Relevant/Irrelevant Test

[cesium_133]

Enlighten us!

Sorry, truth, Mr. Noname won't do as you request    You're right about your reasoning, that you can CM the R/I test in just the way you said.  Of course, nonombre is here to endeavor to "prove" that you can't beat his beloved box.  And he will not deign to join the arguments here fully, as his method, most respectfully, is one of assertion without evidence.  This contravenes the scientific method in the arenas of both pure and applied science.

I find the concept of the R/I to be as troubling as many do here, if not more, for two reasons: (1) it doesn't even attempt to claim that it has a comparison source, like the CQT claims (but fails to have), and (2) it uses 2 sources of input that can lead but to highly inductive reasoning: examinee conduct, which can be affected by anything, including their health or extraneous life problems, and relevant tracings set only against each other.  -Nobody on Earth besides the victim, er, examinee, and maybe not even they can tell you why a tracing repeats or fails to repeat on a given question.-

In nomine Dei omnipotentis, why do we on the anti side even have to discuss this joke?  I hope the message gets out on this whole farce...

[nonombre]

Enlighten us!

Okay,  Let me take a shot at explaining this to you:

The R/I my department uses is typically a five relevant test:  Since we allow our recruitment officers to discuss the relevant questions with applicants beforehand, I do not mind stating them here.  They are:

1.  Have you been involved in any crime we do not already know about?

2.  Have you concealed any information about your drug involvement?

3.  Have you ever driven under the influence of alcohol?

4.  Have you falsified your employment document in any way?

5.  Have you attempted in any way to defeat this test?

Now we ask each relevant at least three times and we do repeat relevants on charts.  Now that I have explained the test, Let's take a look at the results of the R/I test on this particular applicant:

Let's say the applicant has used drugs more than he has reported during his employment processing.  As a result, he has theoretically already responded to the drug question, the crime question, and the documents question three out of three times.  He is already deceptive on the test.  However, if he applies what he has been taught on this website, he is going to artificially enhance his response to the crime, documents, and countermeasures question in an effort to "mask" his drug question responses?

Hmmm, doesn't make much sense to me...

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's say that psychological set has really focused the examinee in this case, and he is responding primarily to the drug question.  Now, once again, in accordance with the directions he has received on this site, he artificially enhances his response to the crime, DUI, documents, and countermeasures question in an effort to mask his drug question responses.  Again, theoretically, this is what the examiner would see:

First set of askings:

Drug question:  Response
Crime question: Response
DUI Question:  Response
Documents Question:  No Response
CM Question:  Response

Second set of Askings:

Drug question:  Response
Crime question: No Response
DUI Question:  No Response
Documents Question:  Response
CM Question:  Response

Third set of Responses:

Drug question:  Response
Crime question: Response
DUI Question:  No Response
Documents Question:  Response
CM Question:  Response

Now remember, if the examinee shows response two out of three times on any ONE relevant question, he fails the test.  Now do the math.  What do you think this applicant's prospects are now?

Incidentially, I do admit I got a little confused trying to apply the "advice," therefore I may have the gotten the exact order of responses a little incorrect (and think, I am an examiner.  Imagine a "layman" trying to make this all "work.")

Add to this the problem the examinee confronts with the rotating of questions, and all the cognitive activity he has to put into this effort during actual chart collection  (e.g., "okay do I CM this question?, no I think I am supposed CM the next one.")  Remember, all that is picked up and recorded by the polygraph instrument.

So, in the end, the applicant has failed ALL the questions, his processing into the P.D. is terminated,  and he finds himself working at Taco-Bell...

Now just think, if the applicant would have been HONEST with the application process (and the examiner who's purpose is to provide a final chance to resolve issues), and simply discussed the additional drug use, he would in all probability been wearing a shiny new police badge, and not a greasy paper hat.

Thank you Anti-Polygraph.org.  Another happy customer...

[underlyingtruth]

I understand what you are saying.

What if one used CMs on every RQ throughout the test?  
Would you conclude that they are deceptive on every question?

What would a NDI chart look like on a R/I test?

[alterego1]

Nonombre,

I noticed that you said your department does three runs of the questions on their R/I test.  I recently took a R/I test, and before the poly was administered, the guy told me, "I will ask you this set of questions two, maybe three, times."

He only asked me the set of questions two times, with no post test interrogation.  Is this most likely a good sign?

[cesium_133]

Nonombre,

It is stated on this site that you never want to increase your responses to relevant questions.  That holds especially true to R/I tests.  The CM's that are advocated for this "test" are behavioral (with a possible amplification of one relevant here or there, that being the only exception to the never increase rule).

You know as well as anyone that you want different readings, probably slightly different but enough to be visible, on the sets of questions in an R/I.  You know, as we "advanced users" do, that you don't straight-out CM an R/I, as there's nothing to CM.

For all others who read this, listen: don't amplify relevant responses.  Be comfortable and relaxed as best you can if presented with this form of fraud.  And don't peg the needle on irrelevants... it does no good...

[nonombre]

Nonombre,

It is stated on this site that you never want to increase your responses to relevant questions.  That holds especially true to R/I tests.  The CM's that are advocated for this "test" are behavioral (with a possible amplification of one relevant here or there, that being the only exception to the never increase rule).

You know as well as anyone that you want different readings, probably slightly different but enough to be visible, on the sets of questions in an R/I.  You know, as we "advanced users" do, that you don't straight-out CM an R/I, as there's nothing to CM.

For all others who read this, listen: don't amplify relevant responses.  Be comfortable and relaxed as best you can if presented with this form of fraud.  And don't peg the needle on irrelevants... it does no good...

Cesium,

You said, "It is stated on this site that you never want to increase your responses to relevant questions.  That holds especially true to R/I tests."

Actually that is not true.  This site is the very place people have been repeatedly told to select various relevants on an R/I and then deliberately initiate responses to them.

You said:  "..you don't straight-out CM an R/I, as there's nothing to CM."

You are in fact, completely correct.

You said: "...don't amplify relevant responses.  Be comfortable and relaxed as best you can if presented with this form of fraud.  And don't peg the needle on irrelevants... it does no good..."

Other than the "fraud" part, you are again correct.  Good advice.  Now, if we can just talk the rest of the folks on this site out of advising people to deliberately "spike" relevant questions...AND to stop publically guessing as to what may or may not be "control" questions.  Such stupidity doesn't help anyone, not the examinees, not the examiners, not anybody...

Regards,

Nonombre :-/

[underlyingtruth]

Wow, R/I tests seem to be the hot-topic lately!

Okay, we all know good and well that the R/I test is by far the most unreliable.

We also know that RQs will show some type of response regardless of what question is asked.  Examiners look for elevated responses that are above the average of the others.  
Multiple charts are run to rule out anomalies.  If your response to a particular question is elevated each time a chart is ran, the examiner assumes you are lying about that question's topic.  
Now, I don't know, but SURELY an elevation to a particular question on just one chart and one chart only wouldn't be enough to fail a test?  That would truly be a flawed conclusion.

So, let me try to break this down by asking one question.

If the responses to the RQs are equal across the chart, regardless of how elevated, then the test is deemed NDI, correct?

We could really use some expert advice on this topic.

[nonombre]

If the responses to the RQs are equal across the chart, regardless of how elevated, then the test is deemed NDI, correct?

Nope...

[underlyingtruth]

So, what's the threshold then?  
If not to each other, what are you comparing the RQ against?
You can tell us, there's NO WAY we could learn to beat it!

[cesium_133]

First, I reiterate that the poly as now used and advertised is a fraud, and that its users know or should know this.  No poly can detect truth or deception; it can only be used as an indirect tool to try to extract information from the uninformed... just as a VSA test is used.  In that regard, they're both equally bad.  It has nothing to do with the lines showing deception.  It's the fact that they're present at all and can be claimed (honestly or not) to be indicative of deception by the polyboy.  They're nothing but nonsensical, irrelevant hieroglyphic lines anyhow, so how would an uninformed subject know?

Back to R/I's now...

The irrelevants are nothing, hence the name.  They're not scored, and their predicted physiological response is almost always the one that comes out.  They're not controls, and no person on this site will tell you (hopefully) that they are.  The polyboy might.  They're not put up against any other question, though...

They are a ruse designed to make the victim, er, examinee think that they're meaningful, that they are in fact comparison questions or otherwise carry some awesome, mystical aura... the polyboy will come up with some technical reason.  He can't say,

"I'm gonna ask you some questions three times, one of which being 'Are the lights on?', and another 'Are you currently being polygraphed?'  Just give the obvious answer, because I'm only dicking around with these questions anyway.  These, and any others like them, mean nothing, count for nothing, and they only split up relevant questions and maybe relax you some, but on the latter I don't care.  Sucker."

This type of test is one tiny step removed from the RQ-only test, which even polygraphers hold in contempt.  That's why you can't CM it easily; if you start spiking the IQ's, the polyboy either won't care (unlikely), will be laughing like hell internally that you're trying to CM a meaningless part of the test (possible) while proceeding to fail (which he might well do to you), or will shut the machine off and end the test with a CM charge (likely, imho)...

"Sorry, CM-man, you been punk'd.  You ran into an R/I, and you didn't study up on good technique for beating me.  Go read TLBTLD a little more carefully, focusing on Chs. 3 and 4.  Bye now!" <lol>

Nonombre urges everyone here to quit misidentifying CQ's as RQ's and vice versa.  True, it's dangerous for the anti side to mislabel these questions.  I really haven't seen a lot of that, and I keep up with current posts.  However, for anyone unsure:

When in doubt, it's an RQ, plain and simple.  If you study this site and its texts, you should have very few of these brainbenders, but if you do, it's relevant!  And it's not irrelevant unless it's tantamount to "Is it daytime?"

For R/I tests, you don't spike the needle!  You want a modest difference on the same question over different charts, if possible.  Also good, alternatively, is the absence of any major upward physiological deviations during the RQ's (esp in the GSR channel).  You don't want Everest on question 2, chart 3, and Kansas flatlands on the others.  I would say ramping up your nerves short of the CM's used in a CQT, such as -maybe- placing yourself in a slightly nervous state via thought, -might- work.  This is a tricky area, though, and one where behavioral attitude may well help you more.  You just don't have the latitude to CM close to half the test like you do in a CQT.

I am not sure how much off average baseline the average polyboy considers a 1, 2, or 3 score, btw.  However, that's what he's looking for: uptick deviations, just as on a CQT.  If he gets them on one or more questions, and consistently, against a background of ordinary IQ and "truthful", whatever that is, traces, he'll infer deception.  Note infer; he can't deduce, but you still would have a problem...

[nonombre]

When in doubt, it's an RQ, plain and simple...  And it's not irrelevant unless it's tantamount to "Is it daytime?"...

Cesium,

Although I take exception to most of your previous and current diatribes, I am happy to agree with you on this singular point.

Many Regards,

Nonombre

[Onesimus]

So, in the end, the applicant has failed ALL the questions, his processing into the P.D. is terminated,  and he finds himself working at Taco-Bell...

You seem to think one shot at an R/I test is sufficient for an applicant.  Why do you think government intelligence agencies allow applicants to take it multiple times?