Bill_Brown wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:47pm:


Can you explain why you do this?  It seems counterintuitive...

If I arrest someone for DUI and see them jamming their tongue into the tube of the Intoxilyzer, I am not going to score that as anything other than a refusal.  I wouldn't score it as "could not complete test for some unknown reason" or anything like that.

If I was a polygraph examiner and I detected countermeasures, why would I score that as inconclusive?  The most logical reason, in my opinion, is that the examiner is guessing about countermeasure usage, rather than definitively detecting countermeasure usage.  I could see some examiners in that instance scoring the test as inconclusive in that case, knowing there is a chance they have guessed incorrectly.

Bill_Brown wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:10am:


With regards to the Intoxilyzer, that’s not really correct.  If the subject cooperates with the Intoxilyzer there is nothing to “score” because the instrument does the analysis.  However, if the subject is playing games, such as pretending to not be able to exhale, or blocking the tube with his tongue, or inhaling rather than exhaling, the officer conducting the test is required to make a judgment call as to whether the test subject is truly confused or is willfully refusing to go along with the test.  In the latter case, the officer considers the subject’s actions a refusal and processes the remainder of the case as such.

It would seem to me that if polygraph operators could indeed reliably detect countermeasure use they would certainly “fail” any subject caught using them.  I do not see any logical reason why that would not happen, if in fact polygraph operators can positively detect countermeasures and are not just guessing.

In the case of a DUI arrest, if the subject wanted to fight the “refusal” in court, it would be very easy to simply show the judge the video recording of the arrest processing and point out something like, “Here is where he is pressing his tongue against the tube.  Here’s where I told him not to do that again or it would be a refusal.  Here’s where he is once again jamming his tongue against the tube.”  And the judge would then agree that the subject refused.  I’ve done that (in various forms) many, many times.

If countermeasures could be detected there is no reason why the polygraph industry, which clearly considers countermeasures to be cheating, would not fail anyone they could show was using countermeasures.   

Of course, if the "detection" of countermeasures consists of the "instinct" or the "feeling" of the polygraph examiner, that might be a bit tough to stand behind.  I wouldn't want to arrest someone after an interview even if I was sure they were lying unless I had some evidence to back it up.  I can imagine that polygraph operators don't want to mark someone as "failed due to countermeasure usage" unless they can back it up with more than a gut feeling or a "movement" on a polygraph chart.

Bill_Brown wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

This is speculative and arrogant. You cannot detect mental countermeasures and it's folly for you to put such in a report.

Dear Bill_Brown,

You are straightforward in your presentations and your confidence in your craft. I do not agree with you or your representations but I do appreciate your effort to describe why you believe in your results.

We will let the readers decide for themselves.

I do think that the the polygraph exam used in applicant prescreening is counterproductive and inefficient.  Time will tell.  The federal applicants were astronomical a few years ago which made any collateral damage to failed applicants inconsequential. I believe this country will no longer find that the case in the future.

Nice to joust with you. We can agree to disagree, we would not probably share a barbecue this weekend. A discussion can be had in this country without people calling each other an idiot just because they believe in what they believe in.

Regards.

Bill_Brown wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 4:31pm:



Unfortunately, we all know that that is not the case. The poly is used as the say all be all, and once you fail, regardless if you were Jesus Christ himself, it's over. So why then do agencies use this failed means of determining the future of individuals who, in most cases, are extremely qualified? This only results in taking the bottom of the barrel candidates...

Plain and simple, it is a pseudoscience. I am permanently banned from employment in Missouri and who knows where else, because I failed a test. It is true, I tried to control my breathing because it spiked. What makes it ridiculous is that it spiked because of a perception I had in my mind, not related to the question. I answered the questions honestly. I was so honest with these people, by the time they had written down everything I had done I looked like a Somalian pirate. I had nothing left to hide. I think my tester knew this too, he tried to work with me. He asked me the set of questions 5 times. The question I failed on, "have you ever committed a serious crime"? I haven't. What makes this deal so much sweater is one of the guys who I can assume passed said something in the waiting room. "I don't really care if I get this job or not, if I don't, I will just go back to working at the jail. I suspect only a punk would say something like that while in the application process of a job, it sounded so juvenile. Future Missouri State Trooper, right there.

quickfix wrote on Jan 6^th, 2017 at 6:39pm:


How heartless.  Here's a guy who probably has mouths to feed and worked hard to get where he is and Quickfix thinks that ruining a man's life is funny.  These miscreants in the polygraph field are despicable.
Quickfix, let me ask you a simple yes or no question that I doubt you are capable of answering......

Is it possible for a person who is telling the truth to fail a polygraph exam?

"Failure" is a broad term, and can mean any result other than "NSR/NDI", so allow me to reword your question to "can a truthful person not favorably complete an exam?" to account for the inconclusive as well as the significant response/deception indicated.

The polygraph is not a "lie detector".  It is a diagnostic instrument which monitors and records physiological responses to applied stimuli.  The are several reasons why someone's exam results may not be favorable.  When significant and specific responses are noted at a particular relevant question, it means that the examinee is thinking about something specific every time examinee hears that question.  It might be relevant, it might not be relevant, but what for whatever the reaon, it is significant to that examinee.  It might be because the examinee is indeed lying to the relevant issue, or has some concern that examinee thinks is relevant but may not be to the examiner.  If examinee chooses not to discuss why that question is significant, then it ends there.  It is examinee's responsibility to discuss any and all concerns, regardless of relevance.  It's called  "cooperate and graduate".

With that said, when someone comes to the polygraph room with the intent to engage in countermeasures, does not successfully complete the polygraph, then comes on this site to piss and moan about it, they get NO SYMPATHY from me.  They are indeed stupid;  stupid for believing that could pull one over on us.  I will continue to mock them at every opportunity.  I couldn't give a rat's ass how many mouths they have to feed, or whether their dream is shattered.  They came into the polygraph room with eyes open and aware of the consequences of getting caught using CMs.  If they were lying about the relevant questions, then they "failed" anyway.  If they were indeed truthful (primarily in premployment) and tried to "help themselves" pass, they have no one to blame but themselves.  Period.

BTW, no one's life is "ruined".  There is no shortage of jobs out there that don't require the passing of a polygraph;  and quite frankly, anyone who has to resort to cheating on a polygraph (that's what usings CMs is, cheating), displays a lack honesty and integrity that SHOULD disqualify them from the job sought.