AND fail to produce any of the CM signatures. Good luck.

With that said, I've seen some examiners fooled.  They shouldn't have been, but they were.  Not all examiners are created equal, and some would score what are literally impossible involuntary physiological "reactions."

I probably know more about the polygraph research than most, and I wouldn't want to try to "beat the box" if getting caught had a price.  I don't believe I could do it (which is exactly what the research shows).

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 19, 2007, 08:08 PMThe research shows many examiners aren't good at detecting CMs, but thankfully the research shows, as this topic points out on post number one, it doesn't matter since they don't work.  We don't need to speculate.  We have data.

You have insufficient data to conclude that self-taught countermeasures don't work. As I pointed out earlier in this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3716.msg26505#msg26505), the 2007 Honts & Alloway study has serious design shortcomings that make any generalization to field conditions all but impossible.

QuoteYou'll find that the only CMs that were effective (in the Honts study touted here so often) were those for which the subjects had hands-on training - not likely in the field, unless one hires the gentleman from the other site, but his suggestions are laughable.

Honts' contention that his earlier countermeasure studies prove that hands-on instruction is required for countermeasures to be effective is not supported by the evidence of his research. In his studies, conducted under extremely low motivational conditions, where there were no adverse consequences for failing to pass, subjects received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in polygraph procedure and countermeasures from graduate students. The notion that Honts's graduate students can teach examinees to fool the polygraph, but that they cannot figure it out for themselves (under real world conditions, they typically have considerably more than 30 minutes to prepare themselves), is wildly implausible.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 20, 2007, 02:25 AM

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 19, 2007, 08:08 PMAs I pointed out earlier in this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3716.msg26505#msg26505), the 2007 Honts & Alloway study has serious design shortcomings....

Let me get this straight.  The guy who only polygraph experience is failing at least two of them knows so much more about psychological research design than the doctors who ran the study and the three Ph.d level scientists who reviewed this study, that he actually has the pompas audacity to feel QUALIFIED to take a blind swing at the quality of this research...

Mr. Maschke spends years demanding (as if he had any right to do so) PEER REVIEWED scientific research into polygraph methods and then whenever peer reviewed research is pointed out to him, he jumps in and uses the full weight of his utter lack of knowledge or education in this or any other field of scientific endevour to slash and tear at the methods used by people FAR smarter than he is.

Bottom line:  George has MAYBE a Master's Degree.  The authors as well as at least three reviewers all have legitimate doctorates specializing in this area.  As I see it, that at least FIVE doctorates against one "maybe" M.S. (In a completely unrelated field, I am sure)

Gee maybe the British Psychological Society should just fire all their doctors and just put George Maschke on retainer as their see all and know all polygraph expert.  Then he, along with Drew Richardson (the WORST NON-certified polygraph examiner in the history of the FBI), can be the world's "One stop shop" for all things polygraph.. .

I still can't believe people are actually taking ADVICE from these guys... :o

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 16, 2007, 01:19 AMIa specific incident known to have occurred. 35% of innocent examinees failed the polygraph, and overall correctness of classification obtained in this study was only 72%.

Mr. Webb:

Is the above 35% failure rate of innocent examinees correct in this "study?"  If so, please explain how this study can be used on one hand to support the theory that counter measures do not work, but on the other hand not be an indictment of the accuracy of the polygraph?

Quote from: skip.webb on Oct 16, 2007, 08:46 AMGeorge,  Thank you for commenting on the study I posted.  It appears to have struck a nerve!

How so?  You posted a study, and George answered by critiquing the methodology.  That's standard fare (unlike so much of the logically fallacious argumentation you see on the Internet).  Until this comment of yours, I see nothing in the exchange between you to that would indicate any "nerves were struck".

In fact, I consider it a pity that you couldn't continue the discussion in the same detached manner (after only your second post), instead choosing to respond to logical argumentation with comments about George's motivations.

Quote from: skip.webb on Oct 16, 2007, 08:46 AMAlthough participants provided with copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were "encouraged to study the book before taking their examination," there is no way of knowing to what extent they actually did so. Students received class credit whether or not they read the book. While participants reported spending an average 1.58 hours reading it (with a standard deviation of .96), these self-reported study times may well have been overstated by participants wishing to be perceived as having heeded the encouragement to study the book;  

RESPONSE:  The conditions you describe are exactly the same as the "real" people who come onto your site and read your book.  There is no way to determine the amount of time they spend or the degree to which they "study" the book prior to their examination.

Be that as it may, your very first post here asserted, in the title:

QuoteLatest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty

Which is clearly an unsupported assertion when one doesn't even know what information the subject in question had, going into the tests.

Furthermore, the study itself claims:

QuoteInformation does not affect the validity of a comparison question test

Which, again, is unsupported in light of not verifying what information the subjects actually had acquired.

Furthermore, as one with a background in psychology and who is familiar with the peer-reviewed reporting of studies in psychology, I can verify that detailing methodology, including measures taken to avoid confounds of the data (e.g. keeping researchers blind as to the status of subjects) is the normal manner of doing things.  If it wasn't mentioned, then to me it would raise questions as to 1) whether such measures were actually taken or 2) how detailed and careful the researchers were in other aspects of the study, if they were careless enough not to report their full methodology in the writeup.

This doesn't mean that they didn't use good methodology, but those are legitimate questions, and chiding Mr. Maschke over asking them, rather than admitting the need for further illumination on the topic, strikes me as more than a bit defensive.

Quote from: nonombre on Oct 20, 2007, 09:29 AM

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 19, 2007, 08:08 PMAs I pointed out earlier in this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3716.msg26505#msg26505), the 2007 Honts & Alloway study has serious design shortcomings....

Let me get this straight.  The guy who only polygraph experience is failing at least two of them knows so much more about psychological research design than the doctors who ran the study and the three Ph.d level scientists who reviewed this study, that he actually has the pompas audacity to feel QUALIFIED to take a blind swing at the quality of this research...

Mr. Maschke spends years demanding (as if he had any right to do so) PEER REVIEWED scientific research into polygraph methods and then whenever peer reviewed research is pointed out to him, he jumps in and uses the full weight of his utter lack of knowledge or education in this or any other field of scientific endevour to slash and tear at the methods used by people FAR smarter than he is.

Bottom line:  George has MAYBE a Master's Degree.  The authors as well as at least three reviewers all have legitimate doctorates specializing in this area.  As I see it, that at least FIVE doctorates against one "maybe" M.S. (In a completely unrelated field, I am sure)

Gee maybe the British Psychological Society should just fire all their doctors and just put George Maschke on retainer as their see all and know all polygraph expert.  Then he, along with Drew Richardson (the WORST NON-certified polygraph examiner in the history of the FBI), can be the world's "One stop shop" for all things polygraph.. .

I still can't believe people are actually taking ADVICE from these guys... :o

Wow.  I don't think I've ever seen a more substance-free response in so many words.

Please spend some time here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Credentialism)

Nonombre,

Skeptic is right, so I won't clutter the blogosphere by quoting your rather lame post.  What a fool you must be.  You question George Maschke's ability and educational background to analyze research.  And then you, as quickly as a fool can spout, leave no doubt about your lack of ability in such matters.  The most basic research you could have done was to search Google with George Maschke's name before offering your comments about him.  You would have immediately found his website and be informed that he possesses a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures.  Either you do not know how to do the most basic research or you are too lazy and too arrogant to appreciate your need to do so.  Perhaps next time you should make some minimum effort to utilize that small mind before opening your big mouth.    ::)

Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 20, 2007, 01:46 PMNonombre,

Skeptic is right, so I won't clutter the blogosphere by quoting your rather lame post.  What a fool you must be.  You question George Maschke's ability and educational background to analyze research.  And then you, as quickly as a fool can spout, leave no doubt about your lack of ability in such matters.  The most basic research you could have done was to search Google with George Maschke's name before offering your comments about him.  You would have immediately found his website and be informed that he possesses a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures.  Either you do not know how to do the most basic research or you are too lazy and too arrogant to appreciate your need to do so.  Perhaps next time you should make some minimum effort to utilize that small mind before opening your big mouth.    ::)

Okay,

I stand corrected.  I did a little preliminary research and found out that Mr. Maschke has indeed posted a dissertation.  Hmm, I truly didn't know.  My apoligies...

Now, maybe someone can tell me what the "Proverbial and idiomatic language in a modern Persian novel : a contextual analysis based on Iraj Pezeshkzad's Da'i Jan Napel'on" has to do with Psychology, Physiology, Forensic Psychophysiology, or ANYTHING to do with polygraph?

Oh that's right...He did fail TWO of them.  I guess that makes him an expert after all... ;D

Regards...

Quote from: nonombre on Oct 20, 2007, 02:08 PMOkay,

I stand corrected.  I did a little preliminary research and found out that Mr. Maschke has indeed posted a dissertation.  Hmm, I truly didn't know.  My apoligies...

Now, maybe someone can tell me what the "Proverbial and idiomatic language in a modern Persian novel : a contextual analysis based on Iraj Pezeshkzad's Da'i Jan Napel'on" has to do with Psychology, Physiology, Forensic Psychophysiology, or ANYTHING to do with polygraph?

I can't even discuss the dissertation subject matter, as I have no background in it.

However, if you had spent years studying the topic (as Mr. Maschke has the polygraph), I wouldn't write off your opinion just because you don't have a Ph.D in the subject.

I'd like to see a response to the question already posed about this quote:

QuoteIt should be noted that although the study purports to use the Test for Espionage and Sabotage format (which is a screening test for conduct not known to have occurred), the polygraph examinations administered were not screening examinations, but rather concerned a specific incident known to have occurred. 35% of innocent examinees failed the polygraph, and overall correctness of classification obtained in this study was only 72%.

It does appear that while arguing that countermeasures don't help, the study also indicates that the rate of false positives is 35%.

I'd really enjoy seeing a substantive response that is free of an argumentum ad hominem, if that's possible.  It appears to be a valid question that has nothing to do with how many polygraphs the poster has taken or administered, or how many and what type of advanced degrees he has or doesn't have, or what he does or doesn't do for a living.

Thank-you Sarge, I was hoping for a response directly from Mr. Webb, but I presume he is simply busy and not avoiding my question.  Until that occurs, can any other poly examiner here, who is familiar with this study answer my questions?

Thank-you.

Dont expect anything from nonombre that requires a modicum, of research.

NonOm got involved in some serious background research and came up with the notion
that 1904 is John Grogan.

And this is the type of genius that might just want to administer a pg on you..!!!!!!!!

Nonombre feeds off the scraps and threads left behind by his erstwhile co-tormentors

 Quote: Barry Cushman

Quote
There are some who claim knowledge of the test has hindered them; however, the research literature doesn't support that position. (Intuitively, it doesn't make sense either.)

This gives credence to AP's position that clean-living, truthful subjects who in fear of failing a pg exam should read TLBTLD.

Quote
False information about the process is another animal, and we know little about that one.

Another good reason to read TLBTLD. Lots of good information in there.
Even Dr Lou Rovner thought so.
And Rovner surely knows better than Barry Cushman.

Quote
You'll find a lot of bad info on the other site;(reference to AP) although, I've noticed that lately there are some good challenges to the dribble they peddle. Remember, the anti site wants to end polygraph. They have a vested interest in your failures. If you fail, then they win. (very silly comment-1904)

Actually, the aim of AP is to eradicate pseudo-science.  If you pass, you win and they lose. AP wins nothing if you fail.

Quote
Personally, I expect everybody I test to have read the web. It's when they start believing what they've read that problems arise.

Mr Cushman would prefer it that you turn up knowing nothing about polygraph, but if you do use your brain and carry out a little knowledge research, then he would like it if you ignore that knowledge and listen only to the words of Barry the sincere and trustworthy examiner.

Quote
There are some tests that use comparison questions. (They used to be called "control" questions, but they aren't controls in the scientific sense of the term.)

There is no science involved in the first instance.

Quote
Some of the tests allow the examinee to choose to lie to those questions on his own; in others, he is directed to lie to certain questions. They are used for comparison purposes.

This is garbled misinformation. Where the examinee may use his discretion (choice) whether or not to lie to the Comparison/Control Question it is a 'Probable Known Lie' type of CQ.
Only when the examinee is specifically instructed to lie to a CQ does it then become a Directed Lie CQ.

Quote
Personally, I think most of the postings on that site (AntiPoly) are from the same people. In other words, I suspect some lonely soul is, oftentimes, having conversations with himself. Some of the claims there are outlandish, but I see they've been taken to task lately and seem to be a little panicked.

This statement is an insult to the ordinary folk who come here for advice. It is concerning though that Barry alludes to having an inside track to AP Admin decisions and actions.

Offhand I would say that the particular inference is a blatant lie, designed to scare off inquiring minds that visit this site.

Now that I see many of the poly examiners have been banned for failure to conduct themselves in a respectful manner, I can understand why my question has gone unanswered, (at least by them).  I am just dissapointed that Skip Webb has not bothered to address my question, nor has anyone else shed any light on what I felt was a reasonable question.

Anyone care to take a shot?

Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 23, 2007, 11:34 AMNow that I see many of the poly examiners have been banned for failure to conduct themselves in a respectful manner, I can understand why my question has gone unanswered, (at least by them).  I am just dissapointed that Skip Webb has not bothered to address my question, nor has anyone else shed any light on what I felt was a reasonable question.

Anyone care to take a shot?

Nopoly,
Address your question to Barry C.
The response should make for interesting, if not amusing reading.

Quote from: Bill Crider on Oct 15, 2007, 11:03 PMI will come out and play. roughly 4 years ago, on 3 different occasions, with 3 different tests, 3 different FBI polygraphers accused me of lying about selling and using drugs. Ok, 1 was "inconclusive" , so he wasnt sure. Just turned 39 years old and still haven't sold or used an illegal drug in my entire life. I still think about this injustice every day. 4 years later and the smug self-rigtheousness of this thread has reawakened the pissed-off in me.

What you fail to realize is that this site is not the product of disgruntled liars. This site exists because of the falsely accused. when we cant imagine why we fail, we look for answers and we find them here. we find that the liars were on the other side of the machine.

I have nothing to hide. my real name is on this posts. My whole story is on this site. SOmeone investigate me and find my drug selling. WHy don't you do it, Mr webb. or Wonder Woman. Do you realize how stupid you look to equate a comic book magical artifact to a law enforecement interrogation technique?

So, F$@K you and your study Mr. Webb. You bastards and your piece of S&%T machine stole a career for which I had spent 14 years pursuing. I really don't give a damn about your study or your proof. These idiots dared to look me in the eye and call me a drug dealer when they have no idea except a few scribbles on a page they mistake for mind reading.

My deepest wish is that one day one of you or a loved one is falsely accused of a crime based on polygraph evidence and sent away for a very long time at a prison infested with gay gangs. Then we will see what you think about your studies when it actually affects you. For now though, remain in your ivory tower with your studies and papers and tell people like me how wrong we are about people who were so wring about us.

I would like to see proof of Bill's warning for poor decorum and also, has he been banished? A senior user who uses such direct profanity and such off-topic displays of maniacism may deserve to be removed. >:(

Barry C:

Here is my original question, care to answer?

TIA

Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 20, 2007, 10:28 AM

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 16, 2007, 01:19 AMIa specific incident known to have occurred. 35% of innocent examinees failed the polygraph, and overall correctness of classification obtained in this study was only 72%.

Mr. Webb:

Is the above 35% failure rate of innocent examinees correct in this "study?"  If so, please explain how this study can be used on one hand to support the theory that counter measures do not work, but on the other hand not be an indictment of the accuracy of the polygraph?

One more question.

So far, all I have read regarding this study is the abstract.  Is the complete study available to an non insider such as myself?

I am responding here to "nopoly4me" as he has requested.  I doubt seriously that my response will have any effect on his or any other person's opinion of polygraph or its efficacy.  I should clarify a few things about the study at question here for those who have read only the abstract.  First, the polygraph test charts were scored using the CPS (Computerized Polygraph System) scoring software, not the polygraph examiners who conducted the tests.  Therefore, being "blind" to the condition of the participants in the study would not make a difference to the computer's decisions.  The CPS scoring software produces a posteriori or "inductive" probability of truthfulness or CPSp|t.  Those values alone were used as the primary dependent measure for analysis.  A proposition is knowable "a priori" if it is knowable independently of experience. A proposition is knowable "a posteriori" if it is knowable on the basis of experience.  In the case of the CPS scoring software, decision probabilities are derived based upon experience gained from previous polygraph test where ground truth is known.  The software is then tested against a second batch of known condition or ground truth tests to determine it's "a posteriori" ability to provide a probability accuracy.  Others here have made the argument that even with the use of the computer as the scoring mechanism, the examiners could have "swayed" test results because they knew the condition of the participant.  Such an argument has little value.

     Second, the argument is being postulated here by some, "nopoly4me" included, that this study has provided some proof concerning the accuracy or lack thereof of polygraph.  Such is not the case.  The comparisons in this study were between the participants who were given information from TLBTLD and those who were not, under both guilty and innocent conditions.  This study subjected CPSp|t to a guilt (guilty, innocent) X information (informed, naïve) ANOVA.  ANOVA allows us to compare different things and form conclusions based upon the within class differences in those things.  It provides us the significance between those differences. This study revealed that CPSp|t values for guilty participants were significantly lower than were the CPSp|t values for innocent participants.   Stated simply, when TLBTLD information was provided to innocent participants, their correct condition classification accuracy was diminished.  We can infer that that difference in classification accuracy was diminished by the introduction of TLBTLD which was the variable. Kendall's Tau-b analysis of the data indicated a significant relationship between the guilt criterion and the decisions for both informed, tau-b =.50, p=.009 and naïve participants, tau-b=.41, p=.046.  Tau-b values range from -1 (100% negative association, or perfect inversion) to +1 (100% positive association, or perfect agreement). A value of zero indicates the absence of association.  By any measure conducted there was significance between those who had information from TLBTLD and those who did not and the significance was that those innocent participants with TLBTLD were more likely to be misclassified as guilty by the CPS scoring software.

     Finally, Sergeant 1107 (based upon his understanding of a previous posting) is incorrect in his assertion that this study provides us with a 72% correctness of classification or a 72% accuracy rate for polygraph.  Polygraph accuracy was not determined in this study, nor was it a goal of the investigators.  To make such an assumption misreads the data and makes conclusions not supported by this study.  I would suggest that anyone who has an interest in the study to obtain a copy from the publisher and read it so that you may form your own conclusion about the value of reading TLBTLD prior to your polygraph.. Based upon this study TLBLD will decrease your chances of being classified as innocent and increase you chances of being misclassified if you are actualy innocent.  If you are guilty, read on as it made no difference in classification accuracy.

Mr. Webb:

Thank-you, sir, for your response to my question.  Unfortunately, my knowledge of polygraph is limited, and thus I could not precisely follow your explanation in order to answer my questions.  I am hoping you will do me the favor of allowing me a couple of follow-up questions, in order for me to understand better.  

Follow-up question #1)  As I understand your response, the accuracy of the polygraph was not being tested in this study, but I also know that sometimes in science, one study will produce ancilary discoveries that overshadow the original intent of the study.  With that in mind, according to Mr. Maschke's ascertation, 35% of the "innocent" test subjects were incorrectly found by the computer scored polygraph to be guilty.  Is this correct?

Follow-up question #2)  As I understand your response, while the overall number of test subjects was 40, the sub-groups actually numbered only 10 each, and each of those sub-groups, were then scored by the computer scoring system, after which the results were compared to each other.  If this is the case, (please correct me if I am wrong), isn't 10 subjects too insignificant a number to base any valid conclusions from?  It has been many years since I took my psychological statistics class in college, so my memory is fuzzy here.

Thank-you in advance for your time.

Mr. Webb.  Please allow me to thank-you for your previous time, but your input is no longer needed or requested.  I was able to obtain a copy of the aforementioned study, and it is much easier to read and understand for a layman such as myself.

What I gleaned from my reading the original study is the following:

40 subjects were given a polygraph, 20 each who were actually innocent of the faux crime of stealing some movie passes, and 20 who were actually guilty of the same faux crime.  Of the 20 "innocent" subjects, the polygraph results actually showed that 7 of those 20 were accused of being guilty.  Of the 20 subjects who were actually guilty of the faux crime, the polygraph found 16 of the 20 subjects guilty.

So, according to Mr. Hont's study, a polygraph found 7 innocent people guilty, and 4 guilty people innocent, resulting in an error rate of 27.5%.

My comparison study...

It has been said that the results of a polygraph are no better than a flip of a coin.  To determine if this hypothesis is correct, I took the last 5 minutes and flipped a quarter 40 times.  The results of my 40 flips were 22 heads and 18 tails.  I guess the polygraph is in fact more accurate than a flip of a coin, but certainly not to the accuracy quoted by many.

Any thoughts?  

Speaking from my limited 20yrs approx experience as a p/g & cvsa examiner, I think that lab studies
conducted to gauge the effect of CM's are a total waste of time and are no more accurate than parlour games. A bunch of students trying to win movie tickets....?....Pulleeese.

A meaningful research project in this regard should utilise real subjects - baddies. Convicts.
Psychologists to coach the cons to lie about their already confessed crimes and other minor (non confessed) crimes; A participating examiner to teach CM's to the con; Another examiner who has no background knowledge of the con and whom is not privy to the CM's taught / to be implemented; And a couple of unbiased experts to oversee and control the entire experiment to ensure compliance with
guidelines.

Now that would be meaningful.

1904:

Your suggestion seems pretty valid to  me.  But, before countermeasures are studied in an unbiased manner, perhaps a study, (or a series of studies) actually attempting to scientifically measure the ability of the the polygraph to actually detect deception would be in order.

I find it amusing that the examiners who have now re-registered under their real names after being outed refuse to partake in my discussion regarding Hont's study showing the polygraph to be less than 75% accurate.  Perhaps I am not worthy of such discussion, but failure to logically counter this claim (that the study purports a poor performance regarding accuracy of the polygraph) indicates that the claim is valid.  One can tell who is reading the forums by looking at the bottom of forum home page, and I have seen several of the names as active on the forum.  In fact, as I write this, myself, 1904 and EJohnson are on line.  

Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 24, 2007, 09:29 AM1904:

Your suggestion seems pretty valid to  me.  But, before countermeasures are studied in an unbiased manner, perhaps a study, (or a series of studies) actually attempting to scientifically measure the ability of the the polygraph to actually detect deception would be in order.   

Friend,

That is the holy grail. For every pro-study, there is an anti-study - and vice-versa, ad infinitum.
It's a case of my scientist can beat your scientist.
But, I think that our scientists are winning the tug-of-war, slowly but surely.

The fact is that there are some supremely intelligent people involved in polygraphy and they will put up solid arguments, some of which they will win and some of which they will lose.

The debate will never cease. I think that we should all now try to keep it civil and refrain from personal
insults, unless of course they are totally necessary.

;)





Regards,

1904,

There's no raging debate among scientists about polygraphic lie detection. There is broad consensus that it is has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml). As Gino has noted before, the only remaining debate pits those who understand that polygraphy is junk science against those who don't (yet) and those with a vested interest in the perpetuation of polygraphy. See Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there for a thorough debunking of polygraphy.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 24, 2007, 10:00 AM1904,

There's no raging debate among scientists about polygraphic lie detection. There is broad consensus that it is has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml). As Gino has noted before, the only remaining debate pits those who understand that polygraphy is junk science against those who don't (yet) and those with a vested interest in the perpetuation of polygraphy. See Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there for a thorough debunking of polygraphy.

Wrong!----Give that man a gym membership folks, and thank him for playing! George, of course there is raging debate. The anti-crowd only accept hard science, the real scientific community isn't so preoccupied with the differences and distinctions between hard and soft science---the classic example being behavioral psychology vs. Neuro-psychology. Plain and simple---the polygraph test is a unique hybrid of the two, and despite your venom and Gino's spit, polygraph is scientificaly valid and is effective at detecting deception at far better than chance levels (NAS STUDY.) You folks clearly don't like the method and it's mechanisms-----fine. You can't burn steal though.

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:26 AM

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 24, 2007, 10:00 AM1904,


Wrong!----Give that man a gym membership folks, and thank him for playing! George, of course there is raging debate. The anti-crowd only accept hard science, the real scientific community isn't so preoccupied with the differences and distinctions between hard and soft science---the classic example being behavioral psychology vs. Neuro-psychology. Plain and simple---the polygraph test is a unique hybrid of the two, and despite your venom and Gino's spit, polygraph is scientificaly valid and is effective at detecting deception at far better than chance levels (NAS STUDY.) You folks clearly don't like the method and it's mechanisms-----fine. You can't burn steal though.

Mr. Johnson:

Are you going to address my questions/claims about the accuracy of the polygraph as it was revealed in Mr. Hont's study, or just argue with George?

Quote from: 1904 on Oct 24, 2007, 09:47 AM
The debate will never cease. I think that we should all now try to keep it civil and refrain from personal
insults, unless of course they are totally necessary.

;)





Regards,

Which, by implication, suggests that sometimes they are... totally necessary???

I'd like to point out that Ludovico, and others, seem to have been banned for insulting the sensibilities of other users with references such as bub, pal, boss, and chief. While others were hurling sexualized and vulgar insults of "whore" and "dick."


r

Mr. Johnson,

The National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph did not endorse the validity of polygraphy. On the contrary, the panel reached a very different conclusion (at pp. 212-13 of its report (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369), emphasis in the original):

QuotePolygraph Accuracy Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.

Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.

Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.

Future Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.

That's about  as strong a condemnation as is possible in a consensus scientific report. Speaking more plainly, the Commitee's chairman, Professor Stephen Feinberg stated, "Polygraph testing has been the gold standard, but it's obviously fool's gold."

I note that Charles Honts, a co-author of the article that is the topic of this discussion thread, was discredited by a federal judge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3392.msg23536#msg23536) after he attempted to characterize the NAS report as endorsing the validity of polygraphy.

Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 24, 2007, 10:39 AM

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:26 AM

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 24, 2007, 10:00 AM1904,


Wrong!----Give that man a gym membership folks, and thank him for playing! George, of course there is raging debate. The anti-crowd only accept hard science, the real scientific community isn't so preoccupied with the differences and distinctions between hard and soft science---the classic example being behavioral psychology vs. Neuro-psychology. Plain and simple---the polygraph test is a unique hybrid of the two, and despite your venom and Gino's spit, polygraph is scientificaly valid and is effective at detecting deception at far better than chance levels (NAS STUDY.) You folks clearly don't like the method and it's mechanisms-----fine. You can't burn steal though.

Mr. Johnson:

Are you going to address my questions/claims about the accuracy of the polygraph as it was revealed in Mr. Hont's study, or just argue with George?

Mr. Honts study was predicated on earlier accuracy studies---not an exclusive accuracy study in and of itself. The study demonstrated that countermeasures do have grave pollutive affect on many aspects of the test, just not the aspects that were claimed by antipolygraph.org. What's there to debate? Your points are points of polygraph accuracy, not TLBTLD efficacy in creating intentional false negatives or guranteeing true negatives. Nopoly4, your point is off topic, and very "trolllike". Who are you, where do you live? Could we get a full scope ID on nopoly4me? >:(

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:56 AM

Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 24, 2007, 10:39 AM

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:26 AM

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 24, 2007, 10:00 AM1904,


Mr. Johnson:

Are you going to address my questions/claims about the accuracy of the polygraph as it was revealed in Mr. Hont's study, or just argue with George?

Mr. Honts study was predicated on earlier accuracy studies---not an exclusive accuracy study in and of itself. The study demonstrated that countermeasures do have grave pollutive affect on many aspects of the test, just not the aspects that were claimed by antipolygraph.org. What's there to debate? Your points are points of polygraph accuracy, not TLBTLD efficacy in creating intentional false negatives or guranteeing true negatives. Nopoly4, your point is off topic, and very "trolllike". Who are you, where do you live? Could we get a full scope ID on nopoly4me? >:(

Addressing the last two lines, when I first logged on to this site, I read the lead paragraph about using an alias, which I took to be good advise.  As far as any personal information, forget it.  Any personal information about me opens me up to personal attacks, which I am not interested in fostering, nor participating in.  I think is fairly disingenious of you to suggest that because I use an alias, that fact somehow puts me into the "troll" catagory, given your past history.  

Moving on...

As I stated in a previous post, scientific studies can expose results which are ancilary to the original purpose of the study, but are still significant in their own right.  Given the study in question, it appears that this is the case.  I notice you do not challenge my assertion that the study indicates the accuracy of the polygraph (in this test anyway) is no better than 73%.   I will take that lack of challenge as agreement to this assertion.

Given that fact then, with an error rate of over 25%, how can any honest reviewer conclude that the study proves anything regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, when the polygraph itself could not detect blatant deception?  Add in the variable of self-reporting, ("uh, yah, I used some of those things I read about in the lie book, can I have my movie passes now?") while it sounds pretty impressive, it really is just a good example of the type of junk-science that seems to be passed off for true research in this field.

Quote from: raymond.nelson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:41 AM

Which, by implication, suggests that sometimes they are... totally necessary???

Totally tongue in cheek sir.

George W Maschke:

QuoteThere's no raging debate among scientists about polygraphic lie detection. There is broad consensus that it is has no scientific basis.

I would respectfully submit that you have been in violation of your own posting policies for some time when you make this assertion.

There is no such broad consensus. The presence of a 400 page review of the science of polygraph speaks to the complexity of the scientific basis for the test. There is in fact a scientific basis for polygraph test, in terms of a number of important psychological theories and constructs, known physiology, and the basic principles of inferential and bayesian predictions in the field of testing, diagnostics, signal detection, and decision theory.

Whether you like that fact, are satisfied with the present answers or even disagree that we have a fully developed or a mature understanding of the scientific basis for polygraph is another matter. There are a number of scientific theories underlying the polygraph test.

I believe you are deliberately providing inaccurate information to your readers here, and that appears to be a violation of the posting policy.

QuoteAntiPolygraph.org prides itself on its commitment to free speech.  All points of view are welcome here, including those of polygraph supporters. However, we ask that in posting, all involved remain civil. You agree, through your use of this message board, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, or threatening. Any such posts may be removed to the Discarded Posts forum, and those making such posts may be banned. Such posts by repeat offenders may be deleted. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate. Such posts will be promptly deleted and those making them banned.

Would you please correct the errors of your previous postings, so that you are no longer in violation of your posting policies.

Thank you.


r

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:26 AMWrong!----Give that man a gym membership folks, and thank him for playing! George, of course there is raging debate. The anti-crowd only accept hard science, the real scientific community isn't so preoccupied with the differences and distinctions between hard and soft science---the classic example being behavioral psychology vs. Neuro-psychology. Plain and simple---the polygraph test is a unique hybrid of the two, and despite your venom and Gino's spit, polygraph is scientificaly valid and is effective at detecting deception at far better than chance levels (NAS STUDY.) You folks clearly don't like the method and it's mechanisms-----fine. You can't burn steal though.

The NAS study used the term "better than chance" to describe specific incident testing, and specified that it was only pertinent when the subject population was untrained in countermeasures.  

How can you tell is someone is untrained in countermeasures?  If they show no signs of using them?  Wouldn't a person skilled in countermeasures also show no signs of using them?

From page 214 of the NAS report:

QuoteNotwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

It's amusing that you referenced the NAS report when we keep hearing from polygraph examiners (including the APA's web site, which devotes an entire page to refuting the NAS report) that is was flawed and should be disregarded.  I can understand why polygraph examiners are desperate to discredit the NAS report - it is a damning condemnation of their pseudoscientific profession.  The conclusions in the report are clear - the polygraph presents a danger to national security objectives.  

I've read the report and it is compelling, even to a layman.  It is logical and and the conclusions drawn from the research cited are quite understandable.  Hearing from polygraph examiners that the report should be ignored is no more credible than hearing from Big Tobacco that the health warnings regarding cigarettes should be ignored.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 25, 2007, 04:30 AM

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:26 AMWrong!----Give that man a gym membership folks, and thank him for playing! George, of course there is raging debate. The anti-crowd only accept hard science, the real scientific community isn't so preoccupied with the differences and distinctions between hard and soft science---the classic example being behavioral psychology vs. Neuro-psychology. Plain and simple---the polygraph test is a unique hybrid of the two, and despite your venom and Gino's spit, polygraph is scientificaly valid and is effective at detecting deception at far better than chance levels (NAS STUDY.) You folks clearly don't like the method and it's mechanisms-----fine. You can't burn steal though.

The NAS study used the term "better than chance" to describe specific incident testing, and specified that it was only pertinent when the subject population was untrained in countermeasures.  

How can you tell is someone is untrained in countermeasures?  If they show no signs of using them?  Wouldn't a person skilled in countermeasures also show no signs of using them?

From page 214 of the NAS report:

QuoteNotwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

It's amusing that you referenced the NAS report when we keep hearing from polygraph examiners (including the APA's web site, which devotes an entire page to refuting the NAS report) that is was flawed and should be disregarded.  I can understand why polygraph examiners are desperate to discredit the NAS report - it is a damning condemnation of their pseudoscientific profession.  The conclusions in the report are clear - the polygraph presents a danger to national security objectives.  

I've read the report and it is compelling, even to a layman.  It is logical and and the conclusions drawn from the research cited are quite understandable.  Hearing from polygraph examiners that the report should be ignored is no more credible than hearing from Big Tobacco that the health warnings regarding cigarettes should be ignored.

I am amused that you are amused. We are amused together, laughing and singing. Aside from that, the fact remains that there are shortcomings from the study, and there are accuracies from the NAS study----and it seems that polygraph examiners are the only ones who readily admit both---while the negativists cling to the nasty parts---like teen boys watching those dirty HBO documentaries on sex toys. Fine. Your analogy of Big Tobacco was inteligent, but inadequate. Big Tobacco has not been accused of their product causing MS, and this site is making such types of claims (countermeasure success) without peer reviewed scientific research to back it up. Er---maybe Big Tobacco isn't the right analogy---I have always distrusted Big Breakfast Cereal Lobby. Perhaps I'll use an analogy with those weasals after I take the boys to the dentist today.
Essentially the moto here is to ping pong claims-----to argue that polygraph is "pseudo-science",
but when examiners present clearly that polygraph is based in science (psych, testing, statistics, Phys)---
then you launch into the "well, the test is useless because of our countermeasures"----

then we say "your countermeasures are not scientifically proven effective against countermeasure-trained examiners"---

then you guys say "well, polygraph is pseudoscience and isn't based in science anyway"-

--then we all start the whole process over again. No debates. No discovery, just a contest as to who is the more clever writer of the same circular dialogue. I do like writing though.

Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 25, 2007, 08:13 AMEssentially the moto here is to ping pong claims-----to argue that polygraph is "pseudo-science",
but when examiners present clearly that polygraph is based in science (psych, testing, statistics, Phys)---
then you launch into the "well, the test is useless because of our countermeasures"----

then we say "your countermeasures are not scientifically proven effective against countermeasure-trained examiners"---

then you guys say "well, polygraph is pseudoscience and isn't based in science anyway"-

--then we all start the whole process over again. No debates. No discovery, just a contest as to who is the more clever writer of the same circular dialogue. I do like writing though.

I don't recall ever writing that the polygraph is useless because of "our" countermeasures.  I have repeatedly written and I continue to believe that the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or deception, and it is for that reason that it is useless.

I have always been concerned solely with polygraph screening, such as the type I was subjected to in my pre-employment tests.  The NAS study concluded that in such circumstances the accuracy of the polygraph was essentially the same as random chance.  It seems reasonable to me that if the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or deception in screening situations, it also has serious shortcomings in other situations as well.

I think it is far more reasonable to take the word of the National Academy of Sciences (whose members have over 170 Nobel Prizes to their credit) over the word of a profession that bases its opinion on the fact that without the polygraph they would be out of a job.

Why did the US Govt enact the EPPA ?

Wasn't that also motivated by incorrect p/g screenings?

Just a question... not an invitation to a gunfight.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 25, 2007, 11:15 AM[
<snip>

Mr. Sergeant1107,

You are posting inaccurate and misleading information here. Please be careful, as that is a violation of the posting policies.

The NAS did not reach any conclusions about screening tests being the same as random chance. Please either check your facts, or refrain from such misleading inaccuracies.

Its quite difficult, if not impossible, to have a in intelligent discussion about these matters when conclusions are drawn from personal experience, simple appeal to authority, and your well-manner form of ad hominem attack (based on your assumptions about the job of your opponent) against your opponent, instead of arguing the substance of matter at hand.

r

Quote from: raymond.nelson on Oct 25, 2007, 01:01 PM

Its quite difficult, if not impossible, to have a in intelligent discussion about these matters when conclusions are drawn from personal experience, simple appeal to authority, and your well-manner form of ad hominem attack (based on your assumptions about the job of your opponent) against your opponent, instead of arguing the substance of matter at hand.

r

Mr. Nelson:

I quite agree with you here, which is one of the reasons I have asked the questions I have in such a non-emotional way.  Please feel free to join my discussion regarding blood pressure v. pulse rate, (but only if you can explain in simple terms!  ;)

Quote from: raymond.nelson on Oct 25, 2007, 01:01 PMIts quite difficult, if not impossible, to have a in intelligent discussion about these matters when conclusions are drawn from personal experience, simple appeal to authority, and your well-manner form of ad hominem attack (based on your assumptions about the job of your opponent) against your opponent, instead of arguing the substance of matter at hand.

Are you not drawing conclusions from your own personal experience?  That is the reasonable thing to do, and I expect you are aware of that.  If I had never taken and failed a polygraph while being truthful I doubt I would have any strong opinion about the polygraph at all.  If you had not administered polygraph exams for years I doubt you would have a strong opinion either.

The argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) is only properly termed as such when the authority to which the debater refers has no expertise in the subject area.  The National Academy of Sciences certainly has expertise in all "hard" and "soft" sciences pertaining, no matter how remotely, to the pseudoscience of polygraphy.  Citing their research study to back up the opinions I formed based on my own experiences with the polygraph is logical and perfectly justifiable.

I have not offered, in this discussion, information from my personal or professional experience.

It is fine, in discussion, to cite the conclusions and and inforamtion from the NAS. Please do so accurately so that you are not misleading others with false information. It is fine to understand the concerns they expressed, but it is dishonest (and a violation of the posting policies) to twist those conclusions into dramatized, false, and inaccurate information.  Also, when citing information, you have a choice whether you terminate your involvement in the discussion with your conclusion or alignment with your chosen authority. That ends the discussion. It would be more satisfying for you to remain engaged in the substantive discussion instead, of retreating behind straw-man labels like "pseudo-science."

If you want to learn, then you have to stay in the discussion. That's fun. If all you want is to hurl labels and insults, beat the drum for the anti-fodder, and help inoculate a few more bad guys against the good work of hard working law enforcement investigators, that's not so fun.


r

Quote from: raymond.nelson on Oct 25, 2007, 03:16 PM...It would be more satisfying for you to remain engaged in the substantive discussion instead, of retreating behind straw-man labels like "pseudo-science."

It is no straw-man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man) argument (a term you've evidently misunderstood) to point out that polygraphy is pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience). In this regard, see the message thread, Polygraphy as Pseudoscience (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3424.msg23875#msg23875).

George,

I realize this is your turf, and you get to have your way, by creating any discussion thread you want, and emphasizing the editorial angle that serves your mission. But you are, in fact, engaging in a straw man argument when you make silly claims about mind-reading, and begin to extinguish all thought by communicating in labels instead of discussion.

r

Raymond,

Early in this message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3716.msg26505#msg26505), I pointed out serious shortcomings in the design of the 2007 Honts & Alloway study that is this thread's original topic -- shortcomings that make generalization to field conditions all but impossible. I note that ad hominem arguments aside, no one has seriously disputed my critique.

Quote from: raymond.nelson on Oct 25, 2007, 03:16 PMIf you want to learn, then you have to stay in the discussion. That's fun. If all you want is to hurl labels and insults, beat the drum for the anti-fodder, and help inoculate a few more bad guys against the good work of hard working law enforcement investigators, that's not so fun.

How, exactly, could anything being written on this forum be helping to "inoculate a few more bad guys against the good work" of law enforcement?

You have cited the Honts study as proof that the countermeasure information on this web site hurts the innocent and doesn't help the guilty.

Surely you can't be referring to any reference to the 2003 National Academy of Sciences research study?  That information is freely available to anyone who chooses to take the time to look for it.

I don't know what else it could be.  I do not understand how you have come to the belief that I am somehow helping bad guys.

Its interesting to have pro-poly people debating poly issues on this site, mainly because the level
of debate / argument that takes place here would not be tolerated on the somewhat sterile PP
site.

If one posts anything even remotely anti-poly on PP , the post is deleted rapidly

Which is obviously why the pro-poly* folk come here.

What I dont understand is, their* apparent wish that we should not argue against them, but simply
accept their arguments and then keep quiet.

And when one does argue a point, then the discussion starts going south and ends in futile aggression
and ad-hom attacks.
Its like: "Agree with us or shut up"

How depressing.

QuoteRaymond,

Early in this message thread, I pointed out serious shortcomings in the design of the 2007 Honts & Alloway study that is this thread's original topic -- shortcomings that make generalization to field conditions all but impossible. I note that ad hominem arguments aside, no one has seriously disputed my critique.

Mr. Maschke,

You are once again providing false and inaccurate information to your readers, in violation of your posting policies.

Mr. Webb has provided a thoughtful response to your critique.

Please try to be more careful.

Just in case you missed it, I have copied it here.

Quote
Re: Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty
Reply #7 - Oct 16th, 2007, 8:46am Quote
George,  Thank you for commenting on the study I posted.  It appears to have struck a nerve!  Your comments about the value of the study require some explanation to those who might not routinely avail themselves of research and prefer to accept what they read on the internet as the Gospel.

You stated the following:

Weaknesses of this methodology include:  

Motivational conditions were low. Participants were students who volunteered their time in exchange for class credit. There were no adverse consequences for failing to pass the polygraph, and the only "reward" for passing was paltry (movie passes);

RESPONSE: George to be fair, you should point out that virtually all mock crime studies, indeed all psychological studies usually involve students as participants who volunteer their time in exchange for class credit or a minor monetary reward or token.  This certainly isn't a weakness in this or any other study.


Although participants provided with copies of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector were "encouraged to study the book before taking their examination," there is no way of knowing to what extent they actually did so. Students received class credit whether or not they read the book. While participants reported spending an average 1.58 hours reading it (with a standard deviation of .96), these self-reported study times may well have been overstated by participants wishing to be perceived as having heeded the encouragement to study the book;  

RESPONSE:  The conditions you describe are exactly the same as the "real" people who come onto your site and read your book.  There is no way to determine the amount of time they spend or the degree to which they "study" the book prior to their examination.


The study relied on examinee self-reporting of whether examinees used countermeasures. Perhaps this was unavoidable, as there is no reliable technique for detecting countermeasures. Nonetheless, such self-reporting may or may not have been truthful;
RESPONSE:  Now George, let's don't even go there.  Everything on your site is self reporting and there is certainly no way to determine the truth about what the people on your site report when they deny crimes or allege successful countermeasures used.


There is no indication that examiners were blind with regard to examinee status (e.g. guilty/innocent, informed/uninformed). And examiners were almost certainly not blind with regard to base rates for each category.

RESPONSE:  Now George, that was beneath you.  You are much smarter than that and so are most of the people who read the information on this site.  You certainly know that Dr. Honts would not bother to conduct a study in which the examiners were not blind to the condition of the participants.  That's simply reaching on your part.  I'm embarrassed for you on that one.

Finally, studies are just that...studies.  They allow thoughtful people to form conclusions and opinions based upon what they see happen in the scenario presented.  This one was particularly insightful as it replicated a previously conducted study that indicated the same result.  I placed the study here so that thoughtful people might read it and make decisions for themselves about the use of countermeasures.  Many, like you, won't change their mind but some smart, truthful people might just read this and decide that they don't want to put their career and their fate into the hands of someone who has become so entangled in his own web that he can no longer step back and look objectively at anything that challenges his belief system.  Smart people might just decide not to drink the kool aid George

Raymond,

I concede that Skip Webb's rejoinder to my critique was earnest, but as I explained earlier in this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3716.msg26539#msg26539), I don't think he offered anything approaching a credible counterargument to my criticism of Honts & Alloway's methodology.

QuoteAs I stated in a previous post, scientific studies can expose results which are ancilary to the original purpose of the study, but are still significant in their own right.  Given the study in question, it appears that this is the case.  I notice you do not challenge my assertion that the study indicates the accuracy of the polygraph (in this test anyway) is no better than 73%.   I will take that lack of challenge as agreement to this assertion.

Given that fact then, with an error rate of over 25%, how can any honest reviewer conclude that the study proves anything regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, when the polygraph itself could not detect blatant deception?

The study does show that.  The question is whether that would generalize to filed applications.  Since we don't do those types of tests in the field, then we don't know for sure.  (This was a single-issue application of the TES, a screening exam.  However, they ran it as a single-issue test.  We don't do that, for reasons I'd argue would lower accuracy, which is what we see here.  This is either an apple or an orange, but not both.  In any event, it's not correct to compare the two.)

QuoteAs I stated in a previous post, scientific studies can expose results which are ancilary to the original purpose of the study, but are still significant in their own right. Given the study in question, it appears that this is the case. I notice you do not challenge my assertion that the study indicates the accuracy of the polygraph (in this test anyway) is no better than 73%. I will take that lack of challenge as agreement to this assertion.

Given that fact then, with an error rate of over 25%, how can any honest reviewer conclude that the study proves anything regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, when the polygraph itself could not detect blatant deception?

I think you fill find near universal agreement that this study was not intended to and is insufficient to reach any conclusions about the overall accuracy of the polygraph.

Your conclusion that the polygraph could not detect deception is in error.

QuoteThat analysis revealed that CPSp|t values for guilty participants, M=0.40, SD=0.33,
were significantly lower than were the CPSp|t values for innocent participants,
M=0.72, SD=0.33, F(1; 39)= 9.24, p=.004, h2=0.2. Neither the main effect for
information nor the interaction of guilt and information were significant,
F(1; 39)=0.02, ns, h2=0.01 and F(1; 39)=0.19, ns, h2=0.005, respectively.

These data show the polygraph did detect detection at statistically significant levels. They also show that prior information, as provided, produced no statistically significant results.

If you have read and understood the study, then we might conclude that you are providing that inaccurate and misleading information intentionally, and are therefore in violation of the posting policies. Please be more careful.

r

Mr. Raymond:

What I see from this study, is that in 25%+ of the cases, the polygraph did not detect deception.  Certainly better than random chance, but not what I would want to bet my freedom, carreer or reputation on.

With a study that itself shows 25% error, one cannot logically conclude then the underlying premise that countermeasures do not work is true.  

Personally, I don't really care about the countermeasure issue, but just brought up the fact that the study itself is fatally flawed.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 27, 2007, 05:43 PM

Quote (This was a single-issue application of the TES, a screening exam.  However, they ran it as a single-issue test.  We don't do that, for reasons I'd argue would lower accuracy, which is what we see here.  This is either an apple or an orange, but not both.  In any event, it's not correct to compare the two.)

Wouldn't it make sense that if the error rate on a single issue test was 25%, that the likelyhood of a higher percentage of error would follow, if more than a single issue was being tested?

nope,

You seem still to be misunderstanding. This study was not intended to determine accuracy, and the observed error rate in this study is not a fatal flaw - unless one has advance intentions of rejecting the opportunity to learn from it.

This study could not reject the null hypotheses that there would be no difference between results of truthful and deceptive persons when they are provided the opportunity to acquire prior knowledge from tbltd. On the other hand, data do support accepting the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference within the scores of deceptive and truthful persons who were provided the opportunity to acquire prior knowledge from tbltd.

What this actually says is that the data from this study could not support the hypothesis that countermeasures work. That alone doesn't mean they don't work, but it sure doesn't mean they do. Honts and Alloway seem to have known this is not a simple problem, and they would need more information. So, they seem to have planned for that.

Hont's and Alloways covariance ratios, as illustrated earlier in this thread (sometimes referred to as correlation ratios, but the the term "correlation" in this useage tends to prompt erroneous assumptions and expectations around the concept of correlation - its about covariance), suggest two things: 1) the polygraph did detect deception and truthfulness at statistically significant rates in this laboratory study, and 2) it still detected deception and truthfulness at statistically significant rates when the laboratory subjects were provided the opportunity to educate themselves in advance, using tbltd.

You may not like the study or the results, but the data are the data.

r

QuoteWouldn't it make sense that if the error rate on a single issue test was 25%, that the likelihood of a higher percentage of error would follow, if more than a single issue was being tested?

You missed my point.  The test is not a test we run in the field (not "filed" - tired fingers?) as a single-issue test.  As Ray has pointed out, ad nauseum, this study was designed to test whether CMs worked.  They didn't.  The study did show a 75% accuracy rate (which too was statistically significant, showing just how robust polygraph is), but, once again, in a format not used in the field.  The TES - a screening exam - generally produces accuracy rates of about 80% with multiple issues, which just adds fuel to the fire that you shouldn't be wrapped up in the accuracy figure.

It's interesting to note that even at 75%, the argument that the CQT - and a DLCQT at that - doesn't work better than chance is a dead issue even when not run optimally.  That's the exact opposite of the prediction made by Lykken et al.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 28, 2007, 06:02 PM[

 The study did show a 75% accuracy rate (which too was statistically significant, showing just how robust polygraph is), but, once again, in a format not used in the field.  The TES - a screening exam - generally produces accuracy rates of about 80% with multiple issues, which just adds fuel to the fire that you shouldn't be wrapped up in the accuracy figure.

It's interesting to note that even at 75%, the argument that the CQT - and a DLCQT at that - doesn't work better than chance is a dead issue even when not run optimally.  .

My point here, which you confirm, is that this test shows a 25% inaccuracy rate, which is also statistically significant, especially when someone is being accused of a crime, or sexual infidility, or whatever.

I will admit that the results are better than chance.  We have agreement here.

What I am saying here, is that you'all can't have it both ways.  You can't use a study to conclude that countermeasures do not work, when one fourth of the subjects either were falsely accused of being either innocent or guilty.  The error rate is simply too great to draw those conclusions.

Additionally, as others have pointe dout, the self-reporting aspect of this study is too variable to draw any conclusions.  

To first decide if countermeasures work, one must first accept the premise that the polygraph actually works.  In this case, it only worked 75% of the time.

QuoteMy point here, which you confirm, is that this test shows a 25% inaccuracy rate, which is also statistically significant, especially when someone is being accused of a crime, or sexual infidility, or whatever.

You have no idea what "statistically significant" means do you?

I don't know how to make it any more clear.  Your logic is wrong, and you're understanding of statistics is lacking.  The study wasn't designed to test accuracy; therefore, you can't draw conclusions from those results.  Moreover, you don't know what would happen to accuracy if the tests were hand-scored (like real-life) or if the probabilities were changed to determine the cut-off for truthful scores.  You could catch more of them by changing cut-offs, but then of course, you'd likely increase other types of errors.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 29, 2007, 10:59 AM

Quote


 You could catch more of them by changing cut-offs, but then of course, you'd likely increase other types of errors.

Yeah, like this one :

The video of the CBS 60 Minutes report "Lost in Translation," which documents the allegations of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, which include the FBI's penetration by a polygraph-passing Turkish spy.

What happened??? Cutoffs changed a bit too much...??????

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 29, 2007, 10:59 AM

QuoteMy point here, which you confirm, is that this test shows a 25% inaccuracy rate, which is also statistically significant, especially when someone is being accused of a crime, or sexual infidility, or whatever.

You have no idea what "statistically significant" means do you?

I don't know how to make it any more clear.  Your logic is wrong, and you're understanding of statistics is lacking.  The study wasn't designed to test accuracy; therefore, you can't draw conclusions from those results.  Moreover, you don't know what would happen to accuracy if the tests were hand-scored (like real-life) or if the probabilities were changed to determine the cut-off for truthful scores.  You could catch more of them by changing cut-offs, but then of course, you'd likely increase other types of errors.

Sir:

Perhaps my working knowledge of the term "statistically significant" is wrong and my knowledge of statistics is lacking as you say, but what I do know from reading the study in question is as follows:

Of the 10 people who "stole" the item in question, but lied about it on the test and had access to the information about countermeasures. 20% beat the test.

Of the 10 people who did not "steal" the item in question, and told the truth about not stealing it, and who had access to the information about countermeasures, 30% were found to be deceptive, although they told the truth.

Of the 10 people who "stole" the item in question, then lied about it and did not have the information about countermeasures, 20% beat the test.

And, of the 10 people who did not "steal" the item and told the truth about not stealing it and did not have access to the information about countermeasures, 40% were falsely accused of this faux crime.

Think about that long and hard and see if you can figure out where you went wrong.  (Hint: your argument requires you to talk out of both sides of your mouth.)

How many examiner scored the charts that way?  None.  Why? Because the issue wasn't accuracy.

Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 30, 2007, 06:47 PMThink about that long and hard and see if you can figure out where you went wrong.  (Hint: your argument requires you to talk out of both sides of your mouth.)

How many examiner scored the charts that way?  None.  Why? Because the issue wasn't accuracy.

Sir, did you read the study?  I did.  It states the following:

'This study examined
whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for
Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.
Method. Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty
informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants
either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book
containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After
1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second
appointment. '

It also stated:

"The CPSpjt values were also used to generate decisions of truth and deception. Those
decisions are illustrated in Table 2"

Table 2 reported what I previously stated.  Now, to me it looks like they were testing truth and deception.  

Quote'This study examined
whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for
Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.

That was the purpose of the study.

QuoteTable 2 reported what I previously stated.  Now, to me it looks like they were testing truth and deception.

Of course they were testing truth and deception.  However, the goal wasn't to see how accurate the test was in that regard.  After all, they used the computer to "score" charts.  They simply set the threshold at .7.  They could have set it at another point, or they could have used two cut-off points and included an INC zone as is done in the field.  They didn't do that as the overall accuracy was not the goal.  That has been established in other studies.

It seems patently clear that a study to examine the effects of poly knowledge and possible use of CM's on the validity of a polygraph test -- would be to ascertain whether such test was still accurate, regardless of whether the charts were scored manually or by PS.

What other 'validity' would be of significance....................??

Some people open their mouths only to change feet.

George,

Here is the million dollar question.  Even as you have noted several supposed shortcomings to this research study, do you still believe that countermeasures should be practiced by all examinees?  You purport to be most concerned with innocent examinees taking screening examinations.  Do you still believe those same individuals should practice countermeasures, even though it may hurt them in the end?  

I have seen no scientific study, either flawed or perfect, either peer reviewed or not, which indicates that countermeasures help an innocent person pass a polygraph test, yet we have seen two studies which prove (as much as you wish to discount them) countermeasures do not help guilty individuals and actually hurt the innocent.  How do you know for a fact that the countermeasures you advise individuals to undertake are not in fact hurting those same people?  For someone who has made it his life's mission to eradicate polygraph and supposedly help people, you are doing these folks a disservice and you may be ensuring that truthful examinees don't get the jobs that they are seeking.  

Maybe you should step back and take a look at the big picture.  Just suppose............suppose for just one second.............that this research study is correct.  I hope you are not so egotistical to believe you are perfect and beyond mistake.  Do you believe this research study is without ANY basis and should be TOTALLY disregarded and it is ABSOLUTELY false?  What if this research study is accurate, even a little bit??????   It would seem that you may have ruined many lives and careers........

Quote from: sombody on Oct 31, 2007, 02:31 PMGeorge,

Here is the million dollar question.  Even as you have noted several supposed shortcomings to this research study, do you still believe that countermeasures should be practiced by all examinees?

I have never believed that countermeasures should be practiced by all examinees. Rather, my position has been, and continues to be, that those facing polygraph "testing" should make an informed decision regarding 1) whether to agree to submit to polygraphic interrogation and 2) whether to use polygraph countermeasures to protect against the risk of a false positive outcome.

QuoteYou purport to be most concerned with innocent examinees taking screening examinations.

Indeed, I very much am.

QuoteDo you still believe those same individuals should practice countermeasures, even though it may hurt them in the end?

As before, I believe that those facing polygraph "testing" should make an informed decision regarding whether to use polygraph countermeasures. Personally, if I were facing a polygraph "test," I wouldn't leave the outcome to chance.

QuoteI have seen no scientific study, either flawed or perfect, either peer reviewed or not, which indicates that countermeasures help an innocent person pass a polygraph test, yet we have seen two studies which prove (as much as you wish to discount them) countermeasures do not help guilty individuals and actually hurt the innocent.

For reasons I have explained earlier in this message thread, the 2007 study by Honts & Alloway offered by Skip Webb in the opening post of this message thread proves no such thing. And Honts, Amato & Gordon's 2001 study (Honts, C.R., S.L. Amato, and A.K. Gordon, "Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test." Polygraph Vol. 30 [2001], No. 1, pp. 1-9.) concerned "spontaneous" (untrained) countermeasures -- something completely different from the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. It's dishonest to conflate the two.

QuoteHow do you know for a fact that the countermeasures you advise individuals to undertake are not in fact hurting those same people?  For someone who has made it his life's mission to eradicate polygraph and supposedly help people, you are doing these folks a disservice and you may be ensuring that truthful examinees don't get the jobs that they are seeking.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is being downloaded something on the order of a thousand times a week. AntiPolygraph.org is not receiving the kind of feedback we would expect to receive were our suggested countermeasures hurting our readers.

QuoteMaybe you should step back and take a look at the big picture.  Just suppose............suppose for just one second.............that this research study is correct.  I hope you are not so egotistical to believe you are perfect and beyond mistake.  Do you believe this research study is without ANY basis and should be TOTALLY disregarded and it is ABSOLUTELY false?  What if this research study is accurate, even a little bit??????   It would seem that you may have ruined many lives and careers........

For reasons I've explained earlier in this message thread, I don't think Honts & Alloway's 2007 study can be generalized to field conditions.

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 31, 2007, 03:13 PM
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is being downloaded something on the order of a thousand times a week. AntiPolygraph.org is not receiving the kind of feedback we would expect to receive were our suggested countermeasures hurting our readers.

I think you would agree that this falls well short of "empirical data" and is not be based in science as to the validity of countermeasures.  When someone uses a product and they do not get the desired result, the lack of complaint to the distributor does not prove the product works.  Retailers know this and make a killing when they sell "manufacturer's guarantees".  Americans are lazy and would most often rather spend their time doing something they enjoy instead of complaining when a product fails to live up to its promises.  

If you were to have scientific proof that countermeasures actually hurt innocent examinees, would you cease advising people to use them?  I understand that you may find faults in any research study that debunks your countermeasure teachings and I doubt that you would have an open mind in any event, but, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to perfect such a research study in which you could find no fault........what would you do?

You are obviously a smart guy and very passionate about your cause, but I only ask that you to keep an open mind.  I would hate to think that your passion against and anger towards the polygraph community would have collateral damage.  "Friendly fire" is the word that comes to mind.  In an effort to "help" innocent people, it appears that there is a distinct possibility (however slight you may think it is) that you may be creating more victims in your crusade.  Many of the posts on this message board talk about one false positive being one too many, but what if your instructions (countermeasures) caused one false positive?  Standing behind the excuse of an individual's "informed" decision will not deflect you from blame.  Most of the people who will download TLBTLD have no experience in polygraph and would most likely believe in your claims that countermeasures would be their only hope of passing a test.  

I think that if I were in your position, I would have to rethink my position, or at least put a disclaimer in the book stating that there is some research (however fallible you believe that research to be) that indicates countermeasures may actually cause a false positive, just to be "fair and balanced.  

Quote from: sombody on Oct 31, 2007, 03:57 PM

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 31, 2007, 03:13 PM
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is being downloaded something on the order of a thousand times a week. AntiPolygraph.org is not receiving the kind of feedback we would expect to receive were our suggested countermeasures hurting our readers.

I think you would agree that this falls well short of "empirical data" and is not be based in science as to the validity of countermeasures.  When someone uses a product and they do not get the desired result, the lack of complaint to the distributor does not prove the product works.  Retailers know this and make a killing when they sell "manufacturer's guarantees".  Americans are lazy and would most often rather spend their time doing something they enjoy instead of complaining when a product fails to live up to its promises.  

If you were to have scientific proof that countermeasures actually hurt innocent examinees, would you cease advising people to use them?  I understand that you may find faults in any research study that debunks your countermeasure teachings and I doubt that you would have an open mind in any event, but, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to perfect such a research study in which you could find no fault........what would you do?

You are obviously a smart guy and very passionate about your cause, but I only ask that you to keep an open mind.  I would hate to think that your passion against and anger towards the polygraph community would have collateral damage.  "Friendly fire" is the word that comes to mind.  In an effort to "help" innocent people, it appears that there is a distinct possibility (however slight you may think it is) that you may be creating more victims in your crusade.  Many of the posts on this message board talk about one false positive being one too many, but what if your instructions (countermeasures) caused one false positive?  Standing behind the excuse of an individual's "informed" decision will not deflect you from blame.  Most of the people who will download TLBTLD have no experience in polygraph and would most likely believe in your claims that countermeasures would be their only hope of passing a test.  

I think that if I were in your position, I would have to rethink my position, or at least put a disclaimer in the book stating that there is some research (however fallible you believe that research to be) that indicates countermeasures may actually cause a false positive, just to be "fair and balanced.  

Somebody,

You are obviously a highly intelligent and skilled debator.  As such, please allow me to provide a bit of advice.  I have asked various versions of the same question you have posed NUMEROUS times on this site.  Neither George Maschke or any of his minions will answer it.  They can't, for to do so honestly and objectively would be to admit that there is a significant chance, in fact a strong certainty that the "advice" offered on this site in the past half dozen or so years has caused more good, honest candidates to be disqualified from consideration then all the other causes of "false positives" combined.

Bottom line:  These guys are a menace to the very people they claim to serve.  

Regards,

Nonombre :-/

Nonombre

You are correct. You have asked NUMEROUS questions and, as well as I remember, they have been answered albeit not the way that you wanted.

On the other hand, over the years, you have been asked NUMEROUS questions that went unanswered or made a feeble attempt at skirting the issue.

If the information offered here is causing you to catch so many using CMs then you should be happy. Instead you come on here and warn prospective agents LE not to pay any attention to what they learn here.

Two more question: 1. Over the last 3 or 4 years what has been your percentage increase of CM users over the prior 3 or 4 years? 2. Over the last 3 or 4 years what has been your percentage difference in pass/failure rate?

I am not trying to be snippy with this post. I am just curious as to why you would warn people not to pay attention to the info on this site and in the percentage differences.

It has been stated here that anyone who would use CMs would not make good LEOs. Therefore, you should be happy that you're catching them. We are all looking for good officers to protect us. I just donated blood to a good officer badly wounded in the line of duty.

Nonombre,

If you truly believe the results of this study are true, then it would appear you were wrong all the times you compared providing CM information with leaving a loaded shotgun on a subway platform, or in a schoolyard, or whatever.

These test results indicate that CM's don't help the guilty, so if you believe the results you would have to believe that nothing on this site could possibly be compared to leaving a loaded shotgun on a subway platform, or in a schoolyard, or whatever.

I think that either you owe George an apology, or you should go ahead and admit that the study referenced in this thread has fatal flaws in its methodology.

Quote from: sombody on Oct 31, 2007, 03:57 PM

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 31, 2007, 03:13 PM
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is being downloaded something on the order of a thousand times a week. AntiPolygraph.org is not receiving the kind of feedback we would expect to receive were our suggested countermeasures hurting our readers.

I think you would agree that this falls well short of "empirical data" and is not be based in science as to the validity of countermeasures.  When someone uses a product and they do not get the desired result, the lack of complaint to the distributor does not prove the product works.  Retailers know this and make a killing when they sell "manufacturer's guarantees".  Americans are lazy and would most often rather spend their time doing something they enjoy instead of complaining when a product fails to live up to its promises.

Certainly, reader feedback is not scientific data, but that doesn't mean that it's not a useful indicator (and I very much disagree with your characterization of Americans as "lazy"). Polygraph examinations are usually about something important, and the results can have life-changing consequences for the examinee. Again, we're not receiving the sort of feedback one would expect were The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) hurting our readers.

QuoteIf you were to have scientific proof that countermeasures actually hurt innocent examinees, would you cease advising people to use them?

Yes, most certainly. But there is no such proof, and the Honts & Alloway study tells us nothing about the efficacy of countermeasures under field conditions.

QuoteI understand that you may find faults in any research study that debunks your countermeasure teachings and I doubt that you would have an open mind in any event, but, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to perfect such a research study in which you could find no fault........what would you do?

I am prepared to revise my views in the face of new evidence.

QuoteYou are obviously a smart guy and very passionate about your cause, but I only ask that you to keep an open mind.

Indeed we should all keep an open mind, but not so open, as Richard Dawkins (http://www.richarddawkins.net) has put it, that our brains drop out.

QuoteI would hate to think that your passion against and anger towards the polygraph community would have collateral damage.  "Friendly fire" is the word that comes to mind.  In an effort to "help" innocent people, it appears that there is a distinct possibility (however slight you may think it is) that you may be creating more victims in your crusade.  Many of the posts on this message board talk about one false positive being one too many, but what if your instructions (countermeasures) caused one false positive?

Certainly, misapplication of polygraph countermeasures (for example, mistakenly augmenting reactions to a relevant question instead of to a "control" question) can lead to a false positive outcome. But there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.

QuoteStanding behind the excuse of an individual's "informed" decision will not deflect you from blame.  Most of the people who will download TLBTLD have no experience in polygraph and would most likely believe in your claims that countermeasures would be their only hope of passing a test.

Perhaps you should read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector more carefully. Nowhere do we claim that countermeasures are the reader's "only hope of passing a test." From the beginning we have suggested a "complete honesty" approach that involves explaining to the polygrapher that one is fully informed about polygraph procedure and countermeasures. The following is quoted from Chapter 4 of the 4th edition of TLBTLD:

QuoteComplete Honesty

A second approach is to be completely honest with your polygrapher. Tell him that you know the lie behind the lie detector. Explain to him that you understand that the true purpose of the "stim test" is to dupe you into believing in the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Tell him that you understand the trickery behind "control" question "tests"—whether probable- or directed-lie. Explain that you understand the difference between "control," relevant, and irrelevant questions and that you have studied and know how to employ polygraph countermeasures. Give him a printout of this book to prove it in a way that he will not be able to later deny. Explain to him that you are not a suitable candidate for polygraphic interrogation, and request that your polygraph "testing" be waived.

One of the authors of this book knows of a Department of Defense employee whose polygraph screening was waived when he explained to his polygrapher that he understood how polygraph "tests" work and that he had received training in how to defeat them.

But beware! While the Wizard of Oz may have meekly admitted to being a humbug once the curtain was drawn aside and his humbuggery laid bare, your polygrapher might not be so accommodating. One graduate of DoDPI has cautioned that if a subject were to follow this "complete honesty" approach, the polygrapher would probably go ahead with the polygraph interrogation anyhow and arbitrarily accuse the subject of having employed countermeasures.

Maureen Lenihan is a case in point. She worked as a research assistant with the federal Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, also known as the "Moynihan Commission."²⁵ She later applied for employment with the CIA. She explained to her CIA polygrapher that she had researched polygraphy while working with the Commission. The polygrapher proceeded with the interrogation anyhow, and later accused her of having employed countermeasures. (Weiner, 1999)

When one of the authors of this book specifically asked then president of the American Polygraph Association, Mr. Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr., how an APA member should proceed if a subject were to reveal that he/she has read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and understands the psychological manipulations involved in both the "stim test" and the "control" questions, Mr. Webb declined to provide an explanation.²⁶

---
²⁵ The Commission's report is available on-line at:

 http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/index.html

²⁶ See George W. Maschke's e-mail exchange with Mr. Webb, which is available
on-line at:

 http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects

Perhaps now that Skip Webb is a registered user of this message board (and indeed, the originator of this message thread), he might at long last be willing to answer the question I put to him?

QuoteI think that if I were in your position, I would have to rethink my position, or at least put a disclaimer in the book stating that there is some research (however fallible you believe that research to be) that indicates countermeasures may actually cause a false positive, just to be "fair and balanced.  

The next edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may well include a discussion of the 2007 Honts & Alloway study. But as I explained earlier in this message thread, the study is beset by serious methodological shortcomings that make generalization to field conditions all but impossible.

Speaking of disclaimers, perhaps polygraphers who administer polygraph screening examinations should include a disclaimer noting the National Academy of Science's finding that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

Nonombre,

That post was like painting a target on your head.

George W. Maschke:

Quote<snip>

But there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.

Mr. Maschke,

I believe you may be forgetting about his section on page 140 of the NAS report.

QuoteThere is evidence that some
countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their
chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon,
2001).

I just thought I'd point out the oversight as I know you are interested in your readers having access to good information.


r

George W. Maschke:

QuoteCertainly, reader feedback is not scientific data, but that doesn't mean that it's not a useful indicator (and I very much disagree with your characterization of Americans as "lazy"). Polygraph examinations are usually about something important, and the results can have life-changing consequences for the examinee. Again, we're not receiving the sort of feedback one would expect were The Lie Behind the Lie Detector hurting our readers.

Quote:
If you were to have scientific proof that countermeasures actually hurt innocent examinees, would you cease advising people to use them?


Yes, most certainly. But there is no such proof, and the Honts & Alloway study tells us nothing about the efficacy of countermeasures under field conditions.

Quote:
I understand that you may find faults in any research study that debunks your countermeasure teachings and I doubt that you would have an open mind in any event, but, hypothetically speaking, if someone were to perfect such a research study in which you could find no fault........what would you do?


I am prepared to revise my views in the face of new evidence.

Mr. Maschke,

In delayed response to your interest in some additional response to your commentary re Honts & Alloway (2007) methodology, you must recognize that there are some who would consider Mr. Webb's rejoinder to your critique to be not without credibility. Mr. Webb simply pointed out some obvious facts about the expressed concerns.

Terms like "Serious methodological shortcomings," and "fatally flawed," are vacuous hyperbole (the equivalent of a verbal rubber stamp) and have become over-used accusation when one simply wants to discount or discredit a study or findings which one does not like. They are simple-minded cudgels, with which to bash on and reject information which is inconsistent with an apologetic position. When used properly, the term "serious methodological shortcomings," is a generic description of any set of conditions which would reasonably prevent the formulation of any conclusions.

It is an expectation of all investigators to provide some description of the weakness of any project, and attempt to account for such weaknesses. Honts & Alloway have done that. I would note that your concerns about motivation, and other concerns about the generalizability of laboratory data are adequately accounted for in their report. You have not pointed out anything which they have not already stated. Your criticism adds or corrects nothing. Raising those criticisms is a moot point, and is a simple exercise in fault finding. You could, of course, contact Honts and Alloway to inquire whether the lack of description about examiner blindness to the conditions is an editorial oversight based on the implicit obviousness of such a design feature in  project of this type, or is a feature of there experimental design.

You are free to disagree with the idea that the information from the study can provide us any further information regarding the important questions of polygraph validity in the context of prior knowledge. You are also free to formulate your conclusions in advance, and even from your personal experience. But that's not science, and tends to extinguish all opportunity for the addition of new and information into  our existing knowledge base.

No study, by itself, will definitely answer all, or perhaps even any, questions about anything. The rejection of information from laboratory studies as not generalizable due to artificial conditions is an exercise in closed-mindedness, just as the rejection of data from field studies as wholly uninformative due to the  tenuous information about causality and the impossibility of controlling all variables. These are dilemmas that are inherent to all fields of applied scientific study. The common approach is to base conclusions on multiple studies, and to scaffold new knowledge onto existing knowledge. We use field studies to understand correlations, and laboratory experiments to gain a better understanding of causality. We use meta-analytic procedures to aggregate the volumes of data. Interestingly, common practice in meta analytic study is to include all studies – even those of less than ideal design – and simply weight strength of that information in the meta-analysis. Editors of science journals expect a similar practice, when they require discussion about the potential informational shortcomings of any particular project.

Of course, all studies have their limitations, and no single study is adequate to define the limits of our potential knowledge regarding any particular subject. Some would suggest that defining the limits of knowledge is not an objective of research, while defining the threshold of our knowledge.

Reading a research report with a critical concern is an important skill. One can do so with the objectives of finding fault, rejecting the study out of hand, and simultaneously rejecting all opportunity to advance our knowledge about the subject matter. Or one can read a report with critical concern, with the objective of advancing our knowledge when the data and the merits of the study, with consideration for identifiable limitations, support the cautious inclusion or juxtaposition of information with existing knowledge. It really depends on whether or not one is interested in accumulating or rejecting knowledge. Certainly, some people will find some knew knowledge objectionable.

With that in mind, your suggestion that the study is small and lacks statistical power might be considered plainly inaccurate and misleading to your reader. Please be careful.

There is no description of an a priori or post hoc power analysis, and there quite often is none with small studies. To suggest, however, that small studies lack statistical power simply because they are small is a little overly simplistic. Remember that power, in statistical jargon, is the ability of an mathematical experiment to reject a null hypothesis that is false.  There are certainly a number of ways to state any hypothesis and corresponding null hypothesis, and perhaps equally as many ways to design corresponding experiments. While great emphasis is placed on the formulation of null hypothesis in academic training settings, it seems common for published reports to lack an articulated null hypothesis, and include only an implied understanding of such, through the description of the study objectives. Some studies, like this one, investigate a number of related hypotheses.

In this study, some of the the hypotheses seem to have been some version of:

H1: Polygraph scores will be significantly different for guilty and innocent subjects, regardless of prior knowledge.

with the null-hypothesis being:

H01: There is no significant difference in polygraph scores for guilty and truthful subjects.

and

H2: Polygraph scores will be significantly different for guilty or  truthful subjects with and without prior knowledge.
.
for which the corresponding null-hypothesis is:

H02: There is no significant difference in the scores of guilty or truthful subject with and without prior knowledge.

In their discussion of the results, Honts and Alloway provide:

QuoteThat analysis revealed that CPSp|t values for guilty participants, M=0.40, SD=0.33,
were significantly lower than were the CPSp|t values for innocent participants,
M=0.72, SD=0.33, F(1; 39)= 9.24, p=.004, h2=0.2. Neither the main effect for
information nor the interaction of guilt and information were significant,
F(1; 39)=0.02, ns, h2=0.01 and F(1; 39)=0.19, ns, h2=0.005, respectively.

You may correct me if I am wrong, but it appears there experiment did have sufficient power reject H01, while H02 was not rejected.

This is a good example of the fact that even small experiments can have some sufficient statistical power to reject a null hypothesis and provide interesting information.

Rejection of H01 in this laboratory study would justify the cautious consideration of H1 alongside our other knowledge about the effects of prior knowledge on polygraph results.

Non-rejection of H02, simply means that we would be unwise to cautiously accept the premise of H2 (that prior knowledge will significantly affect polygraph results for guilty or truthful subjects).

In consideration of the possible errors inherent in these conclusions, you should keep in mind that when we reach a statically significant results that allow the rejection of a null hypothesis with small datasets, there is no inherent reason to suspect that lack of statistical power is related to some risk of Type 1 error (rejecting a null-hypothesis that is true).

H02 was not rejected, because the results of the study pertaining to that experiment were not significant. There is some risk of a type II error here (failure to reject a null-hypothesis that is false) - that small sample size masked a real difference within guilty or truthful subjects with and without prior knowledge. But what he have so far is insufficient to support the rejection of the idea that there is no difference. Perhaps a larger experiment would help. We don't know one way or the other, and it is not only unwise but empirically irresponsible to reach conclusions about this hypothesis based only on the sample size and methodology of this experiment. The researchers could not reject, with any stastistical significance, the notion that prior knowledge makes not difference.

That's still a far cry from concluding they will make a difference.  This is simply what we have for now, based on this study. Our task is to thoughtfully consider this information alongside existing knowledge.

It is what it is. Its a small study. Its  laboratory study. Its a single study. But it is not completely uninformative – unless one desires strongly to be uninformed or cannot tolerate the results.





r

WOW!!!!!!!

r.nelson, i may just be some dumb cop, but that sounded brilliant, although I must admit I didn't understand most of it.  

It appears though, based on the past posts and George's reply to my post, that whatever scientific data we are prepared to present which is against his crusade will be dismissed out of hand without any consideration.  He appears to be totally convinced that preaching countermeasures harms no one based on the fact that he has had little feedback from people that have downloaded TLBTLD even when faced with empirical data and scientific studies that prove otherwise.  

George, before you reiterate that fact that you find significant flaws in the studies, we get it......you will search long and hard to find any reason to discount anything that goes against your belief system, but there is no way anyone can believe that the study was so flawed to get ALL the information incorrect.  Even if there was some examiner bias, you can not for a minute believe that all the innocent people who read TLBTLD and were categorized as "false postive" were a result of such bias.  There had to be at least one who failed the test simply because they read your book.  

r.nelson, as I stated above, there appears to be no talking sense into George, but maybe if we stay here long enough we can shed some light for the other innocent people who visit this site.  Maybe we can save some of them even as George is destroying them...............

Quote from: raymond.nelson on Nov 01, 2007, 12:37 PMGeorge W. Maschke:

Quote<snip>

But there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.

Mr. Maschke,

I believe you may be forgetting about his section on page 140 of the NAS report.

QuoteThere is evidence that some
countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their
chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon,
2001).

I just thought I'd point out the oversight as I know you are interested in your readers having access to good information.


r

Raymond,

No, I didn't forget that section of the NAS report. This is something you more than once alluded to when you were posting as "Ludovico," (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Ludovico) and to which I responded here:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3696.msg25991#msg25991

and here:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3707.msg26282#msg26282

Again, the "evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive" (emphasis added) did not involve the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). As I mentioned earlier, in the Honts, Amato & Gordon study the "countermeasures" were things that subjects ignorant of polygraph procedure did on their own in the belief that it might help them pass the polygraph. Such countermeasures are not comparable to those suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

As for the 1980 study by Michael E. Dawson ("Physiological Detection of Deception: Measurement of Responses to Questions and Answers During Countermeasure Maneuvers," Psychophysiology 17 (1), 8–17), as explained in the article abstract: "All subjects were trained in the Stanislavsky method of acting and were instructed to use this method to appear innocent on the polygraph test." Again, this is nothing at all like the countermeasures suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Once more: there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.

In doing more research, I have come accross the following reference to a study by Honts stating that countermeasures worked about 50% of the time.  What gives?

"Effects of countermeasures on the CQT polygraph test were examined in an experiment with 120 subjects recruited from the general community. Subjects were given polygraph tests by an examiner who used field techniques. Twenty subjects were innocent, and of the 100 guilty subjects, 80 were trained in the use of either a physical countermeasure (biting the tongue or pressing the toes to the floor) or a mental countermeasure (counting backward by 7) to be applied while control questions were being presented during their examinations. The mental and physical countermeasures were equally effective: Each enabled approximately 50% of the subjects to defeat the polygraph test. ... Moreover, the countermeasures were difficult to detect either instrumentally or through observation.

C. R. Honts, D. C. Raskin, and J. C. Kircher, "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests," J. Appl. Psych., v. 79, n. 2, 1994, pp. 252-259. "

This is the study that gives Doug Williams his ammo.  The CMs "worked" for those who received hands-on training (practice), and the examiners could didn't take any steps to "neutralize" the CM attempts, and they scored the charts regardless of what was there.  (You can't move with a motion sensor without getting caught, and they didn't have one.)

Charles position is that reading about CMs won't help you. (See his chapter in, I believe, Granham (sp?) for details.) The (healthy) fear is with spies where it may well be possible for them to receive hands on training, practice, feedback, etc, but that needs more research.

Quote from: Barry_C on Nov 02, 2007, 09:06 PMThis is the study that gives Doug Williams his ammo.  The CMs "worked" for those who received hands-on training (practice), and the examiners could didn't take any steps to "neutralize" the CM attempts, and they scored the charts regardless of what was there.  (You can't move with a motion sensor without getting caught, and they didn't have one.)

Charles position is that reading about CMs won't help you. (See his chapter in, I believe, Granham (sp?) for details.) The (healthy) fear is with spies where it may well be possible for them to receive hands on training, practice, feedback, etc, but that needs more research.

Quote
The mental and physical countermeasures were equally effective: Each enabled approximately 50% of the subjects to defeat the polygraph test. ... Moreover, the countermeasures were difficult to detect either instrumentally or through observation.

Which part of the above did you not understand?
You just cant seem to deal with reality....shame.

I presume your question is in regard to the bold text.  I fully understand it.  I'm sorry to have confused you.

Was there ever a pdf copy of the research posted to this thread that I can read?

Quote from: gino on Oct 16, 2007, 11:10 PMI knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

Well, we do know that you publicly ridiculed yourself.
I guess you're not even a pseudo intellectual.
Just a walking Brylcreem advert.

nonombre

I am still waiting for you to answer to the questions I asked a while back. I guess we can assume that you cannot show an increase in subjects caught using CMs. Looks like this website does no harm to pre-employment testees after all.

There were four groups (guilty informed, guilty ignorant, innocent informed, and innocent ignorant) of 10 people each.  How many people in each of those four groups were deemed to be deceptive?

Sorry if this has already been posted in this thread, I've little inclination to read all the name calling here.  I'd be most appreciative of anyone, pro- or anti-, who can report the data requested.

Sorry to point out an old topic, but I am relatively new to this forum and I had never read it before. In my opinion, this topic is the most interesting I have found on this forum. Both sides of the argument, for and against the polygraph, are presented. While there is some very bitter name calling and even some personal attacks, the overall discussion is very informative. The conclusion one must logically reach is that the countermeasures advice and instructions provided on this web site is faulty, and any polygraph subject who takes that advice is a fool. On the other hand, as pointed out by former APA President Skip Webb, and as any serious polygrapher knows, the polygraph is not perfect, and there may be a few innocent victims of its imperfections. The question then is whether an innocent subject feels that their chances of passing the polygraph are so poor that they must abandon their integrity during the test as is advocated on this web site. I think the answer is clear after reading this discussion.

One will go to hell for lying as quick as for stealing

QuoteThe conclusion one must logically reach is that the countermeasures advice and instructions provided on this web site is faulty, and any polygraph subject who takes that advice is a fool.

If countermeasures are so ineffective why do old hack polygraph operators keep coming to this board to post so, under numerous aliases, after being repeatedly banned?  That would seem to indicate a fear on their part that the advice provided on this board is having an effect.  How else would you explain such a neurosis?

TC

Good stuff and very true. Way to go Skip Web!

I am really surprised that this is even on here. The fact that this topic which proves wrong all the claims on this web board about countermeasures proves that this web board is open to all comers on both sides of the issue. Props to the administrators.

Here's a post from another web board called Polygraph Place that I think is also very good:

Concerning the countermeasure issue, the problem with a lot of the countermeasures discussions on the anti-polygraph sites and "how to beat the polygraph" articles, is that the people really don't know what the hell they are talking about - which is good because even the most inexperienced polygraph examiner can easily see that the examinee is attempting countermeasures. The examinee thinks that they are being subtle when they are actually being obvious. All of the recognized polygraph training programs have ample instruction on countermeasures and how to identify them - also we read the anti-polygraph sites and the "how to beat the polygraph" literature as well so we know what the potential user will be practicing.
I totally agree with Jack in his analysis of the situation presented by the original post. Attempting to control or distort the breathing rate is the most common countermeasure used, and the most easily detected since we have two additional channels on the polygraph to tell us what is happening physiologically - or what should be happening in correspondence with the breathing rate. In this case, the electrodermal (GSR or GSE)pattern was very telling, besides just being flat. Jack didn't go into detail, and neither will I. We aren't going to educate the potential countermeasure user how it is that we identify them so that they can refine their methods for instruction to others.

In 85-90% of the examinations that I conduct on specific-issue situations for attorneys, the examinee fails the examination and most of them confess to confirm the deceptive charts. Also, at approximately 50% of them attempt countermeasures, and most admit it when I have told them they failed the examination and let them know that I also saw the presence of countermeasures. THey indicate, almost, unanimously, that they got the countermeasure information from some anti-polygraph internet site - most haven't had the time to buy the books written on "beating the polygraph" since the issue of "will you take a polygraph" and the scheduling to the test generally present too short a time period for anything but internet searches.

We many times get anti-polygraph persons who will try to "fuel the fire" with horror stories on how they were abused, mistreated, or unfairly declared deceptive on a polygraph examination trying to project the message to readers that the polygraph doesn't work. I have attempted to follow up on each of these situation, which you can find on other parts of the bulletin board, and sent each of the person e-mail personally as well as announcing it on my post that I would help them resolve their
alleged abuse by the polygraphist, and not one has ever responded back with another post or with an e-mail to me. I notice that the person who made the original post has not made any comments back to Jack on his evaluation of the situation, either.

Please keep in mind that most of the "experts" on the anti-polygraph sites have never been trained as polygraphists and do not completely understand what it is we do or how we do it, but they sound like they know what they are talking about. Most of the actual experts (whatever that is) in the polygraph field just look upon them as pitiful buffoons who really need to "get a life" - as they say.

I hope this answers your questions or at least sheds some light on what you wanted to know.

Elmer Criswell, Moderator

I have to give it to this site--surprising that you do not delete this post since it disproves everything that so many of you claim about using so called countermeasures.

Polypro Pauline

Why delete laughable polybabble???

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jan 23, 2010, 04:35 PMI have to give it to this site--surprising that you do not delete this post since it disproves everything that so many of you claim about using so called countermeasures.

It is indeed commendable that George does not delete posts that are pro-polygraph or critical of this site.  It is unfortunate that the folks over at PolygraphPlace.com cannot say the same.

Never mind that I've passed three polygraphs using the countermeasures in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, or that I failed a 'lie detection test' prior to reading the book even though I was telling the truth.

Forget that the stupid polygraph, in the Control Lie Question format, BANKS on the examinee lying in order to determine wether or not they're telling the truth on the Relevant Questions. (This alone should really raise a red flag)

Toss out the window the fact that on all three polygraphs, the polygraphers varied in their aggression, tactics and style.

Flush down the toilet the fact that there has YET to be an accurate study done to determine how well polygraphers can or cannot detect countermeasures (sorry, no a bunch of college kids who might get movie tickets doesn't count).

Ignore that most polygraphers try to interrogate and coerce confessions out of examinees no matter their stupid machines tell them, or that a polygrapher's only purpose in life is to get an examinee to admit they lie. In fact, let's also disregard that some polygraphers get paid by the confession. Let's also ditch how unethical it is to tell someone you're on THEIR side during a hiring process when in reality all you're trying to do is disqualify them.

In fact, let's pay no attention for the moment to the fact that part of the problem with testing this stupid, unethical process is that experiments can't get past ethics boards at colleges precisely BECAUSE polygraph testing is so brutally stressful and deceptive.

Disregard, ditch, throw to the dogs, throw out the window, all of the above. I, as an applicant processing with law enforcement, ask THIS of the star-gazing, lying, slime-ball, hypocritical, delusional, This-Works-Because-I-Say-It-Works closed-minded polygraph 'examiners:'

What in the name of Zeus' holy hammer are those of us who have learned the basics of how polygraphy works (or, more accurately, doesn't work) wether through a friend in the system or The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, supposed to do the next time we walk into one of these exams?

If you're ready to tell me, "just tell the truth" you truly do live in a dream world. You're lying about everything else. How can I possibly trust you to even ADMIT to your practices? Or tell me THAT agency's real policy on people who understand polygraphy?

Polygraphs make the truth impossible. That's why this site is Google's second when one simply types in the word 'polygraph.' That's why these asinine polygraph/CVSA exams will one day draw to a close, why they're completely illegal in Minnesota and why so many law enforcement agencies have stopped using them.

So enjoy it while it lasts, PropolyPatty or whatever your name is. You're as plastic as your name. 'Cause when this is all over, I wish I could be there the first time you put "Polygraph Examiner" on a resume. I hope you reap as much pain as you sowed.

"Ignore that most polygraphers try to interrogate and coerce confessions out of examinees no matter their stupid machines tell them, or that a polygrapher's only purpose in life is to get an examinee to admit they lie. In fact, let's also disregard that some polygraphers get paid by the confession. Let's also ditch how unethical it is to tell someone you're on THEIR side during a hiring process when in reality all you're trying to do is disqualify them."

This quote may be what bothers me the most in how government polygraph operators ply their trade.  They truly feel that they are the "gate keepers."  They are the judge, jury, and executioner of lives and careers based upon an assumed set of parameters that are not based in any science.  If I have heard it once, I have heard it one hundred times that polygraph examiners are "artist".  Some are finger painters and some are extraordinaire.  I do not need an artist to decide my fate, I need an objective scientifically proven procedure with known outcomes to known inputs.  I want scientifically repeatable procedures that will stand up to independent scrutiny.

In short, I do not want a "Good-ole-boys" network that can operate under the radar and bypass government mandated hiring practices without videotape (or DVD) recordings that can stand the light of day and review.

Our government will get want it wants, a perpetuation of "YES" men who will toe the company line as the lemurs follow one another over the cliff to their doom.  If the emperor has no clothes, the truth can only be suppressed for so long.

Oh come on. You guys should thank me for even writing something here. Without the occasional polygrapher on this site it would be its usual dull self-congratulating self. But we polygraphers should also thank you all. By giving out bad advice and freaking out the weak-minded, you help us do exactly what the polygraph also does: weed out cheaters, liars, and others who have no business in law enforcement in the first place. So thanks.

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jul 17, 2010, 11:04 PMBut we polygraphers should also thank you all. By giving out bad advice and freaking out the weak-minded, you help us do exactly what the polygraph also does: weed out cheaters, liars, and others who have no business in law enforcement in the first place. So thanks.

If that is true why have so many polygraph operators posted so many hostile and denigrating messages on this board, many of which were aimed at the web sites founders?  Because they believe we are helping them?  Because they believe that cheats and liars foolishly choose to utilize the information on this web site and doing so makes them easier to identify as cheats and liars?

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jul 17, 2010, 11:04 PMOh come on. You guys should thank me for even writing something here. Without the occasional polygrapher on this site it would be its usual dull self-congratulating self. But we polygraphers should also thank you all. By giving out bad advice and freaking out the weak-minded, you help us do exactly what the polygraph also does: weed out cheaters, liars, and others who have no business in law enforcement in the first place. So thanks. 

It's always nice to mix things up, I agree, and although I don't agree with everything on this site, I certainly recognize the great wealth of information it is.  I do find it disheartening though that all the pro-poly people do resort to name calling as sergeant and so many others pointed out.  You know name calling is a sign you're losing the argument, right? 

My other issue with that post is that it reflects a "frat" like mentality that is so pervasive in LE.  Maybe because of my different background than most others on the street, but I'm getting tired of always pointing out to others that they can't have a "us vs. them" mentality when dealing with the public, and constitutional protections shouldn't be seen as a hinderance to investigations, rather assurance that a case is solid. 

Many in police don't like dealing with red tape and bureaucracy.  That is a better driver for eliminating candidates than their "toughness".  If someone fills out a form wrong anywhere in their application, then rescind their offer.

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jul 17, 2010, 11:04 PMOh come on. You guys should thank me for even writing something here. Without the occasional polygrapher on this site it would be its usual dull self-congratulating self. But we polygraphers should also thank you all. By giving out bad advice and freaking out the weak-minded, you help us do exactly what the polygraph also does: weed out cheaters, liars, and others who have no business in law enforcement in the first place. So thanks.

Bad advice? The countermeasures in TLBTLD work, and they work wonderfully. I've got three passed polygraphs to prove it.

What DOESN'T work is the polygraph itself - this elaborate pseudo-system of unethical lies in a pathetic attempt to determine if someone is 'lying.'
If it DID work, its results would be admissible in court - and they're not. If it DID work, it wouldn't have such an incredibly high false positive rate - and it does. If it DID work, the asinine stupid thing you morons do with the card in the beginning of the test would yield a result - and it doesn't.

Lie detection is nought more than a modern day witch hunt within the law enforcement community: despite the fact that everyone knows it's bunk, we all agree to the lie. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, accused of lying.

It's okay - every day this site is here, every time someone learns the truth, we move one step closer to the eradication of this nonsense. Plenty of police departments don't use them, and they are illegal in MN.

Keep it up, Polypropelyne. Just keep TELLING yourself it's true. Close your eyes and say, "I believe! I believe!" despite all evidence to the contrary. (It's what you've been doing all along.)

Which relevant questions did you lie to and passed? If you didn't lie to any of those questions and pass, then you can not say that you passed because of countermeasures.

I told the truth on all the relevant questions.

Oh, I can't attribute my passing to the use of countermeasures? Perhaps not in your skewed world.

Then answer this question:

Why did I 'fail' my first polygraph interrogation if the information I gave was THE EXACT SAME as subsequent interrogations which I 'passed?' Scientific results are replicable, right?

Why did the truth only 'pass' me when I started using countermeasures?

And why did the National Academy for Sciences find polygraph testing to be completely unreliable, Plastic Polly?

Why does ALL the science indicate this thing is a load of garbage if it works so well?

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jul 17, 2010, 11:04 PMBy giving out bad advice and freaking out the weak-minded, you help us do exactly what the polygraph also does: weed out cheaters, liars, and others who have no business in law enforcement in the first place. So thanks.

If you're really interested in weeding out the 'cheaters' and 'liars' in law enforcement Plastic Poly, then you should resign immediately.

And this isn't meant as a juvenile insult - on EVERY so-called "polygraph exam" you're administering, you're lying to your examinees. Every time you  generate a false positive and disqualify a truthful person for lying, you're cheating that honest person out of a career.

So go ahead and quit. Get rid of at least one lying cheater.

This is still the best topic on this forum. To future polygraph test subjects: Heed the advice.

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jun 25, 2011, 10:17 PMThis is still the best topic on this forum. To future polygraph test subjects: Heed the advice.

Despite Plastic Polly's refusal to answer any of my rebuttals, she's absolutely right. Heed the advice:
Read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, and employ the mental countermeasures if you have to take one of those pseudo-scientific 'tests' for employment purposes. Other than that, steer clear of them.

Please heed the advice if you're going to take a polygraph. Believe it or not, more and more polygraph examiners can in fact catch you trying countermeasures. It's not worth the risk.

Polypro Pauline

No indeedy.

What you're saying is "if I suspect you are using CMs, I'm going to fail you and my word is law". I don't believe you or anyone else can read minds.

Quote from: Polypro_Pauline on Jan 21, 2012, 05:25 PMPlease heed the advice if you're going to take a polygraph. Believe it or not, more and more polygraph examiners can in fact catch you trying countermeasures. It's not worth the risk.

Get real. No polygraph operator has ever demonstrated the ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), and Dr. Drew Richardson's countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) has now gone a decade without takers.

Anyone facing polygraph "testing" is well advised to do that which is possible to protect themselves against this inherently unreliable, fraudulent procedure.

Quote from: George_Maschke on Jan 22, 2012, 12:23 AM

Get real. No polygraph operator has ever demonstrated the ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), and Dr. Drew Richardson's countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) has now gone a decade without takers.

Anyone facing polygraph "testing" is well advised to do that which is possible to protect themselves against this inherently unreliable, fraudulent procedure.

I was accused of using countermeasures.  I just stayed calm and simply asked him to elaborate on what specifically he noticed me doing.  He just sort of grumbled that "I knew" and then resumed the test.  It never came up again!  If he actually suspected me, he would have failed me right there on the spot.  What a joke.  Nothing they say can be taken at face value.  Really the only thing you can 100% reliably do is to protect yourself from self-incrimination.  For teaching me that important fact, I am beyond grateful for TLBTLD.