It may or may not be. The general rule in polygraph chart scoring is "fail one (question), fail all."

Another viewpoint, if the preceding post did not provide you with a sufficiently illuminating answer, is that polygraph examiners have absolutely no idea how many people use countermeasures to successfully pass their polygraph test.  By definition, the successful use of countermeasures goes undetected.  The only way for an examiner to know about the successful use of countermeasures would be if the subject, having just passed his polygraph with the aid of countermeasures, decided to admit that to the examiner and change his passing score into a failure for the edification of the examiner.  I hardly think such a scenario is likely to happen.

Doug Williams claims he has taught thousands of people to pass their polygraph using countermeasure techniques to artificially produce what examiners will read as a "truthful" chart.  Is he lying about that?  Perhaps he could be polygraphed in order to determine the answer to that question.  Of course, that would likely be pointless as he says that he can pass any polygraph regardless of the questions, and I would imagine that he probably can.  He did intentionally lie on an episode of 60 Minutes and pass, but perhaps that was an aberration, because you are supposed to believe that countermeasure information makes you more likely to fail.

I know from experience that you can tell the truth on your polygraph and still fail.  

As long as you are planning to be truthful, I don't see any ethical problems with researching or even attempting countermeasures.

Regarding all the dire warnings of late from polygraph examiners on this board that the countermeasure information makes it more likely that you will fail, the truth is that they don't really know.  But they certainly want to believe, and they want you to believe, that it does.

I don't think any honest polygraph examiner will try to claim that no one has ever used countermeasures and passed.  It is a very logical continuation to go from there to the conclusion that they have absolutely no way of knowing how many people have skillfully used countermeasures without detection, but that they desperately want to believe it is a small number.

In United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998), Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:
Quote:


I think that is completely correct.  A "No Deception Indicated" conclusion could mean that the examinee was truthful, or that he used countermeasures successfully, or that he lied and was one of the (debatable) number of false-negatives that occur.  A "Deception Indicated" conclusion could mean that the examinee lied, or it could mean he did a poor job of using countermeasures, or it could mean that he told the truth and was one of the (again, debatable) number of false-positives that occur.

Quote:


Nice braggadocio. Doug Williams may claim he can do 100 pinky push-ups, but that doesn't make it true. 1904 stated that he "thinks" he can pass a poly. I will defer you all to the peer reviewed study that determined that countermeasures being performed on a countermeasure trained examiner will most likely result in junk charts. Any damn fool can make junk charts-----I had a sex offender who staged a tardic seizure during a test. He is now reading Spider-man comics in DOC. The only thing he beat was his own meat.

Now that I've researched the polygraph test  I know that they can not really read your mind. It is a machine of fear. So can't you just simply pass the polygraph by losing your fear of the polygraph? I mean I already know that they can't read my mind. Isn't that the reason people show reactions on the test anyways? Because they somehow have been tricked into believeing that the polygraphers have the ability to read into to your mind and tell without a doubt if you are telling the truth. So If someone were to go in there with the mindset that the machine cannot read their mind and have no fear couldn't that person beat it by having no fear?

"caged like a rat" Well it doesn't really matter what pressure they plce on me, because in my mind I know they can't read my mind. So if it is my belief that they are unable to read my mind then I will show no fear thus no reaction.  Maybe I'll manipulate a reaction during the stim when they tell me to deliberately lie as to which card I chose. That way they'll think that I am highly reactive to lying, therefore all of the other questions inwhich I will show little to no reaction to will seem truthful.

I don't think anyone ever suggested the polygraph can read minds - so formulating a cognitive-behavioral action plan around a bit of  fearful misunderstanding might be seriously misguided.

You also have to consider the possibility that the polygraph might not be simply about fear. 

There is evidence from CIT research, that fear itself is either not necessary or incomplete as an explanation of the psychological basis for physiological responses? 

What if cognition and memory also plays an important role in the formulation of a response potential to polygraph stimuli?

What are your chances if involvement in a behavior or event in question creates a form of conditioned response potential (certainly it might very well create a memory, at least for a reasonably intelligent non-psychotic person who is in consistent contact with reality)?

And what if that conditioned response potential were accessible to some conditioned stimulus - like a question about some behavior or event? Hmmm. 

Do you really think you can 86 your intelligence (memory and all) - just on and off like a light switch - without producing data of very suspicious quality. Are you really willing to try to disconnect your rational consciousness from reality for any length of time, just to pass a polygraph test? And if you could float in and out of some complete rational awareness of your own memories and accountability for your behavior, wouldn't you have to sacrifice your own mental health and intelligence to do that? What would that say about your psychological makeup, ability to pass a LE psych eval, and suitability for police work? 

Its enough to make one wonder. 

I'd recommend against it.

If you are serious. The best advice would be to stop engaging in crazy-making, and try to avoid becoming fodder for some cause. Just tell the truth, and cooperate.

Good luck.


r

I stand corrected.

Nobody, besides Mr. Maschke, has suggested the polygraph can read minds.

Quote:


Though I disagree with him.

The polygraph, like so many other tests, is simply a test of the significance of a person's reaction to a stimulus. The stimulus is a question regarding involvement in a behavior or event.

No mindreading. No magic. Just good 'ole fashioned stimulus and response, plus a bit of math. Like so many other useful tests. I'd tell you about my fun with the Rhorschach stimulus cards today, but that would be a distraction. 

You are providing inaccurate information again, regarding the scientific basis for polygraph. That is, I believe a violation of your own posting policies. 

To suggest there is no scientific basis would mean - no scientific basis. Mr. Iacono himself discusses the scientific basis. That you or he don't like it is a distinct concern from whether there are or are not any scientific principles, constructs, or knowledge that explain how and why the polygraph works.

Scientific facts are not decided by opinion. Not by a survey of professionals. Not by the opinion of a single expert like Mr. Iacono, and not by the opinion of a person who feels he has been wronged.

Please be more careful in the future.

Quote:


OK. On the obligations of persons seeking positions of public trust - I completely concur. The other part is not quite so simple.

For example the simple presence of a Firehouse in my neighborhood is no guarantee that my house won't catch fire, or that the fire crew would arrive in time to extinguish a fire before the house burned to the ground - posing a serious health and safety risk to the occupants, as some people have experienced first hand.

Therefore, fire departments can therefore not be relied upon. 



r