Sergeant,

You'll never win an argument with a polygrapher.  Polygraphers sadly believe that their profession is true and just.  The multi-week polygraph training course has brainwashed and diluted their minds to such a point that they feel they can simply look at someone and detect deception.  I can remember my first "failed" polygraph as if it was yesterday.  What is so vivid in my mind was the pathetic nature in which the polygrapher tried to convince me that I was lying.  He was trying so hard to get me to admit to something, anything!  It is somewhat amusing now when I think back on it... and terribly easy to feel sorry for him.   

Good luck, atomic84.  Inform and prepare yourself as best you can.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2005 at 5:22pm:


Your assertion that countermeasures are being detected on a regular basis is unsupported by any peer-reviewed research, and undermined by the fact that in some three-and-a-half years, no polygrapher, including yourself, I must respectfully add, has mustered the self-confidence to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge.

On the other hand, not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one won't be accused of using countermeasures. That was my experience with the LAPD (the agency with which atomic84 is applying). Ervin Youngblood, a senior polygraph operator still with the LAPD, angrily but falsely accused me of using countermeasures. Not only had I not used countermeasures, I didn't even know what they were at that time.

I wish it were true, as you suggest, that being informed about polygraphy and having read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector -- or more precisely, admitting the same to one's polygraph examiner -- would never result in retaliation against an examinee. But feedback received by AntiPolygraph.org strongly suggests that at least in some cases (if not most), it can and does.

I also wish it were true, as you maintain, that if one simply were to answer the "control" questions untruthfully while answering the relevant questions truthfully, one would be assured of passing the polygraph. If this were true, then AntiPolygraph.org's advice to law enforcement applicants hoping to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome would be precisely this -- and nothing more. But your assurances, I am afraid, are little more than wishful thinking on your part.

Jeffery wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 3:26am:



Jeff,

You have identified the most significant problem in laboratory polygraph research.  In many cases, the researchers do try to make the mock crime "real" to the participants (In one study, the Isrealis actually convinced some police recruits they had in fact commited a real crime, and if caught on the polygraph were going to get thrown out of the police acadamy.)

However, in the U.S. we cannot go to the extremes they can in other countries (These are called "human use" issues.) So, we use other methods like financial awards, etc.   It is not the best possible approach, but sometimes you do the best you can with the hand you draw, so to speak

Regards,

Nonombre

darkcobra2005 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 2:11am:


Darkcobra2005,

Specifically which paragraph of the APA standards prohibits a member from accepting Dr. Richardson's challenge?

You suggest that no meaningful analog (laboratory) test of a polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures can be constructed. I disagree with that notion. Charles Honts has conducted experiments along these lines and published his results in peer-reviewed journals. His results indicated that even experienced polygraphers could not detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

I think it is abundantly clear to the neutral observer why not even one of the 3,000+ polygraphers operating in the United States has accepted Dr. Richardson's challenge.

Quote:


The fact that you have accused examinees of countermeasure use and received admissions does not establish your ability to actually detect countermeasures. (By detection I mean identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.)

How many of those whom you have accused of countermeasure use, and who made no admission, were in fact innocent of such? You have no way of knowing.

How many of those whose charts you scored as "no deception indicated" in fact used countermeasures to pass (whether or not they answered the relevant questions truthfully)? Again, you have no way of knowing.

Considering the absence of any research evidence whatsoever suggesting that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures, the fact that polygraph screening is without scientific basis, and that many law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, have pre-employment polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, I think many applicants will conclude that using countermeasures to avert a false positive outcome is a reasonable survival strategy.

Quote:


I don't take any offense at your arguments, and hope you take none at mine, either. But please understand that the unfair treatment I have experienced as a result of polygraph screening stems from the inherent unreliability of polygraphy. I have no evidence that my FBI and LAPD polygraphers engaged in any willfull misconduct. Had you conducted my polygraph examinations, the results may very well have been the same.

If you don't want to cause others the kind of harm that I, Sergeant1107, mustbaliar, and many other truthful individuals have experienced, you need to follow the example of FBI Special Agent Leroy Chan and get out of the business of polygraph screening.

nonombre wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 5:01am:


So what I am hearing is there is no good way to scientifically validate polygraphics, but we (society) rely on bogus or (the best hand we got) scientific studies to back up a process that has hurt the lives of untold thousands.   

Sure, you can engage in self-congratulation for the hundreds of crooks you may have caught through bluffing them into confessions during a polygraph interrogation.  You may have brought these bad guys to justice, helping the lives of their innocent victims.

But the people falsly accused and whose lives were damaged due to bogus polygraph tests were innocent too.

Jeffery wrote on Aug 16^th, 2005 at 3:24pm:


Jeffery,
It does seem that the argument is a bit circular:  The polygraph is accurate because we know it’s accurate because we polygraph people and sometimes they admit to things.  In other words, the anecdotal evidence submitted by the polygraph examiners themselves in which they relate their success stories in catching liars with the polygraph proves that the polygraph is useful and accurate.

The next logical question would be: Is there any anecdotal evidence suggesting the polygraph is not useful and accurate?  The answer, of course, is “Yes!”  The stories of many of the people on this board would qualify, as well as the stories of many, many other people who have been labeled “deceptive” despite an utter lack of actual deception.

What is it that makes the anecdotal evidence of the polygraph examiners, who after all have a vested interest in the polygraph’s continuing use, more valid than the anecdotal evidence submitted by people like myself?  I have no idea.   

Other than the fact that I believe it is an injustice to use such a flawed process which does not really determine truthfulness or deception, I have no real personal stake in getting the polygraph thrown out.  I have already (luckily) passed one and gotten the job I was seeking.   

Looking at it objectively, I would think that an account like mine would hold much more weight than the account of any polygraph examiner, simply because of the lack of personal consequences to me if the polygraph continues as it is or is banned from use.

Is Ed Gelb a member of the APA?  I ask becuase he publicly displays polygraphy on the television program "Lie Detector."

atomic84 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2005 at 1:32am:


A listing of the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph is now available. See the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed.