Quote:


Since you read TLBTLD completely before the test, did you recognize the control Q's?  Since the PL-CQT is preconditioned on the examinee not knowing the "trick", and since I presume you did know the "trick", could you please describe how you handled the C's knowing they expected you to try to be deceptive on them?

TIA.

-Marty

Marty-

The 'control questions' were easily identified thanks to reading TLBTLD, and were almost exactly as described. Incidentally, the 'stim test' was the known numbers test, as I expected. With regard to the 'control questions' I believe I experimented once or twice with countermeasures during the 'control' questions, but have no conclusive proof of the results as I never saw the charts afterward. The examiner did expound on all the questions he would be asking me during the polygraph before the actual 'test', so I was able to recognize all the 'control questions' ahead of time. Having never been polygraphed before, the process wasn't totally unexpected thanks to TLBTLD.   

Undesirable

Marty-

My belief is that I probably would have reacted to the 'control' questions in approximately the same way but perhaps less intensely had I not 'experimented' with CM's on them. But as previously stated, I have no knowledge that the 'control' questions that I 'experimented' on vs. the 'control' questions I did not 'experiment' on were in any way different since I did not see the chart(s) afterward. As to the question review, I did in fact relate to the examiner my discomfort with some of the general 'control' questions, as they raised doubts in my mind whether I could recall any significant events pertaining to those questions. As to the relevance of the 'control' questions in my case, they were generally what I expected and what was described in TLBTLD. As far as 'well selected', only a trained polygrapher could answer that, but I suspect that yes, they were well selected. Pardon me for saying so, but your questions sound suspiciously like a polygraph examiner looking for corroboration that the polygraph functions exceptionally well as a pre-screening tool. No offense intended.

Undesirable

While I believe George's assurance that Marty is not a polygrapher, it is very possible if not probable that many who post here are.  And it is certain that many of them give "advice" that is designed to make it easier to catch you and to trace you.

Quote:


I didn't read anything in your account that would necessarily indicate disqualification.  And I've been DQed twice, so I ought to know the signs!

Seriously, good luck.

Human Subject-

The reason I suspect an imminent 'DQ' from the FBI is because of a post-polygraph interview with my examiner that lasted less than 10 minutes where he discussed my 'spikes' during the drug questions and truthfulness (or suspected lack of) on my FD-140. I would equate this interview with a 'post-test interrogation', although I could be mistaken. And according to TLBTLD, this 'post-test interrogation' is just verification of polygraph failure. This is the reason for my concern. Just to make sure that there were no omissions on my FD-140 I reviewed ALL the information I had provided, and it is all true and correct. I have no idea why I 'spiked' on those questions, but according to my examiner, I did. Could this have been a case where I was the subject of an examiner who wished to produce evidence of wrongdoing where no such evidence existed? I'm clueless. Anyway, we'll see what happens............

Undesirable

Quote:

Alf,

George is right about the nature of my interest. In my readings I have found virtually nothing about how polygraphers examine other polygraphers except the admission of one that the CQT would be inappropriate. I suspect the directed lie approach is more commonly used there or perhaps it's a sort of "professional courtesy."  I am also interested in how the polygraph community is approaching the problem of increased awareness of CM's and the way the CQT works. Right now it seems the most common approach is assertion of authority and expertise which, when combined with the normal subjects complete lack of experience, may often make effective application of CM's difficult. Cialdini has an excellent book on compliance psych. One of the reasons I suggest people should also read the texts published FOR polygraphers (easily found on Amazon) is that it provides independent validation of much of the info in TLBTLD and will help mitigate the psych techniques used by examiners. After all it's pretty hard for examiners to credibly maintain "facts" at variance with their own texts.

One of the posters here, "Mr Truth", has unique experience with multiple polygraphs prior to reading TLBTLD and his posts indicate, IMO, a rather thorough and intuitive knowledge of CQT polygraphy and CM's. As for me, I have never taken a poly but have had occasion to utilize decades ago very similar techniques that Mr Truth has described, albeit for very different reasons - with success, I might add.

-Marty