I learned how to use CM's right here, using TLBTLD. I also downloaded the Williams book. The pattern of questioning, especially related to the control questions was exactly as described in the TLBTLD. The pattern of passing one or two, then failing several, then passing one or two in a row again, in addition to some other incidents, brought me here. Repeated exposure to the polygraph made it easier to use CM's, and allowed me to refine the technique (I'm on fire thought - that's all it takes, no extra breathing, no contractions, just the thought with the adrenaline rush).

Quote:

Mr. Truth,

Thanks for answering. I assume at the time you first read TLBTLD that you were in part reacting to numerous polygraphs with a range of outcomes you knew to be false. Pretty hard for them to maintain that aura of all knowing infallibility when your own experience is otherwise. It's also pretty clear that inexperienced examinees are more easily fooled. I believe I have even seen references suggesting the polygraph is increasingly unreliable the more often it's given.

Sometimes I think the widespread use of polygraphy for screening and SO may actually have the effect of reducing it's value in specific incident criminal uses, ie: getting confessions.

-Marty

Mr. Truth, I thank and commend you for posting your experiences on this board.  You are obviously a person who has first hand knowledge about the trash polygraphs are.  Please continue to share your knowledge with the rest of us.

Telling the truth isn't good enough. I know I reacted more to the relevant questions than to the control questions. The control questions were like character assessment type of questions (have you lied to avoid gettng into serious trouble, would you try to blame someone else for a mistake you made, etc.). I am and was a stand-up kind of guy - if I make a mistake, I admit it and don't blame others, so the CQ's didn't bother me enough. I was more sensitive to the relevant questions, not because I was lying on my answers to them, but because of the pressure of wanting to pass, the consequences of not passing, and the nature of the questions (sensitive about being asked if I've done something else bad; I readily admitted to what I did and did all I could to make the situation better and take responsibility for what I did; what I did is what I did, nothing more, nothing less, and to no one else, ever, period).

So, if you are ashamed about, say, having smoked a few joints in your younger days, and are basically an honest person, you are ripe for being a false positive (being scored deception indicated about your prior drug use). If you really want to be in law enforcement, can you afford NOT to use countermeasures?

Mr. Truth,

You write in part:

Quote:


Note that in the context of pre-employment polygraph screening, a question about sex with animals is not relevant. Instead, it is used (notably by the U.S. Secret Service) as a kind of "shock control" question.

Quote:


So that invalidates anything I have to say on the matter? And protect the world from what? Some threat I pose? To whom? The label everyone likes to use negates everything else in life I've accomplished? FYI, it includes being a service academy graduate, military officer, and a lot of other very positive things. And who are you? Is your major function in life that as a polygrapher?

What you say about less than flattering details being omitted is true.  Undergoing a sex history type of polygraph is humiliating, to say the least. That would be true for anyone. The monitoring ones are more straightforward, nothing embarassing about those, but they are just as flawed as any other polygraph "test." Aside from my humungous mistake, I am a scenario one type of examinee. I've eaten enough false positives to be bitter about the process. Was it me, or was it the polygraph? Guess what? It's the polygraph. 

There is no way you can differentiate between a reaction-producing thought countermeasure and any other thought or feeling that you would claim is associated with deception, control question or otherwise. What the polygraph can do, through software and "expert opinions of the examiner," is detect differences between a baseline reading and readings that are not on the baseline. The measurement of those differences is accurate. The interpretation of those differences is where the voodoo of polygraphy comes into play.

Ray,

You write:

Quote:


The National Academy of Sciences didn't believe this claim of the polygraph community, concluding instead that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."

And in peer-reviewed research by Dr. Charles R. Honts and collaborators, experienced polygraphers' determinations that a subject had employed countermeasures had no correlation with actual countermeasure use. That is, using or not using countermeasures had no effect on the likelihood that one would be accused of having used countermeasures.

Quote:


How about credibility? After all, your standby technique, the "Control Question Test," has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Dr. Drew C. Richardson has made a formal challenge to the polygraph community to demonstrate its professed ability to detect countermeasures. This challenge does not require that those accepting it divulge the methodology used to detect countermeasures: all that is required is to detect them. That no polygrapher has had the courage to accept this challenge (619 days and counting) is strong circumstantial evidence that the polygraph community lacks confidence in its ability to detect countermeasures.

Quote:


Are you insinuating that those who have shared their experiences of falsely being accused of deception are making it up? Because the polygraph is valid technique for lie detection and truth verification? Get real, Ray. Polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud.

AntiPolygraph.org offers much more than "emotional personal statements" about polygraphy. Our free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, includes compelling arguments based on facts. In writing it, we have relied on numerous pro-polygraph sources such as Department of Defense Polygraph Institute studies, articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, and books written by polygraphers.

Moreover, on this uncensored message board, we have provided polygraphers ample opportunity to rebut any claims made here and to correct anything that you believe to be untrue.

Quote:


Ray, the applicants I have suggested refuse the polygraph are those seeking employment with the FBI ("Just Say 'No' to FBI Polygraphs," 9 May 2003). I base that recommendation on the Bureau's high polygraph failure rate (~50%) and the especially serious consequences of having a failed FBI polygraph on one's record.

I did not tell bushido71 to refuse the polygraph. But he wise to research it, and to seriously consider the option of using countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome. The LAPD's pre-employment polygraph failure rate is also on the order of 50%.

Quote:


Mr. Truth did not tell bushido71 how to get a job with the LAPD. Moreover, his status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing on the validity of anything he may say about polygraph matters.

Ray, your post provides nothing but ad hominem arguments. Rather than personally attacking those who have shared their polygraph experiences, or questioning my motives, or Mr. Truth's character, why don't you provide us with rational arguments?