AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

To all concerned,

I came across this article while doing law research. It is very detailed and the authors are extremely well known and respected. One is a well known law professor. It is a great read and it really hits home about why we believe the polygraph is just wrong. And for our polygraphers, please do chime in, enough debate issues in this one for all.

Link:
http://issues.org/20.1/faigman.html

Well worth the read, and its authors can't be disputed.
If this has been posted before then I appologize for the duplication. Its still a good read.

Regards ....

If it has been posted here before I must have missed it.

Very good find.  Thanks for posting.

The polygraph instrument is merely a tool used to detect physiology changes in a subject while being questioned about relevant criteria.  The problems arise from poorly trained or unethical examiners who fail to formulate questions properly or conduct pre-test and post-test interviews with a biased approach against the examinee.

If the use of the polygraph was as unfair as most of those on this website seem to think, then the use of "countermeasures" to beat the test would not be needed.  The truth is, the only reason for countermeasures is to conceal lies from the concerned intity, whether it be the police or a potential employer.

No system is perfect, and even the best examiner may occasionally miss countermeasure attempts; however, the system of a polygraph instrument and a well trained and ethical examiner is still one of the most accurate methods of obtaining the truth from deceptive people.  

Quote from: 187Dick on Mar 11, 2006, 07:27 PMThe polygraph instrument is merely a tool used to detect physiology changes in a subject while being questioned about relevant criteria.  The problems arise from poorly trained or unethical examiners who fail to formulate questions properly or conduct pre-test and post-test interviews with a biased approach against the examinee.

If the use of the polygraph was as unfair as most of those on this website seem to think, then the use of "countermeasures" to beat the test would not be needed.  The truth is, the only reason for countermeasures is to conceal lies from the concerned intity, whether it be the police or a potential employer.

No system is perfect, and even the best examiner may occasionally miss countermeasure attempts; however, the system of a polygraph instrument and a well trained and ethical examiner is still one of the most accurate methods of obtaining the truth from deceptive people.  

187DICK,

Lets dissect your posts in sections, first off section one. Your absolutely correct its just a tool. A pressure tool, that is good for intimidating people. Knowlege of the polygraph process and the ability to ascertain Control VS Relevant questions, and lack of fear does in your pressure tool. THe NAS study specifically addressed  that an examinee with knowlege of (mental) countermeasures more than compensates for any intimidation factors. Without fear and anxiety you can't get your flight or fight responses.  1st tenant you need to make your voodoo work, Or NO FEAR means non working machine. But your attempts at stimulation are always highly laughable.

Section two, Anyone of consequence or intellect will never walk into something such as a polygraph exam unread or unprepared. Your statements here are the old reliable stalwarts of most interrogators. Honest people should always be wary of anything where you have to prove your self honest via interrogation. THe internet and the ability to research more than compensates for your lack of candor to an examinee.  Your polygraphers schtick must have the examinee believe that you can detect deception. Without that buy in, again your physiological responses are non existant.  Tenant # 2  You have to have 100% belief that the polygraph works. Being well read and prepared mitigates this part. And knowing deep down in your soul thats its a bunch of horse dung. Well you know, no responses.

And lastly I highly doubt that its occasionally you miss countermeasures. Grant you I will buy into that the physical type ones you can easily detect. But the mental ones I know you can't.  3rd Tenant, There has to be consequences for failure. Remember now, if  one has to take a polygraph, and if you willing to walk away and just say no, you don't even get a shot. Which is always the best choice. Any good defense lawyer would never let a person take a polygraph unless its with an examiner of his choosing, and with a high probability that he will be deemed (NDI). So you see, intellect, knowlege, preparation and audacity, will alway win the day.

Bottomline ... Folks taking polygraphs armed with the knowlege and the ability to use it, are causing you examiners untold levels of grief. When the polygraph is stopped being used for hiring, is when this will all go away. I don't have a problem with the polygraph used in criminal investigations. So there is grounds for agreements.

But your post was well done, and worthy of debate.

Regards ...

187's argument presupposes that the use of countermeasures is only for the guilty to beat the test.

Most people that post here regularly are the victims of false positives. CMs are a way for the innocent to avoid improper accusation.

EosJupitor

I don't buy into even the physical detection. I have tested this also and the sensor pad didn't register anything above the normal uncontrollable body movements. If a polygrapher ever asked me to drop my pants to check me, that's the day I call him a f--g pervert and walk.

Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 11, 2006, 10:01 PMEosJupitor

I have tested this also and the sensor pad didn't register anything above the normal uncontrollable body movements.

You have a sensor pad?

Quote from: nonombre on Mar 12, 2006, 12:07 PM

You have a sensor pad?

Just for the point of reference, why settle for just a sensor pad, when a whole machine can be had for under $30.00. And it can be made workable. Oh the possibilities !!  Link follows:

http://cgi.ebay.com/LAFAYETTE-INSTRUMEN-MINI-GRAPH-POLYGRAPH-LIE-DETECTOR_W0QQitemZ5877599227QQcategoryZ73364QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Or you can buy the whole detector, there were 2 LAFAYETTE Diplomat I's for sale a couple of weeks ago, one to get running, the other for spare parts. And to get them fixed should the part not work you can go to:

http://www.polygraphsales.com

And get any parts you need.

Funny the 2 Diplomats seemed to have been sold. Makes one wonder who might have them.

 ;)  Regards  ....

Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 13, 2006, 01:55 AM

Just for the point of reference, why settle for just a sensor pad, when a whole machine can be had for under $30.00. And it can be made workable. Oh the possibilities !!  Link follows:

http://cgi.ebay.com/LAFAYETTE-INSTRUMEN-MINI-GRAPH-POLYGRAPH-LIE-DETECTOR_W0QQitemZ5877599227QQcategoryZ73364QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Or you can buy the whole detector, there were 2 LAFAYETTE Diplomat I's for sale a couple of weeks ago, one to get running, the other for spare parts. And to get them fixed should the part not work you can go to:

http://www.polygraphsales.com

And get any parts you need.

Funny the 2 Diplomats seemed to have been sold. Makes one wonder who might have them.

;)  Regards  ....

Forgive me for not quite letting this go, but I would really like to know...Do you personally own a polygraph movement sensor pad and if you do, what model polygraph instrument do you have it attached to?

Nonombre

Quote from: nonombre on Mar 13, 2006, 11:26 PM

Forgive me for not quite letting this go, but I would really like to know...Do you personally own a polygraph movement sensor pad and if you do, what model polygraph instrument do you have it attached to?

Nonombre

NoNombre

I don't have a pad, TwoBlock does .....

Regards ...

Is this with regard to the butt sensor pad?

antrella,

Yes,  I said TwoBlock made the statement and did the research with the pad. Ask him for more info, if interested.

Regards  

Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 18, 2006, 08:43 PMantrella,

Yes,  I said TwoBlock made the statement and did the research with the pad. Ask him for more info, if interested.

Regards  

Twoblock,

Do you own a polygraph instrument?  Have you and Eosjupiter been "experimenting?"

Very interesting... ::)

Nonombre
 

NoNombre,

I will neither confirm nor deny those allegations.

But it does make one wonder !! hehehe  ;D

And don't forget to read this threads main point too.

Link:
http://issues.org/20.1/faigman.html


Regards .....

Nonombre

I had decided to stop responding to your questions (or any of your posts) because every time I ask you ligit questions you cut-a-chogi. Don't ask me which ones for you know fully well.

Actually, it's none of your business if I and EosJupitor own a Lafayette or any other make. I will say this: I arranged a poker game at my house for a test. The censor pad showed movement every time a player was bluffing.

Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 19, 2006, 01:36 PMNonombre

Actually, it's none of your business if I and EosJupitor own a Lafayette or any other make. I will say this: I arranged a poker game at my house for a test. The censor pad showed movement every time a player was bluffing.

Analog, or digital?

 ::)

Nonombre

After the pad was revealed to the player, I showed him how to counter it effectively nulling the sensor and any benefits derived.

Haven't you found that background interference in computer generated tests distorts, somewhat, the results? Analog works better.

BTW - these devices plus books to help set up and callibrate them can be had for a song. Especially on Ebay.

Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 20, 2006, 02:04 PMNonombre

After the pad was revealed to the player, I showed him how to counter it effectively nulling the sensor and any benefits derived.

Haven't you found that background interference in computer generated tests distorts, somewhat, the results? Analog works better.

BTW - these devices plus books to help set up and callibrate them can be had for a song. Especially on Ebay.

Actually the movement pads attached to today's computerized systems really are better than the old analog systems.  This is no big polygraph "secret", it is more a case of simple physiology.  The old analog movement sensors were mounted under the legs of the chair, where the new pads have a more "direct connection" so to speak.

What I don't understand is your comment, "these devices plus books to help set up and callibrate them can be had for a song. Especially on Ebay."

Do you mean actual polygraph instruments (which I do know can be bought) or do you mean somekind of movement sensor all by itself?

Nonombre

NoNombre,

What TwoBlock is referring to, is all the calibration & supporting equipment documents are all available online. And having our own machine has benefits, even though its old. Can you think of a better way to put theory into practice. And the number of books that teach you how to read the charts are numerous too.

Regards  ....

I think many of the anti-polygraph people on this board hold too much faith in mental countermeasures.  While it would seem to make sense that mentally over-riding the fight-flight response would be a matter of mental self discipline, suppressing millions of years of evolutionary response behavior is almost impossible if the examiner is doing his job properly.  The very effort to suppress responses actually increases them well below the conscious level of thought.  

I'll admit that some countermeasure attempts are very good at masking or disguising a person's physiological responses; however, a good examiner will rarely be fooled.  (Although as I posted before, I do believe that occasionally even a very good examiner may not recognize the countermeasure.)

Also keep in mind, a good police detective can almost always recognize deception during interrogations just by watching physical responses from the person being interrogated.  Those are physical behavior traits that are noticable to the eye, that many criminals have tried mask or eliminate from their responses, but they are still there.  A polygraph measures responses that are not visible to the eye, and people still think they can somehow override those responses by controlling their thinking.  Perhaps one in a hundred is good enough to do that, but for the other 99 it leads to failing the polygraph exam.  

I also know how stressful it is to be given a polygraph exam, and I am sympathetic, but I still understand the importance of pre-employment polygraph exams.  There are still a lot of dishonest and unethical people trying to get into jobs where they can further thier criminal ambitions and the polygraph examination is an additional safety barrier against those people.  

Regarding defense lawyers who have their clients take polygraph examinations, in almost all cases, it's because the attorney questions the innocence of their client and believes the polygraph will determine the truth.  Why do so many defense attorney's trust the polygraph?

My final thought is this:  If I had a good friend who was trying to get a job and was forced to submit to a pre-employment polygraph exam, my advice to him would be to be honest and let his future employer judge him on the person he is rather than try to coach him on how to beat a polygraph.  I have a sincere belief that the vast majority of those who were not hired because they were suspected of using countermeasures far outnumber those who were not hired because of something shameful, but irrelevant, in their background.
There is no big conspiracy in the polygraph community to keep trustworthy people from getting jobs.  Employers want to feel good about the people they hire, and trustworthy people are highly valued by them.

I know there will be plenty of visitors to this site who disagree with what I have said, but something we should agree on is that I do admit that there are too many unethical or poorly trained examiners in the polygraph community.  I wish there was a way to raise the standards and remove the examiners from the field who do not belong there.  Perhaps that would people less apprehensive about submitting themselves to an examination.  

I appreciate all points of view, and I hope we can keep this debate mature and intellegent.

187Dick,

You write in part:

Quote
...While it would seem to make sense that mentally over-riding the fight-flight response would be a matter of mental self discipline, suppressing millions of years of evolutionary response behavior is almost impossible if the examiner is doing his job properly.  The very effort to suppress responses actually increases them well below the conscious level of thought....

Because I gather you know your standard craft and understand how countermeasures are applied, I am left wondering if the aforementioned quoted material is merely disinformation for the naive reader.  Of course you realize that the utilization of countermeasures has nothing to do with suppressing responses or over-riding ANS responses, BUT has to do with PRODUCING responses to control/comparison questions.  A variety of methods are available to accomplish this end in such a way as neither you nor your colleagues can reliably detect either the process or the outcome.

You further write:

Quote
...I have a sincere belief that the vast majority of those who were not hired because they were suspected of using countermeasures far outnumber those who were not hired because of something shameful, but irrelevant, in their background....

You seem to have left out the most important  category for many of the visitors to this site: those who have done nothing shameful (as you phrase it), and were denied employment because the polygraph process led to them being falsely branded a liar regarding such issues.   The countless tellings of this story by self-alleged victims provides the motivation for prospective innocent examinees to consider the use of countermeasures.

And finally, you further write:

Quote
...I do admit that there are too many unethical or poorly trained examiners in the polygraph community.  I wish there was a way to raise the standards and remove the examiners from the field who do not belong there.  Perhaps that would people less apprehensive about submitting themselves to an examination....

My guess would be that the number of examiners who are truly openly, routinely, and diabolically unethical is a relatively small number.  It is further my opinion that the number of examiners who are untrained is virtually the number of examiners in practice, i.e., all are taught to reach conclusions based on diagnostic techniques which have little to no diagnostic validity.  Although removing unethical examiners (if they could be identified) is a step in the right direction, unfortunately, it is a small step at best in that the greatest and most frequently occurring affront/unfairness to the examinee is the quackery (the polygraph test in the hands of an ethical examiner) that in part or whole has an extreme impact on his or her life.  Regards...  

187Dick,

     I will grant you your opinion and I am sure that (I know this is redundant), dumb crooks, are caught all the time, by your polygraph. And your use of the polygraph for criminal investigations I don't have a problem with either. But as far as pre-employment / periodic post employment polygraphs is just dead wrong. 1 false positive on an honest person is not collateral damage. It is character asassination and no one should be made to endure it. Why do people have to sign a waiver for a polygraph test. It allows you polygraphers to violate a persons rights in pursuit of a job. The thing I find most funny is in the states where LEO's are not polygraphed, they seem to do just fine in finding outstanding candidates and officers. Where I bet the interviewing and BI processes are more thorough also. So the stand you have that it eliminates more undesireable people is also wrong. I dare you to say that your better than, say a Massachusetts State police officer to his face, because you took a polygraph for employment, and he didn't. I have a great amount of respect for anyone who can be a LEO. Hands down one of the toughest careers there is. And as of late it appears that the polygraph is no deterent from law breakers getting a badge.  Your stand though fully appreciated and follows the usual examiners views, Does not stand when pressed against the realities of LEO's doing there jobs in the states where they don' t polygraph. Unless you stand by the belief that all unpolygraphed LEO's are corrupt and will soon be law breakers. Not a stand I would push out into the LEO community.

Regards ....

EOs

Don't be ridiculous.  Dick never said that current officers who were not polygraphed make better officers. You are wrong to write that  P.D.s that do not poly do better BIs. No studies have been done to support your statement .UNless you are a polygrapher and/ or a LEO you have a lot to say about things you know nothing about.

Quote from: retcopper on Mar 22, 2006, 01:48 PMEOs

Don't be ridiculous.  Dick never said that current officers who were not polygraphed make better officers. [/color]You are wrong to write that  P.D.s that do not poly do better BIs. No studies have been done to support your statement .UNless you are a polygrapher and/ or a LEO you have a lot to say about things you know nothing about.

retcopper,

THe more comments I get from you, the more I see a reactionary not a visionary. I never put out information that I can't prove. My cousin is a graduate of the MASS STATE Police Academy. And the vetting process over the course of the 6 months at the academy more then goes into the candidates BI and they evaluate the candidates under the duress of a military style pressure school. This method is far more expensive and time consuming than a mere psych/polygraph format for LEO selection. But that process is cheap and less time consuming. The finished product is an outstanding LEO and they pride themselves on the fact. And from personal experience they are truly a great LEO organization.

And your right 187Dick didn't say that. What I said is if you believe that polygraphed LEO's are better than nonpolygraphed ones. Prove it.   Which of course is ridiculous. And if your so inclined you invited to prove it too.  Next time read what is written, not what you wish to read.

Regards ...

EOs

The academy is after the poly or non poly phase so what is your point? I also don't want to compare LEO agencies against each other.

Quote from: retcopper on Mar 23, 2006, 10:42 AMEOs

The academy is after the poly or non poly phase so what is your point? I also don't want to compare LEO agencies against each other.

retcopper,

Obviously your keen analytical thought processes must have also gone into retirement,  The point is, now pay attention, Is that  Massachusetts is a non-polygraph state, and produce out of their academies professional and competant LEOS. So your and 187Dicks opinion that a polygraph produces better LEOS is BS.  The short and sweet of it and why you won't compare agencies is that your polygrapher mind set can't get beyond the fact that these states saw the wisdom of doing away with your pseudo-science machine and schtick, and function very nicely. And they have little or no problem getting great qualified candidates.

Comprende'  

Regards

Nonombre

Computer electromagnetic activity (my interpretation of interference) is unrelated to physiology or the seat pad. Maybe Marty, who is an electrical engineer I think, can explain it further detail if he sees this post. Anyway, if you can squelch this interference, you are in the wrong business or you make a hell of lot more money than I think a police dept. polygrapher makes.

I have to be gone for a little while. Gotta go dig some gold. I may want to add some poly trinkets to my collection. I'll buy them and Eosjupitor can apply them between law classes.

Quote from: Twoblock on Mar 25, 2006, 01:05 AMNonombre

Computer electromagnetic activity (my interpretation of interference) is unrelated to physiology or the seat pad. Maybe Marty, who is an electrical engineer I think, can explain it further detail if he sees this post. Anyway, if you can squelch this interference, you are in the wrong business or you make a hell of lot more money than I think a police dept. polygrapher makes.

I have to be gone for a little while. Gotta go dig some gold. I may want to add some poly trinkets to my collection. I'll buy them and Eosjupitor can apply them between law classes.

Actually the only issue I see with the curent digital movement sensors is occasional noise in the signal that I believe to be related to muscle movements in other parts of the body.  If someone would like to make some real money, I suggest designing a filter to work in conjunction with the piezo device that would help to better isolate unrelated body movements...

Perhaps Marty would like to strike it rich... ::)

Regards and have a good dig...

Nonombre
  

NoNombre,

The experimentation so far only shows occasional spikes from the pad if the subject is able to control his movements. I think there is a relationship to the chair and the pad, and how the subject adjusts to the chair.
Otherwise the recordings only show occasional movements. In my honest opinion I think the sensor is extranious and not of much value. And if the chair position is causing discomfort, the movement also increases greatly.  Explain what you do about it ?

Regards ....

Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 25, 2006, 02:09 AMNoNombre,


The experimentation so far only shows occasional spikes from the pad if the subject is able to control his movements. I think there is a relationship to the chair and the pad, and how the subject adjusts to the chair.
Otherwise the recordings only show occasional movements. In my honest opinion I think the sensor is extranious and not of much value. And if the chair position is causing discomfort, the movement also increases greatly.  Explain what you do about it ?

Regards ....

Eos,

I don't know if I can agree with your assessment.  I have also done a great deal of experimenting with the pad.  I find it discerns lower body movement quite well.  Upper body movements are identified with less consistancy.

Here's an interesting discovery.  Although I have no data to back this up, I'm now convinced certain lower body movements somehow "look" different on the movement pad.  (e.g., a toe curl looks different from a rectal squeeze).  I can't explain it, and I am not really sure real research would back it up.  I do know we use different muscle groups to affect different parts of the body.  

Therefore, wouldn't be cool if someone wrote a computer program that analyzed pad reactions and reported:

"Question #7, toe curl, left foot, 2.7 seconds, followed by rectal manipulation, 3.7 seconds."

I believe I would find such a program useful...

Lastly, I agree discomfort in the chair might affect movement artifacts.  I believe that is why polygraph chairs are designed to be fairly comfortable.

Your thoughts?

Nonombre

NoNombre,

Thanks for more grist to the mill .... interesting observations Hmmmmm.

Regards

Eos,
     I'm not sure why you started modifying my statement to make it seem I was stating things that I neither wrote or believe.  Your previous postings led me to believe you don't usually stoop to that type of debate tactic.  I do not believe that taking a polygraph makes anyone a better police officer.  I believe it's an additional screening tool and nothing more.  
     What I do know about pre employment polygraphs is that I have seen many applicants show attempted deception and then admit to some very serious crimes in thier backgrounds in the very areas they indicated deception.  I have also seen a number of them have criminal charges brought against them for thier admissions.  I'm not talking about drug related crimes.  These are people who thier background investigators swore would have no problem getting past the polygraph and would be ideal candidates for the police academy.  
     If other agencies or states don't use the polygraph as a screening tool for new hires, I wouldn't even condemn their beliefs or practices, and I certainly would not criticize any of thier officers.  
     I also want to respond to the person who posted that countermeasures were physical and not mental.  When I posted regarding the evolutionary process and trying to mentally override it, I was actually responding to a different posting.  I am well aware of physical countermeasure actions, and I won't argue that they can occasionally work; however, well trained, experienced polygraphers can spot most of them without too much difficulty.  Every trick in the book is just as available to the polygraph community as it is to the visitors of this website.
     I stand by everyting I have posted here.  The reason I post here is two fold.  First, I enjoy the debate.  The more we debate this topic, the better I understand all aspects of it.  I can get knowledge from from books and pro polygraph sites, but from here I can get wisdom.
     Second, I know that many of the people who visit this site are innocent people preparing to take their first exam.  I know it's very stressful, but I hope they don't feel like they need to employ countermeasures to pass the polygraph test.  It's as simple as telling the truth.  If you disagree with me, let's debate it.  

We shall talk again!

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 01, 2006, 02:13 AMI'm not sure why you started modifying my statement to make it seem I was stating things that I neither wrote or believe.  Your previous postings led me to believe you don't usually stoop to that type of debate tactic.  I do not believe that taking a polygraph makes anyone a better police officer.  I believe it's an additional screening tool and nothing more.  

187Dick,

I didn't modify your comments, I can only change my own postings. Not sure which statements you think I changed. If you think I did then my humble apologies, you have been a most gracious debater. Always clear and concise.  I just referenced that your arguments do not hold water in states that do not polygraph, nomore.

Regards  

Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 21, 2006, 01:56 PM187Dick,

You write in part:

Because I gather you know your standard craft and understand how countermeasures are applied, I am left wondering if the aforementioned quoted material is merely disinformation for the naive reader.  Of course you realize that the utilization of countermeasures has nothing to do with suppressing responses or over-riding ANS responses, BUT has to do with PRODUCING responses to control/comparison questions.  

The amateur polygraphers come to this site and spew out complete falsehoods (the polygraph is 98% accurate, countermeasures never work, etc).  The truly devious polygraphers come here and mix in carefully chosen lies with truth.

Mr. Mystery,
     Skilled polygraph examiners are very well trained on how to identify the use of countermeasures.  A first time examinee who goes into an examination attempting to use countermeasures either has something to hide or is a fool.  Unfortunately there are people on this site who would advise that very action.  I have stated before and I cannot stress this enough, if you have nothing in your background that would disqualify you for the position you are applying for, just go in and tell the truth.  Hundreds of thousands of people have been hired for doing exactly that!
     This is not trickery.  You can pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.  If I had a friend preparing to take a polygraph exam, that is exactly what I would tell him or her.  It's good advice.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 01, 2006, 05:49 AMYou can pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

I believe we are all aware that you CAN pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

What would make the polygraph a useful instrument is if you WILL pass the polygraph by telling the truth.

In my experience that simply isn't true.  I told the truth on four exams and failed three times, each time for a different reason.

187Dick,

A truly devious polygrapher would acknowledge that false positives do occur.  He would then give a song and dance about how these issues are cleared up after further testing.  I must say I appreciate the fact you remain civil.

Let me offer an example of innocent examinees who had something to fear from polygraphs:

I've taken several and passed, I've failed one.  The silly thing is that I answered the same questions in all of them.  If I told you what some of my control questions are you'd probably laugh.

Fair Chance is a poster on this web site.  I believe he failed 2 FBI polygraphs and finally passed the last one.  It took him over a year to resolve everything.  He couldn't have been lying on some tests and telling the truth on another.

I personally know people who have failed at one federal agency and then passed at another.  The same questions were asked each time.

Go to www.911jobforums.com and read the story posted by engineertofed.  He passed several polygraphs with various agencies and then failed two with the FBI.  There are other posters on that web site who fall into this category also.

Polygraphers are pretty sensitive when it comes to anyone questioning them.  A user named perplexed posted his experience both on this website and at the polygraphpace.com message boards.  The funny thing is that polygraphplace seems to have removed his original posts.  I'll let people draw their own conclusions.

Finally, even John Ashcroft acknowledged that there is a 15% false positive rate. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/ag030101.html

Page 145 of the NAS's report "Polygraphy and Lie Detection" states "There is no evidence that mental countermeasures are detectable by examiners".  The report is available for around $40 on half.com.

I know Honts wrote some more about the proportion of examinees who use countermeasures in 2002.  If anyone knows what he wrote please post it.

A more accurate statement would be "70 to 80 percent of innocent examinees have nothing to fear.  20 to 30 percent of deceptive examinees have nothing to fear either.  Passing one polygraph is no guarantee of passing another one.  If you fail you may get a retest but be ready to go through 6 to 18 months of hell to finish the process."

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Apr 01, 2006, 11:40 AM
I believe we are all aware that you CAN pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

Your wit never fails to make me laugh.

Quote from: 187Dick on Mar 21, 2006, 12:31 PM
A polygraph measures responses that are not visible to the eye, and people still think they can somehow override those responses by controlling their thinking.  Perhaps one in a hundred is good enough to do that, but for the other 99 it leads to failing the polygraph exam.  

187Dick,

If you can find a Vegas bookie that will give me 99 to 1 odds on being sucessfull with countermeasures please let me know.  I'd mortgage my house to bet on those odds.  I doubt you'd mortgage yours on being able to catch me.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that false positives do occur; however, painting a general brush across the entire polygrapher community by quoting generalized statistics of false positives (Which are not verified and may be quite exaggerated) lacks the foundation of a good arguement.

My assertion is that the better trained polygraph examiners have far fewer false positives due to well laid foundations during the pretest interviews.  Additionally, false positive problems are addressed during the administering of the tests and also by conducting thorough post test interviews.

The worst thing that can happen during a polygraph examination is a false positive.  Ethical examiners do everything within thier control to ensure that does not happen.  Remember, all polygraph examiners do not have the same training.  While I do not like to criticize other polygraph examiners, I will state this:  If I were seeking employment and was compelled to take another polygraph exam, I would hope that the examiner was not trained at DoDPI.  

I can also say this, I believe employing countermeasures to pass the polygraph test is extremely less reliable than telling the truth during the test.  It's not a perfect system, but it is the most reliable one available.  

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 01, 2006, 02:50 PM
 If I were seeking employment and was compelled to take another polygraph exam, I would hope that the examiner was not trained at DoDPI.  

Now you've got my interest.  What makes you say this regarding the DoDPI?

Mr Mystery,
     If you are ready to mortgage your house to put up as collateral because you are so certain you can beat a polygraph by using countermeasures, I think you should do that.  I can tell you that I won't take that bet, but I am certain that if you put up $500,000.00 (The estimated value of my house) as a bet to any polygraph examiner who can catch you using countermeasures, I am sure you will either be very rich, or very poor in a very short period of time.
     Of course, you would then have to determine the type of test to be conducted (Which I would immagine would be a singe issue test which is the most accurate of all polygraph tests).  I don't think the intensity of the target issue would be too much of a problem since you would have $500,000.00 at stake, but you would know the relevant questions about that single issue ahead of time, so it would almost not matter what the relevant questions addressed.
     Then there would be the matter of making you countermeasure attempts recorded prior to test.  You would have to write down exactly what counter measures you were going to use and when you were going to employ them.  If the examiner concluded deception regarding the single target issue on his charts, he may zero out control question responses that he suspected counter measures were being used.
     This creates another problem, I'm certain you and he would dispute the location and type of countermeasures being used.  He would accuse you of employing countermeasures you did not list and you would deny it, saying that he had made a mistake or the instrument had recorded something not related to the questions or the test.  Experts would have to be brought in to determine who was telling the truth.

Sounds like the job for another polygraph examiner!  

     All I will say about DoDPI is that the developers of that system do not seem as concerned about false positive responses being a problem, as I and many of my colleages are.  My opinion is that the top concern of any polygraph examiner should be avoiding false positive responses.  Unfortunately, DoDPI is a Federal institution and like most federal government agencies, they do not handle criticism very well.  I also believe that if they would admit that their system was not the best, and look at other approaches to model after, the entire polygraph community would benefit.  (As well as the innocent people being brought in for polygraph examinations by DoDPI trained polygraphers).
     I know my answer is vague; however, there is a continuing effort within the polygraph community to educate the top people at DoDPI and this is not the proper time or place to allow that debate to occur.  Think of it as a closed door meeting of the attorneys out of the presence of the jury.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 01, 2006, 02:50 PMUnfortunately, I have to agree that false positives do occur...  It's not a perfect system, but it is the most reliable one available.  

In my opinion, the first statement quoted above turns the second one into nonsense.

Once you acknowledge that false positives exist I believe it renders the entire polygraph process worthless.  This is a completely different issue than the accuracy of a polygraph.

If there were no such things as false positives then the polygraph would at least have some value, even if it were not 100% accurate in detecting deception.  Then if you had a subject who "failed" you and everyone else would know it was because the subject was being deceptive.  If the subject passed there would still be some doubt as to whether they were being deceptive, since the accuracy of the polygraph has never been claimed to be 100%.

However, once the possibility of a false positive comes up, all results become meaningless.  A "DI" result could mean that the subject was deceptive, or it could mean that the subject was truthful but is registering as a false positive.  An "NDI" result could mean that the subject was not being deceptive, or it could mean that the machine and its operator were simply not accurate enough to detect the subject's deception.  At the end of the test you don't know any more than you did at the start.

I agree that the polygraph is not a perfect system.  In fact, I believe it doesn't function as it is intended to at all, except by accident.  Calling it the most reliable system available is a nonsensical statement.  A system that does not work but has been around a long time and has gained some degree of acceptance is no more valid than a brand-new system which few people accept and which also does not work.

At one point in history I am fairly certain that some scientists thought phrenology was an unreliable method of determining a person's potential criminal proclivities.  I am also fairly certain that other scientists responded to such criticism by saying that phrenology was the best method available and until something better comes along they were going to keep using it.

Sergeant,
     There is a flaw to your logic.  Using that logic, we could say that the judicial system in the United States is flawed because innocent people have been inprisoned; therefore, we should abandon the system and just rely on what?  God to administer justice?
    You could also say that doctors misdiagnose illnesses all the time (I'd venture that this is much more common than false positives in the polygraph field); therefore, we should do away with the medical profession and just let our bodies heal themselves.
    Now we could argue statistics back and forth, and both of us could provide numbers from reliable and valid studies to show the effectiveness of the polygraph, but I believe the debate is weakened.  I prefer a common sense approach.  The problem is how do you know when someone is lying about an important issue.  One of the solutions is to use an istrument that has proven the abiltiy to detect physiological changes in a persons body that are related to the fear of detection of deception.  It may not be perfect, but there is nothing else that comes close.  Your solution is to abandon the practice because it is not perfect and I disagree with that logic as I pointed out.  I see it as a tool that is very useful when used properly by a well trained and ethical examiner.  
     I am not yet ready to let everyone out of prison because the criminal justice system is not perfect.
    

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 01, 2006, 06:10 PMSergeant,
    There is a flaw to your logic.  Using that logic, we could say that the judicial system in the United States is flawed because innocent people have been inprisoned; therefore, we should abandon the system and just rely on what?  God to administer justice?
   You could also say that doctors misdiagnose illnesses all the time (I'd venture that this is much more common than false positives in the polygraph field); therefore, we should do away with the medical profession and just let our bodies heal themselves.
   Now we could argue statistics back and forth, and both of us could provide numbers from reliable and valid studies to show the effectiveness of the polygraph, but I believe the debate is weakened.  I prefer a common sense approach.  The problem is how do you know when someone is lying about an important issue.  One of the solutions is to use an istrument that has proven the abiltiy to detect physiological changes in a persons body that are related to the fear of detection of deception.  It may not be perfect, but there is nothing else that comes close.  Your solution is to abandon the practice because it is not perfect and I disagree with that logic as I pointed out.  I see it as a tool that is very useful when used properly by a well trained and ethical examiner.  
    I am not yet ready to let everyone out of prison because the criminal justice system is not perfect.
   

Rather than changing the subject and getting into the criminal justice system and the medical profession, let's try to stay on the topic of the polygraph.  

I applaud your suggestion to use a common sense approach in the debate on the validity of the polygraph.  Let us endeavor to do so.  My suggestion was not to scrap the polygraph because it has not achieved deception-detection perfection; it was to scrap the polygraph because it does not work at all.

Looking at it from a common sense perspective I don't see how you can argue in favor of using a deception detection system that does not, in fact, detect deception.  

As an intimidator used to scare people into making a confession, the polygraph performs admirably if the person being interrogated believes it is capable of detecting lies.  If they do not believe that then the polygraph is worthless in that regard.

When used as a device used to measure a subject's heart rate, respiration rate, and galvanic skin responses, the polygraph functions admirably in that regard as well.  Does that correspond with an ability to detect deception?  Not according to me, not according to many others on this site, and not according to the Office of Technology Assessment or the National Academy of Sciences.

Falling back on the argument of, "It may not be perfect, but nothing else comes close" is what is truly flawed.  When assessing the validity of any system or tool the only common-sense way of doing so is to determine if and how well the system or tool performs its assigned function.  If it does not do so (like the polygraph and its inability to detect deception) then it is wholly irrelevant how much better or worse it is than other systems or tools that likewise fail to perform the same function.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 01, 2006, 03:43 PMMr Mystery,
    If you are ready to mortgage your house to put up as collateral because you are so certain you can beat a polygraph by using countermeasures, I think you should do that.  I can tell you that I won't take that bet, but I am certain that if you put up $500,000.00 (The estimated value of my house) as a bet to any polygraph examiner who can catch you using countermeasures, I am sure you will either be very rich, or very poor in a very short period of time.

At 99 to 1 odds (The implied payoff if an examiner can catch 99% of those attempting countermeasures).  I would only have to put up $5,050 to take your house.  With those odds it seems more like arbitrage than gambling.

Quote from: nonombre on Mar 25, 2006, 01:57 AM

Actually the only issue I see with the curent digital movement sensors is occasional noise in the signal that I believe to be related to muscle movements in other parts of the body.  If someone would like to make some real money, I suggest designing a filter to work in conjunction with the piezo device that would help to better isolate unrelated body movements...

Electronic devices these days have to meet FCC Class A(commercial) emission standards, a byproduct of which is that they tend to pick up less external interference. However, butt sensors are strain gauges and could be exposed in such a way as to meet FCC regs but still pick up EMF. Things that rub can produce astonishingly high voltages producing ESD (electro-static discharge). These would have a different spectral characteristic than strain changes due to motion and could well benefit from "filters" - if it's a problem. If this problem is suspected, the polygrapher could mitigate it by spraying the seat with one of 3M's anti-stat sprays. This lays down a thin, surfactant film that prevents and drains off static.

Marty

Quote from: Marty on Apr 01, 2006, 10:21 PM
Electronic devices these days have to meet FCC Class A(commercial) emission standards, a byproduct of which is that they tend to pick up less external interference. However, butt sensors are strain gauges and could be exposed in such a way as to meet FCC regs but still pick up EMF. Things that rub can produce astonishingly high voltages producing ESD (electro-static discharge). These would have a different spectral characteristic than strain changes due to motion and could well benefit from "filters" - if it's a problem. If this problem is suspected, the polygrapher could mitigate it by spraying the seat with one of 3M's anti-stat sprays. This lays down a thin, surfactant film that prevents and drains off static.

Marty

Thanks Marty,

I'll give it a try...

Regards,

Nonombre

Mr. Mystery,
     I agree with you that the polygraph does not detect deception, and that is not what is designed to do.  But the system, which is a polygraph being used by a trained examiner, using a very reliable method of question formulation to stimulate responses to specific questions is a very good method of detecting deception.
     Interestingly enough, I have seen plenty of people take the test who stated they did not believe it worked, and later admitted to deception when confronted by the results of the instrument.  If the system did not work, how would you explain those results?  That it was just mere chance that the instrument detected very slight physiological changes at the point specific questions were asked?
     I think most of the people on the anti-polygraph side of the arguement even have to admit that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the system works.  The most common argument I encounter is over the rate of reliability and specifically, on the issue of false positive responses.  Is there a danger that an innocent person will fail the polygraph exam due to a false positive response?  The answer is yes, that is one of the dangers of using the polygraph.
     That's where we get into the argument over what is fair as far as how the system is used and if there really is a need for polygraph examinations.  My belief is that the polygraph system is very good at detecting deception, which makes it extremely valuable to many different entities.  I also believe that over reliance on the use of polygraph is a danger that needs to be adequately monitored to protect innocent people from false positive results on the test.
    

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 02, 2006, 07:35 PM

I agree with you that the polygraph does not detect deception .....

I also believe that over reliance on the use of polygraph is a danger that needs to be adequately monitored to protect innocent people from false positive results on the test.

187Dick,

In these two statements alone (And I did modify this post, I cut out the superficial verbage). You more than support the reason why this website exists and what it represents. If I had you on the stand in court with this statement in hand, It would be fatal to you as a expert witness in front of a jury or judge (obviously if the evidence would ever be allowed in court), maybe in New Mexico. And proves why polygraphic evidence (testimony and artifacts) are not allowed in court.

But on another level, that last statement is why so many people have to turn to this website and learn. There are no protections what so ever, against unethical examiners. Your APA does set standards and a level of professional ethics. But does not enforce or have the teeth to enforce unethical behavior. The only true way to make sure people are not hurt is to end polygraph exams altogether. I suspect that most of the polygrapher posters on this medium do try and live by the code of ethics, as most are LE investigators or interrogators. But the FEDs either don't wish too or see no valid use in it, as they don't have to answer to anyone.

quickfix, you are excluded from this statement as your posts and decorum have been most professional. (I am guessing your an Army Warrant Officer (351B or 311B), therefore worthy of exception) as those are the only folks who I have meet as (Army Type)  polygraphers. Or at least a retired one.

Regards ....

Eos,
     I'm surprised that you feel those two statements would disqualify me as an expert.  The first statement, that the polygraph does not detect deception, is a simple fact.  The polygraph only detects and records physiological changes in the body.  Anyone who claims anything other than that is definitely not an expert on the use of the polygraph.
     The second statement is in regards to quality control efforts on the use of the polygraph.  From my standpoint, poorly trained or unethical examiners present the biggest threat to the polygraph community because they bring down the reliability rates of the rest of the profession.  They claim to be experts in the field of forensic psychophysiology and yet know very little about why polygraphs work.  They don't know how to set up and run a proper polygraph exams, and yet their results are factored into the validity and reliabilty studies.  I would think that whether you support or oppose the use of the polygraph, you would not want those people administering polygraph exams.
     I agree that the APA does not have sufficient control over the polygraph community enough to effectively eliminate bad examiners.  I am in strong support of state regulations implimented to quality control the profession.  (I don't support federal control because it would then be controlled by DoDPI).  
    

I'm sure we will talk again,
Take care.

187Dick,

While I whole heartedly concur that much oversite is needed. I see 2 vastly different camps within the polygraph community. First and formost the one where I have the least issue, that is in use by LEO's to do in criminals, and even if I have to defend someone, you can't  beat solid evidence, no matter how hard you try.

Second, obviously is the hiring and post employment polygraphs. Which is my biggest beef. If you have no control over the process and by many posters on this board, the FED examiners are the biggest offenders of violations in respect to personnal rights and ethics. How do you propose to reign in the unethical practices. Until this happens then as a matter of self protection, knowlege and use of contermeasures is the only course of action. Its unfortunate that this is a cause and effect, but I see very few other options. But the fact is, the few that are bad, undo any of the good that you folks that do try and be professional and ethical. Looking forward to your response.

Regards .....

EosJupiter,

You write:

Quote
187Dick,

While I whole heartedly concur that much oversite is needed. I see 2 vastly different camps within the polygraph community. First and formost the one where I have the least issue, that is in use by LEO's to do in criminals, and even if I have to defend someone, you can't  beat solid evidence, no matter how hard you try.  

Second, obviously is the hiring and post employment polygraphs. Which is my biggest beef. If you have no control over the process and by many posters on this board, the FED examiners are the biggest offenders of violations in respect to personnal rights and ethics. How do you propose to reign in the unethical practices. Until this happens then as a matter of self protection, knowlege and use of contermeasures is the only course of action. Its unfortunate that this is a cause and effect, but I see very few other options. But the fact is, the few that are bad, undo any of the good that you folks that do try and be professional and ethical. Looking forward to your response.

Regards .....

I don't believe so...  What goes on with regard to diagnostics by and large is not about good and bad (although there may well be good and bad individuals in practice) polygraphers, ethical and unethical ones, trained and untrained ones, qualified and unqualified ones or federal vs state and local examiners.  This about practicing polygraphers and those who are retired.  Those who are practicing (lie detection) are involved in quackery and those who are retired used to be involved in quackery.  The exception to this simple algorithm would the small (overall) minority of polygraphers in Japan (and elsewhere?) who are involved in the full-time utilization of concealed information testing for diagnostic purposes.  All of the rest of the nonsense should be stopped.

Dr. Richardson,

I agree to all aspects of polygraphy to be quackery (otherwise I wouldn't be here), but I have to respect the polygraphers that believe in being professional, although its highly illogical to support a system that is inherently flawed. Until we get the comprehensive polygraph protection law, we have to live with these folks. As bad as this system may be, we can't change these polygraphers beliefs, just like they won't change ours.  Thanks for the reminder

Regards  !!

Drew,
     The use of the polygraph in lie detection efforts has been proven successful in hundreds of studies by both the propolygraph community and the antipolygraph community.  Once you admit that there is a higher than average, verifiable accuracy pattern of detecting deception by experienced examiners using polygraph instruments, then you have to admit that there is a level of effectiveness in the use of them.  I have reviewed hundreds of reliability and validity studies, and all of them show a level of accuracy in the ability of examiners to detect deception of subjects being tested with the use of the polygraph.  
     I have not seen a single study that showed the level of effectiveness of single issue polygraph exams to be at or below where the average (50% on yes/no responses) would be.      
     The argument is simple, does attempted deception trigger responses in a subject's body from the sympathetic nervous system, and if so, can those responses be detected by instrumentation?  
     I believe research has proven that statement to be true in most cases.  My concern is the level of accuracy of the system.  (Which I measure in false positive responses).  Because my first hand experience involving the administration of polygraph exams has proven extremely reliable, I am of course in favor of the use of the polygraph to dectect the fear of deception.
     Now you seem to dispute any accuracy of the polygraph testing process.  While I certainly believe you are entitled to your opinion, I would like to know what you base it on.  
     I will look forward to hearing from you.


I'm sure we will talk again,
Take care.

187Dick,

I think even the most extremely anti-poly people would agree there is a higher level or accuracy on the specific issue/criminal investigations. though considerable less then perfect.   I personally do see how it can be an effective interogation tool.

What is your stand/opinion of the screening or pre-employment poly.

Thanks
polywantahcracker

Poly,
     I support the use of the polygraph for pre-employment screening.  I'll admit that multi-issue tests are less reliable than single issue tests; however, I still believe it's a valuable tool (when used with a very thorough background investigation) to evaluate potential employees.  While I know the system is not perfect, I know of numerous law enforcement applicants (including lateral candidates from outside agencies), who have admitted to some very serious felonies after failing the polygraph.  Interestingly, almost all of them were due to failing specific issue tests after showing deception on multi-issue tests.
     I also know the stress of taking a polygraph exam can make the experience rather traumatic, even for the innocent person; however, hundreds of thousands of people have passed the polygraph exam by doing one simple thing, telling the truth.  The main reason I come to this site is to hopefully infulence innocent people who have to take a polygraph exam to not get caught up believing they have to try some sort of countermeasures to pass.  I have seen far too many people fail the polygraph because they tried to conceal something that would not have even disqualified them from the position, than have failed  because their previous actions did disqualify them.
     Because I have fisthand experience with the polygraph, I don't doubt it's effectiveness when properly used.  

I hope I answered your quesiton,
Take care.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 06, 2006, 12:36 AMPoly,
    I support the use of the polygraph for pre-employment screening.  I'll admit that multi-issue tests are less reliable than single issue tests; however, I still believe it's a valuable tool (when used with a very thorough background investigation) to evaluate potential employees.  

Dear 187Dick,

There are alot of employment agencies, including the FBI, who perform no background investigation.  The prescreening polygraph is the judge, jury, and executioner of many applicants strictly based on polygraph "results" of a prescreening employement exam.  The FBI does not videotape (I assume that all videotape includes audio) or audiotape any of the prescreening exams.  Combine that with no background investigation to confirm polygraph accusations and it spells prejudice, heresay, and good ole-boy-syndrome.

It is just not right.  How clear can I say it?  The applicant should be given the reasonable doubt unless you have something more than polygraph results to destroy a person who wants federal employment.

There are thousands of retired FBI employees and current employees who have served honorably without the use of polygraph screening.  Future behavior cannot be predicited by polygraph screening.  We are leaving huge holes in security due to the belief that polygraph prescreening leads to more "trustworthy" applicants and employees.

The emporer has no clothes.  The system is broken.

Regards.

187Dick,

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of Polygraphers admit there are problems with pre-screening polygraphs however they all take the "you have to break some eggs to make an omlet" stance.

Depending on what side of the table your sitting on I can see how you can feel comfortable maintaning that opinion.  My side of the table is full of hopes, dreams, motivation, aspirations, skills and ability.  Yours has the "box" and the ability to trash everything on my side.

I for one don't understand how any applicant worth their salt wouldn't look at the drug requirements on the agencies website before applying.  I believe the vast majority do and those that don't fall in the guidlines don't apply.  Of course I have no proof of this, it is only my opinion.

This creates an applicant pool where in my opinion the vast majority meet the drug guidlines.  But somehow agencies like the FBI find a 50+% failure rate acceptable.  Frankly I think the questions regarding national security are a formality.  I would love to see the % + or - difference between how many applicants are rejected for national security vs. drug questions.    Maybe that's not a fair question because naturally we are not a country full of spies....but wouldn't that bias make it so, so difficult to find a spy.

Sorry for all the random observations....

-polywantahcracker

Polywantahcracker,

You write in part:

Quote
...because naturally we are not a country full of spies....but wouldn't that bias make it so, so difficult to find a spy....

Precisely.  Control Question Test (CQT) polygraph exams produce a completely unacceptable level of false positive results with specific issue testing and (due to this effect) indirectly a large number of false negative  (i.e., calling a spy non-deceptive in a polygraph exam) results in a national security screening exam.  Let me explain.  For the sake of this conversation let's say an individual polygraph exam were 90 per cent accurate (needless to say it's not and the results of what I am going to explain would be far worse than the dismal situation I will subsequently describe if we were to use realistic accuracy rates).

Let's assume we have reason to believe the FBI has its next Robert Hanssen in its group of  (to the first approximation) 10,000 FBI agents.  If the polygraph exam were 90 per cent accurate we would have a 90 per cent chance of having a deceptive chart for our next spy.  Because it is 10 per cent inaccurate we would also falsely accuse roughly 1000 innocent individuals out of our 10,000-person population.  We would (and do) have the intolerable situation of falsely accusing 1000 innocent employees while at the same time trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack, i.e., 1 true positive (our spy) to every 1000 false positives.  We would never (and have never) identify our spy based on this nonsense and would throw the routine comradery, trust, and ability to work effectively in the FBI into chaos.  Because of this phenomenon, the FBI (and other similar agencies) will virtually ignore all their positive test results (avoiding the immediate threat of falsely accusing an employee--their are exceptions (false positives that is, e.g., Mark Mallah) but they will never catch a spy with this algorithm.  If this whole exercise appears to you to produce a lack of national security, a serious risk for innocent employees and applicants, and a large waste of precious taxpayer-funded resources, you are as perceptive as your quoted comment would indicate.   Regards...

Polywantahcracker,

Please excuse me if I use my last post to address a separate audience.  I hope I addressed your comment satisfactorily.  I would like to address any National Security officials who might peruse this site from time to time and would like to pick up where I left off:

Quote
Precisely.  Control Question Test (CQT) polygraph exams produce a completely unacceptable level of false positive results with specific issue testing and (due to this effect) indirectly a large number of false negative  (i.e., calling a spy non-deceptive in a polygraph exam) results in a national security screening exam.  Let me explain.  For the sake of this conversation let's say an individual polygraph exam were 90 per cent accurate (needless to say it's not and the results of what I am going to explain would be far worse than the dismal situation I will subsequently describe if we were to use realistic accuracy rates).

Let's assume we have reason to believe the FBI has its next Robert Hanssen in its group of  (to the first approximation) 10,000 FBI agents.  If the polygraph exam were 90 per cent accurate we would have a 90 per cent chance of having a deceptive chart for our next spy.  Because it is 10 per cent inaccurate we would also falsely accuse roughly 1000 innocent individuals out of our 10,000-person population.  We would (and do) have the intolerable situation of falsely accusing 1000 innocent employees while at the same time trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack, i.e., 1 true positive (our spy) to every 1000 false positives.  We would never (and have never) identify our spy based on this nonsense and would throw the routine comradery, trust, and ability to work effectively in the FBI into chaos.  Because of this phenomenon, the FBI (and other similar agencies) will virtually ignore all their positive test results (avoiding the immediate threat of falsely accusing an employee--their are exceptions (false positives that is, e.g., Mark Mallah) but they will never catch a spy with this algorithm.  If this whole exercise appears to you to produce a lack of national security, a serious risk for innocent employees and applicants, and a large waste of precious taxpayer-funded resources, you are as perceptive as your quoted comment would indicate.   Regards...

I'd like to look at the aforementioned from the point of view of our fictional next spy.   The picture I have painted is considerably more favorable towards catching our spy than really exists, but even using the previously stated assumptions our spy finds himself sitting quite pretty.  At worst he is lumped into a population of a thousand and his chances of being caught are considerably reduced due to this 1 in a 1000 statistic.  Both he and you (national security official)  know that this population is virtually all composed of false positive polygraph results.  All he has to do is to take the Aldrich Ames approach and deny deny deny.  He is virtually guaranteed to be cleared based on your (National Security official) known and reasonable predisposition in the matter.  What if he wants to make the game a little more difficult and put himself in a bigger haystack and one that won't even be further looked at.  As I have indicated many times, a child can be taught to successfully employ countermeasure techniques.  Our spy is more motivated and, no doubt more knowledgeable than most, so I would suggest to you that he could easily put himself into the bigger grouping of the 9000 true negatives (innocent employees who were found to be non-deceptive) and be the only direct false negative in this case.  I hope it should be clear to you that you are playing a losing game if this is the strategy and game plan you have and currently employ.  If  any in your community would like to contact me directly I would be happy to discuss some ideas regarding how you might do a better job than that which has been done in the past.  Regards....

Drew,
     Your numbers are a little low compared to my research on valid and reliable studies of single issue tests; however, let's take your numbers and look at them a different way.  If the polygraph works accurately on 90% of the population, then added to other investigative measures, you have just reduced 90% of the failures of systems in place.  Additionally, when it comes to espionage cases, I think a blind system where the subject did not know if he passed or not, or was told he passed when he failed, and then monitored, I think the approach would be very good at screening for weaknesses in the system.
     Any of these issues can be addressed, but unfortunately, the Federal Government management systems are poster examples of broken systems.  There is no effort to rate effectiveness of managment approaches to various problems, which is in itself a major problem.  But that's an arguement for another web site.
     My point is this, any background or criminal investigation can greatly benefit by the use of a polygraph instrument with an ethical and well trained examiner.  It is not a replacement for any part of a background investigation, and needs to be used as a tool to make the investigation more accurate.  I have seen it also help people get into sensitive careers.  (If it were not for the polygraph exam, most people with ex-spouses may not get hired.)  I use that example to illustrate the fact that first hand accounts of incidents or a person's character are far less accurate than polygraph exams, and yet the reliance on them is rarely questioned.
     Until a better system is created, the polygraph exam is here to stay.  People will continue to come to this site who are scheduled for a polygraph exam.  As more states adopt mandatory polygraph exams for child molestors who are released from prison, I'm sure the number of visitors to this site will increase.  Fortunately, the countermeasures you keep advising people to use are not too difficult for most experienced examiners to detect.
     As I have stated before, it's the foolish person who has never taken a polygraph examination, and takes your advice, causing them to fail the polygraph, and gets denied a job because of it that I hope to influence.  (Run on sentence, I know, but I couldn't help it.)  The best way to pass the polygraph examination is to tell the truth.  Hundreds of thousands of people have used that tactic and have been successful.

We will talk again,
Take care.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 07, 2006, 01:11 AMAs more states adopt mandatory polygraph exams for child molestors who are released from prison, I'm sure the number of visitors to this site will increase.  Fortunately, the countermeasures you keep advising people to use are not too difficult for most experienced examiners to detect.

It has come full circle now.  We have had a polygrapher blow in here and claim that those who dislike polygraphs are a bunch of child molesting spies.  Here is my all time favorite, it is the 2nd post down.

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=trashbin;action=display;num=1090549423;start=1#1

Eos,
     I noticed the posting you took the quote from disappeared from the last ten posts on the site.  I did not realized this site censored opposing opinions.  It shows you for what you really are.  

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 07, 2006, 01:11 AMDrew,
    Your numbers are a little low compared to my research on valid and reliable studies of single issue tests; however, let's take your numbers and look at them a different way.  If the polygraph works accurately on 90% of the population, then added to other investigative measures, you have just reduced 90% of the failures of systems in place.  Additionally, when it comes to espionage cases, I think a blind system where the subject did not know if he passed or not, or was told he passed when he failed, and then monitored, I think the approach would be very good at screening for weaknesses in the system.
    Any of these issues can be addressed, but unfortunately, the Federal Government management systems are poster examples of broken systems.  There is no effort to rate effectiveness of managment approaches to various problems, which is in itself a major problem.  But that's an arguement for another web site.
    My point is this, any background or criminal investigation can greatly benefit by the use of a polygraph instrument with an ethical and well trained examiner.  It is not a replacement for any part of a background investigation, and needs to be used as a tool to make the investigation more accurate.  I have seen it also help people get into sensitive careers.  (If it were not for the polygraph exam, most people with ex-spouses may not get hired.)  I use that example to illustrate the fact that first hand accounts of incidents or a person's character are far less accurate than polygraph exams, and yet the reliance on them is rarely questioned.
    Until a better system is created, the polygraph exam is here to stay.  People will continue to come to this site who are scheduled for a polygraph exam.  As more states adopt mandatory polygraph exams for child molestors who are released from prison, I'm sure the number of visitors to this site will increase.  Fortunately, the countermeasures you keep advising people to use are not too difficult for most experienced examiners to detect.
    As I have stated before, it's the foolish person who has never taken a polygraph examination, and takes your advice, causing them to fail the polygraph, and gets denied a job because of it that I hope to influence.  (Run on sentence, I know, but I couldn't help it.)  The best way to pass the polygraph examination is to tell the truth.  Hundreds of thousands of people have used that tactic and have been successful.

We will talk again,
Take care.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 07, 2006, 01:51 AMEos,
    I noticed the posting you took the quote from disappeared from the last ten posts on the site.  I did not realized this site censored opposing opinions.  It shows you for what you really are.  

187Dick,

As I have no idea of what your talking about ? I can't or won't delete posts unless they are my own. Sorry I am not an administrator. And if you got something to say, then say it straight out. As I do know what I am ....
If someone is deleting your posts, check elsewhere, as anyone else on this board knows me much better than that. I do use snippets of posts in my posts, but no more.
So enough of this nonsense ...

Regards  

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 07, 2006, 01:51 AMEos,
    I noticed the posting you took the quote from disappeared from the last ten posts on the site.  I did not realized this site censored opposing opinions.  It shows you for what you really are.  

Your post was not censored. When you view the "most recent posts" (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=recent) link, what is displayed is not the last 10 posts to the message board, but rather the last post in each of the 10 most recently updated discussion threads. Mr. Mystery's post automatically replaced yours as the most recent post for this discussion thread.

187Dick,

In order for screening exam/confirmatory exam combination to be effective, several things have to occur: (1) the screening exam has to be highly sensitive (i.e. will detect espionage, etc. in the case of a national security polygraph exam), (2) the confirmatory exam has to be highly specific (will never lead to an innocent person being left a suspect or accused of espionage, etc. in the case of a follow-up investigation following national security polygraph exam, (3) the screening  exam should  always be paired/confirmed by a confirmatory exam, and (4) the confirmatory exam should be orthogonal (independent) of the screening exam and should be able to be performed in a reasonable and timely manner so as to quickly confirm or deny the screening result.

Polygraph exams and follow-up investigation if viewed  as such a pair fail on every count, but it is the fourth point I would like to elaborate on for a second.  Far from being independent, the investigation is frequently driven by the polygraph result (e.g., in the Dr. Thomas Butler case (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1400.msg11116#msg11116) how much effort was devoted to looking at other sources for the cause of the missing vials of plague following the polygraph exam results?? --the vials were never recovered and Butler was exonerated on most of the plague charges)  or the (changing) investigative theory will often affect the polygraph exam outcome (e.g., public reporting of the Wen Ho Lee case  (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=429.msg1989#msg1989)).  If you believe that you have the background to discuss screening/confirmatory testing as appropriately used in the physical sciences, I would be happy to compare and contrast these and the aforementioned polygraph/further investigation model with you.  

Because  of such problems being left unaddressed  by the (at first blush reasonable and sufficient) pairing of a polygraph result with further investigation , the innocent will often be left hanging in the wind for a long if not indefinite period of time and the guilty may be able to continue in whatever nefarious activity (e.g., Aldrich Ames, Gary Leon Ridgway a.k.a. Green River Killer) with impunity.

Gentlemen,

As a soldier on the front lines, I will admit that the polygraph usage is increasing in the Federal sector.  I have admitted as much in many of my past postings.  I have no delusions that the polygraph is going away.

That said, I assure you that prescreening polygraph usage in today's FBI is killing a huge crop of applicants that would have been accepted in the 1970s and 1980s.

Good scientific minds that can think "out of the box" and "connect the dots" are not even applying because they give no validity to any agency that uses the polygraph for employment decisions.

The private sector unemployment is down and competition for top talent is up.  This is the worst case scenario that I have predicted for the last two years.

The FBI is not able to get the people it needs to accomplish its mission and the polygraph is an anchor being dragged on the bottom by a ship that needs to sail at full speed.

187Dick,

Thank you for your civil discussion.  Only in extreme cases have I found this site censored in anyway.

Regards.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 07, 2006, 01:11 AMIf the polygraph works accurately on 90% of the population, then added to other investigative measures, you have just reduced 90% of the failures of systems in place.

Care to elaborate on this point?  Specific numbers like Drew used in his spy example would work.  (hint: If the polygraph were only 50% accurate, you would reduce 0, not 50, percent of the failues of systems in place.  You can't just go from 90% accuracy to 90% of failures removed.)

Onesimus,
     While my mathematical approach was rather simplistic, it's still relatively accurate.  If the polygraph worked on 50% of the population, that would be the same as not working.  50% would represent an equal guess right or wrong on yes or no answers.  (The average.)  If the polygraph were only that accurate, I would be siding wih almost everyone esle on this site in regards to the elimination of the polygraph exam as part of a security background check, pre-employment screening and even criminal investigations.  I can tell you that my opinion of the CVSA is exactly that.  It's a piece of junk and does not work.  The polygraph as used by a well trained and ethical examiner is a different story.
     If the polygraph is working 90% of the time,  then it stands to reason that 9 out of 10 people who are administered an exam would be detected by a good examiner.  The failures would be divided between false positives and false negatives, hopefully heavily weighted toward false negatives.  Now if the polygraph is used properly as an investigative tool (which I will admit is not always the case), then in all cases where the other investigative steps failed, (whether to clear or target subjects), the polygraph would be a useful tool in putting the investigation back on the right course.
     Of course the argument to that is that it would also add investigative scrutiny to completed investigations where the subject had passed the investigative process, but had failed the polygraph exam.
     Another factor that I don't like to stress, but admit is something to consider, is the deterrent factor.  I know that many years ago when I was in college, I was tempted to participate in illegal drug use with many of my friends.  Even if I had the attitude back then that I would quit when I finished college, I also knew that if I wanted a career in law enforcement, I would most likely have to submit to a polygraph examination during the background investigation.  That piece of knowledge kept me away from even minor drug use in college.
     I bring that up because I may have gone down the same slippery slope that so many do when they use illegal drugs.  They don't intend to end up where they do, but so many of them do.  I believe it's the same with most cases of espionage in this country.  Most cases start out small where some entity exploits a weakness in someone who already has the security clearance.  Once that step is taken, the person becomes a slave to that entity with no chance of turning back or saying no.  Hopefully, the possibility of an annual polygraph exam will keep many from taking that first step in the wrong direction.  One thing about deterrence though, and why I don't like to use it as an argument in favor of polygraph exams, it can never be measured.  We don't know if it worked one time or a thousand times.  Other than my own experience, I can not offer a single specific incident where I can say it absolutely had that effect.  But the logic of why I believe it does work is still worth mentioning.

We will talk again.

PS  
Eos,
     Sorry about the false accusation.  It was later explained to me why my original post had disappeared from the ten most recent posts page.  There was no censorship.  I was relieved and humbled.  Please accept my apology.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 07, 2006, 01:11 AMFortunately, the countermeasures you keep advising people to use are not too difficult for most experienced examiners to detect.

Care to elaborate on how you can tell the difference in a readout between a high reading due to lying/withholding information, and someone artificially causing those results?

I would throughlly enjoy hearing your explanation.  Examiners say that if you are lying, you will react by breathing heavier, sweating and/or elevated pulse rate.  If the examinee were to produce these on their own, how can you tell the difference?

If you choose to answer, please be specific.

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 10, 2006, 06:52 PMOnesimus,
    While my mathematical approach was rather simplistic, it's still relatively accurate.

Here is a more detailed approach I took to a similar problem:

numbers game (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1240.msg9914#msg9914)

Quote from: 187Dick on Apr 10, 2006, 06:52 PMPS  
Eos,
    Sorry about the false accusation.  It was later explained to me why my original post had disappeared from the ten most recent posts page.  There was no censorship.  I was relieved and humbled.  Please accept my apology.

187Dick,

Apology accepted .... Keep on debating !!

Regards  ....