George

I would argue that there's a difference between knowledge of a technique and being intimately familiar with a technique.  I concur a CQT exam would probably not be the best examination for a polygraph examiner.  However, I have conducted several polygraph examinations (specific issue) on law enforcement personnel who had knowledge of polygraph.  CQT's worked great on them.  R&I would work best on polygraph examiners.

George

I can tell you from experience (conducting polygraph examinations) that examinees do continue to respond to CQT, even armed with knowledge.  Again, it goes to the art and effort put forth by the examiner.  Every exam I go into, I go into it with an open mind and remain totally neutral.  If your statement ".....then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them."  ...were true, then those examinee's I've conducted exams on who were familiar with polygraph should have probably ended up DI.  However, that was not always the case and those who were NDI were later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing through other evdience; some obtained as the result of the polygraph.   

It's easy to sit in your armchair and throw stones at those of us who are trying to do good work.  My only problem with you George is why do you do it?  Is there more to it than just a failed pre-employment polygraph?  Maybe there's other issues that should be explored.

Regarding R&I:  It's used much more than you know.

George

To really understand it George you would need to understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogtions, human behavior, and be a polygraph examiner yourself.  With regards to your question:  DI suspects will take care of themself.  NDI suspects are the responsibility of the examiner (that art stuff).  I know that's not the answer you would like to have but sometimes things aren't just black and white.  Not everything needs to be scientifically valid, have empiracal evidence and be peer reviewed for it to work.  I truly believe those topics were created to keep academians gainfully employed.  I'm sure you've heard the term, if you can't do it, teach it.

Present facts even if it's to further criminal enterprise!  I think you're rationalizing.   

I agree the CQT is the best thing going.  I just wanted to make sure we had the record straight that R&I is still widely used and in my opinion effective.

George

How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you conducted?  How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you personnally observed?  If the answer is none than you don't really understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogations and human behavior.  Maybe I should have been more specific and put the word "criminal" in that sentence.  Sorry if I was vague.  If you have substantive experience in these areas, I stand corrected.

Regarding your questions:  "What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?"

Regardless of what I respond with you will somehow twist and mold and reform and blah, blah, blah until it fits your little view of the world.  Therefore I won't respond.  That in and of itself should give you ample ammo to tell everyone how we (examiner's) can't answer your silly questions.   

Shouldn't you be in bed.

George

Are you telling me you don't have to be experienced to be an interviewer/interrogator?  By the way, you failed to provide your experience.  Or did you fail to provide it?  Maybe if you'd have passed your polygraph back whenever, you'd have some experience under your belt.  Couldn't resist taking that little shot.