hey everyone, i need some help on my upcoming polygraph for a department here in south florida. it will be within the next month or so. now there are over 30+ in this area alone, so I'm not worried about the naysayers saying I'm going to give myself away. There are many more if you count going up to orlando.

about myself, i'm already a certified leo, and was sworn in a department north of orlando. they sponsored me, sent me to the academy i worked there for over a year, enough to do my in house training, fTO, and finish probationary period. that department however did not require a poly or even a psychological exam. it was very country to say the least.

can anyone help me out with some of the stuff these departments in south florida ask? i know things are rougher here but the pay is better, theres more excitement to get into, etc etc.

i've already read the whole handbook here on how to defeat the poly, read some folk's suggestions.  i'm familiar with interrogation techniques and you can be sure i'm not admitting anything, im not letting some pencil necked geek shake me down or intimidate me. 

if i could get some info on the duration of these tests, some of the questions, etc i would be very grateful. i know to relax, maybe change my breathing a bit and pucker my sphincter when i get asked the 'control' questions.  then relax whenever i get the relevant questions, the idea being to have stronger response to the 'control' questions and cruise on through the relevant ones.

and never admit nothing

what else is there? 

thanks in advance

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2005 at 8:37pm:


While it is true that in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al. -- abstracts available in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector), countermeasures did not significantly assist programmed innocent examinees. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no theoretical rationale explaining why countermeasures should assist only guilty and not innocent examinees. If you can offer an explanation of why this should be the case, I would be eager to hear it.

Note also that in these studies, subjects received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in the employment of countermeasures. Those facing a polygraph examination generally have more time to practice and much greater incentive to apply themselves in mastering the techniques.

Quote:


Why do you assert this to be true? The aforementioned peer-reviewed research also showed that even seasoned polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. If this is the case, then a truthful examinee has nothing to lose by employing countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome.

Quote:


Indeed. This site is not intended to "freak out" visitors, but rather to inform them.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2005 at 10:29pm:


How do you know this to be true?

Quote:


Sure, but again, the examinees in the studies by Honts et al. received a maximum of 30 minutes of coaching. In practice, a person facing an employment-related polygraph examination has much more time than that to prepare him- or herself, and much greater incentive to do so than the subjects in these studies, wherein there were no siginificant adverse consequences for a false positive outcome.

Quote:


Even if a polygrapher sometimes finds that persons whom he accuses of countermeasure use admit to such, this is no proof that the polygrapher involved has "detected" countermeasures at better than chance levels. Again, the research by Honts et al. suggests that even above-average polygraphers are not able to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.

Additionally, I think you are overstating the evidence by suggesting that the available research proves that countermeasures cannot assist truthful examinees in avoiding the risk of a false positive outcome. I am aware of no plausible theoretical explanation of why this should be the case, and you have conceded that neither are you. On the contrary, however, a strong rational argument, based on an understanding of CQT procedure, can be made that countermeasure use may help truthful persons to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome in addition to helping deceptive persons obtain a false negative outcome.

Quote:


In what way do you believe that I am "messing" with anyone's heads?

A.S.,

If you would care to substantively address the points I raised in my last reply to you, I would be happy to continue this discussion with you. If not, that's your choice.

Quote:


That's easy, George, although tiresome.  I'll indulge you this time, despite the fact that I feel I provided good responses to most of what you said previously.  I apologize beforehand to other readers for my redundancy, but you have only George to blame for that.

How do I know that most examinees won't have access to either a polygraph machine or a willing confederate to provide them with feedback while hooked up to the machine?  It doesn't take much intelligence to figure that one out.  Polygraph machines--including the laptop, software, and all the components--are not cheap.  Finding a trained polygrapher to help you use the machine to perfect your countermeasures would be even more difficult to obtain.  Sure, a person taking a real-life test would be more motivated to pass the exam, but this added motivation would also theoretically, through the principle of psychological set, help him accurately and justifiably pass or fail the exam.  You base everything you "know" on lab studies, George, so again you show your tendency to accept only those lab studies that support your personal agenda, or should we say vendetta?

I'm not saying that the average polygrapher will notice practiced countermeasures.  There are many types of motion detection devices, and many polygraphs are video recorded, but really good, practiced countermeasures would admittedly be difficult to observe.  That's not really the point, though.  The point is that studies (lab studies again) show that while countermeasures may--and again I emphasize MAY because we can't really apply lab studies to the real world--assist the guilty in producing a false negative, but they have no effect with innocent examinees.  Thus, even though a polygrapher might not--or even probably will not--detect certain countermeaures unless he or she uses motion detection devices, the risk just isn't worth it when there is no evidence that countermeausures help the innocent in passing a polygraph exam.  You can talk about control-question theory all you want, George, and I understand it better than most of your readers.  That theory backs up my arguments just as well as it does yours, and in many lab studies AND some field studies, better.

Finally, you are messing with the scared little boy's and girl's heads because the overwhelming majority of people who take a polygraph exam pass it without trying to mess with the process.  By convincing these scared little boys and girls that they must mess with the process to pass it, you are needlessly causing them to put their hopes and efforts into misinformation.

I know you can't back down from this forum, George.  Too much ego involved, and too much personal vendetta.  But by titling a website "AntiPolygraph.org" and backing up your agenda with refutable lab studies and no experience in the field of polygraphy, you show where your agenda really lies and you aren't open to the possibility that, all this time, you may have been very wrong.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 12:29am:


My question to you concerned how you can purport to know that "[m]ost examinees will NOT receive adequate training" in polygraph countermeasures. I do agree, and think it is self-evident, that most examinees will not have access to a polygraph instrument or a willing confederate to provide feedback. But this does not necessarily entail that most examinees will not receive adequate training. Techniques for augmenting reactions to "control" questions are relatively simple, and "control" questions are generally not very difficult to pick out.

Quote:


The National Academy of Sciences considered "psychological set" and related theories that have been put forth in support of CQT polygraphy, but did not find these to be compelling. See p. 74 ff. of The Polygraph and Lie Detection.)

Quote:


It is certainly not the case that everything I know about polygraphy is based on analog (laboratory) studies. I've considered information from a wide variety of sources, including the available peer-reviewed field studies of CQT polygraphy. Note, however, that the only peer-reviewed studies of countermeasures to the CQT are analog studies. I don't see how I have drawn unwarranted inferences from these. If you think I have, please explain.

Quote:


Again, I think your latter assertion goes well beyond the evidence of the available research. I think one could reasonably conclude that with subjects like those in Honts et al.'s studies (who received very limited instruction in polygraph procedure and countermeasures), and in similar (low) motivational settings, countermeasures might not help innocent examinees. But it is going too far to assert, as you seemingly do, that it has been conclusively demonstrated that countermeasures cannot help an innocent examinee to avoid a false positive outcome.

Quote:


A survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research members conducted by William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken showed that of the 96% of respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one’s response to the control questions." Again, it has not been proven that countermeasures cannot assist the truthful in avoiding a false positive outcome, and no one has set forth a plausible explanation why such should be the case.

Considering the fact that CQT polygraphy lacks any scientific basis,  the fact that numerous agencies, including the FBI, report polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, and considering also the polygraph community's failure to put forth any evidence that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures, persons facing polygraph examinations might reach a different risk assessment than the one you offer them.

Quote:


Not so. Regarding polygraph theory, the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing." (The Polygraph and Lie Detection, p. 213. Original emphasis.)

Quote:


You have repeatedly characterized (in other posts in other message threads) visitors to this site as "scared little boys and girls." I think that's a patronizing and offensive mischaracterization of individuals who come to this website seeking information about polygraphy.

I have never maintained that a person must employ countermeasures (which you term "messing") in order to pass a polygraph examination. But I think that persons facing this invalid procedure should have access to facts and information necessary for making an informed choice.

Quote:


AntiPolygraph.org certainly has an agenda, but it is unhidden and publicly stated: to expose and end waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs. We also seek the abolishment of polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of lie detection) from the American workplace.

You assert that I am not open to the possibility that I may have been wrong. But the only person regarding whom you can truly know such a thing is yourself.

As for your assertion that I have a "personal vendetta," why not address my arguments, rather than my putative motives? If I have said or written anything that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, feel free to point it out for the benefit of all concerned.

Quote:


"How can you be so obtuse.  Is it intentional?"  -- Andy Dufresne to the Warden, The Shawshank Redemption.

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."  

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."  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.

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.

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."

George, as I have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph.  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.

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.

You tire me, George.  Perhaps that's the plan.  Responding to every point of each of your posts is unnecessary.  Generally, I respond only to those points I feel merit a response, which means I've gone out of my way to indulge you once again.

I didn't realize you had even asked that question.  Still not sure when you asked it.

Sounds like a good Ph.D. project for you to find out.  Go for it.