Drew,

First, thank you for the correction of wording on my last post.  Yes, demise is quite whimsical in light of the issue at hand.

I agree that there will come a day, if drastic reform is not implemented, that pre-employment polygraph falls to a page in history.  Again, I do not conduct pre-employment screening.  I only conduct criminal specific issue examinations.  

Quote:


I agree.  If someone is knowingly doing something that would violate our professional obligation to uphold the constitution, there should be ramifications for their actions.  The color of the law is quite broad and may be applicable to this issue depending on the case. 

See;

Quote:


There are pitfalls within the opinions on this issue;

Quote:


Quote:


Please expound on what you would deem administrative matters. 

I do not think our thoughts are very different if at all on the criminal specific issue testing.  I agree that CQT has a degree of probing, if this is the issue at hand, and I would prefer the DLT.  I know you prefer the GKT and have read at length the debates between Honts and Furedy.  The only way to better our profession is by cultivating change in fallible issues and expounding upon successful ones.  In some issues it may need to be forced change.  

Quote:


Again I concur with you.  There were many more polygraph examiners pre EPPA.  The truly professional examiners will push for change, standardization, licensing, research and any and all continual improvements of polygraph as a science. 

Netin:

I can assure you that I am neither George nor Gino in disguise.  I am just another victim of LAPD's pre-employment polygraph policy who believes that ridiculing polygraph proponents does nothing to further an ongoing dialogue.  This site has been fortunate to have several polygraphers participate and I would like to see that continue.

J.B.:  Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging problems with pre-employment polygraph screening.  I have first-hand knowledge that honesty does not guarantee passing and that effective countermeasures can be utilized successfully by honest applicants to avoid false positive outcomes. I hope that you will continue to participate.

Very respectfully,

AMM

JB,

As always, I sincerely value your participation in this forum.

Quote:


We could play "chicken and the egg" on this one forever. The buck, however, should stop with those who maintain that polygraph "tests" are a reliable method of detecting deception. The fact is that polygraph “tests” have never been proven to determine truth from deception with better than chance accuracy in a peer-reviewed study conducted under field conditions. I would be inclined to accept your argument if polygraph “testing” was already widely accepted by scientists. Since the validity of polygraphic lie detection has never been sufficiently established in the first place, those attempting to make a case for it should also be responsible for demonstrating that the “tests” are accurate against those attempting to beat them using widely available information.

It is good to see that we have found some common ground here. While the examiners may not be 100% to blame, they are certainly a “but for” cause of the irreparable damage that is occurring the reputations of truthful and innocent individuals on a daily basis.  

I suggest that you check out the personal statements section of this website to view anecdotes of the damage that is occurring to people. A large number of agencies are eliminating applicants based on polygraph screening alone. Some agencies, like the US Secret Service (arguably the most abusive in the nation when it comes to polygraphy) will DQ an applicant without even polygraphing him if he admits in his application to failing even a single previous polygraph "test."  In the words of one polygraph victim I know, It's like you set off the metal detector at the airport and they ban you from flying for life.

I agree with Drew that the greed of the examiners plays a large part in what is going on. There is nearly universal agreement among researchers (even among those who support specific issue “testing”) that polygraph screening is invalid and should be stopped. Even the scientific advisory board at DoDPI held this view. (Former DoDPI director Michael H. Capps dismissed the board.) Ethical examiners could refuse to engage in screening. More importantly, the American Polygraph Association could declare it an act of misconduct to conduct screening “exams.” At the very least, the APA could declare that no examiner should conduct screening for an agency that has a policy of eliminating applicants based solely on polygraph results. A number of APA Presidents including Richard W. Keifer have said that no employment decision should be made based only on polygraph results, yet this practice is extremely widespread. 

On ABC News' Sam Show webcast on Friday, 2 March 2001, American Polygraph Association President Skip Webb actually stated "no adverse action is ever taken on anyone based simply on the results of a polygraph."

As George pointed out in a previous thread, Webb’s statement was completely false and he knows it. In many cases, a single failed pre-employment polygraph is enough to get one blacklisted for life from federal employment. The applicant is afforded no background investigation, no re-test, no due process—nothing.

The fact is that polygraphers are aware of what is going on yet most have made no efforts to stop it (JB: Have you written the APA to let them know your position on screening?). If a substantial number of examiners actually cared about what is happening to people’s lives instead of their own bank accounts and had simply done something like I suggested above when this problem first surfaced, it is likely that websites like this one would not even exist. 

Unfortunately, it appears that those who run the APA have decided to embrace screening to the end, even if it means going down with the ship. Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that a few years from now, polygraph associations will look back on their decision to do nothing to halt the damage being caused to individuals by polygraph screening as a tremendous mistake.  

J.B.,

This message thread began with Netnin posting the explanation he received from certain polygraphers of how they can allegedly detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. Netnin did not find the answers he received satisfying, and asked for comment.

You at first responded with a discussion of "invoked" vs. "evoked" physiological responses, without explaining how these can be distinguished from the examination of polygraph charts. I asked you to do so, and to "be specific, and support your reply with references that skeptical readers may check."

On 20 Nov. you replied:

Quote:


But again, you did not explain how to detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts...

On 24 Nov., you claimed that "rounded breathing is not normal" and on 27 Nov., I posted the illustrations you sent me along with your explanation of how to detect respiratory countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. Your argument was that rounded pneumo tracings are indicative of attempted countermeasures. Although you also provided an illustration showing apneas in conjunction with anal sphincter contractions, you provided no explanation of how the presence of such apneas can be correlated with attempted countermeasures. (Indeed, according to DoDPI, apneas such as those shown in your illustration are a scorable physiological reaction.)

On 28 November, I posted an illustration from Reid & Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique titled "Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns." Most of the pneumo tracings show rounding, which contradicts your claim that rounded breathing is indicative of attempted countermeasures.

Finally, and also on 28 November, you conceded that you are "unaware of any published or publicly available documentation or scientific study" regarding how countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts. You also stated that your argument regarding countermeasure detection "is a hypothesis not a theory" and that you are "in the infant stages of studying, researching, documenting and validating the ideas [you] have shared..."

On 29 November, I challenged you, "If you have a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts, please state it formally." To date, you have not done so, though on 5 December you posted a non sequitur discussion of respiratory volumes. In the same post, you wrote regarding the Reid & Inbau illustration, "In the example you provided, Reid & Inbau are making a generalization of possible normal respiration tracings, which are illustrated in the form of character drawings and not true tracings." You obviously did not read the text at the top of the illustration. It states, "All of the following reproductions comprising Figures 9 through 22 are from actual case records and the tracings are the same size as the originals."

Today (11 December), you wrote regarding me and Gino, "It is your right to express your views and feelings.  However, to offer them as true to fact or scientific is misleading and confusing to those coming to your site to obtain credible information and education." Our arguments in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are based on our research of the literature, and are extensively annotated with citations that the skeptical reader may check.

Addressing Gino, you wrote, "you say the accuracy of polygraph is no better then chance in field settings. I have provided you with a long list of peer reviewed studies on polygraph.  None of these studies or any or all combined support a 50 percent accuracy rate.  Chance is 50/50."

What Gino and I have both argued is that Control Question Test (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to operate at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. Such peer-reviewed studies as you cite apply to analog (laboratory) studies, not field studies. And it bears repeating that as CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity.

In addition, the chance level of accuracy is not necessarily 50/50. It is governed by the base rate of guilt. For example, in screening for espionage, where the base rate of guilt is quite small (less than 1%), an accuracy rate of over 99% could be obtained by ignoring the polygraph charts and arbitrarily declaring all "tested" to be truthful. However, such a methodology would not work better than chance.

With regard to Honts and Amato's survey of scientific opinion regarding polygraphy, note that the question of whether polygraphy has "utility" is different from the question of whether is has "validity." A completely invalid truth test may nonetheless have utility if it leads to confessions that would not have been made absent the "test." In a survey published in 1997 by William G. Iacono & David T. Lykken (see the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a full citation and abstract), members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research were provided with an explanation of how the CQT works and were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed. In addition, when asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions," 99% of the 96% of respondents with an opinion agreed.

You also claim in your latest post, "There is no need to keep any aspect of the polygraph a secret. A properly educated examinee is less likely to be apprehensive and more likely to be comfortable with the known."

Again I ask you, as I did on 29 November (you did not answer), "on what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, 'the lie behind the lie detector,' if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP discussion list), he declined to answer."

J.B.,

Regarding four points you briefly addressed...

1) Reid & Inbau made it abundantly clear that their illustrations are of actual tracings, shown actual size, and are not "character drawings" as you suggested. The fact that they used the term "reproductions" does not suggest that they provided stylized cartoon drawings (such as are found, for example, in DoDPI's Test Data Analysis document).

2) You still provided no explanation whatsoever of how apneas associated with contraction of the anal sphincter muscle can be correlated with attempted countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts.

3) Your answer to my question, "on what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, 'the lie behind the lie detector,' if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive?" was completely non-responsive. (This is not a question about countermeasures.)

4) Lastly, you wrote, "the apnea I presented [in the 2nd illustration that you provided and I posted on 27 Nov.] is not caused or the same in true tracing appearance as the apnea for scoring.  Thus, it is not scored as a normal reaction/response because it is not truley apnea but again is considered as an artifact." Do you suppose that all apneas associated with contraction of the anal sphincter muscle will look like those in your illustration? If so, on what evidence do you base this belief? If not, then how do you distinguish between a "true apnea for scoring" and an "untrue" apnea?

George,

Quote:


Although Reid & Inbau's reproductions are considerably better then those produced by DODPI, they do not appear as they would and I have seen in true tracings.  They are still illustrations or "reproductions" and the word they used to describe the tracings were "same" not actual or exact size. 

As for the sphincter contraction and notations within the pneumo tracings of my prior post, these noted tracing will be produced within the pneumo tracings at the onset of the produced GSR response caused by the contraction.  This is not apnea.  Apnea is ceased respiration at the end of exhalation and continues until the carbon dioxide becomes concentrated to the point of stimulating the inhalation.  This is normally seen in hyperventilation.  It appears like apnea and referred to like such because in the noted tracings it occurred where apnea would.  Apnea is much longer in the tracings and appears between end of exhalation and beginning of inhalation.  The short flat tracing noted within the pneumos tracings is caused by the muscles contracted intrinsically and is abnormal to respiration.  The pneumo tubes are placed on or near the diaphragm and on the upper thoracic cavity, which the intercostal are present in, to monitor respiration.  Although the diaphragm and intercostal muscles are primarily used for respiration, they are also used in a process known as the defecation reflex.  This tracing will occur where the contraction is initiated and may occur automatically subsequent to because of the initiated reflex.  This flattening of the tracing due to contraction of the given muscle is evident and reproduce within the given pneumo tracings with each sphincter muscle contraction at the point of contraction and in direct correlation with the onset of the produced GSR response.  Although this process might not be noticeable to a person practicing, as Netin claims, it is noticeable in the tracings as noted in the previously provided examples.

As for your question about knowledge and its effect on response to the CQT, I am sorry I misunderstood the question posed.   Please remember that my response to your question deals only with criminal specific issue examinations.  A person knowing how a polygraph is administered will have no relevant bearing on their physiological responses to questions. They will not respond more or less then if they knew nothing of the process.  I know of and have administered polygraphs to polygraph examiners resulting in both confirmed deceptive and truthful in the respective different cases.  Their responses were no different then John Know Nothing’s.  The advantage I see of an educated examinee is that the fear of the unknown is removed and thus they are usually more relaxed at the onset of the process, if truthful.  If deceptive and educated, I would think they would not take the exam.

I hope these answers better explain some of your questions.

George,

These have been your prior requests;

Quote:



1) A testable hypothesis by Webster definition as I earlier cited “… implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.” 

My explanations have met the defined criteria for a testable hypothesis.   
 
I have explained to you in-depth what is seen when a sphincter muscle is contracted within the "tracings" and explained scientifically why.  These examples and the explanations imply that if this tracing is seen it is the proposed countermeasure, not a normal reaction/response but a voluntary action causing an involuntary reaction as shown in the tracings and explained in science, and specifically in my examples a sphincter muscle contraction.

I have explained respiration ratios and the factors that effect them.  The complexity of normal respiration would prove that someone with no formal education of Anatomy and Physiology would not be able to generally calculate or even estimate what their normal respiration is.  Even if one were to have this knowledge, they would not be able to maintain an appeared normal controlled breathing pattern for the approximate half a hour they are attached to the instrument.  Unlike analog polygraph which record or show tracings when the examiner begins the chart, the computerized polygraph shows the respiration and GSR tracings the entire time the person is attached to the instrument.   

I am already in the process of testing these along with other countermeasures and when I am finished I will have a theory.

You asked for a testable hypothesis and I have provided you with more then one.  Now I say to you, ”How will you test my hypothesis?”

2) I cannot give a theoretical explanation of something that will not occur.  They are not expected to or will they produce any more or less and in the prior cited studies;
 
“(1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 197 has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity. Rovner fully informed groups of innocent and guilty subjects about nature of the CQT, how the CQT was scored, and about ways to beat the test. When these subjects were compared to naive subjects, there were no differences in accuracy rates.? http://truth.boisestate.edu/honts/pdorpc.html “

“From http://www.admpoly.com/ccss_3.htm ;
A. Countermeasures 
Countermeasures are anything that a subject might do in order to distort 
or defeat a polygraph test. Detailed reviews of the scientific literature 
on countermeasures are available in a number of locations.24 This research leads to several conclusions. First, there is no credible scientific evidence that drugs or other countermeasures designed to affect
the general state of the subject are effective against the CQT.25 However, laboratory studies have suggested the possibility that training in specific point countermeasures designed to increase responding to comparison questions might be effective in producing false negative outcomes.26 Nevertheless, it is also important to note that training in the countermeasures appears critical to their effectiveness. 
Subjects who spontaneously attempt countermeasures or are only given the
information are unable to achieve effects,27 and the required identified in this journals charter was the psychophysiological detection of deception.

24 e. g., Supra note 18 at 373 (Honts & Perry); Charles R. Honts,
Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures. 15 J. POLICE
SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION 204 (1987); Supra note 23 (Honts, et. al); 
Raskin et. al., supra note 1. 

25 Id., Honts (1987); Supra note 1 (Raskin et al.); David C. Raskin,
1986 The Polygraph in 1986: Scientific, Professional, and Legal Issues
Surrounding Application and Acceptance of Polygraph Evidence, UTAH LAW
REVIEW 29 (1986).

26 See e.g.. Honts, et al., Supra note 22.

27 Rovner(1986), supra note 7; also see, Charles R. Honts, David C.
Raskin, John C. Kircher, & Roben L. Hodes, Effects of spontaneous
countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception, 16,

Training is hopefully difficult to obtain. 28 Honts and Perry note that while there are no easy answers to the problem of countermeasures, it appears that computerized analysis of the physiological records substantially reduces the false negative rate attributable to countermeasure
use.29”

As I said in my last post, ” ..not because one would produce greater or lessor response but
because the distortion would negate it as a true reaction/response.”  There is only one known and studied reason for someone to employ countermeasures and that is to attempt to hide their deceptive answers with distortion of the tracings.   

I warn anyone who follows this discussion that, if you employ countermeasures, you will be found to be inconclusive at best and most likely deceptive.