Polyreject wrote on May 9^th, 2005 at 7:16pm:


It seems that there is no obvious difference between reactions that result from anxiety associated with the asking of a question and those produced by other means, such as cognitive activity or tongue-biting. Again, in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al.; see abstracts in the bibliography of TLBTLD), even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

Quote:


Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge does not require the polygrapher to disclose how he or she detects countermeasures. It merely requires that he or she do so.

Quote:


I don't suppose that accusations of countermeasure use are being made on a random basis. Rather, I suspect DoDPI has established some guidelines for such decisions. However, such guidelines have not been published either by DoDPI or by any polygraph association. In any event, the mere existence of any such guidelines does not necessarily entail that polygraphers are actually detecting countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.

With regard to ethics, note that federal, state, and local agencies are branding applicants and employees as liars, even without admissions, based on a procedure (polygraph screening) that the National Academy of Sciences has concluded is completely invalid. It is no great ethical leap for agencies relying on polygraph screening to further make "determinations" that such persons have employed countermeasures, even without an admission.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is presently being downloaded from this site at a sustained rate of about 1,000 times per week. If just five percent of those who download it are using the countermeasures discussed in Chapter 4, that would be about 50 persons weekly, or some 2,500 per year. But in the four and a half years AntiPolygraph.org has been on-line, we have heard from only a handful of people stating that they used countermeasures but nonetheless failed to pass. As noted above, several of those turned out to be polygraphers in disguise. I should add here that I am confident, after our private correspondence, that you are not in this category. But if polygraphers were genuinely able to detect countermeasures, I would expect that we'd be receiving more frequent reports like yours.

Quote:


You'll find tips on how to file a Privacy Act request in Chapter 5 of TLBTLD.

Quote:


Absolutely.

xusmico wrote on Jun 5^th, 2005 at 8:29pm:


Could you please explain more about these countermeasures of which you speak?

Sergeant1107,

You write:   

Quote:


That which you suggest is not at all unreasonable.  The appropriate examinee response UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES is to deny countermeasure use when so accused.  I can not say strongly enough--an examinee should expect it to be a fairly high probability event that he or she will be accused of countermeasure use regardless of whether they were employed or not (in view of the fact that examiners can not reliably detect them and as you (Sergeant) say they (polygraphers) have very little to lose with their accusations) and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure use....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure usage....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure usage---anything you don't under stand about UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES??


p.s. Sergeant, I should point out that your analogies between what occurs in the interrogation room and the polygraph suite fall apart in one regard.  In the case of the former, only  the interrogator knows for sure what is in the folder or what the accidental interruption has really added to the process.  In the polygraph suite, it is only the examinee who knows for sure whether countermeasures have been employed.  Regards....

thats not necessarily true. I did not use CMs, was truthful and failed 4 straight tests. a review of my charts shoed that the questions I failed were different each time. on some tests I passed some questions, and failed on others, but never managed to pass them all at the same time. so the idea that a truthful person will always pass is not accurate

I too, failed my first poly  1. because I did not practice enough, and 2. because I wasn't sure which were controls or irrelevants.  My LASD poly did not use any 'known-lie' controls, so I was waiting for those and failed to employ countermeasures for the other controls.

PolyReject,  you still have no evidence that your polygrapher was not bluffing.  You may have been flunked prematurely due to body language, or it was 'that time of the month' for the polygrapher.  My polygrapher accused me of controlling my breathing,  I appologized and said that I was just trying to relax.  I then continued breathing exactly as before and he never said boo about it again.

After reading the eBook on this site I was shocked to find out how random polygraphers are with failing people.  If you're late, you're failed!  If you don't wash your hands, you're failed!  If they don't like your face or tone of voice - failed!  If they don't fail some people, they're not doing their job.   

My polygrapher called me that morning of my test to tell me he needed me there an hour earlier than expected.  This could have been a test as well.

Oh that's right!!  Polygraphers are there to help you through the process, yes?  And they are just there to make sure only good, truth-telling applicants get through.

ignorance is bliss..  or is it...?

Did you read the ebook?  Calling me paranoid is hardly constructive to the conversation, is it?   

I'll be paranoid, and you'll be ignorant, I'll live with that.