posted 12-06-2012 07:19 PM            

Article Title: "Federal polygraph programs are secret even to researchers"
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/05/3948230/federal-polygraph-programs-are.html

From article:

...."Katelyn Sack, a University of Virginia researcher who’s studying whether factors including polygraphers’ personal biases influence testing, provided the copies to McClatchy. Sack had to hire a lawyer and file open-records lawsuits to get data about U.S. polygraph programs even though the federal government has claimed to be supportive of such research.She said she thought she’d encountered suspicion from polygraphers because she was an independent researcher not tied to the industry. So far, her research isn’t showing racial bias in polygraph testing outside the federal government. Sack would like to assess whether the same is true of federal programs, but she’s still fighting for more data.“The polygraph profession is actually its own worst enemy,” she said."......

And

......."“It’s a siege mentality,” acknowledged Gordon Barland, a retired federal polygraph researcher who supports polygraph screening but also pushed for greater transparency on some of the data."......

Corey

posted 12-06-2012 10:13 PM         

quote:

---

What the "F" is going on?

---

I wish I could tell you.

My guess...only The Shadow knows. Bwahahahahaha!

Maybe, just maybe, when we go over the fiscal cliff, some polygraph programs will be among those line items to be "sequestered."

Why?

Perhaps someone told President Obama about that DoDPI study that said the "test" is biased against blacks.

Life's funny that way.

posted 12-06-2012 11:23 PM         

One of the things I’m unhappy about is the failure of the Government to acknowledge, much less publicize, its successes. I know of many spies who were detected in screening polygraphs. Nicholson is the most prominent one, *and he had been trained in countermeasures by the opposition.* Think about that. WOW! John Sullivan mentioned several other cases in his books, but there have been many others, most of whom were never brought to trial, and for good reason. But they were caught nonetheless in screening exams, fair and square, to our great benefit.

Yes, I told McClatchy I would like to see *some* of the results of several classified CM studies published. What I didn’t tell her is that they would put the lie to the most important claims by the critics, namely that CMs are easy to do, and they can’t be detected through chart interpretation. The whole field of countermeasures is intriguingly complex, and the internet critics vastly oversimplify things. I think it would be helpful to publish a generalized overview of some of the findings. That, plus a separate article containing anecdotal descriptions (no names need be mentioned) of spies who were caught. For example, walk-ins overseas, dispatched by the opposition to initiate double agent operations against us. Were it not for the polygraph… Anecdotes aren’t scientific, but they’re persuasive to the general public. It will happen someday, but I think sooner would be better than later.

Peace

posted 12-07-2012 12:23 AM            

I don't think I have Sullivan's book, but I'll have to give it a read. I wish the feds would make more of the wins, but their position - as you know all too well - is methods and sources. I don't want to second guess them since they have more information than I, but we've all heard the stories, and unless things have changed, not a single spy has been caught by an interview alone. Very telling....

Anecdotes are good. We convict people in court every day based on what are really anecdotes (personal accounts of what somebody perceived to have occurred). I'm sure they could be integrated into a methodologically sound study to help better explain a few things (and triangulate).

posted 12-07-2012 09:39 AM         

In that book, Sullivan writes at length about the frustrations he's experienced in trying to bring some of the success stories to light, as well as his efforts to correct some blatant polygraph falsehoods repeated by the media.

After reading Gatekeeper soon after its release, I reached out to John and found him very accessible, gracious and helpful. We talked on the phone a few times and exchanged a bunch of emails. He's cool.

By the way, in Gatekeeper, John says that polygraph is mostly art. From page 205:

quote:

---

A comment that I often made and that has been cited on an anti-polygraph organization's web site is, "Without an admission, polygraph is just a scientific wild-ass guess [SWAG]." I also believe, and mentioned, that polygraph is about 92 percent art and 8 percent science.

---

posted 12-07-2012 10:00 AM            

They call their style - one I adopted - "art" because most of the exchange is about the ability to get people to talk and little to do with the polygraph test. We know from the literature on deception that you can measure (and teach) the alleged "art," which means it's not the most appropriate term. Do some have a knack at better negotiating getting information? Sure. Since many don't understand the dynamics being employed, it's easy to say it's an art, thereby avoiding the hard work of operationalizing and testing, which takes time and money. It's easier to identify those who do whatever it is well, and then recruit them.

Then DoDPI paid for a study in which they looked at so-called "expert" interrogators a few years back, to see what they had that made them excel (masters of the "art" of interrogation?). From that, they made recommendations as to whom to select for the jobs and what techniques work best. So, it is possible to study what many say is "art" as science. (The report didn't tell us anything we didn't really know already.)

posted 12-07-2012 10:18 AM         

I've amended my post, above.

When I attended a CAPE conference a few years ago, John Schwartz talked about the art/craft/knack of getting people to talk in a polygraph setting.

If I recall correctly, he felt that examiners with a liberal arts background had something of an advantage.

posted 12-07-2012 06:28 PM         

I was a part of that federal study as well. The results were presented at several national seminars. I do have a copy of the study but I am not willing to part with it as it is one of my few claims to fame. If anybody wants a copy, email me and I will give you the info on the PHD guys who conducted the study. I am sure copies are available. And by the way Barry, the only boring part of the study was when they were talking about you--LOVE YA!

posted 12-08-2012 12:31 AM         

John Sullivan published two books. The first is "Of Spies and Lies" (2002) and recounts his experiences as a CIA examiner in Vietnam. The second is "Gatekeeper" (2007) about the remainder of his career with the agency. Both are fascinating and well worth having in your professional library.

Peace.

Gordon

posted 12-11-2012 07:10 PM         

And the truth is....that Barry's part was not boring at all!