Do you have polygraph questions?  I have answers!

As a qualified polygraph examiner --i.e., a Backster School of Lie Detection graduate, full member of the American Polygraph Association, and certified PCSOT (Post Conviction Sex Offender Test) examiner -- I've been monitoring this site for about ten years.

From what I've seen, it's high time for an honest Q&A thread that's facilitated by someone who does not hide behind an avatar or a fake name.

If anyone has serious questions about the polygraph "testing" process, or the political-industrial polygraph landscape, please fire away.

Nothing along those lines is off the table.

While I am not a federal examiner, I have reliable connections to that part of the polygraph world. What I don't know, I can probably find out.

So, I'd be happy to answer your polygraph-related questions in this forum.

However, for anyone who is concerned about exposure, please feel free to contact me privately.

My contact info can be found on my web site, www.polygraphman.com.

I look forward to serving you.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.

George, I'll speak for myself as a lowly civilian polygraph operator with only ten years of experience.

Test subjects who apply mental countermeasures in a heavy-handed manner are prone to exhibit signs of their efforts.

To illustrate my point, imagine instructing a five-year-old child who desperately wants a dog for Christmas to wish with all their might -- for a period of, say, 30 seconds -- that Santa will bring them a puppy.

Anyone with experience around kids -- especially parents -- is familiar with the child's likely response: eyes shut tight, mouth clamped shut, a perceptible tremor, sometimes a clenching of the fists, etc.

And so it often is with individuals engaging in mental CMs, albeit more subtle.

On top of that, the tricky test subject's "wish with all your might" demeanor comes and goes with the CQs, as the faker is also working at achieving tranquility/detachment during the RQs. 

The difference can be noticeable.

So, while mental countermeasures may be the least detectable, they are not undetectable -- in my opinion.

Of course, the operator does not know for certain; mind reading is not part of this equation. But, in the post-test phase, when the suspected subject is shown the video replay of their own shifting demeanor and asked to explain the change, admissions of fakery are not uncommon.

Another wild card is luck. That is, luck of the draw when it comes to examiner competence. The wide variance of polygraph operator capability is shocking.

For years now, I have been calling for an ongoing countermeasure challenge series, integral to APA seminars, that would pit CM-prepped challengers against randomly chosen polygraph operators. In such a scenario, I predict that about half of the fakers would prevail. 

So, in my view, the successful application of mental CMs requires, at a minimum, deep knowledge of the polygraph process, a very high degree of discipline, a facile and vivid imagination, and the ability to maintain a uniform "poker face" throughout the multiple data collection phases. Obviously, such an objective is more likely achieved with the benefit of coaching and practice.

As far as a coherent methodology to detect mental CMs is concerned, I am not aware of any. If such a thing exists, it is certainly not available to rank-and-file members of the APA. That said, my hunch is that stricter-than-ever QA protocols are employed on the federal level. Of course, that also results in more FP collateral damage -- hence more victimization.

Dan:

With almost all polygraphers utilizing computerized polygraph machines, I wish to bring up the following issue.

The actual polygraph questions having to be constructed by the polygrapher, but with the existence of computer-synthesized speech and the availability of low-cost hardware and software to perform same, I am surprised that all polygraphers (certainly the last one I took in 2000) continue to employ human speech, considering that personal biases, tone of voice, inflexions, sarcasm, etc. can influence the result.  I attribute the wide variance of polygraph results to the human voice.

I would like your thoughts on this subject.

Regards,
Evan S

In addition to what Drew Richardson said, I offer the following...

1. The quality of synthesized speech has been lacking. It might be better now, but for years it was criticized by some members of the polygraph community as not being natural sounding enough. A legitimate criticism is that the artificial sound of the computerized voice was more of a distraction than anything else.

2. The polygraph "test" process is largely about power and control. Polygraph operators, in my opinion, are loathe to forfeit much in the way of flexibility when it comes to how they choose to conduct an exam.

3. Generally speaking, the polygraph community is likely to resist anything that would set the stage for full automation and the elimination of the polygraph operator. One exception, though, is automated scoring, which has caught on like wildfire. Why? When deception is indicated, the whiz-bang computerized readout makes for a convincing prop from which the operator can more easily launch into a post-test interrogation.

I have a question for you.

I have been polygraphed twice, both full scope lifestyle polys for law enforcement.  Part of a pre-screening process.  I passed the first one although the screener said "your breathing sucks," whatever that means.  The second one I failed because the examiner concluded that I was lying about my sexual history and drug use.  I was outraged because I told the truth, am an honest person, and had nothing to hide.  Despite the fact that my sexual history is difficult to talk about with a complete stranger with authority over me, but whatever.

As a result, I started investigating the polygraph to learn more about why someone who was completely honest might fail.  I learned a lot.

So, here's the question.  If ever I get polygraphed again, what do I tell the examiner?

My gut reaction is to simply say that I know about the polygraph.  I've been polygraphed twice and failed once despite being honest.  I've read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, the NAS report on the scientific validity of the polygraph, Doug Williams' book "How to Sting the Polygraph," as well as the DOD and DOJ polygraph manuals.  I know about the "calibration" test they do at the beginning.  I know that the "control" questions are really irrelevant and that the other questions are a mix of relevant and actual control questions.  I know that the polygraph is not admissible in court except in certain circumstances.  I know that the use of the "butt pad" is a tantamount admission that squeezing your sphincter produces results.  I also know that the Chinese and the Russians-- themselves no slouches in the intelligence field-- don't use it because they think it's bunk.

I would then tell the polygraph operator that I am being completely honest in order to clear things out of the way and that I have no intention of attempting any kind of countermeasures, and want to pass the test the "legit" way.  Not being aggressive or combative, but showing what I know and trying to be honest.

How do you think he would respond?

Thanks.

In my estimation, telling the polygraph operator everything as described in your second most recent post will reduce your chances of success from roughly 50% to about 15%.

I cannot speak to responses from individual LE polygraph operators I've never met, but I'm inclined to think that, after making your polygraph knowledge disclosure --  including your impressive reading list -- you may hear something like this:

"I'm very glad you told me that, Mr. Dough. I understand your concerns. Trust me, you'll be in the best of hands. Now just relax and follow my instructions."

In answer to your latest question... Yes, from what I've seen, the polygraph still "works" -- at least it does in most cases when there's something substantial at stake -- even though the test subject knows about polygraph theory and procedure. 

But thank you for confirming what I've suspected and read about all along: the polygraph is biased against people who have naturally guilty consciences and produce a false positive, even if they are being completely honest.

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

...when u say the difference can be noticeable, do u mean on the chart or only their demeanor?