After the polygraph is over do you receive a hard copy of the results? I need to take a polygraph that will deal with my affairs during my marriage. Now whether I should or shouldn't can be debated I need to do it and beat it using the techniques here. But my question is when it is over do I get some sort of paper result?
It is customary to receive a written report from the examiner within a few working days of the "test."
However, some examiners provide immediate results in the form of a computer-generated report from an on-board scoring system, such as PolyScore or Objective Scoring System 3.
In either case, results are usually available in paper or electronic form.
In my opinion, fidelity polygraphs are typically a complete waste of time and money. As an examiner, I discourage them. Many polygraph examiners refuse to run them altogether.
Quote from: Kubota139 on Mar 19, 2016, 07:44 AMI need to do it and beat it using the techniques here.
So you want to "beat" an infidelity polygraph? How about just being faithful to your wife? If this is something you cannot or will not do, then you are better to get a divorce and live your life of promiscuity. If you do want to salvage your marriage, you will always fail if it is built upon a foundation of deceit.
Ark, I have a rhetorical question for you...
In your opinion, are there any circumstances under which the implementation of countermeasures in a polygraph "test" would be justified?
If so, please elaborate.
The best countermeasure is not submitting to polygraph testing.
Ark, you dodged the question.
For the individual who is compelled to take a polygraph "test," are countermeasures ever justified?
It's just a rhetorical question. There's no need to avoid it.
I did not dodge it. I answered it. There is a time to use countermeasures and there is only one that is 100% effective.
Beyond that, you are in effect asking me if it's okay to lie under any circumstances. I would probably have to refer you to the writings of Kant and Hume to probe this issue. It was probably okay to deny being a Jew in Germany in 1939, but is it okay for Kubota to lie to his wife about his promiscuity? Same for not putting down a criminal offense on a job application. A guy has to get a job and earn a living, so?
Now there is the tactic of using countermeasures to protect against a false positive. Ostensibly, this seems just; however, I would like to know what percentage of examinees who employ countermeasures fall into this category. Is it idealistic to assume the majority?
I do not have the credentials to offer a meaningful discourse on the ethics of deception, although I would like to hear the opinions of others with more insight into these issues.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 20, 2016, 06:40 PMThere is a time to use countermeasures
That's all we need to know.
I took the liberty of speaking for your legion of loyal followers here on antipolygraph.org, the Internet's most authoritative web site dedicated to telling the truth about the polygraph "test."
Ark, you are held in high regard here -- even in light of your propensity for the occasional cheap shot when someone strikes a raw nerve.
Given your virtual stipulation that "there is a time for countermeasures," you have done much to serve the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons.
We applaud your candor. It is especially daring, considering your position in the polygraph community.
I think you misunderstood me. I said there is a time for countermeasures, and one should use the biggest countermeasure of all: do not submit to polygraph testing. The cheap shot was actually just my snarky humor--one cannot count the times I had to stay after school as a kid. I deleted it as it did not contribute to the conversation.
In those cases where someone is compelled to submit and they are hiding information which will put them into extreme jeopardy, then I would recommend seeking the advice of legal counsel.
Ark, let's turn to an aspect of polygraph countermeasure usage that strikes you as being ostensibly just: Honest people with nothing to hide helping themselves pass the "test" in order to avoid a false-positive result.
Given the fact that no test is perfect -- and polygraph screening exams in general are prone to a relatively high rate of FPs -- would you agree that such a course of action is not irrational, if not downright prudent?
Look at it this way... Law school graduates are known to spend a great deal of time, effort and money preparing for the make-or-break bar exam. (Can anyone blame them, after all their academic travails, for trying to gain an edge in what could be a career show stopper?) Such preparation often includes taking mock bar exams. Similarly, doesn't it make sense for the honest LE or gummint job seeker to be as well prepared as possible for their official pre-employment polygraph "test"?
Quote from: danmangan on Mar 21, 2016, 01:40 PMSimilarly, doesn't it make sense for the honest LE or gummint job seeker to be as well prepared as possible for their official pre-employment polygraph "test"?
Given that the CQT lacks construct validity, and that the applicant has no recourse, and that the examiner would not allow the data to be provided for an objective second opinion, and assuming that the examinee is not withholding any disqualifying information, then yes, I would not be adverse to using countermeasures to prevent a false positive.
Ark, how do we, as examiners, distinguish between those would attempt to use countermeasures in order to avoid a false positive, from those who are attempting to hide relevant/disqualifying information?
Excellent question quickfix. I am at a loss for an answer.
Dan, what would President Elect Mangan's input be?
Our sanctioned testing methods need to evolve to a greater extent than they have thus far.
One option might be to adopt the EyeDetect-PDD successive hurdle model, which is said to provide an outcome confidence of 97%.
Learn more here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8zN0o1qt9k
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 21, 2016, 02:58 PMExcellent question quickfix. I am at a loss for an answer.
So you see our dilemma; we are unable to distinguish between the two motives (without an admission); the school solution tells us to suspect the worst-case scenario. This is the dark side of engaging in countermeasures. The one with the intent to avoid the false positive will be lumped together with the one hiding relevant information.
Dan, I caution you to pause before jumping onto the eye detect band wagon. It is my opinion that these folks dove prematurely into the commercialization of this technology simply to get a foothold in the market before anyone else did.
The reality is that the use of ocular metrics for PDD is nascent and immature. I am only aware of 2 attempts at field studies. The first was conducted on Federal Government employees, N=94. The results were a modest 77% accuracy. The second involved job applicants in Colombia, N=94. The results were nil--no demonstrated ability to distinguish between the two groups. The two laboratory experiments that I'm aware of, reported approximately 85% accuracy.
This "successive hurdles" approach shows that their technology cannot yet be decoupled from the polygraph and may be a marketing ploy to salvage their investment.
Quickfix,
So you can neither reliably detect countermeasures nor accurately assign a motive for such if you could. I suggest you avoid what your sign-in name suggests and simply be resolute in not guessing or bluffing with either.
Ability to detect and motive are two different topics. Countermeasures can be detected and are detected every day. The number of people coming to this site to complain they were accused of engaging in countermeasures is the proof. The motive for engaging in countermeasures cannot be detected as we are not mind readers.
QuoteThe number of people coming to this site to complain they were accused of engaging in countermeasures is the proof.
An accusation (or report thereof) is not evidence of anything. I would have thought you would have known better...
It's evidence enough for us. The one who doesn't know better is you.
QuoteIt's evidence enough for us.
I guess I should claim a confession or at least an admission...LOL
Dan,
What's your take on PCDVT? Were you able to scrutinize the APA model?
Ark, in my opinion, this latest iteration of an APA "model policy" appears to be little more than a clever cut-and-paste bastardization of the popular PCSOT moneymaker.
Clearly, the PCDVT phenomenon heralds an opportune new line for the polygraph gravy train. [ALL ABOARD!]
Indeed, it seems the polygraph "test" model-policy domino theory knows no bounds... What's next? A "model policy" for miscreants convicted of texting while driving?
BTW, before getting into the polygraph field, I was a victim-witness advocate attached to a DV court.
I'll tell you what we'll never see: An APA "model policy" for infidelity exams, which happens to be the bread and butter for many a polygraph operator in the private sector.
Quote from: danmangan on Mar 22, 2016, 11:07 PMIndeed, it seems the polygraph "test" model-policy domino theory knows no bounds... What's next? A "model policy" for miscreants convicted of texting while driving?
It does make one pause to consider the extent the polygraph may be utilized for "monitoring." It seems to be driven by emotion: "we have to protect our children and women!"; hence PSCOT & PCDVT. Bank robbers and corrupt officials don't appeal to the emotions.
Ark, in my opinion, PCDVT is another lucrative commercial opportunity wrapped in a cloak of righteousness.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 21, 2016, 02:19 PMQuote from: danmangan on Mar 21, 2016, 01:40 PMSimilarly, doesn't it make sense for the honest LE or gummint job seeker to be as well prepared as possible for their official pre-employment polygraph "test"?
Given that the CQT lacks construct validity, and that the applicant has no recourse, and that the examiner would not allow the data to be provided for an objective second opinion, and assuming that the examinee is not withholding any disqualifying information, then yes, I would not be adverse to using countermeasures to prevent a false positive.
Ark, from what I've observed in my 11+ years as a certified forensic psychophysiologist, many of my colleagues would agree with you.
Such reasoning is easy to understand.
Why?
Even under the best of circumstances, a polygraph "test" is a crap shoot, and self-preservation is an instinct.
Thus, the decision to use CMs is not irrational.
For some, it's likely the right play.
A conundrum has developed however; much to my astonishment, the government has assailed the issue of countermeasures with intense ferocity.
I have read many posts here over the years wherein examinees have reported executing undetectable CM's with ease. I say it's not that easy. I'm sure some would be able to refine them with practice, but going in haphazardly could result in detectable errors which, at the least, would arouse the examiners' suspicions--resulting in a pseudo-false-positive.
So, how does one reach that point of refinement, when they could endeavor to execute CM's above the skill of a novice? Asking someone to coach is effectively asking someone to be the next target. I wouldn't even entertain the thought.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 03, 2016, 07:26 PMI have read many posts here over the years wherein examinees have reported executing undetectable CM's with ease. I say it's not that easy.
Ark, allow me to respectfully disagree. I say it's not all that difficult.
Coaching -- while ostensibly a more expedient how-to CM solution -- is not necessary, IMHO.
What is necessary, however, is possessing the right mindset to prevail in a cat-and-mouse game that hinges largely on theatrics.
Between the comprehensive CM resources that already exist in written form, and the abundance of internet videos that capture actual polygraph exams, a motivated examinee seeking to pass the "test" has ready access to effective study materials.
There's a good reason why many APA bigs (and other pro-polygraph cheerleaders) have vehemently condemned my call for a countermeasure challenge series: The "test" would be shown for what it is -- a deeply flawed process disturbingly vulnerable to countermeasures.
Dan, In the course of your career, have you ever caught anyone attempting CM's?
Only in cases where such attempts were visible to the naked eye (or ear, in instances, say, of muted whimpers heard during CQs). Also, it is not unusual for the presence of possible CMs to be concurrently flagged by the evidence-based scientific machinations of OSS3.
To be clear, when I refer to observations via the naked eye, that means examinee behavior as well as chart interpretation.
That said, polygraph operators -- and scoring algorithms -- don't know what they don't know.
And therein lies the problem.
Could the Hope/Fear spot elucidate any cues to CM's?
Ark, my opinion is that the Fear-Hope spot of the MQTZCT is most valuable. Indeed, it can serve as a cue for the presence of CMs that would otherwise go undetected.
I sometimes use a MQTZCT exam as a follow-up to a mainstream technique -- such as a Federal Zone of single-issue AFMGQT -- that shows signs of CMs, or when an examinee claims to be the victim of a false-positive result.
As you are probably aware, the MQTZCT has been branded as a boutique technique by the APA. The Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientists, who promote a simplified, dumbed-down, paint-by-number approach to polygraph "testing."
Quote from: danmangan on Apr 04, 2016, 03:04 PMThe Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientists
Indeed, scientists often need a competent engineer to slap them in the face.
IMHO, although accused of lacking a "scientific" foundation, the more I consider the MQTZCT the more it feels intuitively correct. It's a very creative and thought provoking concept.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 04, 2016, 03:22 PMthe more I consider the MQTZCT the more it feels intuitively correct.
Ark, in the right hands -- that is, someone who was trained by Backster himself in the seminal Backster method, then personally trained by Matte in his evolutionary method -- the MQTZCT works better than anything else.
Polygraph is an art, not a science.
Don't let the cool kids who comprise the APA's oh-so-fashionable brain trust tell you otherwise.
"Brain trust" ?
Those charlatans have no brains! lol :D
Quote from: danmangan on Mar 21, 2016, 03:07 PMOur sanctioned testing methods need to evolve to a greater extent than they have thus far.
One option might be to adopt the EyeDetect-PDD successive hurdle model, which is said to provide an outcome confidence of 97%.
Learn more here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8zN0o1qt9k
Dan,
Sorry for the late reply. It seems to me that Converus's EyeDetect, like polygraphy, is snake oil. "Successive hurdles" of pseudoscience will predictably yield
less reliable results, not more.
George, could you be mistaken?
I'm confused...
I thought it was all spelled out right here:
http://converus.com/american-association-police-polygraphists-article-says-using-eyedetect-polygraph-can-produce-outcome-confidence-99/
If you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 21, 2016, 03:36 PMThe reality is that the use of ocular metrics for PDD is nascent and immature. I am only aware of 2 attempts at field studies. The first was conducted on Federal Government employees, N=94. The results were a modest 77% accuracy. The second involved job applicants in Colombia, N=94. The results were nil--no demonstrated ability to distinguish between the two groups. The two laboratory experiments that I'm aware of, reported approximately 85% accuracy.
A re-emphasis from my previous post.
Mr. Handler's paper does not elucidate this reality.
Quote from: danmangan on May 26, 2016, 09:41 PMIf you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
EyeDetect, like polygraphy, has not been proven through peer-reviewed research to distinguish between truth-tellers and liars at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.
As is the case with polygraphy, none of the indices measured by EyeDetect have been shown to be systematically correlated with deception in humans.
Quote from: danmangan on May 26, 2016, 09:41 PMGeorge, could you be mistaken?
I'm confused...
I thought it was all spelled out right here:
http://converus.com/american-association-police-polygraphists-article-says-using-eyedetect-polygraph-can-produce-outcome-confidence-99/
If you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
I verified a few minutes ago that Russ Warner from Converus was misquoted in this article. Converus only quotes accuracy rates from Dr. Kircher's peer- reviewed and published research studies - .83 and .88 for a mean of .85.
Converus does not make exaggerated or false claims of accuracy, and has asked the magazine to issue a retraction.
QuoteConverus only quotes accuracy rates from Dr. Kircher's peer-reviewed and published research studies - .83 and .88 for a mean of .85.
If that is true, Neal, then why did Converus post this video on YouTube claiming 97% outcome confidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8zN0o1qt9k
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 20, 2016, 06:40 PMThere is a time to use countermeasures
There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
A time to use countermeasures, a time to not....
lol :D
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 19, 2016, 01:02 PMQuote from: Kubota139 on Mar 19, 2016, 07:44 AMI need to do it and beat it using the techniques here.
So you want to "beat" an infidelity polygraph? How about just being faithful to your wife? If this is something you cannot or will not do, then you are better to get a divorce and live your life of promiscuity. If you do want to salvage your marriage, you will always fail if it is built upon a foundation of deceit.
Another option might be "polyamory", about which there is much material online! 8-)