Quote:Netnin: And, just for the sake of argument, lets all agree for a second (because that is as long as you will get most to agree on this subject) that there is classified information in existence that provides a method that can be applied uniformly on all polygraph charts, and can be used to determine the use of countermeasures by strictly analyzing the charts.
Note that many of us feel that no uniform method exists and those at DoDPI are bluffing. If there was an effective, objective method that could not be defeated, one would think that instead of hiding it that it would be publicized as a deterrent. Nonetheless, you still make an excellent point in that there is a large polygraph community operating outside the cloak of secrecy that has not produced one shred of evidence that they can recognize countermeasures.
JB,
I value your participation in this discussion. Open debate can only lead to a greater understanding by all sides. I wish more polygraphers would choose to participate.
Quote:I think if one was to read into my former post they could see within an explanation of the difference between invoked and evoked as related to a polygraph and CM.
I suggest you read 'Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology' by Seely, Stephens, and Tate, 'The Machinery of The Body' by Carlson, Johnson, and Cavert, and 'Social Psychology' by Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin to start.
I will be glad to pick up this title. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have a feeling I won't find a clear description of how to discern attempts at countermeasures from naturally occurring reactions on a polygraph chart.
Quote:As for the comments about polygraph examiners referring to some material as classified, this is true. I am a polygraph examiner and there is much talk of research that I am not at liberty to view or obtain. Polygraph has been and is still used for many facets of truth and deception detection. It was used as far back as W.W. II. Some areas it is used in fall into the scope of National Security. I will gladly except this in light of recent events and wait until the material is available for my viewing.
There are a large number of polygraph examiners such as yourself that operate outside the cloak of government secrecy--yet no one has provided an explanation of how one makes a determination of "countermeasures used." You have provided a number of generalizations, but not a specific and objective method. The fact that both government polygraphers and private ones are so secretive about how they detect countermeasures appears to be a tacit admission that there is no reliable system for detecting them.
Quote:The study you speak of that refers to CM detection being nothing more then chance was conducted in a university setting and not in the real world.
If we are going to limit ourselves to the discussion of peer-reviewed studies conducted under field conditions, we might as well abandon this discussion all together, considering the fact that polygraphy has never been shown to determine truth from deception better than chance in studies meeting these criteria.
Quote:All though I do not know of and have not read or researched the statistics of error ratio of Doctors compared with Medical Students in the proper diagnosis of medical problems, I will go out on a limb and say there is a significant difference.
The peer reviewed studies showing that polygraphers cannot detect countermeasures better than chance involved EXPERIENCED EXAMINERS, not students. Students were only used as the test subjects.
Quote:I am not sure why one would want to score CM. What purpose would that serve? If you attempt to distort your tracings, you will be deceptive.
Once again, how does the examiner make an objective determination that the tracings are "distorted?" What I am looking for is something besides "its deceptive because I am an examiner and I say so." In other words, a clear objective scoring system that anyone can apply. This is a requirement for standardized tests.
Quote:The sphincter contraction causes specific and notable changes in another component tracing.
If these changes are specific and notable, characterize them. Giving a generalization that the changes are “specific and notable” and then not saying what characterizes a specific and notable change is a cop out. This is the point I am trying to make. This sounds a lot more like "I can't explain, but I know it when I see it."
Quote:Manipulating ones respiration is evident in the inhalation- exhalation ratio factor and tracing appearance.
Maybe when it is done by unsophisticated subjects. When this technique is employed by sophisticated subjects who make a "california stop" between each inhale-exhale-inhale and avoid deep breathing and breath holding, it is undetectable by polygraphers.
Quote:Mental imagery is invoked at the examinee's perceived point of implementation. Invoking a response with mental imagery would then involve one hearing the question, perceiving the question to be one that they should use CM, beginning mental imagery, and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system possibly being triggered. However, a person responding to a question is different. The question and answer are reviewed prior. The person already knows if their answer will be truthful or deceptive. Hence, to process this involves hearing the question and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.
Once again, how do the two reactions appear differently on a polygraph chart?