wrote on Nov 18^th, 2003 at 11:08pm:

>Marty is not a polygraph examiner. He has previously expressed interest in the idea that subjects who understand polygraph procedure but do not employ countermeasure might be at a heightened risk of a false positive outcome Well, Marty, chalk me up as a statistic.  I consider myself informed about the polygraph, decided not to employ CM, and I was DQ-ed.

Alf,

George is right about the nature of my interest. In my readings I have found virtually nothing about how polygraphers examine other polygraphers except the admission of one that the CQT would be inappropriate. I suspect the directed lie approach is more commonly used there or perhaps it's a sort of "professional courtesy."  I am also interested in how the polygraph community is approaching the problem of increased awareness of CM's and the way the CQT works. Right now it seems the most common approach is assertion of authority and expertise which, when combined with the normal subjects complete lack of experience, may often make effective application of CM's difficult. Cialdini has an excellent book on compliance psych. One of the reasons I suggest people should also read the texts published FOR polygraphers (easily found on Amazon) is that it provides independent validation of much of the info in TLBTLD and will help mitigate the psych techniques used by examiners. After all it's pretty hard for examiners to credibly maintain "facts" at variance with their own texts.

One of the posters here, "Mr Truth", has unique experience with multiple polygraphs prior to reading TLBTLD and his posts indicate, IMO, a rather thorough and intuitive knowledge of CQT polygraphy and CM's. As for me, I have never taken a poly but have had occasion to utilize decades ago very similar techniques that Mr Truth has described, albeit for very different reasons - with success, I might add.

-Marty