- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Aug 29, 2003, 06:47 PMI think your comments could be very helpful to others considering their options. Especially after they have decided on not using CM's. It could also be illustrative to others just curious about the polygraph which was my reason.
Your experience very clearly demonstrates poor practice of the "art" part of the craft. A good polygrapher will steer you into a denial on what is a fairly trivial matter while making it seem an offense serious enough to evoke a lie. This really is not an easy thing to pull off! A polygrapher who just runs through a script is not going to do a good job at this.
This perhaps explains my current interest in "Cold Reading" Many professional mentalist entertainers are so good at it people don't believe them when they explain there is nothing supernatural about what they do. It is just applied psych.
-Marty
Your experience very clearly demonstrates poor practice of the "art" part of the craft. A good polygrapher will steer you into a denial on what is a fairly trivial matter while making it seem an offense serious enough to evoke a lie. This really is not an easy thing to pull off! A polygrapher who just runs through a script is not going to do a good job at this.
This perhaps explains my current interest in "Cold Reading" Many professional mentalist entertainers are so good at it people don't believe them when they explain there is nothing supernatural about what they do. It is just applied psych.
-Marty
Posted by Human Subject
- Aug 29, 2003, 06:23 PMNo problem, thanks for commenting on the situation.
I'm not saying what happened in my case happens frequently, I really have no idea. Put it does point up a potential pitfall for examinees if the prob-lie questions are poorly chosen, or if the examiner raises the "trigger threshold" too high during any off-the-chart conversations.
"Have you have stolen anything?" might be a good example. If you seek clarification of that question prior to ever being asked while hooked up, and the examiner says that by "anything" he means priceless artifacts, then suddenly a prob-lie question becomes a question 99.9% of the human population can honestly answer "no", and therefore it doesn't serve its function.
I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the point is still valid.
I'm not saying what happened in my case happens frequently, I really have no idea. Put it does point up a potential pitfall for examinees if the prob-lie questions are poorly chosen, or if the examiner raises the "trigger threshold" too high during any off-the-chart conversations.
"Have you have stolen anything?" might be a good example. If you seek clarification of that question prior to ever being asked while hooked up, and the examiner says that by "anything" he means priceless artifacts, then suddenly a prob-lie question becomes a question 99.9% of the human population can honestly answer "no", and therefore it doesn't serve its function.
I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the point is still valid.
Posted by Marty
- Aug 29, 2003, 06:12 PMQuote from: Human Subject on Aug 29, 2003, 05:31 PM
I'm sure people will read this and think "if he'd only not read about the polygraph and strategies to defeat it, he wouldn't have been anxious, and he would have passed." I disagree, since I really was surprisingly relaxed. I'd committed to a tell-the-truth-no-CMs strategy before going in, so it wasn't as if I was reconsidering or strategizing or anything during the test itself. I just visualized an American flag billowing in the wind (the "happy place" I'd chosen to help me relax) and answered the questions as they came.
Didn't work.
Thanks for the clarification. You may have been a victim of a lousy polygrapher and simply being too honest. If you respond equally to all questions you will not be scored as NDI. Polys require a differential score between the controls and relevents. You clearly didn't respond sufficiently to the PLQ's.
It may well be a good idea that if one makes the decision to not use CM's, that one volunteer that they are informed about how polys work. Perhaps it would be best to refer to the various books out there including the texts polygraphers use as sources since antipolygraph.org is widely viewed as a source inimical to polygraphers. NSF's recent report might be a good one since it was widely publicised.
-Marty
Posted by Human Subject
- Aug 29, 2003, 05:31 PMI went in having read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I had a good idea of how the test works. Nevertheless, like lots of other people, I decided I'd just go in and tell the truth, as I had nothing to hide.
Part of my logic was also that I thought I might feel more anxious if I tried to use CMs. My mind would be focused on identifying types of questions and employing the appropriate responses. Instead I just relaxed. Even though I basically had no faith in the instrument, I decided to roll the dice (since I had even less faith that I wouldn't inadvertently "spike" on relevant questions, etc).
When I say "controls", I actually mean "probable lie" questions. Maybe this is the source of confusion.
I think part of the problem in my case was that the probable lie questions didn't provoke much of a response from me. Based on prior discussion with the examiner, it seemed clear what level of magnitude of "sin" he was interested in. The problem for me was that although I may have committed low-level offenses related to the probable lie questions, none of them rose to the threshold severity level the examiner said he was looking for.
As a consequence, all my answers looked about the same on the charts (I'm speculating, never saw them). There was no real lie to use as a standard against which he could evaluate the "truthfulness" of my other responses to relevant questions. (There was no pre-exam stim test either.)
I knew this at the time, but thought it better not to raise the issue, since suddenly the examiner would be interested in where I picked up my knowledge of polygraphy, and why. Or it could turn into a "don't tell me how to do my job" type thing. Or he could have though it was a cheap ploy by me to paint myself as an angel. ("Oh Mr. Polygrapher, I know most people lie about those questions, but I honestly have never done that.")
For the record, there certainly are non-relevant questions out there that I'd probably lie about -- the examiner just didn't happen to ask them.
I'm sure people will read this and think "if he'd only not read about the polygraph and strategies to defeat it, he wouldn't have been anxious, and he would have passed." I disagree, since I really was surprisingly relaxed. I'd committed to a tell-the-truth-no-CMs strategy before going in, so it wasn't as if I was reconsidering or strategizing or anything during the test itself. I just visualized an American flag billowing in the wind (the "happy place" I'd chosen to help me relax) and answered the questions as they came.
Didn't work.
Part of my logic was also that I thought I might feel more anxious if I tried to use CMs. My mind would be focused on identifying types of questions and employing the appropriate responses. Instead I just relaxed. Even though I basically had no faith in the instrument, I decided to roll the dice (since I had even less faith that I wouldn't inadvertently "spike" on relevant questions, etc).
When I say "controls", I actually mean "probable lie" questions. Maybe this is the source of confusion.
I think part of the problem in my case was that the probable lie questions didn't provoke much of a response from me. Based on prior discussion with the examiner, it seemed clear what level of magnitude of "sin" he was interested in. The problem for me was that although I may have committed low-level offenses related to the probable lie questions, none of them rose to the threshold severity level the examiner said he was looking for.
As a consequence, all my answers looked about the same on the charts (I'm speculating, never saw them). There was no real lie to use as a standard against which he could evaluate the "truthfulness" of my other responses to relevant questions. (There was no pre-exam stim test either.)
I knew this at the time, but thought it better not to raise the issue, since suddenly the examiner would be interested in where I picked up my knowledge of polygraphy, and why. Or it could turn into a "don't tell me how to do my job" type thing. Or he could have though it was a cheap ploy by me to paint myself as an angel. ("Oh Mr. Polygrapher, I know most people lie about those questions, but I honestly have never done that.")
For the record, there certainly are non-relevant questions out there that I'd probably lie about -- the examiner just didn't happen to ask them.
I'm sure people will read this and think "if he'd only not read about the polygraph and strategies to defeat it, he wouldn't have been anxious, and he would have passed." I disagree, since I really was surprisingly relaxed. I'd committed to a tell-the-truth-no-CMs strategy before going in, so it wasn't as if I was reconsidering or strategizing or anything during the test itself. I just visualized an American flag billowing in the wind (the "happy place" I'd chosen to help me relax) and answered the questions as they came.
Didn't work.
Posted by Marty
- Aug 28, 2003, 11:56 PMQuote from: Human Subject on Aug 28, 2003, 10:11 PMPretest Q's are mostly designed to identify PL Q's. Hyping the poly is done during the discussion phase.
I guess I still don't see how being asked about things that were sort of beyond the scope of what the test was supposed to cover would increase my belief in the infallibility of the polygraph. The questions were about things I freely admitted long before my exam.
QuoteIf the controls were easily recognized, did you purposely lie knowing that's what is expected of a naive examinee? If they didn't require an outright lie (not all do), did you go along with the program and express concern?
(I easily recognized the control questions, but I opted not to employ CMs.) ...... You are probably right generally speaking (regarding using the interview to choose good control questions), but I think my particular case was unusual and didn't fit this scenario.
Outside of explaining to the examiner that you understand the controls or simply refuse to lie on them (thus frustrating your examiner to no end), I don't see how it is possible to act as you would have acted without knowing how the poly works. Please elucidate if you would?
-Marty
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Aug 28, 2003, 10:29 PMQuote from: Human Subject on Aug 28, 2003, 10:11 PM
(I easily recognized the control questions, but I opted not to employ CMs.)
But choosing to not use CM's during the exam is still a form of thinking about them, and the thought of what a CM is had to have crossed your mind ("Don't change the way I'm breathing, forget what I read about breathing patterns.").
You've taken a bite from the forbidden fruit. There is no return to innocence.**
**Disclaimer: "forbidden" and "innocence" are from the standpoint of a polygrapher. There are polygraphers who will flash a becoming smile at you, share a few hearty chuckles over the very idea of beating the polygraph, and continue on with the exam after being told how you were so, well, bad, very bad for having tried to learn how polygraphs work and how they can (easily) be beaten, giving you a clean slate (but don't bet on it).
Posted by Human Subject
- Aug 28, 2003, 10:11 PMQuote from: Marty on Aug 28, 2003, 08:06 PM
The intent during the interview and question review is to gauge what control questions to ask and sensitize you to the ones the polygrapher feels you will be most responsive to. You are expected to react to some of these background questions. It also is used to promote belief in the near infallibility of the polygraph. This may seem manipulative - and it is - but it is meant to reduce false positives.
I guess I still don't see how being asked about things that were sort of beyond the scope of what the test was supposed to cover would increase my belief in the infallibility of the polygraph. The questions were about things I freely admitted long before my exam. It's not as if the admissions were squeezed out of me during a grueling poly session, and therefore I would be "impressed" but the power of the tool. The mere fact that the questions were asked wouldn't seem to have any affect on an examinee's faith in the polygraph. It didn't affect my own assessment of its reliability.
And again, not getting into specifics, but the questions I was asked beforehand had zero connection to the control questions I was asked in the exam itself. (I easily recognized the control questions, but I opted not to employ CMs.)
You are probably right generally speaking (regarding using the interview to choose good control questions), but I think my particular case was unusual and didn't fit this scenario.
Posted by Marty
- Aug 28, 2003, 08:06 PMQuote from: Human Subject on Aug 28, 2003, 07:22 PMI've been pretty careful not to provide too many details about my own experience, but I was asked what I consider to be "lifestyle questions" by my polygrapher during my pre-exam interview, though they weren't brought up during the exam itself. Seemed as though the intent was to rattle me.The intent during the interview and question review is to gauge what control questions to ask and sensitize you to the ones the polygrapher feels you will be most responsive to. You are expected to react to some of these background questions. It also is used to promote belief in the near infallibility of the polygraph. This may seem manipulative - and it is - but it is meant to reduce false positives.
A very good way to better understand the polygraph is to understand the instrument AND what the examiner is trying to measure and hence why they practice a sort of deceit in their art.
Imagining yourself in their position helps. BTW, it also helps get a good price when buying cars.
-Marty
Posted by Human Subject
- Aug 28, 2003, 07:22 PMI've been pretty careful not to provide too many details about my own experience, but I was asked what I consider to be "lifestyle questions" by my polygrapher during my pre-exam interview, though they weren't brought up during the exam itself. Seemed as though the intent was to rattle me.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Aug 26, 2003, 06:54 PMBo Biddar,
I apologize for the previous posting. I was making an attempt at humor, not trying to make fun of you.
I apologize for the previous posting. I was making an attempt at humor, not trying to make fun of you.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 26, 2003, 06:47 PMBo Biddar,
The lifestyle questions asked by federal law enforcement agencies concern drug usage and not legal sexual conduct such as that which you described.
The U.S. Secret Service is known to use a question about sex with animals as a kind of "shock control" question, however.
For more on the kinds of questions you are likely to encounter in a pre-employment polygraph examination, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The lifestyle questions asked by federal law enforcement agencies concern drug usage and not legal sexual conduct such as that which you described.
The U.S. Secret Service is known to use a question about sex with animals as a kind of "shock control" question, however.
For more on the kinds of questions you are likely to encounter in a pre-employment polygraph examination, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Aug 26, 2003, 03:47 PMSorry, removed what was here before.
Posted by Bo Biddar
- Aug 26, 2003, 04:12 AMDoes federal LE ask lifestyle questions on the polygraph?? I had sex with my boyfriend at his work, during non-work hours (so none of us were "working"). Does this count? Do I disclose??