Ray,
I am quite happy to discuss examinee deception, what it is and what it is not, and the propriety (or lack thereof) of any recommendations for it, but with regard to that or any other commentary I make on this board, I do it according to my own dictates and not those of others. If you are interested in such dialogue (and I do believe there are several things/issues to discuss which have not previously been addressed on this message board), please read or reread the last paragraph of my last post and respond accordingly. That post in its entirety:
Ray,
You write in part:
Quote:...We all know George questions the integrity of polygraph examiners....
If the issue is deception (versus generalized integrity), the issue is well beyond George's personal belief. Several years ago now (how time flies when you're having fun), while part of an exchange with a polygraph examiner, I offered the following thoughts on this message board regarding deception on the part of a polygraph examiner who conducts probable lie control question tests. I believe those considerations to be true today as I did then.
Quote:
Examiner:
You say in part:
“…Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here…”
You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
...
You raise the issue of examinee deception and perhaps allude to the ethics of countermeasure use. I would be happy to discuss those issues with you if you will first address
point by point the issues I raise about examiner deception in the aforementioned quote. I maintain that examiner deception is first (occurs in the pretest before an examinee is likely to be deceptive), occurs most frequently (each and every time a probable lie control question test is administered independent of whether an examinee is deceptive), is not trivial but quite substantive (the test outcome depends upon it), and lastly but surely is quite comical (requires widespread public ignorance and universal bluff to carry out--perhaps the most important function of this site is not to provide a venue for complaint but to diminish such ignorance.)