Looking for an Interesting Quote

[Public Servant]

Two Block,

Thanks for the complimentary remarks.  To answer your question, I would assert that any examiner who worked for a legitimate, reputable organization would apply similar standards for suitability.

Regards.

Anonymous and Beech Trees,

You obviously read over my post quickly.  I said the caregiver (that would be a psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician) would be consulted.  I did not say anything about making such a diagnosis myself.  If I were to suspect a psychological or physiological disorder not disclosed by the examinee (perhpas not diagnosed), which might cause a problem, I would discontinue examination until a healthcare professional could be consulted.  

In the case of emotional distress: regardless how ignorant you'd like to believe I am, I am fully capable of recognizing obvious outward signs of emotional distress which might be counter-productive to valid polygraph results.  If the examinee chooses to conceal some sort of emotional issue, despite my asking about such in pre-test, there's is little I can do (and that would not change if I had an MD or PhD).  This could also be appied to any other possibly problematic disorder (Phys. or Psych).

My citing of the acquaintance exam, was not as a diagnostic exam, but merely an opportunity to see if distortions due to physiological conditions, might limit my ability to analyze the polygraph charts.  

Beech,  I put "the challenge" in quotes because I was referring to the so-called  counter-measure challenge time clock.  It is quite the annoying, over beaten, dead horse; and I'd hate to see another start here.  I am neither alarmed , nor significantly challenged by your rantings here.  You are the one who has expressed concern about safety on these boards.  I have no fear of a battle of wits with such a meagerly armed person as yourself.  

Perhaps, over-reaching was not the appropriate word.  SPIN better describes your methods.   You put your spin on everything I write here, and it is no less dishonest than actual mis-quoting.  Don't worry Beech, I have no plans to file suit.

Yes, let the gentle reader (and not so gentle readers as well) read the actual thread (if they have not already done so).  They will see that I was not engaging in the "blame the examinee" excuse.  You pulled out a small exerpt, wherein I addressed the examinee as one of three major variables involved in a polygraph examination.  A fair minded individual will see right through your tactics, regardless of their beliefs on the issues.  

To answer your last question, Beech, these are my personal opinions, represented here.  Of course, they are based, to a degree, on my training and regulatory guidance of my employer.  However, if you want official positions of DoDPI, APA, etc, I suggest you go to their official sources.  I represent neither.  I post here as a private citizen, not part of a government agency nor interest group.

Good Day.

[Anonymous]

Public Servant,

The problem with your use of the stim (acquaintance) test as u describe is that it does not work for those without the various physical and mental problems previously referred to.  Using it with one you may suspect (again, as you correctly admit, with no meaningful diagnosis) as having some problem, adds nothing to the polygraph process (no baseline established for "normals") nor does it serve as any first line of diagnosis to be followed up by a medical professional.  Again, we are simply left with it being fraud in the hands of some (I would guess that you do not fall in this category), bluff, and a cheap parlor trick in the hands of the balance.

[guest from canada]

Public Servant,

You slay me!!  LOL.  What is your educational background.  What credentials do you have that make you even the least bit capable to determine a subjects psycological, emotional, and/or physical condition so as to determine whether someone is fit to take your polygraph without worry that their current mental, emotional, and/or physical state may alter the "results".  I took a preemployment polygraph and never once was I asked or tested for my physical, emotional, and/or mental state.  All that mattered to the polygrapher was that I had an arm with a pulse.

You would have to take approximately 15 to 20 years post secondary education to be able to make those claims.  Far short of the 400 hours you probably took to gain your "ticket" in polgraphy.  Don't go blowing sunshine up our A$$e$ by implying you are deeply concerned with the emotional, physical, and/or mental state of your test subjects.  

Judging from your posts I can only assume that your reputable establishment requires the examinee to take and pass a physical and phycological evaluation both tailored to determining a candidates suitability for taking the poly?

[beech trees]

You obviously read over my post quickly.  I said the caregiver (that would be a psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician) would be consulted.

Actually Public servant, no you did not. You wrote:

Evaluating sutiability might include coordination with the caregiver (consent of subject is usuaully necessary).

This statement you actually wrote is a far cry from what you ASSERT you wrote now. 'Might include coordination with the caregiver' is not 'the caregiver will be consulted', right? Time again to tell me that what I'm reading isn't what you actually wrote? Let's have no more of your slippery bullshit, 'Public servant'.

How ironic that I am chastised for quoting a paragraph in full from you, then you squirm and bleat as to its true meaning (which is quite plain for everyone to see) yet YOU take substantial liberties with your own writings and tell us you wrote something that any one can plainly see you did not write. Do you think us all blind?

Regardless, in what percentage of interrogations do you conclude a psychological, emotional, or physical impediment that precludes a 'scientifically accurate' polygraph exam without the benefit of an actual liscensed physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist? You just finished asserting that in some cases you do not 'coordinate', so how often do you just do your level best and make a clinical diagnosis that has no basis in liscensing, practice, or education? More than half the time? All but a fraction of the time?

[Public Servant]

OK, perhaps what I left out is what I thought was obvious -- During the pre-test the examinee is asked about health issues, and specific disorders of concern would be mentioned.  If the examinee indicated he had a disorder which might be of concern, coordination would be made with the appropriate health care professional to determine if the person is fit for examination.  

In no way do I seek to diagnose disorders.  If someone chooses not to disclose a problematic disorder, there is little I can do.  Of course, if the person displays obvious signs of some possibly disqualifying disorder, I would seek the assistance of an appropriate professional and/or discontinue the exam.  

No where did I say I would, or could, diagnose a physical or psychological disorder.  I must be dealing with media professionals here.  The SPIN is quite professional and deviously deceptive.

Guest from Canada, if you were not asked of your health, then your exam was not conducted properly.

Anonymous, again I would only use the acquaintaince test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have.  It would not be used to diagnose a person's condition.


Beech, before you go back to Fox or CNN, you might want to clean up your potty mouth.  And seek therapy and a physical exam.  It does not take all that post graduate training Canada spoke of, to see you have issues and your Blood Pressure must be at a dangerous level.  Get well soon!!

[Anonymous]

Public Servant,

You write:

...I would only use the acquaintaince [sic] test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have...

I am glad to know that you do not confuse stim tests with medical diagnosis, although, because of a lack of any true understanding of what goes on during a stim test for "normals" (and most particularly for your given examinee in the absence of whatever condition is disclosed), you have no ability to accomplish your quoted task.  

The stim test is largely a bungle in the jungle, most frequently done in an "open" fashion in which the examinee is asked for the identity of his chosen number following the test and with the examiner then attempting to bluff the examinee regarding the "obvious' changes in physiology occurring at the asking of that number.  The examiner would routinely look like a fool if he tried independently and without any fraud, (e.g. marked deck, all numbers being the same, etc.) to identify the chosen number without the examinee first revealing the number.  If you believe that I am wrong, then you will be willing to recommend that all examiners perform blind stim tests absent any fraud to really demonstrate some sort of pre-main event truth telling and physiology change-recognition ability, yes?  If you truly want to indicate to this audience that your stim (now renamed acquaintance) test is anything but some combination of fraud and bluff (perhaps less of the former and more of the latter in your case), perhaps you will condemn the sort of "open" stim bluff I have previously described and call for "blind/closed" testing to demonstrate to all the merits of your procedure, yes?  Until such time, this exercise is little more than a poorly performed carnival stunt for which you and others (if done at a carnival) would have rotten fruits and vegetables hurled at you...

[Anonymous]

Public Servant (and other polygraphers),

I have noted that your community is generally fairly quick to respond to posts that place you in a poor light and perspective.  Public Servant, in contrast, I notice that you have responded to other posts in the last 24 hrs, but apparently don't know what to do with my recent post confronting you with the obvious fraud we are now encouraged to refer to as an acquaintance test.  I will repost it again to see if repetition will lead you to overcome your embarrassment...

...I am glad to know that you do not confuse stim tests with medical diagnosis, although, because of a lack of any true understanding of what goes on during a stim test for "normals" (and most particularly for your given examinee in the absence of whatever condition is disclosed), you have no ability to accomplish your quoted task.  

The stim test is largely a bungle in the jungle, most frequently done in an "open" fashion in which the examinee is asked for the identity of his chosen number following the test and with the examiner then attempting to bluff the examinee regarding the "obvious' changes in physiology occurring at the asking of that number.  The examiner would routinely look like a fool if he tried independently and without any fraud, (e.g. marked deck, all numbers being the same, etc.) to identify the chosen number without the examinee first revealing the number.  If you believe that I am wrong, then you will be willing to recommend that all examiners perform blind stim tests absent any fraud to really demonstrate some sort of pre main-event truth telling and physiology change-recognition ability, yes?  If you truly want to indicate to this audience that your stim (now renamed acquaintance) test is anything but some combination of fraud and bluff (perhaps less of the former and more of the latter in your case), perhaps you will condemn the sort of "open" stim bluff I have previously described and call for "blind/closed" testing to demonstrate to all the merits of your procedure, yes?  Until such time, this exercise is little more than a poorly performed carnival stunt for which you and others (if done at a carnival) would have rotten fruits and vegetables hurled at you...

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant (and any other DoDPI trained polygraphers reading this),

Weren't you taught at DoDPI to tell each and every subject that he/she responded strongly when "lying" during the stim test, whether or not such is the case?

That the stim test is but a cheap parlor trick intended to bamboozle the subject into believing that the polygraph can actually detect deception is borne out by DoDPI's own instructional literature. The following is from DoDPI's Test for Espionage and Sabotage Administration Guidelines :

6.    Administer a standard known solution numbers test-- using the rationale below. DO NOT show the test to the examinee, but convince the examinee that deception was indicated. NOTE: be sure to use the word acquaintance or demonstration test when discussing this with the examinee.

I'm now going to demonstrate the physiological responses we have been discussing. This test is intended to give you the opportunity to become accustomed to the recording components and to give me the opportunity to adjust the instrument to you before proceeding to the actual test. In addition, this test will demonstrate to me that you are capable of responding and that your body reacts when you knowingly and willfully lie.

The standard four components (two pneumograph tubes, electrodermal plates, and cardiovascular cuff) are attached at this time, followed by the acquaintance test. The acquaintance test should be conducted in the manner taught at DoDPI and during TES training. The results will be discussed with the examinee as follows:

That was excellent. It is obvious that you know lying is wrong. You're not capable of lying without your body reacting. You reacted strongly when you lied about that number. Even though I asked you to lie and it was an insignificant lie, you still responded. That will make this examination very easy to complete as long as you follow my directions.

And the following is an excerpt from Appendix B of the Texas Joint Polygraph Committee on Offender Testing's Recommended Guidelines for Clinical Polygraph Examinations of Sex Offenders, which is based on a 1997 DoDPI handout:

One of the most important aspects of the stimulation test is the post-test interview phase. It is during this phase that the polygraph examiner must "SELL" the Stim test to the examinee. If accomplished properly, this will show the examinee the polygraph procedure works and it should also help to reinforce examinee's psychological set.

Who do you think you're fooling? The stim test is just another ruse in the polygrapher's armamentarium of flimflam.

[Mark Mallah]

I do have to add that I was given a blind stim test, where I was told to write down a number between 1 and 10, stick it in my pocket, and not tell him what the number was.  Then he tested me (I responded no to each number), and correctly identified the number I chose.

It is possible that he somehow saw the number, because he briefly left the room.  He could observe me through the one way mirror or the camera, but that would seem a little risky to rely on that.

Of course, I always believed he would be able to tell if I lied.  I knew I would react.  The problem was, and is, that they cannot identify the truth.  So I was completely unimpressed.

[George W. Maschke]

Mark,

Very interesting. A truly blind stim test is a risky gambit for the polygrapher, because if he calls it wrong, he loses credibility.

Apart from a hidden camera, another way the kind of stim test you mention can be rigged is by having you write your number between 1 and 10 on a steno pad with a sheet of carbon paper inserted a few sheets down.

[Mark Mallah]

George,

In my case, I didn't write it on carbon paper.

[George W. Maschke]

Mark,

Was this the FBI polygraph examination you had in 1995? It's interesting, because my FBI pre-employment polygraph was the same year, but the examiner used the textbook DoDPI "numbers test," where you write the number and it's posted on the wall in front of you, such that the polygrapher knows the number you've written.

[Mark Mallah]

George,

It was the second polygraph exam I had in 1995.  The first was a general screening test, and this one, about two weeks later, was a follow up.  

[Public Servant]

Anonymous,

No embarrassment, just didn't see anything in your post that called for reply. The only questions appeared to me to be rhetorical in nature.  I didn't want to beat this dead horse further (especially since this topic was tangential at best, to the original discussion).  But, hey, I'll give it another kick.

George, Mark, and Anonymous,

I personally do not use a blind stim, however, after I run and print the chart, I fold the bottom to conceal the numbers.  Then (with minimal to no explanation of the charts at that point), I have the examinee locate where the deception occurred, or what stands out.  And I can't remember anyone having any problems finding a spot, which when unfolded is revealed to be the number they lied about.

The stuff works, my friends.  It's not some side show magic act.

Regards.

[Canadian Crusader]

Has anyone ever heard of the polygraph machines or the software having some sort of override that can be used during these so called stim tests like the one Public Servant describes?  The polygrapher knows what number the examinee picks, hits a button or key when the examinee is asked about the number in question?  Public Servant shows a relatively flat graph with a pronounced spike underwhich is "magically" written the number the examinee chose.  Sounds relatively easy to me and much more convincing than the card trick to the uninformed.  Maybe the polygrapher prints off a generic chart with one pronounced spike and writes and asks the numbers so the spike conveniently coincides with the number the examinee picked?  Sounds logical.