How Many Here Have Failed a Poly

[Eastwood]

This is not a troll note - I'm really interested - It seems that we never hear from the vast amount of people who have never had difficulty on a polygraph - it's always, ALWAYS, those who couldn't pass one.
Speak up!

[Fair Chance]

This is not a troll note - I'm really interested - It seems that we never hear from the vast amount of people who have never had difficulty on a polygraph - it's always, ALWAYS, those who couldn't pass one.
Speak up!

Dear Eastwood,

If I had passed my polygraph test I would not be here.  I would be singing its praise.  I told the truth and the whole truth.  I trusted in the system and did not have any previous in-depth polygraph knowledge.  I started reading and posting on this site to try and understand what could have gone so  wrong with my polygraph exam and most other sites won't even entertain the idea that the polygraph has shortcomings.

Regards.

[Fred F.]

Eastwood,

You can count me in the group as well. I have failed two polys. Like Fair Chance, I would not have been here had I passed a polygraph.

I was amazed by what this website uncovered. The testing process is just like The Lie Behind The Lie Detector describes it. My second poly I informed the polygrapher about the first failure. His statement was "You have a clean slate here, the first test is not an issue". That was until he claimed I was "deceptive" on ONE question. He began the infamous "post-test interrogation" with the claims that I was hiding things and attempted to recover all my statements from the test. When I wouldn't respond to any of his attempts to extort information he blurted "What makes you think that you would have passed this test anyway, you already failed one". I refused to write any statement regarding any deception and was summarily told that "I cannot pass you". I left and was DQed by the BI for "conduct issues" that were never explained.

I am now 42 and will not pursue a career in LE except as a civilian. I worked hard to set myself up for a career, earning both a Bachelors degree in CJ and a Masters degree in Public Admin. That really didn't seem to matter since the poly was almighty and infallable. I do work in LE in a civilian capacity and have heard from deputies that have taken 4 polys before passing.

Ironic isn't it?

Fred F.

[George W. Maschke]

Eastwood,

It should come as no surprise to anyone that many of those participating in these forums have been the victims of the random error associated with the completely invalid diagnostic procedure that is CQT polygraphy.

Your characterization of those who post here as "those who couldn't pass" a polygraph examination carries with it the implicit notion that CQT polygraphy has some validity as a diagnostic procedure. It most assuredly does not. To say that a particular person "couldn't pass" a polygraph examination is as illogical as saying that he/she "couldn't win" a roll of the dice.

[PolyCop]

Eastwood,

It should come as no surprise to anyone that many of those participating in these forums have been the victims of the random error associated with the completely invalid diagnostic procedure that is CQT polygraphy....To say that a particular person "couldn't pass" a polygraph examination is as illogical as saying that he/she "couldn't win" a roll of the dice.

George,

When your describe CQT polygraph as a "completely invalid diagnostic procedure," does that refer to screening polygraph or criminal specific issue testing?  I ask this because it seems to me that one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world recently described specific issue polygraph testing as being able to descriminate truthful from untruthful at rates "sigificantly better than chance."

Now, I'm no scientist, but that doesn't sound like a "roll of the dice" to me.

PolyCop

[Anonymous]

Polycop,

As you have noted the NAS polygraph report did distinguish between polygraph screening and specific-issue testing.

As we both know and was confirmed in spades throughout the aforementioned report, polygraph screening was found to have no diagnostic validity .


What you (and others) seem to have missed regarding specific-issue testing (yes, they did comment that research would suggest that CQT specific-issue testing had diagnostic value significantly better than chance and significantly worse than perfection) was that they questioned the research surrounding it and specifically stated that there was every reason to believe that the actual diagnostic value was less than the published research would indicate (for a variety of reasons).  Another lost point is that any praise for CQT specific-issue testing is faint praise at best (only compared to the severe criticisms made of polygraph screening) and only became an issue at all (was not a part of the original mandate for this panel-validity of DOE and other federal agency screening programs was) but became a forced issue inasmuch as the research available for polygraph screening (again, its evaluation was the original mandate) was found to be so incredibly poor to non existent that they (the panel) were forced to look at specific-issue testing research to draw any conclusions at all with regard to the original mandate.

[PolyCop]

Polycop,

As you have noted the NAS polygraph report did distinguish between polygraph screening and specific-issue testing.

As we both know and was confirmed in spades throughout the aforementioned report, polygraph screening was found to have no diagnostic validity .


What you (and others) seem to have missed regarding specific-issue testing (yes, they did comment that research would suggest that CQT specific-issue testing had diagnostic value significantly better than chance and significantly worse than perfection) was that they questioned the research surrounding it and specifically stated that there was every reason to believe that the actual diagnostic value was less than the published research would indicate (for a variety of reasons).  Another lost point is that any praise for CQT specific-issue testing is faint praise at best (only compared to the severe criticisms made of polygraph screening) and only became an issue at all (was not a part of the original mandate for this panel-validity of DOE and other federal agency screening programs was) but became a forced issue inasmuch as the research available for polygraph screening (again, its evaluation was the original mandate) was found to be so incredibly poor to non existent that they (the panel) were forced to look at specific-issue testing research to draw any conclusions at all with regard to the original mandate.

Anonymous,

Your specific comments regarding the NAS research into specific issue testing does not negate my point.  It is clear, George's continued pronouncments that CQT polygraph has "no diagnostic value," and is no more accurate then "a spin of the dice," etc, is clearly contrary to the findings of the NAS panel.  And while your last effort to "explain" the wording of the document was a most articulate example of anti-polygraph spin, I am afraid it is spin none the less...  :-/

Regards

PolyCop

[Anonymous]

Polycop,

I will accept the backhanded compliment and let it go at that.  I believe the substance of my prior comments is an accurate statement(s) of fact...

[George W. Maschke]

PolyCop,

I was referring above to CQT polygraphy in all its forms, whether in a screeing context or in interrogations regarding specific incidents. If some guilty/deceptive subjects can be successfully tricked into confessing through the use of CQT polygraphy, then certainly, it becomes possible to correctly classify subjects as truthful vs. deceptive at rates better than chance. But the underlying procedure still has no scientific basis whatsoever.

You are right that polygraph "tests" are not in all respects like a roll of the dice. The key difference is that in the latter, the odds of any particular outcome are demonstrably knowable. By contrast, in CQT polygraphy, absent a corroborable confession from the subject, the polygrapher cannot demonstrate with any knowable degree of confidence whether a particular person has or has not spoken the truth with regard to any particular relevant question.

I think it is appropriate to repeat here remarks I posted in the message thread, NAS Polygraph Report:

What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph Testing

The following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the NAS polygraph report (p. 168 of the HTML version):

Estimate of Accuracy  Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

Note that:

1) This estimate of accuracy does not specify what kind of polygraph tests, e.g., CQT vs. R/I vs. GKT "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance."

2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet.

3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless.

4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."  It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth.

5) The last sentence of the above-cited paragraph is the key one with regard to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it.

[The_Breeze]

Hey Eastwood
I've won 3 rolls of the dice and would not be afraid to keep rolling.  This may explain some of the angst which is demonstrated by the few habitual posters here when trying to argue with me.  
Short Resume':
Experienced LE officer, Has taken several uneventful polygraphs and told the complete truth on his applications.    ( Does think that placing a drug delivery device in the mouth is use.)  Has been involved in numerous polygraph sessions where completely unavailable information was found through use of the device alone.  Believes like most man made devices and processes, it is flawed but has merit.  Believes most commentors on the issue are inexperienced and need a crusade.  Also believes they would be equally happy protecting the fur seal, tibet, sperm whales or old growth forest.

Good luck in your quest to have George admit that there may indeed by a legitimate use for the polygraph in Law Enforcement, unrelated to its "prop" value.  Those of us that actually watch it work in conjunction with both applicants and criminal cases know the truth is complicated, as complicated as humans.  I have wondered how the NAS laments the quality (or absence) of polygraph research, esp. screening and yet can make sweeping statements about its value.  Since I myself am not a researcher, this will probably remain unexplained.
George, I've been away.  Did you answer my last post?

[G Scalabr]

The Breeze wrote:

I have wondered how the NAS laments the quality (or absence) of polygraph research, esp. screening and yet can make sweeping statements about its value.  Since I myself am not a researcher, this will probably remain unexplained.

The explanation is rather simple. In science, the burden lies on proponents of a technique or test to prove validity, not on others to disprove validity. The members of the NAS panel are merely pointing out the obvious--that research supporting polygraphy is either non-existent or of poor quality. Due to the absence of research showing that applications of polygraphy are valid (i.e. screening), the applications are considered invalid.  

Short Resume':
Experienced LE officer, Has taken several uneventful polygraphs and told the complete truth on his applications.  

What about when you were asked the "control" questions on your 3 polygraph "tests?" Were you completely truthful when you answered those?

[Mark Mallah]

Has been involved in numerous polygraph sessions where completely unavailable information was found through use of the device alone.  Believes like most man made devices and processes, it is flawed but has merit.  

Confessions are a good thing to get, and if the polygraph as stage prop gets some, then good.  I suspect this will be dwindling though as the information about them gets out.

But Breeze, the point is that absent a confession, the charts don't tell us anything useful about truth or deception, and nobody should be deluded otherwise.

[Fair Chance]

Hey Eastwood
I've won 3 rolls of the dice and would not be afraid to keep rolling.  This may explain some of the angst which is demonstrated by the few habitual posters here when trying to argue with me.  
Short Resume':
Experienced LE officer, Has taken several uneventful polygraphs and told the complete truth on his applications.    ( Does think that placing a drug delivery device in the mouth is use.)  Has been involved in numerous polygraph sessions where completely unavailable information was found through use of the device alone.  Believes like most man made devices and processes, it is flawed but has merit.  Believes most commentors on the issue are inexperienced and need a crusade.  Also believes they would be equally happy protecting the fur seal, tibet, sperm whales or old growth forest.

Good luck in your quest to have George admit that there may indeed by a legitimate use for the polygraph in Law Enforcement, unrelated to its "prop" value.  Those of us that actually watch it work in conjunction with both applicants and criminal cases know the truth is complicated, as complicated as humans.  I have wondered how the NAS laments the quality (or absence) of polygraph research, esp. screening and yet can make sweeping statements about its value.  Since I myself am not a researcher, this will probably remain unexplained.
George, I've been away.  Did you answer my last post?

Dear Breeze,

Got to admire you, you come and post two or three messages and get everybody into an uproar.  You do know how to push hotbuttons.

Regards.

[Anonymous]

Breeze,

Your and polycop's coming to Eastwood's rescue (being the sole participants in his polygraph is good campaign) is like two brothers steping forward to take their ugly sister to the prom...very admirable...I hope he will feel loved and you two have found purpose in life...peace

[Eastwood]

Anonymous:  Are you saying that you and the other anti-polygraphers don't jump on your own bandwagon?  Gimme a break.