I'm not sure that the pass rate is low as 1 in 150. Nonetheless, I believe that that LAPD is falsely accusing a large number of candidates of deception (both by percentage and by numbers as a whole). Furthermore, the possibility of differential pass rates for whites and minority applicants is extremely likely. As many of the frequent visitors to this site know, the polygraph is the perfect "tool" for conducting racist or reverse-racist hiring practices in broad daylight.

Those who have been wronged by the LAPD polygraph should seriously consider getting together as a group and filing a lawsuit similar to the one Mark Zaid has filed against the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service. 

Those interested are encouraged to use the AntiPolygraph.org message board for networking purposes. Once a group forms, a wise idea would be to visit as many attorneys in the area as possible for free consultations. The goal is to find an experienced employment law attorney with interest in the case.

I sincerely hope that some of our participants will step up and put some heat on the folks in LA and let them know that government wrongdoing will not be tolerated.

After reading your post I had to write and warn you about the current policy at LAPD.  Depending if you are a minority or not has much to do with the outcome of your poly.  Seems that there is currently a large group of non-minority (white guys) who feel they have been disqualified by the polygraph only because other things in their background checks did not dis qualify them.  So the department used this stupied pre employment test to take them out of the process. 
LAPD has in place P-2 background officers who have less than 5 years on the job and are hiding in administrative jobs doing the backgrounds.  Most of them are minoritys and we firmly believe they are disqualifing each and every non minority they can.  They would not know a qualified candiate if one was standing next to them.   
In any case, if you have made it far enough to be taking the poly. your background has been completed.  But do not give notice at your current job as the pass rate is 1 in 150.......
And we can assure you that you can be as honest as a new born babe, and still fail.....The best part is that the largest number of disqualifications are due to "questionable findings" and you will not get another chance to re-take the test as LAPD has a rule 1 per candiate.  Also you will never know the specific reason for your "inconclusive results".  As they will not tell you....... You can spend a year or two taking tests, doing the oral,passing thePAT and the medical , taking several days off of work and in the end no one will tell you exactly why you were disquilified.  You should apply at a department that has different standards than LAPD.  Believe me the current command staff at LAPD has taken the Dept. to an all time low!!!!  It will take years before it will turn around...if in fact it can ever turn around.

I am taking the LAPD polygraph in 3 1/2 weeks - can you email some specifics? Please?  I would greatly appreciate any specific control and specific relevent questions asked - my email is experiment77@hotmail.com

Gunrunner,

I'm sorry, but not surprised, to read of your unpleasant experience. I'd be interested in disucssing it with you privately, if you'd like. You can reach me by e-mail to maschke@antipolygraph.org. Perhaps like you, I once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, and having done so, I find the fraudulent conduct of the polygraphers in federal employ to be intolerable (indeed, beneath contempt).

Just thought I’d jump in here with my own polygraph experience.
(I posted this a while back on the NoPolygraph web site.)
Here goes:
In my last year on active duty I was posted to a “secret” job near Wash DC.  I was scheduled and took a CI polygraph administered by the NSA.
The questions were, “Do you intend to answer truthfully,” “Are you concerned about something we have not discussed,”  “Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel,” “Do you watch TV,” and “Have you answered truthfully.”
Well, according to the polygraph operator the first and last question, along with the watching TV and "concern" questions indicated “no deception,” whereas the “Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel” question was inconclusive.
Great.
If I intended to lie I would have indicated something on the first question, right?  And if I did lie, the last question would have trapped me, right?  However, somehow, the middle question was inconclusive.  This makes no sense and I was/am at a complete loss as to why it was supposedly inconclusive.
Story does not end.
The results were turned over to my military service’s investigators and they started a full-blown investigation. . .all on an inconclusive.  I was called in, interrogated, took the polygraph again, but this time the questions were expanded and included such things as “Have you ever stolen anything of any value from anyone,” and “Have you ever lied or cheated on any test or measurement.”  Again, the result on the one question was inconclusive.
Things didn’t end.
I was interrogated again and again, and was told by my organization that as long as I kept going back I would keep my clearance, but as soon as I said “no more,” I would be denied access to classified information.  Not officially suspended, barred or terminated, just not allowed access.
I went back and back, all with the same result.
Eventually, the investigators became more and more beligerant and the questions now included such things as “IN YOUR LIFE have you ever. . .”
(Casting a net. . .jsut to see what may be out there?)
At this time, and after 4-months of putting up with this abuse, the investigators wernt over the line and threatened my retirement---AND insisted I was hiding something—all because one question was inconclusive.
I spoke with a lawyer, told the investigators to pack sand, and I retired. Got my homorable discharge too.
I am still angry over this abuse and hold polygraph operators in such low regard that I seriously question their integrity and honor.   
I am a former civilian police officer, held the highest security clearances for 20-yrs in the military, served on the ground in Iraq, NEVER compromised security, and then the last year of my career this happens??
Disgusting

Gordon,

Indeed I do agree with the views published on this site and in the book. We haven't claimed that no peer-reviewed field study purporting to show that CQT polygraphy works better than chance has ever been published, but rather that the validity of polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed field studies.

George,

Yes, I was referring both to the pronouncement on your site and to your publication of Lykken's view without dissent or comment; to me that implies you agree with the view you are publishing.

Peace,

Gordon

Gordon,

I wish you a pleasant trip and a safe return. If you have the time before you leave, I'd be interested in your reply to the questions I put to you in my last post.

George & Gino,

I'll be away for several weeks, and will start a new thread when I return if JB has not already done so.

Peace.

Gordon

Gordon,

Perhaps our discussion would be more productive if you were to list the peer-reviewed studies purporting to show that polygraphy operates at better than chance levels under field conditions. We can then respond by telling you if we accept them (and if not, why).

If you choose to do this, you may wish to start another thread in "Polygraph Policy" entitled "Peer Reviewed Field Studies of Polygraphy" or something to that effect. This particular thread has run pretty far off topic on a number of occasions.

Gordon,

It was not clear to me that the question you asked directly concerned any statement in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I supposed you were referring to the current "headline" on the AntiPolygraph.org home page:

DESPITE POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS'
CLAIMS OF GREATER THAN 90% ACCURACY,
POLYGRAPH "TESTS" HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN
TO BE MORE ACCURATE THAN CHANCE
BY PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH
CONDUCTED UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS 

Regarding peer-reviewed field studies of the CQT we write at p. 8 of the 1st edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

Quote:


Gordon, just what in the above passage do you think needs clarification? Or are you referring to something else?

You wrote, "Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is." To which comments do you refer?

Finally, you asked, "Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?" The short answer is "none," as I thought I had made clear in my earlier reply.

George, 

you wrote 
Quote:


I'm glad you clarified that, as I understood your manual to be saying that no field study showed that the technique worked.  Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is.  I do hope you clarify this in the next edition of your manual.

Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works? 

Peace,

Gordon

George,

Sorry I have not been able to start the validity discussion topic yet.  I have been quite busy and plan to start it this coming weekend.

Gordon,

My claim is that polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer-reviewed research conducted under field conditions, not that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal. For documentation, see David T. Lykken's discussion of polygraph field studies at pp. 133-35 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed.). Lykken notes that as of 1998, only four polygraph field studies had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (I believe that number remains unchanged today; please correct me if I'm mistaken.) One of those four peer-reviewed field studies was conducted by Charles R. Honts ("Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application," Journal of General Psychology, 1996, 123, 309-324) and purported to show a 100% accuracy rate, though as Lykken aptly demonstrates, that study was fundamentally flawed in its design and "no sensible reader can imagine that these alleged 'findings' of the Honts study add anything at all to the sum of human knowledge about the true accuracy of the [Control Question Test]."

My definition of a "peer reviewed journal" is the same used by Lykken in his discussion of "Science and the Lie Detector" at pp. 49-51 of A Tremor in the Blood.

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, CQT polygraphy can have no validity because it is not a standardized (or standardizable) "test" at all and lacks scientific control. But you would have us believe otherwise. I would be happy to debate the scientific status of polygraphy in a new message thread. Would you care to begin the discussion by explaining the theoretical basis of polygraphy?

Friendtoall,

Far from bothering me, I find it absolutely fascinating.  I know literally hundreds of examiners in the government, police, and in private practice.  The only examiner I'm aware who claims to have quit for moral reasons is Doug Williams.  And, yes, there is a firm scientific basis to lie detection.  It has been studied for over seven decades with numerous research results reported in peer reviewed scientific journals.

George,

What is the basis for your claim that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal?  How do you define "peer reviewed" journal?

Peace.

Gordon

    To the polygraphers,
   Does the trade you are in ever bother you?  I only ask because I have read quite a bit on the subject, and it would seem that there are a lot of "ex" polygraphers who left because of moral convictions of some kind.  Why would this be so?  Also, do you consider it a science?  Genuinely interested...

J.B.,

I would be happy to debate the validity of polygraphy in a separate message thread. This is a debate that the poobahs of the polygraph community (including American Polygraph Association president Skib Webb) seemingly lack the self-confidence to enter.

Feel free to start a new thread on this topic if you wish. You might care to take the arguments against the validity of polygraphy found in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (and the sources cited there) as a starting point for this debate.

George,

Although my hypothesis lacks published peer reviewed research documentation in its application, I believe it does provide sound evidence in its physiological explanation of what will or will not be produced and why.  These elements, defecation reflex being one, are supported by numerous physiology and medical texts and studies.    I have never purported the use of this countermeasure detection method as a thoroughly researched and accepted methodology in polygraph.  However, its use would not be reckless if one could provide compelling and irrefutable physiological evidence to support it.

The last issue you bring up:

"Likewise, it is irresponsible for a polygrapher to maintain that a person has answered a question truthfully or deceptively on the basis of polygraph chart readings)."

I do not agree with this statement and believe it to be a different issue then the one at hand.  I would however be willing to discuss or debate this issue in a different discussion area.

J.B.,

While the absence of evidence in support of a claim is no proof of its falsity, absent any evidence to support a claim, there is no compelling reason to accept it as true. This being the case, I think it would be irresponsible for any polygrapher to maintain that a person had contracted his anal sphincter as a polygraph countermeasure based on your unproven methodology. (Likewise, it is irresponsible for a polygrapher to maintain that a person has answered a question truthfully or deceptively on the basis of polygraph chart readings).

George,

The flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated because of the reflective contraction of the either or both the diaphragm and intercostal muscles.  This would make any other respiratory augmentation irrelevant to the flattened mark seen.  In other words, the respiration continues but the momentary movement or contraction still places its mark.  

Holding or blocking is not the same or relevant to the flattened mark created by an anal sphincter muscle contraction.  There are discernable differences in both the physiological responses and the appearance of the tracings as provided with my explination of the differences in apnea as related to other physiological responses. 

Credible evidence is in the eyes of the beholder or finder of fact.  I have provided physiological reasons of why this flattened mark occurs in the tracings and why it is different from other responses or produced responses. Lack of published research on this specific instance dose not null and void those physiological known reasons.  Medical Doctors’ often make life or death decisions based on known or presumably known causes or symptoms of certain medical problems.  Psychologists’ often base their diagnostic opinion on ones psychological health or lack there of on that person’s verbal responses to questions.  Jurors’ base their decision on weather or not a reasonable person could believe without a reasonable doubt what is presented is true.  A juror who is found to have a prejudice toward one of the areas to be examined for decision purposes is usually removed without exemption.  

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Jan 9^th, 2002 at 8:38am:


J.B.,

What I was suggesting is that any "flattening" of the respiratory tracing that might be associated with contraction of the anal sphincter muscle applied as a polygraph countermeasure could be eliminated by keeping the pneumo tubes moving as one produces one of the breathing reactions recognized by DoDPI chart scoring doctrine. (In this regard, it bears repeating that the "flattening" of which you speak is indistinguishable from blocking or holding, both of which DoDPI holds to be scorable reactions.)

But if I understand you correctly, your claim is that this tell-tale "flattening" will appear (suddenly, as if by magic) in the respiratory tracing(s) when one constricts one's anal sphincter muscle and without regard to one's respiration. This is indeed an amazing claim, and one which, like your claim to be able to divine countermeasures attempts from the contemplation of polygraph charts, you have utterly failed to support with credible evidence (or even a rational argument).

J.B. McCloughan wrote on Jan 9^th, 2002 at 8:38am:


JB,

The above quoted sentence is a classic example of your nonspeak. It's gibberish. Grammatically, it's a train wreck and neither supports nor condemns your position. It is, however, a continuing illustration of what one respondent so eloquently described as your 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit' modus operandi.

I'm sorry if the tone of my writing is disrespectful, but you really need to come to the table armed with facts if you are going to debate the issue at hand.

BT

George,

The flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated and is not effected by the respiration pattern.  The countermeasure of controlled breathing has no concealing effects on the production of this flattened tracing.  I assume the DoDPI scoreable respiratory reaction you are referring to is holding or blocking?  This respiratory pattern too has no effect on the flattened tracing production or lack there of.

I have only provided a portion of the anal sphincter muscle contraction detection process.  I do not think or see where any of the information I have provided even remotely implies or provides a undetectable anal sphincter muscle contraction employment method.

J.B.,

If we assume for the sake of argument that you are indeed correct about a flattening of the respiratory tracing timely with an electrodermal response being a reliable indication of an anal sphincter contraction employed as a countermeasure, then would not this counter-countermeasure technique of yours be foiled if the examinee were to apply a respiratory countermeasure (artificially producing any of the breathing responses recognized by DoDPI) at the same time as he employs the anal sphincter countermeasure?

Again, assuming for the sake of argument that your counter-countermeasure technique had some merit (I'm not conceding that it does), haven't you told us (from your point of view) how to make the anal sphincter contraction countermeasure failsafe, that is, undetectable from the examination of polygraph charts?

George,

I am glad you are still enjoying the well deserved holiday.

You are correct that my hypothesis as it relates to polygraph and the lack of published peer reviewed research for it.  My guess is we will have to wait for a published peer reviewed research study that supports it before some skeptics will accept it.  So I surmise we are at an impasse on this subject until such completion.   

Until then, I will follow the posts on this and other discussion topics and continue to reply when necessary.  I will also continue to check my messages here and at my listed email address to respond to any questions you or anyone else may have.

Take care and stay safe,

J.B.