furedy wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2003 at 8:13am:


John,

Sorry about the posting problems, I had a keyboard that produced similar effects some months ago.

As for the term "orthogonal", I wasn't trying to be cryptic just descriptive. The use in this context was to say that the controls were ideally picked from the pretest that are distinct, and unrelated to the relevants and thus minimize any impact (positive or negative) on the subject's responsiveness to the relevants. The term is widely used in the sciences in similar ways so I assumed the meaning would be obvious.

I am not a fan of the CQT in screening contexts but believe it valuable in criminal, specific incident situations though mostly because it is effective for interrogation. Admissions of guilt are not always true, but they most often are.

-Marty

Quote:

Agreed, so long as the investigator doesn't inadvertantly convey information, for instance by body language, to the examinee. I also agree it is best to determine in advance possible exposure to CI.

As for the issue of interrogation components, I think post test interrogation (in the usual sense) is frequently, though by no means always, done just to cover bases when there is a lot at stake. Again, the Smart's are a good example.

Quote:

Yes they are costly but so is failed justice.  However, scientific techniques can be used to determine suceptibility to such biases and provide a basis establishing proper safeguards if and where needed for day to day use of these tools just like it is used elsewhere.

-Marty

Sorry, I'mn still operating from dififcult Sydney email, and cannot reply directly to message (and many typos).  This message refers to a Nov 1 claim that the onloy interrogatory component of the CQT is the process of choosing the "control" questions, which were also said to be "orthogonal" to the relevant questions.  Regarding the term "orthogonoal", iI have not come across this term before, but it seems to me to be the sort of meaningless jargon that the Roman entrails reading priests also probably employed.

But to return to my header, the CQT  (in contrast to the CIT which, like many other detection devices, may form the basis of the decision to interrogate, but does not contain interrogation as part of its detection function) contains many interrogational comkponents other than the process of choosing "control" quesionts.  To take just one example, the attempt to convince the examinee of the 100% accuracy of the polygraph in detecting *all* lies (e.g., "the machine will detect if you're not 100% honest") is both a lie (i.e., the examiner, even if he is fool enough to think that the polygraph is over 90% accurate, still does not think it is 100% accurate) and an interrogational component (i.e., setting up a scenario that increases the probability that the exminee will confess--note that the CIT does not have this component).

Again, and stilll before the "post test interview", the pretest will often contain quesionts that will be used durin ghte "post test interview".  For example (a real one), in the pretest interview the examiner finds ouit that the examinee's mother has recently died.  IN the "post test interview" interrogation, "Your poor dead mother would have wanted you to confess your guilt".

There are many other interrogatory aspects, but especially on this primitive emaill, I've said enough.  All the best, John

Marty,

As far as the following:

Quote:


Asking the subject what knowledge they have prior to the examination, without introducing the questions of the tests to be administered, will give them no more knowledge than that which they already possess.  If there is predetermined knowledge indicated, those tests that are tainted by such knowledge would be eliminated.  I also think that introducing the question, absent revealing the various alternative and correct answers, as suggested by Lykken, prior to the start of each test can help clear up any inadvertent knowledge.  Tests should be sequenced as to not expose the subject to the correct answer anyway, if not absent even with sequence.  If the fingerprints of a suspect of a breaking and entering were to be compared to latent lifts obtained from the scene of a crime and it was known that the suspect had legally accessed that area prior to the commission of such crime, the need for such a comparison may not be necessary. 

My response regarding the lack of presumed guilt was in response to your agreeing with John’s notion of:

Quote:


To which you replied:

Quote:


Again, I think this is potentially present in both procedures.

Quote:


Although blind and double blind studies are worthy of use in scientific studies within a controlled setting, the actual practice of such things in the field of forensics are rare.  
Forensic sciences are costly methods of investigation that are, for the most part and for most disciplines, not available for use in most investigations.  In a perfect society with unlimited resources, your method would be plausible.  In this ideal society, there would be plenty of qualified investigators to conduct thorough investigations on any crime and unlimited resources at their disposal, to include forensic scientists.  However, this has not been the case in even the best of economic times.  In today’s even more taxed economy, there are even less of those resources to achieve such a goal.  Unnecessary steps are eliminated in the field to help reduce the manpower and cost needed to adequately complete any investigative method, with the integrity of the investigation and the excepted level of the given investigating agency being the standard of measurement.

Quote:

I agree.  My comment to Furedy was that an interrogation phase was often a component, even where the likelihood favors innocence. The Smarts and their relatives are a case in point. I didn't mean to suggest an interrogation phase assumed guilt though of course that is the normal usage of the term aside from the polygraph.

Quote:

My understanding is that in Japan, where CIT's are actually the most common forensic polygraph type administered, such issues are often cleared up after the CIT is given rather than before. Determining suspect exposure to CI can inadvertantly inform them. Areas where they have come in contact with CI are more apparent post test.

Quote:

Did I suggest otherwise or was this meant as a response to another?

Quote:


Perhaps I am overly cautious. First, I believe the vast majority of examiners are in fact trying to get to the truth on relevants. The reason for not briefing the examiner is to prevent inadvertant bias by well meaning human beings.  After following some of the consequences of "Facilitated Communication", a fad that once was believed near infallible and has been proven to be unconcious, self-deception by well meaning people, I want to see objectivity (blind and double blind processes) inserted whereever possible.

-Marty

Marty,

My definition is more common then not.  I think that blood draws, whether for DNA or BAC, are more along the line of seize and search procedures.   

I disagree that polygraph is more often used for the guilty.  I think that statistics would show that the innocent are cleared by polygraph equally as the guilty are discovered.   

A CIT cannot be given without first assuring that the subject is absent the concealed information from plausible sources.  This dispels any initial argument that the subject was knowledgeable of the concealed case facts.  Further investigation may be needed to confirm the source of the leaked knowledge.

I also disagree that a CQT is given with the notion of presumed guilt.  As I stated earlier, close to half of the subjects tested are opined non-deceptive and subsequently cleared of any wrong doing by the investigation.

I would agree that the CQT, CIT, or any test, when placed in the hands of a person of questionable integrity, has the potential to be biased.   There have been recent news articles of other scientific procedures that were confounded with such.

The notion that an examiner must be absent the knowledge of the facts of the investigation I find plausible but not necessary.  After all, many forensic sciences, to include the brain fingerprint, involve investigation into case facts and documentation of the crime scene by the examiner.   

J.B.

furedy wrote on Nov 1^st, 2003 at 10:51am:

The only interrogatory components to the CQT is in selecting the controls and those are ideally orthagonal to the relevants. That said, from the reading I have done it  appears standard practice in CQTs is to typically include an interrogation phase. Further, it seems examiners consider it important to fully brief on a case in advance. This impairs the examiner's ability to conduct an "impartial" examination regardless of intentions otherwise. However, it is required if the examiner is to conduct an interrogation with any degree of skill. As for the CIT, which really should be more widely used for the reasons you cite, could also serve as a basis for subsequent interrogation. It might even be more effective for it has the potential of admissibility in court and this would quickly become known were it in common use.

Quote:

Pretty much true I think, even where the polygrapher doesn't think of themselves as hostile. Otherwise we would see CQT's given by examiners that are uninformed about the case and subsequent interrogations being done by others. Something most easily and properly done with a CIT.

-Marty

My header should be distinction between detection and interrogation, and refers to this distinction in the "specific issues" polygraph onctext.  The detection of the polygraph refers to th eclassfication of individuals as guilty ("deceptive") vs innocent ("innocent").  The claim of the polygraph as a piece of applied psychpohysiology is that the inforamtion provided by the recordings improves the examiner's accuracy in making this discrimination.

In the case of the most coommon "hostile" polygrapher case used by such agencies as the police, the motivation of the CIT examiner may interrogation function of the polygraph is to elicit a confession.  Note that while the motivation of the examiner may be to find the suspect guilty, the CIT procedure, in contrast to the CQT procedure, contains no interrogatory components.
This is an important distinction between the CQT and the CIT.

Similarly, it may be the a particular comptetent IQ tester may be motivated to find that the testee is brigher or dumber than he really is, but the IQ testing procedure does not contain a component that necessarily biases in either direction.  In contrast, the interrogatory function, which is part and parcel of the (very subjective and unsttandardized) CQT, will provide a systematic bias for the guilty classification conclusion.

More generally, the point about the inettoragory-prop aspect of the CQT is that interrogation already assumes guilt which any scientifically-based test is suppoed to detect, independently of the tester's opinions.  The CIT, which may not be that accurate, nevertheless fulfils this elementary condition for a scientifically-based test; the CQT does not, and, in the hands of a "hostile" polygrapher, has only the function of an interrogatory prop.

Quote:

J.B. McCloughan,

That's a rather expansive definition of interrogation. One could argue that genetic/blood testing often meets that definition as well since guilty parties typically don't want to yield that information either.

I think the polygraph is used both in specific incident screening a number of potential suspects as well as an effective prop for interrogating one believed to be guilty.

-Marty

John,

I'm aware of and have read Gershon and your paper.  I am wondering what the current definition of interrogation is that you are using?  My definition is that one interrogates when one tries to obtain information from an individual or a group of individuals that are not readily willing to divulge such information.

The CIT, as with most any psychological test or interview, employs methods that meet the above definition at some point.  

Respectfully,

J.B.

I'm having trouble posting my reply, so this will be brief, and can elaborate later if this gets through.  The idea that the North emrican polygraph employs the recordings not to detect guilt, but as an interrogatory prop was asserted by me and Gershon Ben Shakhar in the erly nineties in a pice in Contemporary Psychology.  Exact refeference is in my CV on my web site.  I'm in Australia with dubious email faciliteis.  The distinction between detection and interrogation is one that not only polygraphers but even NAS scientists don't seem to understand, which is why this supersitition has ssuch a hold on on North American society.  All the best, John

I'm in Sydney Australia, with unreliable email, but on the concept that the polygraph is just an interrogatory prop, see my cv on my web page, paper with G. Ben Shakhar in Contemporary Psychology, in the early nineties.

See also more recent use of polygraph by Toronto police where the examiner decides during the pre-test interview whether the examinee is guilty, and if this is what examiner decides, he goes straight onto post-test interview wihtout doing any physiological recording, i.e., using its purported detection function.  I don't know how commjon this practice is, but I was involved in one case where it was used (case was videotaped).  All the best,  John Furedy

Hi Puresmoke,

Sounds a lot like my CIA polygraph interrogation. It was such a frightening experience to realize how incompetent and irrational  this high-powered U.S. government agency can be. After learning about the polygraph, it seems like a practice that you would only expect to find in third world dictatorships! Anyway, it's too bad they're losing a lot of strong applicants this way... and scary to think what else they may be messing up. It's horrible enough to lose a job offer (especially in this economy), but I'm sure in other situations, the stakes are a lot higher! Yikes.

First off, George, thanks very much for putting together this site and making this information available. It's good to get some support for the STRONG suspicions I had regarding the process. As for the cord situation:

Had the interrogator been so semantically adept, it probably would have been a better experience.

So then, while the cords may indeed have been attached to a machine, with the chair being in between me and the machine, I was effectively also attached to the chair. Therefore:

I was bungie-corded to a machine, which resulted in my also being bound to a chair.

BTW -- one of the personal experiences on the site talked about "lifestyle questions" with the CIA interrogation. These are no longer part of the interrogation as such. However, because I wasn't that bright, when the interrogator repeatedly told me that I was probably committing sodomy of some sort, I started telling him about my (rather boring) sex life (which, btw, does not involve sodomy). He took this and launched into a line of questions delving further into my sex life and drew some pretty wild conclusions ("so I would say that you're probably the type of person who would want to do [anti-social sexual behavior x]"). So, while technically the "lifestyle" questions no longer seem to be part of the interrogation, this is clearly still a subject of interest to our friends in the MiniLuv.

***

Interrogator: I talked to a man last week who was sleeping with his 14-year-old step-daughter. It's fine. The CIA has no problem with someone doing that, it's not a security risk.

Me: I'm tired of you implying that I'm some sort of pediphile.

Interrogator: (suspiciously) Who said anything about pediphilia?

-ps(moke)

(BTW, I still maintain that I was accurate, even in a literal sense, in stating that I was strapped to a chair. There were cords/straps, there was a chair, the straps saw to it that I remained on the chair. I was strapped to a chair.)

Mr. Truth,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


I'm not aware of any practice of connecting the pneumo tubes to the polygraph chair. But they are connected to the polygraph instrument. Had purewind attempted to get up from the chair during his/her polygrapher's absence, he/she would have risked yanking the attachments out of the polygraph instrument.

Mr. Truth, Mr. Truth. Mr. Truth

Thank you for the link  to the NYS Polygraph page.

Did you notice that I use my full name in my posts, I do not hide behind a pseudonym.  Oh I am sorry, your not hiding it's just that your position would be jeopardized if your real name was used.  I do wish that I had the luxury of hiding and sniping, I guess that I am just not that important. ta ta

Ray L.

Those would be the pneumo tubes, part of the measuring instrument suite, probably just hooked to the back of the chair for storage purposes and convenience for the polygrapher when hooking up a "client."

A good practice technique, to simulate the feeling of contraction around your chest so as to minimize your awareness of the pressure, is to sit around the house with a couple of belts around your chest. You can also buy a blood pressure cuff from Walgreens and a mood detector electronic toy and play "Let's Take a Polygraph" in the comfort of your own home. The mood detector toy has lights that change color and a tone that changes in pitch as your GSR changes (you place two fingers on grooves cut into the toy, covering two sensors that act just like the GSR sensors on the polygraph). You can drive the lights/pitch with thoughts alone, just the same way you can affect the polygraph with thoughts (and your body's reaction to them). 

Even with just the toy, you can see how your body reacts when you think "I'm on fire." About ten minutes worth of practice using that, you've got the polygraph whipped, just like that, that easy.

Good point -- they were more like bungie cords than straps. Thus:

"I was bungie-corded to a chair."

(These cords were across my chest and I was told that they were intended to measure my breathing. They were left on during the entirety of both three-hour sessions, including the 10-to-30-minute intervals when the interrogator left the room. While I suppose I could have taken them off -- I kind of wanted to get the job, you know? While the cords allowed some range of motion (I could lean over), they also kept me tethered to the chair.)

Raymond, Raymond, Raymond,

Let's not look at the lack of efficacy regarding the polygraph, but instead, attack figures of speech.

Oh, for anyone who doesn't know Raymond J. Latimer, this should help establish his bona fides:
http://www.nyspolygraphists.com/web/pages/pl1.asp?pageid=6335&website=www.nyspol...

Puresmoke,

Why were you "strapped" to a chair? ???

Are you a violent person?

Ray L.

puresmoke,

Very interesting. If you'd like to see what it is the CIA didn't want you to know about the polygraph, download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The information in it is well-researched, and no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described therein.

Sorry for the handle change.

As for the warning against "learning about the polygraph" prior to screening, I can't remember when that was told to me -- it was either during the orientation meeting when they came to my area or when they called to set up the polygraph interrogation dates. The warning was to the effect of, "if you haven't already looked up anything about the polygraph test -- don't! A lot of what you'll find 'out there' isn't true. And if you try to use any of the counter-measures, we can identify them and they will cause you to fail your examination."

My other favorite part of the show was when the pre-interrogation video explains that the polygraph is a non-threatening experience, unlike the portrayal of "lie detectors" on TV and in movies, where the subject is strapped into a chair and there's a hostile questioner. (Hopefully needless to say at this point, I *was* strapped to a chair -- three hours on each of two days -- and the questioners were at times very adversarial.)

-ps

anon,

Thank you for sharing your CIA polygraph experience. Your account is the first I've heard of a CIA applicant being instructed not to do any research on the polygraph process. Could you elaborate?

As you put together a more detailed write-up of your polygraph experience, you might want to review the CIA-related accounts on the Personal Statements page for comparison purposes. To the extent that your experience was similar to or different from that of others, it might be worth mentioning.

And they think it catches spies?

Crap -- I meant Ministry of Love. My bad.