Dr. Richardson,

You are most welcome on this site, and I for one feel the level of discussion has been raised by your participation. Thank you!

Examiner,

You asked:

Quote:


No. It is not my belief that countermeasures will not help guilty people defeat the polygraph. They can and have.

Nor is it my intent "to ensure that innocent people pass by augmenting their naturally occuring responses." Our intent in publishing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector was to help protect the innocent from polygraph abuse. To that end, we proposed methods that a truthful person might use to protect him- or herself from a false positive outcome (including the option of polygraph countermeasures). We leave it to the reader to decide for him- or herself how to proceed. In addition, there is a false premise inherent in your question when you refer to "naturally occuring responses." A truthful person may or may not "naturally" produce a significant physiological response when answering a "control" question.

You also wrote:

Quote:


The kinds of countermeasures I had in mind here are the kind commonly employed by unsophisticated subjects, such as dissociation, slow controlled breathing, rubbing antiperspirant on fingertips, flexing muscles, etc., not the kinds of countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which as evidenced by peer-reviewed research, even trained polygraphers cannot detect at better than chance levels.

You also wrote:

Quote:


It is not my basic premise that innocent people need to augment their responses in order to pass a polygraph. Rather, it is my argument, based on my review of the polygraph literature, that innocent people can protect themselves against a false positive outcome by subtly augmenting their physiological responses to the "control" questions.

You also wrote:

Quote:


I wouldn't characterize my remarks that way. What I wrote in this regard was:

Quote:


I can't say how much training any given person might need to beat the polygraph. But in Honts' studies, 30 minutes was enough for about half of the subjects. One cannot know what results might have obtained had subjects been given, for example, an additonal half-hour of training.

deleted by author

Drew:

    Very good commentary.  Although I don't agree with everything in your list of lies as I believe some of them are truths.  But that is the basis of the entire discussion here.

I regret that I will no longer be able to participate on this site.  1st Amendment not withstanding, I hope this forum continues to welcome open discussion of both sides of this issue.  Again I regret I will not be a part of it.

Examiner:

You say in part:

“…Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here…”

     You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to. 

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test. 

 
(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam. 

 
(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.


(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:

(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.

(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?

For a number of years I have called for the abolition of polygraph screening.  I have done so for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is what I believe to be the large scale victimization of people, many of whom have presented their relevant testimony on this web site and message board.  I am also offended by any negative impact that pseudoscience has on legitimate science and in particular on meaningful and legitimate forensic science as practiced in the crime laboratory.  

Although I hope my expanded ability to opine as a recently retired employee of the FBI will augment the voices of those already carrying the torch and lead to the aforementioned abolition, let me begin by suggesting an intermediate step.  Although I do not believe for a minute that all of the deception, lack of due process, etc. that accompanies  polygraph screening is justified (even when practiced by law enforcement and/or intelligence officers), for the sake of immediate conversation, let’s assume that it is.  If in fact it is proper practice and the realm of the law enforcement officer, then it resides within the realm of an advocate, i.e., those who would investigate and prosecute crime.  As such it is clearly not a role for a neutral party and in the realm of the amicus curiae expert of the forensic science community.  Aside from clearly falling within the role of an adversary and not a neutral forensic expert, I would further maintain, that in the numerous disciplines and sub-disciplines now recognized as being a part of forensic science (my background has largely revolved around the practices of forensic chemistry and toxicology), there is no accepted role for deception in any of these disciplines.  Far from being accepted, any such deception would likely be (and has been) the subject of administrative or criminal inquiry.  

Let me summarize what I have just said…the deceptions such as are used in polygraphy, if they are to be accepted, belong in the realm of advocates, like police interrogators and prosecutors and not with parties that are supposed to be neutral, like forensic laboratories.  Before we examine further whether polygraph screening merits continuation in any setting based on the complexities of validity, utility, and deterrence, let’s begin by removing it from that setting where it clearly has no role—the forensic crime laboratory and related professional scientific bodies…  Although there is a clear role for scientific inquiry into polygraph practices, there is no basis for polygraphy being a part of the forensic family or the forensic crime laboratory. 

examiner wrote on Sep 7^th, 2001 at 3:32am:


Answer my questions. Or are you afraid to let the truth be known?  Just like every other so-called "examiner", when the tough questions come up, you back away... once again true colors revealed.

George , it wasn't an ad hominem attack, merely an observation that his/her screen name and his/her style match.  I don't intend to be goaded or baited into the type of discussion it appears to me he/she wants to have.

After reading your quote from Lykken, I still don't understand the significance of the issue.  I guess first one needs to understand that Lykken is a polygraph advocate, not a detractor.  His objection is to the CQT not the use of the instrument to separate the guilty from the innocent.  These objections stem from the fact that the Government chose the CQT format over his proposed format, a variation of the Guilty Knowledge Test, which he advocates.  So if you want to have a discussion of self-serving statements and misinformation certainly we can start with his book.  This is a statement of my opinion only.  After all Lykken concludes by saying he doesn't have a problem with lying to criminal suspects generally, just in telling some lies.  Certainly an interesting ethical deliniation.

Sorry I didn't get to your previous post earlier, but I'll address it now.  George I don't care whether you or anyone else on this site believes anything I write.  As I previously acknowledged I will not alay the suspicions of the doubters, no matter what I write, so its not an issue worth debating.

I see where the confusion comes in regarding my e-mail with Dr Barland and I gratefully accept your apology.  I originally learned of your site and your download sometime late last year or early this year.  I had read both your download and Williams' book, along with several others prior to my recent meeting with Dr Barland.  While I perused your site, Stoppolygraph, Nopolygraph, and Williams' site occasionally I didn't spend time studying in detail the threads, posts, and alerts.  I basically scanned them for anything that caught my eye and to see if any of my prospective examinees appeared to be posting.  Dr Barland's recent suggestion to me, when we met at DoDPI, was to take a more active interest and to re-read and study your download in detail, which I did.  That is what I was alluding to in the message.

Also you may rest assured that I, like many other examiners, are in frequent contact with DoDPI.  You may also rest assured that any confirmed or suspected countermeasure polygraph examinations are provided to them, from my agency at least.  In fact I have four more that I will be forwarding today, three from your site and one from Williams'.  These three are part of the 17 I mentioned earlier.

I also acknowledge that you clearly state the purpose for making your download available, I'm not suggesting that you are intentionally trying to help criminals defeat the polygraph.  In fact I have noticed that you frequently avoid interacting with criminals, who post here.  Certainly that is evidence to me that your expression of intent is true.  Of course since it is available to anyone with a computer and internet service you can't regulate those who would use it for other than what you intend.  I'm not really clear on what you are writing here though.  Are you stating that it is your belief that countermeasures will not help guilty people defeat the polygraph and your only intent is to ensure that innocent people pass by augmenting their naturally occuring responses?  I also noted that you mentioned in an earlier post that some countermeasures may be counterproductive to helping those innocent people.  I certainly agree with that and I commend you for your candor.  As Dr Barland noted in the "To those who have tried countermeasures" thread, there are risks.  Certainly neither you nor I want to have an innocent person countermeasuring their way into a false positive.  I can see where it might be argued that you have a vested interest in raising the rate of field false positives, but I don't believe that is what you are trying to do.  Though I disagree with your basic premise that innocent people need to augment their responses in order to pass a polygraph, I acknowledge that you believe it and your stated intent is genuine, in my opinion.

I note too, that you frequently mention the Honts studies in this thread and others.  As I stated I'm not qualified to enter into a debate on the research, although I again would like to point out that the Amicus brief I referenced earlier references numerous peer reviewed studies which support the reliability and validity of the CQT.  I read a thread on this site in the policy forum where someone is preparing to discuss those studies with you.  I'll certainly follow that thread with interest.  I'm also glad you acknowledge that the implementation of countermeasures is not easy and requires extensive study and practice. 

As a final note to this post, Wannabe has been addressing the question I asked him here in another thread.  I want to ensure that everyone following this thread was aware of that.  He has stated that he visits other polygraph websites, both pro and con to collect the information, which he used to form his opinion.  While I disagree with his conclusion, I commend him for his dilligence in researching the topic.  This is an important issue to the discussion in this thread.  I want to again encourage anyone who is contemplating using the information from this or any other website in an important life decision to go to the source of that information and review it for themselves and not rely on someones else's interpretation and summary of that information.

Examiner,

I think that Pseudo Relevant raised some legitimate questions, and am disappointed that you chose to dismiss them with an ad hominem attack (poking fun at his screen name)...

I'd like to address one more point that you raised yesterday. You wrote:

Quote:


That polygraphy depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the subject goes to the heart of the question of whether polygraphy is a scientific method of lie detection (or "truth verification," if you prefer) or whether it is a pseudoscientific fraud. I think it is appropriate here to cite the conclusion of Chapter 13 (The Tools of Diogenes: An Overview) of the 2nd edition of David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector:

Quote:

Psuedo Relevant:

    A very good choice of screen name, very appropriate.  Bring something of substance to the discussion and I'll be happy to comment.

Quote:


Question: Why would the commander who "has no information as to the circumstances" not have the information he needs to make a judgement call on how to proceed? Did the Criminal Investigation Division do an investigation or not? If they did a "thorough" investigation the questions the commander has should have already been answered. If not, why not? If the investigation has not supplied the answers to the commanders questions, why the big rush to the polygraph? Is time so critical that the military doesn't complete the investigation and instead rushes to the polygraph? Seems to me, as an examiner, you are obligated to not conduct a test unless the investigation has been completed properly. Apparently you run everything they shove at you so no waves will rock your boat.  Either the commander has already made up his mind, or he's impatient and wants the situation resolved quickly at the expense of a proper investigation so he goes with whatever the examiner comes up with. I'll bet the commander know little about how the polygraph "works" and goes with whatever the examiner says. And this is "uniform" justice?  We either need new commanders or new criminal investigators... what we don't need is some bozo with a bunch of rubber tubes playing the big brother when he knows he doesn't have a clue as to the guilt or innocense of the people sitting in his "chair". Gut feelings? "Awwww heck, you're a nice kid and seem sorry for what you've been accused of. If you promise not to do it again, I'll tell the commander you learned your lesson, okay? Now give me a big hug". Your gonna make me barf. Be a man, and tell the commander the truth, the polygraph doesn't work! You'll feel much better about yourself, as you deserve.

Examiner, 

You wrote:

Quote:


I would not dispute that it is possible that you have indeed polygraphed 17 subjects who admitted to having obtained The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and practiced and then employed the countermeasures decscribed therein. But I don't believe you.

I cannot reconcile your above claim with what you wrote in your original private message to Gordon Barland:

Quote:


Your words to Gordon strongly suggest that you only recently learned about the existence of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. If I am wrong about this, I apologize for having questioned your word, and suggest that you contact Dr. Andrew Ryan, chief of the DoDPI Research Division, at research@jackson-dpi.army.mil, as I suspect the charts of these 17 individuals will be of great research interest to DoDPI.

You also wrote:

Quote:


Before addressing the point you raise, I would remind you that our purpose in writing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and making it publicly available for free is to help truthful persons to avoid a false positive outcome, not to help liars beat the system.

In the laboratory studies by Honts et al., about half of programmed guilty subjects were able to beat the polygraph after no more than 30 minutes of training (and, as I mentioned earlier, experienced polygarphers were not able to detect the countermeasures at better than chance levels). For persons who face a polygraph interrogation in the real world, the stakes are typically high. A person's career or even his liberty may depend on the outcome. Hence, it is, in my opinion, only prudent that someone planning to use countermeasures to protect himself against a false positive outcome should invest more than 30 minutes studying and practicing.

George:

    Regarding Criminal v Screening, the purpose of the examinations is completely different.  Screening seeks to determine whether or not an individual is suitable for employment, Criminal testing seeks to determine whether an individual has knowledge or participated in a specific criminal event.  The formats and technical conduct of the examinations are disparate because of the differences in the purpose.  With regard to the similarities you propose, that brings up an interesting point I have never really understood as a significant point of contention on this site.

    Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here.

Your next point may or may not be true depending on testing format and agency.

Your final point is clearly debatable as there are studies on both sides of the issue.  I'm not a researcher and don't currently have access to an academic library, so I have to defer sitings of specific research to Dr Barland.  Again I would encourage review of the Amicus brief described in my previous post for those who want to review both sides of the issue objectively.

While I wouldn't dispute the findings of Honts' research without reviewing it first.  I would have to believe that its application to field examiners as whole is debatable.  Check Dr Barland's post in the "To those who have tried countermeasures" thread, he articulates well that the detection varies depending on the test format and the examiner.

George, you should be a defense attorney, talk about twisting words.  The 17 individuals I spoke of all were unsuccessful in their efforts to employ countermeasures.  All confessed to commiting the crimes they were suspected of.  All admitted to obtaining your download and practicing and then employing the countermeasures described in the text.  These, by no means represent the total number of people I have detected performing countermeasures.  This thread originated from a discussion of two additional cases, which are not included in that 17.   

I read it somewhere on this site, but don't recall where.  someone stated that the question is not can the polygraph  be defeated by countermeasures, but how EASY is it for this to be done.  A very accurate statement in my opinion.  And I do find this confusing, George you cite peer-reviewed research that people with not more than 30-minutes training in the type of countermeasures you describe can easily defeat a polygraph.  But now you say that anyone planning to utilize this approach is well advised to spend more than 30-minutes training.  If this is true, how is that paticular research project applicable in supporting what you advocate.  It appears to me that you do not believe that the polygraph can be easily defeated.

Examiner,

You wrote:

Quote:


On what basis do you say that polygraph screening and the polygraphic interrogation of criminal suspects are "completely different?" They have a lot in common:

• Both depend on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the subject about the nature of the procedure.
• In both, truth vs. deception is (at least in theory) determined based upon a comparison of the subject's physiological responses to "control" vs. relevant questions.
• The validity of neither has been established by peer-reviewed scientific research.

With regard to polygraph countermeasures, I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from reading the discussion in the thread To those who have tried countermeasures. A fuller discussion of polygraph countermeasures appears in the thread, Countermeasure considerations for the innocent, which Dr. Barland started. Critical readers may judge for themselves whether DoDPI can detect countermeasures attempts better than chance (a claim Dr. Barland never actually made).

At the 23 July 2001 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Professor Charles R. Honts of Boise State University stated that polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. To listen to his remarks on polygraph countermeasures in RealPlayer format, click here.

Regarding countermeasures, you wrote:

Quote:


This seems to be an admission that the only people you've detected attempting to employ countermeasures were those who confessed.

You concluded:

Quote:


Regarding your 17 subjects who admitted to having attempted countermeasures, you did not clearly state what techniques they attempted. I cannot know whether they ineptly attempted the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector or some other (less effective and perhaps even counterproductive) technique. Is it your contention that all 17 admitted to having read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and attempted the countermeasures described there?

In peer-reviewed studies by Charles Honts and others, roughly 50% of programmed-guilty subjects were able to beat the "control" question "test" with not more than 30 minutes of instruction in the kind of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (and experienced polygraphers were not able to detect the countermeasures). Anyone planning to employ polygraph countermeasures would be well advised to spend more time than 30 minutes in preparation.

I was referring to your comment about determining pass or fail prior to collection and evaluation of the data.  I don't do that and I do not personally know any other examiner who does.

Apology accepted, and again I don't conduct screening tests so I can't comment intelligently about what they do or don't do.  My comments are regarding criminal testing only, as I previously stated these two areas of polygraphy are completely different and mixing them in the discussion is not an accurate way to address the topic.

As I stated I understand you and I disagree on the point regarding who should or should not test.  I agree to disagree with you here.

With regard to the effectiveness of countermeasures, thats certainly one opinion.  To those who would stake their futures on it, I say take a look at the thread in this forum titled, To those who have tried countermeasures, or words to that effect.  I personally know of 17 people who would disagree with the guidance provided on this site, that performing countermeasures as describe in the download makes it easy to pass a polygraph.  They tried, they failed.  Yes, they confessed.  And of course since they didn't follow your guidance to the letter George, I understand you bear no responsibility for their failures.  Obviously they didn't study the download hard enough, or practice the countermeasures long enough with enough dilligence.  But wait a minute, thats beginning to sound pretty hard.  They must have just been inept because its obvious anyone who spends 30 minutes prepping can beat a poly, right George?

Examiner,

You wrote:

Quote:


I assume you're referring to my explanation of how a completely invalid procedure can be right more than half the time (seemingly better than a coin flip):

Quote:


I did not mean to suggest that you personally score your polygraph charts on the basis of the simplistic methodology I described above. Perhaps it would have been better had I substituted "one" for "you," but I think if you re-read my post, it's unmistakably clear that I was describing a hypothetical situation.

(It is noteworthy, however, that according to the data provided in the DoD Polygraph Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2001, all DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph exams in that fiscal year seem to have been scored on the basis of passing everyone who did not make "substantive" admissions. For more on this, see my Open Letter to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the DoD Counterintelligence-Scope Polygraph Program.)

You also wrote:

Quote:


Note that it was not our advice to criminals in particular that they should not submit to a polygraph interrogation. Rather, that is our advice to anyone -- innocent or guilty -- who is suspected of a crime. And you are mistaken if you suppose that we agree that countermeasures cannot help criminals to beat the polygraph. "Control" Question "Test" polygraphy is easily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect.

George

    I really expected better from you than this.  I do not "simply" decide to pass or fail people who take polygraph examinations.  I know that is what you want people to believe, but in my agency at least, it doesn't work that way.  I give people a polygraph, then I evaluate their responses and determine whether or not they are practicing deception.  But that is only a tentative determination.  As the entire interview is then reviewed by two senior examiners for Quality Assurance.  Certainly an unethical examiner could construct a test to achieve a pre-determined outcome, but with the current review process utilized in my agency, that examiner would be found out and eliminated.  As I'm sure you know, polygraph in the military is regulated starting at the Department of Defense level with DoD Directive and Regulation 5210.48(R).  Essentially, the regulation restricts the use of polygraph to individuals who are the focus of a felony criminal investigation and other investigative actions have failed to resolve the issue.  What this means is by the time someone comes to see me significant evidence has been accumulated that indicates their involvement in the crime.  Is that evidence ever wrong?  Of course, circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony can easily be wrong.  To that end I have personally exculpated 15% of the people I spoke with so far this year.  My rate seems to run between 12%-20% per year.  The variance seems to be attributable to the experience level of the investigators I work with.

But, back to the topic.  What we agree on is a person who committed a crime should not take a polygraph.  We disagree on whether or not innocent people should take one, but as I stated I know several who are happy they did.  We also seem to agree that everyone should make their own choice regarding how to deal with their individual situation, and should do that based on all the information available to them.  In that vain, we do not agree regarding making admissions apparently.  I thought we did.  I certainly would agree that it is not always in a person's best interest to confess, conversely there are certainly times when it is in their best interest.  Each person needs to weigh the pros and cons of their situation and decide how best to mitigate it.  Sometimes that will certainly be by telling the truth.

I appreciate your clarification of the information in your download, obviously I did have the options in the wrong order.  I was happy to note that your advice to criminals is do not take a polygraph and it ends there.  I would agree that countermeasures will not mitigate their result.

With regard to complete honesty, I knew what you were talking about, its very clear in the download.  They should be completely honest about their efforts to research polygraph.  I support that.  I continue to maintain that it is not a barrier to conducting a polygraph.  When I became a polygraph examiner I had been an investigator for 17 years.  In that time I had observed hundreds of CQT polygraphs.  I most certainly was fully aware of the basis format.  Add to that I was intimately familiar with the question order and specific test format.  I had to submit to a polygraph to get accepted into the program.  Despite my knowledge this was no problem.  Examiners themselves have to take polygraphs from time to time.  Their knowledge doesn't seem to be any barrier.  Certainly I'm not a researcher or an applied psychologist, so I don't know that I'm qualified to discuss theory, Dr Barland can do a much better job of that.  My belief that it is no obstecle is obviously ancedotal.  I would consider it to be naive of any examiner today to believe that the people they are talking with are completly ignorant of the process.  I welcome any discussion or questions the people I speak with have.   

As for blame, I think we've come down to a matter of mere semantics.  In light of your expansions upon your advice covered in this and other threads, I'll yield that point.  I hope that people who obtain and consider using your download take the time to fully explore your message board.

I do find it very revealing that you chose to answer for Wannabe, as the question to him dealt with what HE was basing his statements on, I still hope to hear from him on that.  Regarding your further contensions about the availability or lack of peer-reviewed research I find that pretty misleading.  While I would defer this topic entirely to Dr Barland, because I do not have the background to fully address it, I will make some comentary.  The brief for Amicus Curiae by the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists, 1997, for the Supreme Court in case #96-1133, United States v Scheffer lists about 40 peer-reviewed studies, which support the reliability and validity of the CQT.  With regard to uncontrolled/able variables I would certainly agree with that.  That issue exists with virtually all psychological research.  This is probably why psuedo-experimentation is the preferred method of conducting experiments for research psychologists.

Once again we seem to be mixing screening and criminal testing formats.  As I said previously these two areas are entirely different.  My comments are related to criminal testing only.

Examiner,

When you say, "Okay, we agree," do you mean that we agree that it's really not in the best interest of a person accused or suspected of a crime to make a post-test confession? If that's not what you meant, could you clarify?

I'd like to discuss a couple points you directed to Gino and wannabe. To Gino, you wrote:

Quote:


In Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (Polygraph Countermeasures), we discuss three basic methods for protecting oneself against a false positive outcome:

1. refusal to submit to polygraph interrogation;
2. complete honesty;
3. polygraph countermeasures.

We present these options in that order, and leave it to the reader to decide how to procede. Note that we do not begin "by advising people to use complete honesty" but by discussing the option of refusing to submit to a polygraph interrogation. We explicitly recommend this course of action to anyone who stands accused of a crime.

The "complete honesty" approach does not mean that we advise guilty people to confess. Rather, it is an approach by which one can attempt to be excused from having to submit to polygraphic interrogation by disclosing up front that one understands that polygraph "testing" is a fraud. We note at p. 67 of the 1st edition: "We believe that the ethically preferable choice for those facing polygraph interrogation is to either refuse to submit or to use the 'complete honesty' approach (or both). But we are also aware that these two choices may entail serious adverse consequences."

Now, Examiner, you have confirmed that you "don't believe knowledge [of] the control question test is a barrier." I suspect that a lot of polygraphers feel the same way. Indeed, the narrow self-interest of those in the polygraph community dictates that they must (at least publicly, if not privately) adopt the position that knowledge of the CQT is no barrier, because otherwise, the polygraph house of cards would rapidly come crashing down.

But let me ask you this: if a subject tells you that he has read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, that he understands that the stim test is a trick designed to dupe him into believing that polygraphy really works; if he tells you that he understands that you are going to decide whether he is truthful or deceptive by comparing his physiological responses to the "control" questions vs. the relevant questions, and that the irrelevant questions don't "provide a baseline for truth" but are instead not scored at all; if he tells you that he has studied and trained himself in the employment of polygraph countermeasures, and, despite all this, you procede to administer a CQT, then on what theoretical basis do you expect the truthful subject to produce stronger responses to the "control" questions and the guilty subject to produce stronger responses to the relevant questions?

Now, the 3rd option we provide, for those who are concerned that the "complete honesty" approach will be unfruitful, is polygraph countermeasures. Our recommendation to those who employ countermeasures not to make pre-test or post-test admissions (including regarding their knowledge of polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures) if accused of deception or having attempted countermeasures is hardly "in conflict" with this approach.

Regarding our chapter on grievance procedures (Ch. 5), you write: "Then it says if that advice wasn't followed, here's the grievance procedure." Not quite. Chapter 5 opens: "If you have read this book prior to your polygraph interrogation, you should not need to contest your polygraph results. However, if your first exposure to this book comes after you have already submitted to and 'failed' a polygraph 'test,' read this section carefully."

I respectfully submit that a review of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector suggests that you have misconstrued the approaches we present for avoiding a false positive outcome (you even got the order in which they are presented wrong).

In the case of your subjects who, to your chagrin, terminated their post-test polygraph interrogations, Gino is correct in pointing out that they did not follow our explicit recommendation that anyone accused of a crime should refuse to submit to a polygraph "test." This is no cop-out. If you still disagree, and/or think that we are somehow blameworthy, please explain.

You also wrote to wannabe:

Quote:


As we point out in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance under field conditions. Indeed, CQT polygraphy is not a standardizable, scientifically controlled procedure such that it could have any true validity. A plethora of uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables may influence the outcome, including, perhaps most significantly, whether the subject knows how to beat the "test."

I think wannabe and others refer to "coin flip" accuracy as meaning "no better than chance." While polygraphy has not been shown to work better than chance, the "coin flip" metaphor may be misleading to the extent that it suggests that polygraphers are wrong half the time. This need not be the case. For example, when you polygraph a servicemember who has tested positive on a urinalysis test, you have strong presumptive evidence that the person knowingly used an illegal drug. If you simply decided to "fail" all such persons when they come to you for a polygraph "test," you'll likely be right much more than half the time, even though such a methodology is completely invalid from a scientific standpoint. Similarly, in the case of counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening, if you simply decide to "pass" everyone, you'll be right almost all the time, because almost no one is a spy or saboteur. And yet again, this technique is completely invalid.

For further reading on how an invalid technique can seemingly work better than a coin flip, see Chapter 5 of the 2nd edition of David T. Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (New York: Plenum Trade, 1998).

Okay, we agree.

My comment regarding others who had terminated the interview was by way of background to refresh Dr Barland's memory or our previous conversation.  I did not consider it salient to main discourse of the e-mail.

Examiner,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


My question to you (posted on 1 Sep.) was:

Quote:


Now, your original complaint (in the first message of this thread) was regarding "numerous DI subjects, who abruptly terminated their interviews at the 40-60 minute mark." You lay the blame at my and Gino's feet (even though your subjects, if indeed they read our book, disregarded our unambiguous advice to those accused of a crime -- whether innocent or guilty -- to refuse to submit to a polygraph interrogation). You then cite two recent cases where you suggest that the subjects "could have mitigated their punishment and remained in service" by making post-test confessions. But you now concede that you "do not make the decisions regarding prosecution and punishment, so [you] can't and don't guarantee anything." Why then should a person accused of deception during a crime-related polygraph interrogation believe that it is in his or her best interest to make a post-test admission or confession?

You asked me if I can "guarantee that if people follow the advice in your download nothing will happen to them." No, I cannot guarantee anyone that if they follow the advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, nothing will happen to them. But I can guarantee that anyone accused of a crime (whether innocent or guilty) who follows our advice not to submit to a polygraph interrogation will not be stigmatized by having "failed" a polygraph "test." And I can guarantee anyone who refuses to submit to a post-test interrogation that no admissions made will be used against them (as there will be none).

Okay, let me try to respond the comments here in some depth.  A couple things before I embark on this though.  First, I appreciate George acknowledging the origin of my communication with Dr Barland.  This was a private communication with Dr Barland regarding some frustration I have with the information in George’s download.  Since I did not intend for it to be post on this or any other site and I was communicating with someone who believes in the validity of polygraph, I don’t see what purpose I would hope to achieve by writing self-serving misinformation.  There was no hidden agenda when I wrote it and I wrote it from the gut.  I doubt that I will convince the doubters though, so there’s not much point in addressing that issue any further.  Second, I think and write in complete thoughts as opposed to “sound bites”.  I suspect most of you do the same, so rather than pick out phases and sentences to critique, I will generally respond to the individual posts as a whole thought from the writer.  If I fail to address something that you specifically would like addressed, let me know.

I’ll proceed through the posts chronologically.  Wannabe I think I responded to this post, but to clarify I didn’t say that anyone who commits a crime is better served by confessing, I was referring to a specific set of circumstances involving lower enlisted personnel on their first enlistment.

George, I think I already addressed this post also, but did not answer your specific question.  The answer is obviously none.  I do not make the decisions regarding prosecution and punishment, so I can’t and don't guarantee anything.  Also let me ask you a question in this vain, can you guarantee that if people follow the advice in your download nothing will happen to them?

Gino, again I think I addressed most of this, but I want to expand.  I don’t know how to express this without sounding like I’m embarking on name-calling, so I’m just going to write from the hip here and hope that it is not taken as a personal attack.  The response you posted here is really a cop-out.  The download begins by advising people to use complete honesty.  I agree with that, personally I don’t believe knowledge the control question test is a barrier.  I think there is a study out on that very topic and I will try to locate it and provide the reference.  Then it goes on to say if you don’t want to do that, then decline the test.  Again as I have previously stated I agree that anyone who has committed a crime should not take a polygraph.  Then it goes on to say that if you decide to submit, or feel compelled to submit, here are some countermeasures you can use.  Then it says if all else fails, don’t make admissions and don’t admit to being on this site or doing any research or using countermeasures.  This is in complete conflict with your earlier advice.  Then it says if that advice wasn’t followed, here’s the grievance procedure.  So to say they didn’t follow your advice, so their problems are self-made (understanding of course their initial misconduct was self-made), I consider a cop-out.  While my communication with Dr Barland spoke of specific advice that is given in the download, I believe in a general sense that everyone should balance the INFORMATION they are provided and make a decision regarding their specific situation.  I feel that the information should not be provided in a manner that advocates a particular course of action.  If the info is good, the reader will certainly make an appropriate decision without being told to follow a specific course.  Also throughout the download you mix screening and criminal testing together.  Dr Barland addresses this problem well in the “to those who have tried countermeasures” thread.  The bottomline is a good strategy for one, is not necessarily a good strategy for the other.

Gino, in your follow-on post, the commentary is very colorful and entertaining, but short on substance.  Exactly what is it that makes an interview with a polygraph examiner so much more coercive that an interview with any other investigator?  I would also add here that our country has a long history of the judiciary safe-guarding the civil rights of persons who are abused by law enforcement and barring those avenues of abuse.  Polygraphy has been used in law enforcement since the 1940’s.  Certainly if it was the type of process you so colorfully describe it would have been banned by the judiciary.

Wannabe, I believe I addressed this post also, with one exception.  I see in your posts you frequently refer to “the flip of a coin” polygraphy, would you mind providing a list of the peer reviewed research that YOU have studied to come to this conclusion or are you merely echoing someone else’s statements?

As I re-read my comments I recognize that some of them, particularly the last two, seem antagonistic.  I tried to re-word them, but can’t seem to express them any better than they are now written.  I do not mean these as personal attacks, please don’t interpret them that way.

Quote:


Examiner,

Thank you for this clarification. My understanding of your message to Gordon, which he later posted here with your permission, was that it originated as a private message (not initially meant for posting here). I do not doubt that the concerns you expressed are heartfelt. And yet, with no disrespect intended, it also seems to me that your concerns are heavily shaded by self-interest. I look forward to reading your views on why it is in the best interest of a person accused of a crime to make a confession after failing a polygraph "test."

Wannabe/George:

    The reason I say that it may be hard for some to accept the values based culture, is that many of the examiners in the military, myself included, are military personnel.  It seems that some/many, which ever is preferred on this site, consider examiners to be without honor and integrity.  In this thread it is stated very clearly by at least two people who responded that my motives for the thoughts I expressed to Dr Barland are suspect.  That they represent misinformation and simple self-interest.  That is why I believe some/many will find that notion hard to accept.

    I did not misunderstand what was said in the download or Gino's post.  I stand by my original statement that  I agree anyone who committed a crime should not take a polygraph as they will surely be found out.  Conversely I feel anyone who did not commit a crime should not avoid a polygraph.  I know this site popularizes the "no better than a coin toss" validity statement.  And before I start, no I'm not prepared to provide a list of peer reviewed research papers to support what I will say next, maybe Dr Barland can help with that.  The research that I am aware of generally indicates that polygraph is between 85% to 90% accurate.  While my preference would be for polygraph to be 100% accurate, I recognize that it is not, however it is significantly better than eyewitness recollection, which is generally considered to be around 35% accurate (much less than a coin toss).

    I also want to clarify one thing that I think you may have misinterpreted, I never said that statements made during a polygraph were not admissible.  MRE 707(a) establishes a per se exclusion of polygraph results and states the mention of the use of polygraph in a courts martial proceeding may be grounds for a mistrial.  MRE 707(b) establishes that any statements made during a polygraph may be admissible.  While I can't speak for all military agencies, I know that in my own anyone undergoing a polygraph is advised of this clearly and in writing twice at the start of the process.

    I don't want to move off topic with a discussion of military policy regarding UA results, but will say a positive urinalysis is considered presumptive evidence that the individual purposefully ingested illegal drugs.  In most instances the individual will be offered non-judicial punishment based solely on the results of the UA, of course the individual can decline and request a courts martial.  Generally speaking an individual with a positive UA result, who passes a polygraph will be considered exculpated.  Generally speaking an individual with a positive UA, who fails a polygraph, will still be offered non-judicial punishment.  Again I don't want to get off topic with a detailed discussion of this aspect.

I too would like to know the answer to George's question, as one who has served his country and the public at large in the military and seeks to do the same in law enforcement. It is not in my opinion the integrity of the subject of a polygraph that is the issue, as the there is a very real chance that mother Theresa could fail a polygraph, the fact in question is the validity of the polygraph to determine truth or deception, barring admissions that are squeezed out of the examinee. 

Also, I believe you mis-read Gino's post, he stated as does the book that anyone ACCUSED of a crime, (this is falling back on a seemingly forgotten right to be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty) should not submit to the polygraph, as even an innocent person has slightly better than a coin flips odds of passing or failing. 
Quote:


Also, based on my military experience, if a person failed a U.A. and claimed to be innocent, it was easy enough to find out with follow up U.A.s to see if the levels decreased and stayed clean. So if an innocent person failed the U.A. and then was to submit to a polygraph and lost the coin flip, I suppose that based on this, this person would not be presumed guilty?

Also please clerify that during the military court proceedings, any admissions a person were to make in the pre or post polygraph interviews would not be used in these proceedings?

 

Dear Examiner,

I look forward to your responses to the questions raised here later this week. But I am puzzled by something in your post:

Quote:


Why do you believe it will be difficult for some here  to accept that values such as duty, honor, and integrity are more than just catchphrases to many who serve their country?

Examiner, 

First, I want to let you know that I appreciate your participation in this forum.  The purpose of this forum is discussion--productive discussion only occurs when all sides of an issue are represented.  You may wish to register for the forum.  This will give you the ability to go back and edit your posts (and also allow you to exchange private messages with other users).

I still maintain that the system, if it functions in the way that it has been described, is warped.

If an individual who commits a crime voluntarily admits responsibility for the act, and expresses remorse, I agree with you that all efforts should be made to give the offender a "break."  In this situation, society has an interest in promoting honesty and cooperation with the justice system by rewarding those who have engaged in wrongdoing to come forward voluntarily.

This, however, is not the situation we are discussing on this thread.  Here, we are talking about someone who has committed a crime, lied about his involvement when questioned by investigators, and then lied once again at the outset of this supposed "lie detector" test.  We are not talking about a contrite, cooperative subject.  We are talking about someone who admits wrongdoing only after being worked over with a psychological billy club.  Essentially, this situation is one step removed from one in which a suspect admits wrongdoing only when a confession is beaten out of him.  I feel that the coercive element involved in this type of admission makes this a different situation that is hardly worthy of reward.