Your example regarding the lack of appropriate motivation for the volunteers fails on its face unless you can provide research that indicates that this motivation is relevant. NAS postulated that motivation might be a factor, but that research was needed to prove that it was a factor. Where is it?  You are taking a theoretical possibility and claiming that it works in field applications without any scientific research that proves it can be effective.

You offer your own brand of inoculation against failing a polygraph without ANY scientific research to prove the cure you are offering is any more than snake oil.  

The reason your countermeasures fail is that the seemingly simple idea that you propose "make reactions to control questions greater to relevant questions" while easy enough to say isn't very easy to accomplish convincingly. What you should really tell your readers is that in order for countermeasures to work, they will have to create a deliberate response that resembles a phasic autonomic reaction on a polygraph chart. They have to do it without ever having seen what such a reaction looks like produced by their own physiology, and they must do this in a manner that overcomes their natural reaction, yet not so much that it becomes obvious to the examiner (who is well experienced in what autonomic reactions look like on a polygraph) that their response is being manufactured. They will also have to do this repeatedly and consistently over the course of 3 or 4 charts. A persons tonic physiology, observed on a polygraph changes from day to day and even chart to chart depending on a wide host of possible factors so what works on one day may well fail on another day.  That just isn't easy to do. 

A simplified example of what countermeasures try to accomplish would be for you to take 6 identical water glasses and a garden hose. Have a friend blindfold you and fill half of the glasses to different levels (we’ll call these the RQ glasses). Now have him turn the garden hose on low so the water doesn't just gush out and knock the glasses over. Your task is to fill the empty glasses (Let’s call them CQ glasses) to a level slightly greater level than their companion glass if you fail to fill it beyond the RQ level you fail. If you fill it more than 1/2 inch beyond the level of the RQ glass or over flow the glass you will be accused of attempting countermeasures. Your friend will be allowed to give you one clue regarding each glass. He will be allowed to tell you that it is either almost empty, approximately half or almost full. This glass filling process simulates an attempt for you to manufacture a response you can't see.     OK that's one chart. Now rearrange the glasses, empty the CQ glasses and try again and repeat the procedure at least two more times to simulate an entire exam. This should give you a pretty good idea of what you expect a person to be able to do on a polygraph, just from reading your book. 

Except, of course, in a polygraph all of the glasses aren't the same size and you won’t have a buddy telling you how full the RQ glasses are. Your motivation, whether it is 1 dollar or a million or the potential consequences whether they are a slap on the hand or summary execution would not be expected to have any positive effect on your ability to fill the glasses. No matter how much you practice filling CQ glasses, you never get any feedback on how much water is going to be in the RQ glasses on the day you take your test. 

What happens to truthful examinees who attempt countermeasures in a comparison question test is if their reactions are already slightly greater to CQs than their reactions to RQs either they try to fill the wrong glass, start filling the glass too soon, start filling it too late or they consistently overfill the CQ glass because their phasic CQ reactions are already naturally greater than their RQ reactions. These additional opportunities to fail will not only confound the goal of a guilty examinee and not help him at all, but they also confound the innocent examinee and increase the likelihood of his failure. 

At best most who play that game will generate inconclusive results which results in another exam in a criminal case or a trip to the bottom of the applicant pile where they lose their opportunity if the people ahead of them pass their tests.  All because of a dishonorable attempt to cheat on a test.

Your inferences and implications regarding what is said or occurs in all polygraph examinations are based on unsubstantiated overgeneralizations. That isn't going to change. Yesterday for instance I know that polygraph examinations were conducted in Dallas Texas, Los Angeles California, Hartford Connecticut, and Topeka Kansas. You and Drew have nothing more than conjecture to offer regarding what was said by the examiner in describing autonomic nervous system responses chronicled on a polygraph instrument  in one, all or any of them.

Odd that Cullen has never attacked you for your desire to remain anonymous. That sort of thing seems to bug him. 

So are you saying that your qualifications have no bearing on your criticism of polygraphy?  I can certainly agree with that, after all , I didn't ask you who you were, I asked you what your qualifications were, which is different from your identity.  But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will (I mean that collectively, not specifically). 

In any case, I am here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. 

Ed Earl wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 2:15pm:


Are people better off answering probable-lie "control" questions truthfully than untruthfully?

Twoblock

I expect "dirty cops" to use every countermeasure available to them.  Why not?  They always have, even before this site existed.  What we are discussing and what is new and troubling, from our point of view, is countermeasure use by otherwise truthfuls attempting to protect against a misclassification, producing the very thing they fear by being identified as using cm.  

Twoblock, I'm glad you asked. That is definitely one of your better questions if not the very best one you have produced and certainly worth a response.

There are two types of people who would consider using countermeasures to try and alter the outcome of a polygraph. 

The first group would be those who have some negative issue regarding their past that would render them unsuitable for a position of responsibility or establish their culpability for a criminal act. 

To that group I say: Quote:
 

The second group are those who have nothing negative about their past that would automatically render them unsuitable for a position of responsibility as long as they are willing to be honest about their mistakes or who are not culpable for the act that is the subject of a  criminal investigation and polygraph. These people, through nervousness or curiosity, may find their way to this website and begin to buy into the bugle oil being peddled by you, and George and Gino and the rest because certain assurances are offered that they can use TLBTLD to pass their test; even those assurances are not supported by research. Those are the ones I care about. I consider them to be George and Gino's victims.

To them I say: Quote:
 

TO BOTH GROUPS I SAY: Quote:


Twoblock I consider myself and those like me  similar to lifeguards at the edge of an anti-polygraph cesspool. Some of the people who dive in may still drown, but it won't be because we didn't try to save them. 

That is what I mean when I say I am here to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth.

Thank you for asking.

George W. Maschke wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 2:22pm:


George, why should I expend any effort whatsoever to answer any of your questions when you consistently and repeatedly ignore mine?   

Would you like a list?

pailryder wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 6:16pm:


Does anyone else find it ironic that the polygraph operator in such a case would apparently be unable to tell if someone was answering questions truthfully but still employing countermeasures?  Countermeasures which don't work anyway, I should say, if we are to believe the polygraph examiners who have repeatedly asserted such on this board.

If a polygraph operator cannot tell when someone is being truthful what hope do they have of correctly identifying a lie?  And what does that say about the overall efficacy of the polygraph?  That it is only effective when the examinee obeys the operator's instructions, but there is no way to tell when that is occurring and when it is not?

pailryder wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 6:40pm:


Thank you for the pointed response. 

I am curious as to why the [less] deceptive DLCT is used with such rarity and/or only as a second line technique when the operator is informed by the test subject that he is aware of the deception inherent in the CQT....

I can understand why the R/I test has fallen out of favor as it is considered widely discredited even within the polygraph community. 

I still, however, have a hard time understanding why the CQT is the  overwhelming favorite in modern polygraphy if the deception involved brings nothing to the table.