Sting the Poly Vs. Lie Behind the Lie D...

[Carrottop]

Does anyone know what additional information is talked about in "How to Sting the Polygraph, D. Willams," compared to The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  Are there any advantages to either (other than the fact that one is completely free)
??

[PG111]

If your worried about a test coming up, buy all of the books offered and read them. They all have similar info but why not get them all, Doug has been doing it longer than the rest.

police-test.com
passapolygraph.com
beatpolygraph.com
polygraph.com

[anythingformoney]

Carrot, unless you have some deep, dark secret that you feel you must try to hide, I wouldn't worry about buying any books.  You'll just play with your own head and possibly mess up what otherwise could have been an easy pass for you.

[Jeffery]

Carrottop-

Here is how to guarantee a false positive or at best an inconclusive (and accusations that you used countermeasures).

You will be asked if you researched polygraphics.  If you truthfully answer "well, yes.  I asked on an internet message board and AnalSpincther advised me not to get any books or do any more research.  I followed his advice and am not using countermeasures."  If you go in saying that, you will not pass for sure.  Prepare to defend yourself from accusations of countermeasures.

[anythingformoney]

HA HA HA HA HA!  Good one, Jeffery.    I like that sarcastic wit.  Reminds me of myself.

[PG111]

Well Jeff I hate to disagree with you, because anyone who gets Anal going is alright. But I am completely honest with the Examiners. I tell them I have researched the Polygraph issue for many years. The last one I took for a job I later turned down because of the move to another state. I even went so far as to tell him I thought about starting a website to sell books on beating the polygraph, because if others were making money selling those books why couldn't I do the same thing. He was very interested and it took him a long time to respond to my statements. But I did not produce the false positive as a result.
  I can speak very confidently on this subject, if I could not do that I sure as hell would keep it to my self. I like the honest approach. Pre-employment polys are useless anyhow in my opinion. Criminal Polygraphs on the other hand are more valuable

[anythingformoney]

I'm curious, PG.  Why would you call pre-employment polygaphs useless, yet support the use of criminal polygraphs?  Is it because you think the polygraph only works in criminal exams, or is it because you simply like using what you believe is a useless tool to convince an examinee that he or she should confess?  If it is the former, then how could you really differentiate between a criminal who did something wrong and was caught and an examinee who did something wrong and has not yet been caught?

I've provided some significant, credible studies on this forum.  Of course, anyone, especially someone like that poster named "anxietyguy," could ignorantly refute any study with nothing better than "because it's polycrap, that's why."  But someone like yourself, who does not seem to be ignorant on the subject, should at least take such evidence into account before calling something "useless."

[PG111]

Ok Anal, you got me on that one. I believe that pre-employment polygraph tests do not put the high stress levels on the subject tested that criminal specific tests do.  There is no fear of going to jail on pre-employment tests. Pre-employment tests have a higher false positive rate than criminal specific. Useless was strong, I should have said much less useful.  

[anythingformoney]

True, there is no fear of going to jail in pre-employment exams.  But there is a real fear of not getting the job, and most people have the misconception that if they don't do well on the polygraph their chances are over.  That fear really does add to the effectiveness of the pre-employment polygraph.  Of course, everything is relative, isn't it?  Jail for 10 years vs. looking for another job . . . I think it's obvious which one is the greater threat.

[Drew Richardson]

A.S.

You write:

...Jail for 10 years vs. looking for another job . . . I think it's obvious which one is the greater threat....

An examinee does not simultaneously face both circumstances (most unusual if such were the case) in the setting of a given polygraph examination, and he is not faced with such a judgment, i.e.,  choosing the greater of the two perils.  He will face one or the other (or some modification thereof) depending on whether taking a specific- incident criminal exam or an applicant/employee-screening exam.  The dynamic of such will likely make this the issue of the greatest immediate interest and threat and here lies the rub.   This is the case for both deceptive and non-deceptive examinees (i.e., the threat of jail time or non-employment is a threat for both), far outweighs the threat associated with the relatively obvious control material and associated consequences in a PLCQT exam, is the crux of the theoretical flaw of such testing in both applications, and will undoubtedly lead to false positive outcomes for both.  The specific incident testing is really not theoretically on much sounder grounds (absent the base rate problems associated with screening exams) but generally will fare better because of the bias imparted from investigator to examiner which is considerably more on target than the wild guessing that goes on with a screening exam in the absence of relevant background investigation prior to and relating to the subject matter(s) of said examination.  Regards...

[anythingformoney]

A.S.

You write:


An examinee does not simultaneously face both circumstances (most unusual if such were the case) in the setting of a given polygraph examination, and he is not faced with such a judgment, i.e.,  choosing the greater of the two perils.  He will face one or the other (or some modification thereof) depending on whether taking a specific- incident criminal exam or an applicant/employee-screening exam.  The dynamic of such will likely make this the issue of the greatest immediate interest and threat and here lies the rub.   This is the case for both deceptive and non-deceptive examinees (i.e., the threat of jail time or non-employment is a threat for both), far outweighs the threat associated with the relatively obvious control material and associated consequences in a PLCQT exam, is the crux of the theoretical flaw of such testing in both applications, and will undoubtedly lead to false positive outcomes for both.

Drew, you obviously misunderstood my post.  I pointed out the obvious difference between facing jail and having to look for another job in acknowledgment of PG111's argument.

Now, while many less knowledgable people have a difficult time believing that an innocent examinee can respond with greater strength to the comparison questions than to the relevant questions, this simply is not the case.  In fact, the Office of Technological Assessment (OTA) of the United States Congress reviewed and evaluated the available research on the validity of CQT testing in the field and found that the response magnitudes to relevant and comparison questions actually do distinguish between guilty and innocent examinees.  (Saxe, L. (1983) Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation.  A technical memorandum, Washington DC.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983.)  But of course, unlike you, Drew, I don't rely only on studies in obscure journals to support my knowledge; I've actually "been there and done that."

Don't assume things, Drew.  I'd be surprised if you had any more real world experience than George, so if you're going to regurgitate tired rhetoric, at least be sure of the facts first.

[Drew Richardson]

A.S.,

Unfortunately time does not permit me to have a continued exchange with you, but I will leave you for the time being strongly maintaining that  (1) most examinees are capable of distinguishing between relevant issues/questions and control; (2) the threat to an  (guilty or innocent) examinee is both apparent and relates to determinations regarding relevant issues and not control issues (e.g., the threat to an examinee in a criminal exam concerning bank robbery relates to the questions referencing bank robbery and not to general theft/trust control material); (3) your ability to bluff (set control material) for innocent examinees does not compensate for the aforementioned natural relative consequences associated with relevant vs. control material; and (4) your ability to successfully carry out said bluff on any given day with any given relevant/control question pairing with any given examinee is both variable and not objectively demonstrable.  Regards...

[anythingformoney]

"Impressive.  Most impressive.  But you are not a Jedi yet!"  Darth Vader

Nice vocabulary, Drew.  But just saying something unfounded doesn't make it so.  Do you speak with personal experience, or is that simply more regurgitation?

[PG111]

  Go to www.Beatpolygraph.com, they are rebuilding a web site, and have a free countermeasures manual online.

  These manuals all say basically  the same stuff so why pay for them. It says it will be free until they get the new website up and running.

 I still think Doug Williams book is better, but it costs 30 bucks

[anythingformoney]

Yes, boys and girls, and if you buy that, may I interest you in some ocean beach property in Arizona?