1. Is your last name Doe? (YES)
2. Will you tell the truth on this test? (YES)
3C. Since being at [treatment center name], have you lied to [therapist] about anything we haven't covered? (NO)
4R. Since being at [treatment center name], have you had any sexual contact that you're hiding? (NO)
5C. Since being at [treatment center name], have you had any deviant sexual thoughts that you haven't reported? (NO)
6R. Since being at [treatment center name], have you used any social media that you're concealing? (NO)
7C. Since being at [treatment center name], have you lied to probation about anything that we haven't covered? (NO)
8R. Since being at [treatment center name], have you deliberately accessed X-rated material that you're concealing? (NO)
What, no takers?
I am shocked, appalled and dismayed.
Look closely at the CQs, then explain what's wrong with this picture.
They should be exclusionary when presented before the RQ's.
Let's humor the peanut gallery, Ark, especially the polygraph apologist lurkers out there.
Again, this is a probable-lie PCSOT maintenance "test."
If the SO is responding favorably to treatment -- to include being honest with everyone in the so-called treatment triangle -- why exactly do these particular inclusive CQs comprise a fatal flaw with this "test"?
What is the inherent danger of using those CQs on a treatment-amenable SO who is telling the truth?
Spell it out for the folks at home.
I'm not privy to what is actually taught at a PCSOT course. In my opinion, by using inclusionary CQ's of this nature, an SO would most likely perceive them as RQ's. For example, accessing porn and lying to probation, could be equally salient for someone under the gun.
The ethical shortfall here is that the compliant offender -- i.e., one who is being honest and truthful across the board -- has virtually no chance of passing the "test."
Yet, passing the "test" is critical to completing the SOT program.
That means the honest SO is rewarded with -- punishment.
Ironic, no?
And sick.
If my thinking is correct, the results would push towards an inconclusive, or even a possible false negative. However, from what I've read in recent times, the exam may not even be properly scored. In these fishing expeditions, the trend appears to look for reactions on any question which is then used in an attempt to elicit admissions.
Ark, in the real world, the scenario I described would likely push toward a false-positive "test" result.
Why is that, you ask?
Because the convicted SO is already sensitized to the issues surrounding the RQs.
With such weak PLCQs presented to the honest, truthful and compliant subject, chances of passing are slim.
But happily for the "forensic psycho-physiologist" who runs this kind of bastardized and twisted CF, the checks keep clearing.
You see, Ark, in the PCSOT world, accountability is sparse.
That's why such abuse is so rampant.
Should anyone be surprised?
Joe McCarthy has been sounding the alarm for years, but no one wants to upset the apple cart.
Why do you think that is?
Quote from: danmangan on May 05, 2017, 10:47 PMJoe McCarthy has been sounding the alarm for years, but no one wants to upset the apple cart.
Why do you think that is?
Dan, you remind me of Billy Hayes walking the circle counter-clockwise, upsetting all the Turkish mental patients.
Ark, this "Midnight Express" polygraph-abuse revelation train could very well be gaining steam -- and sooner rather than later.
Imagine the shitstorm that will ensue if it is shown that the faulty PCSOT "test" that I described has been routinely used in an institutional -- and allegedly therapeutic -- setting on juvenile SOs.
If what I've been told is true, woe betide the "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" responsible for such abuse -- and the institutional decision makers who allow such "testing" to be conducted.
I'm having a real issue with C5
OK wait, I just ready the other posts.
This guy listed control questions on his report?
Also lying to probation and therapist makes for great known controls, if you are going to go to known controls. To be sure to make it fair to all parties, I would add "before this year", or, "before your last polygraph. That way you are not clouding the relevant time line.
But thats me.
I have a HUGE issue with C5 though.
And yes, I have been warning everyone of a lot of things over the years. The warnings have benefited both sides of the spectrum, and have been unbiased and documented clearly.
The problem is, no one wants unbiased opinions, warnings or facts. They only want facts or warnings that fit a narrative.
Joe, what do you mean by "known control"? I am not familiar with this term.
You're getting warm, Joe. Maybe.
Again, what is the fatal flaw with this SO maintenance "test" for the honest client who is responding favorably to treatment?
Study the questions set, Joe, and think it through.
BTW, the "test" was administered to a juvenile.
And in case you haven't heard, ATSA recently published guidelines that recommend AGAINST subjecting juveniles to polygraph "testing".
sorry Ark, known control=directed lie. If you're not familiar with what a directed lie is, you are not up to date on your studies. Anyway
Dan, lying to therapist and probation are fair control questions. I have a problem with the time line of the questions obviously, and I TOTALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH C5 AS A CONTROL.
Having said that, I also have a problem if the examiner included the controls on his or her report. However it is still unclear as to if the examiner included the controls on the report.
In regard to ATSM, the industry will argue that, "they are a toothless organization, with no enforcement capabilities." the same way they do when I asked the industry to help me with the Unethical Behavior of TAPE, Maria Hubbard, Clayton Wood, Andy Shepherd, Richard Wood and Associates (for running shitty tests and running tests outside standards) etc etc etc.
You don't really think there is any real enforcement in the industry at all do you? At least not when it comes to enforcing actual issues, filed or brought up against member of their establishment. Having said that, the industry is more than happy to look into any complaints about made up and fictional issues, dreamed up to silence a truth telling whistle blower.
Naaaaaaaaa people who break standards and bend the rules are rewarded with "fiefdoms," where they will be entitled to work, rather than..... I don't know........ EARN IT.
You know who I'm talking about.
As far as juveniles go, that is a careful line I avoid more than I avoid infidelity testing.
Quote from: danmangan on May 03, 2017, 09:05 PM5C. Since being at [treatment center name], have you had any deviant sexual thoughts that you haven't reported? (NO)
Just a random stab from someone who has never been to any kind of PCSOT training:
For those whose minds are very disturbed and inundated with a flood of deviant thoughts, this CQ may be meagerly effective. But for "the honest client who is responding favorably to treatment", it is quite possible that he has been completely forthcoming with any and all deviant thoughts, even keeping a log to be certain. In this scenario, the CQ is weak and at risk of being overpowered by the adjacent RQ.
Thanks Joe, I am only familiar with the term "Directed Lie", in all the documentation I've perused, I've never seen the term "Known Control". I hope you will be patient as you nursemaid me through my studies.
And by the way, none of those are Direct Lie Comparison Questions.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on May 25, 2017, 09:39 PMQuote from: danmangan on May 03, 2017, 09:05 PM5C. Since being at [treatment center name], have you had any deviant sexual thoughts that you haven't reported? (NO)
Just a random stab from someone who has never been to any kind of PCSOT training:
For those whose minds are very disturbed and inundated with a flood of deviant thoughts, this CQ may be meagerly effective. But for "the honest client who is responding favorably to treatment", it is quite possible that he has been completely forthcoming with any and all deviant thoughts, even keeping a log to be certain. In this scenario, the CQ is weak and at risk of being overpowered by the adjacent RQ.
BINGO!
Thanks for noticing.
The ostensibly honest kid in SOTx -- who is now, BTW, a convicted FELON in "treatment" because of a sexting thing with another high-school student who's within a few weeks of the SO's age --
could never pass his requisite polygraph "test", due to the way the "test" was constructed.
Look again at the CQs, then put yourself in the shoes of that 15-year-old kid who's doing everything he can to cooperate, but who is jammed up in the SOTx "system."
The 15-year-old kid's mother asked the DOC authorities about the accuracy of the "test".
Their reply, in essence, is this: "We will not debate or discuss the polygraph. We've been using it for over 20 years. Your son is a liar."
Clearly, the system is broken.
As far as the behavior that is covered up in this industry catching up with them...
Oh look around. It's already happening. Go onto google and take a look, you'll find a few stories that haven't hit here yet.
Whats funny to me, I WARNED EVERYONE, that people were going to get smart to the PCSOT game, if they didn't knock it off. I warned everyone years ago, and now it is happening. The industry had 8 years to right itself, but noooooooooooooooo....
They thought that all they had to do was ignore me, and my warnings, and now the money game is catching up. People are getting smart, and examiners are running for cover when the tough questions are being asked.
Go ahead, hit google
I was teasing ya about the studies thing. Sarcasm doesn't come across well in the written word.
Yes I know they were not used as DL's. That is one of the things I am being critical about.
BUT C5 WAS JUST FUCKING STUPID
That examiner needs to be smacked upside the head with a tac hammer
And yes dan, the system is broken. but who has been ringing that bell for years?
Now the tolls
Yet, the PCSOT gravy train keeps on highballin' down the track -- all the way to the bank.
well the train has just run into engine problems
for the record, the program was started with good intentions, and I believe, when administered correctly, it works as it should.
But once it became big money, good intentions went out the window
After much resistance, stonewalling and legal wrangling, I have, through a court order, managed to get the video of the aforementioned polygraph "test".
It's ugly.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on May 06, 2017, 06:13 PMDan, you remind me of Billy Hayes walking the circle counter-clockwise, upsetting all the Turkish mental patients.
Well, he was ultimately able to escape Turkey via that ruse.
I don't think that he was ever polygraphed by the Turks at least!
The aforementioned PCSOT Maintenance "test" that I have reviewed contains -- in my professional opinion -- multiple violations of the APA's model policy for such "testing."
Since spending some 13+ years in the polygraph "profession," my impression is that PCSOT "testing" is mainly about one thing: MONEY.
The "test" to which I refer strikes me as being emblematic of that sad condition.