Eastwood wrote:
Quote:


Please elaborate the handles of those you feel could not "pass" a polygraph on their own without use of countermeasures.  Perhaps people would not resort to countermeasures if agencies didn't regularly resort to polygraph testing as a means of attempted truth verification.  The polygraph community, in my view, is not up in arms with regard to countermeasures because their use thwarts the truth but because they expose the numerous flaws which plague polygraph testing.  Flaws which are akin to the bleeding holes of a stuck pig.

I'll agree with you there - it's unfortunate that they listen to some here who could never pass one on their own, and had to resort to using this crap

Eastwood wrote on Sep 24^th, 2005 at 5:27am:


Please allow me to finish your statement.  What you mean is, 

"Initially, truthful people NEVER use countermeasures... however, when they find out that they've been labeled deceptive for being truthful, then they are obligated to use countermeasures in case of course, they want to continue to pursue their career or in case they want to clear their names".

Yes, Eastwood, I agree with you 100%, because I was truthful and I never even thought about using countermeasures.  If I could rewind back time I'd do it without an ounce of regret.  I'd think of it as studying for the LSAT - like any other exam.

Eastwood wrote on Sep 24^th, 2005 at 5:27am:


And truthful people will fail if the idiot polygrpaher chooses "probable lie control questions" that the truthful person is actually... truthful on.

Now you can confess - what were you hiding?  Truthful people NEVER use countermeasures.

ok this is where i get confused. if the only questions u should worry to really have to act on our the control questions. why not just do it for everything question except the relevant questions?

If the examiner doesn't frame the question properly?

I'm sorry, but that is a bit nonsensical on the question of "have you ever sold illegal drugs?" My particpation with drugs, either as a seller or consumer is 0, so I don't think it was due to ambiguity or failure to understand the parameters of the question.

Which agency tested you?

darkcobra2005 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2005 at 7:23am:


Nbody gets hired on an Inconclusive.  And after experieincing the first round (and totally bogus accusations stemming from such) and susbsequent attempt at a polygraph is a complete joke.  Regardless of format.

Darkcobra2005,

I like many others have reported approached my first polygraph with all intentions of being completely truthful and did just that.  Prior to my exam, like other, I had very little knowledge in regard to polygraph testing, method and procedure.  I had no idea that lying was expected in relation to certain questions (controls).  So I searched my past and divulged all that was asked of me until with clear concience (spell check anyone) I could honestly answer all questions.  My question to you is:  during the intest how many relevant, control and sacrifices do you ask?  How many questions do you ask per chart?  I am wondering what percentage of the test one should expect to be forthright and honest.  I realize that due to policy restrictions you may not be able to answer.  If you are able to reply but for any reason you are not comfortable doing so on the public forum, intant message me or send and e-mail.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Jun 28^th, 2005 at 3:21am:


That problem leading to crushed dreams of honorable service to ones government and increased skepticism and cynicism of a system that would label a 100% honest person deceptive on account of a flawed test.  But one can still honorablly provide service to ones Country by bringing to light some of the darker tools used by these agencies.

Funny how the rats scurry about when light is shined on them.  Just take a look at polygraphplace.com...

Darkcobra,

Thanks again for more insight.  You are the first to advise against total honesty during a poly exam.  Other polygraphers have stated that the only way to successfully complete a poly is to be 100% truthful.  That would appear to be horrible advice from what you have stated.  The question (which may have been asked) is:  wouldn't intential deceit regarding controls be a kind of countermeasure?  If the instrument accurately records physiological activity strongly associated with dishonesty would this intentional deceit not be a purposeful augmentation to the response?  The appearance in reminiscent of the 'ole apples (controls) to oranges (relevants) comparison.

Sounds like this may be a good approach for those with knowledge of polygraphy to complete a polygraph exam with a positive outcome.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2005 at 5:11pm:


Dark Cobra:

Would it not affect the test to know the difference between relevants and controls? For example, when I took my polygraph, I didn't know there was a difference in any of the questions except the irrelevants, which were obvious. Had I known the examiner didn't care about the controls I would have been even less worried about them than I was. I was very concerned about the controls in the pre-test until I answered with complete honesty. It would seem like knowing there is a difference in the questions would adversely affect the test or at least make the examinee anxious when he hears the different types of questions. For example, an espionage question is an obvious important question even to someone who knows very little about the polygraph, such as I did. However, when I was asked that question during my exam, I do remember thinking how horrible it would be to be accused of such a thing.      

[quote author=darkcobra2005 link=board=share;num=1119039606;start=20#36 date=06/24/05 at 20:28:09]
Bill, 

Yes, if in the pretest interview the examiner does not construct the setting for the examination and the questions for the examination, reactions can occur that are intrepreted as deception.  This is not the examinees fault, it is the examiner.  We try to explain exactly what we mean in each question, sometimes the individual being tested goes outside our meaning because he/she is human and thinks of "outside issues" other than what we are asking and we do get a reaction. 


Dark Cobra:
Not all examiners elaborate on what they mean when it comes to controls, leaving room for interpretation by the examinee. Even if an examinee questions the examiner about the questions, he may not offer clear explanations. Wouldn't this be a problem during a polygraph screening, since people interpret things differently?   

darkcobra2005 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2005 at 5:11pm:

Thanks for your honesty here.

So what you are saying is, as a polygraph examiner, you did not use countermeasures, but were intentionally dishonest (on controls) and still passed?

So you lied on a polygraph but still passed?

As someome like myself (who, believe it if you will, is TOTALLY honest) can you now see our disgust with the overall polygraph process?

Isn't your being intentionally dishonest (on controls) in itself a form of countermeasure?

Those of us whose examiners sucked at leading them to lieing on controls in my opinion have a right to be a bit pissed off.  But we're just additional numbers in the system.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2005 at 3:28am:


Were you a polygrapher before you took the polygraph to qualify for your current job?  Or did you get trined on the polygraph after taking your one and only screening exam?  If you had to take a polygraph now to keep your job what would you do?

DarkCobra2005:

Your polygraph screening technique is definitely not in play within the FBI. After my first test, the examiner intensely interrogated me at length and flat out called me a "liar." Looking back and nowing what I know now, he did try to sensitize me to the contols and initially I was very concerned with them thinking that I was not going to get the job because of the things I had done in my distant past. However, after confessing to the worst things I've ever done (a joke to him, but a big deal to me) I no longer felt any more guilt about them. I truly believed that the only way to pass the test was to answer all questions with complete honesty, so I was very concerned about trying to remember everything and not leave anything out. However, as the test went on, I felt more comfortable and confident in answering the controls honestly.  

It's also important to note how influential the mind games that some polygraphers play can have on examinees. For example, my polygrapher's honesty sermon forced me to confess everything, but it also kept me from giving into the coercion tactics he used to try and get me to give a false confession. In addition, I think being confident in knowing who you are and what you stand for also works against you in screening situations because the examiner will be unsuccessful in making you question yourself and exhibit concern pertaining to the controls. 

In my second test, I have no doubt I probably reacted to the relevant drug question after what I'd been put through during my first exam. However, my supposed reactions would not have been caused by lying. Wouldn't a polygraph examiner expect an examinee to react to the questions they'd been grilled about in a previous interrogation and what would be the point of a second exam? It seems like one would always react to the relevant because of the memory with which it is associated. Since there are emotions that would cause reactions shown as deception on a test how would you ever know for sure whether they were lying or being truthful or would you just make your best guess? 

It seems there are so many factors that may come into play during polygraph screening. Given the simple fact that people are so complex and diverse and the test assumes everyone thinks and acts the same, it's no wonder there are problems associated with its use. For the life of me, I still can't comprehend why it's used to hire in the government. With the apparent dysfunction, it doesn't appear that its use is resulting in choosing the best workers. The agent who conducted my personnel interview did a much better job of figuring me out by not playing games and spending a fair amount of time just getting to know me by talking at length. She didn't need a polygraph, but the agent who used one got me all wrong. Instead of using investigative skill and sound judgement, he chose to rely on a faulty testing procedure on which to base his opinion.    

What do you do when you suspect countermeasure use? Do you change the format or the test? If my memory serves me correctly, I think you said you don't confront examinees about cm use. Why is this and how often would you say you believe you see cm use?  

I do appreciate your candidness and hope that you will keep in mind the things that you learn from this board as you hold the futures of job applicants in your hands.    

darkcobra2005 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2005 at 4:32am:


So if a person is reacting to both questions, does that automatically set off the "countermeasure" alarm, or what problems are there and how would you address them before proceeding?

Quote:


Ok, so let's have your honest answer here: if you had a big mortgage, a family to support and were years aaway from retirement; you worked in a job you like and, knowing what you know now about polygraphy, were told you had to sit and pass a screening exam, would you or would you not use countermeasures?  (since I'm asking this to a polygrapher, one would think this was a control question but in this case, assume it is relevant)

Quote:


i was only interrogated, neve afforded more specific testing. this is NOT how the FBI does it I can assure you.

darkcobra, you seem very reasonable about this whole sbuject. Thank you. 

I think I reacted to the relevants simply because I knew they were the money questions and represented failure, while I knew the controls didnt. Other polygraph people say this doesnt happen. WHat is your view on the idea of reacting to relevants for this reason? Of course, i cannot prove it, but for the sake of argument take it on faith that I have never sold any drugs.

I knew nothing about this site or the material on it before I was strapped into the chair.  But in hindsight, my controls were so bad, even thinking back now I couldn't identify them.

They didn't ask anything that made me uncomfortable.  Being strapped into the chair and confronted by an overbearing (and overweight) polygraph examiner over things I'd never even contemplated doing was uncomfortable -- and shocking.  But the questions themselves weren't bad at all. I guess I failed the "control" questions...

my experiences with 4 FBI polygraphers is that they suck at making control questions that may give one uncertainty.

If you admit to social drinking, they will ask you if you have ever abused alcohol as a control. One need not be "excessively good" to be a social drinker and never have abused alcohol, which I assume to mean either DWIs or perhaps a degree of alcoholism. 

others were even more laughable. I was once asked if anyone knew I had failed an FBI poly as a control. beyond the other problems listed, one has to assume the examiner can develop controls that are impactful.

Marty,

You write:

Quote:


This is a very well articulated description of why there is not even any general (qualitative) control associated with the probable-lie control question test.  Beyond this (but almost irrelevant due to the lack of general control and basic theoretical support) is the lack of finer quantitative control, i.e., what is the relative affect caused by the relevant and the paired control questions and how does this relationship change with the various alternative control questions which might be so paired with a given relevant question.  All of this largely becomes mere speculation and has absolutely nothing to do with scientific control.  Because of a complete lack of understanding, insight, and control regarding both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this, this whole notion of a control question test would be comical if did not involve tragic consequences for the many involved.

polyfool wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2005 at 3:20am:


Examiners generally assume that the controls represent something that everyone will, at a minimum, be uncertain about. The "excessively" honest will be unwilling to lie and thus answer yes or probably. The "excessively" good will not have done what the control Q states. Both are problematic, but the latter is more problematic as the examiner won't know. By utilizing differing controls, the examiner can minimize the risk the person has done none. Perhaps Darkcobra can disclose how he/she tells if a person answering no on a control is not deceptive. Other than watching for psychological clues in the prelim (which is a subjective call) I don't know what could be done. After all, if an examiner can tell, rather than presume, whether someone is lying on a control they could skip the poly and just make an assessment on the relevant.

marty

Marty wrote on Jun 20^th, 2005 at 8:16am:

Marty:

But what if the examiner doesn't know the examinee is answering the control questions truthfully? For example, they are able to answer no because they have confessed enough to be able to do so, yet the examiner would not know this and would still expect them to be lying. 

Also, the examinee may not be sensitized to the control because he/she may feel at ease when answering because they've confessed their sins and cleared their conscience.

Quote:


Drew,

Darkcobra was rather specific in excluding screening from his numbers. He stated earlier in the thread:

Quote:


One of the other problems with screening tests is the near impossibility of verification. Unlike specific incident tests where false positives will sometimes be later identified, this doesn't happen with screening. Human nature, being what it is, likely results in screening examiners increasingly believing their own declarations since evidence to the contrary will be rare.

marty