Quote:I just pointed it out because you and others here often engage in documentary archeology digging through tomes rather than tombs seeking scraps that support your preconceived notions about polygraph.
You did the same exact thing recently with (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001) in the following thread, trying to make the above cite "support your preconceived notion" that using CMs as prescribed in GM's book, has been show to hurt the polygraph results of innocent people:
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1224971431 SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 27th, 2008, 7:25pm:
Quote:Excuse me the complete quote should be
Quote:
Some examinees who have not committed crimes, security breaches, or related offenses, or who have little to hide, might nevertheless engage in countermeasures with the intent to minimize their chances of false positive test results (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). This strategy is not risk-free for innocent examinees. There is evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001). Also, several agencies that use the polygraph in screening job applicants or current employees have indicated that examinees who are judged to be using countermeasures may, on these grounds alone, be subject to the same personnel actions that would result from a test that indicated deception The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) National Academy of Sciences
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) PG 140
GM replied:
Quote:It is dishonest to cite the NAS report to support the notion that the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector increase the risk of a truthful person being wrongly found deceptive. As discussed previously on this board, the foregoing passage refers to a study by Honts and Amato of the use of spontaneous (that is, untrained) countermeasures. See, Honts, C.R., S.L. Amato, and A.K. Gordon, "Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test." Polygraph Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, pp. 1-9.
In this study, the "countermeasures" were things that subjects ignorant of polygraph procedure did on their own in the belief that it might help them pass the polygraph. Such countermeasures are not comparable to those suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
With regard to the 1980 study by Michael E. Dawson ("Physiological Detection of Deception: Measurement of Responses to Questions and Answers During Countermeasure Maneuvers," Psychophysiology 17 (1), 8–17), as explained in the article abstract: "All subjects were trained in the Stanislavsky method of acting and were instructed to use this method to appear innocent on the polygraph test." Again, this is nothing at all like the countermeasures suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Simply put, there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.
At least when we data mine, we come up with factual material. We don't twist, distort, or lie about what is contained in our citations.
TC