I have asked some of these questions in other threads and have never received an adequate response.  Perhaps someone could provide a well-reasoned answer or two without simply telling me “polygraphs are useful” or arguing that “countermeasures are detectable.”  This thread is not intended as one in which to discuss whether countermeasures are detectable – I would respectfully request that readers please post all such arguments on the proper thread.

1)  If a polygraph examiner suspects a subject of using countermeasures, why would it matter?

2)  If the examination is as accurate as claimed how could it be affected by someone thinking “exciting” thoughts or staring at a spot on the wall and doing long division in his head?

3)  If the subject is intentionally thinking about his breathing in order to remain calm, how could that affect a scientifically valid test?  

I’ve heard the arguments about how moving around during an MRI or eating before a blood sugar test will affect the results but won’t invalidate the whole testing procedure.  I agree with such thinking.  I’m asking specifically how what a subject is thinking during a test can affect the outcome of that test.

I think it would make me feel foolish to tell someone I’ve arrested for DUI that, when they blow into the Intoxilyzer, they must refrain from thinking about anything exciting.  If what the subject was thinking could actually affect the results of a test it would surely make me doubt the test’s validity.

nonombre wrote on Jul 10^th, 2005 at 11:03pm:


The way I intrepret it is that if the polygraph is in fact SO reliable, you should be able to see through CM's regardless and still "get at the truth."  So then, why would it matter if CM's are being used?  A person can still be truthful though using CM's, and I would intrepret this as a lack of trust in the polygrap/polygrapher/process rather than an attempt at deceit.

Of course, I think we all know why polygraphers dislike CM's -- they can't detect them and the usage of such threatens the careers of polygraphers. 

Why do polygraphers dislike CVSA so much?  Do Tarot Card readers disklike gypsies with crystal balls?  Do they both dislike Chinese fortunate cookies?

Nonombre,

I cannot disagree with you on this point.  Cheating should be and is disqualifying.  The difference is that a written test (to use your comparison) is scorable based on the written data.  No interpretation is necessary as it is basically a pass/fail based on hard data.  The polygraph does not enjoy the same luxury and would more appropriately be compared to an oral board or psychological examination.  How do you cheat on either of those?

nonombre wrote on Jul 11^th, 2005 at 5:09am:

Nonombre,
I can see how some things could be considered “cheating” on a polygraph exam.  Sending someone else to take your test, for example.  Or waiting until the examiner left the room and then screwing with the machine or the charts in some way.  But things like that are easily detectable and likely pose little problem.

What I don’t understand is how polygraph examiners can accuse someone of cheating because they intentionally remained calm throughout the test.  Or because they admitted to singing a song in their head or thinking “exciting” thoughts instead of brooding over whatever answer they just gave.  It seems as though the polygraph is based on directing and controlling what people think, and what people are thinking simply cannot be controlled.  

I don’t see how things like that can be compared to someone who copies answers off the person next to him in a written test, or someone who buys clean urine on the Internet to use in a drug screening test.  

When I am conducting firearms training at my department I often run the shooters through a stress course.  The intent is to cause as much stress as possible and still get them to hit what they are aiming at.  A few officers, however, simply don’t get stressed.  A few of the officers manage to remain calm throughout the course – even though they are breathing hard from the exertion they are cool and collected as they run through the course.  They know they are facing stress before they start and they consciously manage their breathing, which in turn helps them control the rest of their autonomic nervous system.  In a very small way, this is frustrating to me as an instructor because it avoids the intent of the course.  But on the whole I am impressed with their ability to deal with stress and I make sure to praise them in front of their peers for how well they did.  I would never think to accuse them of cheating because they didn’t allow themselves to be controlled by stress on a course I designed to induce stress.  It wouldn’t make any sense for me to do that because I cannot control what they are thinking.

Sergeant1107 wrote:
Quote:


One still can't cheat on the oral board.  The "test" must be "standardized" in order for one to cheat.  Oral boards, phsycological screenings and polygraph don't meet this requirement in any traditional definition.


Polyfool wrote:
Quote:


I know my name is not Nonombre but I thought I would give it a shot and see if the noname is in agreement.  Answer:  an attempt to gain an admission not made prior to the in-test.  An integrity check if you will.

Drew,

I see. It gives the examiner a way out, so to speak, in case the outcome changes. Is the examiner also trying to gauge the examinee's reaction to being accused of lying to controls?

Drew, 
What would be the purpose of an examiner interrogating an examinee regarding the relevant material and also accusing him of lying about controls? 

Thanks for answering my questions. It seems polygraph examiners on this board choose to answer only the questions they can twist to support their cause.

Polyfool,

In general there would be no reason to interrogate examinees regarding control material.  By definition control material is NOT that which determines whether you get the job, whether you go to jail, etc.  I have thought for sometime though that it might be a useful counter-countermeasure for an examiner to do this if he or those at Oz think doing such might confuse the identity of control and relevant questions.  An examinee who wants to employ countermeasures has only two tasks before him/her: (1) identification of control and relevant questions; and (2) producing appropriate (time, duration, and magnitude) responses to controls.  That which you ask about might help to make slightly more difficult the first of the two tasks.