Ark,

A few thoughts about your relevant question validation suggestion…   

Relevant questions are not evaluated in isolation.  It is the relative response of relevant vs. paired controlled question which is evaluated, so in the case of the bank robbery that I mentioned, one would have to devise fictional bank robberies or use other real ones to develop relevant questions to pair with the proposed control questions to be used in the actual exam.

Even if this is done carefully, these artificially derived relevant questions don't really compare to the actual ones.  The actual ones are preceded by a bank robbery known to the examinee (undoubtedly publicized in local media), ones for which he has been thoroughly interrogated by a trained investigator before a polygraph exam has been scheduled, and a matter in which he has had some substantial time to discuss with family members, ponder himself, and thoroughly become familiar with and concerned about the consequences of failing the exam (being deemed to be deceptive to relevant questions).   

Generally (unless innately offensive) the mere mention of a potential relevant question is not that which evokes the response, but the context of that relevant question in terms of consequences well practiced in the mind of the examinee.

But you are right about unsuitability--because of the various problems I have alluded to (I haven't even addressed the bias passed from investigator to examiner, the lack of a theoretical basis for lie detection, etc), this form of "testing" is not suitable for any examinee.

Drew Richardson wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 11:51pm:


Doc,
The opposing side seems to have gone silent in recent weeks. So, in order to add balance to the discussion, allow me to play devil's advocate. 

What comes to mind as I read this thread is Matte's "Control Question Verification Test" where he suggests to gauge the efficacy of the Control Questions by utilizing them in a "fictitious" crime scenario. 

Could not this method be applied in a similar (yet crafty) way to see if the examinee consistently responds to a series of relevant questions in which only the examiner knows are from a bogus scenario?--possibly suggesting that the person may not be suitable for testing?

It should be noted, I gave all involved a chance to address this behind closed doors before coming here and, "airing dirty laundry."

The examiners involved and their friends outside the state of Texas have chosen to marginalize those efforts and ignore how this could be a problem with the integrity of the Texas polygraph industry.  

This was their choice, it was their option.  I have acted on the level and on the square.  I have given due notice so they could avoid this on many occasions.  

My hands are clean, and I have honored my obligations.  I have now decided that the people involved are not worthy of brotherly relief in any way shape, fashion, or form.  

I believe in polygraph and believe in what I do for a living.  It's time I stepped up to the plate and cleaned the filth out of the texas polygraph industry.

these people feel the polygraph consumer in Texas should be treated like mushrooms; feed them shit and keep them in the dark.  Those days are done

Everything I state as fact I can prove and am happy to provide any documentation asked for until these people step up and do the right thing.

They know my number and can come to the table to discuss doing whats right anytime they want. Until then the truth is coming out.  ALL OF THE TRUTH

My beef is not with the APA, the NPA, the AAPP or any other organization outside TAPE or the State of Texas, and I would like to keep it that way.  Now I would love to know what they think that their own examiners in Texas are too afraid of their own test that they claim is up to 89% (from what I see on the APA website).   

Having said that, I think the APA, NPA, AAPP et al. are sitting this one out because it is not their fight.  If this is the case, I think it's a smart decision on their part.  It's never good to get in the middle of two dogs fighting.

If they want to get involved, it is in my hopes it will be to mediate this to an end.  Having said that, it takes two sides to cooperate with a mediation; TAPE has shown they have no interest in keeping their word or making things right; as a deal was made in the past and then they took that deal and my handshake and slapped me in the face like the bottom feeders they are.

My point is, in the state that utilizes polygraph more than in any other state (in my opinion), polygraph examiners are afraid of the very product they try to convince people to use.  Well, except one examiner; me.   

Why would anyone use a polygraph examiner who is scared of his own machine I wonder?  Would you use Chemo therapy from a doctor that wouldn't use it to save his own life if he had the same cancer?

Another example, if you question the cleanliness of a bar, and that bartender says everything is clean from counter to tap; you take a clean glass (or what you believe to be a clean glass), pour a pint, and give it to the bar owner to drink and he won't drink it; would you stay in that bar?

Joe, as you well know, it is the American Polygraph Association that essentially sets the industry standards for ethics, professionalism and best practices.

It would be most interesting if you were to personally telephone each and every member of the APA board of directors, then describe your plight to each and every one of them.

My guess is that like George, you too will be deemed "too hot of a potato."

Interesting question.  The brainiacs and whiz kids of polygraph claim the test is accurate, but yet when it comes to utilizing polygraph within our own industry, some of "polygraph's best, (at least in Texas), scatter lick a bunch of rats after the light has been turned on.

Example, did you know that every examiner on TAPE's Executive Board and Board of Directors; as will as major players in TAPE, such as Bill Parker, Andy Shepherd, Richard Wood, and the great Eric Holden himself have continued to run from their own tests they claim are so accurate and reliable to resolve an ongoing issue of libel and slander accusations?

I mean, if the test is so accurate and reliable, and they are telling the truth, why I wonder would they have run from the opportunity to end a seven year conflict once and for all by using the product for which they sing the praises?   

Moreover, when I offered to step up and take the test myself, and offered to give up my polygraph career if I failed, why didn't they step up and take the opportunity to take me out (so to speak)?  If the accuracy rates are what they say they are, and I were lying about what I say about them, would I not have come up DI and as a result they would be rid of me forever?

On the other hand, if it proved that I was telling the truth and they were lying, well, it would mean they leave the industry forever.

So the question really is this.  Does polygraph run from its own tests because I am telling the truth and the group listed above is lying; and they are afraid of verifying what I already know?  or..... Are they afraid the test is not as accurate as they want people to believe and they don't want to, how do you guys say "flip the coin" and take the chance?

Can't have it both ways.  I can't seem to get the answer in private.

Dan,

You pose the question, "Why would an innocent person react like a deceptive one to the relevant questions?"  

The answer, albeit relatively simple, is a major contributor as to why one would expect false positives for probable lie control question tests and even more so for directed lie tests, i.e., the consequences of being found deceptive to relative questions are the same for both innocent (truthful) and guilty (deceptive) examinees, e.g., in the case of a criminal exam--further investigation, possible prosecution, conviction, loss of freedom, family, etc.  

Only a complete nincompoop would not recognize that "Did you rob the bank" (and not "Did you steal from anyone while in high school" or the like) is a relevant question in the bank robbery investigation that leads to his or her polygraph examination as well as the aforementioned possible consequences of being deemed deceptive (whether one is or not).

This fear of consequences renders this type of lie detection fatally and forever flawed. Again, this generalized fear has nothing to do with fear of being caught in a lie, but fear of/anxiety associated with being deemed deceptive and the resulting consequences of such an outcome.

I read her story on Reddit and it sounds quite strange to me. Filing of charges are rare when the individuals are separated by only 3 years and the allegedly perpetrator being only 18. Her being female makes it even more enigmatic. The treatment providers are given certain latitude to slap injunctions on clients if they perceive a risk. Apparently, not having a clean polygraph instills enough doubt to where they want to keep tabs on her. She didn't help matters much with her history of disappearing. House arrest does not mean that you can never leave the house, it means that you are monitored with some sort of GPS device--a not so cheap service that she'd have to pay for. However, I'm certain that they would allow her to go directly to work and back home while being on house arrest. They want to get paid.

As the 2003 NAS report repeatedly made clear, some truthful subjects are prone to exhibiting reactions to relevant questions that mimic those of deceptive test takers.

One such reason for this unsettling phenomenon -- although there are several -- can be the evocative nature of the relevant question itself. If such reactions were indeed question-selective (say, showing on the RQs), that could explain the subject's sense of feeling startled.

Why would an innocent person react like a deceptive one to the relevant questions? Because one's emotions can be very heavily taxed during a polygraph -- highly volatile emotions that are really what the operator is evaluating in his quest to distinguish truth from deception.

And that's not "blowing smoke."


Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified APA PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com

questions are paced between 21 and 25 seconds from question onset to question onset this creates the pause. If she was "startled" when the question was asked the impact should occur on each question. if the "startled" reactions were question specific .... she is blowing smoke. feel free to email me direct if you wish

I appreciate that information.  What she is reporting is the technician would pause to create silence for and extended period of time, and then in an overly loud voice ask the question, loud enough to startle her.  I was already planning on having this reviewed by the American Polygraph Association but this does not help her in the mean time.

I have spoken with a few lawyers that claim to be able to get this taken care of, but require a $2000 retainer and unfortunately the state is costing her well more than she can save up to meet this, and being on house arrest would cause her to lose her employment.  I'm really not sure where to fin legal assistance that might allow for payments or if we were so lucky, pro bono work
  So does that ring true, as you seem familiar, that this is going to result in house arrest?

First much of what you say is true. In Kansas the Judge can revoke  probation if you fail a polygraph test (State vs Lumley). But any claim the examiner "yelled" each question is highly questionable. a review of the video will either verify or dispell the claim. since she is facing jail time she can get an appointed attorney. there are attorneys who take indigent cases that are not employed by the Public Defender. There are non government examiners who work for the Public Defender Office who can evaluate the testing process.

For the record, SO is significant other.  And she took a plea bargain at her lawyers recommendation.  You can claim bullshit if you like, the fact is the kid cried rape after she broke up with him, discovering he was 15 and not 17.  They had only ever kissed.

She has taken the test and failed.  She was misinformed about going back to prison, she will be put under house arrest, losing her job, which will cause her to be unable to pay the court fees and probation and treatment, causing her to go to jail.

Her story is here http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/34kubk/my20f_life_after_one_little_lie/

She has just informed me that every question was yelled to her to induce stress, and she got the feeling he was forcing her to schedule and pay for another test.  Is this common practice?

Quote:


I think it would be prudent for anyone in her situation to 1) educate herself about polygraphy (our book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be a good start) and 2) consult with an attorney regarding her rights and obligations under the terms of her probation, including what sanctions may legally be imposed based on polygraph chart readings.

ok, that makes sense.  As for the rest of this story, it still smells like, and is, bullshit.

Quikfix,

I surmised the SO is "Significant Other."

Quote:


"Your SO"?  What does that mean?  This entire post smells like bullshit.  Sounds like the SO is you!  Like any other bullshit artist, the story always begins with "I have a friend who...".

Quote:


More bullshit.  One who is ACCUSED is not required to undergo treatment for anything.  "Your SO"was either convicted or pleaded guilty.

Quote:

Really?  if that was true, why do you need to troll this site looking for advice?  You don't, since this post is pure bullshit.

Quote:


I doubt if this is a totally true statement. The only thing that can send her to prison is if a judge decides to revoke her probation. A stressed polygraph could be a factor in that overall decision, but the testimony of the treatment providers would probably carry the most weight.

I understand your concerns, but it might be best to stay out of it. Countermeasures can be employed to lower the risk of a false positive, but there is also the risk that if they are not refined, it could be deemed as purposeful non-cooperation which could have adverse consequences. 

I prefer to encourage those in treatment to be positive and work towards their recovery.

To make a long story short, my SO lives in the state of Kansas and when she was 18 was accused of having sex with a minor.  She is on probation for this until September, and has to undergo treatment.  This is all stressful enough for her, as she was a rape victim herself and this is all opening those wounds that she's still trying to cope with in the first place, but she knows she has to do what she has to do.  They just scheduled her for a polygraph, and this has me concerned.

I grew up quite knowledgeable in the "underground" so to speak, so I'm familiar with polygraphs and how inaccurate they are.  As I understand it, just being over stressed can cause you to fail.  As I said before, she was a victim of sexual assault last year and this whole setup is wrecking her, mentally.

I've been searching for advice, because if she fails she goes straight to prison.  I love the girl, but I really don't think out relationship could survive her going to prison and I really don't want that to happen.  I guess my fears are the system is just trying to set her up to fail.  She's a genuinely good person, and the state is ruining her with this.  I think she can hold on until September, but after that I think she might just... snap, you know?  Any words of advice?  I have cheated the test myself before and I know it's fairly simple with a bit of self control, but she doesn't have that...  She is kind of an emotional mess due to this situation.  Anybody have any advice?  The only thing I could think to tell her was to stay calm, relaxed, and just tell the truth in as few words as possible.