Looking for an Interesting Quote

[Human Subject]

I think George quoted some document in which a claim was made the the polygraph was particularly poorly suited for application on scientifically-minded test subjects.  Maybe it was the NAS doc?  I seem to recall it was related to DOE testing.

I thought this was a very interesting point.  It's not merely that polygraphy is a crapshoot.  It's that it can be systematically biased against people whose minds are geared toward the scientific analysis of information -- something you'd think all these various agencies would be looking for.

Instead they have a screening procedure suited to the selection of people who are more likely to be fooled by a cheap parlor trick.

Anyway, anybody recall this quote and where it appeared?  I tried using the search function, but no luck.

[beech trees]

I can't help you with that particular quote, but your question reminded me of an old thread (back when the pro-polygraph side actually put up the semblence of a decent counterpoint), in which the polygrapher or polygrapher wannabe 'public servant' wrote this:

Lastly the examinee.  Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.

I'm still amazed at that whopper. Imagine a scientific test that is wholey reliable except when the interrogation subject is:

- too intellectual
- too introspective
- too passionate
- too well-educated
- most incredibly, built physically 'improperly' or  
- mentally 'unsuitable'.

Gee, is there anyone in the US populace who DOESN'T belong in one of the above-cited demographics? And would a potential polygraph examinee get a pass on his polygraph interrogation if he laid claim to one or more of the characteristics mentioned above? Or, would they simply conclude he or she was 'trying to hide something' and thus heighten the suspicions of that person, further prejudicing the examination?

TWO sets of rules: One for the polygrapher to make his CYA blanket excuses, and another for the examinee when he protests his innocence when the polygrapher is wrong.

[Human Subject]

That wasn't the quote I was looking for, but it is interesting and certainly in the same vein.

You're right, it is a whopper.

[George W. Maschke]

Human Subject,

Sorry for the delay in replying to you. I've been trying to think of such a document I may have cited, but am at a loss.

I have observed in the past that a person's ability to pass a polygraph examination (absent countermeasure use) may be inversely proportional to a person's IQ. But I think a person's critical thinking skills, skepticism, and education level are more important factors than IQ.

[Human Subject]

Thanks guys.

I'll keep looking too.  If I find it I will post it here.

[Public Servant]

Beech,

I just happened upon this thread.  At first I was flattered that you thought of me when refering to "back when the pro-polygraph side actually put up the semblence of a decent counterpoint."  Then you had to throw in such hurtful words as "wannabe."  Not me my friend... I am the real McCoy,  Guilty as charged, the devil incarnate, in your myopic view, no doubt.

Thanks for finding my inaugural thread for me.  It was too long to scan.  But whether it was actual quote, taken out of context; or self-serving paraphrasing, it is a misleading of my assertions.  Here is a quote I found in the first post

Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.

I merely gave a few things about examinees that could contribute to inconclusive or false results.  This said nothing about an intellectual being unable to pass the test.  What I was attempting to explain (perhaps poorly) that trying to out think the examiner, and or rationalize (control material) could adversely affect the exam.  Obviously emotional, psychological, or physical issues could affect the exam.  They could affect any exam, even a simple test in school.  Put this in context of the whole posting, and you'll see I addressed two other factors, the examiner and the exam, as well.  

Though your post was misdirecting to Human Subject, and misleading to all, I will take it as a compliment that while George quotes PhDs, you (attempt to) quote me!  But, you might want to talk to Ms Dowd of the NY Times regarding misleading quotes with omitted context.

Regards!

Public Servant

[beech trees]

Beech,

... Then you had to throw in such hurtful words as "wannabe."  Not me my friend... I am the real McCoy,  Guilty as charged, the devil incarnate, in your myopic view, no doubt.

I didn't recall you ever conclusively stating that you were a polygrapher, thus I felt it necessary to qualify my description of you. Although your style and bitter, accusatory, self-serving writing always struck me as typical of a polygrapher, better safe than sorry, especially on these boards.

Thanks for finding my inaugural thread for me.  It was too long to scan.  But whether it was actual quote, taken out of context; or self-serving paraphrasing, it is a misleading of my assertions.

It was a verbatim quote of what you wrote sir.

I merely gave a few things about examinees that could contribute to inconclusive or false results.  This said nothing about an intellectual being unable to pass the test.

You and I differ, then, over how a person who 'think[s] into it too much' or who 'know[s] too much' should be labeled. How would you describe these kinds of people, if not as intellectuals?

What I was attempting to explain (perhaps poorly) that trying to out think the examiner, and or rationalize (control material) could adversely affect the exam.  Obviously emotional, psychological, or physical issues could affect the exam.

So if an examinee told you prior to your polygraph interrogation that were mitigating circumstances involving their emotions, their physchology, or their physique, you would give that person a waiver?

Though your post was misdirecting to Human Subject, and misleading to all, I will take it as a compliment that while George quotes PhDs, you (attempt to) quote me!

Again, I quoted you VERBATIM sir. In addition, I provided a hyperlink to the entire thread in which you posted the above assertions and to your post in its entirety in my original posting.

[Public Servant]

Beech,

Yes, you put in a verbatim quote, but this part, seemingly attributed to me (as a paraphrase), was an ad lib on your part:

I'm still amazed at that whopper. Imagine a scientific test that is wholey reliable except when the interrogation subject is:

- too intellectual
- too introspective
- too passionate
- too well-educated
- most incredibly, built physically 'improperly' or  
- mentally 'unsuitable'.  

Trying to over-analyze everything is a sign of distrust at a minimum, paranoia in some cases.  It does not equate intellect.  Many intelligent, intellectual persons can follow along in a conversation, without turning it into a competition of wits.  In fact, those who lack confidence in their intelligence are usually the ones who try so hard to show superior intellect.

And to answer your final question,  I would not run an examination on someone with mitigating psychological, emotional, or physical (health) problem.  I'm not sure I'd term that a waiver, since I run only criminal specific exams.  Perhaps if you were to come into my office, you could avoid examination.  Certainly your waiver would not be for intellect (because that is not a trait warranting such a "waiver", but take the meaning as you like).

 

Although your style and bitter, accusatory, self-serving writing always struck me as typical of a polygrapher, better safe than sorry, especially on these boards.

So what are you concerned about being safe from "on these boards."  Do I make you feel insecure?  
If you look back at my posts, the only time I might have exuded the mentioned traits was in response to you.  And, in fact, I'd argue, that's a perception on your part, rarely my intent.  What you sow, so shall you reap.

Take care, my entertaining friend!

Public Servant

[beech trees]

Beech,

Yes, you put in a verbatim quote, but this part, seemingly attributed to me (as a paraphrase), was an ad lib on your part:

"I'm still amazed at that whopper. Imagine a scientific test that is wholey reliable except when the interrogation subject is:  
 
- too intellectual  
- too introspective  
- too passionate  
- too well-educated  
- most incredibly, built physically 'improperly' or    
- mentally 'unsuitable'. "

And 'ad lib'? No, it was a conclusionary statement based upon your assertions. Now you're quibbling over assertions you made yourself, it would appear.

Trying to over-analyze everything is a sign of distrust at a minimum, paranoia in some cases.

And at the other end of the scale, blind obeisance to an archaic, deeply flawed, unscientific and inaccurate testing procedure is insanity.

Regardless, you are now engaging in a strawman argument-- your original assertion was NOT that a person who 'over analyzes everything' would fail a polygraph interrogation based upon that characteristic-- your assertion was that a person who 'thinks too much into it' [ 'it' being the polygraph] would possibly fail because of that specific 'thinking'.

It does not equate intellect.  Many intelligent, intellectual persons can follow along in a conversation, without turning it into a competition of wits.  In fact, those who lack confidence in their intelligence are usually the ones who try so hard to show superior intellect.

I'm sure you would know more about lacking confidence than I, so I will defer to your superior knowledge with that assertion. As an aside, I will apologize to you if a simple debate that arose out of your assertions challenges you to the point where you feel your intellect is being put to the test in some sort of 'competition'.

And to answer your final question,  I would not run an examination on someone with mitigating psychological, emotional, or physical (health) problem.

Would you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?

So what are you concerned about being safe from "on these boards."  Do I make you feel insecure?

My comment was aimed at the fact that polygraphers and their sympathizers on these boards are quick to jump on even the slightest mischaracterization of themselves, even if innocently made. I'm thinking of poster 'The_Breeze' who went totally ballistic when a simple question about his prior law enforcement experiences was posted. I'm also thinking of poster 'Batman' who threatened me with gross physical violence when he misread a post of mine to read that I was accusing him personally of professional misconduct. These experiences, combined with the fact I didn't recall a specific post by you conclusively stating you are a polygraph interrogator led me to post my all encompassing description of you as a polygrapher or polygrapher 'wannabe'. I see now that the term 'wannabe' is particularly offensive to law enforcement, because they themselves use it frequently as a term of derision when they cannot answer direct questions posed to them here, so again I apologize. I didn't mean to stoop to your side's level.

And to answer your question, no, you do not make me feel 'insecure'.

[beech trees]

And to answer your final question,  I would not run an examination on someone with mitigating psychological, emotional, or physical (health) problem.

We're still waiting for polygrapher 'Public Servant' to answer my question,

Would you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?

Twelve days and counting...

[Public Servant]

Beech,

Turn off "the challenge" - like time clock.  I haven't responded because I have a life and don't visit this site religiously.

First of all, your "conclusions" are a bit over-reaching if you wish to attribute them to what I wrote.  Enough said.

And to answer your question

Would you mind listing all of the psychological, emotional, and physical conditions that would preclude a scientifically accurate polygraph test from taking place, and from what source or sources you draw this information?

:  

Instead of listing specific disorders, I will give you the standards I apply to determining suitability.

Psychological disorders:  The main standard in reference to mental health would be, "does the person know what is reality and what is not?" .  Can the person differentiate between what is truthful and what is not truthful?  Can the person recall the period of time in question?  And, is the person medicated to the point of being unable to meet the above criteria.  

Obviously a person who can not distinguish reality, is unfit for examination.  In the screeening world, such a disorder would likely disualify an applicant. However, persons under the care of a psychology professional often become suspects of criminal investigations.  Evaluating sutiability might include coordination with the caregiver (consent of subject is usuaully necessary).  Inability to determine for sure if the person meets the criteria, while there is reason to believe he may not, would be sufficient to cause me to refrain from running the exam.  

Physical Conditions:  Two criteria--
Ensuriing the process of examination is not life-threatening (or would not exacerbate the condition) would be my primary concern.  Obviously the stress of an examination could be detrimental to someone in a severely weakened or vulnerable condition. Secondly, ensuring the physical condition does not affect the collected data to the point that a conclusive determination could not be made.    Obviously there are numerous ailments which could cause problems in both areas, especially cardiovascualr or respriatory disease.  A disorder such as MS could cause dysfunction in the correlation of psychological stimulus (question) to physiological response.  Severity of the condition, and it's effect on this individual, is the key.  Again coordination with caregiver may be necessary.  And, the Acquaintance test can be used to gauge the effect on tracings (and this site says it's just part of some ruse!).  Of course, I'd also apply the reality criterion here as well -- a physical ailment (such as head injury, stroke, etc) could  cause symptoms similar to that of psychological ailments.

Lastly, emotional condition:  Obviously some emotional conditions can elevate to the need for psychological care.  For that, see the above paragraph on psych. condition.  In addition, I would never conduct an exam on a person who is overly angry or distraught.  If possible, I would try to get the person back into a calm state before trying to conduct the exam.  If necessary, I could re-schedule. This could be for an outside issue (ie illness/death of a family member, sudden loss of job, etc) or for emotion attached to the issue at hand (ie a person just confessed to an offense, or part of an offense, is now distraught, possibly crying, but there are more issues to be tested).  If a person is the suspect of the murder/serious injury of a loved one, the exam should be conducted after a resonable time for a reasonable person to grieve or obtain closure.  Gauging of emotional suitability is obviously an ongoing process throughout the exam.  

I did not list specific conditions, because no specific condition automatically renders a person suitable or unsuitable for examination.  It is a combination of training and common sense; and is an ongoing process throughout an examination.

As for sources; I am a public servant.  I have no authority to release such information.  You and George are obviously skilled at FOIA requests.  The info I provide is my personal, unofficial take on the issues presented.  

Beech, I can only surmise that your motives for requesting a listing of conditions which would preclude one from taking an exam, include avoiding further exams.  Perhaps with your delusions of self importance, you could convince a psychology professional to assert that you do not meet the reality criterion.  Or perhaps you could make a show of emotion with belligerence or crying -- you're quite good at both!!

Regards.

Public Servant

[Twoblock]

Public Servant

I have been waiting a long time for this post. It is heartening to see that a polygrapher recognizes that certain physical and mental conditions affect the outcome of a polygraph test. It is, also heartening to see that you do not attempt to diognose and leave that up to the caregiver. In addition,  you stated that anger and stress are two of the mental conditions. I will state again that if I was ever falsely accused of a sex crime or asked any question about it on a job screening test, I don't think I could pass a polygraph because of my extreme anger, for obvious reasons also stated here, of that crime. The mere thought  of it makes my blood boil.

I have no reason to believe that you don't practice what you preach and that Bud, makes you an examiner instead of an operator in my mind. Question though: How many polygraphers do you think meets your modus operandi? By their posts, not very many. It seems their thinking is "sit in my chair dumbass I'm going to find you guilty".

Thanks guy for your post.

[Anonymous]

Public Servant,

Although your stated intentions with regard to physical/emotional/psychological disqualifying factors are indeed commendable, my friend, TwoBlock, has overlooked the fact that you are ill equipped to diagnose virtually all of the conditions you describe and has therefore mistaken good intentions with the skills that lead to meaningful follow through.  Your gut feeling about any of these issues is not a substitute for proper medical and psychiatric analysis and diagnosis.  And with regard to the acquaintance (stim) test you refer to--whether or not it is a simple and routine rouse and con (it is), it is most certainly is not a diagnostic test for any or all problems connected with multiple sclerosis or any other disease.  That which you have done admirably is to describe a variety of problems (aside from the basic theoretical flaws) that make CQT polygraph testing problematic--you have in no way given any evidence or indication of your (or any other polygrapher's) ability to recognize/diagnose and render sound judgment regarding these issues.

[beech trees]

Beech,

Turn off "the challenge" - like time clock.

My goodness Public servant, you consistently perceive and are alarmed by 'competitions' and 'challenges' arising from simple posts and responses to your assertions. While for some time I've known you're a simple low to mid level government bureaucrat-- and thus not only deeply fearful of the concept of personal responsibility but also deeply suspicious of those of us who revel in it-- it's only in these past several posts I've seen the true childish horror you feel at the thought of having to actually prove what it is you write about. Hence your misperceptions that simple responses are 'challenges' and 'competitions'. Rest easy my friend: There is no competition here, and we only hold you accountable insofar as you are comfortable (which is not very, apparently). What you write, however, is so very illustrative of the mindset of the polygrapher that I hope you will forgive me if I press on.

First of all, your "conclusions" are a bit over-reaching if you wish to attribute them to what I wrote.  Enough said.

Perhaps, for the purposes of explaining to the Disinterested Third Parties what is it we're discussing, I will simply repost what it is you wrote during one of the those infrequent breaks in your rich, full life away from this message board (we'll call it the 'Catchall It's Not My Fault, It's The Examinees Fault Excuse':

Lastly the examinee.  Some may actually think into it too much or be overly emotional, know too much, or just be plain unsuitable physically or psychologically.

To which I originally responded:

So if one is too intellectual or introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, built physically improperly or mentally 'unsuitable', the polygraph won't work? Gee, is there anyone in the US populace who DOESN'T belong in one of the above-cited demographics?

I will let the Gentle Reader sort it out as he may whether or not my characterizations of what you wrote are over reaching.

Quoting Public servant again:

Instead of listing specific disorders, I will give you the standards I apply to determining suitability.

<snip for brevity>

Thanks for that response, in which you broadly categorize possible pre existing psychological disorders, physical conditions, and emotional conditions that may preclude a successful polygraph exam from taking place.

With regard to psychological disorders: May I ask, in which state(s) are you liscensed/board certified to practice Psychiatry or Psychology?

With regard to physical conditions: May I ask, in which state(s) are you liscensed as a physician?

I did not list specific conditions, because no specific condition automatically renders a person suitable or unsuitable for examination.

Is this soley your personal opinion? If not, is it the official opinion and what is taught whatever school of polygraphy you attended? (If you know), is it also the official opinion of the APA?

[George W. Maschke]

Anonymous,

Health care professionals are little better-suited than polygraph practitioners to determine whether any particular person is a suitable candidate for a polygraph "test." Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., has explained the reasons for this in a letter to Dr. Grant LeFarge, Secretary of the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners.