Quote:


Bill,
Not true in my case. My controls didn't relate to issues in which disqualifying admissions would have been factors.

Quote:


Drew:

What would your thoughts be if an examinee was confronted at the conclusion of his/her test and told there was problems with the test.  Specifically, if an examiner points to relevant and control questions and suggests there was a problem.  Is this usually just a fishing trip?  Or does it suggest an inconclusinve outcome? 

Thanks

Polyfool,

In general there would be no reason to interrogate examinees regarding control material.  By definition control material is NOT that which determines whether you get the job, whether you go to jail, etc.  I have thought for sometime though that it might be a useful counter-countermeasure for an examiner to do this if he or those at Oz think doing such might confuse the identity of control and relevant questions.  An examinee who wants to employ countermeasures has only two tasks before him/her: (1) identification of control and relevant questions; and (2) producing appropriate (time, duration, and magnitude) responses to controls.  That which you ask about might help to make slightly more difficult the first of the two tasks.

because the examinee may offer something that is related to the controls but is in fact a disqualifying admission anyway. if your control is "have you ever stolen from an employee" and you get pressured into admitting that you embezzeled $10k and never got caught, then kudos to the polygrapher for getting it from you.

Drew, 
What would be the purpose of an examiner interrogating an examinee regarding the relevant material and also accusing him of lying about controls? 

Thanks for answering my questions. It seems polygraph examiners on this board choose to answer only the questions they can twist to support their cause.

Polyfool,

Yes, the post-test commentary/accusation(s) regarding control question material by polygraphers does give them some protection from any quality control review (hehe) changes in the outcome.  In general, since they have gone to the trouble of "setting" these question areas and have intentionally gotten the examinee to limit any admissions during the pretest phase, they (the examiners) will not further question an examinee regarding this material during the in-test phase.  This is not true of relevant question material.  They will bluff/accuse/fish/etc throughout the process about relevant issues up and until they pronounce that they don't see any problems for a no-deception-indicated (NDI) scored examinee.  In general if you fail their test you are interrogated about the  relevant material; if you pass their test, you are told that you appear to have passed, but that you seem to have some problems with the control material.  They, of course, don't realize at that point that you know the difference between relevant and control questions and won't refer to this material as control, but being the knowledgeable person you are, you will know.

Drew,

I see. It gives the examiner a way out, so to speak, in case the outcome changes. Is the examiner also trying to gauge the examinee's reaction to being accused of lying to controls?

Polyfool,

Some examiners are under the misguided notion that examinees can't tell the difference between relevant and control questions.  Because polygraph examiners want to send examinees away thinking that the exam worked (should they tell their friends, etc or should they take further exams), they want to tell them that they were caught lying on some issue where there is some probability that they actually were.  Also in case their (the examiner's) quality control process changes/overturns the examiner's NDI call to an inconclusive or DI (less likely), they (the examiner) has already told the examinee that they (the examinee) were deceptive about something.  As you allude to, with a knowledgeable examinee this all becomes nonsense.

Sergeant1107 wrote:
Quote:


One still can't cheat on the oral board.  The "test" must be "standardized" in order for one to cheat.  Oral boards, phsycological screenings and polygraph don't meet this requirement in any traditional definition.


Polyfool wrote:
Quote:


I know my name is not Nonombre but I thought I would give it a shot and see if the noname is in agreement.  Answer:  an attempt to gain an admission not made prior to the in-test.  An integrity check if you will.

Nonombre:

Why would a poly examiner accuse an examinee of lying to control questions during a post test interrogation?

nonombre wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 5:09am:

Nonombre,
I can see how some things could be considered “cheating” on a polygraph exam.  Sending someone else to take your test, for example.  Or waiting until the examiner left the room and then screwing with the machine or the charts in some way.  But things like that are easily detectable and likely pose little problem.

What I don’t understand is how polygraph examiners can accuse someone of cheating because they intentionally remained calm throughout the test.  Or because they admitted to singing a song in their head or thinking “exciting” thoughts instead of brooding over whatever answer they just gave.  It seems as though the polygraph is based on directing and controlling what people think, and what people are thinking simply cannot be controlled.  

I don’t see how things like that can be compared to someone who copies answers off the person next to him in a written test, or someone who buys clean urine on the Internet to use in a drug screening test.  

When I am conducting firearms training at my department I often run the shooters through a stress course.  The intent is to cause as much stress as possible and still get them to hit what they are aiming at.  A few officers, however, simply don’t get stressed.  A few of the officers manage to remain calm throughout the course – even though they are breathing hard from the exertion they are cool and collected as they run through the course.  They know they are facing stress before they start and they consciously manage their breathing, which in turn helps them control the rest of their autonomic nervous system.  In a very small way, this is frustrating to me as an instructor because it avoids the intent of the course.  But on the whole I am impressed with their ability to deal with stress and I make sure to praise them in front of their peers for how well they did.  I would never think to accuse them of cheating because they didn’t allow themselves to be controlled by stress on a course I designed to induce stress.  It wouldn’t make any sense for me to do that because I cannot control what they are thinking.

Quote:


On some oral boards they try to induce stress.  Sometimes one person will ask a question and then a different person on the board will attack your answer, trying to get you to change your mind and lose your cool.  Occasionally more people on the board jump in, all with the intent of getting you to stress out and lose your temper.  They reason they want you to lose your temper is because veteran officers know that everyone loses their temper sometimes and they want to observe how you act when you do.

I am aware that some oral boards are like that.  Armed with this foreknowledge, I go into oral boards with the intent of maintaining my composure no matter what.  If I sense that I’m getting upset for any reason I will use deep breathing techniques (learned in LTC Grossman’s “Bulletproof Mind” lecture) to regain control of my autonomic nervous system.  Does this mean I’m “cheating” on the oral board?  Because I have knowledge of what might happen so I prepare myself?  Because even though I know their intent is to get me to feel anxiety or fear, but I consciously choose to refrain from letting the fear or anxiety overtake me?

If the oral board was run by a polygraph examiner I would suspect that I would be accused of cheating if I did what I described above.  The polygraph examiner needs to control what the subject is thinking during an exam, because if the examiner is thinking about anything other than the exam they won’t respond to the “lies” they’ve told (or so the polygrapher thinks.)   

Nonombre,

I cannot disagree with you on this point.  Cheating should be and is disqualifying.  The difference is that a written test (to use your comparison) is scorable based on the written data.  No interpretation is necessary as it is basically a pass/fail based on hard data.  The polygraph does not enjoy the same luxury and would more appropriately be compared to an oral board or psychological examination.  How do you cheat on either of those?

Jeffery wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 4:19am:


If that was indeed the meaning of the question, I guess I would answer it this way:

If a police applicant cheated on his written exam and was caught by the proctor, what should be the response of the police department administering the test?

I believe most people would answer that  the department should immediately boot the applicant from the room and terminate his application.

And if an applicant is caught cheating on his polygraph exam?

The answer is:  Immediately boot the applicant from the room and terminate his application.

We do it all the time.  That is why we strongly urge our applicants to not attempt cheating on EITHER test.

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 11:03pm:


The way I intrepret it is that if the polygraph is in fact SO reliable, you should be able to see through CM's regardless and still "get at the truth."  So then, why would it matter if CM's are being used?  A person can still be truthful though using CM's, and I would intrepret this as a lack of trust in the polygrap/polygrapher/process rather than an attempt at deceit.

Of course, I think we all know why polygraphers dislike CM's -- they can't detect them and the usage of such threatens the careers of polygraphers. 

Why do polygraphers dislike CVSA so much?  Do Tarot Card readers disklike gypsies with crystal balls?  Do they both dislike Chinese fortunate cookies?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 6:30pm:



Hey Sergeant1107,

Let me give your questions a shot.

1)  If a polygraph examiner suspects a subject of using countermeasures, why would it matter?

Why would what matter?  I'm not being a "wise a-- here.  I just do not understand the question.

2)  If the examination is as accurate as claimed how could it be affected by someone thinking “exciting” thoughts or staring at a spot on the wall and doing long division in his head?

You are mixing the validity arguement with the countermeasure discussion.  Urinalysis tests are very accurate until they are deliberately sabotaged with any number of adulterating substances.  That's why they watch you so close when you piss.  As far as  someone thinking “exciting” thoughts or staring at a spot on the wall and doing long division in his head.  If you are implying the subject is doing this during comparison questions, that still does not mitigate consistant, significant responses to relevant questions. AND naturally, these behaviors are of no concern during RI testing.

3)  If the subject is intentionally thinking about his breathing in order to remain calm, how could that affect a scientifically valid test? 

Really good point here.  As a polygraph examiner, I have frequently run into folks who control their breathing to try and stay calm.  That is a normal human behavior.  (It is also quite easy to see in the respiratory channel)  In the vast majority of cases, I can talk them through this situation and ultimately obtain conclusive respiratory data.

Regards.

Nonombre
   

I have asked some of these questions in other threads and have never received an adequate response.  Perhaps someone could provide a well-reasoned answer or two without simply telling me “polygraphs are useful” or arguing that “countermeasures are detectable.”  This thread is not intended as one in which to discuss whether countermeasures are detectable – I would respectfully request that readers please post all such arguments on the proper thread.

1)  If a polygraph examiner suspects a subject of using countermeasures, why would it matter?

2)  If the examination is as accurate as claimed how could it be affected by someone thinking “exciting” thoughts or staring at a spot on the wall and doing long division in his head?

3)  If the subject is intentionally thinking about his breathing in order to remain calm, how could that affect a scientifically valid test?  

I’ve heard the arguments about how moving around during an MRI or eating before a blood sugar test will affect the results but won’t invalidate the whole testing procedure.  I agree with such thinking.  I’m asking specifically how what a subject is thinking during a test can affect the outcome of that test.

I think it would make me feel foolish to tell someone I’ve arrested for DUI that, when they blow into the Intoxilyzer, they must refrain from thinking about anything exciting.  If what the subject was thinking could actually affect the results of a test it would surely make me doubt the test’s validity.