anythingformoney wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 7:00pm:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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.

Ghetto_Trooper wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 3:48am:


Not exactly accurate as most polygraphers still have you face away from them and not to mention the fact that you do not answer then bite down, you bite as you are closing your mouth from answering the question as it does not show irregular jaw movement.

Nice scare tactic though, where is a better radar gun comes out someone always comes out with a better detector

I still disagree with you, The tongue biting cannot be seen if practiced even if they are watching you.  Many will disagree but then can they say they have done it?  My polygrapher was FBI, DODPI grad but I guess everyone will say he was one of the polygraphers who was not good at his job.....

See my post under "Sphincter's Policy."  It's tedious and repetive to post long replies to every point you're trying to make.  It begins to feel like he who writes last is the "winner" of a meaningless exchange.  You'll have the last word, George, don't worry.  You have too much of yourself invested in the silly website, so you'll be here long after I'm gone.  That's ok with me.

Oh, and I find it equally "baffling" that you only see what you want to see, George, which is only PARTS of particular studies that seem to support your agenda.  You have no experience as anything but a failed examinee.  I can trade regurgitations with you, but to what end?  You base your "information" on only one side of the picture, and your suggestions that people actually use countermeasures to ensure that they pass an exam is at best unfounded, and at worst a disservice to honest people everywhere because it MAY assist the guilty somehow in getting through the net.

Quote:


You can interpret my response or non-response to any of your feeble points any way you want, George.   As I've said before, it is my desire to respond only to statements that are worthy of a response, and some of your statements are so outlandish that I simply laugh at them and move on.  But since it seems so important to you that I respond to that statement (I guess my opinion is very important to you) I'll answer it.   NO, I don't concede anything with regard to that statement because it is absolutely true.  As I stated before, outright failure of the polygraph is rare.  Inconclusives are more common, of course, and you keep equating inconclusives as failures.  If you actually failed ALL of the relevant questions on your exam, you are indeed an extreme anomaly.  Failing an exam is uncommon, but failing ALL of the relevant questions on one screening test is outrageous.  In fact, I find it "baffling" that you could have the nerve to claim that you were completely truthful on your failed exam.

I truly don't know of any department or Federal agency that will disqualify applicants for inconclusive results.  Perhaps that occurred way back in the analog days when you took your polygraph . . .   However, if anyone IS doing that, it would be an erroneous administrative policy, not a policy condoned by a knowledgable polygrapher.