- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 23, 2002, 11:48 PMQuote from: Eastwood on Jun 23, 2002, 08:58 PM
Truthful people don't use countermeasures beechtrees - so, please enlighten us what you concealed.
1. What evidence do you have that truthful people don't use countermeasures?
2. Is it your position that all truthful people don't need to use countermeasures because the polygraph is an infallible instrument that can detect truth from deception?
3. You're starting to show a salacious, slightly odd interest in my personal life, as are 'Polycop' and 'PDD Fed'. I suggest you gentleman exercise your interests in things prurient elsewhere-- I'm a fairly boring fellow.
Posted by Skeptic (Guest)
- Jun 23, 2002, 10:25 PMQuote from: Eastwood on Jun 22, 2002, 07:29 PM
Very clever response - I'd love to find out what you were so eager to hide on your polygraph.
No offense intended against Beech Trees, but if you were that impressed by the cleverness of his response (a rather standard realization among those of us familiar with the polygraph), you HAVE to be a polygrapher.
For that matter, only someone with a polygrapher's personality would believe something someone was "eager to hide on [his] polygraph" (assuming there really was anything) was any of his damn business. Who appointed you divine judge?
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 23, 2002, 08:58 PM
Truthful people don't use countermeasures beechtrees - so, please enlighten us what you concealed.
Would you kindly explain for us what "truth" and polygraphs have to do with each other?
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 23, 2002, 10:17 PMEastwood,
Truthful people do and should use countermeasures on a polygraph examination. Those who do not are either naive or foolishly put their reputations, livelihoods, and even freedom at stake. I am quite appalled that you, having no personal knowledge of beech tree's circumstances or polygraph examination(s), have repeatedly made unfounded accusations to and about him. You should be ashamed and the subject of your own colleague's ridicule for such reckless dialogue, and from such, this readership should clearly understand the mindset that operates in a polygraph suite. At least we can all thank you for that contribution.
Truthful people do and should use countermeasures on a polygraph examination. Those who do not are either naive or foolishly put their reputations, livelihoods, and even freedom at stake. I am quite appalled that you, having no personal knowledge of beech tree's circumstances or polygraph examination(s), have repeatedly made unfounded accusations to and about him. You should be ashamed and the subject of your own colleague's ridicule for such reckless dialogue, and from such, this readership should clearly understand the mindset that operates in a polygraph suite. At least we can all thank you for that contribution.
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 23, 2002, 08:58 PMTruthful people don't use countermeasures beechtrees - so, please enlighten us what you concealed. 
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 22, 2002, 08:11 PMQuote from: Eastwood on Jun 22, 2002, 07:29 PM
Very clever response - I'd love to find out what you were so eager to hide on your polygraph.
I hid nothing on the two polygraphs I've taken. The fact that I used countermeasures to assure an interpretation of 'NDI' doesn't change that fact.
I wouldn't lie to you, Eastwood.... after all, I'm not a Polygrapher, like you.
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 22, 2002, 07:29 PMVery clever response - I'd love to find out what you were so eager to hide on your polygraph.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 22, 2002, 06:18 PMQuote from: Eastwood on Jun 22, 2002, 05:38 PMTry telling the truth - now that's a novel idea huh?
It certainly is-- if you're a polygrapher.
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 22, 2002, 05:38 PMTry telling the truth - now that's a novel idea huh?
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 16, 2002, 08:50 PMCrobzy,
That which you describe about your polygraph countermeasure efforts would accurately be described as attempting to obtain a non-deceptive exam result through the attenuation/reduction of physiological responses to relevant questions via the method you describe. You indicate that you know it works, because it worked for you. Several points: (1) I have no reason to doubt that you did what you described having done, and that you successfully passed (were found to be non-deceptive) your polygraph exam; (2) You do not indicate whether you were given a CQT or RI type exam. With regard to the former and in general successful countermeasure efforts would involve increasing reaction(s) to control questions, not trying to reduce responses to relevant questions (very very difficult for most people to do).
The one to one correlation you describe between your countermeasure effort and a successful polygraph result may be simply that. Although you apparently were found to be non-deceptive to one or more issues for which you were deceptive (false negative), there may well be no cause and effect relationship between your efforts and the end result. You may just be the benefactor of the fact that CQT and RI polygraphy are inherently (in the absence of countermeasures) inaccurate producing both false negative (your experience) and false positive error (that which has occurred with many victims on this site). I would continue to recommend the sorts of countermeasures described on this site (augmenting responses to control questions) to innocent examinees.
Your method is quite interesting though and may well have some impact on autonomic measures in the time frame of the typical polygraph exam (would not on the CNS measures I am currently looking at (http://www.brainwavescience.com/counter-terrorism/) in a concealed information test--those responses occur as soon as an examinee recognizes the stimulus in context and before he/she could implement your silent diversion). That having been said, there might be a case made for using your method WITH (not instead of) the countermeasure efforts as described in the Lie Behind the Lie Detector and similar sources. This is an empirical matter, i.e., one that could be tested. Because polygraph exams are inherently inaccurate and with the added impact of the oft previously discussed countermeasure efforts, your method, even if successful to some degree, may now come under the category of beyond the point of diminishing return. Additionally, the combination of your methodology plus "traditional" countermeasures might be too much for the average examinee to keep up with and perform successfully. Nevertheless, perhaps an interesting academic research topic and fodder for academicians to muse, discuss, and debate...
That which you describe about your polygraph countermeasure efforts would accurately be described as attempting to obtain a non-deceptive exam result through the attenuation/reduction of physiological responses to relevant questions via the method you describe. You indicate that you know it works, because it worked for you. Several points: (1) I have no reason to doubt that you did what you described having done, and that you successfully passed (were found to be non-deceptive) your polygraph exam; (2) You do not indicate whether you were given a CQT or RI type exam. With regard to the former and in general successful countermeasure efforts would involve increasing reaction(s) to control questions, not trying to reduce responses to relevant questions (very very difficult for most people to do).
The one to one correlation you describe between your countermeasure effort and a successful polygraph result may be simply that. Although you apparently were found to be non-deceptive to one or more issues for which you were deceptive (false negative), there may well be no cause and effect relationship between your efforts and the end result. You may just be the benefactor of the fact that CQT and RI polygraphy are inherently (in the absence of countermeasures) inaccurate producing both false negative (your experience) and false positive error (that which has occurred with many victims on this site). I would continue to recommend the sorts of countermeasures described on this site (augmenting responses to control questions) to innocent examinees.
Your method is quite interesting though and may well have some impact on autonomic measures in the time frame of the typical polygraph exam (would not on the CNS measures I am currently looking at (http://www.brainwavescience.com/counter-terrorism/) in a concealed information test--those responses occur as soon as an examinee recognizes the stimulus in context and before he/she could implement your silent diversion). That having been said, there might be a case made for using your method WITH (not instead of) the countermeasure efforts as described in the Lie Behind the Lie Detector and similar sources. This is an empirical matter, i.e., one that could be tested. Because polygraph exams are inherently inaccurate and with the added impact of the oft previously discussed countermeasure efforts, your method, even if successful to some degree, may now come under the category of beyond the point of diminishing return. Additionally, the combination of your methodology plus "traditional" countermeasures might be too much for the average examinee to keep up with and perform successfully. Nevertheless, perhaps an interesting academic research topic and fodder for academicians to muse, discuss, and debate...
Posted by Crobzy
- Jun 16, 2002, 07:35 PMI work in a specialty law enforcement feild. I lied several times during the test when I was aked about my involvemnet and history with drugs which where not dectected.
When the polygraher has you hooked up and is asking you questions, do not reply to the question he asks. Instead make an alternative answer in you head but only state the yes/no part of the reply out loud.
For example: If the polygrapher asks, "Have you ever sold drugs"
You reply out loud - "No"
But in your mind state - "No I do not have a dog." Only saying no out loud.
If you said this response out loud the examiner would stop the test becasue he could not accurately test a person who replyed with obscure unrelated information. This principle still applys if the responses are only stated to yourself, not outloud. All the information shared between yourself and the examiner is usless and irrelevant, however you are the only one who knows that.
When doing this consentrate very hard on the event you are thinking of. EG - Be very certian and clear in your head that indeed you dont have a dog, and that at no point did you have a dog and that your appartment is too small for a dog so it just woud never happen. Concentrate more on the fabricated mental thought than the examiners' question. As soon as you know whether the aswer you need to give is yes or no, then you can stop listening to him/her.
It works because I did it.
When the polygraher has you hooked up and is asking you questions, do not reply to the question he asks. Instead make an alternative answer in you head but only state the yes/no part of the reply out loud.
For example: If the polygrapher asks, "Have you ever sold drugs"
You reply out loud - "No"
But in your mind state - "No I do not have a dog." Only saying no out loud.
If you said this response out loud the examiner would stop the test becasue he could not accurately test a person who replyed with obscure unrelated information. This principle still applys if the responses are only stated to yourself, not outloud. All the information shared between yourself and the examiner is usless and irrelevant, however you are the only one who knows that.
When doing this consentrate very hard on the event you are thinking of. EG - Be very certian and clear in your head that indeed you dont have a dog, and that at no point did you have a dog and that your appartment is too small for a dog so it just woud never happen. Concentrate more on the fabricated mental thought than the examiners' question. As soon as you know whether the aswer you need to give is yes or no, then you can stop listening to him/her.
It works because I did it.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 08, 2002, 05:35 AMJ.B.,
You wrote to Anonymous:
J.B., astute opponents (and even some practitioners) of polygraphy might wonder just what it is that you've been smoking... Have you so internalized the deceptions inherent in polygraphy that you no longer recognize them as such?
As beech trees pointed out, Dr. Drew Richardson has enumerated some of the deceptions involved in an earlier message thread:
Similarly, another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):
You wrote to Anonymous:
QuoteMost of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response. I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.
J.B., astute opponents (and even some practitioners) of polygraphy might wonder just what it is that you've been smoking... Have you so internalized the deceptions inherent in polygraphy that you no longer recognize them as such?
As beech trees pointed out, Dr. Drew Richardson has enumerated some of the deceptions involved in an earlier message thread:
QuoteDeceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
Similarly, another astute polygraph expert and critic, Dr. David Lykken, notes in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):
QuoteOne important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched on in passing deserves explicit emphasis in this summing up. All of these techniques fundamentally depend on deception -- not just in one way and not just in little ways. The theory and assumptions of polygraphic interrogation require the examiner to successfully deceeive each subject that he tests in several basic ways. First, he must persuade the subject that being untruthful or even unsure about his answers to the control questions may cause him to fail the test, although in fact the opposite of this is true. Second, when he administers the "stim" test in order to impress the subject with the accuracy of the technique, the examiner has two choices, both of them deceptive. He can use the original Reid "pick-a-card" method in which the deck is either stacked or marked so that the examiner can be sure to guess the right card. Alternatively, he can use the Raskin "pick-a-number" method in which he deceitfully explains that he is "determining what your polygraphic response looks like when you lie." The truth is, that individuals do not show characteristic physiological response patterns when they lie that they do not also show when telling the truth. Third, throughout his interactions with this subject, the examiner must convey an impression of virtual infallibility. The stim-test is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polgyraph will reveal their guilt, then they are more likely to respond strongly to the relevant questions. If innocent subjects are similarly convinced, then they will tend not to respond so strongly. Moreover, because most examiners truly believe in their near-infallibility, because as we have seen they are the victims of their own deceptive art, they may convey this needed impression not only effectively but also without conscious guile. Nonetheless, the polygraph test, as we have seen, has an accuracy closer to chance than to infallibility; the innocent being tested by the police faces worse odds than in a game of Russian roulette. The fact that most polygraph examiners are not aware of these facts (indeed, they may be the last to know) is not an adequate excuse. Fourth, when the subject is interrogated after a polygraph test, he may be the victim of repeated deceptions. "This unbiased, scientific instrument is saying that you're not telling the truth about this, John!" "Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you feel guilty about, Mary, then maybe you will do better on the next test." "With this polygraph chart, George, no one is going to believe you now. The best thing you can do is to confess and make the best deal you can."
I will confess here that I do not personally object to certain harmless deceptions of criminal suspects that might lead to verifiable confessions and a quick and easy solution to a criminal investigation. But a procedure that claims to be a genuine test for truth that cannot hope to succeed even by its own theory and assumptions unless the subject is successfully deceived in certain standard ways is an invitation to abuse, abuse by examiners and especially by sophisticated criminals and spies. I submit that it is madness for courts or federal police and security agencies to rely on polygraph results for this reason alone. As we have seen, of course, there are many other reasons for this same diagnosis.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 08, 2002, 05:20 AMJ.B.,
Care to name a few astute opponents of polygraphy who will agree with you that deception is not part and parcel of this foolishness??
Apparently your extended participation on this site has left you largely missing the perspective of the many victims who post. This site is largely not about privacy invasion, but lack of due process and examinee victimization. Your rationale for not wanting video/audio taping rings very hollow and would not be shared by the many on this site who have posted their stories, entered law suits, been interviewed on TV, etc. These people are quite willing to have their stories told in order to obtain justice for themselves and those who share their plights. Even those who would be concerned about privacy issues would have only you and your fellow polygraphers to blame if the tapes were inappropriately used. With regard to reviewing the exams, there could easily be established procedures for having respected authorities or appointed citizens groups, e.g., institutional review boards, etc. review these. The only reason for not taping these exams is to protect your lot, not the countless number who have been and will be victimized with any sort of sanctioned or defacto cloaking of the process...
Care to name a few astute opponents of polygraphy who will agree with you that deception is not part and parcel of this foolishness??
Apparently your extended participation on this site has left you largely missing the perspective of the many victims who post. This site is largely not about privacy invasion, but lack of due process and examinee victimization. Your rationale for not wanting video/audio taping rings very hollow and would not be shared by the many on this site who have posted their stories, entered law suits, been interviewed on TV, etc. These people are quite willing to have their stories told in order to obtain justice for themselves and those who share their plights. Even those who would be concerned about privacy issues would have only you and your fellow polygraphers to blame if the tapes were inappropriately used. With regard to reviewing the exams, there could easily be established procedures for having respected authorities or appointed citizens groups, e.g., institutional review boards, etc. review these. The only reason for not taping these exams is to protect your lot, not the countless number who have been and will be victimized with any sort of sanctioned or defacto cloaking of the process...
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Jun 08, 2002, 04:23 AMAnonymous,
Most of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response. I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.
The recording of a polygraph exam would be a most useful tool, when used as documentation of the proper procedures for later scrutiny by the appropriate entities. It has in fact been so suggested by courts that this be done to aid them in the evidentiary hearing process. I personally have no problem with the recording of polygraph examinations for this purpose. I do have a problem with the recording of a polygraph examination within the purposed agenda you have implied. Weather truthful or deceptive, any individual within our free society we so relish should not have the threat of the general public viewing their polygraph, as you suggest. This ludicrous course would most certainly lead to further consequences and the loss of privacy and protection that is afforded in other facets of inquires within society.
Most of your first post lacks any intelligent semblance deserving of response. I am most confident that the astute opponents of polygraph will even agree that deception is not an essential element of polygraph per se.
The recording of a polygraph exam would be a most useful tool, when used as documentation of the proper procedures for later scrutiny by the appropriate entities. It has in fact been so suggested by courts that this be done to aid them in the evidentiary hearing process. I personally have no problem with the recording of polygraph examinations for this purpose. I do have a problem with the recording of a polygraph examination within the purposed agenda you have implied. Weather truthful or deceptive, any individual within our free society we so relish should not have the threat of the general public viewing their polygraph, as you suggest. This ludicrous course would most certainly lead to further consequences and the loss of privacy and protection that is afforded in other facets of inquires within society.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 06, 2002, 01:00 PMJ.B.,
One additional follow-up question to my last post: Do you believe that every examinee deserves the protection afforded through the routine audio/video taping of polygraph examinations?
One additional follow-up question to my last post: Do you believe that every examinee deserves the protection afforded through the routine audio/video taping of polygraph examinations?
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 06, 2002, 12:06 PMJ.B.,
You state:
Nor do you find in said procedures stated that an examiner must breathe while conducting an (CQT) exam. However both (breathing and various forms of deception on the part of the examiner) occur as surely as the sun rising in the East and (in some form) with every examination. Should you maintain that this is not the case, I would suggest you support your claim with the availability for public scrutiny of audio/video tapes of all your exams over the past year or suggest any other examiner where this scrutiny would be available.
You state:
Quote...I find no obligation in the written procedures of conducting a polygraph exam/test and/or the available peer-reviewed scientific research that states an examiner must lie or deceive to conduct a valid polygraph...
Nor do you find in said procedures stated that an examiner must breathe while conducting an (CQT) exam. However both (breathing and various forms of deception on the part of the examiner) occur as surely as the sun rising in the East and (in some form) with every examination. Should you maintain that this is not the case, I would suggest you support your claim with the availability for public scrutiny of audio/video tapes of all your exams over the past year or suggest any other examiner where this scrutiny would be available.