- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Aug 17, 2005, 01:42 PMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 16, 2005, 11:50 PM
However, there is a part of the population who at the end of the day, are intentionally attempting to distort their physiology during a polygraph examination and no matter what they are told, clearly intend to continue on their path of:
"Purposeful non-cooperation."
I fully agree that a percentage of the applicants are going to be consciously controlling their breathing in an effort to cover the lies they are telling. That percentage of the applicants surely falls into the category of "purposeful non-cooperation."
The problem as I see it is that you don't know which applicants are tying to cover their deception and which ones are simply attempting to remain calm in a stressful situation.
I think it is wrong and unreasonable to fail someone who is doing nothing wrong other than not allowing himself to become stressed. If he is lying then he should fail. If he remains under control and does not become stressed, but is telling the truth, he should pass. If only there was some method of determining whether he was telling the truth... Hmmm...
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 16, 2005, 11:50 PM
Now, if you would please accept for just a minute that there are in fact people out there actually following the advice of this and other sites and are therefore deliberately controlling their breathing (and continue to do so even when told to stop their behavior). Then I would ask you to put yourself in my place for a moment and tell me...
What would you do in response to obvious and clear non-cooperation?
Your statement is a bit presumptive. You have asked what I would do if I encountered someone who was deliberately controlling their breathing even after I told them to stop. However, your presumption is that the person is doing that in order to somehow "beat" the test. In fact, to you apparently anyone who does not follow your directions is displaying "obvious and clear non-cooperation." I would make no such presumption.
The polygraph is supposed to be a scientific test. My guesses should not enter into the final results. I may think the person is being purposefully non-cooperative, but I wouldn't know it for a fact.
In some traffic accidents I investigate there is insufficient evidence to make a determination of speed. In those cases, I do not guess what the speed probably was and take enforcement action based on my guess. I use other evidence to determine facts I can prove, such as that the vehicle crossed into the wrong lane, or drove off the roadway. If there is insufficient evidence I have no choice but to work with what there is.
If for some reason I was a polygraph examiner, and I encountered someone who didn't appear to be breathing within "acceptable parameters" despite my instructions to do so, I would simply conclude that such an individual is not an appropriate polygraph subject. The emphasis would then be placed on the individual's background investigation to provide any information as to whether this person should be hired. I would absolutely not "fail" the person unless I had some sort of scientific evidence that the person was lying (and I don't believe the polygraph provides that sort of scientific evidence.)
If I invented a new category of test results, such as "U.T.P.D.T.F.I.T.P.I.S.D.A.N.W." ("Unable To Polygraph Due To Flaw In The Polygraph Itself, Subject Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong") would it be possible for some deceptive people to put one over on me by purposefully refusing to cooperate? Sure. But I believe that is far more fair than failing someone who is not being deceptive.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 17, 2005, 04:33 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 16, 2005, 11:50 PM...Now, if you would please accept for just a minute that there are in fact people out there actually following the advice of this and other sites and are therefore deliberately controlling their breathing (and continue to do so even when told to stop their behavior)....
Nonombre,
Perhaps you should have re-read this website's advice on breathing rates before making the above comment? The Lie Behind the Lie Detector[/url] specifically warns against slow breathing. We caution at p. 145 of the 4th edition:
QuoteMany people are falsely accused of attempting to "beat the box" because they (in the polygrapher's opinion) breathe too deeply or too slowly or both.
The controlled breathing we suggest instead is intended to prevent the kind of breathing that is likely to result in a countermeasure accusation. We explain, based on DoDPI documentation, what the "acceptable parameters" of which you speak are:
QuoteYour polygrapher will be happy if your breathing rate is between about 15 and 30 breaths (in and out) per minute, or 2-4 seconds each. Pick a breathing rate within this range that is comfortable for you and take relatively shallow--not deep--breaths. Each breath should be about the same length. Practice until it becomes second nature.
We go on to explain how to produce (timely with the asking of "control" questions) any of the five breathing reactions that DoDPI considers to be most "diagnostic."
Posted by Bill Crider
- Aug 17, 2005, 01:57 AMits not if you're nervous. everyone is nervous. its when you are nervous. if you are more nervous at the right times, you pass. if you are more nervous at the wrong times, you fail.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 16, 2005, 11:50 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Aug 16, 2005, 11:03 PM
Regarding your version of the scenario in my post, I think it is unreasonable for you to assume that anyone controlling their breathing is up to something and smirking about being in control of the examination. With all due respect, doesn't that sound a bit paranoid? For you to think that anyone not complying with your instructions must be smirking and feeling superior about getting away with something?
Sergeant,
That's my whole point. I absolutely DO NOT believe that "anyone controlling their breathing is up to something and smirking about being in control of the examination."
Actually, I have found that most of the people out there who attept to control their breathing during a polygraph exam are for the most part, innocent, nervous, people who are doing what comes naturally.
AND it turns out that I can work with the vast majority of these folks and go a long way to calm them down.
However, there is a part of the population who at the end of the day, are intentionally attempting to distort their physiology during a polygraph examination and no matter what they are told, clearly intend to continue on their path of:
"Purposeful non-cooperation."
Now, if you would please accept for just a minute that there are in fact people out there actually following the advice of this and other sites and are therefore deliberately controlling their breathing (and continue to do so even when told to stop their behavior). Then I would ask you to put yourself in my place for a moment and tell me...
What would you do in response to obvious and clear non-cooperation?
Especially when their are a dozen people standing in line behind this joker who really want this one opening and are more than willing to cooperate with the process.
What would you do, Sergeant?
Nonombre
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Aug 16, 2005, 11:03 PMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 16, 2005, 10:28 PMI can tell you that in the VAST majority of the controlled breathing cases I have run into, I have been successful in bringing a nervous subject's breathing into acceptible parameters. (Maybe I have been lucky?)
My point was that it seems unreasonable to expect a subject to breathe within "acceptable parameters." The crucial determination should be whether the subject is lying. It should not be a requirement of the "test" that the subject breathes in the manner the examiner demands.
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 16, 2005, 10:28 PMPlease don't advise people to "control" their breathing anymore. It is counter-productive for everybody.
Not to be argumentative, but I have not advised anyone to breathe a certain way on a polygraph exam. I have provided information on how to control some of the body's autonomic nervous system functions in any situation. That information is widely known to many police officers as well as other professions. In fact, I cautioned that to use the technique I wrote about during a polygraph exam would almost certainly result in an accusation of countermeasure use.
Regarding your version of the scenario in my post, I think it is unreasonable for you to assume that anyone controlling their breathing is up to something and smirking about being in control of the examination. With all due respect, doesn't that sound a bit paranoid? For you to think that anyone not complying with your instructions must be smirking and feeling superior about getting away with something?
Actually, I believe your scenario helps prove my point. How do you know, if you have someone controlling their breathing, that they are simply trying to remain calm, as in my scenario? How do you know they are actively trying to conceal something, as in your scenario? I believe you have already answered that question; it is obvious you cannot know which is which. So you conclude the test with a failure based on what you call purposeful non-cooperation, even though your subject may have been entirely truthful and attempting to cooperate. How is that fair? You don't know one way or the other but you still "fail" him?
It has been postulated before on this site that a polygraph is nothing more than a test of a person's ability to take a polygraph; it is not a measure of truth or deception. This specific issue seems to add weight to that hypothesis. In addition to theoretically being judged on your honesty, you are also being graded on your ability to obey the instructions of the polygraph examiner.
I'm sure you see it differently, but I just see this as yet another insurmountable problem in a procedure already replete with insurmountable problems. It is unreasonable to fail a truthful person simply because they fail to let themselves become anxious. You may chose to call it "purposeful non-cooperation" but I think it is more accurate to characterize it as refusing to let yourself fear something that the examiner needs you to fear.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 16, 2005, 10:28 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Aug 16, 2005, 07:15 PM
I can easily envision a scenario wherein the subject is told, after a series of questions during which the examiner noticed controlled breathing, to immediately stop controlling his breathing and to just breath "normally."
Subject: "But I wasn't lying! Can't you tell? I've just told the truth on every single question – why are you asking me about my breathing?"
Examiner: "Well, I can't tell if you were lying and controlling your breathing to conceal that fact, or if you were being truthful and controlling your breathing to avoid becoming overly anxious."
Subject: "But isn't this supposed to be a lie detector test? Can't you tell I wasn't lying! I was telling the complete truth!"
Examiner: "Okay. You just failed for purposefully not cooperating with the instructions."
Sergeant,
Not to be considered a "wise a--" but you should consider writing screenplays for a living. You are good at it.
Look, all I can say is that my exams don't go the way you have described. In your scenerio, the examiner is as out of control as the examinee. Not likely in my exam room.
I can tell you that in the VAST majority of the controlled breathing cases I have run into, I have been successful in bringing a nervous subject's breathing into acceptible parameters. (Maybe I have been lucky?)
Please don't advise people to "control" their breathing anymore. It is counter-productive for everybody. Let's consider a scenerio a little different thatn the one you just put forward:
Envision a situation where based on the bad advice given on this site, a polygraph examinee has decided to "control" his breathing in order to "beat" a polygraph examination.
Now as you are aware, a polygraph instrument normally records a certain number of breaths per minute. (bulk of the population). Now thanks to bad advice, a particular examinee has slowed his breathing to maybe 1/5 of that normal cycle. This causes slow, deep, controlled breaths that are oh so easily picked up by even the most "asleep at the wheel" examiner. (Think of what it would look like visually. Picture the graph in your mind)
The examinee (who knows he is manufacturing this breathing because he is following the "good" advice of this site) insists he is doing nothing wrong, and is just nervous. (as he smirks to himself "Antipolygraph was right. I am in control now").
Finally, after several attempts to work with the examinee, the examiner realizes this person is making no effort to follow even the most basic instructions (there are alot of methods at an examiner's disposal to help modify controlled breathing in a nervous subject)
So finally, as you suggest, the examiner says, "Okay. You just failed for purposefully not cooperating with the instructions."
Similar situation to the one you suggest, different motivations, same outcome.
Nonombre
Posted by mustbaliar
- Aug 16, 2005, 07:33 PMExcellent, Sergeant! I can go home wearing a smile today. 
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Aug 16, 2005, 07:15 PMNonombre,
It would seem to me that your concerns about breathing control would quickly produce an untenable situation.
The subject comes in to the exam and is nervous, even though he has nothing to hide and intends to be truthful. In order to control his anxiety and remain calm, he consciously controls his breathing.
The examiner asks him why he is controlling his breathing. The answer he receives is, "To remain calm." Apparently, the examiner would then advise the subject that he is not permitted to consciously control his breathing, and that continuing to do so will constitute Purposeful Non-Cooperation, and he will fail.
If the subject is consciously controlling his breathing, he is almost certainly doing it for one of two reasons. He could be nervous in general despite having no plans to lie, and so he controls his breathing simply to remain calm and not let his anxiety become a problem. Or, he could be planning to withhold information or lie about one or more things and is controlling his breathing because he thinks that will help him get away with it.
The problem I see with this is that in the first instance the examinee is doing absolutely nothing wrong. He is not attempting to lie or withhold any information. He is attempting to cooperate with the testing procedure. In fact, he is exhibiting a measure of control that is to be admired and encouraged in any law enforcement professional. Yet, in order to avoid skewing the data for the "test" he will be prohibited from exhibiting such control.
I think what makes the situation untenable is that it is unfair to tell a subject that they cannot attempt to remain calm. They are essentially being told to let themselves panic, if appropriate, and that to do anything to control their reactions will result in them summarily failing the test. It seems difficult to defend instructions to the subject that they engage in no measures to avoid anxiety or panic. Instructions to tell the truth are entirely appropriate, but I understand it is exceedingly difficult to determine if those instructions are being followed or not.
Since the polygraph cannot detect deception and the corresponding violation of the instructions to tell the truth, it is instead used to detect violations of the instruction to breathe normally. In that capacity (as an instrument to measure respiration rate) I'm certain the polygraph performs admirably.
I can easily envision a scenario wherein the subject is told, after a series of questions during which the examiner noticed controlled breathing, to immediately stop controlling his breathing and to just breath "normally."
Subject: "But I wasn't lying! Can't you tell? I've just told the truth on every single question – why are you asking me about my breathing?"
Examiner: "Well, I can't tell if you were lying and controlling your breathing to conceal that fact, or if you were being truthful and controlling your breathing to avoid becoming overly anxious."
Subject: "But isn't this supposed to be a lie detector test? Can't you tell I wasn't lying! I was telling the complete truth!"
Examiner: "Okay. You just failed for purposefully not cooperating with the instructions."
The subject would then be reported as having failed, even though he told the complete truth and didn't withhold any information. All he did was not allow himself to hyperventilate during an interrogation. I just don't see how that can possibly be considered fair.
I also don't see how it can be corrected unless the polygraph is no longer used in such a capacity. And I'm fine with that.
It would seem to me that your concerns about breathing control would quickly produce an untenable situation.
The subject comes in to the exam and is nervous, even though he has nothing to hide and intends to be truthful. In order to control his anxiety and remain calm, he consciously controls his breathing.
The examiner asks him why he is controlling his breathing. The answer he receives is, "To remain calm." Apparently, the examiner would then advise the subject that he is not permitted to consciously control his breathing, and that continuing to do so will constitute Purposeful Non-Cooperation, and he will fail.
If the subject is consciously controlling his breathing, he is almost certainly doing it for one of two reasons. He could be nervous in general despite having no plans to lie, and so he controls his breathing simply to remain calm and not let his anxiety become a problem. Or, he could be planning to withhold information or lie about one or more things and is controlling his breathing because he thinks that will help him get away with it.
The problem I see with this is that in the first instance the examinee is doing absolutely nothing wrong. He is not attempting to lie or withhold any information. He is attempting to cooperate with the testing procedure. In fact, he is exhibiting a measure of control that is to be admired and encouraged in any law enforcement professional. Yet, in order to avoid skewing the data for the "test" he will be prohibited from exhibiting such control.
I think what makes the situation untenable is that it is unfair to tell a subject that they cannot attempt to remain calm. They are essentially being told to let themselves panic, if appropriate, and that to do anything to control their reactions will result in them summarily failing the test. It seems difficult to defend instructions to the subject that they engage in no measures to avoid anxiety or panic. Instructions to tell the truth are entirely appropriate, but I understand it is exceedingly difficult to determine if those instructions are being followed or not.
Since the polygraph cannot detect deception and the corresponding violation of the instructions to tell the truth, it is instead used to detect violations of the instruction to breathe normally. In that capacity (as an instrument to measure respiration rate) I'm certain the polygraph performs admirably.
I can easily envision a scenario wherein the subject is told, after a series of questions during which the examiner noticed controlled breathing, to immediately stop controlling his breathing and to just breath "normally."
Subject: "But I wasn't lying! Can't you tell? I've just told the truth on every single question – why are you asking me about my breathing?"
Examiner: "Well, I can't tell if you were lying and controlling your breathing to conceal that fact, or if you were being truthful and controlling your breathing to avoid becoming overly anxious."
Subject: "But isn't this supposed to be a lie detector test? Can't you tell I wasn't lying! I was telling the complete truth!"
Examiner: "Okay. You just failed for purposefully not cooperating with the instructions."
The subject would then be reported as having failed, even though he told the complete truth and didn't withhold any information. All he did was not allow himself to hyperventilate during an interrogation. I just don't see how that can possibly be considered fair.
I also don't see how it can be corrected unless the polygraph is no longer used in such a capacity. And I'm fine with that.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 16, 2005, 01:19 AMNonombre wrote:
Not to be argumentative (this is a real question absent sarcasm). Without viewing the exam (if recorded) or information provided by the testing examiner (other than the charts), how would a quality control review of the charts by another examiner be able to ascertain purposeful non-cooperation? This question is assuming that the breathing baseline is consistent without any obvious exagerations to breathing only present during control questions with the absence of spikes in bp, gsr, and heartbeat. I am at a loss as to how another examiner without any information save the charts would have the ability to make such a decision (accusation).
Also, respectfully, why do examiners routinely refer to their opinion as a diagnosis? It is an opinion rendered, most often, by a person without the extensive education received by a medicine practicing doctor. The term diagnosis is medical. The only similarity between polygraphy and medicine is the measurement of physiological activity.
QuoteBrandon,
I don't know about other police agencies, but in mine we take a PNC call very seriously. The polygraph data is reviewed by two independant licensed examiners. The charts are mixed up with other non-suspect charts (all with roughly equivent appearing data), and unless all independantly (in the blind) come to the same opinion of PNC, the exam is done again.
Keep in mind, the other examiners never met the subject, they don't even know these are suspected PNC charts. In fact, all they are told is that they are being asked for an independant score of the charts. They must arrive at their opinion independantly and all must arrive at the exact same diagnosis. If one examiner does not arrive at the same decision, the tie goes to the examinee and the test is run again.
Nonombre
Not to be argumentative (this is a real question absent sarcasm). Without viewing the exam (if recorded) or information provided by the testing examiner (other than the charts), how would a quality control review of the charts by another examiner be able to ascertain purposeful non-cooperation? This question is assuming that the breathing baseline is consistent without any obvious exagerations to breathing only present during control questions with the absence of spikes in bp, gsr, and heartbeat. I am at a loss as to how another examiner without any information save the charts would have the ability to make such a decision (accusation).
Also, respectfully, why do examiners routinely refer to their opinion as a diagnosis? It is an opinion rendered, most often, by a person without the extensive education received by a medicine practicing doctor. The term diagnosis is medical. The only similarity between polygraphy and medicine is the measurement of physiological activity.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 16, 2005, 01:09 AMQuote from: Brandon Hall on Aug 15, 2005, 10:42 PMNonombre wrote:
Is it safe to assume that the definition of such is very broad and non-desript giving allowance to any interpretation of behavior which is individually percieved as non-cooperation?
Brandon,
I don't know about other police agencies, but in mine we take a PNC call very seriously. The polygraph data is reviewed by two independant licensed examiners. The charts are mixed up with other non-suspect charts (all with roughly equivent appearing data), and unless all independantly (in the blind) come to the same opinion of PNC, the exam is done again.
Keep in mind, the other examiners never met the subject, they don't even know these are suspected PNC charts. In fact, all they are told is that they are being asked for an independant score of the charts. They must arrive at their opinion independantly and all must arrive at the exact same diagnosis. If one examiner does not arrive at the same decision, the tie goes to the examinee and the test is run again.
Nonombre
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 15, 2005, 10:42 PMNonombre wrote:
Is it safe to assume that the definition of such is very broad and non-desript giving allowance to any interpretation of behavior which is individually percieved as non-cooperation?
QuoteIn a way, it sort of comes back to the "Purposeful Non-Cooperation" clause of our police applicant package.
Is it safe to assume that the definition of such is very broad and non-desript giving allowance to any interpretation of behavior which is individually percieved as non-cooperation?
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 15, 2005, 09:01 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Aug 15, 2005, 02:28 PM
The best method to remain calm is to control your breathing. Since your breathing is one of your autonomic nervous system functions, controlling it helps bring other functions of your autonomic nervous system under control. Breathe in through your nose for a count of four, hold it for a count of four, exhale through your mouth for a count of four, and then pause for a count of four before starting again. Doing that keeps your heart rate under control.
...Unfortunately, if you do such a thing during your polygraph examination you are almost certain to be accused of using countermeasures. Even if you can honestly tell the examiner you have no intention of lying but are simply trying to remain calm there is still going to be a huge problem if you admit to consciously controlling your breathing. At the very least you will be told to stop, which certainly isn't going to ease your anxiety at all.
Sergeant,
This is VERY bad advice for the VERY reason you provide in your final paragraph. As a polygraph examiner I know that when I see "controlled breathing" especially to the extent you are suggesting, it can mean only one of two things:
A. I have a very nervous person who is trying to calm himself and has made the mistake of listening to someone who told him to do exactly as you have instructed, or:
B. I have someone who is employing a crude countermeasure in an effort to "beat" the test.
The problem is I am not a mind reader and I don't know why the examinee is controlling his breathing. In most cases, I can "talk the person down," help him stablize his breathing patterns, and help him successfully complete the exam.
Sometimes, no matter how hard I try, the person refuses to stop his obviously controlled breathing. In that case, I have no choice but to render the examination as a "no opinion." In those cases, the examinee...
A. Does not get the job
B. Does not get the plea bargain.
C. Does not get to stay on probation
D. etc, etc, etc.
Please understand that it is pretty rare that I cannot get the subject to normalize his breathing pattern. (Maybe one in 50?). Also, when I say someone is controlling his breathing, I mean he is OBVIOUSLY and INTENTIONALLY manupulating his respiratory cycles, even when he has been instructed on what he needs to do to get through the test.
In a way, it sort of comes back to the "Purposeful Non-Cooperation" clause of our police applicant package.
My advice: (although most of you are going to hate to hear this)
Cooperate and tell the truth, and PLEASE don't try to "control" anything.
Nonombre
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Aug 15, 2005, 02:28 PMQuote from: Mike521 on Aug 07, 2005, 10:37 PMCan anyone give any recommendations on staying calm in general? I get a bit nervous during interview situations, sometimes for a few seconds I'll get extremely nervous for no apparent reason. Once I calm down I'm fine.
I have to take a polygraph soon and I'm nervous about getting nervous, and concerned that this will show up as a false positive. Are there any general recommendations about just staying calm?
The best method to remain calm is to control your breathing. Since your breathing is one of your autonomic nervous system functions, controlling it helps bring other functions of your autonomic nervous system under control. Breathe in through your nose for a count of four, hold it for a count of four, exhale through your mouth for a count of four, and then pause for a count of four before starting again. Doing that keeps your heart rate under control.
That method is commonly taught to police officers (among other professions) so that in combat your heart rate and respiration rate don't climb so high that that you lose your fine motor skills, peripheral vision, and basic judgment skills.
Unfortunately, if you do such a thing during your polygraph examination you are almost certain to be accused of using countermeasures. Even if you can honestly tell the examiner you have no intention of lying but are simply trying to remain calm there is still going to be a huge problem if you admit to consciously controlling your breathing. At the very least you will be told to stop, which certainly isn't going to ease your anxiety at all.
Posted by Phil413
- Aug 08, 2005, 03:39 PM"sometimes for a few seconds I'll get extremely nervous for no apparent reason...I'm nervous about getting nervous"
Not to make you even more nervous but I am the exact the same way and took my first poly recently. I still have not heard from anyone as to results but I am pretty positive I failed it. I was 100% honest, had nothing to lie about, but like you I will get extremely nervous for no reason and then become even more nervous because I'm feeling nervous.
I'm not an expert so don't have any advice to give you, just wanted to let you know I sympathize with you. I think you are fortunate to have found this website prior to taking your poly. I had not idea what I was in for when I went and wish I had been prepared.
Edited to say that I also would not take any drugs as during my poly they asked if I had taken anything other than vitamins. I don't know if you've had a polygraph before but they also asked me if I had studied/read anything about polygraphs, if I was going to do anything to beat the polygraph, etc.
Not to make you even more nervous but I am the exact the same way and took my first poly recently. I still have not heard from anyone as to results but I am pretty positive I failed it. I was 100% honest, had nothing to lie about, but like you I will get extremely nervous for no reason and then become even more nervous because I'm feeling nervous.
I'm not an expert so don't have any advice to give you, just wanted to let you know I sympathize with you. I think you are fortunate to have found this website prior to taking your poly. I had not idea what I was in for when I went and wish I had been prepared.
Edited to say that I also would not take any drugs as during my poly they asked if I had taken anything other than vitamins. I don't know if you've had a polygraph before but they also asked me if I had studied/read anything about polygraphs, if I was going to do anything to beat the polygraph, etc.
Posted by mustbaliar
- Aug 08, 2005, 02:49 AMNervousness doesn't seem to matter. The machine can't distinguish between nervousness, confusion, anger, fear, or any other emotions a normal human being experiences; and it certainly can't distinguish lies from truth. This is the inherent problem with it. More scientifically speaking... it's bull crap. Probably the only thing to do is inform yourself. I wish I had. Start with the documentation on this site to make sure you know what you're in for. Good luck.