It occurs to me that we demonize the LE depts that utilize the polygraph as a requirement for entry based on the concept that: polygraphy has no grounding in scientific fact, and to rely on it for finding the difference between truth and deception is foolhardy.
But something else has come to my mind, and this concept might be difficult to comprehend for some because it validates the use of the polygraph in a context of law enforcement recruiting.
Members on this site argue that the polygraph produces many "false positives" in that, when a subject was polygraphed, they assert that they told the truth, but somehow still "failed" the polygraph, whether on account of nervousness or something else. But nervousness is exactly what I'm striking at here.
Is it not possible that police polygraphers, when examining a subject, would see general nervousness and anxiety as a negative trait, no matter whether the polygrapher believes they are telling the truth or not? Think about it this way: if I'm a police recruiter administering a polygraph, and the subject I'm examining (whether I think he's truthful or not) is a "screamer" and seems generally high-strung or nervous during the test, is that a candidate I would want to hire to my department? This is a man, who, if hired, would be carrying a gun and be put in much higher-stress situations that a polygraph. In other words, would my department be best suited to arm a man with a lethal weapon who gets high-strung in pressure situations?
My theory is this: the police depts who polygraph aren't just looking to differentiate between liars and the truthful, and they aren't just looking to get people to spill their guts. They are looking for candidates who are calm under pressure. Being a LEO is a high stress situation, and if a candidate is anxious during a polygraph, what will he do when he comes across a tense situation in the field (especially when he or she is armed?)
In this context I would defend, perhaps even advocate, the use of the polygraph to see how a candidate can handle pressure. As a truth-finding tool, it is flawed, most certainly, except on the naive. But as a tool to measure a candidate's ability to be confident and cool in all encounters, I can defend it's use. Perhaps we must consider that idea, that we don't give the polygraph enough credit. The name of the polygraph means "many writings," perhaps it gives recruiters more data that we give it credit for.
I welcome all ideas, comments and/or criticisms on this line of thought. Just keep it intelligent and rational please.
Random_Man
Interesting concept, but that is not what it is used for. Other areas of the application process attempt to identify those who may be "unable to respond under pressure." The polygraph is a better tool at specific issues, rather than pre-employment screening. That does not mean it does not have a valid use in pre-employment screening. It is like any tool. When used in an appropriate fashion, it will benefit the process. It should not be used as the only factor to disqualify an applicant. In my experience, in almost all situations where there is a "DI" test in a pre-employment scenario, all the agency has to do is look a little deeper and they will find a reason to stop the application process. In my agency, a "DI" pre-employment test is not the sole disqualifying factor. If all we have is an unresolved "DI" test (and that is in less that 5% of the cases with my agency), the applicant will continue with the process. And, to the surprise of some posters, even a "DI" test with an admission/confession will not automatically DQ and applicant. It all depends on what type of an issue we are talking about.
Why this is a bad idea:
1) There are many reasons why someone could fail a polygraph test other than just being nervous. For example, if the applicant tells the truth on control questions, it will be harder to pass the test even if they are calm. Being truthfull should not prevent one from becoming a police officer.
2) The amount of stress a polygrapher places on an examinee varies wildly from examiner to examiner and test to test, so no level playing field would exist.
3) There is no scientific evidence (that I am aware of) that suggests people who fail polygraph tests, but are otherwise qualified applicants, are less capable of handling firearms. The real-life situations cops face are vastly different than the polygraph experience.
You could argue that qualified applicants that fail a polygraph test are better candidates than those who pass the test.
1) Those that passed probably willfully lied on control questions in order to obtain a job and might be less trustworthy than those who failed.
2) Those that passed were probably duped into believing the accuracy of an un-scientific test and may be less intelligent than those who failed.
3) Those that passed may have cheated on the test in order to pass.
etc.
Random_Man,
You really need to read up on the CQT as not only is it unscientific, it is biased against the truthful...
The reason it is unscientific is because it is based on emotion rather than cognitive response which makes it inherently unreliable. How do you know if the elevated heart rate, rapid breathing, and sweating is from anger, nervousness, disgust, guilt or some underlying medical condition such as hypertension or hyperthyroidism?
And people respond differently based on the situation so just because someone is nervous during a job interview doesn't mean they'll react poorly while in the field and vice versa.
Think of things that might make you nervous: public speaking, asking a girl out, math tests. Does fairing poorly during these encounters mean that you'll lack the necessary bravery when confronted with a life-threatening situation?
The polygraph is pseudoscientific flapdoodle and needs to be tossed onto the heap of other debunked methods such as lead bullet analysis. Its continued use is a threat to national security and public safety.
One of the members here, Nonombre, is a police polygrapher. He and I had an exchange about something similar not too long ago.
If an applicant came to Nonombre during a polygraph test and was perfectly calm, controlling his breathing and emotion despite the inherent stress in the test, it would be a problem. Nonombre would stop the test and counsel the applicant about controlling his breathing and controlling his stress, which is unacceptable during a polygraph. If the applicant continued to exhibit the very desirable trait of being able to control his stress responses Nonombre would fail him for "purposeful non-cooperation."
I don't think your idea holds water. The polygraph examiner doesn't want someone who maintains their calm and controls their breathing throughout the test; doing so makes the test a waste of time.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 22, 2006, 09:32 AMOne of the members here, Nonombre, is a police polygrapher. He and I had an exchange about something similar not too long ago.
If an applicant came to Nonombre during a polygraph test and was perfectly calm, controlling his breathing and emotion despite the inherent stress in the test, it would be a problem. Nonombre would stop the test and counsel the applicant about controlling his breathing and controlling his stress, which is unacceptable during a polygraph. If the applicant continued to exhibit the very desirable trait of being able to control his stress responses Nonombre would fail him for "purposeful non-cooperation."
I don't think your idea holds water. The polygraph examiner doesn't want someone who maintains their calm and controls their breathing throughout the test; doing so makes the test a waste of time.
Sergeant,
You have it half right. I do not believe I ever discussed the ability to control one's "stress." Hell, there are lots of days I wish I could control my "stress."
(Homicide is an option I guess, but I hear that's illegal in most jurisdictions...:))
You and I may have discussed the situation in which an examinee purposely controls his breathing (for whatever the reason).
The problem that controlled breathing creates, is a chart with obvious artifacts resulting from the DELIBERATE slowing by the examinee of his respiration cycles.
Most of the time, a brief discussion with the examinee will correct the problem. However, if after repeated attempts to work with the examinee fail, and the clear and obvous attempts to manipulate the physiology continue, then I must stop the test and document the deliberate failure to cooperate. The job this particular applicant has applied for is then given to someone more qualified to hold a position of trust.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 22, 2006, 03:01 PM
You and I may have discussed the situation in which an examinee purposely controls his breathing (for whatever the reason).
The problem that controlled breathing creates, is a chart with obvious artifacts resulting from the DELIBERATE slowing by the examinee of his respiration cycles.
Most of the time, a brief discussion with the examinee will correct the problem. However, if after repeated attempts to work with the examinee fail, and the clear and obvous attempts to manipulate the physiology continue, then I must stop the test and document the deliberate failure to cooperate. The job this particular applicant has applied for is then given to someone more qualified to hold a position of trust.
Regards,
Nonombre
How can you know for sure if one's breathing is "controlled"/
Put an examineee in a highly sterssful situation (where their future OR existing job may be on the line -- family, mortgage etc etc). Put that examinee in a small room with a table, chair and two way mirror. Put in on overweight intimidating polygrapher. Strap that person in to the chest tube, crank up the blood pressure cuff so their arm goes to sleep, then changes color.
Then stop the test half way through to tell the examinee "this has got to stop. You are being uncooperative. You are controlling your breathing."
The examinee respondes (totally perplexed) "ok; I want to get through this. Tell me what you want me to do."
Polygraher "stop thinking about your breathing."
Get real.
Looking at a blank wall, answering stupid questions "have you ever sold drugs? have you ever leaked to a reporter?" (of course not)... What is one supposed to think about in this situation???
"Stop controlling your breathing! Stop thinking about your breathing!!"
"How can I stop thinking about my breathing when you keep yelling it!!"
How the hell can you conclude that an examinee is PURPOSEFULLY uncooperative in this situation? How the hell can you conclude based on that the candidate is underserving of a position of trust?
Nothing personal, nonombre, but in general, I hope all polygraphers (who don't repent and see the errors of their ways) go to hell for the damage they inflict on innocent people.
Have a nice day.
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 22, 2006, 05:06 PM
How can you know for sure if one's breathing is "controlled"/
Put an examineee in a highly sterssful situation (where their future OR existing job may be on the line -- family, mortgage etc etc). Put that examinee in a small room with a table, chair and two way mirror. Put in on overweight intimidating polygrapher...
"...overweight intimidating polygrapher?"
I am not "overweight." In fact I run a sub 8 minute mile...
How 'bout you?
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 22, 2006, 07:58 PM
"...overweight intimidating polygrapher?"
I am not "overweight." In fact I run a sub 8 minute mile...
How 'bout you?
Regards,
Nonombre
In the 6 minute range. Without even controlling my breathing.
Now, would you care to address the substantive portion of my previous post?
Nonombre,
As a police officer yourself I am sure you know that one of the methods we are taught for controlling our autonomic nervous system during periods of stress is to consciously control our breathing. Whether it takes the form of repeatedly shouting "Stop resisting!" during a fight (you can't shout if you're not breathing) or it manifests itself as the forced four-count during a shooting situation (to forcibly break the tendency we have to hold our breath so as not to miss anything) we all train, with varying degrees of success, to learn how to control our stress levels by controlling our breathing.
Since losing control of your autonomic nervous system under stress leads to irrationally simplistic acts of fight or flight (without anything resembling a trained, reasoned response) it logically follows that being able to control your stress level by the time-tested method of consciously controlling your breathing is a very desirable trait for a police officer to have.
It seems cruelly ironic that a trait it is critical for a newly hired police officer to learn can, perversely, prevent them from being hired if they already possess it during the testing process.
I would be interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion that a person who consciously controls his or her breathing during a period of stress is somehow unqualified to hold a position of trust. They may be unqualified to sit for a pseudoscientific test with arbitrary "rules" of breathing and thinking that have little or nothing to do with truth or deception, but I don't see how such a person is unsuitable for a position of public trust.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 23, 2006, 08:25 PMNonombre,
As a police officer yourself I am sure you know that one of the methods we are taught for controlling our autonomic nervous system during periods of stress is to consciously control our breathing. Whether it takes the form of repeatedly shouting "Stop resisting!" during a fight (you can't shout if you're not breathing) or it manifests itself as the forced four-count during a shooting situation (to forcibly break the tendency we have to hold our breath so as not to miss anything) we all train, with varying degrees of success, to learn how to control our stress levels by controlling our breathing.
Since losing control of your autonomic nervous system under stress leads to irrationally simplistic acts of fight or flight (without anything resembling a trained, reasoned response) it logically follows that being able to control your stress level by the time-tested method of consciously controlling your breathing is a very desirable trait for a police officer to have.
It seems cruelly ironic that a trait it is critical for a newly hired police officer to learn can, perversely, prevent them from being hired if they already possess it during the testing process.
I would be interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion that a person who consciously controls his or her breathing during a period of stress is somehow unqualified to hold a position of trust. They may be unqualified to sit for a pseudoscientific test with arbitrary "rules" of breathing and thinking that have little or nothing to do with truth or deception, but I don't see how such a person is unsuitable for a position of public trust.
Sergeant,
Since you and Jeffrey are posing similar points (although you do present a more rational and objective argument) allow me to address you both.
In my recent post, I make the point that after properly addressing the problem of controlled breathing during a polygraph examination, the majority of the examinees cease this behavior.
When I say "the majority," I mean the VAST majority (perhaps 95%.)
So what I have left is 5%. Now if I was to stipulate that only perhaps half of the number were engaging in that behavior in a deliberate effort to "beat" the polygraph examination, then that would leave 2 1/2% of the examinees so "shook up" by the process that they could not "control" their controlled breathing, no matter what assistance is provided by the polygraph examiner...
Well, I am sure you are going to hate what I am about to say, but I see that as no different from the small percentage of police applicants who...
Bomb the written test because they are "no good at tests.:
Do one less sit-up than the minimum, because they are under stress.
Screw up the psych eval because they could not figure out the "correct" responses.
Come across as an idiot during the interview, because they are "nervous."
All these might have been good police officers had they had the chance...Maybe not...
We will never know, because MANY OTHERS made it through the process without these problems and were therefore selected, while these poor souls were not...
Too bad, so sad...
Remember, a police career is a privilege and a responsibility, not a "right." When will you guys figure that out?
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 24, 2006, 01:06 AM
Too bad, so sad...
Sums up exactly the way thoughtless and heartless burocrats view things when ones government brands people liars simply because they were deemed to be "uncooperative" because their breathing patterns did not conform to pseudoscientific norms.
I would have breatehd however the polygrapher wanted me to -- but when he says "just don't think about your breathing" -- that is a complete joke. Answer this -- how can one not think about their breathing when they're in the polygraph interrogation (and possibly not for the first time) with their career, mortgage, kid's tuition etc depending on te outcome of a test with no scientific basis -- right after being yelled at in a hostile manner over "controlling your breathing." You can talk about all kinds of autonomic responses etc, but how do you clear your mind so you are not "thinking about your breathing". You become so stressed about breathing, that you consciously just alter your breathing pattern. Is that the knid of "non-breathing-thinking" you want?
The other tests you mention are objective and can be mapped to core job skills, so are completely irrelevant to the discussion that harm that polygraphs cause to the (let's take your extremely low 2.5% nuimber) of poeple unfairly subjected to this practice.
Too bad, so sad... Is that the best you got?
Nonombre:
Good to see you back.
Quote from: retcopper on Jul 24, 2006, 11:27 AMNonombre:
Good to see you back.
It IS good to see you back! There are many questions and comments for you guys that retcopper is afraid to answer. ::)
Underminingtruth
If you have taken as many polygraphs as you say you have then I care not to respond to people like you. So keep on posting your nonsense but do not include me in your rhetorical drivel.
Perhaps a new DQ should be called, more appropriately then, "too nervous for LE work"? Some of the best LEO's I have known and worked with, including in some very tense situations, have done poorly at best on a polygraph. I certainly didn't consider them too nervous for LE and I know that their character was/is beyond any "reproachable" standard that we would objectively apply.
Quote from: retcopper on Jul 24, 2006, 01:04 PMUnderlyingtruth
... keep on posting your nonsense but do not include me in your rhetorical drivel.
OK, KM, since I never really expected a polygrapher to answer the difficult questions anyway, I won't.
To handle stress when dealing with your job requires training, knowledge, experience etc. How can this person justify using a poly exam to test someone who comes into the exam thinking if they tell the truth, then they have nothing to be concerned about!
Has this person never heard of a cold blooded killer? ???
When they kill, they remain calm. From what I have read about how to pass the poly, one stays calm until one decides to elevate a responce to a control question.
By the way, I have heard of chairs being able to detect the pucker CM. Is this true? I hear no and yes.
It's a pad that some examiners will have you sit on. It's pretty sensitive, and only detects movement. I've never heard of it being incorporated into the chair itself, but I suppose it's possible.
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 24, 2006, 01:06 AMIn my recent post, I make the point that after properly addressing the problem of controlled breathing during a polygraph examination, the majority of the examinees cease this behavior.
Nonombre,
My point is, why is controlling your breathing in a stressful situation a problem? It is an important skill for a police officer to have, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are answering questions truthfully or not.
How a subject breathes shouldn't have anything to do with passing a purportedly scientific test that is allegedly able to detect when someone is telling the truth or being deceptive.
The part that I consider to be "too bad, so sad" is that some percentage of police applicants (whether it is 2.5%, 25%, or whatever) are disqualified because they don't allow themselves to become stressed in a stressful situation, and the polygraph examiner doesn't know if they are doing so in an attempt to lie or are doing so because they are simply skilled at maintaining their calm in stressful situations.
If only there was some method of determining if these people were actually lying or simply breathing to control their stress because that's how they deal with stress... Hmmm...
Sergeant1107 states it clearly. If the polygraph were truly an effective, reliable devise, it would be able to detect (scientifically) when someone is telling the truth or being deceptive regardless of the way one may breathe.
I think this is a touchy subject for examiners because breathing is one input that the tester can consciously control. If there are only minimal variations in the breathing patterns throughout the test questions, this will somewhat eliminate that variable all together. Compound that with deliberate fluctuations on CQs and you have skewed up to half of their data.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 25, 2006, 11:09 AM
Nonombre,
My point is, why is controlling your breathing in a stressful situation a problem? It is an important skill for a police officer to have, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are answering questions truthfully or not.
How a subject breathes shouldn't have anything to do with passing a purportedly scientific test that is allegedly able to detect when someone is telling the truth or being deceptive.
The part that I consider to be "too bad, so sad" is that some percentage of police applicants (whether it is 2.5%, 25%, or whatever) are disqualified because they don't allow themselves to become stressed in a stressful situation, and the polygraph examiner doesn't know if they are doing so in an attempt to lie or are doing so because they are simply skilled at maintaining their calm in stressful situations.
If only there was some method of determining if these people were actually lying or simply breathing to control their stress because that's how they deal with stress... Hmmm...
Hey Sergeant,
How ya doin'? Okay, I guess the final word I will say regarding "controlled breathing" is this:
Look at your watch, Okay, now do you best to take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period. Does that feel natural? Do you think that looks natural? Go ahead, practice for awhile. Does that feel natural yet? Is your body feeling a little oxygen starved? Go ahead, keep it up for awhile...
Sergeant, on the polygraph, that looks exactly like what it is, a deliberate and intentional behavior. Is it a countermeasure? Or is it all this fine "Police Training" I have been hearing about in the last few days? Who knows? Who cares? In any case, when the VAST majority of the applicants observed engaging in this behavior are told to STOP, they do. No harm, nor foul. Those that don't are sent on their way, highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries...
Regards,
Nonombre
The following informed commentary was forwarded to AntiPolygraph.org with a request that it be posted anonymously:Underlyingtruth,
You write:
QuoteSergeant1107 states it clearly. If the polygraph were truly an effective, reliable devise, it would be able to detect (scientifically) when someone is telling the truth or being deceptive regardless of the way one may breathe.
I think this is a touchy subject for examiners because breathing is one input that the tester can consciously control. If there are only minimal variations in the breathing patterns throughout the test questions, this will somewhat eliminate that variable all together. Compound that with deliberate fluctuations on CQs and you have skewed up to half of their data.
Although you are correct in your assertion that the respiratory channel can be manipulated knowledgably, at will, and under control by the examinee, the phenomenon is much more all-encompassing and significant than you realize. Polygraphers are taught that there are roughly a dozen or less scorable respiratory responses (see various AntiPolygraph.org reading room (http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml) documents outlining these responses)* that you and anyone can be taught to produce with about 5 minutes of practice. Let me repeat--not only can you generally affect the respiratory channels, but also you can easily and specifically produce the responses to control questions that are widely recognized and scored.
Adding even more significance to this phenomenon is the fact that the eletrodermal (sweating) center and the respiratory center are in close proximity in the medulla of the examinee's brainstem. Trust me--lol---this little bit of anatomical trivia does have some significance--almost any manipulation involving respiration (because of the cross or dual activation of the two centers) will be mirrored in some way in the electrodermal channel, i.e., you get twice the bang for your buck as it were, i.e., affecting two dependent variables (respiration and sweating) for your efforts at manipulating one (respiration). This latter connection is so well known in polygraph circles, that your examiner would like you to take a deep breath before the substantive test without his instructing you to do so just to see if the electrodermal channel is functioning properly. Make no mistake--taking a
deep breath at control questions (or any other point within the exam) is
not a successful respiratory countermeasure (either thought by your examiner to be a countermeasure or an artifact leaving you likely to be accused of the former), but producing the known and widely scored respiratory pattern alterations (part of the public record available to everyone on this site) is most definitely one part of a logical route for successful countermeasure effort(s).
* Note: See, especially, the DoDPI Numerical Evaluation Scoring System (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-numerical-scoring-08-2004.pdf). --AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
To the anonymous poster:
I'm sure nonombre and the rest of the pro-poly camp don't appreciate your "anatomical trivia," but the rest of us sure do ;)
Nonombre,
You write in part:
"Look at your watch, Okay, now do you best to take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period. Does that feel natural? Do you think that looks natural? Go ahead, practice for awhile. Does that feel natural yet? Is your body feeling a little oxygen starved? Go ahead, keep it up for awhile..."
Where do you get that anyone on this message board thinks we can only take one to two breaths per 20 to 25 seconds during a polygraph exam.? Obviously, this does not feel natural, who ever said that it did.? With a little focused attention and a few minutes of practice, anyone can learn to control their breathing rate, 4-seconds per breath... or, 2 seconds in, and 2 seconds out. Not to exceed no more than 4-seconds per breathing cycle.
If you think someone trying to control their breathing would actually take only one or two breaths per 20 to 25 seconds would be foolish. I would have to agree with you on this issue. It would obviously appear that the examinee is holding their breath if only they only took one to two breaths per 20/25 seconds.
Who on this board would argue with you on that... you're right! They would be foolish.
Those of us that have actually taken polygraphs and employed cm's which include controlled breathing rates know that you should maintain a breathing rate of approximately 4-seconds per breathing cycle, in & out = 4 seconds.
No argument with you on the one to two breathes per 20 to 25 seconds here...
triple x
TripleX
I think the instances of individuals being "caught" using breathing countermeasures (such as those nonombre described) are simply accounts where the examinee is just a complete dumbass and has no clue what he/she is doing.
If one uses breathing countermeasures as per TLBTLD, then I would find it very hard to believe they could be detected. Otherwise, all of the internet celebrity polygraphers (such as nonombre) would have already stepped up to the plate to accept Andy Richardson's Countermeasure Challenge ;)
alterego1,
I completely agree with you... anyone who goes into a polygraph trying to breathe only once or twice every 20/25 seconds deserves to fail. That's completely idiotic.
What post did Nonombre get the idea that someone would want to basically hold their breath during a polygraph? Actually, I think there is a short reference in Doug Williams book, "How to sting the polygraph" that describes holding your breath for short periods during a polygraph exam. However, I would have to go back and read his book again, but I think even Doug Williams advised against holding your breath during a polygraph.
v/r
triple x
Quote from: triple x on Jul 30, 2006, 02:05 AMalterego1,
I completely agree with you... anyone who goes into a polygraph trying to breathe only once or twice every 20/25 seconds deserves to fail. That's completely idiotic.
What post did Nonombre get the idea that someone would want to basically hold their breath during a polygraph? Actually, I think there is a short reference in Doug Williams book, "How to sting the polygraph" that describes holding your breath for short periods during a polygraph exam. However, I would have to go back and read his book again, but I think even Doug Williams advised against holding your breath during a polygraph.
v/r
triple x
Triple x,
Truth is, I see it all the time. Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations. I believe someone else referred to these folks as "dumb asses.") I must agree. However, that does not mitigate the fact that there are lots of them out there...
Like I said, I talk to each of these people and explain the facts of life. Approximately 95% of them will then drop their attempts to manipulate the test and we will then get along just fine. The remainder are considered good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop. Not my police department....
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre,
Fair enough, understood.
Just curious... what do the polygraph examinee's say in response to you questioning their breathing rate of one or two breaths per 20/25 seconds.?
Do they actually admit that they were trying to control their breathing, or, do they tell you that they did not realize they were only taking one to two breaths per 20/25 seconds?
triple x
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 30, 2006, 12:48 PM
Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second...
Were you trying to polygraph a rabbit?
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 30, 2006, 12:48 PM
Triple x,
Truth is, I see it all the time. Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations. I believe someone else referred to these folks as "dumb asses.") I must agree. However, that does not mitigate the fact that there are lots of them out there...
Like I said, I talk to each of these people and explain the facts of life. Approximately 95% of them will then drop their attempts to manipulate the test and we will then get along just fine. The remainder are considered good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop. Not my police department....
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre,
Well good to see you stuck around for some more fun and games. Now as far as the breathing rate is concerned and other manipulations that can be effected by the subject. The person has to find his own comfortable breathing rate and level. Adaptation is the key. If you can't adapt the methods and practice to yourself then nothing will work at all. Hence you get to expel your words of wisdom on the individual you are currently interrogating, and supposedly make him stop his now obvious attempt to employ countermeasures. But from my own experience, and other sources, you may catch a rookie, but the masters are tough.
Regards .....
Food for thought, Eosjupiter. I will take that into consideration...
Regards,
Nonombre
So nonombre.....you really had subjects who tried to take 2-4 breaths per second ???
My concept of eliminating the breathing data variable is to NOT alter the breathing pattern at all. To maintain an absolute pattern without exception, even to the point of answering the question at the same point in the cycle each time for every question. Use CMs to alter the other data and let the breathing be a mute point.
Oh... nonombre and Sergeant, just for the record, I run 5k (3.1 miles) in 22 minutes - that is three 7 min miles back to back. ;D
One other comment about breathe control. I'm a master diver and on average I only take 4-5 breaths per minute when diving and I maintain that rate for up to 90 minutes. Six breathes a minute (2 every 20 seconds) sounds like a luxury, nonombre.
Quote from: alterego1 on Jul 31, 2006, 03:18 AMSo nonombre.....you really had subjects who tried to take 2-4 breaths per second ???
Absolutely. I have also had people walk in with the perverbial "tack in the shoe," dark sunglasses that they TRIED to refuse to take off ("Prescription, they said.) I took them off and examined them. The glasses were dime store plastic. And my personal favorite, teeth wrapped in aluminum foil because they were told that would "confuse" the polygraph....
Regards,
Nonombre ;D
Quote from: Onesimus on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMWere you trying to polygraph a rabbit?
tried to interrogate a rabbit once. SOB bit me
Dippity
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 31, 2006, 08:31 PM
Absolutely. I have also had people walk in with the perverbial "tack in the shoe," dark sunglasses that they TRIED to refuse to take off ("Prescription, they said.) I took them off and examined them. The glasses were dime store plastic. And my personal favorite, teeth wrapped in aluminum foil because they were told that would "confuse" the polygraph....
Nonombre,
I had a guy once swear I couldn't have caught him on the RADAR cause he had tin foil in his hubcaps...I feel your pain LOL
Regards,
Nonombre ;D
nonombre:
The next time I run an exam Ill have to wear a tin foil hat as a counter-counter measure when I put the spaghetti strainer onthe guy's head.