Constricting the anal sphincter muscle means tightening it, as one might to avoid the release of intestinal gas or a bowel movement, and not pushing (as one might when constipated, and which involves other muscles).

You might also consider alternatives to the anal sphincter contraction, such as the mental countermeasures or tongue bite that are also described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

This guy must be applying for the position of rocket scientist.

Mr. M, good thing you cleared this up for him or else he may have crapped his pants during the polygraph!  I believe your suggestion regarding the use of "mental" countermeasures may be a bit of a stretch for this one.

Gee, I really hope this genius beats his polygraph and gets hired into a position of trust.   We need more like him at all levels of law enforcement and government service.

By the way "X", what were you "interrogated" for, and how did it go?

Batman

Ah Beech Trees, my old advisary.  Just what is the problem that I am a part of?   

Do you not agree that "X" may be somewhat short of a full load of bricks?  I think this is a fair assumption to make, and God knows, you always seem willing to make assumptions.

Wouldn't you too like to see him making decisions regarding national security, especially since he doesn't know whether to push or pinch.

Also, I wasn't aware that Ames "passed" his polygraph examination, or that Hanssen ever took one.  Please share.

Batman

My Dear Beach Trees,

Why so eager to attack?  Given the nature of some of your postings one might come to the conclusion you too are one of those no good polygraph interrogators.

As for me pointing out any "erroneous assumptions" you may have made, how about that being one of them.  I never said you made any "erroneous assumptions", I simply said you seem willing to make assumptions.  So I'm assuming you assumed I meant erroneous assumptions, which is in fact an erroneous assumption on your part.

Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy?  Again, an erroneous assumption on your part.

Re: "Bowel conrol being a prerequisite for federal employment", I just figured it was, since so many who post on this site seem so concerned about using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph, which on ocassion is a prerequisite for federal employment.  So I guess, by proxy, bowel control may be a prerequisite in the minds of some.

As for Ames: Do a little more "casual perusal of the facts" and you may find he did not in fact "pass" his exam in '91.  Given your misstatement of this fact and the phantom Hanssen polygraph you so freely mentioned, I have to question your accuracy on other topics.  Maybe you're no more accurate than what you claim the polygraph to be, a toss of a coin.

I have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced.  I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site.

Batman   

Drew,

I did not say I was either pleased or displeased with the Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  I simply said I was not as impressed with it as others seem to be.  Even that statement leaves the door open that I may have been somewhat impressed with it, just not as much as others.

Must you and Beech Trees read something negative into every post that does not, on the surface, agree with your particular point of view?  Must the individuals who post on this site totaly capitulate to the anti-polygraph viewpoint, or grovel at the feet of the authors of the Lie Behind the Lie Detector before they are free from attack by the likes of you, and Beech Trees?  Must they check their sense of humor at the door before they can enter?

Come on a Drew, stop wearing you pants so high and tight and lighten up just a bit.  In the big scheme of things, this issue about polygraph is small potatoes to the great, great majority of people.  It's not even a blip on their radar screens.

I have also read The Catcher in the Rye as well as Romeo and Juliet.  My overall "general impressions" of those particular writings may not be relevant either, however any "specific criticisms/commentary" I may offer on those would probably be as readily accepted in litirary circles as anything I would offer on the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be here.  In other words Drew, trying to offer any criticism of that document on this site would be like spitting into the wind or tugging on Superman's cape; and Batman would never waste his time tugging on Superman's cape.   

Over to you Mr. Trees.

Batman

Geese Beech Tree, conversing with you guys is like being the odd man out in a WWF tag team match.  First you get in the ring and take a few shots, then slap the old tag on the Drewmeister so he can come in and throw a few punches, then he gives you the wink and a nod, and slam, bam, thank you sam, you're back in the ring.  Wow, you guys are so good one might think you're all the same person, or possibly all connected at the hip.

Anyway, do I really need to tell you when you're attacking?  My God man, just look in the mirror, when your teeth are bared, you're attacking.  When anyone gets on this site and questions certain motives, or someones credentials, or tries to defend the use of polygraph in any way, you're attacking.  When you're typing on the keyboard, you're attacking.   I would consider you to be Mr. M's alter ego.  He comes in with the sugar, and you slide around the back door with the rabbit punches.

The "conclusion" about you possibly being a polygraph interrogator, that was a joke my man.  There is no way anyone would mistake you for being in that particular field.  (On your next post I expect you to comment about how proud you are not to be in that field or something to that effect.  Don't let me down.)

Interesting how you make an erroneous assumption and when called on it you state it was only done to "further debate."  How magnanimous of you.

As for Mr. Ames, sorry, can't disclose my sources.  I know that's not fair, however I do believe there has been some public documentation of the fact his last polygraph was not NDI as originally reported by the media when his stuff hit the fan.  I also believe this non-NDI conclusion was reached at exam time (not several years later with the development of polygraph algorythms), but ignored by the "system" due to his lofty position within the agency.  Possibly not as much weight was put on the polygraph results as should have been.

And lastly, I'm comfortable that you're comfortable.  Now if we could just get the Drewmeister to loosen up those tight drawers of his maybe he would be comfortable too.

Batman

No Drew my man, I don't care to return to polygraph screening, it bores me, and frankly, I don't think it's worth a tinkers damn.   

However I would like to continue on the topic of the ladies in your life, since you felt compelled to mention them. We'll start with a simple question, why did you feel compelled to mention the "ladies in your life"?  I find that to be an interesting twist.  Also, I talk pants and you hear drawers, boxers, or briefs.  Very interesting indeed.  We could probably spend days working our way through this "thread".   

As for inputs from polygraphers regarding the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I guess you'll just have to find a polygrapher to give you those.  Me, I'm just taking it all in, enjoying the interface with the malcontents.

Regarding one little polygraph issue though, where you still with the FBI when the Ames case broke?  What is your take on whether or not he "passed" his '91 polygraph as Beech Trees contends?  Or was he possibly Inconclusive or maybe even DI?

Beech Trees, I do believe the tag has been made, your in the ring now!

Batman