No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. As the above example shows, the most avid students of such developements would be professional criminals rather than the innocent subjects and the truthful job applicants who now fall victim to the trust that we Americans invest in this technology.
David Thoreson Lykken
A Tremor in the Blood page 241
There is reason to believe that the late David Lykken's views on this matter changed over time. He is among those who graciously read and provided constructive criticism on the first edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), including the chapter on polygraph countermeasures. By no means did he try to discourage us from publishing such information.
Because our government continues to ignore the scientific evidence on polygraphs, and because thousands of law abiding citizens are annually falsely branded as liars based on the pronouncements of polygraph chart gazers, there is a compelling public interest in the publication of information that can help to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome.
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 27, 2008, 12:53 PMThere is reason to believe that the late David Lykken's views on this matter changed over time. He is among those who graciously read and provided constructive criticism on the first edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), including the chapter on polygraph countermeasures. By no means did he try to discourage us from publishing such information.
Because our government continues to ignore the scientific evidence on polygraphs, and because thousands of law abiding citizens are annually falsely branded as liars based on the pronouncements of polygraph chart gazers, there is a compelling public interest in the publication of information that can help to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome.
No, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Dr Lykken ever changed his belief in this regard. Perhaps Mr Maschke could show us all where Dr Lykken authored a document in which he changed his opinion. Dr Lykken's review of the first edition of TLBTLD is hardly evidence of any such change in opinion. That is merely Mr Macshke's opinion of what he thinks Dr Lykken may have thought. Dr Lykken was a well known professor who opposed the CQT, but I don't recall ever reading anything he wrote where he believed it would serve a good social purpose to assist criminals. I believe he had more sense than that, which is more than can be said for Mr Maschke who has for a long time provided support to criminals and enemies of the United States who are hell bent on killing Americans.
You'll have to excuse me now. I need to go and peer through my telescope to determine the alignment of the planets so I know how to make my chart gazing calls this week. ;D
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 27, 2008, 05:00 PMQuote from: pailryder on Apr 27, 2008, 12:53 PMThere is reason to believe that the late David Lykken's views on this matter changed over time. He is among those who graciously read and provided constructive criticism on the first edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), including the chapter on polygraph countermeasures. By no means did he try to discourage us from publishing such information.
Because our government continues to ignore the scientific evidence on polygraphs, and because thousands of law abiding citizens are annually falsely branded as liars based on the pronouncements of polygraph chart gazers, there is a compelling public interest in the publication of information that can help to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome.
No, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Dr Lykken ever changed his belief in this regard. Perhaps Mr Maschke could show us all where Dr Lykken authored a document in which he changed his opinion. Dr Lykken's review of the first edition of TLBTLD is hardly evidence of any such change in opinion. That is merely Mr Macshke's opinion of what he thinks Dr Lykken may have thought. Dr Lykken was a well known professor who opposed the CQT, but I don't recall ever reading anything he wrote where he believed it would serve a good social purpose to assist criminals. I believe he had more sense than that, which is more than can be said for Mr Maschke who has for a long time provided support to criminals and enemies of the United States who are hell bent on killing Americans.
You'll have to excuse me now. I need to go and peer through my telescope to determine the alignment of the planets so I know how to make my chart gazing calls this week. ;D
Mr Maschke providing facts regarding this "tea leaf" technology is no more helping criminals than presciption drugs help drug attics.
When will you learn that Americans are smarter than that?
If a technology does not work ( such as polygraphs) then, it needs to be eliminated, not keep in the silly belief that somehow if we keep the public ingrorant we can catch criminals and ememies of the US.
Please get off your high horse or..... better yet stay ther so that intelligent Americans can see the lie and the nonsense behind it. ;)
From Lykken's own autobiography found here: http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/lykken/Autobiography.pdf
QuoteI was approached to write a chapter on the lie detector in collaboration with David Raskin, the leading polygraph proponent who had scientific credentials. Raskin was then a professor of psychology at the University of Utah where he managed to hang Ph.D.s on about five additional polygraph enthusiasts who, collectively, constitute nearly the entire subset of "scientists" who claim that the lie detector is valid (I call them the Raskals). I had testified against Raskin in a number of cases and considered him to be wholly unscrupulous; there was no way in which he and I could collaborate on anything.
In the end, therefore, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (1997), contained a long two-part chapter on the lie detector, comprising the case for, by the Raskals, and the case against, by Iacono and Lykken. (Because Bill had taken over my testifying activities, and because he was now arguably the leading scientific critic of the polygraph, and also because he did most of the work on our chapter, it seemed to me appropriate that he be the first author.) Bill and I managed to anticipate and to refute most of the Raskal's arguments and I believe that our chapter will play an important role in finally weeding the lie detector out of American jurisprudence.
And also:
QuoteThere is no credible scientific evidence indicating that failing the lie detector indicates deception. There is good evidence, however, that guilty suspects can pass the lie test if they augment their physiological reactions to the "control" questions by covertly biting their tongue or clenching their toes after answering. Yet our federal
government—the FBI, CIA, NSA, the military services, the new anti-terrorism agencies—employ hundreds of polygraph examiners and now, alas, this pseudoscience has spread throughout Canada and most of Europe. It is especially discouraging when, not just the uneducated, but the actual leaders of government continue to believe in disproven mythologies.
And this gem:
QuoteIn the first edition, I had tried very hard to impart an air of scientific impartiality, letting the facts make the case. I was apparently quite successful in this because a number of professional polygraphers, including Norman Ansley, former head of the polygraph section at NSA and the editor of Polygraph, asked me to autograph their copies of the book. After all the battles of the 15-plus intervening years, however, I found I could no longer do this with a straight face so I let myself say what I thought from the Introduction on.
Looks like George is correct about Dr. Lykken...
Quote...which is more than can be said for Mr Maschke who has for a long time provided support to criminals and enemies of the United States who are hell bent on killing Americans.
These same enemies are probably laughing their asses off at the fact that the U.S. is STILL relying on such a bogus test, knowing it's faulty underpinnings and the fact that so many people like Alrich Ames, the Green River Killer...etc, have passed the test!
Precisely the type of creeps the process is suppose to catch. Rather than innocent, law abiding citizens.
TC
It's quite possible that George has done more than any other single person to disseminate information on the unreliability of the polygraph; however I think his role is often over-stated by polygraphers looking for a scapegoat or public enemy. If not for George it's quite possible that another person would have replicated at least part of his efforts, although possibly not as well, and the information would still be out there, although possibly more difficult to find.
In any event, if, as some polygrapher's who need a scape goat and public enemy claim, one person can cause such problems for a test with dubious accuracy under ideal conditions, perhaps the problem is with the test and not with said person?
As I pointed out in another post, it is always bad for polygraphers when subjects use countermeasures:
Quote from: 4E67766A67020 on Apr 24, 2008, 02:28 PMIn any event, people using countermeasures is always a bad thing for polygraphers. If a dishonest person uses them successfully polygraphers lose for passing someone who should fail; if an honest person uses them unsuccessfully polygraphers lose for failing someone who should pass; if a dishonest person uses them unsuccessfully polygraphers are slightly worse off than if they'd found the subject deceptive; and if an honest person uses them successfully it discredits the polygraph in his or her mind, reduces it's deterrent value, and makes it more likely that others will use countermeasures in the future. It's a lose-lose-lose-lose situation for polygraphers.
The PLCQ test predicts that people will use countermeasures if they think it will improve their chances of passing. Just as it presumes they will lie (to the control questions) if they think doing so will help them pass. It's the same exact thing.
Now, maybe using countermeasures won't help an examinee, that is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled out
a priori and need not concern us here. But even if true, if an examinee
thinks that using countermeasures will help him pass the test (regardless of whether or not he is truthful on the relevant questions), polygraph doctrine assumes that he will use them. Now, if it is false that countermeasures would help him, it would behoove the polygraph community to explain that in convincing fashion to the subject; once he thinks that not using them will help his chances more he won't use them. Simple.
Of course, that sounds great, but really isn't possible. If the PLCQ test could be conducted on informed subjects as easily as on ignorant subjects polygraphers would cut the B.S. which drives so many people into the waiting arms of the antis. But, despite what they are told to claim, the B.S. cannot be eliminated because informed subjects do not produce results that are as accurate as those produced by ignorant subjects. Thus, curious people who do their homework and realize the polygraph is built on crap are quite likely to use countermeasures. So, polygraphers lose, lose, lose, or lose. Why can't they figure this out?
P.S. Is anyone going to offer a defense for Skip Webb (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3928.msg29341#msg29341)?
Lethe wrote: "As I pointed out in another post, it is always bad for polygraphers when subjects use countermeasures"
Not hardly, BUT it IS mostly bad for those who use them, don't need to and lose their job opportunity because they listened to the likes of those on this board.
"...It's a lose-lose-lose-lose situation for polygraphers."
I do not think I have ever read such rationalization in my life. I can't even begin to think of a way to respond to such warped thinking.
"The PLCQ test predicts that people will use countermeasures if they think it will improve their chances of passing."
Where the hell do you get that from? You make many assumptions, wrongly I might add, and truly see you as a dangerous influence to "lurkers" on this board.
"Now, maybe using countermeasures won't help an examinee, that is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled out a priori and need not concern us here."
So let's get this straight, "Lethe" DOES NOT CARE about those who would improperly use or misapply CM's and fail in their applications. Got it!
No, you wouldn't think that important to address the fact that every day, good examinees are caught using what is promoted here and lose their opportunity for their dream job... but no, let's not address that here, huh?!
"Now, if it is false that countermeasures would help him, it would behoove the polygraph community to explain that in convincing fashion to the subject; once he thinks that not using them will help his chances more he won't use them. Simple."
More to the point that CM's will hurt the honest examinee, not that it is false they will help.
"Of course, that sounds great, but really isn't possible. If the PLCQ test could be conducted on informed subjects as easily as on ignorant subjects polygraphers would cut the B.S. which drives so many people into the waiting arms of the antis. But, despite what they are told to claim, the B.S. cannot be eliminated because informed subjects do not produce results that are as accurate as those produced by ignorant subjects. Thus, curious people who do their homework and realize the polygraph is built on crap are quite likely to use countermeasures. So, polygraphers lose, lose, lose, or lose. Why can't they figure this out?"
Maybe because your logic is repeatedly flawed, ill applied and assumes TLBTLD is the cure to the polygraph "science."
"P.S. Is anyone going to offer a defense for Skip Webb"
What needs to be defended? He said what he had to say!
I guess in your case, stupid is as lemmings do...
Sackett
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2008, 09:36 PMLethe wrote: "As I pointed out in another post, it is always bad for polygraphers when subjects use countermeasures"
Not hardly, BUT it IS mostly bad for those who use them, don't need to and lose their job opportunity because they listened to the likes of those on this board.
"...It's a lose-lose-lose-lose situation for polygraphers."
I do not think I have ever read such rationalization in my life. I can't even begin to think of a way to respond to such warped thinking.
LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT: Sackett has made an argument from personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
I will try to break this down into smaller steps so that it presents no difficulties to anyone's understanding. First, let me tighten up my statement. My claim is as follows: there is an inverse relationship between
the number of people within a population of polygraph examinees who attempt to use countermeasures and
the confidence which can be put in the data derived from polygraphing that population and this relationship is irrespective of the number of honest people within the population. (That is, as the percentage of people who use countermeasures goes up the amount of confidence that you can have in data generated from polygraphs goes down. We are dealing in aggregates, not individual cases.)
To begin, there are two possibilities in an polygraph exam: either the examinee is honest on all the relevant questions or the examinee is not honest on all the relevant questions (i.e. is deceptive). And there are two other, independent, possibilities: the subject uses countermeasures or the subject does not use countermeasures.
This gives us four total possibilities regarding the subject:
(1) honest examinee doesn't use CM
(2) honest examinee does use CM
(3) deceptive examinee doesn't use CM
(4) deceptive examinee does use CM
I trust everyone follows at least this far. Please note that I do not claim that one fourth of all subjects will fall into each group; in most cases, I imagine there are more honest than dishonest people and, while you would know better than I how many examinees attempt countermeasures, there is no reason why it must be 50%. These are merely the four possibilities and every examinee will fall into one and only one of these four categories, though the precise population of each, while very interesting, is irrelevant for the present discussion.
Now, it is (2) and (4) which concern my claim--which you deny--that "it is always bad for polygraphers when a subject uses countermeasures." Both of these possibilities produce three possible outcomes: subject ruled honest, subject ruled deceptive, or no conclusion. These can be listed as follows:
(2a) honest subject uses CM and ruled truthful
(2b) honest subject uses CM and ruled deceptive
(2c) honest subject uses CM and no conclusion given
(3a) dishonest subject uses CM and ruled truthful
(3b) dishonest subject uses CM and ruled deceptive
(3c) dishonest subject uses CM and no conclusion given
Again, there is no reason to suppose that each category will be equal in population to all the others; while a very interesting question, it likewise does not concern us presently.
Obviously, a person either is or is not honest (rule of the excluded middle) so there is an answer to the question of whether he or she is being honest; if the exam does not produce a conclusion--as in (2c) and (3c) it is, by definition, a failure as a polygraph exam, though it might turn up other leads which could help the investigation. I know this last item is of the utmost importance to you and is a major reason why you are displeased with the advice of this website for subjects to never make any negative admissions whatsoever. Note that I do not claim that it would be bad for such admissions to be made.
(2b)
honest subject uses CM and ruled deceptive and (3a)
dishonest subject uses CM and ruled truthful, are more serious failures of the polygraph, for reasons that I don't think require explanation.
(3b)
dishonest subject uses CM and ruled deceptive is the least bad outcome; I am indeed prepared to call it a neutral outcome. However, since countermeasures can increase the chances of a deceptive person passing, it is still to the advantage of polygraphers to get subjects to not use countermeasures; the more deceptive people who use countermeasures the more deceptive people who will pass, even though a majority of them may still fail, fewer will fail than otherwise would be the case, as you have admitted.
(2a)
honest subject uses CM and ruled truthful, is perhaps the most interesting possible outcome--to me, at least. As you know, where it is used to periodically screen employees (but not really when used in a criminal investigation) part of the polygraph's value comes from it's deterrent effect: people are scared into doing the right thing for fear of being found out later and punished (incidentally, these is generally regarded as the least advanced stage of moral development). This deterrent effect is lessened when the subject believes that he or she could defeat the polygraph if necessary. An honest person who uses CM and passes also may pass on his or her testimonial which could encourage others, including deceptive people, to use CM in the future, or it may just degrade the public's perception of the polygraph's utility. Both of which are bad for the polygraph.
So, Sackett, now do you understand my claim that it is always bad for polygraphers when a subject uses CM? If not, please let me know where your confusion lies. If you understand my argument but disagree with it, that is another matter; I invite you to post your rebuttal.
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2008, 09:36 PM[Me:]"The PLCQ test predicts that people will use countermeasures if they think it will improve their chances of passing."
Where the hell do you get that from? You make many assumptions, wrongly I might add, and truly see you as a dangerous influence to "lurkers" on this board.
I can't blame you for not picking up on this one; it is a subtle point which requires abstract thinking and which your training has encouraged you to ignore. Let me try to explain.
I will start by increasing the precision of my language. My claim is as follows: the reasoning on which the PLCQ exam is based indicates that examinees will probably attempt to use CM if they think doing so will significantly increase their chances of passing. It is very unlikely that this would ever present itself to the mind of a trained polygrapher, but I believe my reasoning is sound, though you will be disinclined to accept it; please, follow me carefully and read through this post twice--with an open mind each time--before responding.
To start with, the probable lie exam presumes that most people will probably lie on the control questions. To be sure, some people may tell the truth on at least some of the control questions, but polygraphers themselves presume that most people will lie to a control question if he or she thinks that doing so is necessary to pass the exam. It is not necessary to demonstrate that it is possible to pass the exam without lying, I am merely pointing out that
polygraphers assume that most people will lie. Establishing that is Step One of this argument.
Step Two (and there only are two) is to demonstrate that an informed subject using CM involves very similar moral and ethical considerations to the ignorant subject lying on the control questions such that it is natural to assume that most people will use CM if they think doing so is necessary to pass. (Indeed, one could argue--see below--that the ignorant subject who lies on a control question is more culpable than the honest informed subject who attempts CM).
This is the step you will find distasteful. You are socialized to consider people who use CM to be detestable; this is necessary; if you didn't view them that way you may not be as strongly opposed to countermeasures as you need to be (and you need to be opposed to them since it is always bad for you and your fellow polygraphers when they are used--see above post). But, you don't give a second negative thought to a person who lies on a control question ("Have you ever lied to get out of trouble?") For you, to think that a user of countermeasures who is truthful on the relevant questions and a person who lies to a control question but is honest on the relevant ones have gone through precisely the same reasoning will seem... wrong.
But I think it is true. Both are attempting to influence the outcome of the test in ways that they think the polygrapher would disapprove of (the user of countermeasures knows that the polygrapher would disapprove). Of course, you don't disapprove of people lying to the control questions; in fact you want them to do so, but you need to act like it's wrong and you definitely need them to think that it is wrong to lie to those questions.
As I said, I think the case can be made that the honest ignorant examinee who lies on a control question is actually more morally culpable than the honest informed examinee who attempts CM (but not, of course, the dishonest examinee who attempts CM). To understand my point you must view things from the point of view of the examinee; please attempt to do so.
The honest ignorant examinee will believe that he should fail the test if he has "ever lied to get out of trouble" (to use one common control question). So far as he is concerned, the result of the test corresponds with reality it should be that he fails. He is trying to manipulate the test to produce a result (he passes) that he believes should not be produced.
The honest informed examinee, on the otherhand, knows that she should pass, since she is honest on all the relevant questions. By using CM she can likewise be said to be manipulating the test, but she is attempting to produce a test result (she passes) that she does believe should be produced (and she believes it should be produced, not because she wants it to be produced, but because she knows that people who are honest on the relevant questions should pass and that she was honest on the relevant questions and therefore she should pass).
Like I said, it is a complicated argument and requires subtle and abstract thinking--of precisely the sort that the polygraph discourages even in it's own practitioners (it is not a benign god that you worship, you polygraphers). You are trained to concern yourself with the process of the exams; if the exam was conducted correctly and the results are defensible, that is all that can be asked of you. However, society must be more concerned with the results than the process.
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2008, 09:36 PM
[Me:] "Now, maybe using countermeasures won't help an examinee, that is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled out a priori and need not concern us here."
So let's get this straight, "Lethe" DOES NOT CARE about those who would improperly use or misapply CM's and fail in their applications. Got it!
No, you wouldn't think that important to address the fact that every day, good examinees are caught using what is promoted here and lose their opportunity for their dream job... but no, let's not address that here, huh?!
Your claim is wrong and if you don't know that I would pity you except for the fact that you are a polygrapher.
Nothing I said could be interpreted as indicating I don't care if honest people are harmed by using CM. I pointed out that it was possible that they could be, but that for the discussion I was then engaged in it was not necessary for me to demonstrate that point in order to prove my argument; I wanted to stay on the one argument and not get side tracked. That may have thrown you off since polygraphers are trained to, among other things, throw out red herrings (a type of logical fallacy) and otherwise get the discussion off track to distract an interlocutor away from a negative conclusion about the polygraph. (If you deny this claim I'll not argue it at this point in time since it is not necessary for me to do so in order to demonstrate the arguments I am making)
On the other hand, you yourself, Sacket, said the following:
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 22, 2008, 11:29 PMThe more you think you know, the "better" the information provided to the masses, the easier it is to catch those who would otherwise pass ... [they] will fail or go N/O and not get the job anyway... I don't care, I have a job!
You "don't care" if people "who would otherwise pass" fail. That's what you said. That's a rather beastly thing to say--irresponsible, too; your employer should be concerned if you don't care about failing people who are honest on the relevant questions. I invite you to retract the statement. Please do so.
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2008, 09:36 PM
[Me:]"Now, if it is false that countermeasures would help him, it would behoove the polygraph community to explain that in convincing fashion to the subject; once he thinks that not using them will help his chances more he won't use them. Simple."
More to the point that CM's will hurt the honest examinee, not that it is false they will help.
Okay; I'll accept your rewording. But the point remains, if the examinee will be harmed by using CM, polygraphers should be prepared to explain that in convincing fashion to the examinee; if they did so, everyone--everyone--would benefit. Polygraphers have not done so, and this tells us something. Namely:
Quote from: pailryder on Apr 29, 2008, 09:36 PM[Me:]"If the PLCQ test could be conducted on informed subjects as easily as on ignorant subjects polygraphers would cut the B.S. which drives so many people into the waiting arms of the antis. But, despite what they are told to claim, the B.S. cannot be eliminated because informed subjects do not produce results that are as accurate as those produced by ignorant subjects. Thus, curious people who do their homework and realize the polygraph is built on crap are quite likely to use countermeasures. So, polygraphers lose, lose, lose, or lose. Why can't they figure this out?"
Maybe because your logic is repeatedly flawed, ill applied and assumes TLBTLD is the cure to the polygraph "science."
I have demonstrated my arguments in detailed, step-by-step fashion. If they are flawed as you claim, you should have no trouble refuting them. (You need not refute every point, just show that one premise is materially incorrect or that the logic of the argument is faulty). I don't think you'll be able to do this. I think your most likely responses are the following:
- It's not your job to refute me;
- You don't have time to refute me; and/or
- Even if you did refute me I wouldn't accept that fact.
I invite you to consider my arguments. Even if they are wrong, if I have no reason to think they are wrong you cannot hold me culpable for holding them to be valid.
Also, it is eminently possible for you to admit my two points (that it is always bad for polygraphers when subjects use CM and that using CM is equivalent to lying on control questions) and for you to
still believe that the polygraph should be widely used. I have not herein presented my argument for modifying the way the polygraph is employed in our society; but the arguments adduced above become premises in that larger argument.
I look forward to seeing your considered response(s).
Best wishes.
Lethe
To help me better understand your agrument, could you please state the reasoning on which the PLCQ exam is based?
Lethe
Your stated assumption that we are socialized to consider people who use CM to be detestable is false. As much as you detest us, we are trained to recognize CM, but never anywhere in any of our polygraph instruction are we advised or socialized to detest anyone, in point of fact, I recognize and respect every subjects right to employ the CM of their choice. After all, a well told lie is still the best CM yet devised.
Lethe,
After reading your lengthy post, I will address those issues which I feel should be addressed. If in my response I omit an issue, it is intentional and there is no need to point it out on a later response.
I agree that polygraph training is not very abstract. It is a developed application requiring proper and specific actions in order to assure validity and accuracy in results. However, much of the peripheral sciences related to polygraph is (abstract). Human nature, speech and behavioral sciences, interviewing, etc are some of those that require not only quick and fluid thought but abstract application as well.
Regardless of reasoning or rationale, you indicate that examinees will "probably attempt to use CM if they think doing so will significantly increase their chances of passing." Perhaps, but at the root of the aplication of CM's is that it is cheating the process, specifically designed to identify truth or non-truth (and associated consience activities like minimalization, etc).
The PLCQ test provides the honest and truthful examinee a place to focus their psychological interest. Honest/innocent, etc examinees will not focus on relevant questions is they do not pertain to them in any way.
I do not consider the honest examinee equally repugnant or immoral to those using CM's because the honest examinee is simply focusing on the comparison questions rather than the relevant ones. Conversely, those trying to enhance their reactions for the purpose of passing an exam because "they should" are CHEATING! It is no different than those who would bring a cheat sheet into a written test or excuse themselve to the restroom to review hidden material in their clothes each time they run into a difficult subject.
You also suggest state, "that the ignorant subject who lies on a control question is more culpable than the honest informed subject who attempts CM." This argument is flawed for the reasons stated above. The focus on the probable lie is not damning except to the examinee during the exam. Trying to beat the examination process defeats the purpose of the test (which of course is what this site is trying to do).
IOW, if an honest suspect of say, child molestation focuses on the comparison questions, then that is what I want. Opposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process. Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest? So, they will be deemed guilty or deceptive (you choose) and subsequently pursued more vigorously. This is the inherent flaw with TLBTLD. It convinces honest people to act in a way that is contrary to their best interest and once caught, misidentified as cheating, equal to guilty.
On a side note, your position that people use CM's because they're honest and that they "should" pass oftentimes gets rationalized into the use of CM's because they followed the propaganda here, provided no information about their past behaviours during the interview and they have worked hard for it, so they deserve the job.
Further, your rationale seems to be in following TLBTLD that one MUST help themselves through the exam in order to avoid being falsely identified as guilty or lying. The problem with this theory is that false positives are minimal and catching CM's is on the rise, despite and many thanks to the propaganda here. Rationalizing immoral behavior, i.e. manipulating the charts is wrong and will be seen as wrong (outside the room); whereas focus on comparison questions and reactions thereto will not.
I know you would like to cause serious cerebral conflict with this issue, but it is still quite simple. The research supports the PLCQ test and refutes the success of CM's which are counter productive for the honest exmainee.
You previously wrote, ""Now, maybe using countermeasures won't help an examinee, that is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled out
a priori and need not concern us here."
I responded with, "So let's get this straight, "Lethe" DOES NOT CARE about those who would improperly use or misapply CM's and fail in their applications."
Now it is you turn to pay attention. My point is simple. The convincing promotion of CM's (i.e. cheating on a test) by this board to ignorant readers who then use them, find themselvs either faulty or caught and dismissed, should not be a concern for you? I would think it would be a great concern because the misinformed readers will want to know why they have been told one thing, used their knowledge, finding it "less than" and leaving them to their own wits to figure out what happened, why they failed or were not hired? Not very supportive of you.
I previously wrote, "The more you think you know, the "better" the information provided to the masses, the easier it is to catch those who would otherwise pass ... [they] will fail or go N/O and not get the job anyway... I don't care, I have a job!"
My meaning was clear. In the context of applicant testing that if they listen to the propaganda spewed here attempt to use what they read here and fail or go N/O, I do not care if they were otherwise honest and truthful. THEY WERE TRYING TO BEAT THE TEST AND ME! They didn't follow instructions and they were being deceiptful by their actions. I do not want someone like that to be in LE or working with me.
Then you said, "Now, if it is false that countermeasures would help him, it would behoove the polygraph community to explain that in convincing fashion to the subject; once he thinks that not using them will help his chances more he won't use them. Simple." then, "
More to the point that CM's will hurt the honest examinee, not that it is false they will help.[/quote]"
That is exactly why I am here (well, one of the reasons)... I also explain that to each and every examinee in my suite.
Finally, you wrote "I have demonstrated my arguments in detailed, step-by-step fashion. If they are flawed as you claim, you should have no trouble refuting them. (You need not refute every point, just show that one premise is materially incorrect or that the logic of the argument is faulty). I don't think you'll be able to do this. I think your most likely responses are the following:
- It's not your job to refute me;
- You don't have time to refute me; and/or
- Even if you did refute me I wouldn't accept that fact.
I have now responded and explained. I do like your last reason why I shouldn't though. Undoubtedly it applies appropriately. Despite our disagreement in meaning and theory, I appreciate your thoughful discussion. It leaves it up to the reader to make up their respective minds.
Sackett
Sackett,
I am truly impressed that you have responded at such length as you have. As will be no surprise to you, I believe your reasoning is faulty and will attempt to demonstrate where and how. To sum up quickly, you fail to do two things:
- Explain why it is okay to lie on the control questions; and
- Explain why an informed examinee would be significantly more concerned with the comparison questions than with the relevant questions.
Without addressing those two points--especially the first one--you don't have an argument. It seems to me that you're just
assuming it is okay to lie on the control questions, when, in fact, that is tautological and question begging since the whole debate we're having is on whether in fact is is okay to lie on the control questions.
You are simply arguing that it is bad to use CM. I am not arguing that it is not bad or that it is good to use them, I am arguing that it is at least as bad to lie on the control questions as to use CM.
Okay, to a few specifics:
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMThe PLCQ test provides the honest and truthful examinee a place to focus their psychological interest. Honest/innocent, etc examinees will not focus on relevant questions is they do not pertain to them in any way.
Note that this explanation only works when dealing with ignorant subjects, but I think it usually will work with them. However, it does not apply to informed subjects. An informed subject will be about as concerned with the control questions as with the relevant questions making the difference between her responses to control questions and relevant questions very small, if present at all.
If the question just needs to pertain to the subject and it doesn't matter if she has done the activities mentioned in the control questions ("have you ever lied to get out of trouble?") why not tell the truth and use "Do you ever breathe oxygen?" and "Do you live on a planet orbiting the Sun?" as control questions? Those clearly pertain to the subject! The answer is obvious: it is important that the subject make an actual, bona fide attempt to deceive the examiner, and this is simply not possible with an informed subject.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMI do not consider the honest examinee equally repugnant or immoral to those using CM's because the honest examinee is simply focusing on the comparison questions rather than the relevant ones. Conversely, those trying to enhance their reactions for the purpose of passing an exam because "they should" are CHEATING!
Um... how is lying not cheating? And how is lying to get a job morally better than trying to cheat on a test that you know is flawed? Unless you can answer that, I think your whole defense falls apart.
Also, you seem to be suggesting a counter measure yourself: just focus more on the control questions and you'll pass. Does it matter if one doesn't have any particular reason to pay more mind to those questions? What if you were up front with examinees and told them straight out which questions were for comparison and which were relevant and you tell them to focus more on the comparison questions? Presumably that would indeed be easier for an innocent than guilty person. Why don't you do that? If you did, use of CM would drop considerably because people have more faith in someone who tells them the truth than in someone who tells ridiculous lies.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMIt is no different than those who would bring a cheat sheet into a written test or excuse themselve to the restroom to review hidden material in their clothes each time they run into a difficult subject.
There are material differences. The polygraph is, under ideal circumstances, probably no better than 90% accurate and with an informed subject--a very not ideal circumstance--the accuracy is far below that, probably only a little above chance. On the other hand, most math tests are pretty damn accurate at demonstrating who knows the stuff. The polygraph is not a valid test under the circumstances described.
However, my argument is not that it is okay to use CM because the polygraph isn't a valid test if you know enough about it to know how CMs work. If I did that, I'd also have to argue that the BS polygraphers use is valid because the polygraph isn't valid without them. This argument doesn't help you because I'm not arguing that it is okay to use CM, I'm arguing that it is as bad to lie on the control questions. This doesn't address that point.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMYou also suggest state, "that the ignorant subject who lies on a control question is more culpable than the honest informed subject who attempts CM." This argument is flawed for the reasons stated above. The focus on the probable lie is not damning except to the examinee during the exam. Trying to beat the examination process defeats the purpose of the test (which of course is what this site is trying to do).
It is valid, for the reasons that I state above. The knowledgeable examinee has no reason to focus more on the control questions than the relevant ones. If the test were as accurate on informed and ignorant subjects you'd have no reason to try to keep people ignorant when your attempts to do so are what cause so many people to use CM in the first place (an outcome you claim to want to discourage).
Furthermore, the ignorant examinee who lies (on any question) is trying to produce a result not consistent with reality whereas the truthful informed examinee who uses CM is trying to produce a result that is consistent with reality, albeit by dubious means. I think the former is more culpable than the later. Apparently, you think lying to get out of trouble is perfectly okay. The fact that the examinee in fact faces no consequences for lying on the control questions is meaningless; the ignorant examinee thinks there will be consequences and lies anyway.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMIOW, if an honest suspect of say, child molestation focuses on the comparison questions, then that is what I want.
And why should an honest informed subject be more concerned with the control questions than the relevant questions? Is it the mere fact that she is lying, irregardless of the perceived consequences of the lie or the perceived wrongness of the activity lied about? The ignorant subject fears failing the test if he doesn't lie, what does the informed subject fear? Pretty much the same thing that she fears on the relevant questions, right? It's not the fact that the subject is making certain sounds in response to certain sounds produced by the polygrapher; it is that the subject is attempting deception and fears the consequences of being found out--things that don't apply to informed subjects.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMOpposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process. Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest?
Because they think the test is wildly inaccurate and doing so will increase their odds of producing a result that is consistent with reality. Why would anyone want to lie on the control questions?
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMOn a side note, your position that people use CM's because they're honest and that they "should" pass oftentimes gets rationalized into the use of CM's because they followed the propaganda here, provided no information about their past behaviours during the interview and they have worked hard for it, so they deserve the job.
Further, your rationale seems to be in following TLBTLD that one MUST help themselves through the exam in order to avoid being falsely identified as guilty or lying. The problem with this theory is that false positives are minimal and catching CM's is on the rise, despite and many thanks to the propaganda here.
I haven't said people must use CM to pass, not even that informed subjects must do so. You're getting off argument. We're discussing why it's okay to lie on control questions but not okay to use CM.
Anyway, given the information that polygraphers withhold and the obvious lies they tell, a reasonable person could conclude that he or she has a better chance of passing if he or she uses CM. You think it is okay for people to lie if they think it will increase their chances of passing, what is the difference between lying and "cheating"? Isn't lying a form of cheating under these circumstances?
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMRationalizing immoral behavior, i.e. manipulating the charts is wrong and will be seen as wrong (outside the room); whereas focus on comparison questions and reactions thereto will not.
I'm not rationalizing the use of CM; I am explaining it. You are the one who is assuming that it is okay to lie to get a job, an activity that most would consider immoral, but you don't attempt to provide any explanation for that view. You're begging the question: why is it not viewed as wrong to lie on control questions? You can't demonstrate that it's okay by saying it is regarded as okay.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMNow it is you turn to pay attention. My point is simple. The convincing promotion of CM's (i.e. cheating on a test) by this board to ignorant readers who then use them, find themselvs either faulty or caught and dismissed, should not be a concern for you? I would think it would be a great concern because the misinformed readers will want to know why they have been told one thing, used their knowledge, finding it "less than" and leaving them to their own wits to figure out what happened, why they failed or were not hired? Not very supportive of you.
Where have I ever said it is not a concern of mine? I said it was a logical possibility, and indeed it is a real possibility, but that wasn't an issue in the discussion then going on, so I didn't address it in order to focus on the real argument then going on.
If people are misinformed that is largely the fault of the polygraph community for not making accurate information available to them. You try to quash the information provided on sites like this (much of which is presumably accurate because it comes from polygraphers themselves). What you don't get is that the answer to inaccurate conclusions drawn from good data (the polygrapher documents) is to provide accurate conclusions and explanation (NOTE: not arguments from authority or question-begging tautologies).
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMMy meaning was clear. In the context of applicant testing that if they listen to the propaganda spewed here attempt to use what they read here and fail or go N/O, I do not care if they were otherwise honest and truthful. THEY WERE TRYING TO BEAT THE TEST AND ME! They didn't follow instructions and they were being deceiptful by their actions. I do not want someone like that to be in LE or working with me.
How is a person who lies not trying to beat the test? Is a person who lies on the control questions following instructions? Obviously, they are not. Is a person who lies on the control questions being deceitful by his or her actions? Obviously, they are. Therefore, you shouldn't want people who lie on the control questions to work in law enforcement or with you. Lying on the control questions is as bad as attempting CM. QED. How have I not produced the superior arguments here?
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMThat [telling people that using CM will hurt them] is exactly why I am here (well, one of the reasons)... I also explain that to each and every examinee in my suite.
You explain no such thing. You merely present arguments from authority and tautologies. You just make a stupid claim and expect people to believe it, just because you said it. Well, it doesn't work like that in the real world (i.e. the world outside of polygraph school classrooms). You have to have better arguments than the next guy and, frankly, you don't. You can't explain how the polygraph works on knowledgeable subjects except by raising the question of why the workings of it are kept secret if knowledge of them doesn't hurt accuracy and your ham handed attempt to conceal said knowledge are the best ways to push people into using CM.
It's obvious that you're setting yourself up to play the polygrapher's trump card: "Gee, look at how much I've already written arguing with you, Lethe. It may all be bad arguments, red herrings, and dodges, but hey, the fact that I've written so much while saying so little of substance proves I've done my part and that you, by not accepting said bad arguments, are unreasonable. I need not talk with you further."
You
know that's what you're going to try pulling. Be a man (if indeed you are a man, and it seems about 90% of polygraphers are) and give us a real explanation of why it is okay to lie in order to get a job. C'mon, why is that okay? Because there are no consequences for doing so? Uh, yeah. But why are there no consequences? Because you say so? Okay. Why do you say so? Because the polygraph wouldn't work if people who lied on control questions were failed just like people who don't lie on them probably will? Aha!
Now we're getting somewhere!
Quote from: 6E47564A47220 on May 05, 2008, 01:18 AMSackett,
I am truly impressed that you have responded at such length as you have. As will be no surprise to you, I believe your reasoning is faulty and will attempt to demonstrate where and how. To sum up quickly, you fail to do two things:
- Explain why it is okay to lie on the control questions; and
- Explain why an informed examinee would be significantly more concerned with the comparison questions than with the relevant questions.
Without addressing those two points--especially the first one--you don't have an argument. It seems to me that you're just assuming it is okay to lie on the control questions, when, in fact, that is tautological and question begging since the whole debate we're having is on whether in fact is is okay to lie on the control questions.
You are simply arguing that it is bad to use CM. I am not arguing that it is not bad or that it is good to use them, I am arguing that it is at least as bad to lie on the control questions as to use CM.
Okay, to a few specifics:
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMThe PLCQ test provides the honest and truthful examinee a place to focus their psychological interest. Honest/innocent, etc examinees will not focus on relevant questions is they do not pertain to them in any way.
Note that this explanation only works when dealing with ignorant subjects, but I think it usually will work with them. However, it does not apply to informed subjects. An informed subject will be about as concerned with the control questions as with the relevant questions making the difference between her responses to control questions and relevant questions very small, if present at all.
If the question just needs to pertain to the subject and it doesn't matter if she has done the activities mentioned in the control questions ("have you ever lied to get out of trouble?") why not tell the truth and use "Do you ever breathe oxygen?" and "Do you live on a planet orbiting the Sun?" as control questions? Those clearly pertain to the subject! The answer is obvious: it is important that the subject make an actual, bona fide attempt to deceive the examiner, and this is simply not possible with an informed subject.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMI do not consider the honest examinee equally repugnant or immoral to those using CM's because the honest examinee is simply focusing on the comparison questions rather than the relevant ones. Conversely, those trying to enhance their reactions for the purpose of passing an exam because "they should" are CHEATING!
Um... how is lying not cheating? And how is lying to get a job morally better than trying to cheat on a test that you know is flawed? Unless you can answer that, I think your whole defense falls apart.
Also, you seem to be suggesting a counter measure yourself: just focus more on the control questions and you'll pass. Does it matter if one doesn't have any particular reason to pay more mind to those questions? What if you were up front with examinees and told them straight out which questions were for comparison and which were relevant and you tell them to focus more on the comparison questions? Presumably that would indeed be easier for an innocent than guilty person. Why don't you do that? If you did, use of CM would drop considerably because people have more faith in someone who tells them the truth than in someone who tells ridiculous lies.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMIt is no different than those who would bring a cheat sheet into a written test or excuse themselve to the restroom to review hidden material in their clothes each time they run into a difficult subject.
There are material differences. The polygraph is, under ideal circumstances, probably no better than 90% accurate and with an informed subject--a very not ideal circumstance--the accuracy is far below that, probably only a little above chance. On the other hand, most math tests are pretty damn accurate at demonstrating who knows the stuff. The polygraph is not a valid test under the circumstances described.
However, my argument is not that it is okay to use CM because the polygraph isn't a valid test if you know enough about it to know how CMs work. If I did that, I'd also have to argue that the BS polygraphers use is valid because the polygraph isn't valid without them. This argument doesn't help you because I'm not arguing that it is okay to use CM, I'm arguing that it is as bad to lie on the control questions. This doesn't address that point.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMYou also suggest state, "that the ignorant subject who lies on a control question is more culpable than the honest informed subject who attempts CM." This argument is flawed for the reasons stated above. The focus on the probable lie is not damning except to the examinee during the exam. Trying to beat the examination process defeats the purpose of the test (which of course is what this site is trying to do).
It is valid, for the reasons that I state above. The knowledgeable examinee has no reason to focus more on the control questions than the relevant ones. If the test were as accurate on informed and ignorant subjects you'd have no reason to try to keep people ignorant when your attempts to do so are what cause so many people to use CM in the first place (an outcome you claim to want to discourage).
Furthermore, the ignorant examinee who lies (on any question) is trying to produce a result not consistent with reality whereas the truthful informed examinee who uses CM is trying to produce a result that is consistent with reality, albeit by dubious means. I think the former is more culpable than the later. Apparently, you think lying to get out of trouble is perfectly okay. The fact that the examinee in fact faces no consequences for lying on the control questions is meaningless; the ignorant examinee thinks there will be consequences and lies anyway.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMIOW, if an honest suspect of say, child molestation focuses on the comparison questions, then that is what I want.
And why should an honest informed subject be more concerned with the control questions than the relevant questions? Is it the mere fact that she is lying, irregardless of the perceived consequences of the lie or the perceived wrongness of the activity lied about? The ignorant subject fears failing the test if he doesn't lie, what does the informed subject fear? Pretty much the same thing that she fears on the relevant questions, right? It's not the fact that the subject is making certain sounds in response to certain sounds produced by the polygrapher; it is that the subject is attempting deception and fears the consequences of being found out--things that don't apply to informed subjects.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMOpposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process. Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest?
Because they think the test is wildly inaccurate and doing so will increase their odds of producing a result that is consistent with reality. Why would anyone want to lie on the control questions?
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMOn a side note, your position that people use CM's because they're honest and that they "should" pass oftentimes gets rationalized into the use of CM's because they followed the propaganda here, provided no information about their past behaviours during the interview and they have worked hard for it, so they deserve the job.
Further, your rationale seems to be in following TLBTLD that one MUST help themselves through the exam in order to avoid being falsely identified as guilty or lying. The problem with this theory is that false positives are minimal and catching CM's is on the rise, despite and many thanks to the propaganda here.
I haven't said people must use CM to pass, not even that informed subjects must do so. You're getting off argument. We're discussing why it's okay to lie on control questions but not okay to use CM.
Anyway, given the information that polygraphers withhold and the obvious lies they tell, a reasonable person could conclude that he or she has a better chance of passing if he or she uses CM. You think it is okay for people to lie if they think it will increase their chances of passing, what is the difference between lying and "cheating"? Isn't lying a form of cheating under these circumstances?
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMRationalizing immoral behavior, i.e. manipulating the charts is wrong and will be seen as wrong (outside the room); whereas focus on comparison questions and reactions thereto will not.
I'm not rationalizing the use of CM; I am explaining it. You are the one who is assuming that it is okay to lie to get a job, an activity that most would consider immoral, but you don't attempt to provide any explanation for that view. You're begging the question: why is it not viewed as wrong to lie on control questions? You can't demonstrate that it's okay by saying it is regarded as okay.
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMNow it is you turn to pay attention. My point is simple. The convincing promotion of CM's (i.e. cheating on a test) by this board to ignorant readers who then use them, find themselvs either faulty or caught and dismissed, should not be a concern for you? I would think it would be a great concern because the misinformed readers will want to know why they have been told one thing, used their knowledge, finding it "less than" and leaving them to their own wits to figure out what happened, why they failed or were not hired? Not very supportive of you.
Where have I ever said it is not a concern of mine? I said it was a logical possibility, and indeed it is a real possibility, but that wasn't an issue in the discussion then going on, so I didn't address it in order to focus on the real argument then going on.
If people are misinformed that is largely the fault of the polygraph community for not making accurate information available to them. You try to quash the information provided on sites like this (much of which is presumably accurate because it comes from polygraphers themselves). What you don't get is that the answer to inaccurate conclusions drawn from good data (the polygrapher documents) is to provide accurate conclusions and explanation (NOTE: not arguments from authority or question-begging tautologies).
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMMy meaning was clear. In the context of applicant testing that if they listen to the propaganda spewed here attempt to use what they read here and fail or go N/O, I do not care if they were otherwise honest and truthful. THEY WERE TRYING TO BEAT THE TEST AND ME! They didn't follow instructions and they were being deceiptful by their actions. I do not want someone like that to be in LE or working with me.
How is a person who lies not trying to beat the test? Is a person who lies on the control questions following instructions? Obviously, they are not. Is a person who lies on the control questions being deceitful by his or her actions? Obviously, they are. Therefore, you shouldn't want people who lie on the control questions to work in law enforcement or with you. Lying on the control questions is as bad as attempting CM. QED. How have I not produced the superior arguments here?
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMThat [telling people that using CM will hurt them] is exactly why I am here (well, one of the reasons)... I also explain that to each and every examinee in my suite.
You explain no such thing. You merely present arguments from authority and tautologies. You just make a stupid claim and expect people to believe it, just because you said it. Well, it doesn't work like that in the real world (i.e. the world outside of polygraph school classrooms). You have to have better arguments than the next guy and, frankly, you don't. You can't explain how the polygraph works on knowledgeable subjects except by raising the question of why the workings of it are kept secret if knowledge of them doesn't hurt accuracy and your ham handed attempt to conceal said knowledge are the best ways to push people into using CM.
It's obvious that you're setting yourself up to play the polygrapher's trump card: "Gee, look at how much I've already written arguing with you, Lethe. It may all be bad arguments, red herrings, and dodges, but hey, the fact that I've written so much while saying so little of substance proves I've done my part and that you, by not accepting said bad arguments, are unreasonable. I need not talk with you further."
You know that's what you're going to try pulling. Be a man (if indeed you are a man, and it seems about 90% of polygraphers are) and give us a real explanation of why it is okay to lie in order to get a job. C'mon, why is that okay? Because there are no consequences for doing so? Uh, yeah. But why are there no consequences? Because you say so? Okay. Why do you say so? Because the polygraph wouldn't work if people who lied on control questions were failed just like people who don't lie on them probably will? Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!
Lethe,
You made the original comparison, not I. I simply established my position, to which you disagree. I simply stated that it was an inappropriate and unfair analogy. You in fact made the moral argument that people who use CM's are equally dishonest and reprehensible as those you consider to be lying in the CQ's. But you fail to address the fact that not everyone lies to the CQ's, but they still pass. Gee, how could that be?
As for focus and sensitivity during the examination. RQ's present a long term concern to the guilty; however, CQ's present a short term concern to the truthful. As for an honest person being more interested in CQ's than RQ's the answer is simple. The RQ's mean nothing to the honest person.
I'm not going to address your rantings elsewhere in your post.
Anything else?
Sackett
Thank you for your quick reply.
Yes, I did make the original comparison, but you don't seem to understand it. My point is not that using CM is good. Nor is it that one must lie on the comparison questions to pass. My argument is that people who lie on the control questions are equally culpable as those who use CM. Your only response to this has been "it is bad to use CM," which does nothing to refute my claim.
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 02:05 PMLethe,
You made the original comparison, not I. I simply established my position, to which you disagree. I simply stated that it was an inappropriate and unfair analogy. You in fact made the moral argument that people who use CM's are equally dishonest and reprehensible as those you consider to be lying in the CQ's.
To be clear, the claim I am making is as follows: People who lie on the control questions are equally culpable as those who use CM.
Nothing you have said has even tried to refute this in any logical way. You simply claim that using CM is bad. But I'm not arguing that it is good, I am arguing that lying is equally bad.
You seemed to agree with my claim that lying on the control questions was bad just a moment ago when you said you didn't want someone who didn't follow the exam directions of a polygrapher or who was deceitful on a polygraph to get a job in law enforcement. That appears to be a lie, since you are, in fact, okay with people not following instructions by lying on their exams. I don't see how you could possibly deny that.
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 02:05 PMBut you fail to address the fact that not everyone lies to the CQ's, but they still pass. Gee, how could that be?
This has nothing to do with my argument, which is that lying on a polygraph exam is wrong. I have not argued that one must lie in order to pass. Let's look at my arguments in a strictly logical way, listing the various premises and conclusions. This might help you. I will present two arguments, starting with the easiest.
ARGUMENT 1:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)
C1: Therefore, people who use CM should not pass. (Reason: substitution of "people who use CM" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception" in P1)
Would you agree with the above logic, Sackett? If not, you must demonstrate
either that one or more of the premises is materially incorrect
or that the reasoning is incorrect.
Now, the second argument, which you should only tackle once you understand the first one, is as follows:
ARGUMENT 2:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)
P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)
C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e.
people who lie on control questions =
People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)
C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not pass a polygraph exam. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)[/list]
Do you agree with that logic, Sackett? It seems as sound as the first example, albeit requiring an additional step. I have logically proven that--by your standards, not mine--people who lie on control questions should not pass polygraph exams.
Where have I gone wrong? Again, you must demonstrate
either that one or more of the premises is materially incorrect
or that the reasoning is incorrect. You may not like that, but that's the way logic works. Can you refute these arguments in a logical way, or are you reduced to more red herrings, arguments from authority, tautologies, and good old fashioned taking your marbles and going home when you're losing?
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 02:05 PM
As for focus and sensitivity during the examination. RQ's present a long term concern to the guilty; however, CQ's present a short term concern to the truthful. As for an honest person being more interested in CQ's than RQ's the answer is simple. The RQ's mean nothing to the honest person.
I'm not going to address your rantings elsewhere in your post.
Anything else?
Sackett
I hope you'll focus your efforts on the first part of this post, but this bears addressing as well. Can you answer each of the following questions?
- Why is the honest examinee unconcerned with the relevant questions?
- Why is the honest examinee concerned with the control questions?
- Why is the dishonest examinee concerned with the relevant questions? and
- Why is the dishonest examinee unconcerned or concerned with the control questions, as the case may be?
If you wish to avoid this portion of the discussion for now to focus on the logical arguments that I've presented that's fine; perhaps we could come back to this later.
Lethe
Sackett, if you want a hint from someone more accustomed to using logic than you are, I'd say that you're best bet--besides just refusing to use logic and quitting the discussion--is to challenge P1. Even though you offered it, find a way to clarify the statement such that it is okay to deceive by lying but not okay to deceive by cheating (note: this will require you to state the difference between those two acts).
Once you have rewritten P1 we'll need to analyze your change to see if it itself is sensible or just special pleading. And that's your chance. You can just try to drag that out and drag it out until you feel you can quit the discussion under claims of me being unreasonable.
At least, that's how I'd do it if I were you. Remember, you can't assume a priori that I'm wrong, you need to demonstrate that logically. Good luck.
Lethe,
I have never condemned myself of being an academic or intellectual, most unlike your opinion of yourself. On the note of logic, it may only be applied and understood from one's own training, education, values, beliefs, etc. Much applied, like statistics, it becomes manipulatable for the purposes of an argument.
As for your points:
ARGUMENT 1:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
You apply an "AND" to combine the points. If they do not follow instructions, they won't pass but will be deemed uncooperative and therefore not pass for that reason. If they attempt deception at RQ's, they will not pass because they can't stop themselves from responding. If they do both, who knows
P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)
Not necessarily. People using CM's are not following instructions, true enough. And, though not necessarily attempting deception, many of the readers this board would like to convince to "protect themselves" will in fact be truthful, yet not pass due to non-cooperation.
C1: Therefore, people who use CM should not pass. (Reason: substitution of "people who use CM" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception" in P1)
No. People who use CM's will be caught and not pass by a No Opinion call. This, due to non-cooperation; NOT deception, therefore someone using CM's will not have an opinion made about their truthfulness because they are not allowing the proper collection of physiology.
Would you agree with the above logic, Sackett? If not, you must demonstrate either that one or more of the premises is materially incorrect or that the reasoning is incorrect.
Through my own courtesy I respond, not because I "must" do anything. I have no intentions of changing your beliefs, but preventing an otherwise honest person from making the worst mistake of their life by trying to beat an examiner.
Now, the second argument, which you should only tackle once you understand the first one, is as follows:
ARGUMENT 2:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
See above response to P1.
P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)
Yep!, even my simple mind can see where this is going...
P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)
Perhaps, but not necessarily. People who are truthful pass examinations daily. So this can not possibly explain every CQ response. Put more rudimentarily, CQ's more significant = pass. RQ's more significant = failure. Significance is set during the pre-test inteview.
C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)
See last response.
C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not pass a polygraph exam. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)
Nope. Your inabiltiy to understand my statements are twisted logic applied through a filter of ignorance concerning polygraph. This is much the logic many scientists use when trying to debunk polygraph and its accuracy.
My initial thought is that you are searching for a moral argument. Then I realized that you are trying to "defrag" the entire process, step by step. Polygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work. To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature.
I'm not sure I can make it any easier to understand.
Sackett
Holy Toledo!
So much debate and verbiage over whether to pucker the old anus or not.
TC
Ya squeeze yer anus in,
Ya squeeze yer anus out,
bite the side of yer tongue,
Until ya really want to shout
You do the poly pokey
So you get the stupid job
That what it's all about!
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMLethe,
I have never condemned myself of being an academic or intellectual, most unlike your opinion of yourself. On the note of logic, it may only be applied and understood from one's own training, education, values, beliefs, etc. Much applied, like statistics, it becomes manipulatable for the purposes of an argument.
Everyone take note: being an academic or having an intellect is so bad that just claiming your opponent thinks he is one is sufficient to discredit him. Don't worry, Sackett, no one will accuse you of being an intellectual.
Also note: logic is unreliable. Apparently feelings or claims from authorities are what Sackett bases his beliefs on. Sackett, here is a logical argument:
P1: A = B
P2: B = C
C: A = C
If the two premises are correct, then the conclusion is true, at least for everyone not a polygrapher. Are you really saying that the statement is not true for someone who's been to polygraph school? What sort of life experiences does one need to have in order for that argument to be not true?
Anyway, it was easier to beat you down to the point where you deny logic is useful because you can't use it to defend your own beliefs that I'd thought it would be.
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMARGUMENT 1:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
You apply an "AND" to combine the points. If they do not follow instructions, they won't pass but will be deemed uncooperative and therefore not pass for that reason. If they attempt deception at RQ's, they will not pass because they can't stop themselves from responding. If they do both, who knows
It appears you're arguing that all people who don't follow directions will fail. That is demonstrably incorrect: people who lie on control questions are not following directions and yet often pass. In any event, I'm not talking about whether they
will pass and get the job, but whether they
should, after all, that's the whole discussion I'm trying to have: why is it okay for someone to lie to get a job? Previously you said people who lie should not be given a job of trust, now you're changing your mind. Why?
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMP2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)
Not necessarily. People using CM's are not following instructions, true enough.
What are you talking about? You claim that P2 is not necessarily true and in the next sentence you say that P2 is true. Which is it? Only one can be correct (reason: law of the excluded middle)
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMThrough my own courtesy I respond, not because I "must" do anything. I have no intentions of changing your beliefs, but preventing an otherwise honest person from making the worst mistake of their life by trying to beat an examiner.
True. What I should have said is "if you want to refute this logical argument you need to either demonstrate that one or more premise(s) is wrong and/or that the conclusion does not follow from them. But since you have contempt for logic, I guess you won't be doing that.
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMP3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
Perhaps people who lie aren't telling the truth? Sorry, Sackett, by definition a person who is lying is not telling the truth.
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMC1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)
See last response.
Your last response is senseless; it is true that people who lie on control questions are attempting deception and not following the polygrapher's instructions and it is true that you said that you don't want people who do that working in law enforcement. Therefore, you don't want people who lie on control questions working in law enforcement. This is very rudimentary stuff, Sackett.
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMMy initial thought is that you are searching for a moral argument.
Well, yeah. You say it is morally okay to lie in order to get a job. I think it's not. You have thus far given exactly zero (0) reasons to think it is true that it is morally okay to lie to get a job.
Why don't you just tell us, in your own words, why you think it is okay for a person to lie in order to get a job? Perhaps that could be a good starting place for a discussion.
Lethe,
your circular, misapplied logic has proven itself once again. We're right back where we started from...
I am sure the readers are not interested further in your pointless arguments, because I know I am getting weary of it, and I normally like these types of discussions. And though I am sure you feel it necessary to continue this conversation, it serves no further purpose, other than to boost your own ego by dissecting each and every point I make to support your own warped opinion. Sort of like my statistics analogy.
Anyway, I have stated what I needed to. For you to repeatedly attack minor, non-substantive, subordinate issues is a pointless lesson in futility. You dissagree and want to argue. I do not! Like I said, it serves no legitimate purpose.
Feel free to attack me one last time and call me what you will, but I am no longer pursuing this "discussion", it's getting stale; for everyone!
Have a nice day!
Sackett
It appears I was correct:
Quote from: 6D44554944210 on May 05, 2008, 01:18 AMIt's obvious that you're setting yourself up to play the polygrapher's trump card: "Gee, look at how much I've already written arguing with you, Lethe. It may all be bad arguments, red herrings, and dodges, but hey, the fact that I've written so much while saying so little of substance proves I've done my part and that you, by not accepting said bad arguments, are unreasonable. I need not talk with you further."
As I will try to show for those interested in the discussion that Sackett and I have had, I don't think he presented any rational argument that materially challenges my position and he certainly did not refute the logical argument at the heart of what I'm saying. I am happy to let the people decide for themselves who has presented the better argument, insofar as Sackett has presented anything which can be regarded as an intelligible argument.
My argument is that, based on
his own standards, people who lie on the control questions should not get jobs in law enforcement (or working with Sackett), since he stated:
Quote from: pailryder on May 02, 2008, 08:14 PMI do not care if they were otherwise honest and truthful. THEY WERE TRYING TO BEAT THE TEST AND ME! They didn't follow instructions and they were being deceiptful by their actions. I do not want someone like that to be in LE or working with me.
He was, of course, referring to people who use CM, but I believe this rule applies equally to people who lie on the control questions. I argue this as follows:
Quote from: 0821302C21440 on May 05, 2008, 05:10 PMP1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)
P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)
C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)
C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not pass a polygraph exam. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)
Sackett failed to demonstrate any material defect in any of the premises nor did he show any flaw in the reasoning. Therefore, he has shown no reason for believing the conclusion to be flawed; he just doesn't like it and so comes near to accusing logic itself of being biased and almost states that the polygraph needs no logical justification to be used (whether it needs any sort of justification at all he likewise doesn't state).
He did not retract or modify his original statement that People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass, so P1 is intact. He did not challenge P2, which states that a polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. Nor did he argue the absurdity that People who lie on the control questions
are telling the truth and are
not attempting deception. Therefore, the third premise is also intact.
Given the three premises, which Sackett has not demonstrated incorrect or even called into question, the conclusion--that people who lie on the control questions should not be given jobs in law enforcement or in which they will be working with Sackett--follows naturally and logically.
Sackett just doesn't like this, so he brings up a number of completely unrelated points. The fact that some people don't lie on the control questions does not make it okay for the people who do lie. If I murdered someone, could I say that it was okay because not everyone commits murder? No, obviously not. Nor can Sackett argue that it is okay to lie if not everyone does lie.
He also makes a few nonsensical statements. For instance, he says
perhaps People who lie ... are not telling the truth--but, by implication, maybe people who lie are telling the truth. Of course, the law of the excluded middle--a logical operator, so Sackett is probably unfamiliar with it--tells us that a statement is either true or false, it cannot be both a lie and the truth.
The closest he comes to mounting a real challenge is the following (his words in bold):
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMP1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass. (Source: Sackett)
You apply an "AND" to combine the points. If they do not follow instructions, they won't pass but will be deemed uncooperative and therefore not pass for that reason. If they attempt deception at RQ's, they will not pass because they can't stop themselves from responding. If they do both, who knows
P2: People who use CM are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Source: obvious fact and strongly implied by Sackett)
Not necessarily. People using CM's are not following instructions, true enough. And, though not necessarily attempting deception, many of the readers this board would like to convince to "protect themselves" will in fact be truthful, yet not pass due to non-cooperation.
So, according to Sackett, people who use CM--an act that he classifies as cheating (see reply #13 to this thread on May 2nd)--are not necessarily attempting to deceive anyone; it is therefore, according to Sackett, possible to cheat without attempting deception. I don't think that's true, because, at the least, you are attempting to deceive the other party about the fact that you are attempting to cheat. Therefore, this line of reasoning fails and the premise has survived the challenge to its validity.
In his defense, Sackett is ambiguous about whether a person must
both disobey instructions
and attempt deception OR if it is sufficient for them to either disobey instructions
or attempt deception. He didn't state whether they had to do both before he wouldn't want them in law enforcement or if doing either one would suffice to disqualify them. I think this point might be somehow confusing him, but it really shouldn't. People who lie on the comparison questions are in fact doing both (not following directions and attempting deception), so even if they only had to do one they still fall into that class of people that Sackett doesn't want working in law enforcement or with him.
In any event, I don't see that Sackett has made any successful challenge to the premises or logic of my argument nor has he demonstrated how it is circular, as he claims it is. Indeed, I would say he is the one who has produced the tautology here: he has indicated that it is okay to lie on the comparison questions because there are no real consequences for doing so, and there are no real consequences for doing so because it is okay. QED indeed.
Clearly, the reason polygraphers declare it okay to lie in order to get a job of importance and trust is because if they failed people who lied in order to get a job so few people would pass the polygraph exam that the polygraph could not possibly be used to screen applicants. Sackett would then lose his job, which he cares more about having than about doing (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3926.msg29366#msg29366).
Sackett is not as dumb as I think he makes himself look here. He's smart enough to know that he should avoid saying
both "it is okay to lie to get a job in which trust will be placed in you"
and "it is not okay to lie to get a job in which trust will be placed in you." He knows that he can't possibly say either one, despite the fact that one must be true. He can't say it is okay and he can't say it is not okay. If he makes either statement, he's totally fucked. He is very smart to avoid saying either, but the impossibility makes him look like a total idiot when he attempts to defend his position.
Secondly, I don't think he's trying to deceive us. The deception has already occurred: he has deceived himself, about a great many things, including the usefulness of actual logic. Let us remember that the polygraph makes victims of us all, whichever side of the table we're on. But, like a dog which has contracted rabies, polygraphers must still be put down.
I welcome any comment or question on my concluding message here. If my reasoning is anywhere faulty, I would appreciate learning this fact so please waste no time in writing a cogent post indicating where my mistake is. You will earn my gratitude by doing so. Best wishes to my erstwhile interlocutor, Sackett. May neither he nor his children suffer as a result of his contempt for logic, academics, or science.
Wow Lethe,
Now that logic is crystal clear! Guess I'll go back to infantilizing the kids.
I think I see one of the reasons why the polies are having trouble understanding what I am talking about and I accept the blame for the ambiguity.
I think they interpret the statement "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not pass" to mean "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should, theoretically, not produce results that will lead to passing the exam." However, that is not what I mean at all. What I mean is that "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not be given a position of trust and authority." That is, if and when you determine that a person is lying to you, you should not then go a give that person a position of trust and authority.
Presenting the argument
mutatis mutandis gives us the following:
P1: People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam should not be given positions of trust and authority. (Source: Sackett)
P2: The polygrapher's instructions include an admonition to tell the truth. (Source: obvious fact and implied by Sackett)
P3: People who lie on the control questions are not telling the truth and are attempting deception. (Source: definitions--lying = not telling the truth = attempting deception)
C1: Therefore, people who lie on the control questions are not following the polygrapher's instructions and are attempting deception. (Reasoning: Substitution of "People who lie on the control questions" for "People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions" and for "attempt deception on a polygraph exam" in P1) (i.e. people who lie on control questions = People who do not follow the polygraphers instructions and who attempt deception on a polygraph exam)
C2: Therefore, people who lie on control questions should not be given a position of trust and authority. (Reasoning: substitution of equivalent terms in P1)
I think that argument is more precisely and accurately stated. I invite all polygraphers to reconsider it as presently stated. If you disagree with it, please consider telling me
why it is wrong and not just insist that it is wrong. Also, I invite you to indicate whether or not you think it is okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority.
Whenever a truthful person subjects themselves to a poly, they are at risk of a false positive, which is the only way they can fail. But if a truthful subject employes countermeasures they open an additional path to failure. They are still at risk of a false positive outcome, but they create an additional risk of failure by being detected using CM.
Quote from: sackett on May 09, 2008, 09:22 AMWhenever a truthful person subjects themselves to a poly, they are at risk of a false positive, which is the only way they can fail. But if a truthful subject employes countermeasures they open an additional path to failure. They are still at risk of a false positive outcome, but they create an additional risk of failure by being detected using CM.
Actually, the risk of being accused of using countermeasures exists whether or not one actually employs them. For example, I was angrily accused of using countermeasures by one of LAPD's senior polygraph examiners, despite the fact that I not only did
not employ countermeasures, I didn't even know what they were at the time.
Moreover, there is no evidence that using countermeasures of the kind outlined in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) actually increases the risk of being accused of countermeasures. No polygrapher has demonstrated any ability to reliably detect them.
Note that pailryder's post does not in any way even attempt to address the argument that I have presented. No polygrapher has yet even proposed any reason why we should think that it is okay to lie in order to get a position of trust. Indeed, they are not even honest enough to answer that question: do they think it is okay to lie to get a position of trust? Either they do or they don't--and either way they're screwed--so they just avoid the matter entirely.
I invite any and all polygraphers to answer this simple question: is it okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority? Yes, or no?
I predict that no polygrapher will be able to give a yes or no answer to the question, though the law of the excluded middle tells us that no other response is possible. They will instead ignore the question, scoff at it, indicate that it is silly. But they will not--cannot!--ever answer it. They would damn themselves whichever answer they give. They're damned if they do--but they're also damned if they don't. If no polygrapher is able to answer the question, it will be evidence of the irreconcilable contradictions inherent in the polygraph.
Lethe
Please clarify your question. Are you asking if it is ever okey to lie to get position or is it always okey to lie to get a position?
Quote from: sackett on May 09, 2008, 05:13 PMLethe
Please clarify your question. Are you asking if it is ever okey to lie to get position or is it always okey to lie to get a position?
That's a sensible request for clarification. Indeed, I think you've helped me make the question much better than it was, pailryder. Thank you.
I don't suspect that anyone would say it is always okay to lie in order to get any position of trust and authority. That would leave "is it ever okay to lie to get a position of trust and authority?" as the question, but I will refine and narrow it down it still further. The question I am asking appears to be this:
Is it ever okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority and, if so, under what circumstances is it okay and are those circumstances met in a normal PLCQ exam conducted for government or law enforcement employment screening purposes?
I suppose one could make a good case that it would be okay for someone to lie in order to get a job as Osama bin Laden's donkey driver in order to get close to him to obtain intelligence or to pull off an assassination attempt. However, even assuming that to be true, it wouldn't prove that it is okay to lie to get a job as a police officer in the United States. You need to demonstrate not just that there is
some conceivable circumstance under which it would be okay to lie to get a position of trust and authority, but that the normal context of a polygraph exam conducted for government or law enforcement employment is such a circumstance.
I think that's a very high bar to pass and I would be surprised if anyone is able to meet it. If someone can, I imagine the answer will be most interesting and I look forward to hearing it.
But, even if you can't explain the reasoning behind your position, I'd still be interested in knowing if you think
yes it is okay or
no it is not okay to lie to get a position of trust and authority in context of a normal employment screening exam. Presumably at least some polygraphers have thought about this question; if any have an answer that satisfies himself, it might be of interest to others or provide at least a starting point to discuss the issue here.
And of course, if you don't know whether or not you think it's okay to lie in order to get a position of trust and authority, it is perfectly acceptable to say so. If you really don't know, it's more honest to say so and then try to think through the issue some more, perhaps in conjunction with others, than to pretend that you do know the answer but won't tell anyone.
Lethe
Thank you for the clarification. The answer to your question is yes, if you are otherwise truthful and lie only to protect yourself from a false positive result. Chapter 4 TLBTLD
Quote from: pailryder on May 09, 2008, 06:34 PMLethe
Thank you for the clarification. The answer to your question is yes, if you are otherwise truthful and lie only to protect yourself from a false positive result. Chapter 4 TLBTLD
Now, are you offering that just to be provocative and kick around ideas (which is legitimate) or do you really believe that yourself? Please clarify if this is indeed your own position.
But, let us analyze your statement on the merits and see what its implications are. You seem to be saying the only legitimate purpose for lying (to get a job of trust and authority) is to protect yourself from wrongfully being denied said job. Stop me if you disagree, but I think we can rephrase that claim of yours as follows: it is okay to lie on an employment screening exam if (1) you tell the truth on all the relevant questions
and (2) lying increases your chance of passing that phase of the hiring process. Would you say that is a fair rephrasing of your statement? If not, please indicate where I go wrong. And please do tell us if the position you have stated is actually your own and, if not, what your own position actually is.
Just to be provocative. You and I know it is never ethical to deceive in order to gain a position of trust. That is catch-22, the contradiction that we use to attempt to elicit CQ response from the knowledgable, informed, truthful subject.
Quote from: pailryder on May 10, 2008, 02:22 PMJust to be provocative. You and I know it is never ethical to deceive in order to gain a position of trust. That is catch-22, the contradiction that we use to attempt to elicit CQ response from the knowledgable, informed, truthful subject.
I have encountered few superior examples of a catch-22. If you lie, you're dishonest and shouldn't get the job. But if you don't lie, you can't be tested and so won't get the job. You know, before the polygraph came along, lying was considered a bad thing, especially when done to get a sensitive position. Now, in one of the polygraph's chief contributions to society, that type of activity is perfectly okay--if it serves the interests of the polygraph.
I see no way out of the contradiction for you. You say it is not okay to lie, but you pass people all the time who do just that. How do you explain this? Also, do you have any way to discriminate between the person who refuses to lie because he has something to hide and the one who refuses to lie because he doesn't?
Also, I don't think your explanation is convincing with regards to informed subjects. You seem to be saying that the examinees thought process would be something like the following:
(1) I shouldn't lie, lying is wrong;
(2) I especially shouldn't lie to get an important, sensitive job;
(3) And certainly not while on a lie detector!
(4) But I must lie to get the job!
(5) Does not compute! I'm so stressed and anxious about this [control question]!
However, think, for the informed subject, it is more like this:
(1) Yeah, he's trying to get me to lie, just like I knew he would;
(2) I'm not a very good liar? Speak for yourself, buddy!
(3) This is so lame, does anyone really believe this stuff? Like any agency would have a single employee if this was true.
(4) Okay, control question, I'm supposed to lie now.
(5) Okay, this one is relevant, tell the truth.
(6) Another control question. "Oh, no. I've never done that." Yeah, but I would like to thank the Academy...
In short, I fail to see how a truly informed subject is going to be so stressed out at the control questions, as he or she must be for the thing to work. If someone tells me they'll give me a hundred dollars if I say the sky is purple am I going to produce a result that says "deception" with the same reliability as the guy who thinks he's going to be fired if he doesn't lie and if he's caught lying? I don't think so. And if I'm wrong, then there's no reason for all the secrecy about how the polygraph works, it can be brought out into the light and many people who are tempted to use countermeasures won't.
I wonder what percentage of the Amish would lie to pass a polygraph exam? I think we can assume that they, at least, have never visited this website. But I suppose that would tell us more about the Amish than about the polygraph. Still, it would be interesting, albeit a bit exploitative. (And since the Amish have been able to forgive even that guy who murdered several of their daughters--they even donated money to his widow and children--they get a pass from me.)
Also, out of curiosity, has there been any research done on whether the gender of the polygrapher could influence results, say if the examinee is a female sexual assault victim and the polygrapher is male? I understand that many women after a rape find it very difficult to trust and form healthy relationships with men, it seems that could introduce an unfortunate variable that could create additional noise on the polygraph. Just wondering if there is any such effect and, if so, what measures are taken to eliminate or minimize it. (Polygraph Place would probably be the place to post this question, but it'd take forever to get an answer, I suspect, if I ever could; those guys are suspicious of everyone)
Another catch-22 that has been posted on this board before is that any candidate who consciously controls his breathing and remains calm during the polygraph exam, even if he is telling the complete truth and not withholding any information, is judged unethical for trying to manipulate the results of the test.
However, if the same candidate fails to consciously control his breathing and reactions during the post-test interrogation, and instead allows himself to react normally to the accusations of deception, the raised voices, and the confrontational atmosphere, he is then deemed to be unsuitable for law enforcement because he can't handle stress well enough.
Of course, the candidate is never told beforehand when he should exhibit his stress-handling abilities and when he is forbidden from doing so.
S1107
I agree with you that controled breathing is no sure sign of CM. Many people learn to control breathing in Lamaze class, martial arts, yoga meditation, marksmanship, diving. the list is endless. It is a difficult issue that must sometimes be addressed because it can interfear with colection of data.
Quote from: 2C05140805600 on May 11, 2008, 01:17 AMAlso, I don't think your explanation is convincing with regards to informed subjects. You seem to be saying that the examinees thought process would be something like the following:(1) I shouldn't lie, lying is wrong;
(2) I especially shouldn't lie to get an important, sensitive job;
(3) And certainly not while on a lie detector!
(4) But I must lie to get the job!
(5) Does not compute! I'm so stressed and anxious about this [control question]!
However, think, for the informed subject, it is more like this:(1) Yeah, he's trying to get me to lie, just like I knew he would;
(2) I'm not a very good liar? Speak for yourself, buddy!
(3) This is so lame, does anyone really believe this stuff? Like any agency would have a single employee if this was true.
(4) Okay, control question, I'm supposed to lie now.
(5) Okay, this one is relevant, tell the truth.
(6) Another control question. "Oh, no. I've never done that." Yeah, but I would like to thank the Academy...
In short, I fail to see how a truly informed subject is going to be so stressed out at the control questions, as he or she must be for the thing to work. If someone tells me they'll give me a hundred dollars if I say the sky is purple am I going to produce a result that says "deception" with the same reliability as the guy who thinks he's going to be fired if he doesn't lie and if he's caught lying? I don't think so. And if I'm wrong, then there's no reason for all the secrecy about how the polygraph works, it can be brought out into the light and many people who are tempted to use countermeasures won't.
Just for the record, pailryder has, of course, been completely unable to give any reason why an informed subject who is honest would react more strongly to control questions than relevant questions. He has not even attempted to do so.
Lethe
Setting up a comparison issue for an intelligent, knowledge subject is as much an art as a science. And, has been the most challenging and rewarding part of my career. Proper selection and formulation of a comparison issue makes or breaks the truthful test. We can all agree there are times when it is ethical to lie, sometimes there is even an ethical duty to lie and sometimes there is a right to defend one's self by lying. So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be the proper ethical course of action.
I know, as you take pleasure in pointing out, that I lie in connection with my work, and I will tell you from personal experience that I am uncomfortable answering when confronted with that fact. But don't we all lie in connection with our work? And if I knew the sins of your profession, as you already know mine, might I not be able to point out lies you likely tell, and to ask you questions in a manner that you may find uncomfortable to answer, even if answered truthfully? Could I create an ethical delima for you asking about something you have done, that would be more meaningful than the relevant questions about something you did not do? Is that possible?
"So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be the proper ethical course of action."
Now that is just Hog Wash...
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2008, 12:01 PM"So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be the proper ethical course of action."
Now that is just Hog Wash...
No, it's not hogwash: pailryder is correct in this instance. The movie
Liar Liar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_Liar), for example, derives most of its humor from portraying the unhappy consequences of telling the truth in all situations for just 24 hours.
The ethical question with regard to polygraphy is under what circumstances is deception by examiner or examinee justified?
"No, it's not hogwash: pailryder is correct in this instance. The movie Liar Liar, for example, derives most of its humor from portraying the unhappy consequences of telling the truth in all situations for just 24 hours."
My apologies I lied but meant to do it ethically .
Stopit
Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis. Or a priest to protect a confidential communication. Or an undercover agent to a drug dealer or organized crime target. Or someone on the underground railroad who lies to protect an enslaved person. Or a civil rights worker to a klansman.
"Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis."
Yes in such a case as this, or to protect a child from any other evil! I would most definitely agree!!!!
Thanks for that analogy...
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2008, 02:22 PMStopit
Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis. Or a priest to protect a confidential communication. Or an undercover agent to a drug dealer or organized crime target. Or someone on the underground railroad who lies to protect an enslaved person. Or a civil rights worker to a klansman.
The point on this site however is the fact that a polygraph cannot accuratly detect any of them.
;D
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2008, 10:30 PMQuote from: pailryder on May 23, 2008, 02:22 PMStopit
Consider the case of someone who lies to protect a child from the Nazis. Or a priest to protect a confidential communication. Or an undercover agent to a drug dealer or organized crime target. Or someone on the underground railroad who lies to protect an enslaved person. Or a civil rights worker to a klansman.
The point on this site however is the fact that a polygraph cannot accuratly detect any of them.
;D
To now use
your choice of logic. What is your proof that polygraph can not accurately detect "any of them?"
I suppose I'll be waiting a while for you response, so I'll check back tomorrow...
Sackett
QuoteTo now use your choice of logic. What is your proof that polygraph can not accurately detect "any of them?"
Again, what proof do you have that it DOES?
Whoever puts forth a hypothesis is the one that must do the "proving".
It's called the "scientific method", and there are very specific steps to follow:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
We DON'T have to prove that your hypothesis "the polygraph can accurately and consistently detect deception" is NOT true.
Any high school science teacher will tell you that it RUBBISH!
TC
Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 01:02 PMTo now use your choice of logic. What is your proof that polygraph can not accurately detect "any of them?"
I suppose I'll be waiting a while for you response, so I'll check back tomorrow...
Sackett
Since you are the one claiming the fantastic, i.e., that the polygraph can accurately detect deception, it is far more logical for you to prove that such a thing can be done, rather than requiring that skeptics prove it cannot be done.
If I claimed to have invented a device that turns water into gasoline, would it make more sense for me to have to prove it works, or for the rest of the world to prove it doesn't?
Disproving a hypothesis or theory is just as important as validating it. Any researcher can tell you that! A claim was made, and I asked for proof (as is oftentimes demanded of me). Hiding behind the cloak of, "well you can't prove a negative" does not aply to this claim.
Good dodge though...
Sackett
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2008, 09:49 AMLethe
Setting up a comparison issue for an intelligent, knowledge subject is as much an art as a science. And, has been the most challenging and rewarding part of my career. Proper selection and formulation of a comparison issue makes or breaks the truthful test.
So, it's a harder to conduct a test on an intelligent subject than a stupid one? And it's harder to conduct a test on an informed subject than an ignorant one? (One can, of course, be intelligent but ignorant of how the polygraph works or stupid but informed about how it works) Of course it is; it's easier to get good results from a stupid, ignorant person.
Thus the Polygraph Imperative: people who use or depend on the polygraph have a vested interest in keeping as many people stupid and ignorant as possible. Polygraphers and their clients are among those rare people (religious fundamentalists are also in the same class) who actually want people to be dumb. The vast majority of the population would prefer that people act more wisely and with more deliberation because, you know, that might help solve problems like the energy crisis, global warming, inadequate access to health care, proliferation of WMDs, controlling government spending, decreasing crime, and the like.
Polygraphers have decided that they don't mind those problems, so long as people are nice and dumb and easy to polygraph. And that's why the world would be better off if your guild holds it's next grand meeting in a building with inadequate structural integrity. You guild started to solve certain problems but instead has become the problem. The abyss has claimed your souls.
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2008, 09:49 AMWe can all agree there are times when it is ethical to lie, sometimes there is even an ethical duty to lie and sometimes there is a right to defend one's self by lying. So lying is not always wrong or bad, it can be the proper ethical course of action.
I know, as you take pleasure in pointing out, that I lie in connection with my work, and I will tell you from personal experience that I am uncomfortable answering when confronted with that fact. But don't we all lie in connection with our work? And if I knew the sins of your profession, as you already know mine, might I not be able to point out lies you likely tell, and to ask you questions in a manner that you may find uncomfortable to answer, even if answered truthfully? Could I create an ethical delima for you asking about something you have done, that would be more meaningful than the relevant questions about something you did not do? Is that possible?
I agree that there are times when it is not just OK to lie but morally correct to lie.
I'm not sure if everyone lies in connection with their job. But you remind me of something that happened at my workplace last week. I was querying a coworker for advice on how to handle a consumer of our service who was in a lamentable and unfortunate situation and was not pleased with us. My coworker told me to tell them a reassuring lie in order to smooth things along with the client. I said "but that's a lie." To which he replied "Lethe, we lie to these people all the time." And then we both burst out laughing.
Lethe
If it is harder to poly an intelligent subject, based on this post, I am forced to conclude you would be one easy test.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 02, 2008, 07:40 AMLethe
If it is harder to poly an intelligent subject, based on this post, I am forced to conclude you would be one easy test.
LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT: Ad hominem attack.
Sadly, no attempt to address the points that I raised has been detected.
Anyway, this is what's wrong with your guild: you can't address these points. Not that you lack the ability, but your dogma forbids you from doing so because to have a coherent discussion you'd need to admit certain uncomfortable facts that call your whole enterprise into question. That's unfortunate.
I was expecting better from you, pailryder. An ad hominem attack? That's the last refuge of the incompetent. I was at least hoping for begging the question or a red herring. Usually, the ad hominem attack is the last one trotted out before begging out of the conversation.
Hmm. Sackett actually doesn't use the ad hominem attack very much; he usually resorts to the two fallacies just mentioned. My estimate of your intelligence and his had rated yours higher and I'm not inclined to give up that assessment. Perhaps trying to end debate as you have done is the wiser course of action? After all, I'm very confident that avoiding uncomfortable discussions is much more important to your guild than is presenting an intelligent case once one has come up.
Anyway, these musings are just for fun and, of course, are not part of my case against the way the polygraph is currently used except insofar as turning perfectly good people (pre-polygraphers) into dumbasses (polygraphers) is generally bad for society.
Lethe.
You are correct, that is an ad hominem attack. The second in fact. You attacked polygraphers as favoring ignorance, the energy crisis, global warming, inadequate health care, WMD's, government overspending and oh yeah, increasing crime( as most poly ex's here of the LEA variety, that last one baffles me). Over the top even for you, oh Lethargic one.
From the abyss my soul stabs at thee.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 05, 2008, 07:09 PMFrom the abyss, my soul stabs at thee.
If you were quoting "Moby Dick" I believe the phrase you were looking for is:
QuoteTowards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
You may also have been quoting Khan Noonien Singh from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", but he was in fact quoting Melville during that scene on the bridge of the Reliant.
Sergeant 1107
Paraphrasing, not quoting, thank you.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 05, 2008, 07:09 PMLethe.
You are correct, that is an ad hominem attack. The second in fact. You attacked polygraphers as favoring ignorance, the energy crisis, global warming, inadequate health care, WMD's, government overspending and oh yeah, increasing crime( as most poly ex's here of the LEA variety, that last one baffles me). Over the top even for you, oh Lethargic one.
From the abyss my soul stabs at thee.
There are two paraphrases there. I
did say that polygraphers favor ignorance, that is true--and if you claim that is not true (and if it is true, why take me to task for making a true statement?) I'd be happy to debate you in full on the matter.
However, I did
not say that polygraphers favor the other things (the energy crisis, global warming, inadequate health care, proliferation of WMDs, government overspending, and increasing crime). What I said, if you will kindly refer to my post is that (while they may not like those things), they are willing to tolerate them in order to obtain the ignorance they desire. That is, they want people to be ignorant more than they want to solve those sundry problems.
I thought that was rather clear in the original post:
Quote from: 60495844492C0 on Jun 01, 2008, 08:11 PMSo, it's a harder to conduct a test on an intelligent subject than a stupid one? And it's harder to conduct a test on an informed subject than an ignorant one? (One can, of course, be intelligent but ignorant of how the polygraph works or stupid but informed about how it works) Of course it is; it's easier to get good results from a stupid, ignorant person.
Thus the Polygraph Imperative: people who use or depend on the polygraph have a vested interest in keeping as many people stupid and ignorant as possible. Polygraphers and their clients are among those rare people (religious fundamentalists are also in the same class) who actually want people to be dumb. The vast majority of the population would prefer that people act more wisely and with more deliberation because, you know, that might help solve problems like the energy crisis, global warming, inadequate access to health care, proliferation of WMDs, controlling government spending, decreasing crime, and the like.
Polygraphers have decided that they don't mind those problems, so long as people are nice and dumb and easy to polygraph. And that's why the world would be better off if your guild holds it's next grand meeting in a building with inadequate structural integrity. You guild started to solve certain problems but instead has become the problem.
Do you deny that you prefer people to be ignorant of how the polygraph works? If not, do you deny that it is hard to keep people from investigating that one area of knowledge without discouraging curiosity or critical thinking generally? If not, do you deny that curiosity and critical thinking are usually very important for solving problems?
If you deny any of those statements, then we'll each have staked out some territory to defend and we can have a discussion to see which of us is more likely to be correct. Or perhaps you would like to explain how you can encourage curiosity and critical thinking generally without those skills being turned on the polygraph by at least some people (and hopefully the sorts of people against whom the polygraph is used, prospective government employees, have those skills).
P.S. Wrath of Khan is a great movie. They've all been downhill since then.
Lethe
I have over a hundred posts on this board for you to choose from. I challenge you to cite one instance where you think I have favored ignorance over knowledge and we will have that conversation, but I started this thread to discuss countermeasures and I wonder why you have been unwilling to address my initial post?
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 06, 2008, 08:42 PMLethe
I have over a hundred posts on this board for you to choose from. I challenge you to cite one instance where you think I have favored ignorance over knowledge and we will have that conversation, but I started this thread to discuss countermeasures and I wonder why you have been unwilling to address my initial post?
I don't believe I've ever promoted the use of countermeasures against the polygraph. I think George believes they're easier and more likely to work than I do, but I also think they are easier and more likely to work than polygraphers claim.
Most polygraphers claim that the success rate for countermeasures is pretty close to zero. But, like yourself, they're always very, very concerned about them. This fact seems inconsistent with their claims that countermeasures don't work.
What point or question, specifically, would you like me to address, if the above is unsatisfactory?
Lethe
Thank you for the reply. Its not that I am so much concerned about countermeasures, but that I find the topic very interesting. For instance, if a subject answers truthfully and employes CM, and my call is NDI. Was my call correct?
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 06, 2008, 10:39 PMIts not that I am so much concerned about countermeasures, but that I find the topic very interesting. For instance, if a subject answers truthfully and employes CM, and my call is NDI. Was my call correct?
That is a very interesting question indeed.
Obviously, the answer hinges on one's definition of what constitutes a correct decision in a polygraph exam. I think that question can be approached as follows.
First, there are four possible decisions (or "calls") that a polygrapher can make on an exam:
(1) Examinee is deceptive,
(2) Examinee is truthful,
(3) Examinee is using countermeasures, and
(4) No conclusion possible from the available data
Obviously, it is possible for examinees to tell the truth, to lie, and to use CM. But, in a well-constructed exam, it is not possible for an examinee to neither lie nor tell the truth. And, of course, the examinee can use CM while telling the truth or while lying.
I think that reaching no conclusion must be regarded as something of a failure of the polygraph, though not as large a failure as reaching a conclusion that is wrong. That is, it is better to say "I don't know" than to make a positive statement that is false. Similarly, if the examinee uses CM you can't tell if he or she was lying or telling the truth on the relevant questions; the polygraph has failed to determine what it is ultimately meant to determine.
This brings up my second major point: the
purpose of a polygraph exam is to determine if the examinee is telling the truth or lying vis-a-vis the relevant questions. The purpose of the polygraph is not to determine if someone is using CM; obviously, it is necessary to be able to tell if someone is using CM, but that is only so that it can be determined if he or she is lying on the relevant questions.
Now, to accomplish it's purpose, the polygraph community has devised various practices and techniques. Basically, you follow these practices, whose application varies case-by-case, and then other standards tell you how to interpret the resulting charts.
From all this, two possible answers present themselves to the question "What constitutes a correct decision in a polygraph exam?"
First, what we might call the teleological answer: A correct decision is one which says someone who is lying (on the relevant questions) is lying and that someone who tells the truth (on the relevant questions) is telling the truth.
Secondly, what, for lack of a better term, we might call the process-based answer: A correct decision is one which says an examinee who has produced charts consistent with what is expected from someone who lies (on the relevant questions) is lying; that an examinee who has produced charts consistent with what is expected from someone who tells the truth (on the relevant questions) is telling the truth; that an examinee who has produced charts consistent with what is expected from someone who uses CM is using CM; and that no conclusion is reached on an examinee who has produced charts inconsistent with any other determination.
The important thing to note is this:
neither of those two responses is incorrect.
Here is an analogy. Suppose you were visiting my house and saw a tea kettle on my stove that was boiling and you asked "why is the kettle boiling?" I could respond "the kettle is boiling because the heat released from the burning propane transfers energy to the water molecules in the pot which become excited and, at 100 degrees centigrade, begin to boil and go from a liquid to a gas." That answer would be correct in one sense. However, I could also say "the kettle is boiling because I want tea," and that response would also be correct, albeit in a different way.
I think polygraphers are mostly concerned with the process-based response: their decision is correct if it is in line with what polygraph doctrine tells them about a certain pattern on the charts. There are many reasons that they prefer this sort of answer.
First, they know all about polygraph doctrine and practice; they spend their careers learning and studying it and become good at applying the principles. Therefore, they attach great importance to correct practice and come to take pride in their ability to proficiently apply the doctrines.
Second, they really can't measure their success at finding liars and identifying truthful people because it is very rare to have independent confirmation of an obtained result (it can happen, but those cases are the exception). Since they can't tell how good they are at achieving the ultimate end of the polygraph (identifying who lies and who tells the truth on relevant questions) the must perforce measure their abilities and successes against how well they follow the means by which the end is most likely to be obtained.
Thirdly, polygraphers know that they will make bad calls which condemn the innocent and exonerate the guilty. If they measure success the teleological way, they'd have to consider these grave failures, which would be very uncomfortable. However, by defining success as correctly applied practice they can transfer much of the responsibility for these calls to the polygraph. "I did my job, my interpretation of the charts was correct; I succeeded at what I had to do, which was ask the questions in the correct way and interpret the results correctly"
However, my position is that the success of the polygraph must ultimately be measured in what I have called the teleological manner: every person who tells the truth on the control questions and is declared truthful is a success, every such person who is declared untruthful is a failure, and every person who lies on the relevant questions and is declared a liar is a success and every such person who is declared truthful is a failure.
Every person who uses CM also is a failure of the polygraph system, in my view, since we don't know (at least via the polygraph) if the person was telling the truth or lying on the relevant questions. I have discussed this with Sackett, who, of course, disagrees. But the purpose of the polygraph is to find out if someone did or didn't do the act described in the relevant questions, not if he did the things described in the control questions. Therefore, we don't care if someone tries to deceive us by lying on the control questions except insofar as it helps or hinders our quest to find out if they are lying on the relevants because, contrary to what the given instructions tell the examinee, lying on the control questions doesn't correlate with lying on the relevants. In precisely the same way, we don't care about if someone uses CM in and of itself except that it makes it impossible to determine if someone is lying on the relevant questions. Using CM is no more or less immoral than lying on the control questions.
This leads to a fourth reason why polygraphers generally prefer the process-based approach to measuring their correctness: it leads to a far, far higher success rate. An inconclusive result isn't a failure on their part to obtain the desired information after consuming significant societal resources, it is a success at correctly interpreting the data.
Lethe
Thank you for a through and thoughtful reply, but was your answer yes or no? Is NDI the correct call for a truthful using CM?
Pailryder,
If you render a NDI opinion for a polygraph examination in which the examinee employed countermeasures you are correct if: (1) none of your relevant issues/questions included the use of countermeasures during that exam, and (2) the relevant issues/questions you did address through your exam were answered truthfully. Your question is neither difficult nor philosophical but merely definitional in nature.
Drew Richardson
Although I have never demonstrated any ability to do so, if I call this same test NO for suspected employment of CM, is that also a correct call?
Pailryder,
With both the main event (the determination of truth and falsehood regarding relevant issues) and the use of countermeasures, you are faced with a binary event: (1) the examinee, to the first approximation (absent misspoken testimony and misremembered facts), is either telling the truth or lying on any given relevant issue and (2) the examinee has either attempted/employed countermeasures or he/she has not.
Your opinion rendered in most situations (absent a pre-test confession or a particularly uneducated and clumsy attempt at countermeasures) is little more than a guess with both of the tasks before you. I say this realizing that there is an appearance of objectivity and scientific determination with the utilization of scoring systems employed with the former task.
And finally returning to your question...in a common sense connotation, given the tools available to you, a rendering of no opinion is probably the only sane (justified) opinion that you can render with either of the two aforementioned tasks in a typical lie test. That having been said, nothing is resolved with such an opinion, and, in the case of many screening exams, there are clear and demonstrable negative consequences for the examinee that is saddled with any opinion other than a NDI determination.
Drew Richardson
Indeed, in many specific issue exams there are clear and demonstrable negative consequences for the examinee that is saddled with any opinion other than a NDI as well.
Given my limited understanding as a non scientist and my preference for a common sense connotation, I wonder if use of CM by a truthful subject to avoid a False Positive result, could result in a NO, with negative consequences. But of course I am aware that neither I nor any other examiner has ever demonstrated any ability to identify CM.
Pailryder,
You raise the great conundrum for the innocent examinee. In reality it is just a variant of the oft spoken of situation of pay your money and take your choice. It is largely a risk/benefit assessment with one additional twist.
This examinee, realizing that he is burdened with subjecting himself/herself with an inaccurate diagnostic test of his truthfulness and realizing that he has the ability to manipulate polygraph tracings, can do one of two things: (1) answer relevant questions truthfully in the absence of countermeasure utilization or (2) answer relevant questions truthfully and apply countermeasures.
The identified risks and benefits are the same for both. The risk is a determination of any opinion other than NDI (DI, Inc, NO, countermeasures used) and the benefit is a determination of NDI.
The choice for the examinee is determined by two things: (1) his/her personal assessment of the risk/benefit probability ratio for each of the two alternative strategies and (2) a desire or ambivalence towards having an added and personal role (applying countermeasures) in affecting an outcome having significant impact on one's future.
Although I have enjoyed our brief and respectful exchanges, I must return to other matters.
Best Regards...
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jun 08, 2008, 09:12 AMLethe
Thank you for a through and thoughtful reply, but was your answer yes or no? Is NDI the correct call for a truthful using CM?
It is impossible to answer this question of yours without you defining what a "correct call" is. If you have a valid definition, my answer would probably become obvious. But come up with one and I'll let you know whether your call was correct or not.
But I don't think you're asking the right question. You need to dig deeper; don't just think about what call is going to bring you the most prestige among your fellow pollies or which will most enhance your reputation and money-making ability, or even your self respect. Dig down to the bedrock: which call is in the best interests of society?
I would say, and am prepared to defend, the proposition that
no possible outcome in that situation is good for society: like nuclear war, you only win if you don't play. Of course, not playing with the polygraph would be bad for your prestige and wallet, so I don't expect you to agree with that proposition. But lets look at all possible outcomes.
Well, first, the situation is as follows: a truthful examinee is being pollied for a position of trust for which he or she is qualified. The examinee, knowing how the polygraph works and that the polygraph is unlikely to be accurate in his case because of said knowledge, attempts CM. Possible outcomes are:
(1) Subject ruled truthful
(2) Subject ruled deceptive
(3) Subject ruled to be using CM
(4) No conclusion possible
Now, the consequences for (2), (3), and (4) are virtually identical: the subject does not get the position and significant government resources have been wasted. Additionally, the subject may become bitter at the farce that he has been put through and the job may go to a less-qualified person (if the next guy was more qualified, he would have been hired in the first place ahead of the initial subject).
Outcome (1) at first appears to be good, or, at least, neutral. I admit that it is the least bad outcome, but it still results in considerable waste of taxpayer resources (just think about how much money you suck out of society for every test).
Additionally, the main value of the polygraph to the government vis-a-vis
people they need to control employees is not in detecting deception, but in deterring bad behavior in the future. If the person uses CM and passes (even if he was truthful on the relevant questions, as he should be), it would be natural for him to credit his passing not to his truthfulness (on the relevant questions) but to his use of CM. He may thus think that he can beat the polygraph in the future if needed and thus it's deterrent value is close to 0.
Well, it's been a week now and no response. I wonder if any poly will be able to defend his profession and indicate how society benefits from their actions in the situation indicated in my last post. My guess is, probably not: they're too used to getting their own way without having to argue about costs and benefits. Their ability to present a rational argument has atrophied.
They are victims of the polygraph too, let us not forget. Just like a rabid dog is a victim of the virus. However, that doesn't mean that the dog doesn't need to be put down.