- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 13, 2005, 09:22 PMQuote from: Bill Crider on Jul 13, 2005, 03:30 PMbecause the examinee may offer something that is related to the controls but is in fact a disqualifying admission anyway. if your control is "have you ever stolen from an employee" and you get pressured into admitting that you embezzeled $10k and never got caught, then kudos to the polygrapher for getting it from you.
Bill,
Not true in my case. My controls didn't relate to issues in which disqualifying admissions would have been factors.
Posted by ted
- Jul 13, 2005, 07:45 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 13, 2005, 11:51 AMPolyfool,
Yes, the post-test commentary/accusation(s) regarding control question material by polygraphers does give them some protection from any quality control review (hehe) changes in the outcome. In general, since they have gone to the trouble of "setting" these question areas and have intentionally gotten the examinee to limit any admissions during the pretest phase, they (the examiners) will not further question an examinee regarding this material during the in-test phase. This is not true of relevant question material. They will bluff/accuse/fish/etc throughout the process about relevant issues up and until they pronounce that they don't see any problems for a no-deception-indicated (NDI) scored examinee. In general if you fail their test you are interrogated about the relevant material; if you pass their test, you are told that you appear to have passed, but that you seem to have some problems with the control material. They, of course, don't realize at that point that you know the difference between relevant and control questions and won't refer to this material as control, but being the knowledgeable person you are, you will know.
Drew:
What would your thoughts be if an examinee was confronted at the conclusion of his/her test and told there was problems with the test. Specifically, if an examiner points to relevant and control questions and suggests there was a problem. Is this usually just a fishing trip? Or does it suggest an inconclusinve outcome?
Thanks
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 13, 2005, 03:50 PMPolyfool,
In general there would be no reason to interrogate examinees regarding control material. By definition control material is NOT that which determines whether you get the job, whether you go to jail, etc. I have thought for sometime though that it might be a useful counter-countermeasure for an examiner to do this if he or those at Oz think doing such might confuse the identity of control and relevant questions. An examinee who wants to employ countermeasures has only two tasks before him/her: (1) identification of control and relevant questions; and (2) producing appropriate (time, duration, and magnitude) responses to controls. That which you ask about might help to make slightly more difficult the first of the two tasks.
In general there would be no reason to interrogate examinees regarding control material. By definition control material is NOT that which determines whether you get the job, whether you go to jail, etc. I have thought for sometime though that it might be a useful counter-countermeasure for an examiner to do this if he or those at Oz think doing such might confuse the identity of control and relevant questions. An examinee who wants to employ countermeasures has only two tasks before him/her: (1) identification of control and relevant questions; and (2) producing appropriate (time, duration, and magnitude) responses to controls. That which you ask about might help to make slightly more difficult the first of the two tasks.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jul 13, 2005, 03:30 PMbecause the examinee may offer something that is related to the controls but is in fact a disqualifying admission anyway. if your control is "have you ever stolen from an employee" and you get pressured into admitting that you embezzeled $10k and never got caught, then kudos to the polygrapher for getting it from you.
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 13, 2005, 02:21 PMDrew,
What would be the purpose of an examiner interrogating an examinee regarding the relevant material and also accusing him of lying about controls?
Thanks for answering my questions. It seems polygraph examiners on this board choose to answer only the questions they can twist to support their cause.
What would be the purpose of an examiner interrogating an examinee regarding the relevant material and also accusing him of lying about controls?
Thanks for answering my questions. It seems polygraph examiners on this board choose to answer only the questions they can twist to support their cause.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 13, 2005, 11:51 AMPolyfool,
Yes, the post-test commentary/accusation(s) regarding control question material by polygraphers does give them some protection from any quality control review (hehe) changes in the outcome. In general, since they have gone to the trouble of "setting" these question areas and have intentionally gotten the examinee to limit any admissions during the pretest phase, they (the examiners) will not further question an examinee regarding this material during the in-test phase. This is not true of relevant question material. They will bluff/accuse/fish/etc throughout the process about relevant issues up and until they pronounce that they don't see any problems for a no-deception-indicated (NDI) scored examinee. In general if you fail their test you are interrogated about the relevant material; if you pass their test, you are told that you appear to have passed, but that you seem to have some problems with the control material. They, of course, don't realize at that point that you know the difference between relevant and control questions and won't refer to this material as control, but being the knowledgeable person you are, you will know.
Yes, the post-test commentary/accusation(s) regarding control question material by polygraphers does give them some protection from any quality control review (hehe) changes in the outcome. In general, since they have gone to the trouble of "setting" these question areas and have intentionally gotten the examinee to limit any admissions during the pretest phase, they (the examiners) will not further question an examinee regarding this material during the in-test phase. This is not true of relevant question material. They will bluff/accuse/fish/etc throughout the process about relevant issues up and until they pronounce that they don't see any problems for a no-deception-indicated (NDI) scored examinee. In general if you fail their test you are interrogated about the relevant material; if you pass their test, you are told that you appear to have passed, but that you seem to have some problems with the control material. They, of course, don't realize at that point that you know the difference between relevant and control questions and won't refer to this material as control, but being the knowledgeable person you are, you will know.
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 13, 2005, 01:48 AMDrew,
I see. It gives the examiner a way out, so to speak, in case the outcome changes. Is the examiner also trying to gauge the examinee's reaction to being accused of lying to controls?
I see. It gives the examiner a way out, so to speak, in case the outcome changes. Is the examiner also trying to gauge the examinee's reaction to being accused of lying to controls?
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 12, 2005, 12:30 AMPolyfool,
Some examiners are under the misguided notion that examinees can't tell the difference between relevant and control questions. Because polygraph examiners want to send examinees away thinking that the exam worked (should they tell their friends, etc or should they take further exams), they want to tell them that they were caught lying on some issue where there is some probability that they actually were. Also in case their (the examiner's) quality control process changes/overturns the examiner's NDI call to an inconclusive or DI (less likely), they (the examiner) has already told the examinee that they (the examinee) were deceptive about something. As you allude to, with a knowledgeable examinee this all becomes nonsense.
Some examiners are under the misguided notion that examinees can't tell the difference between relevant and control questions. Because polygraph examiners want to send examinees away thinking that the exam worked (should they tell their friends, etc or should they take further exams), they want to tell them that they were caught lying on some issue where there is some probability that they actually were. Also in case their (the examiner's) quality control process changes/overturns the examiner's NDI call to an inconclusive or DI (less likely), they (the examiner) has already told the examinee that they (the examinee) were deceptive about something. As you allude to, with a knowledgeable examinee this all becomes nonsense.
Posted by polyscam
- Jul 12, 2005, 12:21 AMSergeant1107 wrote:
One still can't cheat on the oral board. The "test" must be "standardized" in order for one to cheat. Oral boards, phsycological screenings and polygraph don't meet this requirement in any traditional definition.
Polyfool wrote:
I know my name is not Nonombre but I thought I would give it a shot and see if the noname is in agreement. Answer: an attempt to gain an admission not made prior to the in-test. An integrity check if you will.
QuoteOn some oral boards they try to induce stress. Sometimes one person will ask a question and then a different person on the board will attack your answer, trying to get you to change your mind and lose your cool. Occasionally more people on the board jump in, all with the intent of getting you to stress out and lose your temper. They reason they want you to lose your temper is because veteran officers know that everyone loses their temper sometimes and they want to observe how you act when you do.
I am aware that some oral boards are like that. Armed with this foreknowledge, I go into oral boards with the intent of maintaining my composure no matter what. If I sense that I'm getting upset for any reason I will use deep breathing techniques (learned in LTC Grossman's "Bulletproof Mind" lecture) to regain control of my autonomic nervous system. Does this mean I'm "cheating" on the oral board? Because I have knowledge of what might happen so I prepare myself? Because even though I know their intent is to get me to feel anxiety or fear, but I consciously choose to refrain from letting the fear or anxiety overtake me?
If the oral board was run by a polygraph examiner I would suspect that I would be accused of cheating if I did what I described above. The polygraph examiner needs to control what the subject is thinking during an exam, because if the examiner is thinking about anything other than the exam they won't respond to the "lies" they've told (or so the polygrapher thinks.)
One still can't cheat on the oral board. The "test" must be "standardized" in order for one to cheat. Oral boards, phsycological screenings and polygraph don't meet this requirement in any traditional definition.
Polyfool wrote:
QuoteWhy would a poly examiner accuse an examinee of lying to control questions during a post test interrogation?
I know my name is not Nonombre but I thought I would give it a shot and see if the noname is in agreement. Answer: an attempt to gain an admission not made prior to the in-test. An integrity check if you will.
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 11, 2005, 10:44 PMNonombre:
Why would a poly examiner accuse an examinee of lying to control questions during a post test interrogation?
Why would a poly examiner accuse an examinee of lying to control questions during a post test interrogation?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 11, 2005, 12:24 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 11, 2005, 01:09 AMIf a police applicant cheated on his written exam and was caught by the proctor, what should be the response of the police department administering the test?Nonombre,
I believe most people would answer that the department should immediately boot the applicant from the room and terminate his application.
And if an applicant is caught cheating on his polygraph exam?
The answer is: Immediately boot the applicant from the room and terminate his application.
I can see how some things could be considered "cheating" on a polygraph exam. Sending someone else to take your test, for example. Or waiting until the examiner left the room and then screwing with the machine or the charts in some way. But things like that are easily detectable and likely pose little problem.
What I don't understand is how polygraph examiners can accuse someone of cheating because they intentionally remained calm throughout the test. Or because they admitted to singing a song in their head or thinking "exciting" thoughts instead of brooding over whatever answer they just gave. It seems as though the polygraph is based on directing and controlling what people think, and what people are thinking simply cannot be controlled.
I don't see how things like that can be compared to someone who copies answers off the person next to him in a written test, or someone who buys clean urine on the Internet to use in a drug screening test.
When I am conducting firearms training at my department I often run the shooters through a stress course. The intent is to cause as much stress as possible and still get them to hit what they are aiming at. A few officers, however, simply don't get stressed. A few of the officers manage to remain calm throughout the course – even though they are breathing hard from the exertion they are cool and collected as they run through the course. They know they are facing stress before they start and they consciously manage their breathing, which in turn helps them control the rest of their autonomic nervous system. In a very small way, this is frustrating to me as an instructor because it avoids the intent of the course. But on the whole I am impressed with their ability to deal with stress and I make sure to praise them in front of their peers for how well they did. I would never think to accuse them of cheating because they didn't allow themselves to be controlled by stress on a course I designed to induce stress. It wouldn't make any sense for me to do that because I cannot control what they are thinking.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 11, 2005, 12:06 PMQuote from: Brandon Hall on Jul 11, 2005, 05:05 AM...and would more appropriately be compared to an oral board...
On some oral boards they try to induce stress. Sometimes one person will ask a question and then a different person on the board will attack your answer, trying to get you to change your mind and lose your cool. Occasionally more people on the board jump in, all with the intent of getting you to stress out and lose your temper. They reason they want you to lose your temper is because veteran officers know that everyone loses their temper sometimes and they want to observe how you act when you do.
I am aware that some oral boards are like that. Armed with this foreknowledge, I go into oral boards with the intent of maintaining my composure no matter what. If I sense that I'm getting upset for any reason I will use deep breathing techniques (learned in LTC Grossman's "Bulletproof Mind" lecture) to regain control of my autonomic nervous system. Does this mean I'm "cheating" on the oral board? Because I have knowledge of what might happen so I prepare myself? Because even though I know their intent is to get me to feel anxiety or fear, but I consciously choose to refrain from letting the fear or anxiety overtake me?
If the oral board was run by a polygraph examiner I would suspect that I would be accused of cheating if I did what I described above. The polygraph examiner needs to control what the subject is thinking during an exam, because if the examiner is thinking about anything other than the exam they won't respond to the "lies" they've told (or so the polygrapher thinks.)
Posted by polyscam
- Jul 11, 2005, 05:05 AMNonombre,
I cannot disagree with you on this point. Cheating should be and is disqualifying. The difference is that a written test (to use your comparison) is scorable based on the written data. No interpretation is necessary as it is basically a pass/fail based on hard data. The polygraph does not enjoy the same luxury and would more appropriately be compared to an oral board or psychological examination. How do you cheat on either of those?
I cannot disagree with you on this point. Cheating should be and is disqualifying. The difference is that a written test (to use your comparison) is scorable based on the written data. No interpretation is necessary as it is basically a pass/fail based on hard data. The polygraph does not enjoy the same luxury and would more appropriately be compared to an oral board or psychological examination. How do you cheat on either of those?
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 11, 2005, 01:09 AMQuote from: Jeffery on Jul 11, 2005, 12:19 AM
The way I intrepret it is that if the polygraph is in fact SO reliable, you should be able to see through CM's regardless and still "get at the truth." So then, why would it matter if CM's are being used?
If that was indeed the meaning of the question, I guess I would answer it this way:
If a police applicant cheated on his written exam and was caught by the proctor, what should be the response of the police department administering the test?
I believe most people would answer that the department should immediately boot the applicant from the room and terminate his application.
And if an applicant is caught cheating on his polygraph exam?
The answer is: Immediately boot the applicant from the room and terminate his application.
We do it all the time. That is why we strongly urge our applicants to not attempt cheating on EITHER test.
Nonombre
Posted by Jeffery
- Jul 11, 2005, 12:19 AMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 10, 2005, 07:03 PM
1) If a polygraph examiner suspects a subject of using countermeasures, why would it matter?
Why would what matter? I'm not being a "wise a-- here. I just do not understand the question.
The way I intrepret it is that if the polygraph is in fact SO reliable, you should be able to see through CM's regardless and still "get at the truth." So then, why would it matter if CM's are being used? A person can still be truthful though using CM's, and I would intrepret this as a lack of trust in the polygrap/polygrapher/process rather than an attempt at deceit.
Of course, I think we all know why polygraphers dislike CM's -- they can't detect them and the usage of such threatens the careers of polygraphers.
Why do polygraphers dislike CVSA so much? Do Tarot Card readers disklike gypsies with crystal balls? Do they both dislike Chinese fortunate cookies?