A must read for anyone seeking a career with CIA. Excellent book, very factual and brilliantly written.
Here's the part about the poly:
QUOTE
I arrived for my polygraph, in another unmarked building in the suburbs of Washington, with apprehension. The polygrapher came to the waiting room to fetch me. He and I walked together to the polygraph chamber down the hall and exchanged pleasantries about the weather. He then spent a great deal of time emphasizing to me how scientific the polygraph was, making it sound like electron microscopy. I listened politely. He discussed the questions he was planning to ask: Had I ever committed a major crime? Had I ever attempted to gain unauthorized access to classified information? Was I working for a foreign intelligence service? I nodded to signify that I understood.
I was confused. These questions seemed to be perfectly reasonable lines of inquiry. But there should have been, according to my research, a relatively trivial question among the others, one designed to evoke a lie - Have you ever told an untruth to a supervisor? Have you ever stolen office supplies? That was where to manifest the strongest response, if you wanted to pass. But his questions concerned issues with which the government would legitimately be concerned. Oh what the hell, I thought, I'm an honest woman. These questions are easy. I'll just hope for the best.
The polygrapher strapped me to the chair and hooked me up to the electrodes and the breathing monitor. The chair was ample and squishy, actually quite pleasant. He switched on the device, intoning the questions in a hypnotic voice. When he asked me the question about my criminal history a second time, I suddenly wondered whether that might be the control question. After all, everyone breaks a few laws now and again. Afraid that I would fail if I didn't have a strong reaction to something, I made a sudden decision to seal my mula banda, as the yogis might say.
When it was over, he left the room, saying he needed to review my results. I knew from my research that he was doing no such thing; he was leaving me alone to increase my anxiety prior to the interrogation, the interrogation being the real point of the polygraph. The tactic worked; I was anxious. I sat there by myself, uncomfortable and apprehensive, nervously picking my nose until I realized that I was doing so in view of the pinhole camera on the wall before me. I put my hands to my side and straightened myself.
The polygrapher returned to the room. He sat down across from me and stared at me, his thin lips peevish and cold.
"Selena, we seem to have a problem here," he said.
That was exactly what I'd read he would say. This was where, had I been lying, I was supposed to realize that the polygraph had trapped me and spill my guts. If I hadn't been lying, I would simply be puzzled.
"Problem?" I asked.
"You showed a very strong reaction one of the questions. Do you know which one it was?
"Er, no, I'm afraid I don't," I said. You lamentable witch doctor.
He leaned in and glared at me, eyes inches from mine. "The question was whether you've ever committed a major crime."
Oops. Yep, that's where I squeezed, alright. I guess that wasn't a control question. "I don't understand that. I've never committed a major crime," I answered.
"Well, the charts don't lie. The charts are scientific. There's got to be some reason they're telling me that you haven't been 100 percent with us today."
Yes sir, there is. I was squeezing my sphincter when I answered that question. "Well, perhaps I was a little nervous? Could we try that again?"
"This isn't something you just try until you get it right, Selena. This is science. The machine is a carefully calibrated scientific tool, and it is telling me that you have something you need to get off your chest."
Wrong body part, Colombo. I was angry with him and furious with myself. This would have gone fine if I hadn't been, literally, a smart-ass. I explained again that I hadn't lied, the irony of it being that I really hadn't; and he explained to me that the charts never lie, and back and forth we went until he agreed to hook me up again. This time, I abandoned all scientific experimentation. When I left, he was still muttering over the charts.
In all, I calculated that my chances of getting a security clearance were no better than half. It took them another three months to adjudicate my case, three months in which I ran to the phone every time it rang, like an impatient lover. When the call finally came, I had almost given up hope. But when the call did come at last, they told me I had been cleared to the Top Secret level. And as I said, to this day I have no idea how I slipped through.
UNQUOTE
Read more about it at http://berlinski.com/looselips/chpt1.htm
This little anecdotal piece from this book underscores the foolishness of using counter-measures -- with a new reason. You might be enhancing your response to a relevant question...
I'm surprised she got a second chance without some sort of admission or explanation. If I was the examiner, I'd have been more open to a second series if she just admitted she was mis-informed, mistook the question for a control, and was attempting counter-measures.
And lo and behold, when she just took the test as it was intended, she passed!!
Thanks for the contribution, Random.
Public Servant,
Manipulating the responses at the inappropriate time(s) is certainly not the way to "pass" a poly.
That doesn't guarantee, however, that a person will "pass" by simply telling the truth.
Best,
PK
Public Servant,
The above passage is no vindication of polygraphy. It appears that "Selena" went in expecting a probable-lie CQT but was treated to a relevant-irrelevant "test" -- a thoroughly discredited technique that has even less plausibility as a diagnostic technique than the CQT. (If I am not mistaken, the relevant/irrelevant technique was the CIA's stand-by technique for screening purposes before the Aldrich Ames affair, after which the CQT was adopted.)
Selena erred in mistaking a relevant question for a "control." This is indeed a risk associated with countermeasure use, and it is for this reason that we devote a good portion of Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) to a discussion of how to differentiate between "control" and relevant questions.
With regard to polygraph countermeasures, the take home lesson from the above passage is 1) that the anal sphincter contraction was effective in producing a "significant reaction" and 2) that the CIA polygraph operator was unable to tell that the reaction was deliberately produced.
Was your statement that, "If [you were] the examiner, [you'd] have been more open to a second series if she just admitted she was mis-informed, mistook the question for a control, and was attempting counter-measures" deliberate misinformation? Any applicant who admits to countermeasure use during a CIA pre-employment polygraph examination can expect to be disqualified from CIA employment.
It's also worth noting that CIA polygraph operators frequently confront applicants with the bad news that "we seem to have a problem here" during their initial polygraph séance. If the applicant makes no disqualifying admission(s), he/she is scheduled for a follow-up round.
George,
QuoteWith regard to polygraph countermeasures, the take home lesson from the above passage is 1) that the anal sphincter contraction was effective in producing a "significant reaction" and 2) that the CIA polygraph operator was unable to tell that the reaction was deliberately produced.
The first flaw in this assumption is that likely why it wasn't suspected to be a manipulate, is you'd never expect anyone to be foolish enough to attempt to increase response to a relevant question.
Secondly, Perhaps the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he
did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact.
Bottom line it's not to say if the passage is true, much less draw factual conclusions with just the examinee's account.
QuoteWas your statement that, "If [you were] the examiner, [you'd] have been more open to a second series if she just admitted she was mis-informed, mistook the question for a control, and was attempting counter-measures" deliberate misinformation?
No deliberate attempt at mis- or dis-information. Whether it was misinformation as it pertains to CIA policy, I cannot say -- not my agency (cross one off one from the list from those trying to figure out my identity).
As you surely recall, I am a criminal investigator, not a screener. My only concern is whether the examinee is, or is not, involved in the commission of the felony in question. My point was that I'd need some substantial reason to give a second series on the same issue. I have confidence in the exams I run and wouldn't just say (after a DI result), "OK, you've denied enough, let's throw out that series and try again." No one has confidence in the test at that point.
On the other hand, even if someone said they failed because they got bad advice, or screwed up in carrying it out, I'd still be there to get to the truth (not just interrogate--nothing to gain from that if he/she is innocent). Again, I'm confident I could adjust, and formulate an exam which would yield accurate results.
One thing is for sure, if this passage is true, the examiner was quite open-minded and morally courageous in giving "Selena" a second chance. No doubt he had to go at it with his supervisors for submitting opposing results on consecutive series, with no admission/explanation in between. He must have had a gut feeling that she should have passed and followed this instinct. This surely does not fit the usual description of examiners on this site (Way off from most of Beech's descriptions of me).
Regards.
Public Servant,
You write in part:
QuoteThe first flaw in this assumption is that likely why it wasn't suspected to be a manipulate, is you'd never expect anyone to be foolish enough to attempt to increase response to a relevant question.
True, but if a deliberate anal sphincter contraction produced a tell-tale tracing that polygraphers easily recognize -- as many in the polygraph community would have us believe -- then polygraphers should recognize it regardless of whether it appears in connection with a "control," relevant, or irrelevant question.
George
The take home lesson from the above passage is:
Perhaps the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact.
Saidme,
That's not a take home lesson. It's wild conjecture.
George
Apparently not since he ran another series lacking admissions/confessions.
Saidme,
The fact that the polygraph examiner "ran another series lacking admissions/confessions" in no way supports the conclusion that "the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact."
What point are you trying to make?
Point I'm trying to make is that you (or I) just don't know what prompted the additional series. Is it possible the examiner detected artifacts allowing additional testing without admissions/confessions? Possibly. You (or I) just don't know. So be careful about the "wild conjecture."
Saidme,
Perhaps, as a law enforcement investigator conducting specific-issue polygraph examinations in criminal investigations, you do things differently, but in pre-employment polygraph examinations, it is not at all uncommon for a subject to be subjected to a second chart collection for the same question series when he/she has made no disqualifying admission after the first series. This was, in fact, my own experience with the FBI.
In the CIA and NSA it appears to be standard operating procedure for polygraphers to confront subjects with the bad news that "there seems to be a problem" after the first round of chart collections, and then to conduct a second chart collection if no disqualifying admissions have been made.
So your suggestion that "Perhaps the reason the examiner gave her the second exam is that he did suspect this was a physically (not psychologically) produced response and thus an artifact" is no "take home lesson" but rather unlikely (though perhaps not altogether implausible) conjecture.
Your suggestion that the polygrapher may have suspected the reaction was an artifact is contradicted by the fact that he interrogated the subject as to why she reacted to the question involved. Clearly, the polygrapher took the reaction for a significant, scorable one.
Is it common polygraph practice to re-categorize significant reactions as "artifacts" when a subject makes no admission?
No, it is not.
George,
Something definitely gave the examiner a reason to run another exam (if this is a true story). Therefore, while the pro-poly assertions on this thread might be conjecture, they are not necessarily "wild" conjecture. At least no wilder than your conjectures on the matter.
Regards.
Public Servant,
What kinds of things might have given the examiner a reason to conduct a second chart collection? As Saidme has acknowledged, it is not common polygraph practice to re-categorize significant reactions as "artifacts" when a subject makes no admission.
A spike on the charts coinciding with a relevant question is proof (in the pro-poly realm) of deception is it not? If a polygrapher saw a spike to a relevant question such as undetected major crime, would they not take that to the bank and grill the examinee for an admission during the post poly interogation?
Also, Public Servant, are you telling us that you would give the examinee a second chance if he/she admitted to using countermeasures? Please! Why would you continue to waste your time after obtaining such a disqualifying admission from someone clearly trying to beat your machine? Would you not shut the machine off, walk them out of the room and write a big FAIL on their chart?
George and Canadian Crusader,
An admission of some sort that could explain the response to the relevant question could cause me to offer a second series.
I would never consider a DI without confession the result of artifact. I would consider something that looked like an artifact, or occurred during a known artifact causing incident (movement, noise, cough, etc), an artifact. A DI without a confession, otherwise is just that, a DI. Most artifacts don't occur over and over at particular questions; unless the artifact is a deliberate act-- ie. counter-measures.
And yes, I would give another exam in the scenario cited, if the examinee admitted to CMs. If they were silly enough to CM on a relevant, there should be even less concern that they could actually "beat" the test. Then I could either catch them in a lie outright, or clear them on the relevant issue (with a footnote in the file that they weren't the sharpest tool in the shed, nor of the highest integrity). The purpose of the exam is to get to the truth on the relevant issue. The decision of suitability for the job (in this scenario) is up to the adjudicator to whom the examiner suppies all the facts he obtains.
Honesty is still the best policy, especially when you are trying to get hired to a government agency.
Regards.
Public Servant,
Let's suppose an examinee admits to you that he/she used countermeasures and you decide to do a re-test. You now know that the examinee understands the function of the probable-lie "control" questions. On what rational basis do you expect a truthful examinee to respond more strongly to the "control" questions, and a deceptive examinee to respond more strongly to the relevant questions?
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 12, 2003, 07:29 AMPublic Servant,
Let's suppose an examinee admits to you that he/she used countermeasures and you decide to do a re-test. You now know that the examinee understands the function of the probable-lie "control" questions. On what rational basis do you expect a truthful examinee to respond more strongly to the "control" questions, and a deceptive examinee to respond more strongly to the relevant questions?
Indeed, this is a common theme as it really is a fundamental problem and requires the polygrapher's to switch to a different approach or bamboozle the examinee into thinking a control really is a relevant. This area fascinates me which is why I am looking into the general psychology of persuasion with respected exponents such as Cialdini, and other, less respected (in academe) but perhaps more adept practitioners such as Rowland.
A critical QC measure is (I would assume) determining the percentage of applicants that are familiar with the CQT. While giving every applicant an extensive GKT should go a long way to establishing this statistic, it would interfere with the CQT screenings. OTOH, a pair of GKT questions, tacked onto each CQT, would provide the supervising QC folks with this statisitic and allow them to track this vs other variables such as applicant technical background, etc. to establish guidelines as to when other approaches such as DLT should be used instead.
Such a limited sampling of GKT questions would be close to worthless as an indicator for an individual candidate, and shouldn't be individually scored, but over the course of hundreds of exams, should converge to a significant metric.
This would also provide a way for the polygraph community to actually measure a part of the impact of sites such as this.
-Marty
Marty,
The idea of GKT questions tacked on to the end of a CQT seems to have merit, but what would you ask? Just curious, as usual.
Quote from: orolan on Jul 12, 2003, 09:53 PMMarty,
The idea of GKT questions tacked on to the end of a CQT seems to have merit, but what would you ask? Just curious, as usual.
I would use names or nomenclature specific to this site or William's site that would be highly recognizable to informed applicants but infrequently recognizable to uninformed ones. There are significant complexities to executing such a program (especially examiner bias) but it should be doable. It's important to remember that such a limited set really shouldn't be used in any way to score the examinee. Ideally, responses to the GKT Q's should be recorded electronicaly and sent to QC without the examiner even being in the loop.
-Marty
Marty,
"Countermeasures" would be highly recognizable, but you would run the risk of a false+ if the examinee had a military aviation background or enjoyed fighter-sim computer games. Site-specific questions involving the actual site name would probably be rejected hands-down, because the examinee probably would come here immediately after the test to see what all the excitement was about, and then might learn the truth. Can't see the poly crowd allowing that to happen.
The idea of the examiner not seeing the results of the GKT questions sounds good, but the logistics seem impossible. In my two polys, the examiner sat there looking at the screen on his laptop, I assume at digital representations of charts being printed out elsewhere (I don't know, because I never saw one).
It would be difficult for him not to see the last two responses when reviewing the rest of them.
Quote from: orolan on Jul 12, 2003, 11:52 PMMarty,
"Countermeasures" would be highly recognizable, but you would run the risk of a false+ if the examinee had a military aviation background or enjoyed fighter-sim computer games.
Absolutely. Totally inappropriate GKT question.
QuoteSite-specific questions involving the actual site name would probably be rejected hands-down, because the examinee probably would come here immediately after the test to see what all the excitement was about, and then might learn the truth. Can't see the poly crowd allowing that to happen.
Me neither. Also not a good idea for a GKT. There are a fairly good selection of candidate questions though, assuming an examinee has done enough research to understand the issues. For the ones that have not, they are likely not going to be able to deploy CM's effectively.
QuoteThe idea of the examiner not seeing the results of the GKT questions sounds good, but the logistics seem impossible. In my two polys, the examiner sat there looking at the screen on his laptop, I assume at digital representations of charts being printed out elsewhere (I don't know, because I never saw one).
It would be difficult for him not to see the last two responses when reviewing the rest of them.
The technology available these days makes this sort of thing feasible, at least amongst the larger organizations. It doesn't need to be done by all of them, just enough to obtain the demographics. I don't see any evidence they are doing this but they are clearly concerned. I assume that these issues are being looked at one way or another but who knows. The research in CM's has been classified for the last decade or so (according to Kleiner).
-Marty
QuoteLet's suppose an examinee admits to you that he/she used countermeasures and you decide to do a re-test. You now know that the examinee understands the function of the probable-lie "control" questions. On what rational basis do you expect a truthful examinee to respond more strongly to the "control" questions, and a deceptive examinee to respond more strongly to the relevant questions?
George,
There are formats that do not use CQT. In fact, looking at the excerpt from this book, I don't think the exam mentioned was CQT. Makes it even more humorous that she was practicing such countermeasures...
Marty,
I like the thought process on your ideas of incorporating GKT. Are you applying for a research position at DoDPI? :)
Just a small aside in regard to this:
QuoteI would use names or nomenclature specific to this site or William's site that would be highly recognizable to informed applicants but infrequently recognizable to uninformed ones.
I have one concern. The man who shot up his co-workers in AL last week was named Doug Williams (presumably it was not our friend the "stinger"). This name is also shared by a former Super Bowl hero for the Redskins (obviously not the "stinger"). Possible sources for a false positive to such a GKT?!...Hard to say for sure.
Public Servant,
I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?
Quote from: Public Servant on Jul 13, 2003, 11:13 AM
George,
There are formats that do not use CQT. In fact, looking at the excerpt from this book, I don't think the exam mentioned was CQT. Makes it even more humorous that she was practicing such countermeasures...
I was also amused by the story for the same reasons. Interesting and somewhat intense personality.
Quote
I have one concern. The man who shot up his co-workers in AL last week was named Doug Williams (presumably it was not our friend the "stinger"). This name is also shared by a former Super Bowl hero for the Redskins (obviously not the "stinger"). Possible sources for a false positive to such a GKT?!...Hard to say for sure.
ROFLMAO, I nearly mentioned the same thing myself! It would be intriguing to see what the time frame and recognition rate of the Doug Williams name would cause. Seriously, it would be ill advised to use the same terms in a GKT set given each individual. Assuming a reasonably large question set it would be fairly easy to identify and discard material fluctuations in the stochastics given a reasonable population sample size.
I am by nature an engineer-entrepreneur (therefore private sector - lol) and am always looking for ways to improve things. I rather like Drew's area of work, which looks to be a potentially improved GKT. I also truly think the GKT would be a lot more reliable in forensic work if somehow the examiners could be trained and critical mass reached. It is very natural to fall back on what one knows and no doubt CQT examiners have a strong gut belief in their abilities, warranted or not. Speaking of deluding oneself, so called "quants" and traders in the capital markets are such a group rife with them - the psychology is fascinating. And they tend to be quite bright.
-Marty
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 13, 2003, 01:10 PMPublic Servant,
I take it then that you agree that it would not be appropriate to administer a probable-lie control question test to a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
Assuming that such is the case, what technique(s) do you think would be appropriate?
Ah, that's the rub. The reason the PLCQT is so widely done is that it is considered the most reliable technique available applicable to screening. Presumably then, knowledge, in and off itself, reduces the effectiveness of the polygraph as the examiner reverts to a less desirable and less practiced protocol. Reminds me of a Fed. Civil Statue I ran across that specifically ordered that a jury was not to be informed of a specific portion of said statue.
Directed ignorance. How nice.
-Marty
Public Servant,
The question I asked you on the 13th was not a rhetorical one, but rather one of fundamental importance for the polygraph field. What polygraph technique (if any) do you think would be appropriate for a subject who has admitted knowledge of the function of the control questions?
George
Knowledge of CQT wouldn't necessarily cause an examinee problems (meaning the examiner could still use it). Knowledge about a technique and the technique being performed on you are two entirely different affairs.
Knowledge of a surgical procedure you're about to undertake and surgery being conducted on you are two totally different scenarios. I don't care how much reading your criminals on this site do, it's not going to properly prepare them for their examination. I believe deep down you know that to be true, particularly in light of how much study you've conducted regarding the topic. ;)
Saidme,
If the subject admits to knowledge of the function of the "control" questions, then even by CQT theory, there is no rational basis for the expectation that truthful subjects will respond more strongly to the "control" questions while deceptive subjects will respond more strongly to the relevant questions.
Public Servant understands this, I think, which is why I've asked him which technique, if any, he believes would be appropriate for use with such subjects.
George
I would argue that there's a difference between knowledge of a technique and being intimately familiar with a technique. I concur a CQT exam would probably not be the best examination for a polygraph examiner. However, I have conducted several polygraph examinations (specific issue) on law enforcement personnel who had knowledge of polygraph. CQT's worked great on them. R&I would work best on polygraph examiners.
Saidme,
Certainly there is a difference between knowledge of a technique and intimate familiarity with it. But as I noted above, when a subject understands the function of the "control" questions (and they are relatively easy to pick out), then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them.
As for the relevant/irrelevant technique that you suggest would work best on polygraph examiners, the theory of R/I polygraphy depends on wildly implausible assumptions, and the technique is widely discredited even among polygraph examiners themselves, who have for the most part abandoned it in favor of the CQT...
George
I can tell you from experience (conducting polygraph examinations) that examinees do continue to respond to CQT, even armed with knowledge. Again, it goes to the art and effort put forth by the examiner. Every exam I go into, I go into it with an open mind and remain totally neutral. If your statement ".....then there is little reason -- even by the theory of CQT polygraphy -- to expect truthful and deceptive subjects to respond differentially to them." ...were true, then those examinee's I've conducted exams on who were familiar with polygraph should have probably ended up DI. However, that was not always the case and those who were NDI were later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing through other evdience; some obtained as the result of the polygraph.
It's easy to sit in your armchair and throw stones at those of us who are trying to do good work. My only problem with you George is why do you do it? Is there more to it than just a failed pre-employment polygraph? Maybe there's other issues that should be explored.
Regarding R&I: It's used much more than you know. ;)
Saidme,
Perhaps you could explain why a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions would respond more strongly to them than to the relevant questions if truthful, but if deceptive would instead respond more strongly to the relevant questions? What effort can a polygrapher exert to ensure such differential responding?
I'm not here to "throw stones" at you or anyone else, but rather to present facts, engage in rational discourse, and exchange ideas.
With regard to the use of R/I polygraphy, I think we can agree that it has largely been supplanted by CQT polygraphy. Of course it is still used. For example, DoDPI continues to teach it, and the NSA continues to use it for employee and applicant screening purposes. But R/I polygraphy has no plausible theoretical basis or support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
George
To really understand it George you would need to understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogtions, human behavior, and be a polygraph examiner yourself. With regards to your question: DI suspects will take care of themself. NDI suspects are the responsibility of the examiner (that art stuff). I know that's not the answer you would like to have but sometimes things aren't just black and white. Not everything needs to be scientifically valid, have empiracal evidence and be peer reviewed for it to work. I truly believe those topics were created to keep academians gainfully employed. I'm sure you've heard the term, if you can't do it, teach it.
Present facts even if it's to further criminal enterprise! I think you're rationalizing.
I agree the CQT is the best thing going. I just wanted to make sure we had the record straight that R&I is still widely used and in my opinion effective.
Saidme,
You write:
QuoteTo really understand it George you would need to understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogtions, human behavior, and be a polygraph examiner yourself.
I am indeed familiar with the dynamics involved in interviews and interrogations and with human behavior. While I'm not a polygraph examiner, why not try me? What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?
George
How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you conducted? How many criminal interviews/interrogations have you personnally observed? If the answer is none than you don't really understand the dynamics involved in interviews/interrogations and human behavior. Maybe I should have been more specific and put the word "criminal" in that sentence. Sorry if I was vague. If you have substantive experience in these areas, I stand corrected.
Regarding your questions: "What can a polygraph examiner do to ensure differential responding to control versus relevant questions by a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions? And how can the examiner know that his/her conditioning of the subject has worked?"
Regardless of what I respond with you will somehow twist and mold and reform and blah, blah, blah until it fits your little view of the world. Therefore I won't respond. That in and of itself should give you ample ammo to tell everyone how we (examiner's) can't answer your silly questions.
Shouldn't you be in bed.
Saidme,
I see... In order to be able to understand how a polygrapher can so condition a subject who understands the function of the "control" questions such that the subject will respond differentially to "control" versus relevant questions, it is not enough to "understand the dynamics involved in interviews and interrogations and with human behavior," one must also be an experienced criminal interrogator and be a polygraph examiner.
Utter nonsense and shameless excusemaking, Saidme. (I also note that the conditions you've set forth would tend to exclude polygraphers from intelligence agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and DIA.)
George
Are you telling me you don't have to be experienced to be an interviewer/interrogator? By the way, you failed to provide your experience. Or did you fail to provide it? Maybe if you'd have passed your polygraph back whenever, you'd have some experience under your belt. Couldn't resist taking that little shot. ;)