It's been a while since I've posted, so let me remind you up front:  I am a polygraph examiner.  The views I express are strictly my own and do not necessarily represent the Federal Government or the Department of Defense.

I recently received an E-mail from a military examiner.  The Government discourages examiners from voicing their views in public, so he wrote to me.  I am passing it along (with his permission) in the hopes it will provide food for thought.  I deleted only his name.

He writes:

Dr Barland:

   I was happy to see your post regarding Chuck.  I just completed an intense "gnashing of teeth" over the effect George's book is having on some people.  Although I don't consider myself well versed enough to enter the debate on the site, I wanted to share this with you.

   In the last several weeks I have encountered numerous DI subjects, who abruptly terminated their interviews at the 40-60 minute mark.  I spoke with you briefly about this at DoDPI.  Per your suggestion I "studied" George's book and sure enough at the top of page 81, he instructs them to do exactly what I had experienced.

    Where I find this significant to your post and quite infuriating for me personally is how it impacts military personnel.  The military judicial system is unique and specifically designed to allow commanders wide latitude in discipline with soldiers who get in trouble.  In cases involving lower enlisted soldiers, who tested positive for drugs on urinalysis, the policy is generally to give them a field grade article 15 and allow them to remain in service.

    What I have found as a trend is the subjects I test, who admit to being in the category of peer pressures, alcohol, and opposite sex influenced into using drugs usually get that second chance and many get portions of their punishment suspended.  Those who are DI and dummie up are usually given the maximum punishment at a field grade 15 and frequently receive disciplinary chapter discharges from the service.  

    This week I had two such young men that I tested, both of whom probably fit into the PPAOS influenced category, one involving drugs and one involving minor theft, who had studied George's book (both admitted to at least visiting the site) and attempted unsuccessfully to practice CM.  Both made no substantive admissions and both are getting crushed and discharged.  In the case of the man I tested this afternoon, his unit asked for an expedited QC review because they want to discharge him as soon as possible.

   I feel in both these cases the individuals could have mitigated their punishment and remained in service.  It really frustrates me that George and others are screwing up the lives of other people by giving bad advice that only furthers their personal agendas.  After reading George's book, they
truely feel that if they say nothing, nothing will happen.  While thats probably good advice in the screening arena, its not ALWAYS good advise in the criminal specific issue testing.  I really hate seeing a mistake in judgement turn into a life altering event unnecessarily.

   I appreciate your tolerance of my vented frustration.

End of enclosure.

Peace.

Gordon

Darn, guess I lied when I put my post in the challenge to Skip Webb thread, because I had to make one more.  Okay you win wannabe, obviously I lied however unintentionally so I must be an evil examiner.  

Dr Barland, how refreshing to find some other articulate counterpoints on this site.  Hope you fare better than I.  I will be following this thread with interest.  It was also a very interesting observation you made in the to those who have tried countermeasures thread.  It is my sincere hope that anyone who visits this site takes the time to read that thread.  As you noted it was indeed very telling.

really last post,

please see my reply in challenge to Skip Webb thread, and by the way, not everyone that lies is considered a polygrapher, however, you know as well as I that anyone who is a polygrapher lies.

as for Dr. Barland's post, it hurts to see more people's lives and dreams in jeopardy because of the polygraph, be it because THEY chose to heed the advise of any book or publication or because they were forced to submit to a coin toss polygraph interrogation.  If these individuals failed drug tests I don't see the need for polygraph anyway, and if they didn't, then why are they under investigation?

if Dr. Barland thinks he is infuriated, imagine what a truthful person would feel like after being wrongfully accused because of a junk science.


Quote:

What I have found as a trend is the subjects I test, who admit to being in the category of peer pressures, alcohol, and opposite sex influenced into using drugs usually get that second chance and many get portions of their punishment suspended.  Those who are DI and dummie up are usually given the maximum punishment at a field grade 15 and frequently receive disciplinary chapter discharges from the service

Soooo what's being said here is that anyone who uses drugs can simply say, " it's not my fault", and they will get a second chance...otherwise they get booted, that's encouraging.

With regard to the frustration expressed by a military polygraph examiner forwarded to us by Gordon Barland for our consideration....    

How are we to accept this "I'm just here to help you?" attitude?  Is it not similar to an IRS agent's introduction as he begins his audit or an Internal Affairs Division (IAD) agent's welcoming remarks to an employee suspected of criminal or administrative wrongdoing?  Would we not expect said investigated individuals to consult with their accountants and attorneys, respectively, and would we not furthermore expect these experts to advise their clients not to make any damaging admissions and while answering questions truthfully not to allow themselves to be subjected to badgering and numerous reasking of the same questions?  

Why are we to believe that this recognized "seller of jail time" is here to serve our purposes and not merely his own and that of his agency?  I think we can safely assume, if and only if these purposes happen to coincide with those of the examinee, will the examinees needs be met.  We know that in the past (perhaps currently as well) that certain agencies have evaluated their polygraph examiners on the basis of the number of confessions and admissions they obtain following DI polygraph results.  

Aside: Gordon, do you know if this is the case with this polygraph examiner and his agency?

Aside from the obvious bias that this activity represents, placing an examiner in the role of an advocate of some outcome (and an outcome known to be erroneous with a false positive polygraph result) and completely at odds with ethical practice of serious forensic disciplines, what about this practice would instill confidence in an examinee to "purge his soul" to such an individual and his agency?  I think for the time being (and likely for all time) we can safely assume that George's suggestions for innocent subjects regarding the post test phase of a polygraph are correct: never make any admissions regarding either the substantive issues addressed by the exam or any efforts at countermeasures you may have attempted to employ.  Polygraph examiners realize that the diagnostic value of their DI polygraph results is meaningless absent an admission or confession.  DO NOT be duped by this ploy to hand them that which they seek and that which will be your undoing.  A deceptive polygraph result leading to some administrative action can be challenged and litigation pursued if necessary.  The ability to do this is severely compromised by any admissions/confessions (however innocent you believe your explanations to be) you may make.  Recognize disinformation for what it is---let the buyer beware before he succumbs to the crocodile tears of this frustrated examiner.  I don't doubt that he is frustrated, just that this frustration stems from his interests, not yours...

Gordon,

You wrote:


Quote:

I recently received an E-mail from a military examiner.  The Government discourages examiners from voicing their views in public, so he wrote to me.  I am passing it along (with his permission) in the hopes it will provide food for thought.  I deleted only his name.

Thank you for forwarding this writer's comments. Note that while certain individuals who work for the U.S. Government may discourage polygraph examiners from voicing their views in public, the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees their right to do so. Nonetheless, any who may fear retaliation for voicing their views in public are welcome to participate in this forum anonymously.

To the anonymous author of the message Gordon forwarded,

Note that in the cases you cite, your subjects, if indeed they had read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, did not heed our recommendation that anyone who stands accused of a crime should not submit to polygraphic interrogation. The following excerpt is from pp. 65-66 of the 1st edition:


Quote:

Just Say No The surest way to avoid a false positive outcome is to refuse to submit to polygraph interrogation. However, this approach may have serious adverse consequences. If you refuse to submit to a polygraph screening interrogation, you may be denied employment, and if already employed, you may lose your job. If, however, you stand accused of a crime, "just say no!" You have little to gain and much to lose: if you "pass," the police may well continue to suspect you regardless; if you "fail," it will only confirm their suspicions. As John A. Larson, a pioneer of polygraphic lie detection lamented:    I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become    a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more    than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing    more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confes-    sions as the old physical beatings were. At times I'm sorry I ever    had any part in its development.[reference deleted] In refusing to submit to polygraphic interrogation, you may additionally use the "complete honesty" approach described below....

If you disagree with the above, you are welcome to explain here.

You also imply, in the two cases you cite, that it would have been in the best interest of the subjects whom you deemed deceptive to have made post-test confessions. What assurance can you provide visitors to this site that such is the case, and that any such confession would not have simply been used as additional evidence against them?

Quote:

This week I had two such young men that I tested, both of whom probably fit into the PPAOS influenced category, one involving drugs and one involving minor theft, who had studied George's book (both admitted to at least visiting the site) and attempted unsuccessfully to practice CM.  Both made no substantive admissions and both are getting crushed and discharged.

I find it ironic that this polygrapher assails us for giving out "bad advice" and chooses to support it with two cases where our advice was not followed.  We make it very clear (1) Never to submit to polygraph interrogation when a suspect in a crime and (2) Never to admit usage or knowledge of countermeasures.  Since these individuals ignored both of these suggestions, it would seem that they are following their own advice, not ours.


Quote:

The military judicial system is unique and specifically designed to allow commanders wide latitude in discipline with soldiers who get in trouble.

If the military justice system allows harsh consequences to be dealt to those who “fail” a pseudoscientific test and maintain their innocence yet assigns lesser punishments to those who submit, lie, and later admit it, I feel that "unique" is a poor choice of a word to describe this system.  Perhaps “warped” is more appropriate.

This examiner would have us believe that he is genuinely concerned with helping out those who use drugs, submit to his "test," and provide deceptive answers to relevant questions.  I would have an easier time believing this examiner's sincerity if he was urging those who have engaged in wrongdoing to confess beforehand, eliminating the need for any polygraph “test.”

To suggest that one who lies on a polygraph and later admits it is better off than one who produces a “failing” chart with no accompanying admissions also appears disingenuous. This type of statement reeks of the common interrogation tactic of attempting to minimize the appearance of the consequences of what one has done.  By saying that the consequences of using drugs and lying about it are minimal compared to the punishment that will be received for producing a deceptive polygraph chart and not admitting it, this is exactly what this examiner is doing.  

A similar tactic is often used following pre-employment screening tests.  The examiner will often tell “DI” applicants that they have a good shot at being hired if they just admit that they lied.  For those readers who believe that they will still be hired after admitting that they submitted false written statements (the employment application), I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell.

This examiner has two possible concerns:  The welfare of drug users and other deceptive criminals who lie to cover their tracks or the dwindling efficacy of his art among knowledgeable suspects in criminal situations (where polygraph “test” results are meaningless but confessions are fully admissible).  Readers of this thread can decide for themselves which is the case.

A lot of points to address here.  Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to do it justice, so I'll have to try and get something together later this week.  But I do want to address a couple of points.  First, I am not rated based on my confession rate.  Second, Military Rule of Evidence 707 prevents polygraph results or the mere mention of polygraph to be used in a military trial.  Third, and I recognize this is hard for some of you to get ahold of, but yes I do share concern for those who come to see me.  

Polygraph in the military, passed or failed, is not used solely to make decisions on a person's future.  The case facts and other evidence are.  While I agree with Gino, or whoever it was who noted that with a postivie urinalysis, why is there a need for a polygraph in most cases.  I am personally aware of two cases where individuals who had positive urinalysis results were exculpated by the polygraph and truely had innocently/unknowing ingested illegal drugs, so there is always a possibility that this presumptive test result does not indicate criminal behavior.

The other aspect that will be difficult for some here to accept is the military is a values based culture.  Duty, honor and integrity are more than just catch phrases to many who serve their country.  Along with that leaders recognize that people make mistakes, an admitted and learned from mistake can be survived.  Repetition of the same mistake, or a failure to acknowledge a mistake may not be survived.  The problem that existed for both of the individuals being discussed here, is the case facts showed their involvement.  When the commander has no information as to the circumstances which lead these individuals to commit criminal acts, the only option is to err on the conservative side and assume they acted deliberately.  Add that neither of these individuals did anything to restore their integrity, in organizations where this is highly valued, and the consequences are obvious.

You may also note that I agreed that some of the strategies discussed in this site's download would be effective in the screening arena.  And yes Gino, I fully agree with you that anyone who committed a crime should not take a polygraph, as they will surely be found out.  But I also believe each person should weigh their own situation and make their own decisions.  Perhaps it would be better to present your thoughts (George and Gino) more in the vein of information as opposed to advice.  That was the point I was trying to make.

One further thought.  Again I fully agree with Gino's assertion that it would have been better for both of these individuals and probably others in similar situations to admit their guilt at the onset and eliminate the need for the polygraph.  I assumed that went without saying.  Without doubt the longer false denials go on, the further compromised their integrity becomes the harder it is to restore it.

With regard to your comment about a "warped" system, I find it shocking that you or anyone would consider a system of justice, which is interested in viewing a criminal act in the total context of how and why it occurred before rendering judgement, and rewarding those who regret and accept responsibility for their misconduct, warped.  I guess I have to wonder if the people who instilled your values system ever gave you a break for telling the truth.  I would have to conclude they did, based on your assertion that people who do bad stuff should fess up without it coming down to a polygraph examination.  I guess I have trouble reconciling the mixed messages I read on this site and in your download.

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.

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:


wrote on Sep 1^st, 2001 at 8:44pm:

The other aspect that will be difficult for some here to accept is the military is a values based culture.  Duty, honor and integrity are more than just catch phrases to many who serve their country.

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?

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:

And yes Gino, I fully agree with you that anyone who committed a crime should not take a polygraph, as they will surely be found out.  But I also believe each person should weigh their own situation and make their own decisions.

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

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."

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.

Examiner,

You wrote in part:


Quote:

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?

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


Quote:

You also imply, in the two cases you cite, that it would have been in the best interest of the subjects whom you deemed deceptive to have made post-test confessions. What assurance can you provide visitors to this site that such is the case, and that any such confession would not have simply been used as additional evidence against them?

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, 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,

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:

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.

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:

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 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).

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,

You wrote:


Quote:

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 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 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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

You concluded:


Quote:

They must have just been inept because its obvious anyone who spends 30 minutes prepping can beat a poly, right George?

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.

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:

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 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:

In the last several weeks I have encountered numerous DI subjects, who abruptly terminated their interviews at the 40-60 minute mark.  I spoke with you briefly about this at DoDPI.  Per your suggestion I "studied" George's book and sure enough at the top of page 81, he instructs them to do exactly what I had experienced.

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:

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.

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.

wrote on Sep 1^st, 2001 at 8:44pm:

The problem that existed for both of the individuals being discussed here, is the case facts showed their involvement.  When the commander has no information as to the circumstances which lead these individuals to commit criminal acts, the only option is to err on the conservative side and assume they acted deliberately.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

Lies! Lies! Lies! One important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched upon in passing deserves explicit emphasis in this summing up. All of these techniques fundamentally depend on deception -- not just in one way and not just in little ways. The theory and assumptions of polygraphic interrogation require the examiner to successfully deceive each subject that he tests in several basic ways. First, he must persuade the subject that being untruthful or even unsure about his answers to the control questions may cause him to fail the test, although in fact the opposite of this is true. Second, when he administers the "stim" test in order to impress the subject with the accuracy of the technique, the examiner has two choices, both of them deceptive. He can use the original Reid "pick-a-card" method in which the deck is either stacked or marked so that the examiner can be sure to guess the right card. Alternatively, he can use the Raskin "pick-a-number" method in which he deceitfully explains that he is "determining what your polygraphic response looks like when you lie." The truth is, of course, that individuals do not show characteristic physiological response patterns when they lie that they do not also show when telling the truth. Third, throughout his interactions with the subject, the examiner must convey the impression of virtual infallibility. The stimtest is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polygraph will reveal their guilt, then they are more likely to respond strongly to the relevant questions. If innocent subjects are similarly convinced, then they will tend not to respond so strongly. Moreover, because most examiners truly believe in their near-infallibility, because as we have seen they are the victims of their own deceptive art, they may convey this needed impression not only effectively but also without conscious guile. Nonetheless, the polygraph test, as we have seen, has an accuracy closer to chance than to infallibility; the innocent suspect being tested by the police faces worse odds than in a game of Russian roulette. The fact that most polygraph examiners are not aware of these facts (indeed, they may be the last to know) is not an adequate excuse. Fourth, when the subject is interrogated after a polygraph test, he may be the victim of repeated deceptions. "This unbiased, scientific instrument is saying that you're not telling the truth about this, John!" "Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you feel guilty about, Mary, then maybe you will do better on the next test." "With this polygraph chart, George, no one is going to believe you now. The best thing you can do is to confess and make the best deal you can." I will confess here that I do not personally object to certain harmless deceptions of criminal suspects that might lead to verifiable confessions and a quick and easy solution to a criminal investigation. But a procedure that claims to be a genuine test for truth that cannot hope to succeed even by its own theory and assumptions unless the subject is successfully deceived in certain standard ways is an invitation to abuse, abuse by examiners and especially by sophisticated criminals and spies. I submit that it is madness for courts or federal police and security agencies to rely on polygraph results for this reason alone. As we have seen, of course, there are many other reasons for this same diagnosis.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

deleted by author

Examiner,

You asked:


Quote:

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?

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:

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.

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:

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.

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'm also glad you acknowledge that the implementation of countermeasures is not easy and requires extensive study and practice.

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


Quote:

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.

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.

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!