With regard to your first question, I think it would indeed be advisable to augment one's physiological reactions to the number one chose during the "stim test."

With regard to your second question, it is hard to say. The NSA seems to routinely subject most applicants to more than one polygraph session. That is, you are likely to be accused of "having problems" with one or more questions regardless of what the polygrapher may think he sees in the charts and to be scheduled for one or more "re-tests." In this context, the behavioral countermeasures outlined in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are likely to be more important than any physical countermeasures.

Regarding the NSA's polygraph practices, you may wish to read the relevant personal statements posted on AntiPolygraph.org:

http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

and also to search this message board for posts that mention the NSA.

See also, "Interviewing With An Intelligence Agency (or, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Fort Meade)" by "Ralph J. Perro":
 
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/nsa-interview.pdf

Dear RealityCheck,

You gotta be kidding me; surely you can come up with a better strategy than that to scare people away from learning the truth about the polygraph. George has been instrumental in providing advice and answers to some of the questions I had after I shockingly received my first false positive; not to mention the countless others in similar situations. After all, I don’t recall anyone in the Bureau jumping provide advise or even answering phone calls after I tried to find out why I had been DQ’ed after telling “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I thought ‘trial by ordeal’ was out of favor in the 21st century.

My question to you and the other polygraphers out there is this: if the polygraph is not the farce that it is portrayed to be by this website, then why are you so concerned by what’s posted here? If you are concerned about spies learning countermeasures, I think it would be safe to assume that the information posted here is common knowledge to a trained agent who likely undergoes extensive training in counter-interrogation tactics, including polygraph countermeasures among others. 

Fletch.

Dear RealityCheck,

I see your point in suggesting a ‘hidden agenda’ and appreciate your concern, but given my experience with having told the truth and failed, George’s argument hold much more water than the that of the polygraph calling me a liar. Comparing the posted experiences to mine, the overwhelming majority of people here are innocent, honest people who have been unjustly deemed guilty. In fact, there is not a court in the country that would uphold a polygraphers’ report; even our very own Department of Justice has argued against the reliability of polygraph evidence (when it conflicts with their case).

I’m not suggesting that we throw the polygraph out the door – it MAY have some use in weeding out the obvious. The issue here however, is that the polygraph program is unjustly levying accusations against innocent individuals and denying them due process to clear their names. In countries that pride themselves on justice and the rule-of-law such as the United States, we know from high school civics that suspects are innocent UNITIL proven guilty by some adjudicative process. The polygraph program as it currently exists, allows no such definite process to occur.

Even if the polygraph (machine) itself were 100% accurate, a crucial and fundamental flaw remains in that the interviewer is empowered with the authority of judge, jury, and executioner. That allows for a tremendous amount of interpretation of the supposed infallible charts. That’s how we get people such as Aldrich Ames, right? If’ we’re going to go as far as to rely solely on the charts or more likely, the polygraphers’ intuition, why bother at all? Joseph Stalin was able to identify more than 20 million traitors and undesirables without the help of the polygraph…

Although I won’t vouch for this bit, but word has it that one senior FBI official who was up for review had to take his polygraph more than six times after ‘failing’ on the drug question. In fact, on either the forth or fifth try, s/he was asked whether ‘s/he had used drugs in the past two hours?’ Upon having ‘problems’ with that question on several repeat exams, s/he was left in the interview room for an hour or so and administered another exam where s/he was asked whether “s/he had used drugs in the past 30 minutes?” Upon ‘failing’ yet again, the polygrapher explained in his report that the subject was NDI since he had ‘observed the subject for the past 30 minutes and could visually verify that no drugs were used.’ The subject passed.

Let’s just remember the issue here.

Fletch.