Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts (Read 54856 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #45 - Dec 7th, 2001 at 7:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.,

Quote:
Depending on how much a polygraph examiners existence depends on pre-employment screening, they may blindly push for its continued use...


I worked for a federal agency for approximately ten years while at the same time openly and publicly opposing its official policy regarding polygraph screening.  I am not inclined to have much sympathy or understanding for a polygraph examiner who would allow people (examinees) to be victimized through his practice(s) and continued silence simply so that he might conform to the norm allowing him to go along to get along within his agency.  I believe that there will come a day when we will no longer be plagued with polygraph screening.  For those who would have a role in criminal specific-issue testing following the fall, they will need to have demonstrated some principle and conviction now if they are to have any credibility on the other side...

Quote:
...the fuel behind this issue is not so much the examiners themselves but the departments who use it to save time and money...


If a shortsighted view of time and money (completely ignoring the worth of the product obtained) is preferred over rational thought, truth and lasting value for both agency and citizen alike, then I suggest we switch this to an arena all will understand.  I would suggest the individual examiners and agencies alike be the target of civil suits based on Constitutional issues so that there might be a clear accountability in terms of that which they value as precious...

With regard to criminal specific-issue testing, I have posted concerns regarding the underlying theory of CQT polygraphy and its impact on practice and research as well as concerns with the obligatory deception associated with this type of testing.  Perhaps you might want to become familiar with those postings (I will cut and paste if you have trouble locating them) and comment, as you like.  There are a variety of other issues related to validity of published research, resource utilization, etc that I would also enjoy discussing.  These concerns having been raised, I still believe there is a very real role for and meaningful way to apply polygraphy to resolving issues related to criminal and administrative matters....

Quote:
As best as I can demise...


On a lighter note, I believe you meant to say something to the effect of "As best I can surmise..." instead of that which you did say in the aforementioned quoted material.  I point this out not to poke fun (I am quite susceptible to the same error), but because I believe the slip of the tongue you made is, albeit unintentional, yet nevertheless quite apropos if the word demise refers to polygraph screening.  Best for now and have a pleasant weekend, Drew



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #46 - Dec 7th, 2001 at 9:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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:
If a shortsighted view of time and money (completely ignoring the worth of the product obtained) is preferred over rational thought, truth and lasting value for both agency and citizen alike, then I suggest we switch this to an arena all will understand. I would suggest the individual examiners and agencies alike be the target of civil suits based on Constitutional issues so that there might be a clear accountability in terms of that which they value as precious...


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:
From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=325&inv...

U.S. Supreme Court

SCREWS v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945)

'Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, will-fully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'


There are pitfalls within the opinions on this issue;

Quote:
From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=491&inv...
   U.S. Supreme Court
       WILL v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)
Held:
Neither States nor state officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" within meaning of 1983. Pp. 62-71.
(a) That a State is not a person under 1983 is supported by the statute's language, congressional purpose, and legislative history. In common usage, the term "person" does not include a State. This usage is particularly applicable where it is claimed that Congress has subjected the States to liability to which they had not been subject before. Reading 1983 to include States would be a decidedly awkward way of expressing such a congressional intent. The statute's language also falls short of satisfying the ordinary rule of statutory construction that Congress must make its intention to alter the constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government unmistakably clear in a statute's language. Moreover, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is one of the well-established common-law immunities and defenses that Congress did not intend to override in enacting 1983. Cf. Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 ; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 . The "Dictionary Act" provision that a "person" includes "bodies politic and corporate" fails to evidence such an intent. This Court's ruling in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 - which held that a municipality is a person under 1983 - is not to the contrary, since States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not. Pp. 63-70. [491 U.S. 58, 59]
(b) A suit against state officials in their official capacities is not a suit against the officials but rather is a suit against the officials' offices and, thus, is no different from a suit against the State itself. Pp. 70-71.

      428 Mich. 540, 410 N. W. 2d 749, affirmed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and O'CONNOR,         SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL,     BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 71. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 87.


Quote:
These concerns having been raised, I still believe there is a very real role for and meaningful way to apply polygraphy to resolving issues related to criminal and administrative matters....


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:
For those who would have a role in criminal specific-issue testing following the fall, they will need to have demonstrated some principle and conviction now if they are to have any credibility on the other side...


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.

« Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2001 at 9:48pm by J.B. McCloughan »  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock (Guest)
Guest


Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #47 - Dec 7th, 2001 at 11:57pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.  I am trying to understand your case law and its relevance to polygraphy. If you are saying that polygraphers enjoy immunity, you are correct. State polygraph boards will stop at nothing in protecting their members. I read of a lawsuit where an examinee sued to get a copy of his chart so it could be reviewed by independant polygraphers. They state board went to bat for the p[olygrapher and won with the statement "it is impossible for one polygrapher to interpret and pass judgement on another polygrapher's chart". I wish I had kept the article but, unfortunately, I didn't.

State's qualified immunity is ever evolving. Given that U.S. SpCt. rulings are controlling, there are Courts of appeal that rules for and against "Collateral Order Doctrine". In Garrett v. Alabama,(ADA Title l, employment) the high court ruled that Congress didn't use the language necessary to abrogate state's qualified immunity. However, ADA Title 11, (Hospitals, prisons, etc.) Congress, even though they didn't have to, used the talismanic language to ,and it was their intent to, abrogate state's immunity because they proved a pattern of abuse. State's do NOT enjoy immunity under Title 11.

Again, this has little to do with polygraphy except to ask the question "why does polygraphers enjoy qualified immunity?"
How would you answer this question?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AMM
User
**
Offline



Posts: 32
Joined: Aug 24th, 2001
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #48 - Dec 8th, 2001 at 8:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #49 - Dec 11th, 2001 at 8:39am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
J.B., quoting George Maschke: It is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.
End quote

JB: Actually, if I am not mistaken, Gino first introduced a proclamation, in this discussion forum, based on a study of countermeasures and you exclaim they work in your book.  Thus, in you proposed discourse, it would be incumbent upon both of you to prove your assertion.


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.

Quote:
I am against pre-employment polygraphs in their current state and feel they are invalid . . .As best as I can demise, the fuel behind this issue is not so much the examiners themselves but the departments who use it to save time and money.


JB,
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."  


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 (all members of the board were dismissed soon after they stated this publicly). 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 Quote:
Skip Webb:  ...in the federal government, both the Department of Defense and in other areas of the government, we do not make any decision based solely on the adverse results of a polygraph. So no adverse action is every 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.  

« Last Edit: Dec 16th, 2001 at 2:43am by G Scalabr »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #50 - Dec 11th, 2001 at 8:50am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
JB,

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

Quote:
J.B., quoting George Maschke: It is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.
End quote

JB: Actually, if I am not mistaken, Gino first introduced a proclamation, in this discussion forum, based on a study of countermeasures and you exclaim they work in your book.  Thus, in you proposed discourse, it would be incumbent upon both of you to prove your assertion.


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.  


« Last Edit: Dec 11th, 2001 at 12:39pm by G Scalabr »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #51 - Dec 11th, 2001 at 8:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Gino,

I am glad that we do see together that the pre-employment polygraph screening in its current state is invalid and unacceptable.  I am not alone in the polygraph field in this view.  Many examiners I have spoken with share the need for reform and national standards.  You suggest that I contact the APA with these views.  In here lies a current problem that I have discussed with Drew.  There is no current national governing board of polygraph.  The APA may make suggestions and impose rules and sanctions on their members but have little to no power when an examiner is not a member. 

You wrote;

Quote:
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.


You bring up several arguments in this statement and I will address them separately.

First, you say I am passing the buck.  My intention was not to pass the buck but to enlighten that both George and you have made assertions prior to my coming here.  It was George's proper method of discourse.  I have provided evidence to my assertions.  My assertions are provided with illustrations of true tracings, physiological explanations and scientific cites.  Added to these, I have specific education and experience in this field. 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.  I encourage people to educate themselves on polygraph weather for the purpose of taking a  or just have interest in polygraph.  That is why I come to this site and provide information.  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.  That is why I here and in my polygraph examinations openly answer questions that examinee's or readers have. 

Secondly, 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.  The only study I know of that suggests chance is the Honts study that deals with an examiner’s ability to detect countermeasures, not polygraph accuracy.

Last, you state that polygraph is not scientifically accepted.  Honts would disagree with this assertion and has argued at length with Furedy on this issue.

Quote:
From:  http://truth.boisestate.edu/honts/pdorpc.html

Attitudes in the Scientific Community Regarding Polygraph Testing
In light of the lengthy and often acrimonious debate in the scientific literature, and the negative opinions expressed by Furedy (1993) and others (Furedy's letter to the SPR in 1994), one might expect the scientific community to hold sharply divided opinions regarding the accuracy of polygraphs. However, in the last two decades, two scientifically-conducted surveys have clearly demonstrated that the relevant scientific community holds positive views regarding the utility of polygraph testing, including the CQT.
In 1982, a scientific telephone survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) was conducted by the Gallup Organization (1984). The purpose of the Gallup survey was to assess the opinions held by the scientific community in order to meet a Frye standard regarding the offer of polygraph evidence by The Wall Street Journal, then defendants in a civil libel suit. The Frye standard required scientific findings and techniques to gain general acceptance in the appropriate scientific community before they were admitted as evidence. The principal findings of the 1982 Gallup survey are shown in Table 1. Approximately two-thirds of the scientists reported favorable opinions concerning the usefulness of polygraph tests. Only 1% of the respondents indicated that the polygraph was without value.
Amato (1993; also see Amato & Honts, 1994) replicated the 1982 Gallup study using a mail survey of the SPR membership. Their principal results are also shown in Table 1. Considering all respondents, their findings closely mirrored those reported by Gallup in 1982. In addition, Amato and Honts separated respondents who characterized themselves as highly informed about polygraph tests from those who indicated they were not highly informed. The highly-informed subjects reported much more favorable opinions regarding the validity of polygraph testing; 83% of them endorsed the favorable alternatives. Additional questions indicated no significant differences between respondents attitudes twoard control question and guilty knowledge tests.

Note: A Table appears in the printed article rather than the color graphic.
The results of these studies strongly contradict Furedy's (1993; Ben-Shakhar & Furedy, 1990) assertions of widespread negative attitudes in the scientific community. The data clearly indicate that a substantial majority of psychophysiologists and the majority of highly-informed psychophysiologists believe that the CQT is a useful diagnostic tool for assessing truthfulness. Scientists who are familiar with the polygraph literature have not been persuaded to ignore the majority of published data, nor have they been persuaded by vocal polygraph critics who cite only a few weak studies to support their negative biases and minority views.


Note:  The table is not present here but is available at the provided link within the quote.

  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #52 - Dec 11th, 2001 at 11:51pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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:
For the questions about "self-stimulation (e.g., contracting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, thinking arousing thoughts, or manipulating one's breathing patterns) vs. those that are attributable to other factors (e.g., fear of the consequences of not being believed, anger, embarrassment, etc., etc.)?"  

The sphincter contraction causes specific and notable changes in another component tracing.  

Manipulating ones respiration is evident in the inhalation- exhalation ratio factor and tracing appearance.  

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.


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."
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2001 at 1:52am by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #53 - Dec 13th, 2001 at 4:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,

I will respond to you at length in a later post in regards to your last post.  I apologize for delay.  I have been quite busy.

I will respond quickly to some of your questions posed in your last post. 

You wrote, in part, about my statement of Reid & Inbau illustrations;

Quote:
…. "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."


The key word in this sentence is “reproductions”.  As I wrote prior, they are not true tracings. (i.e. photocopies of real charts)  Furthermore, I wrote of numerous factors that are considered in the appearance of respiratory tracings within one of my prior posts;
Quote:
…..  Physiology documentation would not argue that respiratory norms do not very in adults.  Some factors effecting respiration rate and volume are physical fitness, height, weight, gender, age, illness, and physiological defects in a given individual. …… One must take into consideration the subjects medical history, all the other criteria I listed in the previous paragraph, and possible outside effectors. (i.e. noise disturbance, defective equipment, etc)


You wrote;
Quote:
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.)


Physiologically speaking, when the sphincter muscle is contracted the muscles within the thoracic region contract as well. (i.e. diaphragm and intercostal)  This is due to the physiological reason for sphincter muscle contraction, defecation.  The contraction of the sphincter signals to the brain that defecation is being initiated and the thoracic region in turn contracts to aid the movement downward and prevent it from moving upward.  This action is intrinsic and would be imposed inversely if the action were to prevent excretion.    Thus, hypothetically speaking, if one employs the sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure, the apnea I noted in the true tracings would be the result.   

You wrote;
Quote:
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."


I responded previously by telling you that the idea of greater response for the employment of countermeasures along with the normal physiological reactions was illogical.  The reason I said this is because if one employs countermeasures it will negate the ability to discern the true physiological reaction/response.  This is not because one would produce greater or lessor response but because the distortion would negate it as a true reaction/response.  Although all or part of one or more reactions/responses may be true, the presence of distortion would not allow them to be scored as such.  Take for example, and I know this is not a countermeasure you support, if one takes a deep cleansing breath every time a comparison question is asked.  This may cause a noticeable change in respiration, cardio, and GSR but it is not a normal reaction/response.  It becomes an imposed artifact so, as in the material you have read, it would not be scored.  Also, as you stated, apnea is a scoring criteria for respiration.  However, the apnea I presented 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.

I will follow up more in a later post.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #54 - Dec 13th, 2001 at 11:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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 W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box MissionPoly-ban
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov 13th, 2001
Gender: Female
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #55 - Dec 13th, 2001 at 11:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B.

You make the following argument in your latest post:

"Physiologically speaking, when the sphincter muscle is contracted the muscles within the thoracic region contract as well. (i.e. diaphragm and intercostal)  This is due to the physiological reason for sphincter muscle contraction, defecation.  The contraction of the sphincter signals to the brain that defecation is being initiated and the thoracic region in turn contracts to aid the movement downward and prevent it from moving upward.  This action is intrinsic and would be imposed inversely if the action were to prevent excretion.    Thus, hypothetically speaking, if one employs the sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure, the apnea I noted in the true tracings would be the result."

As far as I understand it, though I may be wrong,  the only method used to monitor breathing is through the use of two pneumo tubes:  One placed around the upper portion of the chest, and one placed around the abdomen area.

The two pneumo tubes that are used to record tracings of breathing feedback do so by the manipulation (of the tubes) by either being stretched outward by inhalation, or by being contracted inward by exhalation. 

I have practiced using the sphincter contraction countermeasure technique a number of times now, and don't understand what you mean by this countermeasure causing "apnea."

I have employed the sphincter contraction during the inhalation, exhalation, and slight pausing phase of the breathing process, and have found that doing so does not affect, in any way, the flow of breathing.  Furthermore, contracting the sphincter does not cause a short pause in breathing.

Perhaps you were referring to your idea of invoked and evoked physiology.  Were you trying to say apnea would be caused if the sphincter was contacted as the result of a NORMAL reaction to outside stimuli?  If this is the case, then your insight on this subject only proves to be informing--it does not, however, demonstrate that the sphincter contraction countermeasure technique lends itself to easy
detection through the gazing of the polygraph charts (the head subject of this particular post).

In conclusion,  I find that the self-induced contraction of the anal sphincter has no affect on breathing, as far as breathing tracings on a polygraph chart are concerned.  It is not up to me to determine whether or not a sphincter contraction caused by outside stimuli would cause apnea, as this is something I am not able to self-test.

J.B.:

I urge you to turn your focus of discussion to how countermeasures suggested in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector"  are recognized through chart-gazing.

Sincerely, Netnin




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #56 - Dec 14th, 2001 at 9:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,

Quote:
Reid & Inbau made it abundantly clear that their illustrations are of actual tracings, shown actual size, and are not "character drawings" as you suggested.


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.
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #57 - Dec 14th, 2001 at 10:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I hope these answers better explain some of your questions.


J.B.,

Yes, they did. Respectfully, these answers (and your previous ones) lead me to conclude, among other things, that you are presently unable to articulate:

1) 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;

2) 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.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box J.B. McCloughan
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Location: USA
Joined: Dec 7th, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #58 - Dec 15th, 2001 at 12:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,

These have been your prior requests;

Quote:
1) 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;

2) 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.



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.    
  

Quam verum decipio nos
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box MissionPoly-ban
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov 13th, 2001
Gender: Female
Re: How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts
Reply #59 - Dec 15th, 2001 at 12:48am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
J.B. 

Your intent becomes clearer and clearer with each post you contribute to this board:  To try and scare off people from using countermeasures by using scientific talk that leaves people confused and wrongfully convinced that countermeasures are easily detectable when visually analyzing polygraph charts.

I suspect your understanding that this particular chain of posts is the most popularly viewed chain (created thus far) gives you more incentive to type off intimidating messages warning not to use countermeasures...you understand that you are reaching--and potentially scaring off--a lot of people (possibly hundreds) from going ahead and using effective countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

You have failed to give the readers who have been following this chain of posts any uniform standard of detecting countermeasures vie gazing at polygraph charts.  Instead, you have attempted to lend scientific support to a machine that has already been determined to be JUNK-science by many professionals in many areas. 

Why do you consistently deny reality?

Why do you insist on denying the findings of professional studies done by researchers like Iacono and Honts?

Why would people like George Maschke and Gino Scabarini go to such extensive lengths and efforts to investigate and provide the public with free information (backed by countless numbers of documented evidence) if there was nothing to it?
These men are professionals who contribute greatly to the art of learning, and would not spend their time or money supporting something if it was a hoax.  If they were to sell their book for 50$ through mail-order, then we might question their intent, but the fact that they provide this information free to the public is evidence enough of the validity behind their rightful motives.

And again I ask you,  why are seeming to miss the point that I am a perfect example of someone who passed the polygraph using a physical countermeasure on the control questions?

I requested, obtained, and reviewed the results MYSELF!
I read the examiner's findings:  "There were no emotional reactions indicative of deception on ANY of the relevant questions."

On what grounds do you make the following claim:
"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,".....?

I didn't even receive training...I simply read the information on this site and employed countermeasures in a timely fashion on the control questions.  And you are going to make a claim such as that?  Just imagine what one could do with professional training!

Again, I understand if you insist I didn't pass the test using countermeasures.  It is my mistake if I believe what I see for myself, and you believe what you make up in your head and convince yourself of. 

I think the answers to my question I post to you are clear.  There is no other possible explanation other than the fact that you are coming on here and working for the other side--the side that is trying to save their profession.

A person who denies REALITY is doing one of two things:
They are psychotic and know no better of what they do, or they know exactly what they are doing and are attempting to mislead people.  I don't think your psychotic by any stretch of the imagination. Kiss

Netnin Yahoo
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
How Countermeasures are Detected on the Charts

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X