Crobzy,

That which you describe about your polygraph countermeasure efforts would accurately be described as attempting to obtain a non-deceptive exam result through the attenuation/reduction of physiological responses to relevant questions via the method you describe.  You indicate that you know it works, because it worked for you.  Several points: (1) I have no reason to doubt that you did what you described having done, and that you successfully passed (were found to be non-deceptive) your polygraph exam; (2) You do not indicate whether you were given a CQT or RI type exam.  With regard to the former and in general successful countermeasure efforts would involve increasing reaction(s) to control questions, not trying to reduce responses to relevant questions (very very difficult for most people to do).  

The one to one correlation you describe between your countermeasure effort and a successful polygraph result may be simply that.  Although you apparently were found to be non-deceptive to one or more issues for which you were deceptive (false negative), there may well be no cause and effect relationship between your efforts and the end result.  You may just be the benefactor of the fact that CQT and RI polygraphy are inherently (in the absence of countermeasures) inaccurate producing both false negative (your experience) and false positive error (that which has occurred with many victims on this site).  I would continue to recommend the sorts of countermeasures described on this site (augmenting responses to control questions) to innocent examinees.  

Your method is quite interesting though and may well have some impact on autonomic measures in the time frame of the typical polygraph exam (would not on the CNS measures I am currently looking at (http://www.brainwavescience.com/counter-terrorism/) ; in a concealed information test--those responses occur as soon as an examinee recognizes the stimulus in context and before he/she could implement your silent diversion).  That having been said, there might be a case made for using your method WITH (not instead of) the countermeasure efforts as described in the Lie Behind the Lie Detector and similar sources.  This is an empirical matter, i.e., one that could be tested.  Because polygraph exams are inherently inaccurate and with the added impact of the oft previously discussed countermeasure efforts, your method, even if successful to some degree, may now come under the category of beyond the point of diminishing return.  Additionally, the combination of your methodology plus "traditional" countermeasures might be too much for the average examinee to keep up with and perform successfully.  Nevertheless, perhaps an interesting academic research topic and fodder for academicians to muse, discuss, and debate...

Eastwood wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2002 at 9:38pm:


It certainly is-- if you're a polygrapher.  

Eastwood wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2002 at 11:29pm:


I hid nothing on the two polygraphs I've taken. The fact that I used countermeasures to assure an interpretation of 'NDI' doesn't change that fact.

I wouldn't lie to you, Eastwood.... after all, I'm not a Polygrapher, like you.

Eastwood,

Truthful people do and should use countermeasures on a polygraph examination.  Those who do not are either naive or foolishly put their reputations, livelihoods, and even freedom at stake.  I am quite appalled that you, having no personal knowledge of beech tree's circumstances or polygraph examination(s), have repeatedly made unfounded accusations to and about him.  You should be ashamed and the subject of your own colleague's ridicule for such reckless dialogue, and from such, this readership should clearly understand the mindset that operates in a polygraph suite.  At least we can all thank you for that contribution.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 12:58am:


1. What evidence do you have that truthful people don't use countermeasures?

2. Is it your position that all truthful people don't need to use countermeasures because the polygraph is an infallible instrument that can detect truth from deception?

3. You're starting to show a salacious, slightly odd interest in my personal life, as are 'Polycop' and 'PDD Fed'. I suggest you gentleman exercise your interests in things prurient elsewhere-- I'm a fairly boring fellow.