L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 8:43pm:


One consideration that may have made London hesitate to accuse John of having employed countermeasures absent his admission is that John was described as a "high-priority candidate for employment with the federal government."

If London were prepared to render a decision that countermeasures were employed absent any admission from John, then he need not have bothered with the post-"test" interrogation. He could have simply rendered his opinion and shown John to the door.

London & Krapohl also place some importance on obtaining an admission when they write:

Quote:


The emphasis on interrogation strategies suggests that admissions are indeed of some importance to rendering a determination that a subject employed countermeasures.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 8:38pm:


What is common sense in the absence of reason? The available information about DoDPI's countermeasures course (that provided on DoDPI's webiste) doesn't give me any reason to think that those who matriculate from the course will be any more capable of detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector than they were before the course.

George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?"   Once again, you didn't answer that question...   I would not do that - even without a confession.  I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either.  Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?

I concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that.  By just applying common sense, what do you think?

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 8:18pm:


When London & Krapohl write, "It was clear now that John was practicing Cms, but still there was no sign of any physical movement," they write with 20/20 hindsight. We cannot know what opinion London would have ultimately rendered absent "John's" admission that he employed countermeasures.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 7:51pm:


What you asked was:

Quote:


Again, I have no rational basis for concluding that the former would be able to detect countermeasures better than the latter, or that either would be able to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels. You may not be satisfied with that answer, but so be it.

I am struck by the irony of your remonstrance, "I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question."

Quote:


You took a middle of the road type position on that one.  Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?  That makes no sense.

Quote:


Because one was or is an instructor at DoDPI doesn't mean they have been trained in CM and CCM, or that they have even completed the CM course.  I don't think there is anything scientific about statement analysis, it is an art - just like interrogation is an art.  However, you illustrated Sapir's point well by not answering the question.  I understand your apparent motive for doing so.  The obvious answer is yes, the chances are probablly greater that a trained person would detect CM more readily than one who is not trained.  The question is simple, but you are purposely avoiding answering it by trying to make it more complicated than it is.  

Again, you didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question.  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 6:25pm:


The examiners in Honts et al.'s latest countermeasure study to which I referred were not just DoDPI graduates, but DoDPI instructors.

It's interesting that you cite Avinoam Sapir, who runs a business he calls the "Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation." As chance would have it, I went through his week-long "Scientific Content Analysis" (SCAN) course some years ago. He's a former polygrapher, as I recall. In any event, there's nothing "scientific" about his theories of statement analysis, which seem to be unsupported by any scientific research whatsoever. But I digress.

As to whether attending DoDPI's countermeasure course improves one's ability to detect the kinds of counterrmeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I simply have no rational basis for concluding that it does. If DoDPI really believes it has a better than chance method for detecting countermeasures, it should seek to have it's research supporting that method published in a refereed scientific journal.

L72cueak,

You wrote:

Quote:


We did not write that one will pass as long as one does not admit to using countermeasures. Our reference was only with regard to "John" in London & Krapohl's article. As we've discussed above, I now agree that John may or may not have passed had he not admitted to having employed countermeasures.

Quote:


You know what happened when one presumes...  Just because one went through DoDPI doen't mean they were trained in CM and CCM.  The CM course is a continuing education course.  Regarding your response to my question, you didn't answer the question.  According to Mr. Sapir (www.lsiscan.com), when somebody doesn't answer the question, they did!  Apply a little common sense, what do you think?  Are the chances better or not?

George, thank you for the link.  Interesting account.  A good example of what happens when one does not achieve the sub-maximal level you recommend.  I noticed that post was made in July, 2001.  The author didn't admit to the CM, yet still "failed" the test.  That's interesting, because your current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, dated well after that post, said that as long as one doen’t admit to CM they will “pass.”  You and Gino obviously knew at the time you published your manual that the statement you made was not true, false, miseleading, etc. (also known as a “lie”).  Why did you knowingly make that false statement?  I see it as evidence of Lies contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 5:32pm:


Only one such report comes to mind, which you'll find in the message thread Taking One for the Team Part Two.

Quote:


How much feedback have you received from those who reported not being successful?  There are obviously those who have been detected.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 5:19pm:


And in the absence of any such research, what compelling reason is there to conclude that polygraphers can detect countermeasures at better than chance levels? (Note that in Honts' most recent study involving "spontaneous" countermeasures -- which polygraphers could not detect -- the examiners were all DoDPI instructors whose training in countermeasure detection was presumably state-of-the-art.)

You also asked:

Quote:


I have no rational basis for concluding that the former would be able to detect countermeasures better than the latter, or that either would be able to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 5:13pm:


Probably not. For example, if a subject mistakes a relevant question for a "control" question and augments his reactions to it, he's likely to fail. However, the feedback we've received from those who report having employed countermeasures has been overwhelmingly positive.

Quote:


And my point was that the research you cite as evidence did not involve examiners trained in CM and CCM.  If you are aware of any research whatsoever that shows examiners trained in CM and CCM CAN'T detect CM at better than chance leveles, perhaps you can share it with us...  We both know that neither of us can cite such research as their is no indication it has been done yet.  

An "experienced examiner" could be someone who has been involved in the field for many years.  That does not mean the person has had any exposure to or experience in any CM and CCM.  Why would you think an "experienced" examiner not trained in detecting CM and employing CCM would be able to detect CM?  Do you agree that an examiner trained in CM and CCM is more likely to detect and defeat CM than one who is not?  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 5:09pm:


None. You'll note that our arguments in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are based not on any claimed personal authority on our part, but on peer-reviewed research and other published material that skeptical readers may check.

George, do the CM you teach in your manual always work and people pass without the CM being detected?

Beech, no reply to my reply concerning your post ?

Beech, you said:

Why not shut us all up by simply posting any case, any evidence, any charts, any criminal charges, anything in which a polygraph interrogation subject was caught-- not through virtue of verbal admission-- using the kinds of countermeasures advocated in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.

A case was already discussed and posted (London & Krapohl).  George & Gino advised readers not to make admissions to CM and they will "pass" (which was a false and misleading statement).  The fact that the person described in London & Krapohl's article made an admission had no bearing on whether or not it was a CM.  As explained in the article, the decision the examinee engaged in CM was made prior to the admission being obtained.   

I could post a case to illustrate my point where the CM were detected, defeated with CCM and the person did not confess to the crime or the CM & was later convicted of the offense, but what would be the point?  It will not "shut you guys up" (that is not my objective here anyway...).  I like running into your readers in the field.  Some have confessed to CM (they obviously didn't read your literature thoroughly) and some have not confessed.  The fact is they were all listed as having employed CM.  As I have said before, some people will defeat an examiner not trained in CM and CCM - but not all of them.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 4:42pm:


My observation was merely that "the available scientific research does not support the conclusion that polygraph examiners can detect countermeasures (or indeed, deception) at better than chance levels." If you are aware of any research whatsoever supporting the conclusion that polygraphers can detect countermeasures at better than chance levels, perhaps you'd care to share it with us?

George & Gino, how many real polygraphs have either of you undergone and "passed" via CM?

George, I find it interesting that you latch onto the research conducted by Honts to illustrate your point that CM can't be detected at better than chance levels.  If the study involved examiners that were trained in CM and CCM - that might have some bearing on this discussion.

Beech, you missed the point of the question.  My question was for George concerning if a guilty person submitted to a CQ exam in which the relevant questions pertained to one of the subjects I mentioned (child abuse, muder, theft, etc.).  Key word being "guilty" - not innocent!  There is no need for me to respond to any of the questions you posed as they don't pertain to what I was asking George in the first place.