Lying on the test

[Wallerstein]

Uh uh, don't change the subject Hombre,

Am I to understand that if you were to explain to your children the lethality of antifreeze, and they then used that information to deliberately poison somebody, you would feel NO sense of responsibility for their actions?

I guess that is what they mean by the "me" generation... :-/

Regards,

Nonombre

I guess I was assuming that you were bright enough to see the absurdity of that analogy.  Apples/oranges anyone?  

OK, I'll spell it out.  Jumping from the fact that disseminating information on how to "beat" or "pass" a polygraph machine that countless scientists including the NAS have routinely judged to often produce inaccurate/incorrect results, especially when employed as part of a pre-screening process, could also lead to dishonest people using this knowledge to pass a polygraph exam TO a shotgun in the doorway of a schoolhouse and teaching children that antifreeze is very, very bad is not very, very good logic.

The first example imparts knowledge on how to beat a flawed machine.  If you want to argue that the machine is not flawed, that's for another day, and for you to take up with the NAS.  The fact that those with no integrity could use such knowledge to also beat a flawed machine is troubling, I agree, but this very fact should likewise call the effectiveness of the polygraph into more doubt.  To me it's also troubling that good people are rejected from employment because of this machine.

We are talking about a test here--in your two examples you are talking about (1) an illegal action and (2) supplying knowledge to a child in good faith that is later used by the child for ill means.  I fail to see any connection between the CM teaching and (1) or (2).  


Moreover, there's a flip side to your coin, compadre--am I to assume that you feel no responsibility when a polygrapher judges an honest and moral person to be dishonest and/or morally corrupt and thereby ruin that person's dreams of working as a cop or intel analyst?  

[nonombre]

Moreover, there's a flip side to your coin, compadre--am I to assume that you feel no responsibility when a polygrapher judges an honest and moral person to be dishonest and/or morally corrupt and thereby ruin that person's dreams of working as a cop or intel analyst?  

Sorry, Wallerstein, I did not see your handle.  When you first posted, I thought you were Tarlain.  

Anyway, I can answer your question this way.  In my experience, I have had very, very few people "fail" a polygraph examination that was not ultimately cooberated in some other way.  Therefore, for me the polygraph has been an exceptional screening tool, as well as a specific issue criminal investigative methodology.

In the few cases where the DI polygraph results were not confirmed in some way, I have never written up any polygraph report that called a person "dishonest and/or morally corrupt."  Those are your words, not mine.

Regards,

Nonombre

[Mr. Mystery]

I have had very, very few people "fail" a polygraph examination that was not ultimately cooberated in some other way.  Therefore, for me the polygraph has been an exceptional screening tool, as well as a specific issue criminal investigative methodology.

Most agencies kick an applicant to the curb on a failed polygraph with little recourse for the applicant.

[day2day]

Not to mention the likelihood that a polygraph failure will effect the applicant not only with the administering agency but possibly with future testing agencies.  Also, any public show of disagreement with an agency with which a polygraph exam has been "failed" holds the very real possibility of becoming a detriment to future applications.  This is the "good 'ole boy network" at its finest.

[Tarlain]

Nonombre,
Why would you feel sorry for my children?  Do free thinking, intelligent, honest, respectful, responsible people scare you?  Every arguement you have is completely emotion driven.  You continually change your stories (reminds me of how I change fishing lures).  You never try to use facts, science, or logic to prove anything.  You resort to emotional appeals...oh no...my children couldn't POSSIBLY find their way through this world with all these scary things to avoid.  They couldn't possibly decide for themselves what is right and wrong...

Thank God you are here to protect them from all this dangerous stuff...too bad you'll probably falsely brand them of some immortal sin in a pre-employment test someday and undo all that I have taught them about working hard to earn what you want.

Maybe you should begin a book burning campaign...and be sure to destroy all copies of Fahrenheit 451.  We wouldn't want people to understand why we have a freedom of speech.

[nonombre]

Nonombre,
Why would you feel sorry for my children?  Do free thinking, intelligent, honest, respectful, responsible people scare you?  

No Tarlain,

What scares me is a parent who would feel no guilt or responsibility if their children poisoned someone with antifreeze.

You are one sick puppy...

[digithead]

Anyway, I can answer your question this way.  In my experience, I have had very, very few people "fail" a polygraph examination that was not ultimately cooberated in some other way.  

So how many people did you pass that ultimately turned out to be lying?  

As for your answer above, very few is not very descriptive. What constitutes very few? Was it 5%? 10%? Out of how many?

You seem to be suffering from two cognitive biases. The first is confirmation bias where you're seeking only the data that confirms your preconception. The second is self-serving bias where you claim more responsibility for your successes than your failures...

Regardless of how you try to twist the facts and use logically fallacies to support your argument, the polygraph as a screening tool is completely ineffective because it rests on wholly unscientific principles and is only a fancy version of the Jones and Sigall (1971) bogus pipeline...

[retcopper]

Tarlain:

I would much ratherr trust my children's welfare to the likes of nonombre, polygraphers  and other LE officers than some fool who beileves in Michael Moore. Fahrenhiet 451.  Give me a break.  And what facts or science can you cite that backs up your half ass attacks on the polygraph. Make sure you cite the truth and dont be like Michael Moore who debases defense, drug companies and capitialism but lies about owning these kind of  stocks.

[Mr. Mystery]

Tarlain:

And what facts or science can you cite that backs up your half ass attacks on the polygraph.

Is the NAS report sufficiently factual for you?

[retcopper]

Mr Mystery:

I dont want to sound rude but I asked Tarlain. I dont know if he ever heard of the stufy before he came on here and started calling polygraphers  liars, etc. Now that you mentioned it I read where the NAS study may have been flawed and or bias.

[Mr. Mystery]

I didn't find it to be that biased at all.  There were parts of it that supported polygraphy, and parts of their study were quite harsh towards polygraphy.

[digithead]

There were parts of it that supported polygraphy, and parts of their study were quite harsh towards polygraphy.

Supported the polygraph? Really?

Was it the part that went:

"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." (pg.  2)

or

"Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results." (pg. 2)

Or is it the "well above chance" quote that polygraphers hang their hats onto while ignoring the whole context:

"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 can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Because the studies of acceptable quality all focus on specific incidents, generalization from them to uses for screening is not justified." (pg. 4).

And we haven't even made it out of the executive summary yet...

[Mr. Mystery]

I didn't say there were a lot of parts friendly to polygraphy

And yes I was referring to the fact that in cases involving specific incidents and a naive examinee the polygraph can achieve greater than chance accuracy.  Again, no one really disputes that it can drag the truth out of the unwitting (sometimes).

Anyways the most interesting part comes on page 144:

"Polygraph practitioners claim that they can detect countermeasures; this claim would be much more credible if there were known physiological indicators of countermeasure use"

Also page 139

"....there is anecdotal evidence of increasing levels of countermeasure use in federal security screening programs."

Or page 101

"The scientific basis for polygraph testing is far from what one would like for a test that carries considerable weight in national security decision making"

Finally I posted a link to a discussion on polygraphplace.com that occurred when the NAS report was released.  As a whole the community didn't take it well.

So please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.

[digithead]

So please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.

My mistake...in addition to the pro-polygraph folks, a lot of people that post here do so under the guise of regular people when in actuality they are polygraphers trying to spread misinformation...

As for the polygraph's use as an interrogation tool, again, it is nothing more than a fancy version of Sigall and Jones (1971) bogus pipeline. If you believe it works, you're more likely to make admissions, if you don't believe, you won't. Not much of a tool, is it?

And regardless of issue-specific or screening usage, one can employ countermeasures to defeat it...

[chitown_dude]

Interesting.  In famous spook fashion, the conversation inevitably jumps to things most protected and fragile:  the human morale engine and those things 'taboo' from discussion: kids and family.

Wow.  We have some seasoned operators trolling these boards, do we not?

You see, ladies and gents, it's really the first thing they teach you in interrogation school: nothing is out of bounds.  Move to family if you feel your subject is going to leak like a Dutch dam should that topic be approached.  It's the psychological operators first stop: taboo subjects.

Watch out.  The eyes have walls.