- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 06, 2002, 12:11 AM--- I thought you might enjoy this little piece of history ---
From "Effective interviewing and interrogation techniques", Gordon & Fleisher
This excerpt is in an early chapter reviewing the history of truth divining techniques. 2000 years later things hadn't "improved" much. See the "Red hot iron" test in "Maleus Maleficarum", the principal handbook of the Inquisitors. Lot's of confessions, must not have been too many "false positives" -lol-.
----------
In various societies, truth-tests were developed whose premises were psychological, not physiological. Trial by the "Sacred Ass" (Keeler 1938) is a classic psychological test that was practiced in India around 500 BC. In this test, a donkey was staked out in the center of a pitch-dark hut. Suspects were told that inside the hut was a "Sacred Ass" that could differentiate between a truthful person and a liar. It did this by braying only when the guilty (lying) person pulled its tail. They were also told the animal would remain silent if an innocent ( truthful) person pulled its tail. Each suspect was sent into the hut alone, with instructions to pull the tail of the "Sacred Ass." Unbeknown to the suspects, the priests had covered the donkey's tail with lamp black. The truthful individuals, having nothing to fear, entered and pulled the tail. The donkey mayor may not have brayed, but those who were innocent came out with soot allover their hands. The guilty party, on the other hand, would enter and not risk pulling the donkey's tail and disclosing their guilt. He might promise it a carrot, or stroke its head, but he would not pull that tail. Aftter all, he believed if he did not touch the "Sacred Ass's" tail it would have no reason to bray and the priests would incorrectly identify him as truthful. However, by not pulling the tail it became a simple matter for the priests to properly identify him by his clean hands.
-----
Bray for world peas.
-Marty
From "Effective interviewing and interrogation techniques", Gordon & Fleisher
This excerpt is in an early chapter reviewing the history of truth divining techniques. 2000 years later things hadn't "improved" much. See the "Red hot iron" test in "Maleus Maleficarum", the principal handbook of the Inquisitors. Lot's of confessions, must not have been too many "false positives" -lol-.
----------
In various societies, truth-tests were developed whose premises were psychological, not physiological. Trial by the "Sacred Ass" (Keeler 1938) is a classic psychological test that was practiced in India around 500 BC. In this test, a donkey was staked out in the center of a pitch-dark hut. Suspects were told that inside the hut was a "Sacred Ass" that could differentiate between a truthful person and a liar. It did this by braying only when the guilty (lying) person pulled its tail. They were also told the animal would remain silent if an innocent ( truthful) person pulled its tail. Each suspect was sent into the hut alone, with instructions to pull the tail of the "Sacred Ass." Unbeknown to the suspects, the priests had covered the donkey's tail with lamp black. The truthful individuals, having nothing to fear, entered and pulled the tail. The donkey mayor may not have brayed, but those who were innocent came out with soot allover their hands. The guilty party, on the other hand, would enter and not risk pulling the donkey's tail and disclosing their guilt. He might promise it a carrot, or stroke its head, but he would not pull that tail. Aftter all, he believed if he did not touch the "Sacred Ass's" tail it would have no reason to bray and the priests would incorrectly identify him as truthful. However, by not pulling the tail it became a simple matter for the priests to properly identify him by his clean hands.
-----
Bray for world peas.
-Marty
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 05, 2002, 09:46 PMQuote from: Marty on Sep 05, 2002, 07:10 PMYes, I quite agree. What choice does one have without diminishing one's own integrity.
Perhaps Shakespeare's Polonius said it best:
This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
QuoteAn offhand question about CQT's. Since it is often a felony to lie to federal LE persons, it seems that to pass a CQT requires one to lie to the control question whereas to fail presumes one lies to the relevent one. Catch 22.
This came up in a recent discussion. Seen from another viewpoint, any polygrapher who interrogates a federal employee is guilty of the same crime.
Dave
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 05, 2002, 07:10 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 05, 2002, 06:44 PMYes, I quite agree. What choice does one have without diminishing one's own integrity.
Marty,
What I am saying, however, is that the kind of honesty you exhort is not likely to be rewarded, but rather to be punished.
Quote
... the advice you've given (which is similar to what we've termed the "complete honesty" approach in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector). If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and NSA were to waive the polygraph requirement for applicants and employees who admit to their knowledge of polygraphy, it would soon spell the end of polygraph screening: everyone would start doing so, and the polygraph house of cards would come tumbling down.
I'm certainly not saying that my advice is the best way to "pass" a screenting CQT. That is obviously not the case. It is simply what I would feel constrained to do as a personal matter.
What these agencies could do is use a form of GKT to screen against "polygraph aware" individuals. That should be relatively easy as there are a number of clear attributes and specific knowledge that can often identify such. Then, for those folks, switch to a DLT. Sure it is still a sort of seance but at least the candidate wouldn't be expected to deceptively lie to pass.
An offhand question about CQT's. Since it is often a felony to lie to federal LE persons, it seems that to pass a CQT requires one to lie to the control question whereas to fail presumes one lies to the relevent one. Catch 22.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 05, 2002, 06:44 PMMarty,
I think your perspective is naive, but I wouldn't call it "warped." Knowing what I now know about polygraphy, I certainly wouldn't want to work for any employer that proposed to assess my honesty and integrity by means of a polygraph seance. At a certain fundamental level, such an employer is not worthy of my trust or respect.
What I am saying, however, is that the kind of honesty you exhort is not likely to be rewarded, but rather to be punished. For the applicant who is willing to hold his nose and go through with this polygraph nonsense, the advice you've given (which is similar to what we've termed the "complete honesty" approach in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) is likely to be counterproductive.
If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and NSA were to waive the polygraph requirement for applicants and employees who admit to their knowledge of polygraphy, it would soon spell the end of polygraph screening: everyone would start doing so, and the polygraph house of cards would come tumbling down.
I agree with your point about continued use of the CQT resulting in the hiring of liars, but note also that the CQT, is conceptually designed to pass through liars, and indeed has an inherent bias against the truthful.
I think your perspective is naive, but I wouldn't call it "warped." Knowing what I now know about polygraphy, I certainly wouldn't want to work for any employer that proposed to assess my honesty and integrity by means of a polygraph seance. At a certain fundamental level, such an employer is not worthy of my trust or respect.
What I am saying, however, is that the kind of honesty you exhort is not likely to be rewarded, but rather to be punished. For the applicant who is willing to hold his nose and go through with this polygraph nonsense, the advice you've given (which is similar to what we've termed the "complete honesty" approach in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) is likely to be counterproductive.
If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and NSA were to waive the polygraph requirement for applicants and employees who admit to their knowledge of polygraphy, it would soon spell the end of polygraph screening: everyone would start doing so, and the polygraph house of cards would come tumbling down.
I agree with your point about continued use of the CQT resulting in the hiring of liars, but note also that the CQT, is conceptually designed to pass through liars, and indeed has an inherent bias against the truthful.
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 05, 2002, 05:56 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 05, 2002, 04:46 PM
But Marty's 3rd and 4th suggestions (that you explain to your polygrapher all the research you've done about polygraphy and that you'd be willing to take the "test" if the polygrapher could demonstrate that it works) is naive in the extreme and would likely be the kiss of death for any job applicant who attempted such.
Perhaps, as I come from the private sector, my perspective is somewhat warped and naive. I've never felt an employer was doing me a favor by hiring me. More the other way around. I have always felt that an employer who considered an employee more a liability than asset should terminate the relationship. The opposite is true as well. In my naive view the polygrapher is trying to fact find accurately with an instrument they believe in and my suggestions are in line with both aiding the examiner and not lying. Something which I would not do in a voluntary setting. Once one is aware of "the lie behind the lie detector", one has only a single, viable, honest choice: be upfront with the examiner and ask the guy just how in hell you are supposed to react with proper concern to the control questions when you understand full well what their real purpose is.
If one knows how CQT's work and one doesn't use countermeasures then one is at a disadvantage from lessor response to the C questions. It seems to me that one can't be honest and not disclose that one knows details of the CQT and expect not to yield a false positive. Since this knowledge is more available (internet) than ever and almost anyone facing a polygraph who has a modicum of curiosity will easily find and discover it one can only conclude that continued use of the CQT will result in hiring more liars, that is people who discover the secret and must augment control responses to pass, not people who lied about their background - who should be excluded.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 05, 2002, 04:46 PMMarty suggested to skeptic711 the following:
With regard to Marty's first suggestion, I would wholeheartedly recommend that anyone seriously interested in polygraphy also look to source material not available on-line. After The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I suggest you read David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998). It sold well (especially to Department of Energy scientists and engineers who became subject to polygraph "testing" in 1999) and is now out of print, but you should be able to find it in a public library, if not in bookstores. Also see the bibliographies of both Lykken's book and ours for further reading.
With regard to Marty's 2nd suggestion, I also agree that knowledge- or information-based tests are qualitatively different from the "Control" Question "Test" that is the standby technique of the polygraph community. The former have a theoretically plausible basis, while the latter does not.
But Marty's 3rd and 4th suggestions (that you explain to your polygrapher all the research you've done about polygraphy and that you'd be willing to take the "test" if the polygrapher could demonstrate that it works) is naive in the extreme and would likely be the kiss of death for any job applicant who attempted such.
Marty: note, as J.B. has quite rightly pointed out, that information-based tests like the Guilty Knowledge Test are not amenable to pre-employment screening.
QuotePersonally, what I would do is:
1: research other areas than the pro and anti polygraph web sites.
2. Try to find testing modalities that have some scientific basis. The so-called GKT comes to mind.
3. Explain to the examiner that you ran across these sites as a natural result of trying to understand what polygraphs are all about and,
4. that you are willing to take one provided they can demonstrate to you that they work. Then work out a mutually agreeable validation series.
With regard to Marty's first suggestion, I would wholeheartedly recommend that anyone seriously interested in polygraphy also look to source material not available on-line. After The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I suggest you read David T. Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998). It sold well (especially to Department of Energy scientists and engineers who became subject to polygraph "testing" in 1999) and is now out of print, but you should be able to find it in a public library, if not in bookstores. Also see the bibliographies of both Lykken's book and ours for further reading.
With regard to Marty's 2nd suggestion, I also agree that knowledge- or information-based tests are qualitatively different from the "Control" Question "Test" that is the standby technique of the polygraph community. The former have a theoretically plausible basis, while the latter does not.
But Marty's 3rd and 4th suggestions (that you explain to your polygrapher all the research you've done about polygraphy and that you'd be willing to take the "test" if the polygrapher could demonstrate that it works) is naive in the extreme and would likely be the kiss of death for any job applicant who attempted such.
Marty: note, as J.B. has quite rightly pointed out, that information-based tests like the Guilty Knowledge Test are not amenable to pre-employment screening.
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 05, 2002, 05:17 AMQuote from: J.B. on Sep 05, 2002, 03:59 AM
Marty,
Even studies on the DLT do not prove knowledge will produce a false outcome.
Facts are hard to come by, screening by it's nature is ambiguous. Validated confessions from the interrogation portion are of some obvious utility though.
Does anyone know where I can get Barland's "Polygraph Countermeasures: The state of the art in 1984?"
-Marty
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Sep 05, 2002, 03:59 AMMarty,
Your ideas or assumptions based on 'statements' about DLT do not provide any evidence that knowledge effects the CQT in regards to a false outcome. Even studies on the DLT do not prove knowledge will produce a false outcome.
I agree with you on knowledge based polygraph tests.
I don't quite understand your reference to the demonstration of skills. I do believe that skeptic711 was seeking feedback on pre-employment polygraph. My position is well known with regards to how the polygraph is being used in some facets of the aforementioned venture. Even so, I would not suggest to any job applicant that they should dictate to their prospective employer;
1. How an interview and/or the prerequisite tests should be conducted in a certain manor/format.
2. The interviewer first provide credentials prior to the commencement of the job interview and/or prerequisite tests.
Your ideas or assumptions based on 'statements' about DLT do not provide any evidence that knowledge effects the CQT in regards to a false outcome. Even studies on the DLT do not prove knowledge will produce a false outcome.
I agree with you on knowledge based polygraph tests.
I don't quite understand your reference to the demonstration of skills. I do believe that skeptic711 was seeking feedback on pre-employment polygraph. My position is well known with regards to how the polygraph is being used in some facets of the aforementioned venture. Even so, I would not suggest to any job applicant that they should dictate to their prospective employer;
1. How an interview and/or the prerequisite tests should be conducted in a certain manor/format.
2. The interviewer first provide credentials prior to the commencement of the job interview and/or prerequisite tests.
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 05, 2002, 03:17 AMQuote from: J.B. on Sep 05, 2002, 02:34 AM
skeptic711,
There is no known or published research that suggests that a persons knowledge of polygraph will cause them to produce a false positive, truthful person being deemed deceptive, or false negative, deceptive person being deemed truthful.
I think if you look on this site there are published statements that suggest the use of "directed lie" tests where the subject has been previously tested numerous times or is aware of polygraph procedures.
In any case the whole point to the examiner's search for control questions is to identify questions, about which, one is nervous or will lie and convince the subject of it's importance. The success of many examiners in this endeaver is amply illustrated by the numerous inquiries about whether this or that question is a "control" or "relevant" question.
The whole CQT lends itself to continued abuse to a great degree because it is built on deception. How can one possibly measure any part of this scientifically? With the GKT, at least one can apply statistical measures and it becomes far more valuable when, as you point out, there are enough specific items to provide response discrimination.
As for establishing protocol's. Yes, I would insist on the examiner demostrating his skill. I would take no job that required "trust me" nonsense as the price of admission. But then, I don't need a job or perhaps I'd feel otherwise.
BTW, for background, I have never taken a polygraph and have no reason to believe I ever would be asked to do so. I am here because the psychology and technology are fascinating. I am a technologist by trade, and am wondering if there isn't some sort of business opportunity to be had by addressing the deficiencies.
-marty, PE
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Sep 05, 2002, 02:37 AMMarty,
I would not suggest that you or anyone else attempt to dictate a polygraph testing procedures to the examiner. One reason is explained above. The other reason is that a GKT is a great polygraph test but limited in scope. The examiner must first know how to properly construct, administer, and score a GKT. Even if the examiner has the proper training and knowledge to conduct a GKT, albeit not likely in most cases, the examiner must have enough concealed information to construct the GKT.
I would not suggest that you or anyone else attempt to dictate a polygraph testing procedures to the examiner. One reason is explained above. The other reason is that a GKT is a great polygraph test but limited in scope. The examiner must first know how to properly construct, administer, and score a GKT. Even if the examiner has the proper training and knowledge to conduct a GKT, albeit not likely in most cases, the examiner must have enough concealed information to construct the GKT.
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Sep 05, 2002, 02:34 AMskeptic711,
To answer your questions:
1. No. The free book offered on this site is more comprehensive.
2. Doug Williams' status is for you to decide.
I would disagree with Marty about knowledge. There is no known or published research that suggests that a persons knowledge of polygraph will cause them to produce a false positive, truthful person being deemed deceptive, or false negative, deceptive person being deemed truthful.
To answer your questions:
1. No. The free book offered on this site is more comprehensive.
2. Doug Williams' status is for you to decide.
I would disagree with Marty about knowledge. There is no known or published research that suggests that a persons knowledge of polygraph will cause them to produce a false positive, truthful person being deemed deceptive, or false negative, deceptive person being deemed truthful.
Posted by Marty (Guest)
- Sep 05, 2002, 02:02 AMFirst of all, you may well already be "contaminated" as am I. What that means is that if you do a moderate amount of research you will understand the way the CQT test (commonly used for screening) works. Once you know that you are pretty much stuck. For instance, what do you say when they ask whether you intend to lie, knowing full well that they anticipate and desire you to lie to a control question? Sure you can use countermeasures but I think LE is a higher calling and the idea that someone would lie at the git-go highly disturbs me. OTOH, the CQT test itself is typically deceptive. So what's a mother to do?
Personally, what I would do is:
1: research other areas than the pro and anti polygraph web sites.
2. Try to find testing modalities that have some scientific basis. The so-called GKT comes to mind.
3. Explain to the examiner that you ran across these sites as a natural result of trying to understand what polygraphs are all about and,
4. that you are willing to take one provided they can demonstrate to you that they work. Then work out a mutually agreeable validation series.
This is what I would do under your circumstance but while I don't care if you did drugs when you were young I do care about whether LE people lie when they feel so justified. Integrity is critical in that profession and so I suggest you NOT lie starting off a new potential career. If it turns out they give a crap about your earlier use of drugs, well, consider yourself lucky not to be joining an organization where you will have to live a lie about your past for the indefinite future.
First of all, be true to yourself. It then is easier and natural to be true to others.
-marty
Personally, what I would do is:
1: research other areas than the pro and anti polygraph web sites.
2. Try to find testing modalities that have some scientific basis. The so-called GKT comes to mind.
3. Explain to the examiner that you ran across these sites as a natural result of trying to understand what polygraphs are all about and,
4. that you are willing to take one provided they can demonstrate to you that they work. Then work out a mutually agreeable validation series.
This is what I would do under your circumstance but while I don't care if you did drugs when you were young I do care about whether LE people lie when they feel so justified. Integrity is critical in that profession and so I suggest you NOT lie starting off a new potential career. If it turns out they give a crap about your earlier use of drugs, well, consider yourself lucky not to be joining an organization where you will have to live a lie about your past for the indefinite future.
First of all, be true to yourself. It then is easier and natural to be true to others.
-marty
Posted by skeptic711
- Sep 05, 2002, 12:51 AMI'm new to this site (1st post) and I'm curious, how many of you out there have stumbled onto the webiste of Doug Williams? www.polygraph.com? I was looking at his website and was impressed with all of the media links and wanted to know 1. Do you think its worth purchasing his "online" manual? 2. Is he a repuatable source on polygraph testing and grading like he claims? Any additional info would be great too! Like many others out there, I'm young, getting into LE and afraid/concerened about the Polygraph. Yes, I have made some mistakes/bad choices in the past (mostly drug use) and now I feel like I have really painted myself into a corner. I have one semester left in college and feel that my minor runs with LE is what turned me onto the area of Criminal Justice field in the 1st place. Any ideas for me would be great.
Confused....
Confused....