Could someone please explain to me what the best way is to try and pass the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique, and why it is believed that your suggested method might work?
I know all about countermeasures, and how to use them, but I don't understand the theory behind the Rel/Irr Technique, and so I don't understand where the countermeasures should be used.
I have heard suggestions that one should either: Use countermeasures on the Irrelevant questions, or: Use countermeasures on a different set of relevant questions on each seperate chart.
Is there any evidence that one of the methods above works better than the other?
Could someone please explain to me what the rational is behind augmenting ones responses to a different set of relevant questions on each chart?
The reason I am inquiring is because I might be facing a rel/irr test in the near future, and I would hate to use some method that has no basis or support.
Any response would be greatly appreciated,
Netninio
::)Netninio,
In case you are wondering why the operators of this site have not responded to your post, is because there are absolutely NO POINT COUNTERMEASURES that effectively defeat an R&I test and they know it. Have you considered telling the truth?
PDD-Fed
Quote from: PDD-Fed on May 28, 2002, 05:49 PM
::)Netninio,
In case you are wondering why the operators of this site have not responded to your post, is because there are absolutely NO POINT COUNTERMEASURES that effectively defeat an R&I test and they know it. Have you considered telling the truth?
Yes or no, would telling the truth guarantee he passes?
Yes or no, will the polygrapher tell the truth to the examinee before, during and after his exam?
What is a word for someone who insists others tell the truth whilst he or she lies to others?
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e
Dave, aka Beech Trees
"Yes or no, would telling the truth guarantee he passes?"
Does getting on an airplane guarantee you will arrive at your destination safely??? Does wearing a condom guarantee your girlfriend won't get pregnant? Does writing posts to this web-site guarantee some police agency will see the "error of their ways" and come crawling on their knees to offer you a job?
"Yes or no, will the polygrapher tell the truth to the examinee before, during and after his exam?"
I always do. By the way, I do not administer some of the procedures you all attack with such blistering rage. I lay out how the R&I test works, review the questions (no hidden meanings) and I then leave it entirely up to the person taking the exam...I don't have to lie...Hell, I even tell the examinee that the purpose of the acquintance test (when I chose to run it) is to convince him the exam works. Then if he should happen to fail the exam, I ask him to tell me what is on his mind. If the information disqualifies him, so be it...No hard feelings...Next?
"What is a word for someone who insists others tell the truth whilst he or she lies to others?
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e"
What is the word for someone who must be so engulfed with anger and self pity that he spends his days and nights venting his hurt feelings on a website run by others who just happen to be as frustrated and bitter as he?
l-o-s-e-r :P
PDD-Fed
PDD-Fed,
You wrote in part:
QuoteBy the way, I do not administer some of the procedures you all attack with such blistering rage.
Which procedures do you have in mind here?
QuoteWhat is the word for someone who must be so engulfed with anger and self pity that he spends his days and nights venting his hurt feelings on a website run by others who just happen to be as frustrated and bitter as he?
l-o-s-e-r :P
I think if you take an objective look at what the core users of this site are doing, you'll see that it is much more than "venting...hurt feelings." Our criticisms of polygraphy are also on an intellectual level, and your continued participation in the discussions here is welcome.
Quote from: PDD-Fed on May 30, 2002, 03:36 PM
"Yes or no, would telling the truth guarantee he passes?"
Does getting on an airplane guarantee you will arrive at your destination safely??? Does wearing a condom guarantee your girlfriend won't get pregnant? Does writing posts to this web-site guarantee some police agency will see the "error of their ways" and come crawling on their knees to offer you a job?
I see you are incapable of responding, so I will take that as a 'no'. Your specious comparisons are pure sophistry. But thank you for so clearly illustrating that the psuedo-science of polygraphy is as scientifially accurate as traveling by plane, having sex with a condom, and.... well I don't know where you're going with that last one. ??? I'm gainfully employed in the field of my choice. No law enforcement agency erred with regard to hiring me.
Quote"Yes or no, will the polygrapher tell the truth to the examinee before, during and after his exam?"
I always do.
You do? You inform the test subject that the stim test is nothing more than a card game, a simple flim-flam designed to convince him that you can actually divine truth or falsehood? You actually tell your test subject that you expect him to lie with regard to his responses to the Control Questions, and that you will take those responses and compare them against the reponses recorded during the Relavent Questions? You tell your test subject that polygraphy is not science, and has no more accuracy than a coin-toss? You tell your test subject that both in the eyes of science and of the law, polygraph is not a science, cannot be considered a fact finding tool, and is virtually worthless for determing truth from falsehood?
Perhaps I misjudged you then.
QuoteHell, I even tell the examinee that the purpose of the acquintance test (when I chose to run it) is to convince him the exam works.
Wow, what a pal you are. Of course, you're lying to your test subject, but when did that ever stop you before?
QuoteThen if he should happen to fail the exam, I ask him to tell me what is on his mind. If the information disqualifies him, so be it...No hard feelings...Next?
I love your attitude. Take note, potential LEO's, here is the little, little man sitting across from you (at an oblique angle, on a little wheeled chair of course).
Quote"What is a word for someone who insists others tell the truth whilst he or she lies to others?
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e"
What is the word for someone who must be so engulfed with anger and self pity that he spends his days and nights venting his hurt feelings on a website run by others who just happen to be as frustrated and bitter as he? l-o-s-e-r
Anger and self-pity? Why would I be angry, or filled with self-pity Mr. PDD? I successfully used physical, psychological, and behavioral countermeasures 'gainst your brethren, sporto.
If anyone should be angry or feeling sorry for themselves, I think it would be the polygrapher whom I so easily and decisively m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-e-d from start to finish, don't you agree? Why, come to think of it, YOU could have been my polygraph interrogator. What delicious irony that would be, eh?
My life is quite joyful actually, and part of that joy is derived from exposing the fraudulent pseudo-science of polygraphy and the hucksters who profit from it. People like you! Have a great day!
Based on what PDD-Fed wrote in his last post, I would want him giving me the poly. I'm sorry and I don't mean to take sides but out of all the posts I have read authored by polygraphers, he seems to be the most non-biased and straight forward (if his post is honest). I don't understand however if someone "says what's on their mind" and it doesn't dq them what is the point of the poly? Or do you poly them about what they said was on their mind? If you do (the latter) then to me your post loses credibility because once again you are trusting the poly. If you don't then once again I don't understand how your tool is valuable. I do wish if the poly is to be used you would set the standard for the industry.
PDD- Fed
You stated above
QuoteThen if he should happen to fail the exam, I ask him to tell me what is on his mind. If the information disqualifies him, so be it...No hardfeelings...Next?
This statement leads me to believe that you
NEED the examinee to make a statement so that you may actually have something to use against them. When I took my last poly, I cooperated throughout the process and was truthful with the polygrapher. When he came back with a post test "discussion" (interrogation) He began accusing me of witholding information, being dishonest, etc. He asked me to write a statement explaining what I did not disclose and to be very detailed. I wrote 1 sentence. I have been cooperative and truthful during this test and have nothing to disclose.
The polygrapher then told me that he was going to fail me and offered to schedule a retest if I desired. That never happened.
Your approach may be different, but your holier than thou, I hold your future in law enforcement in my hands is very disturbing.
I also concur with George's statement. Many of us are college educated, hard working people who have had careers ruined by the pseudo-science of polygraphy.
Fred F. ;)
Mr. Beechtrees,
You said...
"You do? You inform the test subject that the stim test is nothing more than a card game, a simple flim-flam designed to convince him that you can actually divine truth or falsehood?"
No, I tell him that I administer this part of the test to convince him that he responds when he lies on the exam. Then, when I show him that the largest response on the entire chart is to the number he chose (and yes, it really is most of the time), then he/she is usually convinced. Where is the "flim-flam? By the way, when his response is not clearly discernable (sp) from the rest (rare, but it does happen), I still show him the chart and explain that the number he chose was not particularlly significant to him....
By the way, I have NEVER used "cards". We don't use "cards" in the government....
Trickery? No trickery here...
"You actually tell your test subject that you expect him to lie with regard to his responses to the Control Questions, and that you will take those responses and compare them against the reponses recorded during the Relavent Questions?"
I don't use "comparision" questions. If you truly understood polygraph as well as you try to convice these readers you do, then you would know that comparison question testing is only ONE form of polygraph. I don't compare anything against anything. It's you against yourself in my test. I just hold the microphone while you sing.... ;)
"You tell your test subject that polygraphy is not science, and has no more accuracy than a coin-toss?"
I have read all the strings on this site betwen those who quote the "pro" polygraph research and those who quote the "anti" polygraph research. I am not a researcher. All I know is I run the test, you fail, and you then tell me about about the young girl you and your college buddies got drunk and raped. Then you DO NOT get the position of special trust and confidence you clearly do not deserve...What's the problem???
"You tell your test subject that both in the eyes of science and of the law, polygraph is not a science, cannot be considered a fact finding tool, and is virtually worthless for determing truth from falsehood?"
I'm not so sure I agree with you on that point. Please refer to my last paragraph... ;D
Perhaps I misjudged you then.
I think you have...
PDD-Fed
P.S. Many of the folks on this site are fond of saying that polygraph examiners have no more than a high school education. Well, I can't talk for all the examiners in the entire world, but to be a polygraph examiner in the U.S. government, you must have a minimum of a B.A. degree. I happen to have a masters, as do MANY other federal examiners (Many of them in the academic field of Forensic Psychophysiology).
PDD-Fed,
You wrote in part:
QuoteI don't use "comparision" questions. If you truly understood polygraph as well as you try to convice these readers you do, then you would know that comparison question testing is only ONE form of polygraph. I don't compare anything against anything. It's you against yourself in my test. I just hold the microphone while you sing.... ;)
My understanding from your posts is that you exclusively use the Relevant/Irrelevant technique. Is that correct? (Which agency do you work for?)
Beech trees might be forgiven for assuming that you also use some variant of the "Control" Question "Test," as that is by far the most commonly used technique in the federal government.
QuoteI have read all the strings on this site betwen those who quote the "pro" polygraph research and those who quote the "anti" polygraph research. I am not a researcher. All I know is I run the test, you fail, and you then tell me about about the young girl you and your college buddies got drunk and raped. Then you DO NOT get the position of special trust and confidence you clearly do not deserve...What's the problem ???
I think that few of us here have any problem with individuals being disqualified from positions of trust based on admissions of wrongdoing made in the course of a polygraph interrogation. Rather, what is objectionable is that many
truthful people are also being wrongly branded as liars based on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
PDD Fed,
Be careful, you're getting roped in by some pretty slick folks. You gotta know that no matter what you say these guys are, one, not going to buy into it; and two, going to try and break it right off in a particular protion of your anatomy that falls between the thighs and the tailbone.
You see, guys like Beech Nut and Deputy Daug will attack you with a vengance and then Mr. M enters in with a real nice guy, hey lets just talk polygraph approach, kind of like the "good cop/bad cop" routine. These guys are as good as any polygraph examiner I've ever run up against.
Just a word to the wise!
Batman
Thanks Batman, :)
I just like jerking these guy's chains. 8)I do understand that some of them may have very well been the victims of false positives (always possible). :-[ And if that is true, I can certainly understand their feelings.
It is just a shame that these guys are so polarized in their position, they will never open their eyes and understand the thousands of criminal investigations a year that are solved in this country BECAUSE polygraph was brought in. They also do not realize that federal, state, and local agencies use polygraph to develop information on applicants that background investigations by their very design, miss. Like most examiners, I get confessions from applicants (major felonies) almost every day. 8) We both know that Background investigations are virtually useless for getting anything other than documented arrests and prosecutions.
Great! If polygraph went away tomorrow, then all we would discover in our applicant pools were the killers, rapists, child molesters, and thieves that GOT CAUGHT! (5% ?).... :'(
Pretty scary thought, if you ask me...
PDD-Fed
Quote from: PDD-Fed on May 31, 2002, 10:10 PMI just like jerking these guy's chains.
At last, your true motive becomes clear.
QuoteGreat! If polygraph went away tomorrow, then all we would discover in our applicant pools were the killers, rapists, child molesters, and thieves that GOT CAUGHT! (5% ?)
Pretty scary thought, if you ask me...
Will you be contacting the suitable officials and politicians in Philly about their recent policy change? Surely such an egregious error on their part (BANNING polygraph interrogations as part of the employee selection process) would warrant immediate and decisive action on your part, wouldn't it?
To: Beechtrees,
You said, "Will you be contacting the suitable officials and politicians in Philly about their recent policy change? Surely such an egregious error on their part (BANNING polygraph interrogations as part of the employee selection process) would warrant immediate and decisive action on your part, wouldn't it?"
Yep! It sure would. ;I for one would love to see Philly reverse its decision, but alas, they will have to live with dark future their choice is sure to bring...and by the way, THANK GOD that LAPD finally saw the folly of their ways and instituted polygraph testing...
To GM,
Thank you for your objectivity regarding my posts and your warm welcome to your site. I can not at this time reveal who I work for, but I do enjoy the once or twice a day I get to interact with the people on these message boards (I really mean that. I am not being patronizing here... :-*
PDD-Fed and Batman,
You might find it convenient to become registered users of this message board. This will give you the option to edit your messages after posting them, to send private messages to other registered users, and to optionally receive e-mail notification when new messages are posted to a thread in which you've posted.
PDD-Fed,
You wrote in part:
Quote...THANK GOD that LAPD finally saw the folly of their ways and instituted polygraph testing...
God had nothing to do with it. Rather, you can thank the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, who recommended polygraph screening in a knee-jerk reaction to the Rampart Area scandal. Since LAPD adopted polygraph screening in February 2000, approximately half of otherwise qualified applicants have been denied employment on the basis of polygraph chart readings, and many truthful applicants have been wrongly branded as liars. For more on this, see my commentary, "LAPD polygraph test results don't tell full truth," (http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/articles/1101/01/lvew01.asp) published in the
Los Angeles Daily News and the statements of LAPD applicants falsely accused on the AntiPolygraph.org Personal Statements (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) page.
Quote from: PDD-Fed on May 31, 2002, 04:53 PM
No, I tell him that I administer this part of the test to convince him that he responds when he lies on the exam. Then, when I show him that the largest response on the entire chart is to the number he chose (and yes, it really is most of the time), then he/she is usually convinced. Where is the "flim-flam?
Where is the flim-flam? You're soaking in it.
But nowadays, the card trick has largely given way to the "numbers
test." In a known-solution numbers "test," your polygrapher will
ask you to pick a number, say, from one to six, and to write it on a
sheet of paper. If you're right-handed, he may ask you to write the
number with your left hand. This supposedly makes the act of your
writing the number more significant to you. The number you write
will be known to both you and the polygrapher. Let's say you pick
"4." You write it on the slip of paper. Your polygrapher will then
write in the other numbers, 1, 2, 3 and 5, 6 in a list above and
below or to the left and right of the "4" that you wrote, then he will
affix the paper to the wall in front of you. Your polygrapher will
next instruct you to answer "no" each time as he asks, "Did you
write 1? Did you write 2?," etc. And he will tell you that when you
answer "no" to the number that you wrote, you are to look at that
number on the wall and to consciously think about having chosen
it and written it down, and then to deliberately lie and say "no.".... Whether you showed any discernible reaction while "lying" or not,
your polygrapher will attempt to convince you that you are not
capable of lying without the polygraph instrument detecting it.-- The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), pgs. 73-75
QuoteBy the way, when his response is not clearly discernable (sp) from the rest (rare, but it does happen), I still show him the chart and explain that the number he chose was not particularlly significant to him....
Sure you do.
QuoteBy the way, I have NEVER used "cards". We don't use "cards" in the government....
Who cares? If you TELL a person to lie, is he lying?
QuoteTrickery? No trickery here...
No, of course not.
QuoteI don't use "comparision" questions. If you truly understood polygraph as well as you try to convice these readers you do, then you would know that comparison question testing is only ONE form of polygraph. I don't compare anything against anything. It's you against yourself in my test. I just hold the microphone while you sing....
Oh gee, I'm floored-- I've never heard of a RI polygraph. I'm not sure why you are characterizing my efforts here as attempting to convince everyone I'm a know-it-all when it comes to polygraphy-- I know enough and have experienced enough polygraph interrogations to know your occupation is based on a pantload of pseudo-scientific bunk, and that it is, with moderate practice, trifling easy to pass polygraph exams. THAT is why I'm here, to expose your occupation for what it is and to point out the folly of our government's ways in trusting your lil black box.
Beachtrees,
You said, "Where is the flim-flam? You're soaking in it." You then quoted Mr. M's book, "But nowadays, the card trick has largely given way to the "numbers test...."" as your "proof" that the numbers test is (as you put it) "flim-flam"
Yeah, real good. Here I see one pissed off, narrow minded guy with no life and a one sided agenda, quoting another pissed off, narrow minded guy with no life and a one sided agenda... Yes sir, that surely is "science"... :-/
By the way, here is something else for you to chew on and then call me a "liar" (I'm sure you will, you have to in order to protect your position that all polygraph examiners are "scam artists')...It so happens that I NEVER tell anyone the polygraph procedure detects "lies", nor do I tell them when they fail, that they "lied". I tell them that I am checking for "significant" responses to certain questions. (that's what the polygraph is recording anyhow). When the subject lies, I show him his responses (just like I do on the numbers test.) You see, the reason the largest response is frequently to the "key" on a numbers test, is because the number is significant just from haven been chosen by the examinee. I then point to the question(s) on the test showing similiar responses and ask him why a particular question seems significant to him. I then leave it up to him to explain his reponses to me. It may take a little time, but eventually he tells me about the 200 hits of LSD he sold last week. I then report that and someone more deserving gets the job. So, Beechtrees, I ask again, where's the "flim-flam'?) ::)
PDD-Fed
PDD-Fed,
You wrote in part:
QuoteYeah, real good. Here I see one pissed off, narrow minded guy with no life and a one sided agenda, quoting another pissed off, narrow minded guy with no life and a one sided agenda... Yes sir, that surely is "science"... :-/
If there's anything in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you think is wrong, please don't hesitate to bring it to our attention. But note that the description of the "numbers test" that beech trees quoted from it is directly based on DoDPI documention obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
I have a question regarding the way you administer the R/I technique. You say that you never tell anyone that the polygraph detects "lies." That is commendable, for surely, it does not. This being the case, do you ever render a "deception indicated" or "significant response" decision absent any substantive admission by a subject?
beech trees,
You wrote in part:
Quote
Whether you showed any discernible reaction while "lying" or not, your polygrapher will attempt to convince you that you are not capable of lying without the polygraph instrument detecting it.
Not true. I inform the examinee what I am looking for prior to the acquaintance test and as well what the test is for.
Then you wrote in part:
Quote
I know enough and have experienced enough polygraph interrogations to know your occupation is based on a pantload of pseudo-scientific bunk, and that it is, with moderate practice, trifling easy to pass polygraph exams.
I think the debates on this topic speak for themselves. There is an abundance of evidence to support polygraph as a valid forensic science when used for criminal specific issue testing. You say you have passed a polygraph with your knowledge but did not say you were deceptive to the relevant issue(s). If you were not being deceptive, nothing is proven of your knowledge but that the polygraph was valid in your instance.
George wrote in part:
Quote
...do you ever render a "deception indicated" or "significant response" decision absent any substantive admission by a subject?
Yes.
Quote from: J.B. on Jun 02, 2002, 12:31 AM
I inform the examinee what I am looking for prior to the acquaintance test and as well what the test is for.
And what is it you tell them? For a polygraph to be effective, it is incumbent upon you the polygrapher to lie and deceive your interrogation victim. I just don't see the point in arguing this further, as now matter how you twist your
"But I'm a nice polygrapher, I really yam!" routine, you are still lying to and deceiving your examinee. HOW you do it is irrelavent.
QuoteI think the debates on this topic speak for themselves. There is an abundance of evidence to support polygraph as a valid forensic science when used for criminal specific issue testing. You say you have passed a polygraph with your knowledge but did not say you were deceptive to the relevant issue(s). If you were not being deceptive, nothing is proven of your knowledge but that the polygraph was valid in your instance.
JB, you're obviously an adherent to the dictum, "If you say something enough times, people will believe it to be true." So, for the benefit of the readers I will reiterate again, hopefully for the last time:
Polygraphy is not a science. Therefore, it cannot be a valid diagnostic tool regardless of the setting and use.
YES, sometimes woefully ignorant criminal suspects cave and confess when you're particularly persuasive that you can somehow read their minds concerning a particular crime. Cops used to load XEROX machines with pieces of paper that read TRUE or FALSE and then lay the hand of the rube they were interrogating on the scanning bed. They would tell the person to lie about their age, and out would pop a FALSE.
The courts have decided that trickery and deceit are acceptable interrogation tactics when it comes to eliciting confessions. Polygraphy is a part of that process, so in a legal sense it is acceptable. The results, of course, are inadmissible in a vast majority of courts in the US-- indeed, the mere mention of the polygraph is usually enough for a mistrial.
By the way, how many polygraph interrogation subjects have you disqualified for using the kinds of countermeasures recommended in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) (ABSENT an admission from the subject)?
George, you asked,
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 01, 2002, 06:57 PM
This being the case, do you ever render a "deception indicated" or "significant response" decision absent any substantive admission by a subject?
Absolutely, If there are significant responses present, then they are reported as such. And in the (rare) caes, they are unresolved, then that is also reported. By the way, there are also lots of times, that the exam is NSR (No Significant Responses) present, and that is reported as well.
George, for me the bottom line is that the vast majority of polygraph examiners I have met, certainly the other government examiners I know are not the malicious "scam artists" this site likes so much to rant and rave about. They are not uneducated flim-flams. In fact they do not have any political agenda and do not have any financial stake in whether polygraph lives or dies.
How is this??????
This is because the examiners I have known do NOT depend in any way on polygraph for their livelyhood. Remember, these people are federal/state/local government employees. If polygraph went away tomorrow, they would simply revert to the detectives, criminal investigators and counter-intel agents they were before they ever went to polygraph school. They would not so much as skip a single paycheck. These people do this job, because they strongly BELIEVE in what they do. In the federal government, they are college graduates, many with advanced degrees. Contrary to the arguements put forth on this site, they feel that they have improved the safety and security of the citizens of their communities. Why do they feel so strongly?
In the case of criminal issue examiners, they know that they have put alot of really bad people in prison. These criminals would have never got there if it were not for polygraph, period. These are examiners who test eight soldiers in an armory where an M-16 has been stolen. Six pass, one is "No-Opinion", and the eighth falls the test, confesses to the theft, and leads investigators to the stolen weapon...Your readers don't want to believe this, but this is exactly how it goes, over, and over, and over again...
In the case of pre-employment screeners, these guys rightfully refer to countless cases over the years, where they have identified applicants who, had it not been for polygraph testing, would have been hired into badge and gun carrying jobs, even though they had been involved in everything from drug dealing, to child molesting, to drive-by shootings. Background investigations almost NEVER turn this stuff up. What other than polygraph, do you suggest?
George, we can argue validity rates, privacy issues, and what to do with false positives/negatives all day long. These are all fair concerns. Nonetheless, I would ask you to consider the examiners who are truly dedicated to what it is we do. We have made mistakes for we are human and those of us who take this endevour seriously, are always looking for better ways. Frankly, your endless depiction of the polygraph community as a wagon train of card dealing, shell shuffling gypsies, is not only inaccurate, but is getting really, really "old."
PDD-Fed
Quote from: PDD-Fed on Jun 01, 2002, 05:50 PM
Beachtrees,
You said, "Where is the flim-flam? You're soaking in it." You then quoted Mr. M's book, "But nowadays, the card trick has largely given way to the "numbers test...."" as your "proof" that the numbers test is (as you put it) "flim-flam"
Yeah, real good. Here I see one pissed off, narrow minded guy with no life and a one sided agenda, quoting another pissed off, narrow minded guy with no life and a one sided agenda... Yes sir, that surely is "science"...
It is as much science as your profession. I never claimed my viewpoint is based in science-- only that YOUR profession, sir, is not science, has never been proven to be science, and never will be science-- unless phrenology and alchemy suddenly become fashionable again.
Polygraphy is not science-- the Courts assert that statement (http://truth.boisestate.edu/polygraph/cordoba.html), the medical profession asserts that statement (http://www.apa.org/releases/liedetector.html), and the absence of peer reviewed literature to the contrary asserts that statement. It's funny and slightly sad, but you are the mirror image of the people you are describing above-- you and 'Batman' bemoaning the truth that this website reveals and your desparate and in my opinion, pathetic attempts to not only delude the readership into believing the legitimacy of your profession but also that you are all somehow 'on our side' when it comes to a polygraph interrogation. You two are beginning to sound just like the professional crybabies you so loathe.
QuoteBy the way, here is something else for you to chew on and then call me a "liar" (I'm sure you will, you have to in order to protect your position that all polygraph examiners are "scam artists')...It so happens that I NEVER tell anyone the polygraph procedure detects "lies", nor do I tell them when they fail, that they "lied". I tell them that I am checking for "significant" responses to certain questions. (that's what the polygraph is recording anyhow). When the subject lies, I show him his responses (just like I do on the numbers test.) You see, the reason the largest response is frequently to the "key" on a numbers test, is because the number is significant just from haven been chosen by the examinee. I then point to the question(s) on the test showing similiar responses and ask him why a particular question seems significant to him. I then leave it up to him to explain his reponses to me. It may take a little time, but eventually he tells me about the 200 hits of LSD he sold last week. I then report that and someone more deserving gets the job. So, Beechtrees, I ask again, where's the "flim-flam'?
You apparently feel yourself to be morally superior because you administer the RI technique. Carefully parsing your language and telling the interrogation subject one thing when it means something else entirely still makes you a professional liar.
Feel free to post the name of the person who sold '200 hits of LSD last week'. Is he currently in jail? Where? When is his court date?
Quote from: PDD-Fed on Jun 03, 2002, 11:22 AM
George, we can argue validity rates, privacy issues, and what to do with false positives/negatives all day long.
No, not really. There is no arguing the facts:
1. Polygraphs have never been found to be more accurate than chance, ie.e, a simple coin-toss.
2. Many polygraph interrogations, regardless of the testing format, are sickening violations of the test subject's Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to The US Constitution.
3. How can there be any argument here, when a false positive in many cases results in the ruination of a man's career, finances, and/or personal life? How many men and womens' lives have you ruined or irrevocably changed in this fashion?
Beechtrees,
You said:
Quote from: beech trees on Jun 03, 2002, 11:43 AM
Feel free to post the name of the person who sold '200 hits of LSD last week'. Is he currently in jail? Where? When is his court date?
Beechtrees, we give that information to congress, not to you. 8)
PDD-Fed
PDD-Fed,
In reply to my question whether, in light of your admission that the polygraph does not detect lies, you ever render a "deception indicated" or "significant response" decision absent any substantive admission by a subject, you wrote in part:
QuoteAbsolutely, If there are significant responses present, then they are reported as such. And in the (rare) caes, they are unresolved, then that is also reported. By the way, there are also lots of times, that the exam is NSR (No Significant Responses) present, and that is reported as well.
If the polygraph cannot detect lies, then just what does it mean when you report that there are "signficant responses" present? What the hell do those responses signify?! Absent an admision/confession, you haven't got a clue: the polygraph cannot detect lies. But in most governmental agencies, "significant responses" are taken to mean that the subject was
lying. Applicants for employment who show "significant responses" are branded as liars and their applications are summarily rejected. All on the basis of a technique that has no scientific basis whatsoever and cannot detect lies.
However honorable your intentions, you, and your colleagues in the polygraph community, are participants in a process that on a regular basis results in
innocent people being wrongly accused of deception and denied due process.
It is this fundamental injustice that we find un-American and intolerable. We acknowledge that polygraphy has some utility in getting admissions from the naive and the gullible, but we believe that the collateral damage you (the polygraph community) are inflicting on the innocent is unacceptable.
Members of the polygraph community may genuinely
believe in polygraphy, but that belief does not alter the fact that they are charlatans--practitioners of a fraudulent art that has no grounding in the scientific method.
Our purpose here at AntiPolygraph.org is to warn members of the public, especially those who may face a polygraph interrogation, of the
fraud you and your colleagues in the polygraph community are practicing against them. If this causes you chagrin, get used to it. We're not going away. But you're welcome to challenge anything we say in this uncensored forum.
Quote from: PDD-Fed on Jun 03, 2002, 11:59 AM
Beechtrees,
You said:
Beechtrees, we give that information to congress, not to you. 8)
PDD-Fed
Again, I find it curious that you refer to yourself in the plural.
Your answer is dismissed as cutesy pablum. There never was a test subject who confessed to selling '200 hits of LSD last week'.
Another lie.
Quote from: beech trees on Jun 03, 2002, 11:01 AM
And what is it you tell them? For a polygraph to be effective, it is incumbent upon you the polygrapher to lie and deceive your interrogation victim. I just don't see the point in arguing this further, as now matter how you twist your
"But I'm a nice polygrapher, I really yam!" routine, you are still lying to and deceiving your examinee. HOW you do it is irrelavent.
JB, you're obviously an adherent to the dictum, "If you say something enough times, people will believe it to be true." So, for the benefit of the readers I will reiterate again, hopefully for the last time:
Polygraphy is not a science. Therefore, it cannot be a valid diagnostic tool regardless of the setting and use.
YES, sometimes woefully ignorant criminal suspects cave and confess when you're particularly persuasive that you can somehow read their minds concerning a particular crime. Cops used to load XEROX machines with pieces of paper that read TRUE or FALSE and then lay the hand of the rube they were interrogating on the scanning bed. They would tell the person to lie about their age, and out would pop a FALSE.
The courts have decided that trickery and deceit are acceptable interrogation tactics when it comes to eliciting confessions. Polygraphy is a part of that process, so in a legal sense it is acceptable. The results, of course, are inadmissible in a vast majority of courts in the US-- indeed, the mere mention of the polygraph is usually enough for a mistrial.
By the way, how many polygraph interrogation subjects have you disqualified for using the kinds of countermeasures recommended in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) (ABSENT an admission from the subject)?
beech trees,
I will respond to you in part.
First, I believe it to be quite clear from my prior posts what the acquaintance exam is used for.
Second, where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?
Third, my arguments for the validity of CQT polygraph were based on peer reviewed scientific research. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Banter as you may, it does not change the results of the current available scientific research. You have a right to your 'opinion' about polygraph. Conflicting views neither prove or disprove that polygraph is a science. I have already debated this topic providing the contradictory evidence of CQT polygraphs validity and will let it stand at that.
Fourth, please cite for me
recent federal court rulings on polygraph were there is reference to
blanket exclusion as forensic scientific evidence. Please cite a
recent case were the
mere mention of polygraph is grounds for a mistrial.
Finally, I don't think you have paid close attention to what I have wrote in the past. I do not nor have I ever conduct pre-employment polygraphs. So I have never disqualified anyone with a polygraph exam/test countermeasures or not.
Let's go back to the original message that started this string. I believe the question was:
Q: "How Can I Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique?"
A: There ain't none.
Q: But what about the advice given to me by George Maschke, the great anti-polygraph master himself, "create reactions to a different pair of two relevant questions during each chart presentation in order to avoid a "con-spec-nificant" reaction to any one relevant question."
A: Sure, and by creating responses to "a different pair of two relevant questions during each chart presentation", the examinee has just created more than enough responses to ensure that he fails the exam.
Q: Do you mean that the advice given to me by Mr. Maschke, will actually CAUSE me to fail the exam????
A: Yep. (I suspect he is actually a "plant" for the American Polygraph Association)
Q: But Mr. Maschke, Mr. Williams, Mr. Scalabrini, and Mr. Beechtrees all tell me that ANY polygraph exam can be beaten "rather easily" All I have to do is create responses to "control" questions...
A: Maybe, maybe not. How about we just take away all the "controls" and see how you do?
Q: But that's not fair!
A: Life's not fair. How about telling the truth?
Q: But if I tell the truth, I won't get this really cool job! How about if I tell my prospective employer that I do not feel like taking his R&I pre-employment test?
A: How about if your prospective employer suggests you find a new career in either the home cleaning or food service industries?
Q: But the guys on this site tell me that I can beat ANY polygraph exam, that I can beat the examiner "at his own game!" I have to take this R&I test tomorrow! I must know where to "create responses", where to "take control." PLEASE, PLEASE tell me how to Counter the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique!!!!!!!!!!1
Well George and friends. You are so fond of "challenges". You like to throw down the gauntlet? Here is my challenge to you. Tell this poor lost soul how to "beat" the R&I test that he is REQUIRED to take to get this job he wants but based on his past behavior, does not deserve. Now, I know you will remove this message quickly from the "Ten most recent posts." You ALWAYS remove any post from that list that does not support your personal belief system (You have removed at least 2 of mine). But if you do take up the challenge, then either figure something out, or ADMIT there is at least ONE procedure that all the spinctor squeezing, tack sticking, toe curling, and cheek biting in the world, can not counter....
PDD-Fed
With regard to the RI polygraph test, it is not Mr. Maschke or any of his 21st century antipolygraph colleagues who long ago largely dismissed this form of testing, but the polygraph community itself. Although sorely lacking in scientific control, it presumably was the aim of Cleve Backster and others (hardly stalwarts of the antipolygraph community) some forty plus years ago to remove the embarrassment of RI testing from the polygraph community through the introduction of the control question "test." That which has been overlooked in this present discussion and which most assuredly gets the cart before the horse is that the RI test has no validity as a diagnostic test. Discussions about countermeasures to this format largely miss the point. This format is simply a series of "hot-button" items (relevant questions) which may be intercompared without any form of control and which each individually can cause autonomic response for a plethora of reasons (amongst others--simply the circumstance of having been questioned about subject matter(s) obviously emotionally laden to all). Many of those who have used it over the years (particularly in the federal polygraph intelligence community) have not even pretended that it had a scientific basis or that it should be objectively scored (generally some form of rank-order scoring when done). They simply "clinically" read these charts---a polygrapher's euphemism for arriving at any conclusions/opinions that he cares to see/render based on any or no considerations he chooses to employ. This format is such an embarrassment to this day, that even the polygraph community would rise up in arms if told to abandon their control question test (albeit completely lacking in scientific control) for this nonsense....
Thanks for setting the record straight Anonymous. I had no idea that the RI format was held in such utter contempt even by the pro-polygraph community as a whole.
Dave
PDD-Fed,
QuoteWell George and friends. You are so fond of "challenges". You like to throw down the gauntlet? Here is my challenge to you. Tell this poor lost soul how to "beat" the R&I test that he is REQUIRED to take to get this job he wants but based on his past behavior, does not deserve.
As we note in the 2nd edition of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 133), the behavioral countermeasures discussed earlier in Chapter 4, plus the absence of any substantive admissions on the subjects part, may well be enough to get him through the Relevant/Irrelevant "test." These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions.
If your scoring method is such that any reactions to any relevant questions necessarily increases the likelihood of a "significant response" outcome, then other physical countermeasures that might still be helpful include augmenting one's physiological responses to the number one actually picked during the "stim test." A strong reaction to the "hot" question on the "stim test" may help make any responses to the relevant questions appear less "significant."
If you use the Keeler technique of announcing the beginning and ending of the "test" as form of "control" stimulus, then it might be beneficial to produce a reaction to those announcements.
Another strategy might be to produce a strong response to the first question of each chart collection (such reactions are not unexpected, which is why the first question in a series is usually a sacrifice relevant), so that any later responses to relevant questions might appear minor in comparison.
And, of course, by regulating one's breathing, one can avoid producing any reaction to a relevant question on the pneumo channels.
QuoteNow, I know you will remove this message quickly from the "Ten most recent posts." You ALWAYS remove any post from that list that does not support your personal belief system (You have removed at least 2 of mine). But if you do take up the challenge, then either figure something out, or ADMIT there is at least ONE procedure that all the spinctor squeezing, tack sticking, toe curling, and cheek biting in the world, can not counter....
The "ten most recent posts" feature actually displays the most recent post in each of the ten most recently updated
message threads. Hence, when you post a new message to this thread, your post will appear in the "ten most recent posts" list, but as soon as someone posts a reply, that reply will appear in the list instead. This is an automated feature of the software which runs this message board; we're not removing posts from the list based on their content.
Now, as Anonymous pointed out, the R/I "test" has been largely dismissed by the polygraph community itself, and it has no validity as a diagnostic technique. Again I ask you,
if the polygraph cannot detect lies (as you have admitted), then just what does it mean when you report that there are "signficant responses" present? What do those responses signify?
George & Company...
Allow me to respond...
George, you said, "the behavioral countermeasures discussed earlier in Chapter 4, plus the absence of any substantive admissions on the subjects part, may well be enough to get him through the Relevant/Irrelevant "test."
How do your "behavioral countermeasures" equate to the physical manipulation of the charts which you alledge make it "so easy" to beat a polygraph exam. All I get from your advice is to act "friendly" and not admit to anything. SORRY, the examinee still fails the exam. His physiological responses are unchanged. George, you have in no way helped him "beat the polygraph."
You said, "These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions."
Oh., PLEASE! Any "explanation" the examinee makes, only means that I run a confirmatory test to make sure there isn't anything else the subject is hiding. "Throwaways are quickly "thrown away."
You said., If your scoring method is such that any reactions to any relevant questions necessarily increases the likelihood of a "significant response" outcome, then other physical countermeasures that might still be helpful include augmenting one's physiological responses to the number one actually picked during the "stim test." A strong reaction to the "hot" question on the "stim test" may help make any responses to the relevant questions appear less "significant."
No George, nice attempt at dancing though. The fact is that If I see ANY consistancy in the subject's responses, he and I are going to have a lengthy prayer session...They don't have to be the biggest responses, just consistant...Gee, I thought you understood that...
You said, "If you use the Keeler technique of announcing the beginning and ending of the "test" as form of "control" stimulus, then it might be beneficial to produce a reaction to those announcements."
Sorry George, that is not how we do it in the government. You need source materials a little more recent than 1936 if you are going to advise people...
"Another strategy might be to produce a strong response to the first question of each chart collection (such reactions are not unexpected, which is why the first question in a series is usually a sacrifice relevant), so that any later responses to relevant questions might appear minor in comparison."
Nope, we expect an "orienting response" We don't even look at the first question. Nice try though....
"And, of course, by regulating one's breathing, one can avoid producing any reaction to a relevant question on the pneumo channels."
...and of course, we can still identify responses in controlled breathing. Plus, we do try to get the subject to stop. If he refuses, we still have three other channels. If he controls his breathing to to point the charts are not evaluatable, we shut down the test, hire the next guy in line, and refer this applicant to Burger King...
Lastly, you said, "Now, as Anonymous pointed out, the R/I "test" has been largely dismissed by the polygraph community itself, and it has no validity as a diagnostic technique."
George, I am really surprised at you... :o You are the one who argues that NO polygraph technique has validity. Now, you are actually QUOTING the polygraph community? Gee, maybe you ARE a spy for the American Polygraph Association... ;D As far as the R&I being "dismissed" by the PG community, if you had your hand on the pulse of the aforementioned community, you would discover the R&I is in significant use across the country...
"Again I ask you, if the polygraph cannot detect lies (as you have admitted), then just what does it mean when you report that there are "signficant responses" present? What do those responses signify?"
Finally, a reasonable question. George, SR responses mean just that. The particular stimulas is significant for some reason to that examinee at that time. It may be because he is lying to the question and is afraid of getting caught. It may be that the behavior being questioned really bothers him (The subject is asked a drug question, and his cousin dies of an OD). It is my job to help the subject resolve the issue. Most do (after confirmatory testing) and in most cases, they get the job they are seeking. Those who choose not to, or those who accept the innane advice of others to attempt to manipulate their examinations, are disqualified, period... :-*
PDD-Fed
PDD-Fed,
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm not sure I understand everything you've written, though. You wrote in part:
QuoteYou said, "These behavioral countermeasures include having a pre-planned "throwaway" explanation for any reactions to any relevant questions."
Oh., PLEASE! Any "explanation" the examinee makes, only means that I run a confirmatory test to make sure there isn't anything else the subject is hiding. "Throwaways are quickly "thrown away."
Could you explain what you mean by a "confirmatory" test? Is that the same as a breakdown test? If not, what's the difference?
Quote...The fact is that If I see ANY consistancy in the subject's responses, he and I are going to have a lengthy prayer session...They don't have to be the biggest responses, just consistant...Gee, I thought you understood that...
Perhaps I've misunderstood. My understanding was that reactions to a relevant question must be not only consistent, but also specific (to the relevant question involved)
and significant (when charts are scored globally). Are you saying that reactions to relevant questions need only be consistent in order to result in a "significant response" determination? If not, could you clarify on what basis you arrive at such a determination?
Quote...and of course, we can still identify responses in controlled breathing. Plus, we do try to get the subject to stop. If he refuses, we still have three other channels. If he controls his breathing to to point the charts are not evaluatable, we shut down the test, hire the next guy in line, and refer this applicant to Burger King...
How can you identify controlled breathing? For example, according to DoDPI, the normal cyclic rate is 13 to 18 breaths per minute (see p. 12 of the PDF version of the DoDPI document Test Data Analysis (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-test-data-analysis.pdf)). Such a baseline breathing rate is not hard to maintain during the "in-test" phase of a polygraph examination, and doing so will suppress any scorable reactions on the pneumo channels. How can you tell whether a subject's breathing at an even 13 to 18 breaths per minute is natural or the result of conscious manipulation?
PDD-Fed,
If you are having trouble detecting your own, i.e., your ridiculous assertion that Mr. Maschke might be a member of the American Polygraph Association, I suppose we should not be surprised that your moniker, psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD-Fed), is equally absurd and empty. By the way, are you now PDSR-Fed and the nomenclature simply not kept pace with the lightning-fast theoretical developments in the world of polygraphy?? :) Who in your community wants to come forward and publicly embrace something (RI testing) so truly unfounded and insane as to make the CQT test appear rational and well conceived? Admittedly, only a member of the polygraph community could sink to such an intellectual low. Perhaps you might care to review my earlier post and discuss the theoretical basis for drawing conclusions from a litany of repeated hot button items (relevant questions) and the haphazard so-called clinical approach to scoring that some in your community have utilized with this technique over the years...
Quote from: J.B. on Jun 04, 2002, 01:28 AMFirst, I believe it to be quite clear from my prior posts what the acquaintance exam is used for.
Regardless of your belief system, the Aquaintance Test or Stim Test is utilized soley to instill fear and awe in the test subject, and to get the test subject into a mindset that the polygraph interogator can somehow read his mind and divine truth and falsehood from the scribbled tracings of four physiological readings. Any casual reader of the DoDPI Manual spew concerning same can see that.
QuoteSecond, where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?
This topic was discussed in superb fashion in another thread on this board (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1142#msg1142) by Dr. Drew Richardson, whom I quote in part in response:
Deceptions 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...QuoteThird, my arguments for the validity of CQT polygraph were based on peer reviewed scientific research.
JB, your oft-referenced peer-reviewed scientific research had absolutely nothing to do with polygraphy-- Dr. Richardson and Mr. Maschke pretty much handed you your head (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg1903#msg1903) when you tried to use that line on another discussion thread here on the board.
QuoteI am not here to convince anyone of anything. Banter as you may, it does not change the results of the current available scientific research. You have a right to your 'opinion' about polygraph. Conflicting views neither prove or disprove that polygraph is a science. I have already debated this topic providing the contradictory evidence of CQT polygraphs validity and will let it stand at that.
Your 'opinion' about polygraphy has as much scientific validity as mine, JB. YOU YOURSELF argued in another thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=328.msg1485#msg1485) that:
QuoteI am glad that we do see together that the pre-employment polygraph screening in its current state is invalid and unacceptable. I am not alone in the polygraph field in this view. Many examiners I have spoken with share the need for reform and national standards.
I don't know how the hell the same testing format can be invalid and unacceptable yet completely valid and acceptable in a different set of circumstances, but apparently you've settled that little conundrum in your own mind.
QuoteFourth, please cite for me recent federal court rulings on polygraph were there is reference to blanket exclusion as forensic scientific evidence. Please cite a recent case were the mere mention of polygraph is grounds for a mistrial.
I'm sorry, 1997 is not recent enough for you? And since when does a Circuit Court or Supreme Court decision or opinion have to be recent to be valid? Do you dismiss the Amistad Case because it was decided in 1847 or thereabouts?
QuoteFinally, I don't think you have paid close attention to what I have wrote in the past. I do not nor have I ever conduct pre-employment polygraphs. So I have never disqualified anyone with a polygraph exam/test countermeasures or not.
So noted.
beech trees,
First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.
Second, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?[/u]" Not who has ever said this statement. Please direct me to the supporting peer-reviewed scientific research on this assertion. In your search I believe you will find quite the contrary to your belief.
Third, peer-reviewed scientific research on CQT polygraph was off the topic? If you are referring to the use of psychology or physiology, the other cited research can be readily correlated to polygraph. Correlation of related research is quite readily used in both the medical and psychological fields.
Fourth, I think you should research a little more into the differences of conducting a pre-employment and criminal specific issue exam/test. A test can be very valid for one application but not for another. I would think you are quite able to find other disciplines (i.e. psychology, physiology, medical, forensic science...etc.) that I need not explain this issue.
Finally, although court decisions can be quite dated and still be valid, antiquity of a court's decision has a great deal of importance when the more current rulings have replaced them. (i.e. Frye's General Acceptance Rule vs Daubert's Federal Rules of Evidence)
For an in-depth review: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/courseware/goldman/kesan.html
Quote from: J.B. on Jun 05, 2002, 05:03 AM
...
Second, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?[/u]" Not who has ever said this statement. Please direct me to the supporting peer-reviewed scientific research on this assertion. In your search I believe you will find quite the contrary to your belief.
...
J.B.,
The numerous deceptions involved in both CQT and R/I polygraphy which Drew enumerated, and to which beech trees referred, are integral parts of the polygraph technique itself. They are not necessary for a polygraph chart reading to be
valid (CQT and R/I polygraphy have no validity as diagnostic techniques), but rather, these deceptions are necessary if the polygraph interrogation is to be conducted
in accordance with the standards of the polygraph community.
Quote from: J.B. on Jun 05, 2002, 05:03 AMbeech trees,
First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.
Nice, nice compliment JB. I have read enough, and experienced abuse at enough polygraph interrogations (two) to know of what I speak. I quoted Circuit Court Opinion, the opinion of the APA, of both victims of and former proponents of polygraphy, and my own horrible experiences with polygraphy. The only people to whom I
do not make reference are those who benefit financially and strategically (i.e., the almost unlimited weilding of power and influence over the hiring process) from the continued use and abuse of the polygraph in the local, state, and federal governments as well as the crimnal justice system. If that's not enough for you, frankly I don't give a damn. Move on, because I am here to stay.
QuoteSecond, My question was, "where has it ever been proven that it is incumbent for a polygraph examiner to lie to the examinee for the exam/test to be valid?[/u]" Not who has ever said this statement.
A curious but fairly sophmoric language trap JB. If I am asked to cite a source, do you agree I must quote a source?
If you're asking for some sort of empirical edict akin to Fermat's Last Theorem, I can't provide one. It doesn't change the facts that polygraphers lie to their test subjects with willful abandon and that polygraphers, contrary to their moralistic and frankly bombastic, pedagoguish sermons about 'telling the truth' here on these boards, EXPECT you to lie during the course of a polygraph exam.
beech trees,
In my last post I wrote:
Quote
First, you have a right to draw your opinion on whatever material on polygraph you have read, albeit not complete.
To this you replied:
Quote
Nice, nice compliment JB. I have read enough, and experienced abuse at enough polygraph interrogations (two) to know of what I speak. I quoted Circuit Court Opinion, the opinion of the APA, of both victims of and former proponents of polygraphy, and my own horrible experiences with polygraphy. The only people to whom I do not make reference are those who benefit financially and strategically (i.e., the almost unlimited weilding of power and influence over the hiring process) from the continued use and abuse of the polygraph in the local, state, and federal governments as well as the crimnal justice system. If that's not enough for you, frankly I don't give a damn. Move on, because I am here to stay.
Perhaps you missed part of the meaning behind what I wrote in this sentence. I simply said that the material you have read and this site has is not
complete[/u].
In response to the rest of your statement;
1. Your taking two polygraph exams and reading a limited amount of material on the subject does not in any way discredit the achieved accuracy results through peer-reviewed scientific research on polygraph. I wouldn't think you to be arguing authority in this matter. Even if one did have authority within a given topic, it does not outweigh the results of validated scientific research. That is but one of the humbling eventualities of science.
2. If you read the Circuit Court ruling you quoted within your post on this message thread, you will find this within:
Quote
Courts assert that statement
The district court granted the motion to exclude the evidence 104 based on Brown's per se rule. In view of Daubert, we vacate the conviction and remand for the district court to conduct a particularized inquiry consistent with Daubert and to deter- mine admissibility. If the district court concludes that the evidence is still inadmissible after conducting the inquiry, it may reinstate the conviction.
I think this ruling, which you used as evidence to support such statements as "The results, of course, are inadmissible in a vast majority of courts in the US-- indeed, the mere mention of the polygraph is usually enough for a mistrial.", makes it quite clear that polygraph is to be viewed with the same Rules of Evidence and not per se excluded. Furthermore, I see no reference to a case were a mistrial was ordered due to mere mention of the word polygraph.
3. Before you draw any final conclusions from Lykken and Iacono's survey, I suggest you read the entire unedited documentation. Maybe George can post it on this site in its' entirety with all the data collection and statistical processing techniques that were used. If I am not mistaken, this was asked to be produced by Honts and Amato and the response was, in essence, we will give you the data if you agree not to conduct experiments on humans anymore. William G. Iacono wrote: HYPERLINK (http://www.mail-archive.com/law-issues@mylist.net/msg00945.html)
You then wrote:
Quote
A curious but fairly sophmoric language trap JB. If I am asked to cite a source, do you agree I must quote a source?
If you're asking for some sort of empirical edict akin to Fermat's Last Theorem, I can't provide one. It doesn't change the facts that polygraphers lie to their test subjects with willful abandon and that polygraphers, contrary to their moralistic and frankly bombastic, pedagoguish sermons about 'telling the truth' here on these boards, EXPECT you to lie during the course of a polygraph exam.
There are no traps involved in my wording. It was you who asserted that it is 'incumbent' of the polygraph examiner to lie and deceive. I find no obligation in the written procedures of conducting a polygraph exam/test and/or the available peer-reviewed scientific research that states an examiner must lie or deceive to conduct a valid polygraph. In fact, you may wish to research the forensic application of a polygraph exam/test. Just because someone says something, does not 'prove' it to be true.
Note: this message was slightly edited to work around a problem that prevented the included hyperlink from displaying properly. In addition, the extraneous text "Error! Bookmark not defined." was removed from para. 3. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
J.B.,
You state:
Quote...I find no obligation in the written procedures of conducting a polygraph exam/test and/or the available peer-reviewed scientific research that states an examiner must lie or deceive to conduct a valid polygraph...
Nor do you find in said procedures stated that an examiner must breathe while conducting an (CQT) exam. However both (breathing and various forms of deception on the part of the examiner) occur as surely as the sun rising in the East and (in some form) with every examination. Should you maintain that this is not the case, I would suggest you support your claim with the availability for public scrutiny of audio/video tapes of all your exams over the past year or suggest any other examiner where this scrutiny would be available.
J.B.,
One additional follow-up question to my last post: Do you believe that every examinee deserves the protection afforded through the routine audio/video taping of polygraph examinations?
Anonymous,
Most of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response. I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.
The recording of a polygraph exam would be a most useful tool, when used as documentation of the proper procedures for later scrutiny by the appropriate entities. It has in fact been so suggested by courts that this be done to aid them in the evidentiary hearing process. I personally have no problem with the recording of polygraph examinations for this purpose. I do have a problem with the recording of a polygraph examination within the purposed agenda you have implied. Weather truthful or deceptive, any individual within our free society we so relish should not have the threat of the general public viewing their polygraph, as you suggest. This ludicrous course would most certainly lead to further consequences and the loss of privacy and protection that is afforded in other facets of inquires within society.
J.B.,
Care to name a few astute opponents of polygraphy who will agree with you that deception is not part and parcel of this foolishness??
Apparently your extended participation on this site has left you largely missing the perspective of the many victims who post. This site is largely not about privacy invasion, but lack of due process and examinee victimization. Your rationale for not wanting video/audio taping rings very hollow and would not be shared by the many on this site who have posted their stories, entered law suits, been interviewed on TV, etc. These people are quite willing to have their stories told in order to obtain justice for themselves and those who share their plights. Even those who would be concerned about privacy issues would have only you and your fellow polygraphers to blame if the tapes were inappropriately used. With regard to reviewing the exams, there could easily be established procedures for having respected authorities or appointed citizens groups, e.g., institutional review boards, etc. review these. The only reason for not taping these exams is to protect your lot, not the countless number who have been and will be victimized with any sort of sanctioned or defacto cloaking of the process...
J.B.,
You wrote to Anonymous:
QuoteMost of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response. I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.
J.B., astute opponents (and even some practitioners) of polygraphy might wonder just what it is that you've been smoking... Have you so internalized the deceptions inherent in polygraphy that you no longer recognize them as such?
As beech trees pointed out, Dr. Drew Richardson has enumerated some of the deceptions involved in an earlier message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1142#msg1142):
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...
Similarly, another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):
QuoteOne important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched on 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 deceeive 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, 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 this subject, the examiner must convey an impression of virtual infallibility. The stim-test is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polgyraph 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 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.
I work in a specialty law enforcement feild. I lied several times during the test when I was aked about my involvemnet and history with drugs which where not dectected.
When the polygraher has you hooked up and is asking you questions, do not reply to the question he asks. Instead make an alternative answer in you head but only state the yes/no part of the reply out loud.
For example: If the polygrapher asks, "Have you ever sold drugs"
You reply out loud - "No"
But in your mind state - "No I do not have a dog." Only saying no out loud.
If you said this response out loud the examiner would stop the test becasue he could not accurately test a person who replyed with obscure unrelated information. This principle still applys if the responses are only stated to yourself, not outloud. All the information shared between yourself and the examiner is usless and irrelevant, however you are the only one who knows that.
When doing this consentrate very hard on the event you are thinking of. EG - Be very certian and clear in your head that indeed you dont have a dog, and that at no point did you have a dog and that your appartment is too small for a dog so it just woud never happen. Concentrate more on the fabricated mental thought than the examiners' question. As soon as you know whether the aswer you need to give is yes or no, then you can stop listening to him/her.
It works because I did it.
Crobzy,
That which you describe about your polygraph countermeasure efforts would accurately be described as attempting to obtain a non-deceptive exam result through the attenuation/reduction of physiological responses to relevant questions via the method you describe. You indicate that you know it works, because it worked for you. Several points: (1) I have no reason to doubt that you did what you described having done, and that you successfully passed (were found to be non-deceptive) your polygraph exam; (2) You do not indicate whether you were given a CQT or RI type exam. With regard to the former and in general successful countermeasure efforts would involve increasing reaction(s) to control questions, not trying to reduce responses to relevant questions (very very difficult for most people to do).
The one to one correlation you describe between your countermeasure effort and a successful polygraph result may be simply that. Although you apparently were found to be non-deceptive to one or more issues for which you were deceptive (false negative), there may well be no cause and effect relationship between your efforts and the end result. You may just be the benefactor of the fact that CQT and RI polygraphy are inherently (in the absence of countermeasures) inaccurate producing both false negative (your experience) and false positive error (that which has occurred with many victims on this site). I would continue to recommend the sorts of countermeasures described on this site (augmenting responses to control questions) to innocent examinees.
Your method is quite interesting though and may well have some impact on autonomic measures in the time frame of the typical polygraph exam (would not on the CNS measures I am currently looking at (http://www.brainwavescience.com/counter-terrorism/) in a concealed information test--those responses occur as soon as an examinee recognizes the stimulus in context and before he/she could implement your silent diversion). That having been said, there might be a case made for using your method WITH (not instead of) the countermeasure efforts as described in the Lie Behind the Lie Detector and similar sources. This is an empirical matter, i.e., one that could be tested. Because polygraph exams are inherently inaccurate and with the added impact of the oft previously discussed countermeasure efforts, your method, even if successful to some degree, may now come under the category of beyond the point of diminishing return. Additionally, the combination of your methodology plus "traditional" countermeasures might be too much for the average examinee to keep up with and perform successfully. Nevertheless, perhaps an interesting academic research topic and fodder for academicians to muse, discuss, and debate...
Try telling the truth - now that's a novel idea huh?
;D
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 22, 2002, 05:38 PMTry telling the truth - now that's a novel idea huh?
It certainly is-- if you're a polygrapher. ;D
Very clever response - I'd love to find out what you were so eager to hide on your polygraph.
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 22, 2002, 07:29 PM
Very clever response - I'd love to find out what you were so eager to hide on your polygraph.
I hid nothing on the two polygraphs I've taken. The fact that I used countermeasures to assure an interpretation of 'NDI' doesn't change that fact.
I wouldn't lie to you, Eastwood.... after all, I'm not a Polygrapher, like you.
Truthful people don't use countermeasures beechtrees - so, please enlighten us what you concealed. ;D
Eastwood,
Truthful people do and should use countermeasures on a polygraph examination. Those who do not are either naive or foolishly put their reputations, livelihoods, and even freedom at stake. I am quite appalled that you, having no personal knowledge of beech tree's circumstances or polygraph examination(s), have repeatedly made unfounded accusations to and about him. You should be ashamed and the subject of your own colleague's ridicule for such reckless dialogue, and from such, this readership should clearly understand the mindset that operates in a polygraph suite. At least we can all thank you for that contribution.
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 22, 2002, 07:29 PM
Very clever response - I'd love to find out what you were so eager to hide on your polygraph.
No offense intended against Beech Trees, but if you were that impressed by the cleverness of his response (a rather standard realization among those of us familiar with the polygraph), you HAVE to be a polygrapher.
For that matter, only someone with a polygrapher's personality would believe something someone was "eager to hide on [his] polygraph" (assuming there really was anything) was any of his damn business. Who appointed you divine judge?
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 23, 2002, 08:58 PM
Truthful people don't use countermeasures beechtrees - so, please enlighten us what you concealed. ;D
Would you kindly explain for us what "truth" and polygraphs have to do with each other?
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 23, 2002, 08:58 PM
Truthful people don't use countermeasures beechtrees - so, please enlighten us what you concealed. ;D
1. What evidence do you have that truthful people don't use countermeasures?
2. Is it your position that all truthful people don't need to use countermeasures because the polygraph is an infallible instrument that can detect truth from deception?
3. You're starting to show a salacious, slightly odd interest in my personal life, as are 'Polycop' and 'PDD Fed'. I suggest you gentleman exercise your interests in things prurient elsewhere-- I'm a fairly boring fellow.