I recently took a pre-employment poly test and failed. I had nothing to hide, but a friend of mine convinced me that telling the truth was not enough. He said to protect myself I should learn to beat the test. I can't believe I actually believed what he said. I read TLBTLD and even paid for Doug William's lousy e-book.
I practiced the techniques and tried the CMs during the test. Sure enough, the polygrapher detected the CMs. After the second round, he even came up to me and said that he thinks I am trying to manipulate the test results. He asked that I stop. I did not listen because after reading TLBTLD and What Doug had to say, I figured he was bluffing me. Well turns out I was wrong. If any of you are wondering there were no sensor pads on the chair I sat on, but somehow he knew.
I failed the test, not because I lied, and not because I had something to hide. My background is completely clean. I failed because I was dumb enough to actually believe that to pass I had to beat the test. I guess this is what you call a lesson learned the hard way.
If I were you, I would not use the CMs taught here or by Doug Williams.
Did you admit to using countermeasures? Just about everyone is accused of trying to manipulate the test, even if one has never heard of countermeaures. If you gave in and admitted to using them, you sank your own ship. If you were failed without admitting countermeasures, the examiner was going to fail you anyway. How do you know that you didn't make a mistake in applying CMs?
Perhaps, you are a polygraph examiner posting false information to instill fear in applicants. You guys are good at that, or at least that's what you all like to think.
It is amazing how every time someone has something negative to say about CMs on this website he/she is automatically assumed to be a polygrapher. You people are more paranoid that the polygraphers you accuse. I am not a polygrapher polyfool. I am another victim just like you. The only difference between us is that I contributed to my failure by relying on bad information.
I did not admit to CMs because after reading the TLBTLD and Doug Williams' manual I knew better than to admit to using CMs.
When I first ran into this website and Williams' manual, I felt relieved that all was going to be well. I felt that the information on TLBTLD and the info on Williams' manual were my savior. Ironically, what I thought was my savior led to my failure.
I read both manuals very carefully, and practiced the CMs over and over again for about a month. I even bought a damn tape recorder and recorded what I thought to be appropriate Relevant and Control questions and played it back for myself while perfecting the Countermeasures I used. But, it did not matter because they still caught me.
There was no more I could do to prepare for my exam, except to go buy a polygraph machine and see how my CM results would come out. The information present on TLBTLD and the info on Williams' manual are inadequate. Adhering to these CM techniques does not mean you will pass the test.
Bottom line is this, I did everything the two manuals said, and I did not pass.
I am sure everyone would agree that the purpose of this website is to inform the public about the lack of validity in polygraphy. I do not disagree with the notion that polygraphy is imperfect, but I also believe that the information put forth in TLBTLD and the information put forth on Doug's manual is also imperfect and/or incomplete.
For this reason I do not believe that anyone should rely on CM techniques advocated on this website or others, just as they should not believe in the validity of polygraphs.
PolyReject:
Okay. Maybe you're not a polygrapher. I apologize. Being accused of practicing that profession is a pretty harsh insult, I admit. I do have a question for you. Why were you concerned about the polygraph before you took it if you had nothing to hide? I took the test without researching it or even asking any of my LE friends about it and I'm a fairly curious person. I believed in the poly and thought it was straightforward--tell the truth about everything and pass. I can tell you firsthand that that approach doesn't work either. It sounds like you really got yourself worked up over the test. I wonder what sort of impact that could have had on your test? If you were already fearful of failing before you underwent one. However, this I am sure-- polygraphs do not work. It seems you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The answer seems to be just not to consent to one period.
Polyreject,
Sorry to hear of your experience. Employing countermeasures is a very personal decision. A decision that one must be completely comfortable with. I'm am curious about your level of confidence prior to your "test." Where you still unsure or very confident in your abilities to employ CMs?
I have never purchased Mr. Williams' manual and have no plans to do so. It seems to me that his information could not differ from what is already available and free of charge.
QuoteI practiced the techniques and tried the CMs during the test. Sure enough, the polygrapher detected the CMs. After the second round, he even came up to me and said that he thinks I am trying to manipulate the test results. He asked that I stop. I did not listen because after reading TLBTLD and What Doug had to say, I figured he was bluffing me. Well turns out I was wrong. If any of you are wondering there were no sensor pads on the chair I sat on, but somehow he knew
Without extra equipment (seat pads, motion sensors, etc.), I will venture to say that you were bluffed. I say that, not to be argumentative, but because I don't believe unseen CMs are readily apparent by visual analysis alone. There of course is the possibility that your reactions to controls were so strong that his/her suspicions were raised and thus...the bluff.
I am interested to know the details of your exam, if you are willing. If so you can instant message me or email me at hall@antipolygraph.org.
Also, yes, some here are a bit leary of someone with statements such as yours. Reason being that a few polygraphers have posted information similar to yours and used multiple screen names to agree with themselves. The administrator is very good at detecting such deceptions. Please do not be offended.
There are only three possibilities here either
1) You employed countermeasures incorrectly (meaning either to the wrong questions; mixing up control,relevant,and irrelevant. Plus you could have employed them to the wrong magnitude (too strong and too long)
2) You were bluffed into an admission
3) You are a polygrapher yourself
Fact is that countermeasures work regardless of what you claim,I have ran my own independent study and I know for 100% fact they work. Please do not make claims because you only THINK you recognized the control questions. What this tells me is that you probably didn't employ them to the correct questions. (Sorry but my gut feeling is that your a polygrapher)
Polyreject,
I guess polygraphers assume people are just as
gullible, outside the interrogation room. I classify
polygraphers, along with investment brokers and
T.V. evangalists...
Anxietyguy
It looks like he already said he made no admissions in the post test.
I was talking about admitting to something that would DQ him not countermeasures,despite what he says I still believe he made some type of admission or employed the countermeasures to the wrong questions.
I think that in my original message I stated that I made no admissions to using CMs. If Williams' worthless manual accomplishes on thing it is that it ensures that its readers do not make any admissions.
Also, I damn well know the difference between relevant and control, in fact here are some of the questions I was asked on my test to the best of my memory:
Is you last name XX (Irrelevant)
Are you XX years old (Irrelevant)
Have you ever betrayed the confidence of a loved one (Control, Used CM)
Are you with in this departments drug guidelines (Relevant, no response)
Have you ever sold illegal drugs (Relevant, no response)
Have you ever lied to a supervisor (Control, Used CM)
Have you lied on your application (Relevant, no response)
Have you used illegal steroids (Relevant, no response)
After the test the polygrapher said "when I see results like this, I know that someone in trying to manipulate the results"
I am not a polygrapher, I did not make any admissions, and I did everything TLBTLD and Williams said, and I was caught. Are there any other theories besides the one that polygrapher accuse everyone of CM use? Because, if that is the case then I can't imagine anyone ever passing, and people do pass.
To answer your question polyfool, I had nothing to hide; I felt that I needed to learn to beat the test because this website and others convinced me that being truthful was not enough. This is why I'm bitter now. I probably would have passed the damn thing if I had never learned to beat it.
By the way Anxietyguy, contrary to what you may think I made no admissions of any kind on any part of the test. Believe it or not
Polyreject,
You sound exactly like other polygraphers that have
been caught, on this site, using multiple aliases; your
statement, recommending not using advise on this site,
gives you away. What is bothersome, is that
newcomers, to this site, may end up taking your advise.
You simply can't believe that the regular users, of this
site, are going to listen to you. You sound like you came
straight off polygraphplace.com. Polygraphers cannot
detect CMs, if used correctly (dah); my polygrapher
clown at NSA asked me, if Ihad used CMs. He was, as
much as a joke, as his machine. To them, lying comes
naturally, as with, used-car salesmen, T.V. evangalists,
and investment brokers...
Quote from: Polyreject on May 06, 2005, 09:55 PMI did not make any admissions, and I did everything TLBTLD and Williams said, and I was caught. Are there any other theories besides the one that polygrapher accuse everyone of CM use? Because, if that is the case then I can't imagine anyone ever passing, and people do pass.
polyreject,
You must realize that not all people who use cm's pass. Not all non-deceptive people who don't use cm's pass. I have a few questions that might help here:
1. You say you used "everything" in William's book and TLBTLD. Clearly, you meant that you considered everything. TLBTLD provides several types of cm's. Which one(s) did you use. In retrospect, how do you think your poly response to controls differed from normal fear of detection to a lie?
2. If you had chosen not to use cm's, but had read TLBTLD, then you would be what is called an "informed" examinee. Do you think you would have responded more on the controls or less on the controls than you would have if you were unaware of the true purpose of the control questions.
So how would you advise people who have read TLBTLD who don't intend to use cm's (as you wish you had done) when asked the control questions in pre-test? Should they lie [edited for clarity: only on controls], and then lie on the control, or should they tell the examiner that those are controls and they intent to be fully honest and not lie on them? What are your thoughts?
if its any comfort polyreject, i took 4 FBI polys, failed them all (well 1 inconcl) and never used countermeasures. I was aware of which questions were relevant. maybe if i had been naieve, i would have passed.
The following is a response to questions asked by George on an email. I posted it out here so everyone has a chance to read it. And yes George was ok with this incase you were wondering (by the way, I don't think George thinks I'm a polygrapher so the rest of you can lighten up)
George asked what CM I used
The countermeasures I used were the anal sphincter countermeasure and the breathing countermeasure. I did not use any tongue biting or any mental countermeasures.
George asked what breathing technique I used
The breathing methods I used were the ones referred to as the suppression and decrease of amplitude and the change in amplitude (both on page 148 of TLBTLD)
George asked what happened during the test
After the first chart the polygrapher seemed to be very pleased with my result, he said "all seems to be going well" but after the second round he came up to me and said "it appears that you are trying to manipulate the test, and I want you to stop." I thought he was bluffing. So I kept on applying the CMs.
George asked what the polygrapher said after the test:
After the test was over he said "when I see results like this I know someone is trying to beat the test" The polygrapher did not identify to which CM I used, he asked were you moving your feet? Which I was not. I don't remember him saying anything about my breathing. This was my first and hopefully last polygraph ever.
George asked about the friend who referred me to read TLBTLD and Williams' manual
My friend had failed a polygraph with the FBI, he claimed he was truthful. He recommended me to this site and said to learn and apply the CMs. He convinced me that being truthful was not enough.
Marty:
Marty's question
In retrospect, how do you think your poly response to controls differed from normal fear of detection to a lie?
Response
I'm not sure how to answer this question. If I had to guess I would say that by using CMs my responses on the controls exceeded what my response normally would have been in a lie.
Marty's Question
If you had chosen not to use cm's, but had read TLBTLD, then you would be what is called an "informed" examinee. Do you think you would have responded more on the controls or less on the controls than you would have if you were unaware of the true purpose of the control questions.
Response
I would probably have responded less. The reason I say yes to this question is because I would imagine that the CMs are intended to produce a larger response that a normal lie (thus enabling someone who is lying to beat the test)
Marty's Question
So how would you advise people who have read TLBTLD who don't intend to use cm's (as you wish you had done) when asked the control questions in pre-test?
Should they lie, and then lie on the control, or should they tell the examiner that those are controls and they intent to be fully honest and not lie on them? What are your thoughts?
Response
I wish I could answer this question, but I cannot. Based on my experience CMs can be detected. Maybe not all, but certainly the ones I used are detectable. My advice for someone who has nothing to hide would be not to worry about the test and certainly don't learn to beat it. Now if you have something to hide and are trying to beat the test, then I think you should take a long hard look at your personal integrity and ask yourself if you are cut out to take the office you are about to enter. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want someone who has something to hide to enter a sensitive government position.
Polyreject:
Don't you think you made a mistake by choosing to employ more than one type of breathing CM? Why didn't you just stick with one? I'm under the impression that the examiner is looking for a consistent reaction to the controls---what is the truthful examinee's response to the controls when lying or stressed? Didn't you say you changed your breathing between the different charts?
P.S. Your friend is right--being truthful during an FBI polygraph is not enough.
Quote from: Polyreject on May 07, 2005, 06:46 PMI wish I could answer this question, but I cannot. Based on my experience CMs can be detected. Maybe not all, but certainly the ones I used are detectable. My advice for someone who has nothing to hide would be not to worry about the test and certainly don't learn to beat it. Now if you have something to hide and are trying to beat the test, then I think you should take a long hard look at your personal integrity and ask yourself if you are cut out to take the office you are about to enter. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want someone who has something to hide to enter a sensitive government position.
I quite agree that no one should lie on a relevant question (and hence lie about their qualifications, to get a job of trust, and not just in government. I poorly worded my question. I meant to refer only to lying on the control questions (as presumed by the polygrapher). Would you suggest applicants, who do not intend to use cm's, lie on the controls or disclose their knowledge of the test and ask whether the examiner wishes them to lie - or just answer yes, or just persist in a "yes"?
Interestingly, what little discussion there is in polygraph literature of someone who is being truly "completely honest" and in not informed but refuses to lie on a control question, the suggestion is to simply allow a "yes" answer and score it just as if the answer is "no". Presumably, by that point they are sufficiently sensitzed to the question that whatever the answer, it should produce a larger response than the ndi relevants.
marty
i tried honesty 4 times and failed all 4, so F*#k you.
Sorry, do i seem a bit angry?
This is the first experience I have ever heard of,you must have contracted the sphincter muscle too tight and too quick. That in my opinion would be a give away. Unless you didn't do the breathing correctly either. I know your response will be that you followed the TLBTLD to a T; but we may both never know unless we see the charts.
All the complete honesty approach got me during a polygraph was a tense, unpleasant interrogation followed by a "not within acceptable parameters" letter.
Polyfool
The reason I changed my breathing on different charts was because Doug Williams told me it was ok to do that. It says so on his manual, and he even told me so over email and the phone.
Anxietyguy
I do not doubt that I may have over used the anal CM (tightened too much). I am going to request my chart via FOIA. If George permits I am ok with posting the chart on the website so everyone can see. Would it be possible that the chart produced indicated such a high degree of truthfulness due to the over tightening of the anal CM that it was obvious CMs were being used?
And for those who are wondering, how much tension should one use on the anal CM? I don't believe I ever tightened even half as much as I could have
Marty:
In my opinion such lies on the control questions may pose a problem because the polygrapher expects a "no" response in which he knows you are lying. I remember in my pretest we went over such questions. For example, he said "we don't want people working here who lie to their superiors, so let me ask you this, have you ever lied to a supervisor" Now, of course at some point in my life I knew I had lied to a boss, but realizing it was a control I just said no and gave him what he wanted. If I had said yes, then he would have wanted to hear about the time and place and probably would have changed the question to read "besides that time, have you lied to a superior? Which my honest response again would probably be yes. By saying yes and yes over and over again, and giving explanations, then what will probably happen is what you stated, in that your yes will be scored as a no. So I guess the question now is which shows a larger response a no on a control when you know you are lying or a yes on a control after being sensitized when you know you are not lying?
From what I have read here and elsewhere, disclosing knowledge of the test will lead to failure, but again I'm not certain about that. So it would probably be best if the examinee who doesn't want to use CM lie on the controls, but then again that is intended and presumed by the polygrapher. Which means by lying on the controls you are not really beating the test, you are actually going along with it.
George:
Does TLBTLD mention anything about the possibility of being caught using CMs by over tightening the anal muscle? I don't remember anything about that when I read it, but I think I read the previous edition.
The contraction is supposed to be very subtle(about 50%). Some describe it as a "staircase" approach. This is why,which I can only speculate as to why you were suspected of countermeasure use. Some polygraphers describe the countermeasure as a "mini-explosion." Which we will never know till we see the charts. Although I can only speculate because I am not a polygrapher. In addition I wonder how a polygrapher can state that a response is too strong? After all, we are all unique and would react differently when different questions are asked. This is why I believe that it would be very hard for a polygrapher to prove countermeasures were employed. Unless you had a rather large uncharacteristic response to each control. Though I would like to hear what George has to say on the topic.
Polyreject,
It is a mistake to conclude that because your polygrapher told you he thought you were trying to manipulate the results, and you had in fact employed polygraph countermeasures, that your polygrapher had necessarily "detected" your countermeasures. Recall that, as you mentioned above, your polygrapher also apparently thought you had been moving your feet, when in fact you hadn't. Accusations of countermeasure use are not uncommon, and numerous individuals who did not even know what countermeasures are have been wrongly accused of such (myself included).
To date, no polygrapher has demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). There are no articles or book chapters in the polygraph literature that explain how to detect such countermeasures, and the available peer-reviewed research on countermeasures suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. Under the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that Dr. Drew C. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) has gone more than three years now without a single taker. For further information, see pp. 156-162 of the 4th edition of TLBTLD (beginning with the subchapter "Can't Polygraphers Detect Countermeasures").
While it is not clear precisely what criteria polygraphers may be using to make accusations of attempted countermeasure use, I understand that there is a maxim amongst polygraphers that "if a reaction looks too good to be true, it probably is." It is possible that if reactions to "control" questions appear to the polygrapher to be "too big" that countermeasure use may be inferred. But again, documentation is wanting. For relevant discussion, see the message thread, Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=474.msg2251#msg2251).
As for why some suspected that you might be a polygrapher, there is a precedent of polygraphers forging posts on this message board. Examples include:
thevet2/checking (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2290.msg16253#msg16253) (who also posted in this thread as "darkcobra2005")
AnalSphincter/LoopyLuWho (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1352.msg15623#msg15623)
usarmyofficer2004 (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2145.msg15328#msg15328)
PolySucks/Cancerman (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1717.msg13123#msg13123)
Policeman (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1614.msg12714#msg12714)
nopoly/POLYSCORE (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1908.msg14299#msg14299)
Zena/Boy_Wonder (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=580.msg3005#msg3005)
Polyreject:
The TLBTLD does make reference to over tightening the anal muscle. If I recall correctly, I believe it says something like "a little goes a long way," and warns not to overdo it. I was indirectly accused of "trying to manipulate" my first test and I knew absolutely nothing about countermeasures or the polygraph's inaccuracy. In the second test, I was directly accused of countermeasure use and then told I was still "having trouble" with the drug questions. The point is, polygraph examiners do not know when one is employing countermeasures, they're just bluffing. Thanks for answering all my questions.
George and others:
My intuition tells me that this polygrapher and maybe others suspect CM use when there is a significant reaction to control questions. But let me ask you all this:
What is the reaction difference between a normal lie on a control, and a control manipulated by a CM? (Let's say the anal CM)
If there is a substantial difference between the two, then I can't imagine the polygrapher having too difficult of the time distinguishing between them. On this point, if I were a polygrapher, which I'm not (and I know some of you think that I am) why would I answer Dr. Richardson's challenge and give away my secret???
I have a hard time accepting the notion that polygraphers randomly accuse people of using CMs. (I'm sure it has happened, but it does not make sense for this practice to be the norm)
If random CM accusations are given by polygraphers then I would imagine they would be intended to elicit a confession of CM use. (This idea would be especially true, if examiners really cannot detect CMs, which I'm not so sure about).
However, if no such confession is rendered then it seems counter-intuitive for the sake of the agency's hiring practice to label the person as using CMs nonetheless and dismiss their application.
Having worked for the fed gov't in the past, I know that it is far from perfect. But to suggest that CM accusations are randomly made, when the polygrapher truly cannot detect CM use, and applicants are subsequently disqualified even without making a confession, then that is essentially saying that the agencies adhere to a level of conspiratorial behavior that is so far-fetched it is nearly unbelievable.
George:
How do I retrieve my file via FOIA? Who do I write to and what do I ask for?
Also, if I get my chart, will you post it on this website?
I have no other reason for wanting to re-live this miserable experience unless it can really benefit another in the future.
Quote from: Polyreject on May 09, 2005, 03:16 PM
George and others:
My intuition tells me that this polygrapher and maybe others suspect CM use when there is a significant reaction to control questions. But let me ask you all this:
What is the reaction difference between a normal lie on a control, and a control manipulated by a CM? (Let's say the anal CM)
It seems that there is no obvious difference between reactions that result from anxiety associated with the asking of a question and those produced by other means, such as cognitive activity or tongue-biting. Again, in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al.; see abstracts in the bibliography of
TLBTLD), even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.
QuoteIf there is a substantial difference between the two, then I can't imagine the polygrapher having too difficult of the time distinguishing between them. On this point, if I were a polygrapher, which I'm not (and I know some of you think that I am) why would I answer Dr. Richardson's challenge and give away my secret???
Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) does not require the polygrapher to disclose
how he or she detects countermeasures. It merely requires that he or she do so.
QuoteI have a hard time accepting the notion that polygraphers randomly accuse people of using CMs. (I'm sure it has happened, but it does not make sense for this practice to be the norm)
If random CM accusations are given by polygraphers then I would imagine they would be intended to elicit a confession of CM use. (This idea would be especially true, if examiners really cannot detect CMs, which I'm not so sure about).
However, if no such confession is rendered then it seems counter-intuitive for the sake of the agency's hiring practice to label the person as using CMs nonetheless and dismiss their application.
Having worked for the fed gov't in the past, I know that it is far from perfect. But to suggest that CM accusations are randomly made, when the polygrapher truly cannot detect CM use, and applicants are subsequently disqualified even without making a confession, then that is essentially saying that the agencies adhere to a level of conspiratorial behavior that is so far-fetched it is nearly unbelievable.
I don't suppose that accusations of countermeasure use are being made on a
random basis. Rather, I suspect DoDPI has established some guidelines for such decisions. However, such guidelines have not been published either by DoDPI or by any polygraph association. In any event, the mere existence of any such guidelines does not necessarily entail that polygraphers are actually detecting countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.
With regard to ethics, note that federal, state, and local agencies are branding applicants and employees as liars, even without admissions, based on a procedure (polygraph screening) that the National Academy of Sciences has concluded is completely invalid. It is no great ethical leap for agencies relying on polygraph screening to further make "determinations" that such persons have employed countermeasures, even without an admission.
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is presently being downloaded from this site at a sustained rate of about 1,000 times per week. If just five percent of those who download it are using the countermeasures discussed in Chapter 4, that would be about 50 persons weekly, or some 2,500 per year. But in the four and a half years AntiPolygraph.org has been on-line, we have heard from only a handful of people stating that they used countermeasures but nonetheless failed to pass. As noted above, several of those turned out to be polygraphers in disguise. I should add here that I am confident, after our private correspondence, that you are
not in this category. But if polygraphers were genuinely able to detect countermeasures, I would expect that we'd be receiving more frequent reports like yours.
QuoteHow do I retrieve my file via FOIA? Who do I write to and what do I ask for?
You'll find tips on how to file a Privacy Act request in Chapter 5 of
TLBTLD.QuoteAlso, if I get my chart, will you post it on this website?
Absolutely.
1st mistake was using CM's. Only a very few are actually taught effective CM's. They are tier 1 national clandestine or NOC assets. The actual training is TS/SCI but involves stressors targeting the sym and parasym nervous system, biofeed back. This training is is intensive. Unless you are pathalogical, the commerical CM's won't work. If you are pathalogical, you won't need them. SOP is if CM's are detected, you are guilty/hidding something. If your PW cat is high enough, SECDEF has some very unplesant suprizes for you.
Quote from: xusmico on Jun 05, 2005, 04:29 PM1st mistake was using CM's. Only a very few are actually taught effective CM's. They are tier 1 national clandestine or NOC assets. The actual training is TS/SCI but involves stressors targeting the sym and parasym nervous system, biofeed back...
Could you please explain more about these countermeasures of which you speak?
I think that once we remember that a polygraph "test" is essentially an interrogation it's easier to see that an examiner would accuse someone of using CM's. I have loads of experience in interview and interrogation, and it's easy for me to envision this scenario:
- Polygrapher notices reactions to one or more control questions.
- Polygrapher has no idea if the subject is using CM's or not, but wants to discourage any such attempts.
- Polygrapher warns the subject about using countermeasures and maybe even displays an anger reaction to intimidate the subject.
- Polygrapher then asks the control questions again to see if there are different reactions.
It's common during the interview of a criminal suspect to imply that I have more knowledge than I actually do. I might have a folder on the desk with names on it that the subject will recognize as potential witnesses or accomplices, just to make him think I've already talked to them. Or I may have one of my officers "accidentally" interrupt the statement to tell me he's obtained the security video or the photos off a witness's camera-phone. If it makes the suspect admit to whatever he did, great. If it doesn't than I'm no worse off than if I didn't try any of that. It's easy for me to believe that polygraph examiners (who are, in fact, trained interrogators) use the same tactics during a polygraph "test."
Sergeant1107,
You write:
Quote
I think that once we remember that a polygraph "test" is essentially an interrogation it's easier to see that an examiner would accuse someone of using CM's. I have loads of experience in interview and interrogation, and it's easy for me to envision this scenario:
- Polygrapher notices reactions to one or more control questions.
- Polygrapher has no idea if the subject is using CM's or not, but wants to discourage any such attempts.
- Polygrapher warns the subject about using countermeasures and maybe even displays an anger reaction to intimidate the subject.
- Polygrapher then asks the control questions again to see if there are different reactions.
It's common during the interview of a criminal suspect to imply that I have more knowledge than I actually do. I might have a folder on the desk with names on it that the subject will recognize as potential witnesses or accomplices, just to make him think I've already talked to them. Or I may have one of my officers "accidentally" interrupt the statement to tell me he's obtained the security video or the photos off a witness's camera-phone. If it makes the suspect admit to whatever he did, great. If it doesn't than I'm no worse off than if I didn't try any of that. It's easy for me to believe that polygraph examiners (who are, in fact, trained interrogators) use the same tactics during a polygraph "test."
That which you suggest is not at all unreasonable. The appropriate examinee response UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES is to deny countermeasure use when so accused. I can not say strongly enough--an examinee should expect it to be a fairly high probability event that he or she will be accused of countermeasure use regardless of whether they were employed or not (in view of the fact that examiners can not reliably detect them and as you (Sergeant) say they (polygraphers) have very little to lose with their accusations) and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure use....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure usage....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an examinee ever admit to countermeasure usage---anything you don't under stand about UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES??
p.s. Sergeant, I should point out that your analogies between what occurs in the interrogation room and the polygraph suite fall apart in one regard. In the case of the former, only the interrogator knows for sure what is in the folder or what the accidental interruption has really added to the process. In the polygraph suite, it is only the examinee who knows for sure whether countermeasures have been employed. Regards....
OMG, a truthful person comes forward and admits that CM's dont work and all the you permanent fixtures come out of the woodwrok and loose your minds.
Geeee... maybe its possible someone out there was hurt by your BS.
Maybe and more likely definately many inocent people have been re victimized by the guilty people who come to this site in hopes of eluding detection of the crimes they have committed.
Truthful people dont need to use counter measures.
thats not necessarily true. I did not use CMs, was truthful and failed 4 straight tests. a review of my charts shoed that the questions I failed were different each time. on some tests I passed some questions, and failed on others, but never managed to pass them all at the same time. so the idea that a truthful person will always pass is not accurate
Quote from: seascapes on Jun 13, 2005, 03:27 PMOMG, a truthful person comes forward and admits that CM's dont work and all the you permanent fixtures come out of the woodwrok and loose your minds.
Geeee... maybe its possible someone out there was hurt by your BS.
Maybe and more likely definately many inocent people have been re victimized by the guilty people who come to this site in hopes of eluding detection of the crimes they have committed.
Truthful people dont need to use counter measures.
Unfortunately one will never know the truth until seated in the polygraph chair. By then it's too late. Too bad for the polygraphers -- this site is forcing them back into the "woodwrok" since polygraphics is the one field where the "light of day" causes concern to those that practice it.
The truth shall set you free? If you're a polygrapher, the cliche that applies the most is "the truth hurts."
Have a nice life.
I too, failed my first poly 1. because I did not practice enough, and 2. because I wasn't sure which were controls or irrelevants. My LASD poly did not use any 'known-lie' controls, so I was waiting for those and failed to employ countermeasures for the other controls.
PolyReject, you still have no evidence that your polygrapher was not bluffing. You may have been flunked prematurely due to body language, or it was 'that time of the month' for the polygrapher. My polygrapher accused me of controlling my breathing, I appologized and said that I was just trying to relax. I then continued breathing exactly as before and he never said boo about it again.
After reading the eBook on this site I was shocked to find out how random polygraphers are with failing people. If you're late, you're failed! If you don't wash your hands, you're failed! If they don't like your face or tone of voice - failed! If they don't fail some people, they're not doing their job.
My polygrapher called me that morning of my test to tell me he needed me there an hour earlier than expected. This could have been a test as well.
Quote from: importscout on Jul 13, 2005, 03:58 AMI too, failed my first poly 1. because I did not practice enough, and 2. because I wasn't sure which were controls or irrelevants. My LASD poly did not use any 'known-lie' controls, so I was waiting for those and failed to employ countermeasures for the other controls.
...You may have been flunked prematurely due to body language, or it was 'that time of the month' for the polygrapher....
After reading the eBook on this site I was shocked to find out how random polygraphers are with failing people. If you're late, you're failed! If you don't wash your hands, you're failed! If they don't like your face or tone of voice - failed! If they don't fail some people, they're not doing their job.
My polygrapher called me that morning of my test to tell me he needed me there an hour earlier than expected. This could have been a test as well.
"I'm not paranoid. That is just an ugly rumor started by all those damed people who are out to get me."
Oh that's right!! Polygraphers are there to help you through the process, yes? And they are just there to make sure only good, truth-telling applicants get through.
ignorance is bliss.. or is it...?
Did you read the ebook? Calling me paranoid is hardly constructive to the conversation, is it?
I'll be paranoid, and you'll be ignorant, I'll live with that.
I think it is easy to see how a truthful person "failing" a polygraph could come away from the experience with feelings of betrayal and anger. Especially if you didn't know anything about the polygraph before you started, you almost certainly went into the test with the belief that if it was part of the process to get hired by law enforcement then it must be a fair and impartial test. To tell the truth in such a test and be falsely labeled as deceptive is a shocking, iconoclastic thing to have happen.
Perhaps we could show a little understanding rather than making jokes.