Quote:


Man! I can relate to that!  First, don't feel bad for the polygraphers. For the most part they do the best they can. The problem here is that there is so much variability in the way people respond to questions that what the polygraphers have come up with is an odd sort of compromise.

They basically try to get you to not only lie about something unimportant, but feel bad about it. The presumption is that your response to this lie will give them an idea about whether you are lying about what they are really testing for. That may be whether a person has murdered a girl, or it may be whether someone has smoked more pot than they think reasonable. (kinda hard to believe the response would be similar!)

So what it comes down to is that polygraphers utilize a certain amount of deception in order to elicit and determine the truth of what an examinee says.  It's imperfect. error prone, sometimes degrading, but it actually seems to work to some degree.  However, in working, it sometimes is the most inaccurate with a trully honest persons such as you appear to be.

Don't feel bad. For some bizarre reasons this has captured my attention. I am an EE with some interest in the technologies involved and also some desire to see the polygraph used resposnisbly - or not at all.  I really hate to see the innocent pilloried and the polygraph has a certain propensity to do so even though I believe it has some value for specific incident testing.

-Marty

Marty, I'm sorry for not knowing all there is to know about this subject, But I never really found a need to know it before... But what I do know is, "I should never have to lie to prove i'm telling the ttruth!"

Marty, I agree with you, And I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with anyone. I have found that the polygraph examiners are the most common liar in the room! But I have also found that there is not an equal ground. I came to this site in search of answers (having never been through this before). Aside from all the technical jargon, I was screwed for telling the truth... And it seems that everyone here wants to prove how smart they are. Or Contest anothers wits... Screw all that! it's not worth my time. I didnt come to learn to pass the test. or to learn all the tech BS that goes along with it or to learn that so-in-so is smarter than XYZ... LEt's get to the point guys. LIE DETECTORS ARE A LIE! in my opinion. If a person has to lie to pass, and an examiner has to lie to get you to lie then what good are they??? Next the thing that dissapoints me the most is hearing about potential police officers lying to pass. If you feel you have something to lie about dont take the test... And if you do lie, you dont need to be in that capacity! thank you Marty for your input, but I really just wanted to know why I told the truth and was told I was lying...Thanks Again.
1 last thing,  I WILL NEVER TAKE ANOTHER ONE!!!

Quote:


You might want to read the literature on polygraphs. The most common test (CQT) expects you to lie (to the controle question, not the relevant question) in order to pass. There are tests "that" don't expect you to lie, but they are less common.  The reason is that if they can get you to lie about something they make you believe is important but isn't, it is easier to calibrate the relevant questions and the more likely a deceptive response to a relevant question will produce larger responses.

I just don't like the "small detail" that the polygraphs works best on people who lie about the smaller things.

Liars are liars. Sadly, many polygraphers are as well. If you are not one, you are at a disadvantage.

-Marty

OK people, Let me introduce myself. I am now a person who obey's the law.(yeah, I know we're all innocent right?) But let me finish. I have had a childhood that was not the Mother's dream. In other words, I was not the perfect child! I had my run in with stealing, Lying, and some minor drug use. My opinion on drugs is anything you put in your body that is not acceptable by Christ, police, and anything you have to buy on the corner in secret... IE: Marijuana, all the crystals, alchohol, and pharmacuticals if not prescribed to you!
Now, I am not going to preach, But let me say this. I too have quit my ways. I stopped all the bullshit that was destroying my life. I found a better way. I have 3 wonderful children, A VERY beautiful wife of 14 yrs. And sometimes I look back on myself and ask how can this be true? All these good things in my life. Finding my wife was what did it. when I found her she taught me to be a better person. I no longer needed the fullfilment of the buzz, Thats what she gave me!!! a killer buzz! Then I had kids. Even more BUZZ!!!  I receive respect from people when I Introduce myself and I have something to offer them, " WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET"! I don't have to lie For the respect. I am not faking a personality! I have learned from my mistakes and will learn more everyday. And to be honest with you, I have always known you can't trust everyone. And for the past couple of days I've learned that even though you tell the truth on polygraphs it can make you out to be a liar. Even when your not.
Now, I know that most of the people on this site are peace officers. And the honest ones who risk their lives everyday for our well being and to keep illegal acts to a minimum are under a blanket of GRATITUDE from me. THANK YOU!
If you have had some problems in the past. and worked your way through it and found some peace in your life and no longer need the bullshit. Congratulations! 
Now, there have been times when I said,"I'd love to be a cop".
But let me say this. In my opinion, It's commendable to want to make something of yourself, and that you quit the drugs or alchohol and made a better life for yourself. 
I just read a thread stating,"who better to find the stash than someone who used to hide it". I believe that... But I also believe that a cop that lied about it or deceived an examiner to get the position is just as bad. If you want to be a cop for respect, then you just lost it! the respect that is... My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against  polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar! And I don't believe that is what I want for a peace officer! And About that stash, be it money or drugs if you found it and turned it in, How much did you really find???

Quote:

Dear Chris,

To anyone who has been wrongfully accused, your quote hits the core of the argument.  Look me in the eye and tell me that you do not want to hire me and justify your decision, do not hide behind some bogus "scientific" exam.

Regards.

If in fact the number of failed polygraphs has increased to 50% from 20% then one would expect the polygrapher workload to have increased nearly 70%. Since a failed polygraph would normally also include an elongated post test interrogation, the workload increase would even be higher. And then if hiring itself increases..... 

Does this imply there are a lot of new, inexperienced polygraphers or just the same number of very tired people.



-Marty

I have a sneaking suspicion that the counterintelligence right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.  They know they like polygraphs (both because of appearances and likely because at least some of the decisionmakers believe they work).  They know that they have more applicants than positions, and a limited budget.  So I think someone said "get rid of some of the applicants as cheaply as possible", and someone else translated this into "let's use the polygraph to thin the population".   

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:


Breeze,
Simple fix.  Raise the cut off scores at Phase II.  Let less people get to the polygraph.

Three Agents do the interview in Phase II.  They are well trained in fairness.  Their scores can be trusted.

An applicant who fails to achieve a passing score in Phase II has no further career ramifications.  An apllicant who fails a polygraph, however . . .

Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong.  Labelling epople as spies and druggies and liars when there may or may not be SUFFIECIENT proof is wrong.  And posting these results as fact on the FBI public record, preventing other career opportunities is also wrong.

Chris

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:


What's illegal about hiring the number you need on a first-come, first-serve basis?  Whatever happened to sending the time-honored "we had many more qualified applicants than positions, and at this time we cannot hire everyone.  Thank you for applying and we invite you to return in the future" letter?

Either this is a shining example of bureaucratic stupidity or there's more than a little attempt to score extra political points involved, as well.  "Look! we have polygraphs in our building!  We're one security conscious organization (and they smell nice, too)!"

Skeptic

Breeze and George,

Quote:


A remarkable point of agreement. This apparently expedient mechansim has extremely adverse consequences. It is not a simple thing as where one isn't hired due to nebulous chemistry or instinct. If I interview 2 people and hire the one that I think best fits the needs of the dept., the emotional hurt to the one not hired is far less than if I polygraph the applicants and say the one not hired failed the polygraph.  There is little that causes more pain than having one's integrity questioned.  There is little that does more damage than promulgating that to other potential employment opportunities.

-Marty

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:


I take umbrage at your unfounded accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint."

Quote:


So when you earlier spoke of "[my] crew...disepensing faulty advice," you didn't mean to say that anything we are saying here is untrue?

Quote:


Your assumption that I have merely "skimmed" the works referenced above is erroneous, as is your assumption that I was just looking for "detail to reinforce [my] pre-existing view." I approach the subject of polygraphy with an open mind, and am willing to change my views in light of new evidence. But at this point, I find that the case against CQT polygraphy (and especially, polygraph screening) is compelling.

You say you've read the Polygraph archive, Matte's Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, Harrelson's Lie Test, and the DoDPI documentation referenced in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (as well as The Lie Behind the Lie Detector itself). I invite you then to please point out any factual error(s) you believe you may have found in the latter.

Quote:


Yes. I think it's likely that the high FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate (currently over 50%) is the result of a deliberate decision made by FBI management suddenly faced with a surfeit of qualified applicants following the tragic events of 11 September 2001. At some time prior to that date, the polygraph failure rate had "only" been about 20%. Note, however, that no admission(s) is/are necessary for an applicant to be accused of deception and/or countermeasures by the polygrapher, rejected for FBI hire, and blacklisted from employment with other federal agencies.

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

Dear Breeze,

Without getting into any polygraph validity discussion, your statement could be a good supposition.

I would add "no other cheaper alternative" and it would be a hard argument to fight considering my three experiences and the whole FBI procedure of hiring applicants.

Regards.

Quote:

I believe some of these signatures are differential, in that they are distinct from CNS controlled autonomic responses. I think this is dependent on the type of countermeasure.  Drew's challenge, and other comments in the literature, aludes to this. This is one reason I believe research here would be more productive and cheaper.

Also, Drew has stated he had at one time believed that more channels would provide higher polygraph reliability but has concluded the additional information is redundant and of little value. The same may not be the case re some types of CM detection.

Agreed. If anyone wants to discuss detection of CM's specifically we should start a thread specifically on this. Just wanted to clarify I was not talking about general polygraph measurements and DI which I think are close to impossibly complex.

-Marty

Quote:


Indeed, the human nervous system is a wonderfully complex and flexible thing.

One thing that does seem remarkably consistent, though, are certain reactions to recognition.  Combined with the fact that tests may be designed such that the likelihood of false positive "recognition" reactions are almost nil, "recognition testing" could be a truly valuable tool for law enforcement.  Not useful for screening, though.  Unfortunately, there appears no substitute for good old fashioned background investigations.

Give Dr. Richardson the chance, and he'll talk at length about recognition testing.

Skeptic

George
You still seem angry.
Faulty: "having a fault or faults, defective".  Like all who post here, I am stating an opinion. Posting here can never be mistaken for actual proof, although you evidently believe your words meet that standard.  Yes, I do believe that your and others advice could hinder, confuse or delay fact finding in a criminal or screening exam.  So, I find that faulty in the sense that it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous.  It is defective in my view because our culture is filled with selfish examples, and the over riding importance of the one.
You claim I am boasting when I simply point out that my experience base on this topic is much greater than yours- then you immediately throw up a few texts that you have skimmed as an example of your detailed research.  I have read all but the Reid text (although I have others by this author team) I would not consider this extensive, and it is clear from reading your work (yes I have) that you needed to provide authoritative descriptions and test sequences.  You were not looking for a discussion on possible efficacy, just detail to reinforce your pre-existing view.
Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion:
Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool?  I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences.  Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue.
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

Dear Marty,

I agree that there are much more sophisticated means of measuring physiological reactions instead of the current polygraph sensors.  The problem has always been trying to interpret this information.

Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions.  This argument being similar to which directions someone moves there eyes after a question indicating truthfulness or deception.

Autonomic nerve "imprinting" is not consistant within cultures.  A child who is farsighted cannot read their own writing.  They imprint their writing through muscular motion differently than one who gets feed back with their eyes and this will affect their writing until they "retrain" their muscle imprinting. There muscle reaction will be repeatable and consistant but incorrect.  The same can be created for emotional reactions which will be interpreted as "countermeasures" instead of truth. 

This is a discussion better for another thread.  Start one and I will answer more there.

Regards.

Quote:


And both are valid objections. Further, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to accurately evaluate CQT's due to baseline issues.

Quote:

I think in large part due to the dissonance between the report and the broader public belief that the polygraph is near perfect. A belief promulgated by the polygraph trade groups not only out of self interest, but also because belief that the polygraph works actually increases the likelihood that it will.
Quote:

While I certainly would like to see better research, it appears to be quite difficult, esp re the CQT polygraph. However, I think research into CM's would be far cheaper and more easily controlled. Research into detecting them, not their effectiveness, since that involves quantification of the polygraph CQT itself. Further, I think some forms of CM's are more detectable than others. Physically distinct CM's such as tongue biting or tightening ones sphincter are likely to provide identifiable assymetric signatures - though not perhaps on the limited channels recorded by a polygraph. As I had said some time earlier, I am an EE with considerable experience in signal processing and modeling techniques. There are things more sophisticated than strain gauges.....

-Marty

Marty wrote on Jan 1^st, 2003 at 1:44am:


Dear Marty,

Studies by Polygraph Organizations are attacked by opponents using the "Fox watching the henhouse" analogy.

Studies by the scientific community within accepted statistical practices are almost non-existent and attacked by proponents of polygraphs as not reflecting the "reality of the test room" and their utility as a tool.

Currently, the government agencies using the polygraph have no internal reason to question the status quo and will not move unless a political cattle prod forces them to do so. The federal government does not want to spend any money on this subject in today's fiscal climate.

The NAS report was a huge watershed document to start serious discussion on polygraph accuracy and validity. I definitely agree that further studies are necessary to document actual percentage of predicted accuracy of the "polygraph tool."  

My personal experience in the pre-screening use is that it is easily manipulated by test administrator bias. In my case, it was not videotaped.  I believe my experience would not have occurred if my examiner knew his actions could be easily subjected to review for possible disciplinary action.

Regards

Breeze, you addressed the following words to me:

Quote:


You have yet to demonstrate that any advice given here is "faulty." Wasn't it your central thesis that our making countermeasure information public is unethical, because it could help criminals to beat the polygraph? Evidently, you do believe that polygraph outcomes may be influened by countermeasure use. So what advice given here is "faulty?"

Quote:


Nonetheless, I am not convinced by the content of your posts to this message board that you have 1) read and 2) understood The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

You further boast:

Quote:


Your accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint" is patently untrue. Had you bothered reading what you dismissively term "my vanity work," you would know better. My personal library on polygraphy includes writings by authors whose viewpoints are very different from my own, including the American Polygraph Association's CD-ROM archive of all issues of its quarterly Polygraph from 1972-2001, John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique, James Allan Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, and Leonard H. Harrelson's Lie Test: Deception, Truth and the Polygraph. In researching polygraphy, I've also relied on Department of Defense Polygraph Institute documentation, some of which AntiPolygraph.org has sought and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Scalabrini and I relied on all of these sources in writing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Perhaps it is you, Breeze, whose "research" (if any) "is selective to your viewpoint."

Breeze,

Kicked the cat?  Lol, well that's over the line for me though I do admit to setting firecrackers off in anthills (no, no mailboxes).

Anyway, such fun aside, both your challenge and Drew's can not prove anything. They are inadequate from a statistical point of view and whatever their results, it would be the equivalent of spitting in the wind.

So let me suggest that conducting an appropriate, peer reviewed set of experiments on a sufficient population would further this far more. I also believe the study of countermeasures could be more fruitful since establishing base line "truth" is not at issue. Unfortunately, but understandably, federal research in this area has largely been classified for the last 10 years.  Any non-profits that might provide grant money for this endeavor? 

-Marty

Of all the silly, "let me prove Im smarter than you" replies I received, I may of liked Marty's the best. Is any anti-polygraph person here shocked and outraged giving the questionably legal advice they give? why would it be different if you yourselves applied the advice? You might hasten the demise of polygraph, something you do want.  Guess its easier to just talk about it, Im not surprised by this.
I enjoy having my posts called meaningless, while yours are obviously stimulating and overflowing with goodness.  Has it occurred to you anonymous that the questions posed by your soul mates have induced boredom, and I am not here to scramble around and try to respond to every rehashed notion you folks cough up?
Ok George, If you would rather do campus fliers and compete for telephone pole space with rock bands, thats your decision.  My suggestion is based on the simple belief that I have that your crew is better at dispensing faulty advice, than serving as an example.  Your little book is certainly within my reading level, but as someone who does not have a victim's mindset I refuse to embrace your vanity work.  And you should not be so quick to dismiss someones attention span if it differs from your own.  My own experiences in this area are far more extensive than yours, and your research is selective to your viewpoint. I will in the future not take you to task for being inexperienced.
Gino, it would prove that you could defeat an applicant process at will and send agencies utilizing screening exams into confusion.  Having looked at a few applications in my time, applicants are not generally asked if they intend to take a job if sucessful, and there is no consequence if an applicant withdraws.  Your "foot soldiers" would be specially trained, since it only takes a few minutes, and the results documented.  It is my belief that you folks are just as liable for advocating a behavior as performing it.
Skeptic, my good, stout hearted friend.  Turned away from your choice of profession by the overwhelming prospect of a polygraph every 5 years? wont you guys have killed it off by then? why so little confidence?  Thanks for bringing up my point, even if you tried to turn it around.  I maintain that the anti polygraph assertions have not been backed up, and are hysterical and pathetic. The way to prove me wrong is to just do so, and document it here.  Stating that sophisticated  countermeasures were sucessfully employed (among other things) in vague terms, sounds like BS.  You declined employment with NSA, why dont you get the ball rolling and specifically post what happened?  Certainly it could not impact on whatever it is that you do now.  Set an example.
Its curious to me that you are so concerned with things Ive said to George when he seems to have recovered nicely on his own.  Is it just deflecting, while trying to fill a post with something, anything?  How could you of all people question anyones honesty and integrity when you have recently admitted to employing countermeasures on a screening test for a high level government agency? If your examiner would of looked you in the eye and asked if you were manipulating the test, you would of answered "NO". Conclude again, oh pillar of truth!
Ok, Ill answer one of Beech Tree's lame questions: I passed my CQ tests (one was RI) because I must of been unsure during the asking of such questions.  While I certainly made admissions, no one will put every juvenile indiscretion on paper.  The relevant questions did not bother me, so there you go.  An example: If I gave a cat a well deserved kick, would I want to go into an applicant process stating that I abused animals? You get the idea, Im sure.
Stein, good post. You've joined the very small group of posters here that may in time command respect.  Plus you served with my brother.
Have a prosperous new year my anti polygraph friends.  Make it your resolution to spend less time here, and shoot your rifles more often!  Watch the "wind and the lion" at least once, and let your keyboards rest.

Quote:

Dear Chris,

I too have stated in earlier threads that I think the polygraph is being used in order to save money on investigations.  The money saved has real cost in the damage to reputations and careers which are only based on polygraph results with no investigation to confirm any allegations.

Regards.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:


Actually Breeze, I did mean to reinforce your point.  I don't believe in Countermeasures, as I have said many times on this site.   

I also don't belive in the polygraph as an effective screening tool.

I do believe in using the polygraph for specific incident testing, because there is focus for the polygrapher.  The test results shoulds only be used for narrowing a suspect pool as to whom the investigators should begin work with.  But the polygraph should never exonerate anyone from the suspect pool.

Moreover, the polygraph can be an effective intimidation tool.  Again, test results are worthless, but information garnered by investigators viewing the polygraph proceedings can sometimes be effective.

That is what is known as specific incident testing.

In screening, whether it is employee or pre-employment screening, there is no incident.  The polygraph is used in an extremely broad range of questioning.  Polygraphers decide truth v. deception based on pre-determined assumptions to answers of  inherently "unanswerable" questions.  This type of testing is seriously flawed (opinions I share with the NAS).

Because of the flaws in the system, countermeasures have evolved (mostly for employee and applican use) to correct the inaccuracy of the polygraph.  Too many honest individuals have received "false positive" results, forcing a employees and applicants to counter the possibility of the "false positive."  THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN!!!  The system is completely flawed.  The polygraph must go.

What truly baffles me is the LE professional who defends the polygraph.  No LE pro would ever denounce the investigator on the street as the best tool for conducting investigations.  Their error rate is minimal, and their sucess rate is high.  Why then is the investigator replaced by a machine?  Money.  Agencies are too cheap to put extra people on the street to investigate.  The polygraph, with its high error rate, has replaced the investigator.   

I think I'd be pretty damn mad if I were an LE pro who was replaced by an inaccurate machine. 

Chris

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:


Oh, please.  Breeze, your glass house is in bad need of replacement panes.

When you acknowledge and apologize for the fallacious and libelous nature of statements you've made here in this public forum, when you deign to answer even a few of the multitude of appropriate questions put to you by George, Beech Trees and others, come back and accuse someone of "evading".  Until that distant day, statements such as yours aren't even laughable -- they're self-evidently pathetic.

Quote:


Do you even know what the issue is, here?

This is a matter of a profession making claims that it fails to back up.  The polygraph community has repeatedly stated it can detect countermeasures.  The burden is on their shoulders to back up that claim.  They have failed to do so, despite specific challenge -- and their silence is deafening and damning.  Have you even thought about considering both sides of this issue?  Or are you really just here for attention and to "stir things up"?

Quote:


No one has claimed it is.  But then, it's always easier to win an argument if you're the only one arguing, isn't it?

Quote:


Most of us already have, bud -- we've done the polygraph thing.  As have several spies who have beaten the polygraph.  Your choice of evidence on this entire issue is tremendously selective and one-sided.

I know you don't like it that people here (such as myself) believe your honesty and integrity are questionable.  Unfortunately, you don't give us much reason to conclude otherwise.

Skeptic