breathing

[nomegusto]

How did breathing turn into urinalysis, or thinking poetry?


Either way. If you get caught and your trying to get a job. Your chances of getting a job went from good to nonexistant...

[George W. Maschke]

the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect them

That's not true.  Perhaps it hasn't been done to your satisfaction, but who are you that we need to appease you?  Examiners here have told you that they catch them all the time.  We are poor at it according to the research, but that same research shows it doesn't matter.  The deceptive are still found deceptive.  The truthful, on the other hand, may well skew things in the wrong direction.

Barry,

If my statement that the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures is untrue, could you tell me who in the polygraph community has demonstrated such an ability? Where and when?

If the polygraph community wants the public to believe that it can detect polygraph countermeasures, then some showing of such ability is in order. It's not a question of "appeasing" me. As things now stand, the points I raised in my 2001 critique, "On the Esoteric Wisdom of the Polygraph Sages: Whereby Countermeasures Are Revealed through the Mystic Art of Polygraph Chartgazing," remain pertinent today.

[George W. Maschke]

How did breathing turn into urinalysis, or thinking poetry?


Either way. If you get caught and your trying to get a job. Your chances of getting a job went from good to nonexistant...

nomegusto,

There is no evidence that actually using polygraph countermeasures increases the risk of being accused of using them, or that not using them reduces the risk thereof. In my own experience, I was angrily (but falsely) accused of using polygraph countermeasures by one of the LAPD's most experienced polygraph operators. At the time, I did not even know what polygraph countermeasures are. I've heard from numerous individuals who have had similar experiences.

[Barry_C]

If my statement that the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures is untrue, could you tell me who in the polygraph community has demonstrated such an ability?

George, I believe Eric and others here have (time and again) told you they catch people (who confess to CMs).  That may not be the type of evidence for which you are looking, but it still makes the point to some extent.  Is it scientific, no, but you guys use that logic here all the time.  The "I failed so polygraph doesn't work" argument.  (For those being intellectually honest, the flip side is that they could call everybody CM users, some of whom confess, and they use that to make their claims.  I don't believe that to be the case, but we'll never get anywhere with this one.)

I've participated in courses in which we had to identify CMs in charts, some of which didn't contain any.  I can tell you people found many them (perhaps not all), but time and time again, they had no effect on a DI score, so the current research (which validates Dr. Rovner's) is not a surprise to those of us in the polygraph community.

I don't suspect it will be long before you have the concrete evidence you are looking for, but we'll have to wait a little bit on that one.  In the meantime, the research we have shows they don't work, and there's a real fear that they will cause a truthful person to fail.

[Sergeant1107]

George, I believe Eric and others here have (time and again) told you they catch people (who confess to CMs).  That may not be the type of evidence for which you are looking, but it still makes the point to some extent.  Is it scientific, no, but you guys use that logic here all the time.  The "I failed so polygraph doesn't work" argument.  (For those being intellectually honest, the flip side is that they could call everybody CM users, some of whom confess, and they use that to make their claims.  I don't believe that to be the case, but we'll never get anywhere with this one.)

I've participated in courses in which we had to identify CMs in charts, some of which didn't contain any.  I can tell you people found many them (perhaps not all), but time and time again, they had no effect on a DI score, so the current research (which validates Dr. Rovner's) is not a surprise to those of us in the polygraph community.

I don't suspect it will be long before you have the concrete evidence you are looking for, but we'll have to wait a little bit on that one.  In the meantime, the research we have shows they don't work, and there's a real fear that they will cause a truthful person to fail.

Using anecdotal evidence of people being accused of and confessing to countermeasure usage is not particularly informative.  There's a lot of information being left out.

How many people are accused of CM's that do not subsequently confess?  How many of those were actually using CM's, and how many were not?

If you polygraph one hundred people, accuse fifty of them of using countermeasures and five of them admit to it, that's hardly proof that countermeasures are detectable.

[Barry_C]

Using anecdotal evidence... is not particularly informative.

If you stick to that one, you'll never have anything to say again, which was my point.  You use anecdotal "evidence" all the time when expedient for you.

[Sergeant1107]

Using anecdotal evidence... is not particularly informative.

If you stick to that one, you'll never have anything to say again, which was my point.  You use anecdotal "evidence" all the time when expedient for you.

I have a difficult time believing you misconstrued my post in such a manner.

What other posts could we go through, select a few words, take them out of context, and pretend to make a point with?  I'm sure there would be a bunch.  What would be the point of doing so?

You were claiming that since polygraph examiners sometimes accuse people of using countermeasures, and sometimes those people subsequently confess, that shows examiners are able to detect countermeasures.  You are citing anecdotal evidence that is, in and of itself, incomplete.  What would be necessary for an accurate idea of how well or poorly examiners can detect countermeasures is the number of times an examiner believes he or she has detected countermeasures, compared to the actual number of times countermeasures were used.

If an examiner believes they detect countermeasure usage in one hundred test subjects out of five hundred subjects being tested, and all one hundred of the accused subjects confess to actually using countermeasures, AND none of the other four hundred test subjects were using countermeasures, that would prove that countermeasures are detectable.

All you cited was incomplete anecdotal evidence consisting of stories told by examiners, relating how they accused someone of using countermeasures and that person admitted to doing so.  There was no information on how many of their test subjects they have incorrectly accused of using countermeasures, and no information on how many of their subjects were actually using countermeasures.

My comment about such anecdotal evidence not being particularly informative was on point and correct.

[nopolycop]

[ In the meantime, the research we have shows they don't work, and there's a real fear that they will cause a truthful person to fail.

Mr. C, what research are you speaking of, specifically, and where can one read the write-ups?

[Barry_C]

I have a difficult time believing you misconstrued my post in such a manner.

Maybe that's your conscience.  Look closely and you'll see I didn't.  I set you up to strike down my anecdotal evidence so that I could point out you do the same thing all the time.  Can you say "double standard"?

[Barry_C]

Mr. C, what research are you speaking of, specifically, and where can one read the write-ups?

The most recent study is cited somewhere on this site, and you can also see the writings of Drs. Honts and Rovner.

You'll see Dr. Honts' older studies cited here without the caveats Dr. Honts adds, and you'll fail to see his more recent statements clarifying his findings for those who read more into them than they should.  In short, it's his position, based on research, that CMs are not a real fear for the average examiner.

[Sergeant1107]

Maybe that's your conscience.  Look closely and you'll see I didn't.  I set you up to strike down my anecdotal evidence so that I could point out you do the same thing all the time.  Can you say "double standard"?

So you are saying that you do not perceive any difference between the two?  I find that difficult to believe as well.

When I say that I told the truth during a polygraph exam and was incorrectly labeled a liar, there is no missing information.  The same cannot be said in your example.

In order to determine the worth of the anecdotal evidence I presented you would need to know if the subject was truthful, and if the examiner was able to determine that.  Both of those pieces of information are present, which makes that particular anecdotal evidence legitimate.  Presenting that anecdotal evidence to support my belief that the polygraph is inaccurate is completely reasonable.

In your example, you are clearly missing vital components of the situation, which render your anecdotal evidence worthless.  Your story that examiners have sometimes accused people of countermeasures, and sometimes those people have subsequently confessed is missing the necessary information one would need to determine its legitimacy.

As previously mentioned, in order to determine if your anecdotal evidence was valid, one would need to know the number of people being tested, the number who were accused of using countermeasures, and the number of people who actually were using countermeasures.  You have provided none of that information; therefore, presenting that anecdotal evidence to support your belief that countermeasures are detectable is neither reasonable nor accurate.

[nopolycop]

Mr. C, what research are you speaking of, specifically, and where can one read the write-ups?

The most recent study is cited somewhere on this site, and you can also see the writings of Drs. Honts and Rovner.

You'll see Dr. Honts' older studies cited here without the caveats Dr. Honts adds, and you'll fail to see his more recent statements clarifying his findings for those who read more into them than they should.  In short, it's his position, based on research, that CMs are not a real fear for the average examiner.

You must be referring to:

Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society

So, assuming you are, if this is the best you have, then you are in big trouble, as this "study" is so poorly constructed and administered that it lacks any scientific validity.  For example, the most important variable, (whether or not a student read Georges book TLBLD), is not even verified or verifyable.  Just a student's word that the did or did not read it.  Further, whether or not they actually used any of the techinques in the book are also unverfiable.

But, lets for a moment assume that what you postulate is in fact true, that counter measures don't work.  Poly examiners should be estatic then, because what an easy way to identify and weed out the liars.  Afterall, isn't someone who might employ counter measures the exact person you are trying to eliminate from police employment?  The cheater?

Lastly though, your argument falls apart completely regarding catching countermeasure users, because by virtue of the nature of the anecdotal evidence, you have acutally no idea which of the polygraph takers use countermeasures and "pass" because they "pass" and are not questioned.