Calling out LieBabyCryBaby

[pailryder]

You guess wrong, Lethe.  You dared me to provide an example pf an actual CQ and to explain why I thought it was a good CQ.  If, as in your hypo conversation, the subject had admitted dealing drugs with her cousin, then that issue would not have been good CQ material, and I would have move on and found another issue to develope for that purpose.

Unlike many who visit the board, I am here to learn.  I am not here to advocate or convince or change anyones mind.  I am not interested in zinging anyone.  I am willing to openly share the knowledge I have gained from more than twenty years of pratical experience with polygraph with any interested party.  But I do enjoy thoughtful intelligent conversation, and for the first time I was a little disapointed in the lack of understanding shown in your last post.  Maybe you would now answer a question for me?  Is there anyone so blind as she who refuses to see?

[Ludovico]

I like an healthy open debate and that is why I like this site.

Let's not be naive folks. This site is not a healthy open debate. Its fueled by resentment, and fixed agendas.

It is simply the boulevard that rival groups cruise for cheap entertainment, and notoriety.

No one here is going to be convinced of much, and it is the newcomer - innocent job seeker who wants to pass a test, or probationer who wants to reside in the community - who gets to be the fodder as a result of the all the noise this site adds to the situation.

With that...

g'mornin mate.

nice work

[Lethe]

You guess wrong, Lethe.  You dared me to provide an example pf an actual CQ and to explain why I thought it was a good CQ.  If, as in your hypo conversation, the subject had admitted dealing drugs with her cousin, then that issue would not have been good CQ material, and I would have move on and found another issue to develope for that purpose.

Unlike many who visit the board, I am here to learn.  I am not here to advocate or convince or change anyones mind.  I am not interested in zinging anyone.  I am willing to openly share the knowledge I have gained from more than twenty years of pratical experience with polygraph with any interested party.  But I do enjoy thoughtful intelligent conversation, and for the first time I was a little disapointed in the lack of understanding shown in your last post.  Maybe you would now answer a question for me?  Is there anyone so blind as she who refuses to see?

I am here to learn to, and so I appreciate your more honest approach.  Many of your colleagues prefer to obfuscate and hurl insults about and you have avoided that.

But your response to my last question doesn't satisfy me.  "I'd find another control question that would work."  With polygraphers, it seems that it is always about the next thing.  The next book or study that I read will contain all the answers that I seek.  The next person that I ask will be willing to answer my question.  The next control question they come up with will be perfect.  Et cetera.  

To my understanding--and I seek correction if I am wrong--a suitable control question must have the following characteristics.

(1) It must concern an action which the subject may or may not have done in the past;
(2) Said action must be at least nominally bad;
(3) Said action must have been done by almost everyone in the subject's circumstances OR you must have solid information that the subject has done the action; and
(4) You must be able to maneuver the subject into lying to the question.

The first two criteria are shared with relevant questions.  The third most certainly is not.  An intelligent and informed subject is able to distinguish between control and relevant questions with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Your example question ("Did you and your cousin deal drugs together?") is obviously a control question and therefore the knowledgeable subject would know that she is expected to lie on it.  It would therefore be difficult, to say the least, to form the intent to deceive or to feel the fear of detection.  Thus, it seems that the control question in question is no more likely to produce the response needed for an accurate test than a denial to the question "Are you Napoleon Bonaparte?"

Other polygraphers have explained that I am wrong about this because they have some new and improved special control questions that no one could ever figure out were control questions.  I asked for some examples of these magic control questions.  Nope.  They can't be a shared.  Why?  Because if you know what they control questions are, you won't produce the responses needed for an accurate exam.  This leads us back to my initial observation: if you know how the test works, it looks like you're screwed.

[Lethe]

What are your thoughts about Dr. Drew Richardson? It is kind of funny that George slaps polygraphers around for having a training program that is shorter than Beauty School. George then puts Dr. Drew Richardson on his web site as an "expert" when Dr. Richardson barely graduated from from a federal polygraph training program with a 70% GPA?? Was Dr. Richardson's training program longer than beauty school? Should I let Dr. Drew perm my hair, tweeze my brow or wax my lip?

I don't really know anything about Richardson, except what you've put there.  I have no opinion on him.  As for beauty services, if you're into that sort of thing, go for it.  As for myself, I'm no metrosexual.

George condems people who "mis-use" the FBI symbol and then he posts his own picture in front of the American flag. Talk about mis-use of a symbol?? And why is George always looking down on you in his picture? Why is George always changing his picture? Why is George's picture the only one that is ever posted? What ever happened to that Gino Scalopini guy?

Polygraphers who use the symbol you refer to on their websites are doing so, I guess, to say "I worked for this agency, so you can be assured that I will do a good job."  George appearing with the U.S. flag could, I suppose, be taken to convey "I am an American, so you can trust what I say."  But, more likely, I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.  I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself.

As for your other questions, I hope that they are offered at least half in jest.  If not, they are simply ad hominem.  But I like good satire, so I'll view them as such unless corrected.

[Wonder_Woman]

'George appearing with the U.S. flag could, I suppose, be taken to convey "I am an American, so you can trust what I say."  But, more likely, I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.  I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself. '


George with an american flag - while hiding in the Netherlands...okay

' I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.' When did anyone state you have to be a government employee to be patriot?  Also the definition of Patriot states - a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life.  Once again, George is in the Netherlands.  The only thing he is a proud supporter of is his attempts to help liars and sex offenders pass polygraphs.  

'I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself. '    Go ahead LETHE call someone out if thats the case.  If it is who I think you are referring to, I would watch your false allegations....just ask George about making false allegations.

[Ludovico]

I am here to learn to, and so I appreciate your more honest approach.  Many of your colleagues prefer to obfuscate and hurl insults about and you have avoided that.

Obsequiousness will get you nowhere. Well. OK. Some folks do like to have a nose jammed up their keester. Maybe it does work.

I don't really know anything about Richardson, except what you've put there.  I have no opinion on him.  As for beauty services, if you're into that sort of thing, go for it.  As for myself, I'm no metrosexual.

<snip>

As for your other questions, I hope that they are offered at least half in jest.  If not, they are simply ad hominem.  But I like good satire, so I'll view them as such unless corrected.

Can we get an Emmy in here?

[Wonder_Woman]

What are your thoughts about Dr. Drew Richardson? It is kind of funny that George slaps polygraphers around for having a training program that is shorter than Beauty School. George then puts Dr. Drew Richardson on his web site as an "expert" when Dr. Richardson barely graduated from from a federal polygraph training program with a 70% GPA?? Was Dr. Richardson's training program longer than beauty school? Should I let Dr. Drew perm my hair, tweeze my brow or wax my lip?

I don't really know anything about Richardson, except what you've put there.  I have no opinion on him.  As for beauty services, if you're into that sort of thing, go for it.  As for myself, I'm no metrosexual.

George condems people who "mis-use" the FBI symbol and then he posts his own picture in front of the American flag. Talk about mis-use of a symbol?? And why is George always looking down on you in his picture? Why is George always changing his picture? Why is George's picture the only one that is ever posted? What ever happened to that Gino Scalopini guy?

Polygraphers who use the symbol you refer to on their websites are doing so, I guess, to say "I worked for this agency, so you can be assured that I will do a good job."  George appearing with the U.S. flag could, I suppose, be taken to convey "I am an American, so you can trust what I say."  But, more likely, I think he is trying to indicate that one need not believe everything that everyone who draws a government paycheck says in order to be a patriot.  I would have thought that the agency to which you referred would have a policy regarding unofficial use of it's logo and insignia.  But apparently it is okay to use them to advertise your private business and to make money for yourself.

As for your other questions, I hope that they are offered at least half in jest.  If not, they are simply ad hominem.  But I like good satire, so I'll view them as such unless corrected.

Lethe you probably have no opinion, cuz you are foregetful or oblivious from drinking your own bath water.

[Lethe]

So... apparently anyone who works outside of the country of his or her birth is... I dunno, a bad person?  I guess we ought to round up all of those Mexicans and ship them south of the Rio Grande, if they're working in our country they're obviously hiding or otherwise up to no good.

As for Richardson, if you want to slam him that's your deal.  But I really don't have much of an opinion about him and don't particularly feel a need to develop one.  Don't hijack my thread with personal and professional insults, it could make it look like you're purposefully trying to get the conversation off track, even if you're not.  

Anyway, I would have thought that said agency would have a policy about unofficial use of it's logo.  NASA has such a policy:

This general permission [to use NASA materials] does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored.

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes,

especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. [emphasis added] [/list]
Anyway, why are we talking about this stuff?  I've never said anything about Richardson, though he did post in the same thread that I did on one occasion.  And I'm sure that I've never said anything about people using the logos of government agencies on their websites or promotional material.  My preference is to stick, in this thread, to the topic under discussion, which is how to conduct a PLCQ exam when the subject isn't ignorant of the procedures and control questions.  If you want to argue with George, go argue with George.  Don't try to get me to study everything he's ever said and to defend all of his statements.  What, do you want me to critique his poetry too?

[Ludovico]

Lethe you probably have no opinion, cuz you are foregetful or oblivious from drinking your own bath water.

That's just gross. I was trying to enjoy my lunch.

Do you really do that, Lethe?

If so, you need help. Maybe some therapy, or something.

jeeze

[Paradiddle]

Deleted cheap shot regarding George's poetry and a random low blow to Two Block. Sorry all.

[pailryder]

corrections as per your request

1  no doesn't have to be an action  can concern a purely mental state  such as  have you ever considered blank
2 doesn't have to be bad but usually is
3 doesn't have to be done by everyone and can be neutral   example Have you ever been a suspect in a workplace theft? can be answered yes or no with no implication of wrongdoing
4  no doesn't have to be a lie  see ex 3

The most challenging and creative part of polygraph is developing the RQs and CQs.  The books do not have the answers as each interview is unique, as are the two parties involved.  Developing the questions is a process of negotiation, a give and take between examiner and examinee.  When something doesn't work in a negotiation I try another way.  A cookie cutter, forced or canned approach will not suffice.  Imho, the only thing required of a good CQ is that it exerts a pull on the truthful examinees attention.

[Lethe]

corrections as per your request

1  no doesn't have to be an action  can concern a purely mental state  such as  have you ever considered blank
2 doesn't have to be bad but usually is
3 doesn't have to be done by everyone and can be neutral   example Have you ever been a suspect in a workplace theft? can be answered yes or no with no implication of wrongdoing
4  no doesn't have to be a lie  see ex 3

The most challenging and creative part of polygraph is developing the RQs and CQs.  The books do not have the answers as each interview is unique, as are the two parties involved.  Developing the questions is a process of negotiation, a give and take between examiner and examinee.  When something doesn't work in a negotiation I try another way.  A cookie cutter, forced or canned approach will not suffice.  Imho, the only thing required of a good CQ is that it exerts a pull on the truthful examinees attention.

Well, if it doesn't have to be bad, would you say that it does need to carry at least some sense of ignominy or disapproval?  There has to be some reason for the person to lie, right?  

So, if someone answers your CQ ("Have you ever previously been suspected of workplace theft?") with an affirmative, that would still produce the necessary reactions to use as a control?  I'm not certain I understand what you're saying.

Also, why, as a knowledgeable subject, is my attention going to be significantly more attracted to the control questions than to the relevant ones?  Whether or not I've done those things in the CQs is irrelevant to determining my suitability for employment or my guilt or innocence in an investigation.  They only reason I have to worry about concerning them is whether or not I'll produce the correct responses, and that applies equally well to the relevant questions.  

As an aside, it seems like this thing works mainly because most people are stupid and easily manipulated by people in authority who apparently know what they're doing.  People can often be made to believe pretty silly things if they either want those things to be true or fear them to be true, especially if isolated, not given time for rational thought, and put under pressure.  Let me ask you this, with your knowledge and experience, does it surprise you that, in a series of well known experiments, it was demonstrated that 61-66% of American adults would apply potentially lethal electrical shocks to a stranger... just because a guy in a lab coat told them to?

I would thank you for avoiding personal attacks and insults, but that would probably prove too tempting to those who cannot avoid such.

[pailryder]

I dont't know where you reside, but in the state where I live most people are not stupid and are not eaisly manulated into doing something against their own self interest.  I have lived in the same area for a long time and if I had mistreated my friends or neighbors, I would not be able to make a living here.  Examinees have told me that I got it wrong.  Some have made sure that I knew I made a mistake, but no examinee has ever accused me of treating them with anything less than dignity and respect.    

The study you mentioned is very troubling for any thinking, careing person.  I can't honestly say it surprises me, but it truly saddens me to comptemplate the implications.  

[pailryder]

I may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?

[1904]

As an aside, it seems like this thing works mainly because most people are stupid and easily manipulated by people in authority who apparently know what they're doing.  People can often be made to believe pretty silly things if they either want those things to be true or fear them to be true, especially if isolated, not given time for rational thought, and put under pressure.  Let me ask you this, with your knowledge and experience, does it surprise you that, in a series of well known experiments, it was demonstrated that 61-66% of American adults would apply potentially lethal electrical shocks to a stranger... just because a guy in a lab coat told them to?

Lethe,
I'm glad someone said it. Some 65% of American adults are gullible. That grouping is specifically the p/g examiners target market. It is the other 35% that have the guts to tell them they're screwing up and are
indeed screwed up.