Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Apr 25, 2003, 04:43 AM
In the one peer-reviewed study available (by Honts, Raskin, and Kircher, cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) mental countermeasures and tongue-biting were found to be equally effective.
Posted by s-X-e
 - Apr 25, 2003, 03:59 AM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 25, 2003, 01:52 AM
In any event, I would not necessarily consider the anal pucker to be the "king daddy" countermeasure. It is, however, very simple to perform. Since you are concerned about the presence of the "Activity Sensor," you might consider mental countermeasures instead.

Along with breathing countermeasures, that would appear to be my only option. I doubt Lafayette would market a product that is unable to do the sole thing it was designed for (although I don't know how that thing tells the difference between someone using the anal pucker or just shifting around in their chair. Maybe detected movement in sync with the asking of a control question???)

My only concern is that when I practice the mental countermeasures such as doing complex math in my head or imagining scary images, I do not feel frightened or nervous. That leads me to believe I'm not producing a reaction. Has anyone been able to produce a strong reaction based just on mental countermeasures alone?
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Apr 25, 2003, 01:52 AM
I believe you're speaking of Lafayette's "Activity Sensor":



I have yet to find any published research supporting the notion that polygraphers have any ability to detect countermeasures such as the anal pucker using such sensors.

In any event, I would not necessarily consider the anal pucker to be the "king daddy" countermeasure. It is, however, very simple to perform. Since you are concerned about the presence of the "Activity Sensor," you might consider mental countermeasures instead.
Posted by s-X-e
 - Apr 25, 2003, 12:48 AM
I recently found out the designated police pre-employment polygraph examiner for my area of the state uses one of those air mat pads to detect the anal pucker (someone posted a picture of one of these awhile back). Does anybody have any knowledge of how accurate these things are? I always assumed the pucker was the "king daddy" countermeasure and that it was safer to do than the tongue bite (which I cannot conceal, try as I might). If this device is effective, it would definetly seem like a credible threat to countermeasures. Any insights?