NSA Mole Hunt

[Twoblock]

pailryder

First I will say that your stock has always been higher with me than with any other polygrapher because you straight-talk more than the others and you do not engage in slamming and name calling. I might have said this to you before and I might have made the following statement before. Hell, I turned 80 this fall and the mind is as old as the body. In my case it is older because I'm still physically strong and spry. Besides that I've been married to the same gal for 57 years and that has to work on the mind.

About three years ago there was a major crime committed and the alleged perp was polygraphed (at his insistance), I think now, by a police polygrapher. The polygrapher said he was lieing, deemed him guilty and he was arrested. About 4 days later, his Dad presented hard evidence, after traveling to another state, that his son was in that state when the crime was committed. Even then it took a week and money to get him released and another 6 weeks to get him exonerated. Why do you think he was judged guilty and, since this was one in a list of wrong calls by the polygrapher, do you think this dude should continue to be licensed?

[pailryder]

Twoblock

In private practice word of mouth about bad calls will remedy that problem.  In an agency he will just hang on until retirement.

Are you in the new tv show on gold mining in Alaska?

[Twoblock]

pailryder

I will always have a problem with your industry until it is regulated, say, with a committee of polygraphers and non-polygraphers especially in government service. I also think that there should be accountability. Too many prospective government employee's "employment" lives have been ruined by the current process and with no justice possible.

Nope, I'm not in that show. In fact I have not seen it yet. My involvement in the industry has been on the wayne the last couple of years. I think that from now on I will only be available as a consultant in the mining and refining business. My wife and I need to spend more time together. I have spent enough time in the bush and, fortunately, I don't need to work except for my health.

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

I would agree with Twoblock that your behavior and demeanor on this message board has been exemplary and puts you in a class above many of your colleagues. 

And I would further commend you on SEEKING, if not finding, a format that does not require you to lie in the conduct of the examinations you perform.

That having been said, there are many lies told during the polygraph exam that do not have to do with the setting of probable lie CQT comparison questions, e.g., misrepresentations regarding the accuracy of such tests, etc.

And even with the directed lie test, the test depends upon the examinee believing that there is some real significance (relative to the significance of lying to the relevant questions) to the area for which he/she is being directed to lie.  Here lies (no pun intended) a great potential for exaggeration, misrepresentation, etc on your part and that of your colleagues. 

And of course even with this kinder gentler form of CQT there is the little problem of validity--it's missing with this format as well as with other forms of lie tests. 

And last but not least, I suspect the test is not more widely used by your colleagues because of the greater susceptibility to countermeasures.  All an examinee has to do to successfully countermeasure any CQT is to (1) discern which are relevant and which are control/comparison questions and (2) produce greater scorable reactions  to control/comparison questions relative to relevant question reactions in a manner that is undetectable by you.  The DLCT obviously eliminates half of the task (point number 1).

Again, although we will not likely agree on this subject area, I appreciate your participation in these discussions.

[pailryder]

Twoblock

I am 100% in agreement about the need for accountability.

[pailryder]

getrealalready

If a person is able to produce scoreable reactions  to the CQ's in a manner that the OSS3 software and I cannot detect, you are correct.  But, that is a big IF.  I have 30 years of evaluating charts, more than 10,000 tests.  I should know an artifical response when I see one.  The subject is disadvantaged because he/she has no chance to pratice.  They get one shot and it is difficult to know how much is enough, how much is just right, and how much is detectable.   

With repeted testing, as is the case with the sexual offender, there is more chance to pratice and get it right.

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

To begin with, I find remarkable your productivity--more than 333 exams per year each and every year for 30 years.   If you were to be paid on average $500/exam you would have made quite a good living over that period of time.

Unless you are more educated than your average colleague, you likely do not have much basis for analyzing the scoring algorithm you utilize.  And in terms of hand scoring you are likely familiar with lists of scoreable reactions as listed in somebody's Examiner Handbook, but probably have no idea about the normal variation in those reactions, making certainty about countermeasure detection a myth and more likely a guess rather than anything approaching certainty.

And of course, in spite of your 10,000 tests conducted you don't really have a great deal of meaningful feedback.  I'm guessing that your false negatives don't go out of their way to distinguish themselves from your true negatives.  You only know what you know, which in many cases is quite void of ground truth.

But again, I do applaud your apparent concern for your examinees even though I don't believe that concern is mirrored by the accuracy of your exams.  Best wishes for a happy holiday season...

[pailryder]

Dr. Maschke

If exams were $500, you would be right and I would be retired.  But that is another big IF.  When I got into the field a polygraph was $25.00 and my first employer required a minimum of 8 each day.  Thus the big numbers and the need for EPPA.  My first year I made just over 11K.  These days I am lucky to get 100 tests a year @ $400. each.  With office expense, insurance, professional memberships, license fees and required continuing education hours, well, making a living in private practive has always been a great challenge.

Analysis of any algorithm, as you correctly assume, is not my area of expertise.

I have had a couple of false negatives who later informed me of my missed call, but do not discount the meaningful feedback when ground truth is established by confession.

If I may paraphase Ambrose Brice, certainty means mistaken at the top of one's voice.

I never claimed certainty in detecting CM's, I just pointed out the risks to the user and why I think the odds are in my favor.