Saidme wrote on Jun 11^th, 2003 at 7:38pm:


You don't, of course.  However, since the polygraph has not demonstrated scientific validity at "honesty" detection, it's not reasonable to conclude that truthful responses "got you over the hump", either.  The credit belongs to whatever produced stronger physiological changes during the control questions as opposed to relevant ones.

The issue I believe Beech Trees was discussing before was whether countermeasures are detectable.  Many polygraphers seem to regard countermeasure attempts as indicative of deception; therefore, we can conclude that it is highly likely the polygrapher who administered Beech Trees' polygraph did not detect them.

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Jun 11^th, 2003 at 6:59pm:


I think that the entire polygraph session meets the dictionary definition of an "interrogation".  However, I suppose it's a matter of professional semantics -- not being a professional in this area, I will defer to your opinion on the matter as to whether the polygraph is described as an "interrogation" by those who investigate professionally.

Quote:


And, of course, if you used only GKTs, we wouldn't have a disagreement in the first place.

Just one more reason why I won't work for any agency or company that uses the polygraph.

Skeptic

Saidme,

It's meaningless to speak of countermeasures by deceptive vs. truthful subjects being "easier to detect" considering that no polygrapher has demonstrated any capability to detect countermeasures.

Saidme,

I don't doubt that by observation, a polygraph examiner might detect such crude countermeasure attempts as coughing, fidgeting, or muscle-flexing. But the available peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraph examiners cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

Countermeasure "detection" at this stage seems to be little more than guesswork and badgering a subject for an admission.

In the field, polygraph examiners have no way of knowing what percentage of countermeasures employed they are "detecting."

You ask me to tell Drew to turn off the countermeasure clock (which will otherwise roll to 500 days tomorrow!). Does this mean that you've accepted his polygraph countermeasure challenge?

Saidme,

I'll accept that you honestly believe that you can detect sophisticated countermeasures. But what evidence can you provide others that you have any such ability?

If countermeasures can genuinely be detected under field conditions, then it should be possible to detect them under laboratory conditions, too, no? If not, why not?

Saidme wrote on Jun 11^th, 2003 at 8:21pm:


Hardly.  Clearly, polygraph theory is meaningless without ascribing a consistent cause for the mentioned physiological changes.  It is this assumption of cause that has not been validated and is demonstrably wrong in many cases.

Quote:
 

Then you're willing to hold polygraphers to a higher standard than I.  I don't believe it is reasonable to assume anyone should be able to discern truth from lies based upon the polygraph, nor force reactions on the polygraph that necessarily conform to those predicted by polygraph theory.

Polygraphers can sometimes influence an unwitting subject's reactions through suggestion, but that's not the same thing.

Skeptic

Saidme,

You are quite likely correct that no polygrapher can meet my challenge.... but your reasoning is quite faulty--it is not that the stated conditions are unfair, but that the outcome of accepting such a challenge will likely lead to the end of control question test polygraphy.  With regard to the conditions (simulated crime/mock crime scenario), you must realize that largely the only evidence put forward by polygraph proponents for any validity of control question test (CQT) polygraphy comes from simulated crime studies.  You would hardly suggest that such a study would be the basis for drawing conclusions regarding validity in the absence of countermeasures, but would not be suitable for examining countermeasure efficacy would you??  I would argue that, in fact, it (a simulated crime study) is much more suitable for the latter than the former--the reason being roughly as follows:  I believe the operative principle of CQT testing is what I have previously referred to as fear of consequences (not the same as and independent of any fear of detection) .  These consequences that are to be feared are largely associated with relevant question material.  I would argue that the lack of any meaningful consequences in many simulated studies would render this sort of validity study largely useless and would likely lead to an underestimation of the level of false positive results that would be expected in real field cases.  The reason I believe a simulated crime study has meaning as outlined with my challenge is that, although suffering from the same lack of consequences, at least this condition is balanced over those trials for which countermeasures are employed and those for which none are employed.  Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the simulated study paradigm that I have outlined in broad principle is likely considerably more meaningful for a countermeasure study than a validity study.  Even if that were not the case (both of similar value) one could hardly look to a simulated crime study for answers to validity issues and then question its use for similar insight into issues related to countermeasures. 

Playing at DoDPI and/or demonstrating to yourself in your own polygraph suite that if you know to look for countermeasure "x' that you can see it on a polygram is not the same as demonstrating that you can reliably detect countermeasures as applied by a knowledgeable examinee with a large arsenal of readily available countermeasures and one who further will apply such with stealth and motivation and with you not knowing in advance that such will be applied.  I am sorry, but there is nothing but either reasoned retreat or cowardice associated with the absence of a response to the countermeasure challenge.  Although I have nothing to do with the running of the clock associated with this site, the challenge most certainly remains in effect.