Canadian Crusader, 

What you speak of could only be done by adding sensitivity (and this would only work for the EDA tracing).  When sensitivity is added, the software notes this on the chart.  If someone increased sensitivity right before the key number, the examinee would see it on the chart and more importantly, so would the QC.  Such an ethical violation, though it might not change the result of the actual exam, could result in the termination of the examiner's certification, or employment with his agency.  That you should be able to fiind in DoDPI literature; it was addressed in detail in a course I attended.

Also, a flat chart with one "spike" is not the typical stim result.  A peak of tension type response is much more likely.

Anonymous,

While a bliind test may be a better way of proving to someone the exam works, the present method is by no means a fraud.  Yes, you have to "sell" the stim chart by DoDPI guidelines regardless of how obvious the response is (or is not).  But it is not a flim flam.  Most examiners I know do something similar to what I explaiined or at least show the examinee the chart.   

The reason most agencies did away with blind stim tests was the thought that a stim might not always produce a strong response, since this "deception" has no consequence.  The fear is that instead of doing good for the examinee's psychological set, it might do harm if the examiner has trouble determining the number.  That may or may not be a valid concern

Also, the purpose of the exam is to determine the truthfulness of the examinee, not impress him with the ability to identify a concealed number. That runs the risk of turning the exam into a side show act.   

While the "selling" of the stim might have some value, I don't think it's essential to running a valid, accurate exam.  I believe the value of running a chart to make adjustements, and identify potential artifact problems, is the main benefit of the stim.  And like I said, the  stim charts usually sell themselves.   

I often see a correlation of weak response to the stim key and strong response to one or the other type of CQT question.  This, to me, indicates that a person who is concerned about a certain type of exam question is so psychologically focused on that issue, that the stim causes less psycho- or physiological response.  So it really wasn't needed.  In other words, you guys are making too much of the significance of the stim.

Mark,

I like how you put that.  And I'd agree that other factors can cause a response -- though as in the past, I'd argue they would not be as consistant a factor (throughout the exam) as deception-- and could account for the relatively small number of errors. 

I like your idea for the blind stim with no number as a choice.  However, that looks like a research study idea, not a part of each exam.  You make a good point by menthioning three charts.  A blind stim is a searching Peak of Tension, which should require three charts to make a good determination.  But that seems like a lot of wasted time and effort for something I don't feel is that important to the accuracy of the results of the actual examination.

Regards to all.  Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.

Public Servant,

I would repeat what I said before: I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test.

It's the truth that's the problem.  The stim test gives no assurance that you will be able to recognize the truth.

I suggest this, as an improvement: do several blind stim tests.  Give the subject the option of picking a number between 1 and 9, or no number at all.  I'd be curious to see if the examiner can tell when the subject picks no number at all.   

Quote:


Mine was a number from "three to seven".  I believe that the examiner was counting the strokes of the pen and direction since some numbers require lifting the pen and straight then curved stokes.  The whole thing was geared for "fear" factor.

Regards.

Public Servant,

If it works and you would have us believe this charade not to be some poorly performed side show magic show why not risk your reputation and routinely do blind stim tests??  Although your reported method of having subjects pick reactions (does raise the question of why you go to polygraph school if the examinee can identify deception with no instruction ) is somewhat better than the typical open stim test, it does not (for several reasons) replace the integrity and significance of a truly blind stim test.  Would you chategorize that which is done by many examiners (open blind test with examiner explaining reactions) to be the fraud we believe it to be.  George posted something from DoDPI literature in this thread.  What is your reaction to those purported instructions (not a rhetorical question by the way)?

Has anyone ever heard of the polygraph machines or the software having some sort of override that can be used during these so called stim tests like the one Public Servant describes?  The polygrapher knows what number the examinee picks, hits a button or key when the examinee is asked about the number in question?  Public Servant shows a relatively flat graph with a pronounced spike underwhich is "magically" written the number the examinee chose.  Sounds relatively easy to me and much more convincing than the card trick to the uninformed.  Maybe the polygrapher prints off a generic chart with one pronounced spike and writes and asks the numbers so the spike conveniently coincides with the number the examinee picked?  Sounds logical.

Anonymous,

No embarrassment, just didn't see anything in your post that called for reply. The only questions appeared to me to be rhetorical in nature.  I didn't want to beat this dead horse further (especially since this topic was tangential at best, to the original discussion).  But, hey, I'll give it another kick.

George, Mark, and Anonymous,

I personally do not use a blind stim, however, after I run and print the chart, I fold the bottom to conceal the numbers.  Then (with minimal to no explanation of the charts at that point), I have the examinee locate where the deception occurred, or what stands out.  And I can't remember anyone having any problems finding a spot, which when unfolded is revealed to be the number they lied about.

The stuff works, my friends.  It's not some side show magic act.

Regards.

George,

It was the second polygraph exam I had in 1995.  The first was a general screening test, and this one, about two weeks later, was a follow up.   

Mark,

Was this the FBI polygraph examination you had in 1995? It's interesting, because my FBI pre-employment polygraph was the same year, but the examiner used the textbook DoDPI "numbers test," where you write the number and it's posted on the wall in front of you, such that the polygrapher knows the number you've written.

George,

In my case, I didn't write it on carbon paper.

Mark,

Very interesting. A truly blind stim test is a risky gambit for the polygrapher, because if he calls it wrong, he loses credibility.

Apart from a hidden camera, another way the kind of stim test you mention can be rigged is by having you write your number between 1 and 10 on a steno pad with a sheet of carbon paper inserted a few sheets down.

I do have to add that I was given a blind stim test, where I was told to write down a number between 1 and 10, stick it in my pocket, and not tell him what the number was.  Then he tested me (I responded no to each number), and correctly identified the number I chose.

It is possible that he somehow saw the number, because he briefly left the room.  He could observe me through the one way mirror or the camera, but that would seem a little risky to rely on that.

Of course, I always believed he would be able to tell if I lied.  I knew I would react.  The problem was, and is, that they cannot identify the truth.  So I was completely unimpressed.

Public Servant (and any other DoDPI trained polygraphers reading this),

Weren't you taught at DoDPI to tell each and every subject that he/she responded strongly when "lying" during the stim test, whether or not such is the case?

That the stim test is but a cheap parlor trick intended to bamboozle the subject into believing that the polygraph can actually detect deception is borne out by DoDPI's own instructional literature. The following is from DoDPI's Test for Espionage and Sabotage Administration Guidelines :

Quote:


And the following is an excerpt from Appendix B of the Texas Joint Polygraph Committee on Offender Testing's Recommended Guidelines for Clinical Polygraph Examinations of Sex Offenders, which is based on a 1997 DoDPI handout:

Quote:


Who do you think you're fooling? The stim test is just another ruse in the polygrapher's armamentarium of flimflam.

Public Servant (and other polygraphers),

I have noted that your community is generally fairly quick to respond to posts that place you in a poor light and perspective.  Public Servant, in contrast, I notice that you have responded to other posts in the last 24 hrs, but apparently don't know what to do with my recent post confronting you with the obvious fraud we are now encouraged to refer to as an acquaintance test.  I will repost it again to see if repetition will lead you to overcome your embarrassment...


Quote:

Public Servant,

You write:

Quote:


I am glad to know that you do not confuse stim tests with medical diagnosis, although, because of a lack of any true understanding of what goes on during a stim test for “normals” (and most particularly for your given examinee in the absence of whatever condition is disclosed), you have no ability to accomplish your quoted task.   

The stim test is largely a bungle in the jungle, most frequently done in an "open" fashion in which the examinee is asked for the identity of his chosen number following the test and with the examiner then attempting to bluff the examinee regarding the "obvious' changes in physiology occurring at the asking of that number.  The examiner would routinely look like a fool if he tried independently and without any fraud, (e.g. marked deck, all numbers being the same, etc.) to identify the chosen number without the examinee first revealing the number.  If you believe that I am wrong, then you will be willing to recommend that all examiners perform blind stim tests absent any fraud to really demonstrate some sort of pre-main event truth telling and physiology change-recognition ability, yes?  If you truly want to indicate to this audience that your stim (now renamed acquaintance) test is anything but some combination of fraud and bluff (perhaps less of the former and more of the latter in your case), perhaps you will condemn the sort of "open" stim bluff I have previously described and call for "blind/closed" testing to demonstrate to all the merits of your procedure, yes?  Until such time, this exercise is little more than a poorly performed carnival stunt for which you and others (if done at a carnival) would have rotten fruits and vegetables hurled at you...

OK, perhaps what I left out is what I thought was obvious -- During the pre-test the examinee is asked about health issues, and specific disorders of concern would be mentioned.  If the examinee indicated he had a disorder which might be of concern, coordination would be made with the appropriate health care professional to determine if the person is fit for examination.   

In no way do I seek to diagnose disorders.  If someone chooses not to disclose a problematic disorder, there is little I can do.  Of course, if the person displays obvious signs of some possibly disqualifying disorder, I would seek the assistance of an appropriate professional and/or discontinue the exam.   

No where did I say I would, or could, diagnose a physical or psychological disorder.  I must be dealing with media professionals here.  The SPIN is quite professional and deviously deceptive.

Guest from Canada, if you were not asked of your health, then your exam was not conducted properly.

Anonymous, again I would only use the acquaintaince test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have.  It would not be used to diagnose a person's condition.


Beech, before you go back to Fox or CNN, you might want to clean up your potty mouth.  And seek therapy and a physical exam.  It does not take all that post graduate training Canada spoke of, to see you have issues and your Blood Pressure must be at a dangerous level.  Get well soon!!

Quote:


Actually Public servant, no you did not. You wrote:

Quote:


This statement you actually wrote is a far cry from what you ASSERT you wrote now. 'Might include coordination with the caregiver' is not 'the caregiver will be consulted', right? Time again to tell me that what I'm reading isn't what you actually wrote? Let's have no more of your slippery bullshit, 'Public servant'.

How ironic that I am chastised for quoting a paragraph in full from you, then you squirm and bleat as to its true meaning (which is quite plain for everyone to see) yet YOU take substantial liberties with your own writings and tell us you wrote something that any one can plainly see you did not write. Do you think us all blind?

Regardless, in what percentage of interrogations do you conclude a psychological, emotional, or physical impediment that precludes a 'scientifically accurate' polygraph exam without the benefit of an actual liscensed physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist? You just finished asserting that in some cases you do not 'coordinate', so how often do you just do your level best and make a clinical diagnosis that has no basis in liscensing, practice, or education? More than half the time? All but a fraction of the time?

Public Servant,

You slay me!!  LOL.  What is your educational background.  What credentials do you have that make you even the least bit capable to determine a subjects psycological, emotional, and/or physical condition so as to determine whether someone is fit to take your polygraph without worry that their current mental, emotional, and/or physical state may alter the "results".  I took a preemployment polygraph and never once was I asked or tested for my physical, emotional, and/or mental state.  All that mattered to the polygrapher was that I had an arm with a pulse.

You would have to take approximately 15 to 20 years post secondary education to be able to make those claims.  Far short of the 400 hours you probably took to gain your "ticket" in polgraphy.  Don't go blowing sunshine up our A$$e$ by implying you are deeply concerned with the emotional, physical, and/or mental state of your test subjects.   

Judging from your posts I can only assume that your reputable establishment requires the examinee to take and pass a physical and phycological evaluation both tailored to determining a candidates suitability for taking the poly?

Public Servant,

The problem with your use of the stim (acquaintance) test as u describe is that it does not work for those without the various physical and mental problems previously referred to.  Using it with one you may suspect (again, as you correctly admit, with no meaningful diagnosis) as having some problem, adds nothing to the polygraph process (no baseline established for "normals") nor does it serve as any first line of diagnosis to be followed up by a medical professional.  Again, we are simply left with it being fraud in the hands of some (I would guess that you do not fall in this category), bluff, and a cheap parlor trick in the hands of the balance.

Two Block,

Thanks for the complimentary remarks.  To answer your question, I would assert that any examiner who worked for a legitimate, reputable organization would apply similar standards for suitability. 

Regards. 

Anonymous and Beech Trees, 

You obviously read over my post quickly.  I said the caregiver (that would be a psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician) would be consulted.  I did not say anything about making such a diagnosis myself.  If I were to suspect a psychological or physiological disorder not disclosed by the examinee (perhpas not diagnosed), which might cause a problem, I would discontinue examination until a healthcare professional could be consulted.   

In the case of emotional distress: regardless how ignorant you'd like to believe I am, I am fully capable of recognizing obvious outward signs of emotional distress which might be counter-productive to valid polygraph results.  If the examinee chooses to conceal some sort of emotional issue, despite my asking about such in pre-test, there's is little I can do (and that would not change if I had an MD or PhD).  This could also be appied to any other possibly problematic disorder (Phys. or Psych).

My citing of the acquaintance exam, was not as a diagnostic exam, but merely an opportunity to see if distortions due to physiological conditions, might limit my ability to analyze the polygraph charts.   

Beech,  I put "the challenge" in quotes because I was referring to the so-called  counter-measure challenge time clock.  It is quite the annoying, over beaten, dead horse; and I'd hate to see another start here.  I am neither alarmed , nor significantly challenged by your rantings here.  You are the one who has expressed concern about safety on these boards.  I have no fear of a battle of wits with such a meagerly armed person as yourself.   

Perhaps, over-reaching was not the appropriate word.  SPIN better describes your methods.   You put your spin on everything I write here, and it is no less dishonest than actual mis-quoting.  Don't worry Beech, I have no plans to file suit.

Yes, let the gentle reader (and not so gentle readers as well) read the actual thread (if they have not already done so).  They will see that I was not engaging in the "blame the examinee" excuse.  You pulled out a small exerpt, wherein I addressed the examinee as one of three major variables involved in a polygraph examination.  A fair minded individual will see right through your tactics, regardless of their beliefs on the issues.   

To answer your last question, Beech, these are my personal opinions, represented here.  Of course, they are based, to a degree, on my training and regulatory guidance of my employer.  However, if you want official positions of DoDPI, APA, etc, I suggest you go to their official sources.  I represent neither.  I post here as a private citizen, not part of a government agency nor interest group.

Good Day.

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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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':

Quote:


To which I originally responded:

Quote:


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:

Quote:


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?

Quote:


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?

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.

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.

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 Quote:
:  

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

Quote:


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...