Quote:


And if the machine really scientifically detected deception, why the need for manipulative interrogation tricks IN BETWEEN chart readings?  Why not just run the required number of chart readings, making sure the applicant understands the questions, then be done with it?  After all, the machine DETECTS DECEPTION!  Doesn't it?  So run the charts (collect your ?scientific data samples), do the ?scientific? analysis, and come to a ?scientific? conclusion!

The answer of course is that it is NOT a test, but an interrogation cleverly disguised as a test.   The machine doesn't directly measure deception.  If it did, and after several chart readings there is a definite pattern of "reaction", they'd have the incriminating evidence they need (as in DNA testing), and that would be that.

But that is not that!  A pattern of reaction without the elicitation of self incriminating statements (goal of an interrogation) is worthless and will lead to an "inconclusive".  But why inconclusive?  I thought the machine can detect lies!  You have a pattern of "REACTIONS"!  They must be lying, right?   What is "Inconclusive" about that?


TC

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 11:09am:


Thus, Polygraph is used as a interrogation tool (could be done this way even if the machine is turned OFF) not a scientific test at all since  the examiner has NO idea whether the examinee is lying, not until he actually confesses believing the scam, that the Polygraph machine will expose his lie or even what the examiner would consider a lie. 
Many have failed telling the "examiner" what they though he wanted to hear due to berating pressure. 

From the polygraph operator's perspective, the rationale for the probable-lie "control" questions is to get the examinee to answer a question untruthfully, or at least to make the examinee have doubts as to whether his answer is completely truthful. The polygrapher then uses reactions to the control questions as a basis of comparison with any reactions to the relevant questions (the ones that are truly of interest).

"Did you ever cheat in school?" is an example of a commonly used control question. It is assumed that everyone has. (Not a safe assumption, I think.) But in any event, the polygrapher will try to convince the examinee that cheating in school is a very bad thing, and anyone who would do such a thing would not be a suitable candidate for hire. The idea is to pressure the examinee to answer that question "no."

If the examinee answers "yes," then the polygrapher will likely feign an attitude of deep concern, ask about precisely when and where the examinee cheated, and perhaps make a show of writing down the details. Then, the polygrapher may remind the examinee that his agency considers the honesty and integrity of its employees to be of paramount importance and ask, "Other than what you told me, did you ever cheat in school?" At this point, the examinee will likely answer "no." If the examinee still answers yes, the process of interrogation will be repeated until the examinee answers "no."

This final "no" will still be considered a probable-lie, and reactions to it will be compared with reactions to a relevant question such as, "Did you ever commit a major undetected crime?" The key to passing is to show a stronger reaction to the control question than to the relevant question, and countermeasures can help to achieve this result.

For more about control questions and countermeasures, see chapters 3 and 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Hello all! I am confused about control questions. Why are you suppose to lie during them? For example a control question could be: 

Did you ever cheat in school, if you answer yes 

(Being you copied your fiends homework)

Would you then employ the counter measure of increasing your heart rate and blood pressure?