I have to say I am quite thankful for everyone who has chimed in on this topic.  I needed to make some sense of what happened with my experience and I needed to talk about it with someone who might believe me without judgement (at least openly).   

Thanks Ark for all of your input, Gary Davis for reading the charts and sending a report, and Dan Mangan for the offer to help.   

There are two facets to dissect this issue. 

1. Is the polygrapher competent enough to properly follow the technique proffered by the industry? In this case, fellow polygraphers exhibit angst against shoddy work which reflects poorly on them.

2. Or, as I demonstrate, that even if the "technique" is carried out properly, can it distinguish truth tellers from liars?

I hope to get others to chime in.

KEx Member wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:15pm:


Either that or the tea leaves and/or the goat entrails were not proper placed so as to allow  an accurate viewing and diagnosis of the results.   

Can we PLEASE stop trying to use science to explain this ridiculous  procedure which is nothing more than me last vestige of witchcraft - polygraph testing.

tw wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 3:30pm:

Your EDA tracing is not broken; it's just that it contains no diagnostic data. This could have been due to a sensor not being properly fitted, or your skin could have had something which impeded current flow, or, there was simply minimum sympathetic arousal to those nerves in your fingertips.

If the last option is the case, we could couple it with your lack of responses to the Directed Lie Comparison questions to support the notion that DLC's are not perceived as a real threat, nor stimuli which result in a significant increase in cognitive load.

tw wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 3:30pm:


Rather than go through all of this misery, why not introduce your wife to Anti-Polygraph.org ?  Show her that the polygraph is a joke and not worth taking serious.  How more obvious can it be ? You have guys like Dr. Drew Richardson and other PhD's that have testified that it is a fraud.  The people who support the polygraph are all scaming a living with it.  Like Dr. Richardson said in his testimony before Congress, having the polygraph community researching their product is like having the tobacco industry conducting cancer research.

Thanks Ark.  The eda channel in your chart looks quite interesting.  The one on the charts given to me looks broken.   

I hear from you that the readings given to me show stress.  Since I know I was truthful, it tells me I was not properly introduced the directed lie control questions.  That, and the one question was trash.  Plus, there was no exploration done.  And he ran the minimum number of runs.  Basically, it appears the examiner just did the bare minimum to get me in and out the door.   

Based on what I have read in the APA bylaws, I may have a case for a grievance, but I am not sure it is worth it.  On one hand I want to bring awareness to others in my situation that this is not a good place to go.  On the other, I want to just forget it ever happened.  My wife wont let that happen though.   

The examiner did inform me he would not release the video unless ordered by the court.  Thank you everyone for your time on this topic.  It has been very helpful.

Ex Member wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:56pm:


tw, in retrospect, I think I was too dismissive of your honest inquiry. I apologize. I will show you what a good spot looks like. The attachment is from my own research. The examinee had much at stake and was properly stimulated.

Please zoom in a bit and take note of the following:

1. The Comparison Questions I formulated are effective. You can see the reactions; note the complex EDA reaction in C3 and the robust cardio reaction in C5.

2. However, comparing these reactions to those of the Relevant Questions, it is clear that this examinee's PS (salience) was oriented to the RQ's; robust complex cardio arousal in R4 & R6 along with relief is very clear. The EDA reactions speak for themselves. I did not calculate RLL in the Pneumo channels, but some suppression is noticeable in the RQ's. 

Lacking ground truth, does this mean the subject is lying? Alas! Therein lies the conundrum.

Hope this helps your insight.

tw wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

Indeed.  If a loving relationship can be saved by a dispositive unmonitored hostile interrogation, why go halfway with a poly?

I see the opportunity for a whole new industry here.  I'm'a hang out a shingle offering to torture any troubled couple until one of them admits to cheating.

For an additional fee I will keep it up until they both admit it.

tw, I wouldn't waste too much brain power on this unless you are thinking of going to polygraph school.

It really doesn't matter what the call was if the question about sexually acting out is accurate.. the question is inappropriate. current research does not support vertical scoring ..rather it supports total values. 

If you want a written report of the examination feel free to contact me at 866 535 8969..

Do you have any good links that teach me how to read the charts?  I have looked at other charts online that show deception and there is a large change.  I dont see those on my chart.  so I just wonder what is considered significant reactions.  I guess I am looking for a manual of sorts...

Thank you for the recommendation Ark, but I will not go back to him.  I would rather be waterboarded.  I told my wife I would have a follow up polygraph with a different examiner just to give her the assurance I am still not sleeping with anyone but her.   However, I am not going to do it in the future and if our marriage is contingent on future polygraphs we can call it now and save the money. 

I think she thinks I will relent in the future.  I am not seeing it though.  You have been quite helpful.  Thank you.

Yes, that is question 42R and as I predicted, it was the strongest of the reactions and indicates the struggle you had with that question. 

You may ask him if he will do a breakdown exam for you, asking for a specific issue: "Did you insert your thingy into the vagina of another woman?" - straight forward, single issue ZCT.

If he wants more money tell him that according to the APA protocol on "successive hurdles", that it should be included in the original price.

Thanks Ark.  I have to admit, I thought about that as well when he asked that question, but I figured the mystery machine would reflect the truth.

The electrodes were Velcro on ring and index finger.  pretty standard from what I have heard / read.  

Yes, there was a reaction to the relevant questions.  My marriage was at risk.  Plus, he said I had been deceptive during a previous polygraph when I was not.  So I already did not trust the guy.  From what I can tell, it looks like there is almost no response to the control questions.

I appreciate you looking at it and responding.  I just have to figure out how to move forward in my marriage from here.  If that is even possible.

tw,
I have to admit, I'm bit shocked that he provided the charts to you, but at the same time I respect him for doing so.

The charts are interesting. In my previous comments, I mentioned that he may have been poised to do some follow up testing before you left.

My observations:

1. You are showing some mild reactions to the Relevant Questions.

2. I'm concerned about that lack of diagnostic data in the EDA channel. Did he use the "stick on" electrodes on your palm? A gain of 1 is pretty low.

3. "Have you acted out sexually in anyway?" in my opinion is more like a Comparison Question. Just giving your morning erection a squeeze could be a "yes" to this question.

He should not have said to you that you "failed" some questions; a more appropriate response would have been "it appears that some of the questions are bothering you, let's see if we can work through it."

Even in light of this, I hold this examiner in somewhat high esteem for being forthcoming with the charts, and I don't see anything really out of line here.

I did get the charts from the examiner.  He did not provide access to video.  So, I dont know if this provides any help whatsoever.  

To my untrained eye, I would assume there was a reaction on the relevant questions.  However, there appears to be relatively little reaction to the control questions.  

Charts attached below.  Modified orientation for easier reading.

tw wrote on Sep 18^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Not for purposes of "verifying" sexual fidelity, but I did have problems with the CIA and NSA vetting and polygraph charades.

tw, it would depend a lot on what kind of releases you signed before the exam. I'm not sure refusing to turn over raw data would be viewed as a substantive ethics complaint, nor is giving a decision that you disagree with. Putting up a website alluding to possible misconduct could set you up for a possible libel suit. I stand by my previous comment that your focus should be on seeing if your marriage can be salvaged, seeking relationship counseling rather than going after the examiner. It's akin to denigrating a fortune teller whose divination failed to materialize.

Thank you everyone for your responses to this topic.  The examiner will not respond to my email requesting a copy of the graphs and recordings.  I will assume he is on vacation. I know that is absurd, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt.   

I have also requested information from the state association regarding how to file a grievance.  I have not yet gotten a response from them either.   

If all else fails, my only recourse is to create a website that fully identifies his business and make sure others do not sit in his chair.  I am pretty good at getting high rankings on popular search engines.   

Concealed information testing to include David Lykken's ANS-based guilty knowledge test (GKT) clearly involves various cognitive processes, amongst others-memory encoding and retrieval.  

The fact that we can anatomically isolate where some of this occurs in the brain provides the ability with proper tools to selectively and figuratively see (different electrical potential responses as measured at specific points on the scalp with knowledgeable vs. non-knowledgeable examinees) what is going on in the brain of an examinee when the different types of stimuli are presented during a concealed information test.

Although more than a decade and a half after testifying before the United States Senate and my having called for its increased use within the FBI, I am happy to see the merits of concealed information testing being reported in an FBI-sponsored publication. If investigating agents are taught to collect, protect, and properly document privileged information from the scene of a crime, a terrorist event, etc., I think this format can be effectively and ethically applied in a wide range and high percentage of Bureau investigations. 

https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/august/the-concealed-information-test-an-alternative-to... (for the time being copy and paste the WHOLE link in your browser in order to view)

Doc, 
If I may venture a follow up question: do you believe that cognitive load is central to the "disturbances" (being that there is no "recognition response") which Lykken referred to in the GKT?

Ark,

Quote:



I don't think cognitive load comes into play in any way in an examinee uttering a pre-agreed upon "no" to every question (relevant or comparison, truthfully on deceitfully answered) posed on a polygraph exam.  The substance of the truth or falsehood and the associated cognitive load is presented/contained within the examiner’s question and is not provided in the examinee’s answer.  If such a dialogue were presented during the examination of a witness in court, it would be properly objected to as leading the witness.

You are quite correct that there is cognitive load involved with mental countermeasures--whether it is quickly thinking of the square root of 23, the notion of being bitten by a poisonous snake, or the thought of being cheated upon by one's significant other.

Absent mental (or other) countermeasures as I have said before I believe the cognitive load relates (directly or indirectly) for both truthful and deceitful examinees to the consequences of being found deceptive to relevant question material (largely, although not entirely, of those yet-to-be-asked-about questions in a series of questions posed in unknown order).  The approximate 15 to 25 second of inter stimulus spacing (time between questions) is quite sufficient for this to occur...

I should add that I believe the latter explanation better accounts for the greater number of false positive vs false negative errors that occur with real life exams--a phenomenon which is fairly generally recognized (even by proponents of probable lie control question testing).

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:


It's a interesting topic. Backster's (although he did not originate the idea) concept of the Psychological Set is very intuitive in the sense that we, as humans since childhood, associate lying with guilt and fear. So, with a RQ and CQ set which is fairly balanced, the PS for the truthful examinee should be oriented toward the CQ's. However, the DL technique as you noted is counter intuitive, because how could the truthful examinee perceive an instructed lie to be a threat? There is also an analog to this when considering the results of laboratory versus field studies (the latter having the intuitive fear/guilt element).

So, some are suggesting that fear/guilt are actually a secondary and less significant element of producing reactions with diagnostic value. The idea of "Differential Salience" (signal value), where the importance of the issue causes them to think more is being explored. This is also congruent with the work of Aldert Vrij, where it is posited that cues to deception are related to an increase in cognitive load, where fear/guilt may only serve as a mild enhancer in real world field testing. In other words, lying is more difficult cognitively than truth telling.

The idea of cognitive load being the impetus for reactions of diagnostic value could also explain the mechanisms behind mental countermeasures and the emerging ocular technology.

Ark, there's an old joke in polygraph circles...

Question: What do you get when you put two polygraph examiners in the same room?

Answer: An argument.

Your point about going public with the data is well taken, and it illustrates the absurdity of likening the accuracy of a polygraph "test" to that of certain diagnostic medical procedures.

But here's the hell of it...

Today's nouveau "scientists" who are driving the polygraph-validity narrative that's currently in vogue -- mainly ex-cops or former counselors who subsequently donned (figuratively) their white lab coats --  are trying like hell to distance themselves from the hocus-pocus foundations of the "test." 

In fact, these polygraph-science hipsters have eschewed the time-honored clinical (expertise driven) model of polygraph administration and analysis, and have declared the "test" process to be a purely cause-and-effect analytical model that relies only minimally on the abilities of the polygraph operator.

So, which model is it? Clinical or analytical? 

That's a good question.

It seems to me that if the validity-preaching hipsters are right, there should be no problem with releasing the raw data carte blanche.

After all, what harm would there be in releasing the x-ray films, technical details and the scientific background of, say, film mammography to a patient seeking a second opinion?

None whatsoever.

But, if the "test" indeed relies on examiner expertise, proficiency and artfully applied technique, then those tortured machinations need to stay behind the curtain where they've been since the 1920s. 

God forbid the secret gets out.

I hope readers see the intellectual dichotomy.

Now, a note about the directed-lie "test"...

In my experience, about half of the test subjects "flatline" through the DLCQs. Why? My hunch is that since they've been instructed to lie, there's insufficient concern, conflict or consequence to spark the desired reactions. Thus, a false positive result is more likely to occur. Conversely, a DLCQ "test" is an open invitation for countermeasures.

As always, all of my comments are merely the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:


Dan, to play devil's advocate, asking polygraph examiners to make raw data available for scrutiny for all public eyes, given the various techniques, schools and opinions, could open up a Pandora's box of non-stop discourse on every single spot or question formulation, possible countermeasures etc. 

Perhaps a more prudent and realistic expectation would be for the examiner to provide the data in confidence to you for a review and critique, with the understanding that such would be kept within the attention of those with a need to know.