J.B.,
With regard to my observation that you are presently unable to articulate "a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be reliably detected from the examination of polygraph charts" you wrote:
Quote:My explanations have met the defined criteria for a testable hypothesis.
In your rambling and oftentimes incoherent discourses, the only thing approaching a testable hypothesis which you offered was your suggestion that rounded pneumograph tracings indicate controlled breathing which in turn indicates attempted countermeasures. Such a hypothesis could be tested. But it is prima facie implausible, as Figure 9 ("Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns") in Reid & Inbau's
Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique makes abundantly clear. I had supposed that you had abandoned this hypothesis. However, your mystifying insistence that the respiratory tracings in Reid & Inbau's Figure 9 "do not appear as they would" (and by implication are somehow altered) makes me question my suppostion that you had abandoned the notion that rounded pneumograph tracings indicate attempted countermeasures. If this is still your hypothesis, I admit that it is testable. But it is also absurd.
Your other suggestion is that there is some nexus between apneas and constriction of the anal sphincter muscle which will enable better than chance detection of countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. But you have still not formulated a testable hypothesis in this regard.
Second, with regard to my conclusion that you are presently unable to articulate "a theoretical explanation of how sophisticated subjects (those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy) can be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to relevant questions, if deceptive" you wrote:
Quote: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...
Your response is an utter non sequitur, and helps to illustrate my point.
By the way, the Rovner, Raskin, and Kircher citation to which you refer (Rovner, L. I., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. [1979]. Effects of information and practice on detection of deception.
Psychophysiology, 16, 197-198) "clearly demonstrates" nothing. It is an abstract of a study that has never passed peer review. And Rovner's 1986 article in the (non-peer-viewed) American Polygraph Association quarterly provides inadequate evidence of anything. Rovner doesn't even disclose what information about the CQT he provided to his test subjects.
For commentary regarding Professor Honts' dubious claim that knowledge of CQT methodology does not affect CQT validity, see my earlier post,
A Criticism of Honts' Testimony on Countermeasures. You also wrote:
Quote: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.
Nonsense. As Professor Emeritus David T. Lykken of the University of Minnesota observes at p. 277 of the 2nd edition of
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, "...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..."
And in a recent study published in
Polygraph, Professor Honts and collaborators wrote, "Field polygraph examiners appear to operate under the notion that a detection of countermeasure attempts is synonymous with attempted deception to the relevant questions of the examination [reference deleted]. Clearly, that notion is incorrect. The results of this study show that an examiner's decision of countermeasure use is unrelated to both countermeasure use, and to deception. These results strongly suggest that the field practice of equating countermeasure attempts with deception to the relevant issues of an examination should be abandoned." (Honts, Charles R., Susan L. Amato, & Anne K. Gordon. "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test,"
Polygraph, Vol. 30 [2001], No. 1, pp. 1-9, at pp. 7-8)
J.B., you concluded your post with the admonition:
Quote: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.
Prove it.