AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

Kind of new to this but need a liitle help!!!
My truck was vandilized and burned,  now my Insurance Company has asked me to take a Poly test,  but I really do not trust the tests.
Do i have a n option to deny the test, or will they with hold the payment for my truck.
By th eway I'm in Tennessee and the INs Company is Allstate.
PLease someone give me som advice,  thanks

You cannot be required to take a polygraph and if you are sanctioned for your refusal, the insurance compay is wide open for a hefty lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that;s right. it would be smart to check with a lawyer on this.

Pugs423,

You're right not to trust (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-053.shtml) the polygraph "test": polygraphy has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) and is inherently biased against the truthful. I very much doubt that Allstate can legally compel you to submit to this fraudulent procedure. Is any mention of a polygraph requirement made in your insurance policy? (I found no mention of polygraphs on Allstate's website (http://www.allstate.com).)

The only thing i could find in my policy declration info was to "submit a statement under oath"  i didn't know if that included a polygraph.  But i also just found outthat there sending a private investigator somtime in the next couple of days, and he may ask me to tak one.  That may be because the City investigator were i live accused me of it and i told him were he ould stick it and walked out of the room.  I don't know if that was a good thing to do or not,  but i had already gave him all the info i could give him anyway.     Thank you guys for responding so fast  this is the first time i have used somthing like this.   If there is anymore advice or someone else who has delt with a simular situation i would greatly apperciate all the help i can get.

Submitting a statement under oath is not the same thing as submitting to a lie detector test. If a polygraph requirement is not stipulated in your policy, I don't see how Allstate can legally modify that contract by demanding that you submit to a polygraph "test" before it will make payment for your loss.

It is worth bearing in mind that Allstate's private investigator will have one mission: to find a reason -- any reason -- to deny your claim and save the company money. As Twoblock mentioned, I think it would be smart to check with a lawyer regarding this situation.

The one thing some of the previous posters have correct, is their conclusion that you cannot be forced to take a polygraph examination. Most statutes prevent compelling polygraph and the process requires cooperation.

Regardless of opinions you will find here against polygraph and rhetoric it generates, peer reviewed published polygraph research as well as the vast majority of anecdotal information from actual cases prove repeatedly that a polygraph examination can effectively discriminate lying from truth-telling. Every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence.

Broad claims like "no scientific basis" and "inherently biased against the truthful" are mere opinions.

You are certainly better off refusing the examination than trying to use the countermeasures available on this site. There is at least one study that indicates that attempting countermeasures actually increses the possibility of a truthful person failing the examination and there is no peer-reviewed published research that proves countermeasures taught in The Lie Beind the Lie Detector can be effectively implemented in a real life polygraph.

Do all of the research you want. Listen to the advice and negative claims about polygraph you'll find here. Read the book if you want. Read the massive barrage of responses that will likely follow my post. It's a free world. I am here fighting against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth.

If you don't want to take the test, refuse it, try to "beat it" at your peril. If you try countermeasures and get caught or try them and fail your test, both of which, in my opinion, are vastly more probable than successfully using countermeasures, you should not expect a sympathetic ear when you try to use excuse your behavior.

It's your decision.

Pugs423,

Note that our friend "Ed Earl" derives income from giving polygraph tests. You should greet his claims regarding polygraphy with the same skepticism that you would those of a tobacco salesman touting the health benefits of smoking.

See pugs I told you.

All I did was encourage you to refuse the test,(agreeing with him on that point by the way) suggest that you should do your own research ( a sound idea concerning any important matter)  and point out an alternative position (allowed and encouraged in this forum) to the overwhelming negative views represented on this site. He responds impuning my integrity, comparing me to a tobacco salesman making some type of false claim. A statement I find at odds with his demand that posts substantively, civilly, and non-argumentatively address the original topic, made yesterday in another thread on this very site.

While he may disagree with my statements, they are accurate.

As a direct response to his ad hominum attack impugning my personal integrity, I feel justified informing you that the origin of our friend "George Mashke's" hatred of polygraph is derived from his demonstrated inability to pass them.  You will find support for this comment in his own words at: https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml    I encourage you to read it for yourself and draw your own conclusion, but you may have to process a certain amount of "spin".

I believe you should  greet his claims regarding polygraphy with the same skepticism that you would the instruction of a Drivers Ed teacher who has repeatedly been denied his license to drive.

I am STILL here fighting against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. My personal opinion is that the free advice you might find here on countermeasures is tremendously overpriced. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance here.

Refuse the examination.  It cannot be compelled by the insurance company.  It may delay your claim, however, it is not a condition of your insurance policy.  You are not an employee, so EPPA does not apply.  It appears you do not want to go though an examination, so just refuse.  All the parsing of words regarding your situation are irrelevant.  It is your choice.  I also derive my income from conducting polygraph examinations so I guess my opinion is also covered by the one statement "You should greet his claims regarding polygraphy with the same skepticism that you would those of a tobacco salesman touting the health benefits of smoking."

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 03:24 PMAs a direct response to his ad hominum attack impugning my personal integrity, I feel justified informing you that the origin of our friend "George Mashke's" hatred of polygraph is derived from his demonstrated inability to pass them.

It would be more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his inability to pass one by answering the questions truthfully.

I think it is reasonable to believe that most intelligent people would have serious misgivings about the polygraph if they were accused of lying after answering all the questions truthfully.

Well I finally just called an asked if I had to take the exam and the agent said "absolutly not".   He said the only reason he asked me was so he could inform the investigator to bring his equipment and that the investigator would also ask. He aslso said that they could not  deny the claim because of my refusal to take the exam.  He even admitted that the exams held no water and thaey coulkd be passes easily with   countermeasures.  I made no comment to that. So he basically said that was a standad question,   They say your in good hands with Allstate but I fill like I'm stuck between two butt cheeks.

Actually Sergeant, It would be more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his demonstrated inability to pass them accompanied by his unsubstantiated claim he answered the questions truthfully.

While there is no disagreement, (according to his account,) that he did not pass his polygraphs; there is some disagreement between he and the FBI and LAPD regarding his truthfulness(again according to his OWN account). In any case, I pointed Pugs towards George's story so he could read it and draw his own conclusion. Do you have something against that?    

While I wouldn't have mentioned it at all had he not impugned my integrity, I think it is reasonable to believe that most intelligent people would find it fair to question the veracity of a person who failed to meet  minimum standards for competitive employment regarding why they failed to meet those standards whatever they were, but especially so when the central issue was truthfulness.  However, if you guys will let this issue lay, I will too.

I mean all I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Ed Earl,

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 05:48 PMI don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Would you object to requiring that polygraph examiners be honest, honorable, and truthful in conducting their examinations?  Furthermore would you consider it reasonable that every examinee be provided access to a downloadable digital video of his/her exam that could be independently reviewed for compliance with the aforementioned?

QuoteActually Sergeant, It would be more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his demonstrated inability to pass them accompanied by his unsubstantiated claim he answered the questions truthfully.

Actually Sancho, it would more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his inability to pass them while telling the truth dispite  YOUR and other industry pundits unsubstatiated claims that the polygraph can measure truthfulness from lies.

An intelligent person might ask if there were any evidence to substantiate that employment polygraphs (which is what GM took) could do what you just claimed it could do (with no citations as usual) why did the NAS review conclude otherwise?

Who should an intelligent person believe, the NAS or a person who makes a living telling people otherwise.  GM's tobacco industry analogy pertains.  

Was any evidence ever found that GM was working for Iran, or is a drug dealer as his FBI polygrapher accused him of?

TC

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 05:48 PMI mean all I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy of a straw man argument.  The straw man argument presented is:  Anti-polygraph people are those who try to convince people they are better off lying, while pro-polygraph people are simply encouraging people to be honest.
It is a deliberately misleading oversimplification of the opposing positions, intended to make one side seem so extreme that no one is likely to agree with them.

My own experience in telling the truth during my polygraphs and having the examiners tell me I was clearly lying makes it easy for me to believe George when he says he also told the truth and failed.  There is no reason to believe George was lying unless you believe in the infallibility of the polygraph, and my own experiences have thoroughly convinced me that the polygraph is hardly infallible.

Once again, feel free to look over my previous posts and try to find where I suggested that it would be a good idea to lie.  I don't think you will find any examples.

Sergeant, are you stating George's book does not endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations?  Have you read it? How exactly would one conclude that a document could attempt to teach countermeasures without endorsing their use?  Do I really need to cite specific passages as proof?

Are you saying that his own account of his experience with polygraph doesn't point out that the FBI and LAPD think he was lying while he claims he was telling the truth, thus establishing disagreement between he and the FBI and LAPD regarding his truthfulness? Have you read his account?

Are you denying that there is  peer reviewed published polygraph research as well as the vast majority of anecdotal information from actual cases prove repeatedly that a polygraph examination can effectively discriminate lying from truth-telling or that every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence? Have you read any of it?

Are you saying that George's unsubstantiated claims coupled with yours regarding  failing a polygraph while telling the truth are somehow statistically significant? Do you have any idea how many such claims would have to be verified to even approach statistical significance? Maybe you should ask someone familiar with statistical analysis?        One might understand how your personal experiences might affect your personal beliefs concerning polygraph, but they don't really PROVE anything significant about polygraph.

Cullen, are you stating that the NAS did not conclude that specific issue polygraph tests (Which is what pugs was being asked to take) are capable of discriminating lying from truth telling at rates significantly greater than chance? Have you read ALL of the NAS report. If you want citations, just use the citations provided in that report. You know where the NAS report can be found. Why should I cite studies that have been referenced on this site dozens of times? If you can't find them ask George, he knows where they are at. Do you believe that because they made comments that portray polygraph in a negative light that their comments regarding the positive aspects of polygraph should be considered less accurate or disregarded? Don't be disingenuous.

Do you have any evidence that George was accused of being a drug dealer? George didn't mention that in his letter to the FBI or in his letter to LAPD. One might think it would be something worth mentioning if it occurred.

Are either of you claiming that there is peer-reviewed published research that proves countermeasures taught in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be effectively implemented in a real life polygraph?  Where is it? The NAS report didn't cite any. In fact they cast doubt on that likelihood.

Getreal already Why is it you only show up when the discussion turns to George's veracity or his failed polygraphs, even though you have been a member of this forum for almost 2 years?   Are you someone's alter ego?  
The APA pre-employment protocol calls for exams to be recorded. Once recorded, they are available by subpoena. If they were any easier to obtain, the applicant and all their admissions would be featured on YOUTUBE. I don't think that would benefit anyone. Have you seen the one of George with the colander on his head? It isn't very flattering.

I don't claim to speak for ALL pro-polygraph people when I say that what I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance anger and ad hominum attack. Nor am I presently accusing you of endorsing lying even though I believe you have made a conscious decision to ally yourselves with those who do. Your accusation of "straw man argument" sounds like a feeble attempt at straw man argument to me.

What I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

I believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.

Do any of you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable, and truthful?

If so I'd like to hear your arguments.

If you are all right and I am wrong, perhaps you could explain why the last piece of major polygraph legislation was in 1988 (over 20 years ago) and why this oft cited NAS report hasn't resulted in any significant changes in the law and why every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence?

As I said before, I am perfectly willing to leave the discussion of George's honesty, veracity, and integrity lay, if you guys are.

I'm pro-truth.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 10:35 PMSergeant, are you stating George's book does not endorse lying and cheating on polygraph examinations?  Have you read it? How exactly would one conclude that a document could attempt to teach countermeasures without endorsing their use?

We already went over this when you were posting as Sancho. In light of the minimum of seven deceptions employed by the polygraph operator in every "test," I don't see an ethical problem with truthful persons employing countermeasures. As I told you before, it is an ethical breach on the level of deceptively telling a used car saleman that you found a better price elsewhere.

QuoteAre you denying that there is  peer reviewed published polygraph research as well as the vast majority of anecdotal information from actual cases prove repeatedly that a polygraph examination can effectively discriminate lying from truth-telling or that every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence?

Citations, please.

QuoteCullen, are you stating that the NAS did not conclude that specific issue polygraph tests (Which is what pugs was being asked to take) ...

QuotePugs423: Well I finally just called an asked if I had to take the exam and the agent said "absolutly not"... He also said that they could not deny the claim because of my refusal to take the exam.

And the incentive for Pugs423 to submit to polygraphic interrogation is...?

QuoteAre either of you claiming that there is peer-reviewed published research that proves countermeasures taught in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be effectively implemented in a real life polygraph?  Where is it? The NAS report didn't cite any. In fact they cast doubt on that likelihood.

Drew Richardson's challenge to the polygraph operators has gone seven years without a single taker. As he says in the audio introduction, "What are the polygraph operators afraid of?"

QuoteThe APA pre-employment protocol calls for exams to be recorded. Once recorded, they are available by subpoena. If they were any easier to obtain, the applicant and all their admissions would be featured on YOUTUBE. I don't think that would benefit anyone. Have you seen the one of George with the colander on his head? It isn't very flattering.

If the tapes were released to applicants themselves, control of them would be up to the individuals. With regard to George's YouTube video, it has a 4.5 star rating after over 11,000 views. Some people seem to like it.

QuoteWhat I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Again, in light of the seven deceptions, you live in a glass house. Take it easy with the stones.
                                                                                                     

QuoteI believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.

See above.

QuoteDo any of you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable, and truthful?

If so I'd like to hear your arguments.

This should start with the polygraph operators.

QuoteIf you are all right and I am wrong, perhaps you could explain why the last piece of major polygraph legislation was in 1988 (over 20 years ago) and why this oft cited NAS report hasn't resulted in any significant changes in the law and why every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence?

Polygraphy was essentially abolished in the minds of a vast majority of Americans with the EPPA 20 years ago. The reason that further reform has been slow in coming is that there are too few people that remain subject to it.

Honestly, the best thing for our cause right now would be the complete repeal of the EPPA. If polygraphy was alive and well in the private sector like it was back in the day--where everyone from bank tellers to gas pump jockeys could be wired up--it would result in a lot more people being falsely accused and thus motivated to learn about polygraphy.

I'm confident that the resulting legislation would have no government loopholes.

If only the Web was around in 1986!

Sancho,

PUGS is taking a criminal polygraph?  Well, ponder this.  If you assume such polygraphs are 75% accurate (which I ain't and the NAS claimed actual accuracy % can not be determined), that means there is a 1 in 4 chance of failing despite telling the truth (false positive).  Those are WORSE ODDS THAN PLAYING "RUSSIAN ROULETTE"!!  Which would be 1 in 6 (first round).

Of course shooting yourself in the head is worse than being falsely accused of committing a crime, but the point is, you have nothing to gain by taking a criminal polygraph.

TC

P.S.  I'd still like to know why the NAS uses the term "specific incident" polygraph versus what seems to be the preferred  polygrapher term "single issue".  There is a definite semantic difference.  The former presumes an incident (crime, adulterous act...etc.) have already been determined to have taken place.  The later doesn't.  Just ASSumes so.

Ed Earl,

My post was simple and clear, I believe.  I don't see think it requires so many "do you think?" and "are you saying?" questions in order to understand it.

Your post, however, includes the circular argument that you believe George lied on his polygraph because after his polygraph he wrote a book speaking out against the polygraph and in that book he provides methods on how to beat the polygraph, and only a dishonest person would do such a thing, so therefore he must have lied on his polygraph.  That is an obvious logical fallacy.  As is your continuing attempts to engage in a straw man argument by reposting my rather self-explanatory opinions as extreme versions so that you can attack them and I (or anyone else) would look less convincing defending them.

Perhaps you could read my post again.  I"m sure what I wrote doesn't require that much further explanation.

Gino, This 7 deceptions BS  comes from Drew Richardson. No matter what his academic credentials might be, he lacks the knowledge and experience to make such broad generalizations regarding what occurs or does not occur in every test. He isn't even qualified to support an allegation concerning what is or is not said in one percent of tests. What is undisputable is that you and George endorse lying and cheating on polygraph tests, regardless of your feeble attempt at justification.

The citations you seek can be found throughout and at the end of the NAS report. Use them. I see no reason to cite them over and over again, some of them are even mentioned in your book. Why should I fetch you a cup of coffee when you are standing next to the pot?

Drews "challenge" would not prove anything regarding the effect of countermeasures in the field. In order to do that, YOU and George will need to enlist the aid of liars and criminals. People you really shouldn't believe in the first place.

If you release those tapes to the applicant then they become a public record accesssable by anyone. I don't question that George's "kitchen utensil on the head" video is popular, I go back and watch it myself when I need a laugh.

I know it irks you that I have the "stones" to come here and take you on in your own yard but what I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance. I believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.

If you don't like the law, change it. Oh wait, you've been trying, haven't you?  What you aren't having is any success. In fact, every year since EPPA more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence and the courts have also decided that disqualified applicants have no standing to sue because a government employer uses polygraph as part of the hiring process.

Cullen, I dont know why the NAS used the terms they used. Maybe you should ask them.

But since you asked me, A specific incident polygraph examination allows questions concerning multple facets of a known incident. For example in case of a robbery. Did you point the gun? Did you plan the robbery? Did you drive the getaway car? are all possible actions by someone who committed the crime. Specific incident tests require a known incident.  A single issue test attempts to resolve a single issue such as did you point the gun? or Have you illegally used drugs in the last five years? Single issue tests do not necessarily require a known incident. I am unaware of any research that indicates that a single issue test's accuracy is affected by whether or not the topic is a known incident. Since specific issue tests are more accurate than multiple facet or multiple issue tests, the American Polygraph Association Protocol recommends that multi-fact or multi- issue tests be followed by a specific issue test regarding areas of significant reaction observed on the first test if unresolved by a significant admission. The NAS report is generally given credit for this change in procedures even though many examiners were using follow-up specific issue testing before their report was published.

I will bow to whatever experience you claim regarding russian roulette. While I have seen dozens of self inflicted gunshot wounds, except for an unintentional discharge involving a non-life threatening wound, the shooters were rendered permanently unavailable to discuss probabilities or comparitive benefit.  On my first one I ended up throwing away a pair of shoes and a hat and it's nothing to treat as flippantly as you have here.

I will say that if you offer me a 75% accuracy rate in a game of chance (which polygraph sn't by the way) I'll own Las Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City, hundreds of Indian Casinos and a fleet of river boats and cruise ships that would choke New York Harbor.

Clue:(Check the NAS report) According to the FBI, in the largest analysis of real world field data to date, reported their unresolved polygraph failures over a 10 year period were under 7%. That number combines false positives and true positives that did not result in and admission. That places a false positive rate in field applications at less than 7 %. Your revolver scenario by comparison would be at least twice and nearly three times that number approaching 17%.

But I'm not here to debate numbers or anyone's integrity or lack of same. I'll let that lay IF YOU WILL.

What I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Ed Earl,

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 05:48 PMI don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Quote from: getrealalready on Mar 17, 2009, 06:43 PMWould you object to requiring that polygraph examiners be honest, honorable, and truthful in conducting their examinations? Furthermore would you consider it reasonable that every examinee be provided access to a downloadable digital video of his/her exam that could be independently reviewed for compliance with the aforementioned?  

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 10:35 PMThe APA pre-employment protocol calls for exams to be recorded. Once recorded, they are available by subpoena. If they were any easier to obtain, the applicant and all their admissions would be featured on YOUTUBE.  

You ignored the first of two questions I posed to you (perhaps the most important and foundational for the second), so I will repeat it again:

Would you object to requiring that polygraph examiners be honest, honorable, and truthful in conducting their examinations?

Because examiner deception is ubiquitous and it occurs to a greater extent (100 percent of all examinations) than examinee deception (during some subset of all examinations), it must be dealt with first and must be done with force of law.  Or do you hold to the presumed "Dick-Cheney-school-of-polygraphy" mantra that we do what ever WE think is right as variously determined by US at any given time?

With regard to second question which you did provide an answer to,

Furthermore would you consider it reasonable that every examinee be provided access to a downloadable digital video of his/her exam that could be independently reviewed for compliance with the aforementioned?

Your answer referring to APA policy and rules is clearly non-responsive.  Even if the APA had any ethical authority (It doesn't.  As has been pointed out many times, it doesn't even enforce its own rules, e.g., those having to do with its individual members advertising phony degrees), it has no legal or administrative authority over the various agencies that employ polygraphers and conduct polygraph examinations.  Clearly, any serious regulation would come from force of law.  If there was any serious intent on the part of the polygraph community to end its own routine deception in the polygraph suite and offer proof of such, it would be relatively easy to digitally record examinations and make them readily and privately (involving passwords and encryption) available to the relevant examinee for download.  

Again, would you be in favor of such actions?

getrealalready. Allow me to respond in simple declarative sentences.

I did not respond to your question about whether examiners should be required to be honest, honorable, and truthful in conducting their examinations because your question implies that they are not. I disagree with your unsubstantiated characterization.

While I tend to agree that examinations should be recorded, I do not agree that every examinee should be provided with a downloadable copy of his or her examination because they would likely end up on "Youtube", like George's colander on the head video. If that happened you would see examinees begin to accuse examiners of releasing their videos and filing lawsuits.

If you want a different set of rules, change the law.

Your claim that examiner deception is ubiquitous and it occurs to a greater extent (100 percent of all examinations) is either an unsubstantiated overgeneralization or a deliberate lie in order to get some type of angry response. I have yet to see any information that you are in any position to possess an informed opinion regarding what may or may not occur in any significant percentage of the thousands of polygraph examinations conducted every year.

Sergeant, I did not state in any of the above posts that I believed that George lied on his polygraph. What I said was that based on his own account there is a difference of opinion between he, the FBI and LAPD, regarding his truthfulness which leaves the issue of his veracity unresolved.

I didn't conduct George's test. I haven't seen his charts.  I don't know whether he told the truth or not. One could choose to believe him to be truthful based only upon his claim that he was being truthful, but that type of circular argument makes a pretty small circle and to claim that issue as settled is something of a non sequiter. Presuming that because you told the truth in your examination proves that he told the truth in his, is even more fallacious. I understand why it might make it easier for you to believe he was teling the truth but, it really proves nothing. What is settled, by virtue of his own writing, is that he endorses lying and cheating with regard to polygraph examinations. I find his and Gino's attempts to justify that type behavior unconvincing and I therefore disagree with it.  

I believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.

I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. Why must we continue to go over and over the same ground? After all of this time, do you think anything I might say could change your mind? Do you really believe that you will change mine?

There are however people out there who will come to this forum out of curiosity or apprehension regarding an upcoming exam.

I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 18, 2009, 08:31 AMGino, This 7 deceptions BScomes from Drew Richardson. No matter what his academic credentials might be, he lacks the knowledge and experience to make such broad generalizations regarding what occurs or does not occur in every test. He isn't even qualified to support an allegation concerning what is or is not said in one percent of tests.

Ed Earl,

Drew Richardson is eminently qualified to point out the deceptions inherent in polygraph examinations to which Gino referred. He has a doctorate in physiology from the George Washington University Medical Center, has conducted polygraph-related research, and is well familiar with polygraph procedure. The deceptions inherent in CQT polygraphy that he enumerated on this forum (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1214#msg1214) back in 2001 bear repeating:

QuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.


(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.


(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.


(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.

The late David T. Lykken, author of the seminal treatise on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, also mentioned the deceptions on which polygraphy depends in the conclusion of Chapter 13 (The Tools of Diogenes: An Overview) of the 2nd edition:

Quote

Lies! Lies! Lies!

One important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched upon in passing deserves explicit emphasis in this summing up. All of these techniques fundamentally depend on deception -- not just in one way and not just in little ways. The theory and assumptions of polygraphic interrogation require the examiner to successfully deceive each subject that he tests in several basic ways. First, he must persuade the subject that being untruthful or even unsure about his answers to the control questions may cause him to fail the test, although in fact the opposite of this is true. Second, when he administers the "stim" test in order to impress the subject with the accuracy of the technique, the examiner has two choices, both of them deceptive. He can use the original Reid "pick-a-card" method in which the deck is either stacked or marked so that the examiner can be sure to guess the right card. Alternatively, he can use the Raskin "pick-a-number" method in which he deceitfully explains that he is "determining what your polygraphic response looks like when you lie." The truth is, of course, that individuals do not show characteristic physiological response patterns when they lie that they do not also show when telling the truth. Third, throughout his interactions with the subject, the examiner must convey the impression of virtual infallibility. The stimtest is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polygraph will reveal their guilt, then they are more likely to respond strongly to the relevant questions. If innocent subjects are similarly convinced, then they will tend not to respond so strongly. Moreover, because most examiners truly believe in their near-infallibility, because as we have seen they are the victims of their own deceptive art, they may convey this needed impression not only effectively but also without conscious guile. Nonetheless, the polygraph test, as we have seen, has an accuracy closer to chance than to infallibility; the innocent suspect being tested by the police faces worse odds than in a game of Russian roulette. The fact that most polygraph examiners are not aware of these facts (indeed, they may be the last to know) is not an adequate excuse. Fourth, when the subject is interrogated after a polygraph test, he may be the victim of repeated deceptions. "This unbiased, scientific instrument is saying that you're not telling the truth about this, John!" "Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you feel guilty about, Mary, then maybe you will do better on the next test." "With this polygraph chart, George, no one is going to believe you now. The best thing you can do is to confess and make the best deal you can."

I will confess here that I do not personally object to certain harmless deceptions of criminal suspects that might lead to verifiable confessions and a quick and easy solution to a criminal investigation. But a procedure that claims to be a genuine test for truth that cannot hope to succeed even by its own theory and assumptions unless the subject is successfully deceived in certain standard ways is an invitation to abuse, abuse by examiners and especially by sophisticated criminals and spies. I submit that it is madness for courts or federal police and security agencies to rely on polygraph results for this reason alone. As we have seen, of course, there are many other reasons for this same diagnosis.

The examiner deceptions associated with polygraphy are a necessary part of any candid discussion of the ethical considerations surrounding polygraph countermeasures. Whether you are blinded by self-interest or (more likely, in my opinion) being intellectually dishonest about these examiner deceptions, your unwillingness to acknowledge and confront them precludes you from any meaningful ethical debate about countermeasures.

Ed Earl,

Let me present a few points for your consideration as to why I believe polygraph examiner deception is widespread.  I have recently seen reference from you and others (most recently Dr. Maschke) to a list of polygraph examiner deceptions provided by Drew Richardson.  

Although they seem consistent in and of themselves with several things I have noted over the last couple of years, I will, for conversation's sake admit (that in theory at least) they could have arisen (1) from deranged thinking on the part of Dr. Richardson at the time of his writing, (2) perhaps a memory lapse on his part regarding what he had been taught or had witnessed that occurred between the time of his involvement and the time of his writing, (3) perhaps were true but were corrected between the time he knew such things to occur and the time of his writing.  I think the evidence before us all would indicate that none of the aforementioned is true and that these things existed at the time of his writing and may well continue to exist today.  

Points for your consideration:

1.  His original post was immediately preceded by that of one of your colleagues (as is the case with you, we are only led to believe he is a polygraph examiner).  This examiner not only confesses for himself for isolated and/or continual deceptions, but does so and tries to defend such actions for your whole community.

2.  Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence about polygrapher deception comes from the polygraph community itself and its would-be Athens of of doctrinal and procedural instruction, The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) and its various successors.  This site contains manuals of instruction for polygraph examiners which were written after Dr. Richardson's original post and which pretty much give a step by step lesson in deception more or less as outlined by Dr. Richardson.  If you would like to consider these in detail (I suspect you and your community might be a bit reluctant to do so), I would be happy to engage in that detailed discussion.  and finally to the last and most recent bit of deception...

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 17, 2009, 10:35 PMThe APA pre-employment protocol calls for exams to be recorded. Once recorded, they are available by subpoena. If they were any easier to obtain, the applicant and all their admissions would be featured on YOUTUBE.  

I would guess that this is the sort of deception Dr. Richardson was referring to in the original post when he referred to misrepresentations or exaggeration.  Although I don't doubt the APA has some sort of written protocol regarding exam recording, the average examinee is no more likely to receive routine compliance to a subpoena for a likely non-existent audio/video tape than he/she is to fly to the moon.  Comparing such a feat to the ease of watching a YOUTUBE feature is clearly misleading.

Ed Earl,

I don't believe I have ever suggested to anyone that they do anything other than answer all the questiosn truthfully and that they do not withold any information.

You seem unable to reconcile those suggestions with my belief that the polygraph is unable to detect deception with any reliable rate of accuracy, choosing instead to repeatedly post illogical straw man arguments that deliberate exaggerate my opinion.  As this is an open board, you are of course free to do so.

You wrote in your post that you don't know if George told the truth on his polygraph exam.  Neither do I and, significantly, neither does the examiner who conducted that exam.  Only George knows if he told the truth, and he says that he did.  With no reason to believe otherwise, why would any reasonable person choose to believe he lied?

BTW, I don't know of anyone who is "irked" by your "stones."  George, Gino, and the regular members of this board have never tried to dissuade anyone from posting a contrary opinion.  The same cannot be said for the message board at PolygraphPlace.com...

QuoteThe deceptions inherent in CQT polygraphy that he enumerated on this forum back in 2001 bear repeating:

I think that before they bear repeating they bear substantiating.. Regardless of what he or you may believe, Drew is not in any position to offer an informed opinion regarding what may or may not occur in any significant percentage of the thousands of polygraph examinations conducted every year. Whatever qualifications he had then, while severely lacking, are even less today than they were , regardless of his education and training.

You need to review the definition of seminal. While some might argue that Lykken's work was original, the majority of the chapters constitute his review of others work, his influence on the direction of future events is questionable.

When Dr Lykken used his Russian roulette analogy which was borrowed by Cullen He was unaware of the FBI field statistics, which weren't available until 20 years after his book was first published in 1981. If you have his comments regarding that specific data, it might be pertinent. At the risk of overusing the word, presuming how a deceased scientist would interpret a data set he hasn't evaluated is a bit disingenuous.

You of all people should not be considered qualified to decide who is suitable to be included or precluded from an ethical debate about countermeasures. How dare you question my integrity by accusing me of dishonesty when you repeatedly tell people that lying and cheating is acceptable behavior. But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

I have no interest to debate your silly number games. You know polygraph works, The NAS said that it works, The American Medical Association said it works and numerous peer reviewed published studies say that it works you just refuse to acknowledge it, because it doesn't work to your satisfaction or fit your opinion of how it should work. I have no expectation of ever changing your opinion. You should not expect to change mine. You don't seem to be making much headway with the public either. Your petition boasts about 10 new signatures in the last 6 months. You might want to leave the president's name blank when you revise the cover letter. Who knows who might be in office by the time you get enough validated signatures to make an impression on anyone inside the beltway.

The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Do you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful? Surely you aren't implying that in order to do so, some special qualifications are required that are somehow subject to your approval.

Ed Earl,

As I noted earlier, both Dr. Richardson and Professor Lykken have enumerated some of the various deceptions that polygraph operators practice against subjects in the course of administering polygraph tests. You haven't refuted any of their points regarding these deceptions in any substantive manner.

George, with all due respect, why would an unsubstantiated opinion offered without an appropriate frame of reference require refutation?

I do not dispute that their allegations may have occurred somewhere or sometime. What I dispute is the idea that their observations are of sufficient quantity or quality to support any assertions regarding what all polygraphers say or do in all polygraph exams.

If either Drew Richardson or Dr. Lykken conducted, reviewed or observed 1000 actual polygraph examinations, which I doubt, they still lack sufficient frame of reference for any assertion regarding what is said or occurs in all or even most polygraph examinations. Their knowledge would be limited to what occurs only in the examinations they conducted, observed, or reviewed.

This continued over-generalization from such small numbers is just selective observation. If a polygraph examiner claimed to have conducted 1000 polygraph examinations the results of which were confirmed by independent irrefutable evidence, and I attempted to assert his results constituted proof that that polygraph was 100% accurate you would be pointing out the same fallacy to me. Wouldn't you? Even some of the dimmer bulbs here would see that for what it was; an assertion based on a generalization supported by a lack of substantial numbers and selective observation.

That doesn't really matter though, the reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Do you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful?

It seems reasonable that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.

QuoteWhen Dr Lykken used his Russian roulette analogy which was borrowed by Cullen ......

That is a lie!  I have never even read anything authored by Lyken!

Unless you can prove otherwise, please desist from accusing me of  having done something I have not.  Cease these dastardly ad hominy attacks on my character!  This is the second time you have accused me of something I have not done.  This is NOT a polygraph interrogation room where you can make false allegations unchallenged!

TC  

P.S.  And do not even think of attacking my little dog "Fala"!

Ed Earl,

The examiner deceptions enumerated by Richardson and Lykken are not unsubstantiated. Lykken discussed them at length in A Tremor in the Blood, and a review of the polygraph literature supports this view. It's not necessary to personally observe large numbers of polygraph interrogations to know about these deceptions (though both Richardson and Lykken have reviewed numerous polygraph sessions). The deceptions are documented in the literature of the polygraph community itself. Casual readers with any doubt that polygraphy depends in fundamental ways on examiner deception are invited to review Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) and the sources cited therein.

Again, a candid consideration of the examiner deceptions associated with polygraphy is necessary for any intellectually honest discussion of the ethical considerations associated with polygraph countermeasure use. But that seems to be a threshold you're not willing to cross.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 18, 2009, 05:32 PMTheir knowledge would be limited to what occurs only in the examinations they conducted, observed, or reviewed.  

Obviously, the same would be true of anyone writing about the polygraph, whether that person is pro-polygraph or anti-polygraph.  The fact that it is true about Dr.'s Richardson and Lykken in no way casts any pall upon their expertise nor in any way does it render their opinion any less valid.

Don't worry Cullen. I will never again insinuate that you might be guilty of researching your comments or the underlying foundation for them.

George. I do not dispute that their allegations may have occurred somewhere or sometime. What I dispute is the idea that their observations are of sufficient quantity or quality to support any assertions regarding what all polygraphers say or do in all polygraph exams.

I wouldn't expect to find anything in your book that wasn't somehow spun to support the premise you espouse. When YOU insinuate that I lack "Intellectual Honesty", I can only laugh, but that is just because I find myself at a loss for the proper way to spell the sound often described as the Bronx Cheer and proper decorum prevents me from uttering the common phrase for male bovine fecal matter. But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.


That doesn't really matter though, the reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Do you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful?

It seems reasonable that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.  But that seems to be a threshold you're not willing to cross.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Mar 18, 2009, 09:50 PMObviously, the same would be true of anyone writing about the polygraph, whether that person is pro-polygraph or anti-polygraph.The fact that it is true about Dr.'s Richardson and Lykken in no way casts any pall upon their expertise nor in any way does it render their opinion any less valid.  

That is why I do not make statements that claim to know what all polygraphers do or what happens in all polygraphs. What should be acknowledged is that their known credentials do not automatically render their opinions, which in this case were based on overgeneralization and small numbers any more valid either.

While I don't recall you ever encouraging anyone to lie or use countermeasures, it certainly appears that you have allied yourself with those who do. How do you justify defending George Maschke when he does encourage people to lie or use countermeasures?

I am here  to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

QuoteI am here  to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth.

But your "alternative point of view" so far, just as it was awhile back when you were posting as  "Sancho Panza" (and got banned for accusing GM of aiding terrorists), is to talk around in circles, and make ridiculous claims like polygraphers don't use the term "deception indicated" to describe specific answers to specific questions.

The used car lot analogy is applicable.  The polygraph is an interrogation (even pailryder admitted that).  Just as interrogators use deceptive techniques to get info out of people they can use against them, car salesmen use deceptive sales tactics to get more money out of customers.  Being forewarned and protecting oneself accordingly in such cases is not anymore unethical than the deceptions perpetrated by polygraphic interrogators.

Basically what your are saying is it's okay FOR POLYGRAPHERS TO LIE, but not okay for the people target with those lies to lie, and  then pontificating about bad "ethics".  

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 19, 2009, 01:24 AMBasically what your are saying is it's okay FOR POLYGRAPHERS TO LIE, but not okay for the people target with those lies to lie, andthen pontificating about bad "ethics".

I think that pretty much sums up the situation, though Ed Earl is evidently unwilling even to acknowledge the fact that polygraphers practice deception upon examinees.

George, Cullen  I sure wish I could spell that Bronx Cheer thing for you guys.

I have acknowledged repeatedly that the deceptions claimed by Drew Richardson and Dr. Lykken may have occurred somewhere or sometime. What I dispute is the idea that their observations are of sufficient quantity or quality to support any assertions regarding what all polygraphers say or do in all polygraph exams. So, To insinuate that I am unwilling even to acknowledge the fact that {SOME}polygraphers practice deception upon examinees is deliberately false.
Your statements also might mislead people to believe that Dr. Lykken was "Anti-Polygraph". That too would be an over generalized mischaracterization.

Until you have some credible evidence to substantiate that it goes on in all polygraph exams, just modify your over generalized unsubstantiated claim to "SOME" polygraphers practice deception and you will appear more credible and can argue that the reason behind Drew's statement is based on his personal observation.

Cullen, what pailryder stated was that polygraph is often used as an interrogation tool, but in the same post he also stated that you were mistaken if you believed that it was the only use.

I disagree with pailryder regarding his use of the term "often". I would encourage him to return and clarify what he means by "often".

There is a difference between Interview and Interrogation that is generally accepted by the courts, lawyers, and law enforcement. Interrogation only begins once the investigator is convinced of the interviewee's culpability. It would be unethical behavior for any polygraph examiner to conduct an exam if he were already convinced of the examinee's culpability. Print that on a T-Shirt and I'll wear it any where polygraphers gather. Many polygraph examinations are resolved without any interrogation whatsoever. If the examiner becomes convinced that the examinee is lying he may begin an interrogation, or simply report his findings and leave the subject of interrogation to someone else. To make a blanket statement that the polygraph is an interrogation is a mis-characterization of what happens.

In a properly conducted polygraph examination, if an interrogation occurs it only occurs after the pre-test INTERVIEW, data collection, and data evaluation are all completed and then only if the examiner becomes convinced of the examinee's culpability based on chart analysis and he has been tasked with the job of post-test interrogation. While it is possible that polygraph may have been used or may be used as an interrogation. Your  broad statement that "polygraph is an interrogation" is inaccurate and to attribute the statement in that context to pailryder is false and reprehensible.

But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

I do not agree that it is OK for polygraphers to lie even though the courts give them permission to do so under certain circumstances. Polygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.

The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Do either of you have a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful?

It seems reasonable that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.  But that seems to be a threshold George isn't willing to cross.

Quote
I think that pretty much sums up the situation, though Ed Earl is evidently unwilling even to acknowledge the fact that polygraphers practice deception upon examinees.

When documentation exists to support the notion that the leading university of polygraphy (tee hee) teaches rampant deception as a part of its core curriculum, it becomes rather irrelevant what Ed Earl is willing to acknowledge.

Mr Cullen

I purchased a used car recently and the salesman disclosed all known facts about the condition of the automobile.  Perhaps a better anology would be a physician perscribing a placebo.  In that case, the doctor has lied to the patient, but did the doctor do anything wrong or unethical?

Pailryder,

Quote
Perhaps a better anology would be a physician perscribing a placebo.  In that case, the doctor has lied to the patient, but did the doctor do anything wrong or unethical?

In a clinical trial in which a physician might well give a patient/subject a placebo, that subject should have properly been informed that (1) he/she is the subject of a clinical trial, and (2) that he/she might receive a placebo during that participation.

In the case of lie detection, a subject is not routinely told that he is participating in activity in which he/she might be (will routinely be) lied to.

getrealalready

Not in a clinical trial, if a physician makes a judgement that a patient does not require medication and prescribes a placebo instead, is that ever acceptable?

Pailryder,

A physician who administers a substance other than what he tells a patient he/she is prescribing (under the circumstances you describe) does so at his own great peril (administrative sanction, civil suit, etc).  Why?  Example: Suppose a physician were to administer sugar (sucrose) pills to a patient who did not realize (previously undiagnosed)
that he/she was a Type II diabetic...

Ed Earl

By "often" I mean, more often than not.  I would cite law enforcement's acceptance of CVSA to support my observation, however, a more private forum may be a better place for us to conduct this conversation.

getrealalready

If a physician makes a judgement that, in his medical opinion, a patient does not require medication and prescribes a harmless placebo instead, is that ever acceptable?

Regarding the "interview" vs. "interrogation" question, which has been discussed on ths board before:

Interrogation has been defined by the courts as the direct questioning of a suspect in custody, as well as any words or actions on the part of the police officer that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.  Someone acting on the behest of the police (e.g. - a civilian polygraph examiner) would be considered an agent of the state as far as a criminal court was concerned.

Prior to any questioning of a suspect in custody, the suspect must be advised of their Miranda rights.

Any suspect in custody the police wish to polygraph would absolutely require Miranda before any part of the polygraph process could take place.  If the suspect declined to waive his Fifth Amendment rights the polygraph could not place.  If the suspect asked to speak with a lawyer first, the Edwards Rule would apply and the polygraph could not take place.  

If a polygraph was not an interrogation the police could polygraph suspects in custody without advising them of their rights first.  That is absolutely not the case.  By the legal definition as accepted in the courts of this country, a polygraph of a suspect in custody is an interrogation.  

It is reasonable to call a polygraph exam an interrogation regardless of the semantical hairs some polygraph examiners wish to split on the matter.

Pailryder,

I refer you to my last response to you.

Sergeant, your comments are misleading.

It would be more accurate to state:
When a person is in custody and the police wish to have a conversation with him concerning the reason he is in custody, the requirement that he must be advised of, and make an informed waiver of, his Miranda rights applies. REGARDLESS of Polygraph.

The Edwards rule, which extends Miranda, is not offense-specific: What the Supreme court stated was "once a suspect invokes the Miranda right to counsel for interrogation regarding one offense, he may not be re-approached regarding any offense unless counsel is present".   If he simply says, "I don't want to talk about that" they are free to approach him on other crimes until he asks for an attorney.        

REGARDLESS of Polygraph.

The issue in Edwards had more to do with an accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel that his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to incriminate himself.  The main argument in Edwards was whether or not his request for the assistance of a public defender at a bail hearing constituted an invocation of his right not to be questioned in the absence of counsel. I think Edward's attorneys stipulated that he was read and waived his Miranda Rights every single time he was interviewed and then argued that they were the product of an unlawful approach because he had asked for an attorney at a bail hearing. The Supreme Court disagreed with his argument and denied relief. In their ruling they clarified that an invocation of right to counsel, requires at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police. To my knowledge, Edwards has neither been reversed nor modified in the interim.

Even though Miranda only applies to CUSTODIAL situations some agencies may have policies in place instructing polygraph examiners to provide Miranda warnings in all polygraph examinations. If they do it is a policy decision not an application of law.

Your insinuation that the law or the courts have attached some special Miranda obligation to a polygraph examination is incorrect.

Getrealalready I hope you can learn to live with being wrong.
In regard to your placebo response: Look at the length you had to go to to even approach relevance. But suppose little toads had wings, maybe they wouldn't bump their backsides so much while hopping through the garden

Pailryder, we can discuss that "often" thing at some other time and some other place. I was just pointing out that Cullen was attempting to mischaracterize your statement. Do you agree it would be unethical behavior for any polygraph examiner to conduct an exam if he were already convinced of the examinee's culpability?

I'm really not here to debate their overgeneralizations and cherry picked statistics, but just when I thought I was out... They pull me back in. One of them even became angry when I suggested he might have researched his comments. I won't make that mistake again. I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if they will.

I also believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.


I am really here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance. I have asked George several times if has a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful.  It seems reasonable, to me,  that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.  But that seems to be a threshold he's not willing to cross.

Pailryder if you agree with those last two paragraphs, you are welcome to join me and AAPACPTALPAUCN. T-shirt sales are sluggish, but membership is growing.

QuotePerhaps a better anology would be a physician perscribing a placebo.  In that case, the doctor has lied to the patient, but did the doctor do anything wrong or unethical?

But the physician is motivated by his/her concern for the overall well being of the patient.  The polygraphic interrogator  is not so motivated, though he/she will often attempt to convince the subject that they are ("I want you to get this job, so work with me here and LET ME HELP YOU!")

Can't you see the difference?

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 19, 2009, 12:22 PM
I also believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government.

If a reliable method were available to detect polygraph countermeasures, employing it would be a wise method for early identification of individuals suitable for the position of polygraph operator within an agency. As you noted, they are willing to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government.

QuoteI have asked George several times if has a problem with encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful.  It seems reasonable, to me,  that this question should be answerable by a simple yes or no.  But that seems to be a threshold he's not willing to cross.

Both George and I have stated numerous times that we feel that one is ethically obligated to be honest, honorable and truthful when answering relevant questions. We have also made it very clear that we feel it is ethical to employ polygraph countermeasures when faced with an unreliable process that is fraught with deception.

Why is it OK for polygraph examiners--people in positions of public trust--to be deceptive toward job applicants, but not appropriate in the other direction?

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 19, 2009, 12:22 PMSergeant, your comments are misleading.

I disagree.  However, I recognize your effort at making them appear so.

I was simply refuting the assertion that some polygraph examiners make that a polygraph exam is not an interrogation.  Since you cannot interrogate any person in custody without advising them of their Miranda rights first, and since Miranda is required prior to polygraphing any suspect in custody, it can be logically inferred that a polygraph exam is an interrogation.  If it was not then Miranda would not be required, and we all know that it is.

Perhaps you would once again benefit from going back and rereading my post.  I believe I was clear and maybe if you gave it another shot you would be able to understand what I was saying.  

Actually, I don't actually believe you found my post misleading.  What I do believe is that you feel obligated to muddy the waters around any post authored by someone who does not believe in the accuracy of the polygraph, which I believe negatively affects your credibility, rather than the original poster's.  I think any reasonable person looking over your posts would come to the same conclusion.

QuoteWhy is it OK for polygraph examiners--people in positions of public trust--to be deceptive toward job applicants, but not appropriate in the other direction?

And is a person cowardly enough to FALSELY accuse others of aiding terrorists (under multiple anonymous on-line names) in an effort to protect his paycheck and perpetuate a pop cultural myth, really in any position to question the "ethics" of others?

TC

Ed Earl

Mr Cullen's misstatement of my position was, in my opinion, just an attempt to bait me into a response.  It is generally pointless to reply to Mr Cullen, who is very loose in his use of logic and language.

QuoteIt is generally pointless to reply to Mr Cullen, who is very loose in his use of logic and language.

Like trying to logically comparing the motivations of a used car salesman to a doctor?

TC

Sergeant, your argument

Quote Since you cannot interrogate any person in custody without advising them of their Miranda rights first, and since Miranda is required prior to polygraphing any suspect in custody, it can be logically inferred that a polygraph exam is an interrogation.

 Is simply an attempt to affirm the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Gino perhaps if you had a single scrap of peer reviewed published scientific research, just one, that someone can take a copy of your book, apply the  countermeasure by following your instructions and effectively aid themselves in passing a polygraph test in a field setting then perhaps you could contradict the studies by Honts, Amato et al.  that indicate an honest person attempting countermeasures hurts their chances of passing. The NAS took notice of that didn't they?
your question,

QuoteWhy is it OK for polygraph examiners--people in positions of public trust--to be deceptive toward job applicants

falsely assumes  that I believe that it is OK for a polygraph examiner to be deceptive towards job applicants. I have answered that question already but here it is again from my previous post

QuoteI do not agree that it is OK for polygraphers to lie even though the courts give them permission to do so under certain circumstances. Polygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.

 

Actually I think there is more scientific research supporting Kinoki footpads and Colon Cleanse than there is for pages 145 through 155 of TLBTLD.

But, I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will (I mean that collectively, not specifically). Cullen seems to be attempting to bait me with his needling and ad hominum comments. He seems to be getting angry because I am ignoring his masterful baiting. I mean I accidentally accused him of researching his comments and he went ballistic.

I am really here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

I have been assailed from all sides for several days now just because I am prepared to defend the point of view that people are better off being honest, honorable and truthful in their polygraph exams. If they aren't prepared to do that, they shouldn't agree to one and they should not apply for any job that requires one.  I firmly believe for an applicant  to consider countermeasures, suggests a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in being a law enforcement officer or of occupying any position of trust in our government. Who knows what such a potential employee might fake, lie, or make up, right? I think most reasonable persons would agree to this as well. I also believe that anyone who endorses that behavior is squarely in the wrong.

QuoteGino perhaps if you had a single scrap of peer reviewed published scientific research, just one, that someone can take a copy of your book, apply the  countermeasure by following your instructions and effectively aid themselves in passing a polygraph test in a field setting then perhaps you could contradict the studies by Honts, Amato et al.  that indicate an honest person attempting countermeasures hurts their chances of passing. The NAS took notice of that didn't they?

Mr. Panza, Queeg, Earl, Anonymous two,

There you go purposely misinterpreting what the NAS report said.  They specifically said that CMs will hurt an applicants chances if the applicant DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE THEM.  Ah Duh?  Yeah! You could say that about the use of anything!  

So, you are correct, if an applicant puckers his anus "REAL HARD and REAL LONG!" like an anonymous polygrapher from the DODPI once recommended (pretending to be PRO CM) on this board, and do so on a relevant question, or irrelevant Q, then yes, you it will hurt your chances!

TC

P.S.  Note:  Another good example of you being purposely misleading.  You made the same phoney argument months ago as Mr. Panza.  Do you think the argument will become less phoney with age?

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 19, 2009, 06:00 PMI have been assailed from all sides for several days now just because I am prepared to defend the point of view that people are better off being honest, honorable and truthful in their polygraph exams.  

I am certain no one is assailing you for that reason.  I have posted for years on this board that people should be honest and answer all the questions truthfully (without witholding any information)during their polygraph exams, and no one has assailed me for doing so.

Once again, your straw man argument simply doesn't hold water.  An attack on "Ed Earl" is not the same as an attack on honesty and truth, no matter how many times you write that it is.

Cullen, If you plan to use the word "specifically" pertaining  to the content of the NAS report you should also use the actual language contained in the report. The word "specifically" implies an accurate and an explicit account from document you reference. Not that I am accusing you of ever having read it.

Here is what they specifically  said  pg 140

QuoteSome examinees who have not committed crimes, security breaches, or related offenses, or who have little to hide, might nevertheless engage in countermeasures with the intent to minimize their chances of false positive test results (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). This strategy is not risk-free for innocent examinees. There is evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001).

(emphasis added)

And page 147

QuoteAuthors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.

  (emphasis added)

This information was provided for you this time because you apparently don't like to be accused of, or actually conduct your own research. I suspect though that your post is just another one of your masterful baiting attempts.  But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will (I mean that collectively, not specifically).

In any case, I am here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 19, 2009, 06:00 PM
Gino perhaps if you had a single scrap of peer reviewed published scientific research, just one, that someone can take a copy of your book, apply the  countermeasure by following your instructions and effectively aid themselves in passing a polygraph test in a field setting then perhaps you could contradict the studies by Honts, Amato et al.  that indicate an honest person attempting countermeasures hurts their chances of passing.

The Honts, et al study was handicapped by serious methodological shortcomings. Most notably, the complete absence of motivation for study participants to put meaningful effort into the mastery of polygraph countermeasures. Minor rewards like free movie tickets or extra credit in an undergraduate behavioral science course are trivial compared to the motivation that someone has to defeat a real polygraph "test" when consequences are on the line.

QuotePolygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.

 

If what you say is correct, why do the seven deceptions outlined by Dr. Richardson persist within polygraphy?

You have assailed his credentials, pretended that these deceptions do not exist, are rarities, etc. Still, you have not in any way meaningfully refuted Dr. Richardson's assertion that polygraphy is fraught with deception.

Let's start with just the first deception he outlined:

Quote(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

Would you disagree with the contention that a vast majority (if not all) polygraph examinations begin with the operator providing (or attempting to provide)  an explanation of the theory behind polygraphy?

It is without dispute that other stimuli besides attempts at deception can produce the physical manifestations of autonomic nervous system activity that are measured by the polygraph instrument.

Do you contend that this information is provided to subjects on a routine basis by polygraph examiners when explaining the "test?" If not, might this intentional omission be considered deception?

Note that more than FBI rejection letter has outlined "withholding information" as a reason for rejection (in addition to not being within acceptable parameters, of course).

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

Yes, and if I remember correctly, the study above referred to countermeasures used by people NOT PROPERLY TRAINED in the use of countermeasures.  As I stated in my last post, if you don't know WHEN or HOW to apply countermeasures, you probably will probably do more harm than good.  If you try to clean a gun in an improper manner, you're liable to shot yourself too.


TC

Gino whatever shortcomings you might claim in Honts et al obviously stem from your absolute inabilty to refute their findings with peer reviewed published scientific research, that concludes someone can take a copy of your book, apply the  countermeasure by following your instructions and effectively aid themselves in passing a polygraph test in a field setting because you can't produce any.

A very intelligent fellow once said something to the effect of [Terms like "Serious methodological shortcomings," are vacuous hyperbole (the equivalent of a verbal rubber stamp) and have become over-used accusation when one simply wants to discount or discredit a study or findings which one does not like. They are simple-minded cudgels, with which to bash on and reject information which is inconsistent with an apologetic position. When used properly, the term "serious methodological shortcomings," is a generic description of any set of conditions which would reasonably prevent the formulation of any conclusions.]     Such a study would probably not have passed muster for inclusion by the NAS.

What exactly are your qualifications to assess the quality of psychophisological reasearch? Your book doesn't claim anything more than you attended a couple of meetings in Washington DC.

I stand by my statement that Polygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.

I stand by my statement that Drew Richardson lacks a sufficient basis of knowledge to arrive at a reliable conclusion regarding what goes on in every or all polygraph examinations. For you or anyone else to argue otherwise is simply an excercise in over-generalization of small numbers. That is fallacious argument an as such requires no further refutation.  

I have already explained to you that I do not agree that it is OK for polygraphers to lie even though the courts give them permission to do so under certain circumstances.

I am here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth.

QuoteA very intelligent fellow once said something to the effect of [Terms like "Serious methodological shortcomings," are vacuous hyperbole (the equivalent of a verbal rubber stamp) and have become over-used accusation when one simply wants to discount or discredit a study or findings which one does not like. They are simple-minded cudgels, with which to bash on and reject information which is inconsistent with an apologetic position. When used properly, the term "serious methodological shortcomings," is a generic description of any set of conditions which would reasonably prevent the formulation of any conclusions.]     Such a study would probably not have passed muster for inclusion by the NAS.

My generalization was immediately followed by a very specific example regarding the lack of appropriate motivation for the volunteers. There is nothing wrong with providing a generalized introduction when it is supported by specific example(s). It's actually the hallmark of good writing.

QuoteI stand by my statement that Polygraph works and the examiner does not have to lie to the examinee to "make it work" In fact it has even worked on psychologists, physiologists, and psychophisiologists; three groups who should be fully aware of any errors or deceptions a polygrapher might attempt regarding what causes reactions.
I stand by my statement that Drew Richardson lacks a sufficient basis of knowledge to arrive at a reliable conclusion regarding what goes on in every or all polygraph examinations. For you or anyone else to argue otherwise is simply an excercise in over-generalization of small numbers. That is fallacious argument an as such requires no further refutation.  

Once again, if the seven deceptions that Dr. Richardson listed are not central to the efficacy of polygraphy, why are they so widely practiced?

Your assertion that what Dr. Richardson observed and commented on stemmed from isolated deviations is laughable.

The deceptions referred to by Dr. Richardson can be corroborated by looking through instructional material provided to polygraph operators, including the DoDPI items available for download on the right side of the AntiPolygraph.org home page.

They are central to nearly every CQT polygraph examination. You know it, I know it and any avid reader of this Web site who has been "on the box" knows it.


Again, let's start with my comments on the first deception that you ignored in my previous post.

Are you trying to assert that polygraph operators do not, on a routine basis, omit (intentionally or otherwise) the well-established truth that the autonomic nervous system responses chronicled on a polygraph instrument can result from numerous phenomena other than attempts at deception?

Yes or no, it's that simple.

QuoteWhat exactly are your qualifications to assess the quality of psychophisological reasearch? Your book doesn't claim anything more than you attended a couple of meetings in Washington DC.

This is the classic example of an ad hominem attack. My argument mentions that Dr. Richardson described polygraph operators as a group lacking educational credentials with regard to physiology. You turn it against me personally.

I keep my personal life just that--personal--for two reasons:
(1) It has no bearing on my well-referenced criticism of polygraphy; and
(2) Like it or not, my day job involves playing for the same team that you once did. I won't go any further than that.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 19, 2009, 11:29 PMI stand by my statement that Polygraph works  

When you write that polygraph "works" do you mean that it is highly accurate in the detection of deception, or that it sometimes elicits information from test subjects who might have otherwise not spoken about such things?

Your example regarding the lack of appropriate motivation for the volunteers fails on its face unless you can provide research that indicates that this motivation is relevant. NAS postulated that motivation might be a factor, but that research was needed to prove that it was a factor. Where is it?  You are taking a theoretical possibility and claiming that it works in field applications without any scientific research that proves it can be effective.

You offer your own brand of inoculation against failing a polygraph without ANY scientific research to prove the cure you are offering is any more than snake oil.  

The reason your countermeasures fail is that the seemingly simple idea that you propose "make reactions to control questions greater to relevant questions" while easy enough to say isn't very easy to accomplish convincingly. What you should really tell your readers is that in order for countermeasures to work, they will have to create a deliberate response that resembles a phasic autonomic reaction on a polygraph chart. They have to do it without ever having seen what such a reaction looks like produced by their own physiology, and they must do this in a manner that overcomes their natural reaction, yet not so much that it becomes obvious to the examiner (who is well experienced in what autonomic reactions look like on a polygraph) that their response is being manufactured. They will also have to do this repeatedly and consistently over the course of 3 or 4 charts. A persons tonic physiology, observed on a polygraph changes from day to day and even chart to chart depending on a wide host of possible factors so what works on one day may well fail on another day.  That just isn't easy to do.

A simplified example of what countermeasures try to accomplish would be for you to take 6 identical water glasses and a garden hose. Have a friend blindfold you and fill half of the glasses to different levels (we'll call these the RQ glasses). Now have him turn the garden hose on low so the water doesn't just gush out and knock the glasses over. Your task is to fill the empty glasses (Let's call them CQ glasses) to a level slightly greater level than their companion glass if you fail to fill it beyond the RQ level you fail. If you fill it more than 1/2 inch beyond the level of the RQ glass or over flow the glass you will be accused of attempting countermeasures. Your friend will be allowed to give you one clue regarding each glass. He will be allowed to tell you that it is either almost empty, approximately half or almost full. This glass filling process simulates an attempt for you to manufacture a response you can't see.     OK that's one chart. Now rearrange the glasses, empty the CQ glasses and try again and repeat the procedure at least two more times to simulate an entire exam. This should give you a pretty good idea of what you expect a person to be able to do on a polygraph, just from reading your book.

Except, of course, in a polygraph all of the glasses aren't the same size and you won't have a buddy telling you how full the RQ glasses are. Your motivation, whether it is 1 dollar or a million or the potential consequences whether they are a slap on the hand or summary execution would not be expected to have any positive effect on your ability to fill the glasses. No matter how much you practice filling CQ glasses, you never get any feedback on how much water is going to be in the RQ glasses on the day you take your test.

What happens to truthful examinees who attempt countermeasures in a comparison question test is if their reactions are already slightly greater to CQs than their reactions to RQs either they try to fill the wrong glass, start filling the glass too soon, start filling it too late or they consistently overfill the CQ glass because their phasic CQ reactions are already naturally greater than their RQ reactions. These additional opportunities to fail will not only confound the goal of a guilty examinee and not help him at all, but they also confound the innocent examinee and increase the likelihood of his failure.

At best most who play that game will generate inconclusive results which results in another exam in a criminal case or a trip to the bottom of the applicant pile where they lose their opportunity if the people ahead of them pass their tests.  All because of a dishonorable attempt to cheat on a test.

Your inferences and implications regarding what is said or occurs in all polygraph examinations are based on unsubstantiated overgeneralizations. That isn't going to change. Yesterday for instance I know that polygraph examinations were conducted in Dallas Texas, Los Angeles California, Hartford Connecticut, and Topeka Kansas. You and Drew have nothing more than conjecture to offer regarding what was said by the examiner in describing autonomic nervous system responses chronicled on a polygraph instrument  in one, all or any of them.

Odd that Cullen has never attacked you for your desire to remain anonymous. That sort of thing seems to bug him.

So are you saying that your qualifications have no bearing on your criticism of polygraphy?  I can certainly agree with that, after all , I didn't ask you who you were, I asked you what your qualifications were, which is different from your identity.  But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will (I mean that collectively, not specifically).

In any case, I am here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Mar 20, 2009, 09:26 AM

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 19, 2009, 11:29 PMI stand by my statement that Polygraph works  

When you write that polygraph "works" do you mean that it is highly accurate in the detection of deception, or that it sometimes elicits information from test subjects who might have otherwise not spoken about such things?

Actually what I'm saying is that because of its high level of accuracy it often facilitates admissions from untruthful test subjects who might not have spoken about such things, as well as eliminating truthful subjects from further suspicion at levels the NAS and the AMA calculated from available research at levels significantly greater than chance.

I am also here to say that people are better off just telling the truth rather than lying and cheating of a polygraph test.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 10:15 AMI am also here to say that people are better off just telling the truth rather than lying and cheating of a polygraph test.  

Are people better off answering probable-lie "control" questions truthfully than untruthfully?

Ed Earl

I have asked this question before and I don't remember getting an answer. Since you and the other polygraphers are so adept at catching users of CMs, why don't you just just say "OK you would be rogue cops come on down, use your CMs and get caught. You will be instantly DQd. You can never get by us" instead of continually sounding like a broke record? If I was that sure of my ability, I wouldn't discourage their usage because you said you don't want that kind in LE. Let them use CMs and catch them if you are sure of your ability. To me that's a rational question. Would you give a rational answer. Or any other polygrapher for that matter.

Twoblock

I expect "dirty cops" to use every countermeasure available to them.  Why not?  They always have, even before this site existed.  What we are discussing and what is new and troubling, from our point of view, is countermeasure use by otherwise truthfuls attempting to protect against a misclassification, producing the very thing they fear by being identified as using cm.  

Dr Maschke

Anyone concerned about how to answer on a PLCT could inquire about the use of an alternative technique, perhaps DLCT or R/I would suit them better and may be allowed by some agencies.

Twoblock, I'm glad you asked. That is definitely one of your better questions if not the very best one you have produced and certainly worth a response.

There are two types of people who would consider using countermeasures to try and alter the outcome of a polygraph.

The first group would be those who have some negative issue regarding their past that would render them unsuitable for a position of responsibility or establish their culpability for a criminal act.

To that group I say:

QuoteDo all of the research you want. Listen to the advice and negative claims about polygraph you'll find here. Read the book if you want. It's a free world and if you are old enough to apply for a government job that requires a polygraph, or to submit to a polygraph in a criminal investigation then you are, at the very least, considered an adult by virtue of your age. You are the one who will have to live with any consequences of your decisions, not George, not Gino, nor any of the rest, just you. GO FOR IT. Polygraphers aren't scared of you.

The second group are those who have nothing negative about their past that would automatically render them unsuitable for a position of responsibility as long as they are willing to be honest about their mistakes or who are not culpable for the act that is the subject of a  criminal investigation and polygraph. These people, through nervousness or curiosity, may find their way to this website and begin to buy into the bugle oil being peddled by you, and George and Gino and the rest because certain assurances are offered that they can use TLBTLD to pass their test; even those assurances are not supported by research. Those are the ones I care about. I consider them to be George and Gino's victims.

To them I say:

QuoteFor you, as an applicant, or innocent person to consider countermeasures, suggests hyper vigilance, lack of trust, lack of confidence, and a willingness to engage in deceptive behavior considered by most as contraindicated in the character of an honest person or anyone being employed in a position of responsibility. A failed attempt at countermeasures may also cause a criminal investigation to focus directly upon you, because of the logical presumption that someone who is attempting to cheat on the test has something to hide.  I think most reasonable persons would agree.

 

TO BOTH GROUPS I SAY:

QuoteIf you try countermeasures and get caught or try them and fail your test, both of which, in my opinion, are vastly more probable than successfully using countermeasures, you should not expect a sympathetic ear when you try to excuse your behavior, (by explaining that you were only cheating to insure the test established your honesty) as they escort you to the door.

If you were to then return to this website to complain that the book didn't work you would probably just be told you didn't follow instructions.

Consider all sides. Make your decision. Be prepared to live with any consequences.

Twoblock I consider myself and those like me  similar to lifeguards at the edge of an anti-polygraph cesspool. Some of the people who dive in may still drown, but it won't be because we didn't try to save them.

That is what I mean when I say I am here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth.

Thank you for asking.

pailryder

Thank you for your response.

I think I understand what you are saying. However, if I am confident in my ability at whatever Im doing, i have no fear of the results. It seems to me that a classification ,based solely on spikes at different points, is pure conjecture and oversimplification. I'm sure that false accusations on too many occasions has happened and careers have been ruined. To me this is a one person decision and its wrong. Sure you're going to catch some, but I'll bet that there are just as many that get by and are falsely accused. I, too, wish there was an accurate way to decern truth from lies, but I don't believe we have it yet.

Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 20, 2009, 10:22 AM
Are people better off answering probable-lie "control" questions truthfully than untruthfully?

George, why should I expend any effort whatsoever to answer any of your questions when you consistently and repeatedly ignore mine?  

Would you like a list?

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 02:56 PM

Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 20, 2009, 10:22 AM
Are people better off answering probable-lie "control" questions truthfully than untruthfully?

George, why should I expend any effort whatsoever to answer any of your questions when you consistently and repeatedly ignore mine?  

Would you like a list?

You don't need to answer. The truth is self-evident. And it sets in stark relief the hypocrisy of polygraph operators who exhort others to speak nothing but the truth while administering a pseudoscientific procedure that is fundamentally dependent on deception.

Quote from: pailryder on Mar 20, 2009, 02:16 PMTwoblock

I expect "dirty cops" to use every countermeasure available to them.  Why not?  They always have, even before this site existed.  What we are discussing and what is new and troubling, from our point of view, is countermeasure use by otherwise truthfuls attempting to protect against a misclassification, producing the very thing they fear by being identified as using cm.  

Does anyone else find it ironic that the polygraph operator in such a case would apparently be unable to tell if someone was answering questions truthfully but still employing countermeasures?  Countermeasures which don't work anyway, I should say, if we are to believe the polygraph examiners who have repeatedly asserted such on this board.

If a polygraph operator cannot tell when someone is being truthful what hope do they have of correctly identifying a lie?  And what does that say about the overall efficacy of the polygraph?  That it is only effective when the examinee obeys the operator's instructions, but there is no way to tell when that is occurring and when it is not?

George Its obvious your mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

The product you peddle cures nothing. You have been ineffective in changing the law. and have failed to produce one single shred of scientific peer reviewed scientific research that proves that someone an take your book, practices the procedures you described in it and pass a polygraph in a field situation.

Quote from: pailryder on Mar 20, 2009, 02:40 PMAnyone concerned about how to answer on a PLCT could inquire about the use of an alternative technique, perhaps DLCT or R/I would suit them better and may be allowed by some agencies.

Thank you for the pointed response.

I am curious as to why the [less] deceptive DLCT is used with such rarity and/or only as a second line technique when the operator is informed by the test subject that he is aware of the deception inherent in the CQT....

I can understand why the R/I test has fallen out of favor as it is considered widely discredited even within the polygraph community.

I still, however, have a hard time understanding why the CQT is the  overwhelming favorite in modern polygraphy if the deception involved brings nothing to the table.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 04:43 PMThe product you peddle cures nothing. You have been ineffective in changing the law. and have failed to produce one single shred of scientific peer reviewed scientific research that proves that someone an take your book, practices the procedures you described in it and pass a polygraph in a field situation.  

One can't help but wonder;  if that were true, why would any polygraph supporter bother visiting this web site at all?  If that were true, George would be a complete non-factor, less important than background noise, and not worthy of any attention whatsoever.

If that were true, a polygraph operator visiting this site would make as much sense as a meteorologist visiting a site to decry its founder for shouting at the rain.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 02:56 PM

George, why should I expend any effort whatsoever to answer any of your questions when you consistently and repeatedly ignore mine?  

Would you like a list?

Speaking of such lists and avoiding direct questions...

Are you trying to assert that polygraph operators do not, on a routine basis, omit (intentionally or otherwise) the well-established truth that the autonomic nervous system responses chronicled on a polygraph instrument can result from numerous phenomena other than attempts at deception?

Yes or no, it's that simple.

Alternatively, do you feel that it is common for polygraph operators to inform examinees that despite the existence of other possible causes, during the scoring of the examination, ANS activity will be associated with deception, and deception alone?

I fully agree with your assertion that individuals facing a polygraph interrogation should consider views of all sides.

And if you continue to maintain that the contrived physiological "explanations" of how the "test" actually "works" a rarity, anyone who is on the fence with regard to who to believe will quickly know who is telling the truth within ten minutes of the polygraph suite.

Quotewhy would any polygraph supporter bother visiting this web site at all?

Sergeant, I'm glad you asked.

Sergeant the reason a polygraph supporter like me would visit this web site is  I consider myself and those like me  similar to lifeguards at the edge of an anti-polygraph cesspool. Some of the people who dive in may still drown, but it won't be because we didn't try to save them.

I try to save them by pointing out that cheating on a polygraph is wrong. I try to save them by pointing out the absurdity behind the premise of the countermeasures made available in TLBTLD, which is unsupported by research, that someone could somehow study their book and use it to pass a test using countermeasures. I try to save them by explaining to them like I did earlier today to Gino just how difficult it will be to apply countermeasures effectively.  If you will go back and read my comment to Gino or whatever his name is concerning what is wrong with the ideas they peddle about countermeasure you'll get a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.

The only people I am trying to save are those who are innocent, but might be scared enough or gullible enough to try these "countermeasures" which I believe, and research confirms, creates a greater probability of a truthful person failing the test.

There are also thieves, terrorists, and child molesters etc. who also come to this site in an effort to escape responsibility to society and their victims; Well, I ENCOURAGE them to read TLBTLD and take their best shot. Polygraphers are not scared of them. They will end up getting what they deserve. Applicants and Honest people who are too stupid to listen and stupid enough to try countermeasures will  also get what they deserve.

The only people who won't get what they deserve are George and Gino. I can almost hear them giggling every time an honest man fails his test as a result of the feculent bilge-water they peddle as a cure for polygraph while shielded by the first amendment.

You see its not really about studies, or numbers, or who can argue better, it's about trying to save a few honest men and women from being victimized by GM and Gino who are trying to convince them that lying and cheating is an appropriate path to a career in a job requiring honesty, honor and integrity. What I am doing is what I really believe is the best way currently available.

That is why I am here.  If you think you are going to change my mind about it, you are welcome to try.

Thank you for asking.

Why are you here?

If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or Refuse the examination. These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be?

QuoteIf a polygraph operator cannot tell when someone is being truthful what hope do they have of correctly identifying a lie?  And what does that say about the overall efficacy of the polygraph?  That it is only effective when the examinee obeys the operator's instructions, but there is no way to tell when that is occurring and when it is not?

Oh ye of little faith.  

It's like faith healing.  You have to believe!  Retaining ones critical judgment and questioning the word will on serve to piss off the preacher!

Best thing would be to convince the preacher you've been converted, when actually your not.  Secretly maintain your critical judgment, but   throw in an "amen brother!" here and there.   Just know their gospel better than they do, and realize it's just dogma.  If they throw you a control question, lie like a politician and visualize your only begotten son as "road kill".   When questioned about your "reaction", tell the minister some VERY MINOR sins you've committed (stole a church pen, touched yourself inappropriately, snuck a sip of the altar wine etc.) and beg for his polygraphic forgiveness.  Then leave the temple "saved"!

Brother CAN YOU SAY Amen!

TC

P.S.  Praising their Satan (GM, Lyken, Richardson) will be seen as blasphemy, and an "inquisition" will ensue.  Your devils will be cast out heathen!  For reading the Gospel of George!  An apocryphal text written in a dark cave!

Ed Earl

I won't say that is my best question and you know I have asked it before and it has yet to be answered. The preacher keeps preaching around the question but offers no scientific proof of his abilities to detect CMs but says "trust me - I'll catch you with my mind reading ability". What I'm saying is, my confidence in my ability to beat you WILL beat you. Make no mistake about that.

The only people that I'm trying to save are those who are innocent, but might be scared enough and gullible enough to believe polygrapher's Pelosi that they are there to help the applicant pass the test and get the job of their dreams by spouting untrue capabilities of him/herself and the machine which creates a greater probability of a truthful person failing the test.

You see we are like life guards trying to save the truthful applicants that have fallen into a cesspool of sharks.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 08:43 PMI try to save them by pointing out that cheating on a polygraph is wrong.

Your arguements are illogical.  You continually denigrate George and Gino for authoring a book in which they, in your words, encourage people to lie.  Yet you feel you have some sort of "lifeguarding" duty to protect people who intend to cheat on their polygraph by letting them know that cheating is wrong.

You present yourself as having a moral and ethical problem with encouraging cheating, but simultaneously present yourself as someone who needs to save people who actually try to cheat.

That is absurd and contradictory.  Which is the greater evil in your mind?  Writing that a person should attempt to cheat or actually attempting to cheat?  If you don't feel that a person who attempts to cheat is wrong (or perhaps you only feel they become wrong if you give them advice that cheating is wrong and THEN they cheat anyway) then how can you villify someone who doesn't cheat but writes that they believe it is acceptable for others to do so?

I think a much more logical answer to the question of why you and other polygraph operators spend time on this message board is that George and Gino have published good information, and they are obviously correct in their thinking.

Your stated reason for being here is simply inconsistent the posts you have authored since you've been here.  

Do you really think that someone trying to "cheat" on a polygraph needs to be told that such cheating is wrong in the eyes of a polygraph examiner?  I would think that anyone needing to be told such things lacks the requisite intelligence for any job requiring a polygraph exam.

Sergeant1107

I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you why I visit and post here.  I enjoy conversing with and learning from those who hold views different from my own, especially posters like you who can advocate and discuss without attacking the motives of the other side.

That said, I do not believe a truthful person can protect themselves by applying cm.  Playing games, while pretending to cooperate, is, most likely, a receipe for failure.

Sergeant Quote:
You continually denigrate George and Gino for authoring a book in which they, in your words, encourage people to lie


No its not in my words, it is in their words where they encourage people to lie and try to teach them how. Read chapter 4.

Police officers and concerned citizens take steps every day to keep honest people from being defrauded by con-men. Just because George and Gino's fraudulent unsupported claims about someone being able to use their book to help them pass a polygraph test are protected by the first amendment makes them no less fraudulent.

People can pay attention to my alternative point of view or ignore it. They  can listen to the warnings or ignore them. If they choose to ignore the warnings and try to lie or cheat or use countermeasures then they can live with the consequences. There is nothing contradictory in my position, You just don't agree with it and feel somehow obligated to oppose it.

George and Gino peddle their book insinuating that it will make a person more or less "polygraph proof". Would you buy a ballistic vest if the exact same make and model had not been tested to make sure that its design conformed in all aspects to the minimum requirements of NIJ 101.06?

If you knew that it had never been tested and proven to work would you or would you not warn your brother officers who were stupid enough or gullible enough to fall for the advertising and buy one based on  two pseudo-experts with no training or credentials in ballistics, engineering or the chemical structure of bullet resistant materials? Or perhaps would you encourage them to buy one and let an expert marksman shoot them while wearing it to see if it worked? If you knew that they didn't work you might offer no objection to them being bought by drug dealers, gangsters and other crooks.

I'm betting you wouldn't place in very high regard the "expert" opinion of someone regarding accident investigation if their only training and experience consisted of being in a fender bender and watching NASCAR on the weekends.

George and Gino's program has not been tested and they have no proof that it will make anyone "polygraph proof"  That would require a scientific study establishing that someone could take their book and by following their instructions pass polygraph tests in field situations. They know they are stuck with an unprovable premise because in order to prove it they will require the cooperation of liars and criminals. Two groups who are unlikely to cooperate and whose cooperation could NOT be trusted because they are liars and criminals.

Since they know that they cannot now nor ever will be able to prove they are right, they constantly try to shift focus away from that fact by claiming people who oppose them are wrong?   If they want to settle the issue, they should just do the research and submit it for peer review and publication. If someone else does the research and proves them wrong, which they have, George and Gino just criticize the methodology even though it passed peer review and publication standards sufficiently well for NAS inclusion. Of course, George and Gino are first going to have to find a scientist to do the work for them because they lack the credentials to get past the first level of peer review for any scholarly journal dealing with psychology or physiology.

You have seen George and Gino constantly raise issue with the qualifications of trained polygraph examiners to explain the psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph. Yet their own qualifications regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology fall somewhere SOUTH of the claim that they "Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night"

If a person passes a polygraph while answering questions truthfully while attempting countermeasures it is a factual impossibility to determine whether or not the countermeasures were effective. If he answers the questions truthfully and gets caught using countermeasures he will fail the test, based on the logical premise that cheaters have something to hide. Therefore, using countermeasures adds at least one additional possibility to fail a polygraph without a single shred of scientific proof that if offers any additional possibility to pass.

Why are you here?

If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or Refuse the examination. These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be?  If your answer is anything, but "Cheat on the test by attempting Countermeasures" we agree on 2/3 of those possible responses and the only two which in my opinion represent an honorable path.

What I am saying here is if you are basically an honest and truthful person, DON'T BUY INTO GEORGE AND GINO's ANTIPOLYGRAPH RHETORIC.  YOU DON'T NEED IT AND IT WILL LIKELY HURT YOU.

What I am saying to Liars, thieves, child molesters and terrorists is:

Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, Step right up and get your very own copy of the one. the only, the  Amazing and World renowned, Dr. George Maschke's Polygraph Passin Book. Surprise your friends, cheat and deceive the police and prospective employers.

Yes friends this secret formula handed down through untold  generations by uncles to their second nephews in the ancient and mysterious Scalabrini tribe now rests in the care and custody of their last remaining direct descendant, my most loyal minion here Gino. You have my personal promise that it works and I guarantee you that if it doesn't I won't care and you can't make me care because by that time I will be far far away and by virtue of the First Amendment to the actual Constitution of these United States of America which saw fit to bestow its personal guarantee of protection upon me. Yes Me, the one, the only, the  Amazing and World renowned, Dr. George Maschke.

While millions have paid thousands for this valuable information, I come here today to offer you this wonderful and mysterious cure for your fear of telling the truth. Not for the very low price of $1.00 dollar. Not even for the ridiculously low price of 50 cents. No friends an neighbors I am not asking for a quarter, not 1 thin dime, not even a buffalo nickel.

Yes Friends, liars, neighbors, child molesters, thieves and terrorists, your background is not my concern. You can have this priceless knowledge today right here, right now absolutely free and I absolutely positively give you the personal guarantee of the amazing, astounding, world renowned Dr George Mashke himself that it is worth every penny.

Hurry Hurry Hurry Step right up Gettem while they're hot.
© 2009 Ed Earl


I hope they try it, Polygraphers aren't scared of them.

I think that there is a very logical reason why he gives the book away rather than charging for it that has nothing at all to do with altruism.

Quote from: pailryder on Mar 21, 2009, 08:41 AMSergeant1107

I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you why I visit and post here.  I enjoy conversing with and learning from those who hold views different from my own, especially posters like you who can advocate and discuss without attacking the motives of the other side.

That said, I do not believe a truthful person can protect themselves by applying cm.  Playing games, while pretending to cooperate, is, most likely, a receipe for failure.

I feel much the same way.

What course of action do you feel is appropriate for a person who has told the truth on previous polygraphs and failed?  Would you counsel them to just keep plugging away or should they consider using countermeasures at that point?

It is unsatisfying at best when a truthful person's options are to tell the truth and maybe you'll pass, tell the truth and maybe you'll fail, or tell the truth and try countermeasures (and again maybe you'll pass and maybe you'll fail.)  It would be so much easier to take if a person knew that by telling the truth they absolutely would pass their polygraph.

Quote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 21, 2009, 10:23 AMI'm betting you wouldn't place in very high regard the "expert" opinion of someone regarding accident investigation if their only training and experience consisted of being in a fender bender and watching NASCAR on the weekends.  

Please look up the term "ad hominem" attack.

When you refute George and Gino's opinion simply by claiming that they do not possess what you consider to be sufficient expertise it is not a compelling argument.  In debating circles an ad hominem attack is considered a sign that you have nothing intelligent with which to argue your own point.

Some time ago a number of polygraph operators staged a coordinated attack on Dr. Richardson's credentials in an effort to show that his opinion on the polygraph was wrong.  I thought they did nothing but present themselves as fools who were forced to resort to character assassination instead of well-reasoned arguments.

Sergeant, What exactly would you call it when George, Gino or Drew assert  that trained polygraph examiners lack sufficient expertise to adequately explain or understand psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph or accuse all Polygraphers of lying?

Why don't you go gripe at them about their ad hominum attacks.  Oh wait, you agree with them so anything they assert is OK with you isn't it? It appears you may be here as a bodyguard rather than a lifeguard.

But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.

Pointing out that someone does not have a requisite foundation to knowledgeably support their position is not ad hominum attack.

I am certainly no Master Debater, but I remember from high school that when someone asserts an epistemic argument from implied authority, (Like George and Gino) then the source of that authority is a fair subject for scrutiny.   In other words when someone implies or asserts special knowledge or expertise they voluntarily open their qualifications and the source of their special knowledge or expertise to questions, debate, acceptance, or rejection.

Rejection for lack of qualification is why you don't routinely see research by plumbers, letter carriers or even linguists in JAMA.

If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. 1 Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, 2, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or 3 Refuse the examination.

These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be?

The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

QuoteWhat exactly would you call it when George, Gino or Drew assert  that trained polygraph examiners lack sufficient expertise to adequately explain or understand psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph or accuse all Polygraphers of lying?

The truth for the first part.  Mostly true on the later.

As for ad hominy attacks, here is a good one by a well know polygraphic interrogator.  GM must have really struck a nerve with this guy for him to make up such lies.  And to an applicant DURING A POLYGRAPH TEST!!

Note the pompous and arrogant tone, while saying things he knows is not true!  One might well ask, if the info on this website is so bogus, why does he find it necessary make up such outrageous lies?  Looks like grade A "damage control" to this old sailor!

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-052.shtml

Sergeant 1107

When a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns.  Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away.  As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.

QuoteWhen a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns.  Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away.  As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.

Do you recommend a person terminate the polygraph if the examiner becomes "aggressive" or "accusatory"?  

Do you recommend a person REFUSE to submit to a post test interview/interrogation?

This is what Mr. "ed earl/sancho panza" VanArsdale recommends to attorneys on HIS website.

What would you tell your client (say a woman accusing her husband of child abuse/or cheating) if the husband stood up and told you "Look your getting too aggressive and making accusations! Bye!!"  Or if after you informed him you've collected your polygraphic data,  he just walked out and refused to talk further with you?  Would your report to the wife be favorable?

TC

Quote from: pailryder on Mar 22, 2009, 02:26 PMSergeant 1107

When a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns.  Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away.  As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.

I believe I can understand the rationale behind your advice, and in fact that is exactly what I did when I was applying for a police job.  I didn't know that countermeasures existed, so I really didn't have a choice other than to keep plugging away.

However, I certainly did not sleep well at night.  I was utterly baffled and frustrated by my inability to pass the polygraph despite telling the truth.  I couldn't figure out how I could keep failing, each time for a different reason.  

If I had felt that utilizing countermeasures while answering all the questions truthfully would have helped me pass I certainly would have at least considered such a course of action.  It is difficult to believe such a course of action is unethical when simply telling the truth resulted in three out of four failures.