A sidebar:

   Being American-born of Asian descent I applied for LAPD back in the mid 90's.   Went all the way up to the interview process, but everything stopped after my last job working with people I didn't always agree with.  Well, they did not consider me Asian because my fluency was in English and Spanish but weak in my actual (chinese) language.   So I was considered white, because I couldn't speak a chinese language.   I guess at that time the Asian community never sued the LAPD.  So beware of the LAPD usage of what they consider a minority.    As far as I know now, I am really white, even though I look Asian and I think now my parents must have adopted me!

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:51am:


Darkcobra,
Are you saying it's better to polygraph someone who understands the concept behind the procedure? Do you believe that prior knowledge w/o countermeasures reduces the chance of false positives? Do you inform your examinees about the concept behind the polygraph before administering it? If polygraphs don't depend on ignorance, then why are examinees not informed about the concept behind them beforehand?

Darkcobra,

That which I would have you and your colleagues do is rather quite simple.  Cease and desist from doing polygraph screening.  It is a fishing expedition with no present or probable theoretical basis for practice.  It is further a danger to the national security (several recent well publicized examples) and to individuals alike.  Use the saved resources (time, money, manpower) to conduct serious investigations to augment concealed information material for your specific incident testing.  I maintain steadfastly that which I said to you in my previous post--a "test" whose foundation rests upon (examinee) ignorance is radically impacted by knowledge and truth.  Regards...

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


I am using DarkCorbra owns words, and I will give him credit for at least being an atypical examiner. But this is exactly the point why this web site exists. I will concede that a danger of this information on this web site poses an ethical dilemma when criminals can use it, and beat the polygrapher. But its a risk that those who believe in fairness must endure. Just one false positive to an innocent is wrong, PERIOD.  This web sites information removes the fear, the unknowns and the anxiety. And from my own emperical tests, know that with the removal of the fear, the polygraph is just a line drawing machine. Because the examiner, whether its you DarkCobra or another examiner,you can not read my mind, and you can't beat the knowlege and the montra going on in my head .... this thing does not work, its a lie. 
A disciplined mind will negate the use of any physical countermeasures. And using the physical type countermeasures is a recipe for failure. As I am sure that as this knowlege spreads, you and your examiner brethern are testing to see if you can detect the better and less detectable countermeasures. I know I would in your shoes. 
Still the bottom line, Knowlege is power, and with the removal of the fear and anxiety.  The best you will get is a "NO" No Opinion, or stalemate in Chess. THe best outcome is "NDI", and walking out knowing that its checkmate.  But you might get a youngpup to cough up the info that he gleaned from here, but that is inexperience on that persons part. Again Experience is the difference.  Happy Hunting   

Darkcobra,

A Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is an information-based test.  Lie detection includes a group of emotion-based procedures.  Polygraph Screening  (by its very nature) is an absence of information procedure, i.e., a fishing expedition.  You the examiner do not  (by the very nature of the exam) know whether a crime or some prohibited behavior has occurred let alone let alone that your examinee is the one who has committed/performed it.  A Peak of Tension Test (POT) to the first approximation is a poorly constructed Guilty Knowledge Test and as you allude to a poorly named exam as well.  It like the GKT, it is putatively an information-based exam; any emotion (tension) involved is merely an artifact of using a standard autonomic-channel-based polygraph (one of several reasons for using CNS measures for concealed information tests), not the parameter (concealed information) which is theoretically being measured.  But again, a GKT is an information-based exam (you the examiner via the investigator and the guilty examinee must both have access to the privileged information you seek to probe for.)  A screening exam is a lack of information exam, has no theoretical basis for practice, and has nothing in common with or anyway benefits from some artificial linking with a GKT exam.  And to end on the general theme of our recent exchanges, neither you nor your colleagues in the federal community can fix or make better a screening exam.  Polygraph screening can only be made better through abandonment and resource redirection and redistribution.   If you seek to make your polygraph program better and it now includes polygraph screening, perhaps no one thing that you and your colleagues could do to improve it would do so more than eliminating its polygraph screening component.   

Darkcobra,

I support specific issue testing to the extent that it is performed with a concealed information test.  I do not support the use of any of the lie detection formats (PLCQT, DLCQT, or RI) for any purpose or application (specific issue testing or screening).  You are correct about the similarity of my views and those of David Lykken.  I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him and have been privileged to have personally known and interacted with him for more than two decades.  I believe that his views about polygraphy were correct almost half a century ago when first expressed/published and are equally correct today.  I'm glad that you feel our exchanges have been worthwhile and, of course, would be happy to discuss research and other issues in the future.  Best Wishes....