anythingformoney wrote on Feb 25
th, 2005 at 7:00pm:
George, as one of your apparently favorite researches, Charles R. Honts, says, "Despite widespread public information about countermeasures and commentary in the popular literature indicating that polygraph tests should be easily beaten . . . there is simply no scientific evidence to support that contention."
The results of Honts et al.'s own peer-reviewed countermeasure studies support the contention that polygraph "tests" should be easily beaten, considering that some 50% of deceptive subjects passed the polygraph after receiving a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in countermeasures.
Quote:Rovner, Raskin and Kircher conducted studies on the use of practiced countermeasures during a two-chart mock polygraph test conducted by a confederate. As Honts sums up the findings of those studies, "Research on spontaneous countermeasure and on information strongly suggest that they are not serious problems for polygraph validity."
The "spontaneous" countermeasures mentioned in the passage you've cited refer to
untrained countermeasures, that is, things that examinees who are not familiar with CQT procedure may "spontaneously" employ in an attempt to influence the outcome of a polygraph examination. Common examples include thinking calming thoughts or focusing one's attention on a point on the wall hoping to minimize reactions to questions.
Spontaneous countermeasures are not the same as "practiced" countermeasures, such as those that an examinee who has researched polygraphy might employ. A person who has educated himself about polygraph procedure and trained himself in the application of countermeasures such as those outlined in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may be said to employ "practiced" countermeasures.
Quote:Honts does claim that there are studies that both refute and support the use of practiced countermeasures as a means to affect the polygraph outcome. Therefore, at best, George, you have questionable studies to combat questionable studies.
To my knowledge, there are no
peer-reviewed studies refuting the potential for countermeasures of the kind outlined in
TLBTLD to influence the outcome of a polygraphic lie test. On the other hand, we do have two peer-reviewed studies (again, by Honts and collaborators) that strongly suggest that countermeasures may be effective in influencing polygraph outcomes. As the National Academy of Sciences noted at
p. 214 of its report,
The Polygraph and Lie Detection, "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."
Quote:My use of the "scared little boys and girls" analogy is quite effective in pointing out how I feel regarding your fearmongering, George. On this website you dispense what might be called "Dr. Poole's Elixer for the Curing of Divers Maladies and Afflictions"--all placebo and no substance. You remind me of the old Popeye cartoon's humorous assertion that by eating your spinach you will be as strong as ten men. You call this site informative and yourself informed. The only way this site is ever truly informative is when a rational opposing view like myself comes on here and presents a counter to your highly questionable information.
Opposing views are certainly welcome on this message board, though it seems to me that you often choose ad hominem rather than rational argument, as above. I also recall that you regrettably
chose to forge posts (those by
LoopyLuWho) to bolster your own arguments.
Quote:While you may or may not have claimed that a person MUST use countermeasures, your downloadable reference material and many of your posts to fearful examinees sure makes it appear that you believe an examinee must MESS with the polygraph in order to pass it, which even you, despite your personal vendetta, must know is wrong. As you recently wrote to one of the scared little boys and girls, "As your experience shows, it is possible to pass a polygraph examination without using countermeasures. But given CQT polygraphy's complete lack of validity, I would personally not leave things to chance."
Indeed, I would not leave things to chance if my future employment were riding on the results of an invalid polygraph test. Especially considering that many pre-employment polygraph programs have failure rates on the order of 50%.
Quote:George, as I have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph.
The fact that you have repeatedly said so does not make it so. While some polygraph screening programs, such as the Department of Defense's counterintelligence-scope polygraph program, do indeed have
very low failure rates (almost everyone ultimately passes), the same does not hold true when it comes to pre-employment polygraph testing by federal, state, and local agencies. The FBI, for instance, has a pre-employment polygraph failure rate on the order of 50%:
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=... The Connecticut State Police have reported employment figures indicating a 60% pre-employment polygraph failure rate:
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=... In 2002, Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks stated that 50% of applicants were being eliminated by the polygraph:
http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-008.shtml#leovy-gold-09-02-02 And Jack Ogilvie, a polygraph examiner with the Phoenix Police Department, has also spoken of a 50% polygraph failure rate for applicants to his department, noting that such high failure rates are not atypical:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/pre_employment_polygraph_testing.htm Quote:Assuming you really had nothing to hide, I'm truly sorry that you didn't pass yours. I've read your story now. If that is the case, you are an anomaly, George. Don't treat your anomaly as if it is the norm, because it is not. I will address my own feelings about such an anomaly in an original post when and if I find the desire and the time.
I wish my case were anomalous. Indeed, during the first four years following my polygraph experience with the FBI and LAPD, although I was aware of polygraphy's scientific shortcomings, I had supposed that my case was an anomaly. But then, in 1999, I learned that what happened to me was happening to many more FBI applicants than I had originally supposed. The FBI's polygraph failure rate at the time was "only" 20%. I found it hard to believe that so many applicants who had made it past Phase I and Phase II testing were lying with regard to the relevant questions. Since 9/11, the Bureau's polygraph failure rate has climbed to about 50%. While I am not maintaining that my case is the "norm," as you put it, it is certainly not an anomaly, either.
Quote:As for what you know being based on more than analog studies, you apparently give much more weight to the analog studies than anything else, if in fact you've "weighed" information from other than negative sources.
If you review the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, you'll see that we have also considered information from a wide range of pro-polygraph sources.