Gordon,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue of countermeasures use by innocent subjects. I've got several questions and comments.

Quote:


Am I correct in supposing that you include me and Mr. Scalabrini in your remarks? I would point out that in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we do not "urge" anyone to employ countermeasures. To be sure, we counsel anyone accused of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test." For those facing a polygraph screening interrogation, we offer options ranging from refusing to submit, to being completely honest with the polygrapher about one's level of knowledge about the trickery on which polygraphy depends and requesting that the "test" requirement be waived, to the use of countermeasures to protect against a false positive outcome. The likelihood of a false positive outcome in a non-science based "test" like a polygraph interrogation cannot be determined empirically, but we agree with University of Minnesota Professor Emeritus David T. Lykken, who writes at p. 277 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards..."

I am not aware that we have explicitly stated anywhere that there is virtually no risk of countermeasures attempts being detected. However, in countermeasures studies conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts of Boise State University (see the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for citations and abstracts), polygraphers were not able to detect countermeasures attempts at better than chance levels of accuracy.

Regarding the ethics of using polygraph countermeasures to protect oneself from a false positive outcome, I think it is Doug Williams who has specifically referred to "conning a con man." Similarly, we begin chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by quoting the title of a late 16th century play by English playwright Henry Chettle: 'Tis No Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver. This principle has a long tradition in our culture and may well be universal. Our discussion of the ethics of polygraph countermeasures is short and simple:

Quote:


Do you disagree? If so, why? Is it ethical for our government to lie to and deceive employees and applicants for employment through the polygraph process? If so, why? (The deceptions involved are discussed in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector).

I fully agree with you that it is up to the reader to choose whether to use any of the techniques described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to protect against a false positive outcome.

(continued in next post)

(continued)

Gordon, you advise truthful subjects not to augment their physiological responses to the "control" questions. Let us suppose a subject heeds your counsel and instead adopts the "complete honesty" approach described in chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. This approach seems to me to be ethically preferable, and yet a DoDPI graduate has advised that if a person were to follow this course of action, and admit to their detailed knowledge of polygraph procedure up front, he/she would likely be polygraphed anyhow and arbitrarily accused of deception and/or countermeasures. I asked American Polygraph Association president Skip Webb how APA members should handle honest, informed subjects who admit to their knowledge of the trickery on which the procedure relies up front, and whether such knowledge would make them unsuitable candidates for polygraph "testing." Mr. Webb refused to answer:

http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects

What would you say to the earnest employee or applicant for employment who wants a straightforward answer to this simple question: what will the polygrapher do if I admit to him/her that I understand "the lie behind the lie detector?"

You raise a number of points, George, which I'd like to respond to.  If you don't mind, I'd like to focus in this thread on the risks of using countermeasures and discuss topics like the scientific basis of polygraph exams and examiner accuracy for future threads.

I purposely didn't specify any names of those urging innocent people to use countermeasures, as I don't want to be seen as making ad hominem attacks.  The issues are too important to get bogged down in personalities.  I was trying to refer to the average person posting on these sites, usually those who have taken and failed the polygraph.  Urging may well have been too strong a term for some of the posters.  Perhaps suggesting, or gentle coaxing might be closer to the mark.

As for the detectability of countermeasures, it is often not so much the precise wording of the message, but the impression left with the reader that is important.  The general tenor of many posters to this and related sites is that there is little risk to using countermeasures.  For example, one recent (12/17/00) poster stated:  "I beg to differ with your contentions that polygraph countermeasures are ineffective and that polygraphers can reliably detect them.  The fact is that polygraph countermeasures are effective and extremely difficult, if not impossible for even well trained polygraphers to detect."  The poster then went on to summarize Honts' research which found that countermeasures could not be detected by experienced examiners.

Some types of countermeasures are easy to detect, others are hard (in part because they tend to be ineffective at significantly altering one's physiology).  One of Honts' key findings is that spontaneous countermeasures are not effective.  Honts does not specify the precise type and frequency of several of the countermeasures.  I suspect that many innocent and guilty subjects tried dissociation by staring at a spot on the wall.  If so, it's not surprising that it was not effective in clearing the guilty subjects, and that it was not detected by the examiner.  I don't claim to be able to detect most attempts at dissociation, either.  There is little need to; it does not seem to pose a significant threat.

As you pointed out, George, the untutored person who employs crude countermeasures (what I call low level CMs) because they don't know much about the polygraph is the one most likely to be caught out.  Where we differ is in the detectability of the sophisticated person employing mid-level CMs, such as are taught in the manuals available through the Internet. 

Perhaps the reason the examiners in Honts' research were unable to detect the countermeasures is that they applied the traditional reaction criteria and scoring rules, got group averages, and reported group results.  That is how most psychophysiological research is conducted.  In our research, we took a different approach, making post hoc analyses of known CM charts in order to develop new criteria and scoring procedures.   

To summarize, I can only repeat the gist of what I said earlier.  We have successfully detected many people using sophisticated countermeasures taught via the Internet.  What percentage that amounts to, I do not know.

Peace.

Mr. Barland

You have stated that countermeasures are easily detected and you have spent time studying the issue. 

As Jane Doe III has pointed out this can be a plasable explaination to why so many "readings" come back "inconclusive". You have yet to explain how you can detect these countermeasures scientifically and if you are such an expert on the subject, why are you trying to convince the users of this site that your textbook polygrapher answers will suffice. There is too much information published to counter many of your claims.

Sir your "science"is not science, it is a dog and pony show designed to weed people out that agencies have predetermined to be unfit for hire and a plausable excuse for disqualification is needed. Again like many others on this site, maybe you can give us the truth as to how Aldrich Ames, a convicted spy, "passed" a polygraph examination. Or how Wen Ho Lee, who did nothing more than mishandle some materials, be deemed as "deceptive".

There are many people who come to this site who have had FBI and law enforcement careers ruined by polygraphs. This must end. Judge Freeh turned in his resignation this week, do you really think he wants to be around to answer to why he is losing agents because they are deemed "deceptive".  

Fred F.

Gordon,

First off, let me say that I, for one, appreciate your participation in this forum.  I feel that informed debate will benefit all who are interested in polygraph policy.  Fruitful debate cannot take place unless the pro-polygraph point of view is represented.

A vast majority of academics have refused to accept polygraphy as valid for the simple reason that no exclusive relationship between attempts at deception and increases in blood volume and perspiration, and changes in breathing patterns, has ever been proven.  In claiming polygraphers have an ability to detect countermeasures on polygraph charts, you are claiming that polygraphers have the ability to distinguish between physiological reactions caused by attempts at deception and those created by pain, muscle contractions, and even stressful thoughts.  Furthermore, if you are claiming that mental countermeasures can be reliably detected, you are essentially saying that polygraphers have the ability to read examinees’ minds.  I find this amazing, especially with 1930s technology.

Since the topic of countermeasures is classified when it comes to polygraph training for federal government examiners, our debate is not likely to make much progress here.  You are bound by your obligations, and many on this board (including myself) will not accept “It works, but I can’t tell you how or prove it to you.”  

Instead, I suggest that we discuss this issue with respect to the scores of polygraph examiners operating outside of federal government employ.  A vast majority of private examiners and those working for local, county, and state governments presumably do not have access to DoDPI’s secret information on detecting countermeasures (for the sake of argument, we will assume that useful information actually exists).  Furthermore, I assume that DoDPI trained examiners who move to positions outside the federal government should not be employing classified techniques to score charts and detect countermeasures.  Still, you are confident that at least some police and private examiners are very experienced at detecting countermeasures. No classification issue exists here.  Tell us how they do it.

Considering polygraphy’s track record, if polygraphers are routinely accusing some examinees of using countermeasures, I am willing to bet anything that a new problem has been created:  false positive accusations of countermeasures.   Forget about peer-reviewed studies done under field conditions—have any studies been conducted that show polygraphers having an ability to reliably detect sophisticated countermeasures?  If so, please bring these to my attention.  If not, until this happens, the public should rightfully have no respect for the truth-finding abilities of any polygrapher who has not attended the countermeasures course at DoDPI.

Are you aware of any objective criteria by which polygraphers make a determination that countermeasures have been employed?  Is there a new scoring system in use by private/police examiners that objectively allows the polygrapher to make a determination that countermeasures have been employed?  Or, are these polygraphers who are supposedly detecting countermeasures making arbitrary accusations on gut feelings?  For some reason, I suspect that many of these examiners “experienced” at detecting countermeasures are experienced all right—experienced at using the “I thought he was guilty the second he walked in, but he produced a chart with strong passing scores, so he must have used countermeasures” technqiue.

Polygraphers, like Elmer Criswell of Polygraph Place.com have made numerous statements to the effect of “even the most inexperienced polygraph examiner can easily see that the examinee is attempting countermeasures.”  Do you think that he and other private polygraphers who make these statements are overestimating their abilities?  Is it easy for even the most inexperienced polygraph examiner to see that an examinee is attempting sophisticated countermeasures.  

I think that both of us can agree on one thing-- that there has been a great deal of proliferation as of late with regard to access to polygraph countermeasures.  

The polygraph has a less than impressive track record in determining truth from deception in mock games in a laboratory.  I, for one, would love to see some of these same laboratory studies repeated where a large number of those “programmed deceptive” are well trained in sophisticated polygraph countermeasures.  I bet that the numbers would be downright ugly—for both total percentage of correct determinations (truthful/deceptive/using countermeasures) and with respect to countermeasure detection.

Once again, thanks for participating.  I look forward to your responses.

Best,

GORDON: They also claim there is no ethical problem because it's okay to "con the con man."  Whether you follow their advice is up to you, but you should be aware of the risks involved.


NATE: Before I begin Gordon, read my past experience with the polygraph in the "share your experience" part of this message board.  As you read, I did not attempt to use counter-measures on my third test despite the fact that I had previously had a false positive.  My basis was not on the fact that I could not use them.  If I did use counter-measures they would have been ones that would have been undetectable, hence psychological.  I think anyone is justified and ethical to lie to someone in self-defense just as it is moral and ethical to kill in self-defense. The reason why I personally didn't use counter-measures was different from these two reasons. I believe law enforcement "should be" honest and the most pure of all society.  Therefor, I felt unethical trying to "trick" a police department in order to get on.  In other words, I don't want to work for a police department in which you have to trick in order to get on, and more importantly disqualifies qualified HONEST applicants.  I want to work for a police department knowing that my honesty and "purity" is what made me get the job, not trickery.  Although the logically fallacy in the statement could be "then why work a police department that uses the polygraph machine seeing that it based on trickery?"  The answer that helps me most is the one in which I try to believe that the police department truly believes in the machine and tries to be ethical in its usage, although I must say this is hard for me to swallow.

Gordon, you can waive your doctorates degree around all you want, but the reality is that most examiners do not even have masters.  I have simple example for you referring pre-employment testing:

1) If an examinee fails a test do you tell him?
2) Do talk to the examinee if a question shows a reaction?
3) Do you perform post-test interrogation upon the examinee failing a polygraph test?
4) If an examinee fails a test, do you sometimes ask for a re-test on another day?

Gordon if you answered yes to any of these questions then I just proved that the polygraph exam in biased and not consistent with all exams.  In my one false positive the answer to all of the above questions was no.  Not all exams are like the ones you do.

GORDON: So that you may judge where I'm coming from, I'll tell you up front that I've been a polygraph examiner for thirty years.  Both my Master's and doctoral degrees involved research on the accuracy of the polygraph.  

NATE: As you can see, what you say is nice and dandy, but the majority of applicants are not being tested by unbiased polygraph examiners with doctorates degrees, they are being tested by municipal police departments and by examiners that have a  " I do this on the side" mentality.

GORDON:Each Federal agency has a quality control office which reviews every examination.  

NATE: What are you saying? That in order for an exam to be accurate, fair, and unbiased that you need a "quality control office"?  If this is so, then what about the small police departments that don't have these, seeing that the majority of pre-employment exams are not for federal but for local agencies.  Does this mean that all the local applicants are not a getting a fair and unbiased exam?  My we use you as our witness in a lawsuit against a local police department?

PS: How does someone pass a polygraph test, then fail one, then pass another one all with the exact same answers to the questions?  How reliable is that?  Based on this information, it looks like its 66.6% accurate.

Hello Mark
I appreciate the fact that you allow and welcome polygraphists to participate in this very interesting forum.  However please do not mistake my silence as acquiescence.  Sometimes I do not respond because it would be like beating a dead horse.  I do not wish to appear inimical.  Not being from  the world of academia I guess that I am just too diffident to do justice to some of the topics raised by some of your obviously pedantic (sometimes boringly so)writers.  I find it best sometimes to take advise from the "famous" booklet, and just "BITE MY TONGUE".  I enjoy the give and take and I accept it as little more than tendentious exercises by two or more people with different views.  I especially enjoy reading George's responses.  Believe me, if in the future I read something that I feel I can elucidate on I will.  But it seems to me that no matter what I write, I will not be able to convince the non-believers.  By the way---- ahhh!! forget it!
Ray Latimer