Batman wrote on Mar 6^th, 2003 at 8:58am:

batman,

Just because something can't be detected doesn't mean you should avail yourself. There are ethical considerations that are, when it gets right down to it, more important. I flunked out of college and had to repeat a term. All of my finals were take home, 3 hrs max, half closed book, turn them in the next week. Now the fact is I had partied too much that term and after finishing the finals I realized I had likely failed and I deserved to fail.  I had to go though the rest of the weekend knowing that I could cheat and there would be no way anyone would ever know - except me.  I was tempted but ultmately decided that cheating and living the rest of my life knowing that I took unfair advantage of others simply wasn't an option. Perhaps this explains my distaste for the CQT - even though I understand it's underlying rationale.

-Marty

Batman,

You write:

Quote:


You thought you would never hear it, but you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  Lie Detection polygraphy is completely unreliable, it should not be trusted and anyone who finds him/herself as a potential examinee should be more than slightly concerned.  Anyone who suggests that an examinee simply be honest and unconcerned with the process is either ignorant of the facts or a fool.   This is a clear example of the need  to critically analyze the words of weak allies as well as outright opponents..  Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency.

Batman,

Clarification is my middle name . . .
Batman wrote on Mar 6^th, 2003 at 8:58am:

Or the agency you are applying for will process you for clearance as part of their application process . . .
Quote:

1.  Not supposedly, I did fail.  If you want proof I will gladly send you a scanned copy of my letter rescinding my offer of emplyment because of the polygraph.
2.  You know what happens when you make assumptions, Batman.  I am not "employed" by the DoD.  I once was on Active Duty, but now am a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, basically on Inactive Reserve status.  The DoD has control of me, but I do absolutely nothing (and receive no pay or benefits).  Recall of the IRR is the last step before a draft.
3.  The failure of my polygraph HAS affected my ability to apply for other government postions.  See my personal statement for details.
Quote:

Oh, I believe him.  I just want your reaction to the possibility that the polygraph test is widely abused and mishandled around the nation.  I want you to know that there are many, many reasons why people are being bounced by the polygraph, and not all of them are based on pure machine readings.
Quote:

You're damn right it is.  The PL CQT is based solely on a unknowing subject falling for all the tricks employed on them.   Why can't a screening or pre-employment test be based solely on the machine readings?  Because the machine readings don't tell you squat unless you compare them to other questions to which you ASSUME the subject is lying.  Tha is BOGUS!!!
Quote:

"Let me explain to you the imprtance of honesty and integrity" -- a phrase used when administering a Probable Lie Control Question test.  Emphasize honesty but assume that the subject will lie.  If that isn't the most ass backward thing . . .

"Please write a number from 1 to 7 on a card.  I'm going to run a test to calibrate the machine."  HA!

"This test is about to begin" -- don't you mean "This test began the moment I hooked you up"

Must I go on?  Read TLBTLD for more details.  Better yet, go back to your DoDPI handbook.  It's all in there.
Quote:

In my opinion, I believe that countermeasures that are used on a first polygraph are undetectable.  However, if an individual tried to use countermeasures on a second polygraph, after not using them on the first, well, a comparison of the charts wouls CLEARLY indicate an improvement in test results.  The marked improvement could only be attributed to 2 things - substantially less anxiety as to the polygraph experience or use of countermeasures.   Countermeasure-paranoia among polygraphers will always lead them to the second conclusion.
Quote:

My case is very different than others.  You assume (again, Batman, assumptions mare bad) that I am just someone who claims a false positive but really had some issues during my test.  I had nothing to hide during my poly, but a PAPERWORK error by the agency created misleading information which swayed the polygrapher into calling me deceptive.  Remember, my polygraph took TWO days, and at the end of day one, I was deemed "inconclusive."  But at the end of day two, I was a "definitely conclusive, a conclusive failure."  The polygrapher was looking for information from me that he believed, from a PAPERWORK error, to be true, and when he didn't find it, he failed me.

Without that paperwork error, I'm sure I would have passed.  The PL CQT relies on too many outside factors to judge results on, rather than using straight polygraph readings, like CKT (event specific).  The PL CQT is straight up fishing.  My polygrapher was told where the fish were, went there, didn't get a bite, and chose to believe that there were fish in the water, rather than refute what he was told.  It is crazy.
Quote:

Come on, Batman.  You know I am a man of my word, despite what your silly PL CQT says about me.  I don't skate around or ignore arguments.  Hell, I'll even include a point from your second post:
Quote:

Ahh, see, I believe that the polygraph MACHINE does work.  It can measure the physiological responses of the human body.  What does NOT work is the person sitting behind the machine, trying to interperet another human's autonomic nervous system measurements down to a 50/50, truth or lie result.  
Now in the CKT, the measurements are overwhelming, and the questions are specific.  But I would never believe guilt or innocence based on the test result; it is only another piece to the comlete investigation pie.
Of course the PL CQT is nothing like the CKT.  Truth or lie is determined by answers to a question in which the polygraph examiner ASSUMES (there's that word again) that a previos answer given by a subject is a lie.  How crazy is that?  And to boot, some agencies use these test results as the final authority on an individual.  It's the whole pie, not even a piece of it!

The system itself SUCKS.  And countermeasures are living proof that the system is totally unreliable.  Using countermeasures corrupts the system even more.  Well, if a system is corrupt, we ought to get rid of it!!
 
Why do I tell people not to use countermeasures?  If good people, those with nothing to hide, use countermeasures to ensure they pass a polygraph, years later, when they are a asset to the agency they work for, everyone will assume that the polygraph worked well, and let in a real winner.  
When that happens, NOBODY wins, becasue the broken, corrupt system perpetuates. 

Chris

Quote:


Aye, that is the rub my friend. AFAIK, you have diminished your chances since it will be quite hard for the polygrahper to properly condition you on the control questions. OTOH, I would also assume they want bright people who investigate things. This gets to the heart of my so far fruitless search for info on exactly how polygraphers examine other polygraphers. Perhaps you should be tottaly honest and describe what you know and request a DLT form of the CQT. This gets around the problem and should be more likely to give an accurate result for one who knows the "trick".

Sorry, you have eaten a bite from the apple and there is no going back. Perhaps the TLBTLD text should have a warning up front that knowledge of what's inside could reduce one's chances of passing a polygraph absent use (not knowledge) of countermeasures and many (including me) have an ethical problem with use of countermeasures. OTOH, I have an ethical problem with the PL form of the CQT, the most common form. Also, I am fascinated by the subject, but am not the target of it so I am free to pontificate without personal consequence. I'm not really sure why it so fascinates me. Perhaps it is the intersection of technology and psychology. I'm a nerd at heart.

-Marty

x x x,

From the (pro) polygraph literature I have read, properly conditioning a subject as to the importance of a control question is essential to minimize false positives.  If one knows what is really going on and can't be convinced otherwise by a very practiced polygrapher, they are very likely to produce a false positive or at best an indeterminate result without CM's.

BTW, I believe you are correct in assessing that CM's should not be applied full bore to every control Q. It is likely that most respond differently to charges of disloyalty, cheating, stealing, etc. Most of us are not equally worried in each possible CQ area so responding to each at a high level could well be a flag.

Pretty damn amazing (and telling) that NO polygrapher here has yet responded to any of my requests which are directly from a polygrapher's testing survey (with real names in the biz) published in 2002.

I guess it's easy for them to disparage George's info (which seems to be accurate) but not so easy to go after information published by their own side.

I personally would not use CM's (easy for me to say) but don't believe it is unethical to use CM's in a PL CQT since the examiner is lying at the git go. I do think it unethical used in a DLT form of the CQT since deception is not part and parcel.

-Marty

Well, there are 2 issues here.

1. Is deception an essential part of the DL, CQT?
2. Is it ethical to use countermeasures in a polygraph exam?

It is clear that deception is part and parcel of the PL-CQT. It really can't be administered without deception.

As for the DL-CQT, It was invented in large part to deal with the ethical issues of lying to the examinee (some polygraphers have such qualms) . The deception, to the extent that it exists, is in conditioning the examinee to believe that the polygraph is highly accurate if not perfect. This is NOT an essential component of the DLT, but is used (and justified) to reduce false positives with naive subjects. For more sophisticated subjets, it is skipped. I think it is completely appropriate for an examinee to cut the crap short and, if they don't want to talk about reading antipolygraph.org, can get a copy of Kleiner and cite chapter and verse.

BTW, such conditioning is not part of the CIT polygraph, the rarely used (in this country anyway)  form of the polygraph.  I hear Drew is going to do a bakeoff with the CIT and the brain fingerprinting approach. Should be interesting.

As for being shear pseudoscience. Well, while I do think anything  that requires an ignorant populace to work may well be characterized as a pseudoscience, There are ways that the polygraph could be used, with proper informed consent, that would not be so egregious. The problem of course is that a large part of it's effectiveness is due to exploiting ignorance which informed consent would destroy.

-Marty

George,

Your analysis and description of the DLT is in fact essentially identical with what Kleiner describes and I guess it can be considered a form of deception but at least it doesn't exceptionally disadvantage the most honest examinees, unlike the PL-CQT, and it doesn't require the polygrapher to flat out lie.  Most of them I think believe the polygraph is highly accurate and not all of the lie on the stim tests.

marty