does these methods on countermesures really work ? I havent seen to many post about if anyone has acctually beaten the test with the countermeasers in this book . I have a test next week for the probation office. I want the results to be positive but I dont really care seeing on how they are admissable in court anyways. My main question is if they really do work. I will be nervouse and have nothing to hide but dont want to fail regaurdless. Thats why I started reading in this book. Any replys would be appriciated.

nonombre wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 5:03am:

And if you fail even while being truthful (which happened to me in three of my four polygraphs) you can take heart in knowing that even though the polygraph isn't 100% accurate...  well...  Actually, I really don't know what would make you feel any better at that point.

If this is for a probation hearing and you fail despite being truthful you can console yourself on the way back to prison by saying, "Hey, at least I refused to bite my tongue or do math problems in my head.  I may be going back to prison but at least I didn't do anything the polygraph examiner considers cheating."

llkiop wrote on Mar 6^th, 2006 at 11:00pm:


Yes, it's stupid and doesn't make any sense. But it seems that in some jurisdictions, a probationer can indeed be sent to jail for failing to pass a polygraph "test." You might check with a lawyer regarding the applicable law in your state.

Quote:


Yes, they really work. See Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there. But even with countermeasures, one cannot be absolutely certain of passing. One might still react most strongly to a relevant question. Or one might mistake a relevant question for a "control" question and wrongly augment a reaction to it. Or the polygrapher may have decided in advance that the examinee will not pass: in post-conviction polygraph screening programs the polygrapher may have a financial incentive to keep the examinee coming back as many times as possible.

I have changed my view of countermeasures. I was against their use and did not use them on any of my 4 failed FBI polys. Now I see it like this....

#1-If you cant practice the CMs and SEE what your techniques are looking like on a chart, I'm not sure how effective you can be using them.

#2- It is not inherently honest or dishonest to produce an elevated pulse, increase your sweat gland activity via self induced pain, or artifically change your breathing pattern. The test DOES NOT DETECT LIES. It detects physiological changes which the operator ASSUMES are caused by lies. Your only moral obligation is to not lie. If you are telling the truth it makes no damn difference how much swet is on your finger and during which questions the sweat appears. If you have done something in vioation of the relevant issues of the test, then you should man up and admit it and not take the test at all.

The whole argument is absurd-"you are morally wrong to elevate your pulse when I ask you if you have ever beat your dog." NO-YOU ARE MORALLY WRONG TO BEAT YOUR DOG. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEAT YOUR DOG, YOU ARE MORALLY RIGHT. IF YOU PULSE INCREASING WAS MORALLY WRONG THEN JOGGING WOULD BE A FRIGGIN FEDERAL OFFENSE. I'm out. Discussion over.

Spelling is not my problem, typing is. And that was not a rant or a rave. That was a well developed moral argument for the use of countermeasures with a little bit of emotion thrown in. Since you seem to have missed the poiunt, I will sum it up.

Since the polygraph does not detect lies, it is not immoral to make you pulse increase on purpose if you are telling the truth because there is nothing inherently immoral about your pulse. 

If you have a substantive response, I'd like to hear it. If you want to comment further on the fact that I'm not a great typist or proofreader, well, I'll assume that means your arguments to the point at hand have run out