Here are a few responses some polygraphers gave me when I confronted them with the question of how polygraphers can determine countermeasures strictly through analyzing the charts. While they are superficial responses, they may shed some light to those who are polygraph-savvy and can read between the lines (which I have not been able to do).
POLYGRAPHER 1:
NORMAL PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES HAVE A CERTAIN PATTERN TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RESULT OF NORMAL REACTION TO STIMULI.
ABNORMAL RESPONES ARE SKEWED FROM THE NORM AND DO NOT FIT THE NORMAL PATTERN BECAUSE THEY ARE DELIBERATELY DISTORTED.
BREATHING IS BY FAR THE EASIEST TO DISTORT AND CONTROL. YET, ALL DISTORTERS ALSO DISTORT THEIR I/E (INSPIRATION EXPIRATION) RATIOS.
THAT IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE TO SPOT
---------------------->
POLYGRAPHER #2:
I am saying "normal" reactions to stress DIFFER from faked ones. Faked ones occur OUT OF PROPORTION to the overall reaction capability of the subject.
Fear of detection causes sympathetic arousal.
Faking reactions causes polygraph chart deviations which are
not consistent with the subject's normal physiological reaction
pattern.
A surprise question often evokes sympathetic arousal.
At the end of the test I ask, "How much is 36 + 45?"
This reaction-evoking question causes sympathetic arousal.
------------------>
POLYGRAPHER #3
Any countermeasure would show during testing. Pain from the tac in a shoe for example would show a great reaction which would have to be explained by some body movement
A large change in a reading will give the person away. GSR (skin response) would show as if someone sniffed, squeezed butt checks, etc
It is very hard for a subject to cause pain or movement at the exact time the rest of the body responds to a question. i.e. if the skin response showed great change prior to chest/BP readings it would show something is up.
--------------------->
POLYGRAPHER #4
While I don't have dialogue that I could copy and paste, I will convey what he (or she) said.
The fourth polygrapher said that the fact that the examinee knows that they are going to intentionally hurt themselves (tac in the shoe/bite the tongue) takes away from what would appear as being a normal reaction on the chart because self-inflicted pain is expected and the reaction will not be spontaneous like a normal physiological reaction (kinda like the idea of trying to tickle yourself).
----------------------->
While some of the components of the above responses don't seem to make any sense or even be reasonable, others appear to make some sense and could potentially have some validity to them. I am not an expert and am far from understanding (in full) the polygraph test. Anyone out there have some thoughts about the above responses?
Netnin Yahoo
Ps: I'm working on getting back some more responses to this question--more specifically, trying to get INDEPTH responses.
Netnin,
I suggest pressing the polygraphers you query for specific OBJECTIVE ways they claim to make these determinations. The responses you are getting appear to be fancy ways of "I know it when I see it."
QuoteNORMAL PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES HAVE A CERTAIN PATTERN TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RESULT OF NORMAL REACTION TO STIMULI.
ABNORMAL RESPONES ARE SKEWED FROM THE NORM AND DO NOT FIT THE NORMAL PATTERN BECAUSE THEY ARE DELIBERATELY DISTORTED.
I would ask this polygrapher exactly how one make an objective determination of "normal." Furthermore, we know that countermeasures are used to deliberately "distort" charts. Nonetheless, this does not answer the question. HOW does one know that the chart has been intentionally distorted?
QuoteFear of detection causes sympathetic arousal.
Faking reactions causes polygraph chart deviations which are
not consistent with the subject's normal physiological reaction
pattern.
A surprise question often evokes sympathetic arousal.
At the end of the test I ask, "How much is 36 + 45?"
This reaction-evoking question causes sympathetic arousal.
If anything, with this response, this polygrapher provides evidence that countermeasures DO work. He is essentially saying that the stress caused by trying to do difficult arithmetic (one of the countermeasures we recommend) looks the same as fear of detection. Also, I would ask him how polygraphy can be expected to work on individuals that know the trickery behind it. Why would anyone who knows that his/her answers to the "control" questions are assumed to be lies have any reason to fear detection? It makes no sense that a person would fear detection during a control question if he/she knows that the test is not set up to determine deception during that question.
QuoteA large change in a reading will give the person away. GSR (skin response) would show as if someone sniffed, squeezed butt checks, etc
Exactly what is a "large" change? Press for a specific definition, like 3 times the baseline, etc (I'm just throwing this out for example's sake). "This looks large to me so he must be using countermeasures" will not cut it. Request OBJECTIVE scoring standards, not vague generalizations. This sounds like an astrologer saying "when I see a large blue shape in the crystal ball, I know the thought in my head right know is indicative of your future."
QuoteThe fourth polygrapher said that the fact that the examinee knows that they are going to intentionally hurt themselves (tack in the shoe/bite the tongue) takes away from what would appear as being a normal reaction on the chart because self-inflicted pain is expected and the reaction will not be spontaneous like a normal physiological reaction (kinda like the idea of trying to tickle yourself).
This one sounds like complete BS to me... Perhaps Dr. Richardson may have some input if he is following this thread.
Once again, press these guys for an objective scoring standard.
In response to Mr. Scalabrini''s posting. You comment on (The fourth polygrapher said that the fact that the examinee knows that they are going to intentionally hurt themselves (tack in the shoe/bite the tongue) takes away from what would appear as being a normal reaction on the chart because self-inflicted pain is expected and the reaction will not be spontaneous like a normal physiological reaction (kinda like the idea of trying to tickle yourself) is by replying ".... BS to me..." Psychology and Physiology will answer differently to your thought. Contrary to your belief, when the body perceives a threat, processes the threat and possible outcome, and then prepares accordingly the result can be somewhat diminished from the perceived. (ie. Child throws fit or worries about a shot but when it is administered it does not hurt as bad as they had perceived) When this process takes place, the body elevates it's output to prepare for the outcome. In an elevated state, the bodies increase in output would be far less then that of a non elevated state. (ie. Walking up to the child and poking him with a needle by surprise) You might say this works well as the child does not know it is coming and hence does not react as badly. The truth is it takes a little longer for that child to process what just happened and then they must deal with both the pain, fear and sudden elevation of physiological responses.
As for the rest of the explanations of countermeasure detection, I will say that many examiners are use to explaining things on a seventh grade comprehension level. The lay person does not say his uncle had a myocardial infarction the other day.
Since I believe you are a man of intellect, I will give you a scientific explanation of a common scenario evolving invoked and evoked physiological responses.
Invoked:
A linebacker for a professional American football team is beginning his pre-game preparation. He begins with rituals such as what clothing or equipment goes on first, putting his favorite undershirt or shoes on, etc. This is a psychological venture for him. The known or constant invokes the conditional response of his psyche to his belief that he is invincible or infallible. The second stage the athlete enters is the preparation of the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system. He may do this by slapping himself in the face, chest legs, head butting teammates, running wind sprints, so on and so on. This process increases heart rate, blood pressure, blood volume, respiration, and stimulates perspiration. With the increase of output invoked, the athletes body is at a higher rate of readiness for the physical contact and exertion to come. This invoked state decreases the physiological output potential which. This state is achieved over time.
Evoked:
A kicker for a professional American football team enters the game to kick the game winning field goal. The snap from the center is high, the kicker drops the ball, and is subsequently hit by a much lager player from the opposing team with great force. The kicker did not get the chance to prepare for this contact as the linebacker did. Hence, the physical contact evokes the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system. With the lack of preparation, his body?s output level may be comparable to a linebacker receiving the same blow in measurable terms but the response time, recovery time and the change in state will be different
How does one discern from the two?
Invoked physiology is employed when needed and for the perceived necessary amount.
Evoked physiology is summoned by an outside element.
J.B.,
How does one differentiate, by the examination of polygraph charts, between physiological responses measurable by a polygraph instrument that are produced by self-stimulation (e.g., contracting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, thinking arousing thoughts, or manipulating one's breathing patterns) vs. those that are attributable to other factors (e.g., fear of the consequences of not being believed, anger, embarassment, etc., etc.)?
Please be specific, and support your reply with references that skeptical readers may check.
Here are more responses by polygraph examiners when confronted with the question of how polygraphers are able to distinguish countermeasures via strictly ananlyzing the chart.
I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM, for the SECOND TIME, to be more detailed in their responses and give me the particulars, but none of them did so. I recently took a polygraph (and have not gotton the results back yet) and used the tac in the shoe trick. One of the examiners that responded mentions that this tactic/countermeasure creates a "SPIKE" in the test that is easily recognized on the charts. My question is: If that spike occurred on ALL of the control questions, and on both runs of the test, how would they determine it to be a forced "Spike" rather than just a significant reaction on the three controls (which were probable-lie controls and they expect people to feel anxiety when reacting to probable lie controls?)?
POLYGRAPHER #1 (Each "---->"Represents new Polygrapher response):
As far as the tracings, although not always conclusive, the distortion caused by active CM, especially when compared to tracings during the response to neutral questions or in between questions relative to the rest of the chart is fairly evident. The scoring of the charted responses is not done in a vacuum. The totality of the chart has to be looked at to determine what constitutes a response / reaction or a change in baseline.
----------------->
If a person tries to control their breathing, that is rather obvious because it shows right on the chart. That is easy to spot, the breaths are deep and not natural. Other countermeasures are more difficult. Movement is the same, some move an arm, finger, etc. during the test and it makes the cardio pen move up or down violently. Other than that, I am not sure I have been up against many countermeasures. I live in Central California and I don't think countermeasures are well known here. Except for the obvious few, I have either been lucky or fooled.
------------->
There are other means to also detect counter measurers, but I am not at liberty to go into most of those methods at this time. I can mention some minor tactics.
I don't feel comfortable about discussing how I can determine whether a person is deliberating distorting their polygraph records from the tracings at this time.
---------------->
<< Could you go more in-depth as to how countermeasures are determined via only analyzing the charts? What is the requirement that makes a tracing too extreme?
Would it be something like 3 times the baseline, 4 times (extreme in the sense that it appears on the chart as clearly being a countermeasure)?
Anything out of the norm from the rest of the chart would be an indication of something. Maybe a movement, sniff, swallow, etc. You don't need that much of a baseline movement i.e. 3X or 4X. If you have a great GSR change just prior or after a question that does not match the other responses then there may be a problem (movement or countermeasure).
------------------->
Let's start w/ breathing: every time you breathe in, the pen goes up; breathe out, down; stop breathing, straight line. So, a " normal pattern would be a /VVVV. If a person attempts to control breathing, you get a stair-step effect. -----
----| |----
---| |-----
This representation is somewhat exaggerated, but I think you get the idea.
Converserly, a "deceptive" reaction might be /VV\__/VV. Imagine you're having a good day. When you turn a corner you see a grizzly bear right in front of you. Do you think you might freeze or gulp! or stop breathing/hold your breath for a moment 'til you could figure this one out? Same thing as when asked a question that you know you're lying to.
Then there's the so-called "vagus effect" . If one takes a deep breath, it causes the skin response to rise and the heartbeat to increase. Done continually through the test the chart now just rolls in waves -in all the indicators- instead of having clearly definable points of reaction.
In the skin response: If the body's capacitance continues to decline for no readily apparent reason -lack of sleep- then some thing is wrong.
Heartbeat- most normal people don't go through a 3-4 minute exam with a continuously decreased (60 beats/min) or greatly increased (115/130 b-p-m) rate w/o some explanation. High blood pressure is not one of them. Decreased rate could be a marathon runner -or drugs. Increased rate- guilty feeling about the questions and trying to beat the test.
--------------------->
much of the data you need for your research is CLASSIFIED and not available to the public. As a matter of fact, much of the information you need for scholarly research is likewise unavailable to most examiners who have not had the advantage of being compartmentalized.
---------------------->
It can also be seen in the chart recordings themselves as a false blood pressure arousal because they are too dramatic and occurr after a less subtle real arousal to the same question.
------------------->
A successful counter-measure would not be easily spotted on the chart. This depends on the sophistication of the examinee. The last person I ran was for child molest. He gave me a good first exam which he failed cold. (I could read this one coming off the instrument it was so easy.) Then I gave him a stim (Stimulus) test to show him how the polygraph worked and what he did when he told a lie. After these were pointed out to him, the next two test had all kinds of movement which caused reactions on the cardio. Was this a cooincidence? I doubt it. Now that he knew he could not lie and get away with it, he tried twitching his left arm muscle. The GSR and breathing were deceptive and the cardio skewed due to the movement.
JB,
I appreciate your anecdote attempting to describe the difference between invoked and evoked physiology. Unfortunately, as George pointed out, you did not sufficiently address the issue under discussion. The issue here is whether or not polygraphers can differentiate spontaneous reactions from those that are artificially created. If so, we would like to know EXACTLY HOW DO THEY DO IT? I am aware of no studies whatsoever that have shown polygraphers having any ability whatsoever to detect countermeasures better than chance. As matter of fact, nobody in the polygraph community can even provide an explanation of an objective scoring system that purports to explain how countermeasures are detected (let alone provide studies supporting claims that the system works). I feel that these are reasons for me to be highly skeptical of claims that "countermeasures are easy to detect."
In your post, you bring up the scientific disciplines of psychology and physiology. A vast majority of those with formal training in these disciplines have little regard for polygraphy in general.
Dr. Charles Honts (a noted psychologist) and Dr. Drew C. Richardson (a noted physiologist and former FBI Supervisory Special Agent) both stated that polygraphers cannot detect attempts at countermeasures better than chance during recent presentations to the National Academy of Sciences. Both men have extensive experience as polygraphers.
Furthermore, in 1994, Professors William Iacono and David Lykken of the University of Minnesota conducted a survey of opinion of members of the Society of Psychophysiological Research. Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked "Would you say the Control Question Test, the most common polygraph format, is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the scientists who responded, only 36% agreed with this statement. Furthermore, the members were asked if they agreed with a second statement. "Do you agree that the CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of the survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph tests can be beaten.
Netnin,
I suggest that you encourage these polygraphers to post to this forum. All points of view are welcome. For the most part, the responses you see to be getting are either "I can't explain" or "I know but I can't tell you." I find none convincing.
To anyone who claims that polygraphers can detect countermeasures by gazing at the charts:
The Polygraph is an instrument that traces lines on a sheet of graph paper...(hence, "polygraph" meaning "many lines" in greek). While I am not in a position to argue with you on an indepth basis, I can truly say--with no fear of criticism--that the science behind analyzing polygraph charts is not a "science" at all. Regardless of the truth behind voluntary (in the sense that a person is totally aware of what is coming) and involuntary reactions (in the sense of a normal fight or flight responses), the fact is that all that is recorded on a polygraph chart is a series of continuous lines.
-GSR can go up or down.
-Breathing can change in regards to up and down, pauses, repitions, etc.
-Heart rate can speed up or slow down.
If the case is that polygraphers are truly able to (as so many claim) determine/distinguish/recognize the use of countermeasures via strictly analyzing the polygraph chart, I then would truly believe that they are Gods. Please...FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, explain the method to the madness.
How is it possible to conclude that BECAUSE A GSR TRACING WENT UP it was the result of a countermeasure rather than a natural reaction? The fact is that it is a line that goes UP, stays the same, or goes DOWN. The same for cardio (increased pace, decreased, steady, etc.). Any person in this entire world that takes part in a polygraph test can have
a moment where they panic while taking the test, and it might SIMPLY BE THE CASE that when this person panics, their natural body reaction will be for the heart rate to quicken and GSR to go out the roof. Please let me know how you guys play the role of God and decide what is real and what is not. You aren't staring deep into the soul of people...your looking at lines on a chart. That's it. A physical countermeasure will make the lines go up, quicken in repetition, etc, the same way they will in a natural reaction. Polygraph instruments would need to be equipped with other components in order to differentiate between what is self-caused and what is natural...the component would have to be Miss Cleo from the psychic friends network. There is only SO MUCH you can derive from lines on a piece of paper. I don't believe for a second that you guys can determine countermeasure use by only analyzing the charts. It is an IMPOSSIBLE TASK. People vary...people vary in physiology and the way they react to stress, and for you guys to claim that you have UNIFORM METHOD that applies to all charts and can be used to detect countermeasures is totally unbelievable...not even remotely possible. I think this is the case of people being pushed into a wall. Polygraphers who have lives and families depending on the polygraph test ($) are being pushed into a wall by people like Gino and George who are letting the American public become aware of the fraud behind the polygraph test. I truly believe that one of the only things left that your careers are hanging by is the false threat that you are able to distinguish countermeasures on the charts. It's a good idea...especially to claim it is classified information. What a great scare tactic to deter people from using countermeasures...and more importantly, what a great scare tactic to help save your careers and asses! (It is kinda like the pathological liar who, when confronted about a lie, comes up with more and more lies in order to either save their ass or simply buy some time. I think you guys have only bought yourselves time with this scare tactic). It appears as though the bigger guys are keeping an eye out for the little guys...mainly because both your paychecks depend on it. Let me make something very clear to you: If there were true and valid information out there that could teach how to distinguish countermeasures by simply gazing into the charts, it would be available to the public by now. They would make the information available to ALL polygraphers because they would be required to in order to raise the VALIDITY of ALL polygraph testing that takes place in this country...not just a select few. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The chain that holds the polygraph machine--as well as polygraphers--up high breaks apart well before being able to distinguish an "A" from an "A." Lines are lines, and polygraphers are liars.
Netnin
I think if one was to read into my former post they could see within an explanation of the difference between invoked and evoked as related to a polygraph and CM.
I suggest you read 'Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology' by Seely, Stephens, and Tate, 'The Machinery of The Body' by Carlson, Johnson, and Cavert, and 'Social Psychology' by Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin to start.
As for the comments about polygraph examiners referring to some material as classified, this is true. I am a polygraph examiner and there is much talk of research that I am not at liberty to view or obtain. Polygraph has been and is still used for many facets of truth and deception detection. It was used as far back as W.W. II. Some areas it is used in fall into the scope of National Security. I will gladly except this in light of recent events and wait until the material is available for my viewing.
The study you speak of that refers to CM detection being nothing more then chance was conducted in a university setting and not in the real world. All though I do not know of and have not read or researched the statistics of error ratio of Doctors compared with Medical Students in the proper diagnosis of medical problems, I will go out on a limb and say there is a significant difference. I am not sure why one would want to score CM. What purpose would that serve? If you attempt to distort your tracings, you will be deceptive. There are flaws in urinalysis but I would never tell anyone to attempt to alter their specimen.
For the questions about "self-stimulation (e.g., contracting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, thinking arousing thoughts, or manipulating one's breathing patterns) vs. those that are attributable to other factors (e.g., fear of the consequences of not being believed, anger, embarrassment, etc., etc.)?"
The sphincter contraction causes specific and notable changes in another component tracing.
Manipulating ones respiration is evident in the inhalation- exhalation ratio factor and tracing appearance.
Mental imagery is invoked at the examinee's perceived point of implementation. Invoking a response with mental imagery would then involve one hearing the question, perceiving the question to be one that they should use CM, beginning mental imagery, and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system possibly being triggered. However, a person responding to a question is different. The question and answer are reviewed prior. The person already knows if their answer will be truthful or deceptive. Hence, to process this involves hearing the question and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.
I am glad you are pushing for standards. In my state the standards are as high as they get. In some states there are none. I too am angered by this.
As responses from polygraphers continue to pile up, the reality of the situation is becoming quite clear. It is becoming more and more evident that the rediculous claim that polygraphers can distinguish the use of countermeasures by strictly analyzing polygraph charts (essentially saying they can differentiate an "A" from an "A") is nothing more than a pathetic threat by polygraphers who sit higher up on the polygrapher tree of superiority. Thousands upon thousands of lives whom depend upon the polygraph for their bread, milk, and butter are taking a last stand by claiming to be able to do the impossible--claiming to be able to read between the lines when there is truly NOTHING there to read.
And, just for the sake of argument, lets all agree for a second (because that is as long as you will get most to agree on this subject) that there is classified information in existance that provides a method that can be applied uniformly on all polygraph charts, and can be used to determine the use of countermeasures by strictly analyzing the charts. What good is it? Truly...what good is it? After talking to a COUNTLESS number of polygraphers, it is clear that this classified (imaginery) information is only available to the select few. Every 9 out of 10 polygraphers I have conversed with have made it VERY clear that they do not have access to this (imaginery) information that gives (imaginery) method to the madness we so violently argue over. So tell me...what good is this information? Are the Feds afraid that the (supposed) classified information they have will be known to all in a very short time if they begin making it available to the John Doe polygrapher? Well I have news for them...it SURE AS HELL will be known by all, and in a shorter period of time than they think. And, ultmately, as soon as this information is let out, we will come up with even more advanced countermeasures to blow the doors off the polygraph test. And just to let you know what the future holds: The Feds will be forced to convey their secret information to the John Doe polygraper because the use of (effective) countermeasures are on a rise like never seen before. And, as I said, then the information will be available to all. And, again as I said, we will come up with even more effective countermeasures. Ohh the circle of deception we will see (on all fronts) when that so called "classified information" is let loose!
Ohhh wait a minute....I got caught up in my couple seconds of agreement that the classified information is for real. Silly me...I need to keep reminding myself it is nothing more than a scare-tactic. Those polygraphers are good deceivers! Especially the ones high up.
Netnin
QuoteNetnin: And, just for the sake of argument, lets all agree for a second (because that is as long as you will get most to agree on this subject) that there is classified information in existence that provides a method that can be applied uniformly on all polygraph charts, and can be used to determine the use of countermeasures by strictly analyzing the charts.
Note that many of us feel that no uniform method exists and those at DoDPI are bluffing. If there was an effective, objective method that could not be defeated, one would think that instead of hiding it that it would be publicized as a deterrent. Nonetheless, you still make an excellent point in that there is a large polygraph community operating outside the cloak of secrecy that has not produced one shred of evidence that they can recognize countermeasures.
JB,
I value your participation in this discussion. Open debate can only lead to a greater understanding by all sides. I wish more polygraphers would choose to participate.
QuoteI think if one was to read into my former post they could see within an explanation of the difference between invoked and evoked as related to a polygraph and CM.
I suggest you read 'Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology' by Seely, Stephens, and Tate, 'The Machinery of The Body' by Carlson, Johnson, and Cavert, and 'Social Psychology' by Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin to start.
I will be glad to pick up this title. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have a feeling I won't find a clear description of how to discern attempts at countermeasures from naturally occurring reactions on a polygraph chart.
QuoteAs for the comments about polygraph examiners referring to some material as classified, this is true. I am a polygraph examiner and there is much talk of research that I am not at liberty to view or obtain. Polygraph has been and is still used for many facets of truth and deception detection. It was used as far back as W.W. II. Some areas it is used in fall into the scope of National Security. I will gladly except this in light of recent events and wait until the material is available for my viewing.
There are a large number of polygraph examiners such as yourself that operate outside the cloak of government secrecy--yet no one has provided an explanation of how one makes a determination of "countermeasures used." You have provided a number of generalizations, but not a specific and objective method. The fact that both government polygraphers and private ones are so secretive about how they detect countermeasures appears to be a tacit admission that there is no reliable system for detecting them.
QuoteThe study you speak of that refers to CM detection being nothing more then chance was conducted in a university setting and not in the real world.
If we are going to limit ourselves to the discussion of peer-reviewed studies conducted under field conditions, we might as well abandon this discussion all together, considering the fact that polygraphy has never been shown to determine truth from deception better than chance in studies meeting these criteria.
QuoteAll though I do not know of and have not read or researched the statistics of error ratio of Doctors compared with Medical Students in the proper diagnosis of medical problems, I will go out on a limb and say there is a significant difference.
The peer reviewed studies showing that polygraphers cannot detect countermeasures better than chance involved EXPERIENCED EXAMINERS, not students. Students were only used as the test subjects.
QuoteI am not sure why one would want to score CM. What purpose would that serve? If you attempt to distort your tracings, you will be deceptive.
Once again, how does the examiner make an objective determination that the tracings are "distorted?" What I am looking for is something besides "its deceptive because I am an examiner and I say so." In other words, a clear objective scoring system that anyone can apply. This is a requirement for standardized tests.
QuoteThe sphincter contraction causes specific and notable changes in another component tracing.
If these changes are specific and notable, characterize them. Giving a generalization that the changes are "specific and notable" and then not saying what characterizes a specific and notable change is a cop out. This is the point I am trying to make. This sounds a lot more like "I can't explain, but I know it when I see it."
QuoteManipulating ones respiration is evident in the inhalation- exhalation ratio factor and tracing appearance.
Maybe when it is done by unsophisticated subjects. When this technique is employed by sophisticated subjects who make a "california stop" between each inhale-exhale-inhale and avoid deep breathing and breath holding, it is undetectable by polygraphers.
QuoteMental imagery is invoked at the examinee's perceived point of implementation. Invoking a response with mental imagery would then involve one hearing the question, perceiving the question to be one that they should use CM, beginning mental imagery, and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system possibly being triggered. However, a person responding to a question is different. The question and answer are reviewed prior. The person already knows if their answer will be truthful or deceptive. Hence, to process this involves hearing the question and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.
Once again, how do the two reactions appear differently on a polygraph chart?
Quote:
Netnin: "And, just for the sake of argument, lets all agree for a second (because that is as long as you will get most to agree on this subject) that there is classified information in existence that provides a method that can be applied uniformly on all polygraph charts, and can be used to determine the use of countermeasures by strictly analyzing the charts."
Gino J. Scalabrini: "Note that many of us feel that no uniform method exists and those at DoDPI are bluffing. If there was an effective, objective method that could not be defeated, one would think that instead of hiding it that it would be publicized as a deterrent. Nonetheless, you still make an excellent point in that there is a large polygraph community operating outside the cloak of secrecy that has not produced one shred of evidence that they can recognize countermeasures."
For both of you, I have seen some of these methods talked about and I have brushed upon them in my speaking of time in relation to response. Mr. Scalabrini, there are scoring methods for polygraph but not CM. Also you do not score an anomaly or physiological defect . You do not affix a score to something that is not a physiologic reaction. The same goes in any scientific method. If there is an outside interference that is not consistent with the norm you note it and explain it if possible. Psychology is scientifically accepted. There is very little scoring used in this discipline. If a DNA sample is contaminated, the contamination is not scored. It is noted and if it can be identified it is. If a scientific study becomes contaminated by an outside element, it is not scored. For instance, if an individual has a pre-ventricular contraction in their heart pattern, the examiner notes it and does not score it. If someone employs countermeasures and this is was used in rendering an opinion of deception indicated, you must be able to explain what you see. I say if that was used in rendering an opinion because I have conducted exams where countermeasures were used and that was not the reason for the opinion. In other words, despite the use of countermeasures, they charts scored out deceptive by APA and DODPI standards.
In the scientific community, the inability to render an opinion is considered a failure of the procedure. If you have charts that are inconclusive by scoring methods, it counts against the validity percentage of the polygraph. If Joe Citizen employs crude movement distortion throughout his last chart, the results may be inconclusive. The reason is not because the examiner cannot identify these crude movements. The reason is because they must be notable. You must be able to summon the six great jurors Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Who did what where when and why. For some examiners, training is scarce and at great personal financial cost. Private examiners must pay for their own training and miss income for the time they have off. Not an excuse in my book but I can sympathize with them for this. For the most part, private examiners do not conduct pre-employment exams. I never said that I do not work for a government agency. I said that certain material is not even available to me for security reasons. I do not conduct pre-employment either, only specific issue. I do think polygraphs have a place in pre-employment testing for high security clearance positions and if there is a "one" specific issue in a pre-employment background investigation that warrants a request for the applicant to take one. However, this is off the subject and I think most here are in the same general ideology that I prescribe to.
Countermeasures you have described in ?The Lie Behind The Lie Detector? are notable. I will give you a few examples. In your last post you spoke of rounded breathing. Rounded breathing is not normal. It is evident holding or blocking. Normal=/\/\/\/\/\ If you hold or block at all, on the inhalation or exhalation, there will be rounding. The books I listed earlier will not talk about CM. However, 'The Machinery of The Body' by Carlson, Johnson, and Cavert will show you what normal tracings look like. The illustrations used in the book are close to that of the tracings produced on a polygraph. Muscle contractions effect respiration. This too is described in the above book. If you can think of a countermeasure, I have probably tried it and documented it in charts. I then take this and research the physiological explanation for the effector. My earlier explanations on how to detect CM can be clearly evident to you if you are able to sit down at a polygraph instrument and employ the methods you suggest. Notable means clear, evident, and explainable tracings.
My best advise for anyone taking a polygraph is as follows. First, find out the standards set in your state for polygraph examiner licensing and compare it to the APA standards. Second, if these standards are the same and you are telling the truth, relax, you will pass your polygraph. Third, do not use CM. The only reason one uses these methods is to hide something. Finally, if you are not telling the truth, don't take a polygraph.
J.B.,
You claim to be able to detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, and yet you still haven't explained how to do it. "I know them when I see them" doesn't cut it. If you were to testify to that as a subject matter expert on polygraphy in court, any competent attorney cross-examining you would tear your credibility to shreds.
A note on the rounding of breathing, which is discussed at p. 75 of the 1st digital edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. We wrote, regarding the establishment of a baseline breathing pattern: "Your polygrapher will be happy if your breathing rate is between about 15 and 30 breaths per minute, or 2-4 seconds each. Pick a breathing rate within this range and take shallow -- not deep -- breaths. Each breath should be about the same length and well-rounded, that is, the transition between breathing in and breathing out should be gradual, and not sudden, as with panting. Practice until it becomes second nature."
This is no call to create apneas between inhalation and exhalation.
You appear to be unable to explain how you can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and yet you seemingly would have us believe that you somehow have this ability.
The American Polygraph Association quarterly publication, Polygraph, in its 30-year history has not published a single article outlining a methodology for the detection of such countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts (or, indeed, by observation of the subject). Nor do any polygraph textbooks offer such a methodology. On the other hand, peer reviewed research by Charles R. Honts and collaborators (see the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for citations and abstracts) has shown that polygraphers cannot detect such countermeasures.
This being the case, perhaps you can understand why skeptical readers might not take at face value the oft-repeated but never substantiated claims of polygraph "professionals" that any experienced examiner can easily detect countermeasures.
With regard to your advice to those facing a polygraph "test," you suggest that if the agency conducting the "test" is following APA standards and they are truthful, that they need merely relax, and they will pass. J.B., many of those who participate in this forum once followed precisely this advice and yet were falsely accused of deception by their polygraphers.
With regard to countermeasures, you wrote, "...do not use CM. The only reason one uses these methods is to hide something." How can you possibly know this last assertion to be true? I agree with University of Minnesota Professor Emeritus David T. Lykken, who wrote in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards..."
J.B.: Thank you for being kind enough to continue through with our discussion.
In your first statements discussing invoked and evoked physiology you write:
"How does one discern from the two?
Invoked physiology is employed when needed and for the perceived necessary amount.
Evoked physiology is summoned by an outside element."
Later on in another post you write:
" I think if one was to read into my former post they could see within an explanation of the difference between invoked and evoked as related to a polygraph and CM."
Am I correct in saying that when a self-inflicted/self-caused countermeasure is employed, that response tracing potentials are not as great as response potentials when an outside force causes the reaction?
This is what you appear to be suggesting.
If this is the case, then people using countermeasures should not bother using them because even heightened reactions to control questions that are caused by the use of countermeasures will not compare to the even HIGHER responses to relevant questions (natural body reactions) if the person lies on the relevant questions?
Example:
GSR goes up on a control because of use of countermeasure, but GSR goes up even higher on relevant (when lying) because the potential becomes greater as a result of the anxiety stemming from an outside force?
If this is what you are suggesting (though I could be way out in left field when your hitting into the right?), then your explanation completely conflicts with responses that other polygraphers have given on this issue. The polygraphers I have talked to have suggested that countermeasures cause too "extreme" tracings, almost like a "spike" in the charts (spike usually meaning and understood as being a great impact).
If I am in the ball park, please let me know. If I am not even close, I RESPECTFULLY ask you to go forth in explaining what you meant in your invoked/evoked discussion.
No one is coming on here to play guessing or "read between the lines" games. We are trying to further understand the polygraph based on factual information. Your cooperation will be MORE than appreciated!
Sincerely,
Netnin
George,
You again have made a grave error in respect to respiration and tracings. Although your method does fall within a normal ratio, as posted earlier, rounded breathing is not normal. If someone is in good physical condition, they can regulate as suggested flawlessly. By saying this, I mean they can maintain a constant regulated breath for an extended period of time. However, most people in society cannot. This does not dismiss that it is not normal breathing. An athlete may regulate their breathing for stamina reasons but not n a normal state. I have experimented with divers as well. As you may know, breath regulation is crucial in their line. However, they too do not breath this way in a normal state.
I also made very specific reference to what is seen in the event one employs muscle contraction counter measures. I would be glad to send you examples next week.
As for court testimony, I have testified on numerous occasions and not once denied to testify or found that the testimony was inadequate. I have a degree in Sociology, attended an eleven week polygraph school, had to complete 200 supervised tests, a state written, and oral board examination. My department has used and conducted polygraphs since the 1930's. The average examiner in my department conducts approximately 200 specific issue examinations a year, along with conducting research on polygraph and its related scientific disciplines. I do not speak at length or depth with you or Gino when it comes to explaining tracings, because I assume you know in general what I speak of and can read and digress what is said. After all, if one can write a book on how to so called beat an instrument, one must know the intricates of it. I have read your book and was unable to find a reference to your qualifications. The studies you speak of are not as pristine as they are said to be. I have spoken to people directly connected with them. Most polygraph examiners do just that. They conduct polygraph exams. The federal government does research but it has a rather delayed release. I am sure you know of the general inquisitions done on subjects during the plague in the 1500's. People were killed for making rash suggestion that the world was round and that the Earth revolved around the Sun. There was a crazy man in this time that spoke of the use of herbs as a cure for the plague instead of bleeding one of the poison. Demonic and crazy those thinkers and scientists were, no? And how many years did it take for their ideas to be proven and excepted?
I am not sure why you are so ill contempt for polygraph. Although I cannot speak for others, I love what I do and believe in polygraph. I am a neutral post within the criminal investigation process. It is most satisfying when someone is truthful and the true criminal is found. I have seen circumstantial evidence that wrote a person as guilty in an investigation but polygraph said they did not and the results were confirmed. If there is a way for me to positively prove to you the validity I will.
Netin,
Anyone who says that countermeasures cause a greater or lessor reaction on the comparison then on the relevant consistently is wrong. Some can distort higher and some lower. Some can distort high at the beginning but diminish in the end. Those who say they base their finding of the use of countermeasures on this preface are wrong. This is not a sound argument.
The sign of CM is a flatened mark within the repiration. Crude Example: /\_/ This is not what it looks like exactly but it is as close as I can get with a keyboard. The area and length of this depends on the amount of contraction, where the muscle contraction is began, and the persons physical condition.
J.B.,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can detect polygraph countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector by examining the pneumo tracings, and that the giveaway is a slight rounding of the tracings during the transition from inhalation to exhalation and vice-versa. Is that a fair characterization of your argument?
With regard to the rounding of pneumo tracings, if you take a look at Figure 9 at p. 41 of John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co., 1966), you'll find illustrations of "Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns." It seems to me that most of these show slight rounding. Do you disagree?
If you could send to me as e-mail attachments scanned images of chart tracings that illustrate your claimed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures (whether by examination of the pneumo tracings or any other tracings), I'd be happy to place them on-line here for the edification of all. My e-mail address is maschke@antipolygraph.org; to protect your anonymity, you may wish to create a free ZipLip (http://www.ziplip.com) e-mail account for this purpose. Alternatively, if you were to put hard copies in the mail to me, I'd be happy to scan them myself. My postal address is G.W. Maschke, Hart Nibbrigkade 22, 2597 XV The Hague, The Netherlands.
Can you direct me (and the others who are following this message thread) to any published article or book describing your technique for detecting polygraph countermeasures from the charts, or to any research studies supporting the validity of your counter-countermeasure technique?
You also wrote, "I have read your book and was unable to find a reference to your qualifications." Gino Scalabrini and I wrote The Lie Behind the Lie Detector after an extensive review of the literature and correspondence with scientific authorities in the field. In the book, we do not base our arguments on any claimed authority, but instead base them on sources that the skeptical reader can check.
You further noted, "The studies you speak of are not as pristine as they are said to be. I have spoken to people directly connected with them." Specifically, to which studies do you refer? When you assert that they are "not as pristine as they are said to be," precisely what do you mean? And to whom did you speak, and what did they say?
With regard to our contempt for polygraphy, a review of Chapters 1-3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector should make clear the reasons therefor.
Thank you J.B.
You state:
"I also made very specific reference to what is seen in the event one employs muscle contraction counter measures. I would be glad to send you examples next week."
It would be greatly appreciated if you follow through.
Would you be so kind as to send diagrams/pictures that compare what the muscle contractions do in comparison to a picture of the normal reaction?
Thanks Sincerely, Netnin
Too all,
I will gather and send you the documentation this coming week. I would do it sooner but I am away from the office enjoying family for the holiday. I hope you all are as well.
J.B.
Your cooperation and participation on this message board is greatly appreciated by all, and your helping many of us further understand the theory and technicality behind the polygraph machine. Enjoy the time spent with your family
(I'm sharing in similar experience right now as well!).
Sincerely,
Netnin Yahoo
I have sent some examples to George for posting. He will review them and post them in time. I am not sure if the explanation is to tech. So I may need to explain further.
J.B.
Message received. Your illustrations and explanation follow:
George,
Here are some examples of countermeasures. Both charts are from administered polygraphs on an experienced polygraph examiner. There are notes I have added to both chart segments. Not noted on the sphincter chart segment is the fact that the subjects cardio as an anomaly due to a heart murmur and possible valve damage or defect. These are anomalies and not distortion or countermeasure effects.
The pneumos from the controlled respiration show the noted apnea, in the form of holding or blocking, is circled and normal squared. Blocking is caused by the contraction of the spinchter muscle at or near end of exhalation or at or near the begining of inhalation. If employed at or near the end on inhalation or at or near the beginning of exhalation, one would see holding. For physiological explanation, 'Machinery of The Body' explains normal as "quiet breathing movements of an individual at rest." This falls within an approximate range of 2000 ml. (exhalation) to 3000 ml. (inhalation) of air in the lungs. The normal at rest volume inspired and expired is 500 ml. This volume is known as tidal volume. One can force expiration and deplete 1.1 liters of air from the lung. This expired volume is known as expiratory reserve volume. Even if one dose this there is still a remaining 1.2 liters of air which cannot be expired known as the residual volume. Inspiratory reserve volume is approximately 2.9 liters above normal inspiration. With all this, it is possible for one to increase the inspiration and expiration from the normal .5 liter to 4.5 liters. 'Machinery of The Body', "Ordinarily, this mechanism is not used fully, even in severe exercise...."
The pneumos in the sphincter contraction show noted apnea, as described in the previous paragraph. This physiological effector is explained by the understanding of the phrenic and intercolstal nerves. Unlike cardio muscle which keeps its intrinsic rhythmicity after even after removed from the body, the phrenic and intercostal become paralyzed when severed from their nervous system connections. However, there is rythmicity in the phrenic and intercostal nerves within respiration. This is made possible by the medulla. The medulla sends the signal to the spinal cord and so on. If there is a break or disturbance between the medulla and the phrenic or intercostal nerves, the rythmicity is broken. Thus, when a muscle contraction is forced the onset produces such apnea.
(https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/jb-1.jpg)
(https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/jb-2.jpg)
There is an error in my prior posted explaination within the second paragraph line two; "Blocking is caused by the contraction of the spinchter muscle at or near end of exhalation or at or near the begining of inhalation." This explaination goes for sphincter contractions and not controled respiration. It should read Blocking is caused by controled respiration at or near end of exhalation or at or near the begining of inhalation. There is a visable difference in the two.
With regard to officially recognized respiratory reactions on a polygraph tracing, DoDPI, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Test Data Analysis. (pp. 14-24), , lists and depicts in cartoon fashion the following twelve:
Increase in breathing (frequency)
Decrease in breathing (frequency)
Increase in Amplitude
Suppression/Decrease in Amplitude
Progressively increasing amplitude followed by decreasing amplitude
Progressively increasing amplitude with return to homeostasis
Progressively decreasing amplitude with return to homeostasis
Change in Inhalation Exhalation Ratio
Change of baseline
Loss of Baseline
Holding
Blocking
Although the preceding "reactions" are pictured with rounded apices, rounded, pointed, or jagged are quite easily produced with a minimum of practice by a would-be practitioner of countermeasures. Because there are both individual differences in amplitude as well as in onset and duration (temporal considerations) of reaction for both physiological reactions and responses produced through attempted countermeasures, the polygraph community does a relatively poor job in characterizing (even) physiological reactions let alone characterizing and recognizing countermeasure efforts. Because of individual differences and within subject differences, the notion of being able to meaningfully pick up temporal differences between reactions and countermeasures is utter nonsense. A given subject may react to the initial wording of a polygraph question, the end wording or even in association with his verbalized response. And this circumstance may be different for different question/response pairing within the same polygraph chart (based on subject content, wording, etc.) for a given examinee. Because these events may be spread over 2-5 seconds depending on typical question length, such temporal differentiation between physiological reaction and countermeasure is stargazing to the extreme.
All of the above aside, I believe that the proof is in the pudding.... As I recently offered to do at the October 17 NAS polygraph panel public hearing, I will restate and offer that challenge to any who read this site. I would suggest using the roughly 15 members of the distinguished NAS panel looking at polygraph issues as an examinee pool, teach 2-3 to produce countermeasures, and then have the whole group participate in a simulated crime (one used by DoDPI or others). A baserate (unknown to participating examiners) will be applied in the programming of guilty and innocent subjects. Exams will be conducted, DI/NDI/Inc results recorded, as well as any determinations of the location and nature ( I will teach things other than the respiratiory manipulations referred to for purposes of this particular posting/response) of any countermeasures suspected by examiners. Although such an exercise would have clearly insufficient numbers and statistical power, I believe the anecdotal evidence of accuracy with and without countermeasures as well as the correct and wrongful (yet another source of false positives for the polygraph community) determinations of countermeasures would be quite revealing to those with an interest in this exercise. I would suggest that the polygraph examiners participating come from the ranks of federal polygraph instructors or operators, leading civilian polygraphers or any other group whose credentials and experience would be deemed impeccable in polygraph circles. And finally, I would suggest that elements of the experimental design, simulated crimes, conduct of the examinations, results determinations, and post-test interviews of both examiners and examinees be recorded by a major investigative television production that would be selected to cover this important and hopefully interesting subject.
J.B.,
Perhaps you'll step up to the plate and be the first polygrapher to accept Drew's polygraph countermeasure challenge? The federal polygraphers in attendance at the 17 Oct. 2001 meeting of the NAS polygraph review committee apparently lacked the self-confidence to accept it.
Now, with regard to detecting countermeasures from the examination of the charts, you would have us believe that rounded breathing is the giveaway. I have a couple questions regarding this claim:
1) Could you tell me where in the polygraph literature I can read more about this methodology for detecting countermeasures, and what research supports it?
2) Please take a look at the image below, which is Figure 9 from p. 41 of John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co., 1966). The title of this figure is "Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns." Most of the tracings in the figure show rounding. Did Reid & Inbau mistake "obvious countermeasures" for "normal" respiration patterns?
(https://antipolygraph.org/graphics/reid-inbau-figure-9.jpg)
George,
I would be honored to partake in anything that would further the scientific validity of polygraph, if it were to happen and I am approved to. I disagree that a scientific study should be aired on a major network. I do not recall ever seeing a major scientific research documented and aired by a major network. I would agree that the study should be properly documented throughout using standardized note taking methods, written documentation, video, and movement sensor/detection instrumentation. I would suggest the instrumentation for movement detection be recorded separate and not available to the examiner at the time of their decision. I would also encourage a field study by one or more major polygraph units.
My argument of countermeasure detection is a hypothesis not a theory. I am in the infant stages of studying, researching, documenting and validating the ideas I have shared and some others. I am unaware of any published or publicly available documentation or scientific study of this nature. DODPI employees have told me that there have been studies but I have only heard of them not seen. I do not use names because I cannot speak for others and some information is not public knowledge, classified. A scientific study takes time and numbers.
Drew,
You talk about the respiratory reaction criteria. This is used for scoring of deceptive respiratory reactions and not countermeasures.
I agree with you that one can produce both rounded and pointed apices. However, few have instrumentation available to experiment with. I would still assert there is still a difference in normal and produced physiology. I say assert because as you say, "The proof is in the pudding." It must be scientifically proven and I do not have that.
I would ask if you could scientifically disprove my hypothesis.
I partially agree with you on your assertion that there are examiners that cannot explain physiology. As with any profession, there are persons that are not professional or do things that hurt and hinder the profession. I don't know how many of these persons there are though. For me to say the polygraph community does not in general know their physiology, without numbers or statistics to compare, would not be accurate on my part.
I think as fellow polygraph examiners we should work at a common goal. I think we both believe that polygraph has valid uses. Those uses should be scientifically proven, standardized, and then presented for scientific acceptance and validation. So too should all licensing requirements. I do not think we need one test format but proven standard formats conducted by standard licensed examiners, with standard quality control review.
J.B.,
I take it then that you are unable to provide any credible evidence that you are capable of detecting countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), and that your argument that rounded breathing was the giveaway was nothing more than your (groundless) conjecture?
George,
You ask if my assertions are (groundless) conjecture? This would suggest that I merely made a guess at the matter with no sound evidence. I have provided you with some examples, explained what is seen, and presented physiological explanations for these. A hypothesis is an ?educated? guess or idea that has some degree of evidence and or research. ? hy·poth·e·sis, noun, Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses, Greek from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
Date: circa 1656 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.? http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary It does not contain enough to be a theory and validated yet.
I would ask you if you have any studies that invalidate my hypothesis?
Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does?
Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does render a no deception decision in a deceptive person?
Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does aid in the findings of no deception in a truthful person?
The only study you have cited concentrates on an examiner?s ability, in a controlled and not field setting, to detect countermeasures. This does not suggest that a deceptive person will be able to ?beat? either the examiner or the instrument. ??a study reported by Rovner (1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 1978) has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity. Rovner fully informed groups of innocent and guilty subjects about nature of the CQT, how the CQT was scored, and about ways to beat the test. When these subjects were compared to naive subjects, there were no differences in accuracy rates.? http://truth.boisestate.edu/honts/pdorpc.html ?A study examining the issues involved in assessing the validity of polygraph tests was conducted in 1996 by three individuals. They found that "?adequate experimental evaluation is possible but difficult" (Bradley, et. al., 1996, p.1). http://www.cableregina.com/users/rspn/Polygraphy.htm#Vali This in essence eludes that an experimental evaluations (controlled, fictitious, etc.) are not as valid as field studies.
How about your arguments that polygraph is not scientifically valid? The available field studies show an even higher accuracy rate. Both controlled and field studies show the highest percentage rate is in the detection of deception. ??both the critics and the proponents of the polygraph are in general agreement that the RI and CQ tests are quite accurate at detecting deception. It is generally believed to be in the range of about 85 to 95 percent.? (Barland in Gale, 1988, p.81). ?In a study of actual polygraph cases conducted by a U.S. state Sheriff's office over a three and one-half year period, using confessions by either the accused or someone else who later confessed to the crime as the standard for criminal verification (i.e. the standard for 'ground truth'), the author found that over 98% of the polygraph test results were correct? (Putnam, 1994, p.260). ?The high accuracy at which both examiner groups discriminated between the truthful and deceptive examinees demonstrates the robust state of the CQT. Especially interesting were the findings of an examiner's effect which suggests that as laboratory testers move away from their familiar mock crime paradigm, they make more false positive errors; whereas the police examiners remain consistent across different situations. The authors suggest that as a result of their experience with emotional or highly stressed suspects, the police examiners may be able to more effectively create or present the CQT. These findings support the argument that there may be some degree of difficulty in generalizing laboratory PDD examinations to the field, especially when the examinations are not conducted by trained PDD examiners.? http://www.dodpi.army.mil/research/93r0012.htm Further reading and copies of other studies may be obtained at: http://www.dodpi.army.mil/research/research.htm
You still say that polygraph is not accurate and is not a valid science? Please scientifically disprove these:
?Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%? (Forensic Research, 1997, pp. 215)
?The average accuracy for such studies, conducted since 1980, has been 98%? (Forensic Research, 1997, pp. 217)
?Thus, the aforesaid study supports Reid and Inbau's statement (Chap. 23) that the accuracy of the psychophysiological veracity (PV) examination is commensurate with and even superior to most of the presently approved forms of evidence.? (Matte, 1998, p.5)
?A report on validity from all studies of real cases, conducted since 1980 is presented. Examiner decisions in these studies were compared to other results such as confessions, evidence, and judicial disposition. The ten studies reviewed considered the outcome of 2,042 cases, and the results, assuming that every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicate a validity of 98%. For deceptive cases, the validity was also 98%, and for non-deceptive cases, 97%. The studies were from police and private cases, using a variety of polygraph techniques, conducted in the United States, Canada, Israel, Japan and Poland.? (Matte, 1998, p. 129)
Matte-Reuss Validation Study of the Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique (1989) used 122 confirmed real-life cases from a Metropolitan Police Department and a Private Polygraph firm were used. The cases consisted of 62 deceptive and 53 no deception and 7 inconclusive. Of the 7 inconclusive cases, 5 were solved as innocent and 2 as guilty. The Innocent and the Guilty were reported separately. The Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique correctly identified 91% of the Innocent as Truthful and 9% as Inconclusive, with no errors. It correctly identified 97% of the Guilty as Deceptive and 3% as Inconclusive, with no errors. If you were to exclude the Inconclusive examinations, the Quadri-Zone Comparison Technique was 100% accurate in the identification of the Innocent and the Guilty. With Inconclusives included, the utility rate was 94%. (Matte, 1998, p.114)
Based on these studies involving real cases and excluding inconclusive decisions, it appears that field examiners are about 98% accurate in their overall decisions. When they employ control question tests they are more accurate with deceptive (DI) subjects at 99% than they are with truthful (NDI) subjects at 95% (Matte, 1998, p. 139).
What about other excepted scientific disciplines within forensic science? How do they fair in validity standards when measured against polygraph?
Justice Stevens cites four studies on the reliability of polygraph with mean accuracy levels at 90%, 90.5%, 97.5%, and 87% respectively. He also cites a study in which 'inconclusive' results were excluded in the calculation of accuracy, having resolved 95% of cases correctly, with finger printing, handwriting and eyewitness approaches resolving 100%, 94%, and 64% of cases correctly. When 'inconclusive' results were included, the polygrapher was more accurate than the other three methods with a 90% resolution of the cases, compared to 85% for handwriting, 35% for the eyewitness, and only 20% for the fingerprinting expert (United States v. Scheffer (96-1133), 44M. J. 442, reversed).
J.B.
You wrote in part:
QuoteYou ask if my assertions are (groundless) conjecture? This would suggest that I merely made a guess at the matter with no sound evidence. I have provided you with some examples, explained what is seen, and presented physiological explanations for these.
It seems to me that you indeed simply made a guess at how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) might be detected from the examination of polygraph charts. You guessed that rounded pneumo tracings indicate that the subject employed countermeasures. Reid & Inbau seemlingly would disagree with you on this point.
If you have a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts, please state it formally.You also ask:
QuoteI would ask you if you have any studies that invalidate my hypothesis?
J.B., it is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.
You also asked:
QuoteDo you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does? [sic]
Do you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does render a no deception decision in a deceptive person?
Yes. Such studies were conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, published in peer-reviewed journals, and are cited in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.You also asked:
QuoteDo you have any studies that validate that the countermeasures you propose produce a ?truthful? physiological response does aid in the findings of no deception in a truthful person?
No. As I recall, in the studies by Honts et al. cited in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, "innocent" subjects were not given countermeasure instruction.
You next adduce a list of non-peer-reviewed studies (for which you provide inadequate citations) purporting to support the validity of "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy and ask me to "scientifically disprove" them. Again, I remind you of the basic principle that
it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not on others to disprove it. CQT polygraphy has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. Moreover, since CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control,
it can have no validity.For more on the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there. See also Professor William G. Iacono's recent article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis." (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml)
On a final note, you assert that "a study reported by Rovner (1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 1978) has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity."
On what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, "the lie behind the lie detector," if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to "control" questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP (http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/caawp.html) discussion list), he declined to answer.
George,
You wrote;
Quote:
It seems to me that you indeed simply made a guess at how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector might be detected from the examination of polygraph charts. You guessed that rounded pneumo tracings indicate that the subject employed countermeasures. Reid & Inbau seemlingly would disagree with you on this point. If you have a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts, please state it formally.
A 1:2 respiration per second ratio would produce 30 breaths per minute. A 1:4 would produce 15 bpm. Let us Consider the known equation from ?The Machinery of The Body? Pg. 265, ?Normal resting values: 8 liters per minute = 0.5 liters X 16 per minute.? This would produce a 8000 ml per minute respiration. Giving the fact that normal respiration tidal volume for an adult is 500 ml at rest, one would respire 15000 ml in a minute at a 1:2 ratio and 7500 ml at a 1:4 ratio. The examples I provided show roughly a rate of 24 bpm, a 1:2.5 ratio, in the normal breathing, 12000 ml per minute respired, and roughly 20 bpm, a 1:3 ratio, in the controlled breathing section, 10000 ml per minute respired. Your examples produce 7000 ml above and 500 ml below normal resting respiration respectively, to extreme measures of implementation. My examples provide 4000 ml and 2000 ml above normal resting respiration respectively. Physiology documentation would not argue that respiratory norms do not very in adults. Some factors effecting respiration rate and volume are physical fitness, height, weight, gender, age, illness, and physiological defects in a given individual.
In the example you provided, Reid & Inbau are making a generalization of possible normal respiration tracings, which are illustrated in the form of character drawings and not true tracings. I believe the intentions of their illustrations are to exhibit that such tracings are not indicators per se of abnormal respiration. One must take into consideration the subjects medical history, all the other criteria I listed in the previous paragraph, and possible outside effectors. (i.e. noise disturbance, defective equipment, etc?) Finally, I have stated some areas of my hypothesis here with you. I have provide some information that is testable. However, you do not have the quantitative knowledge and ability to test these for validity. Those who do and wish to will be able to test the hypothesis in proper scientific forum.
You wrote;
Quote:
J.B., it is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, Gino first introduced a proclamation, in this discussion forum, based on a study of countermeasures and you exclaim they work in your book. Thus, in you proposed discourse, it would be incumbent upon both of you to prove your assertion. Scientifically speaking, for one to prove their assertion s/he must provide re-occurring evidence and, if possible, have the ability to show or reproduce that which they assert. Again this study only speaks of the examiners ability to detect countermeasures. It did not purport that the study proved any of the countermeasures were effective at ?beating? the examiner or the exam. It did not focus on the issue of those deceptive subjects that attempted the employment of countermeasures and were scored deceptive. I do not recall the study saying if truthful subjects were not instructed in or exposed to countermeasures.
Quote:
Dr. Charles Honts (a noted psychologist) and Dr. Drew C. Richardson (a noted physiologist and former FBI Supervisory Special Agent) both stated that polygraphers cannot detect attempts at countermeasures better than chance during recent presentations to the National Academy of Sciences. Both men have extensive experience as polygraphers.
Once again, Dr. Honts and Dr. Richardson were basing their statements on the same one study that you have cited over and over again. I have already directed you to a study that says experimental studies are inferior to field studies. Further information is provided on this subject in reply to your next statement.
Quote:
Such studies were conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, published in peer-reviewed journals, and are cited in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
I again say you are beating a dead horse on the wrong racetrack. Do you have any other studies? I am certain people in the scientific community will agree with my assertion that it takes more then one study to prove an outcome as valid. It must be reproduced by others with similar findings and tested in other areas before it is accepted.
Quote:
From http://www.admpoly.com/ccss_3.htm
A. Countermeasures
Countermeasures are anything that a subject might do in order to distort
or defeat a polygraph test. Detailed reviews of the scientific literature
on countermeasures are available in a number of locations.24 This research leads to several conclusions. First, there is no credible scientific evidence that drugs or other countermeasures designed to affect
the general state of the subject are effective against the CQT.25 However, laboratory studies have suggested the possibility that training in specific point countermeasures designed to increase responding to comparison questions might be effective in producing false negative outcomes.26 Nevertheless, it is also important to note that training in the countermeasures appears critical to their effectiveness.
Subjects who spontaneously attempt countermeasures or are only given the
information are unable to achieve effects,27 and the required identified in this journals charter was the psychophysiological detection of deception.
24 e. g., Supra note 18 at 373 (Honts & Perry); Charles R. Honts,
Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures. 15 J. POLICE
SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION 204 (1987); Supra note 23 (Honts, et. al);
Raskin et. al., supra note 1.
25 Id., Honts (1987); Supra note 1 (Raskin et al.); David C. Raskin,
1986 The Polygraph in 1986: Scientific, Professional, and Legal Issues
Surrounding Application and Acceptance of Polygraph Evidence, UTAH LAW
REVIEW 29 (1986).
26 See e.g.. Honts, et al., Supra note 22.
27 Rovner(1986), supra note 7; also see, Charles R. Honts, David C.
Raskin, John C. Kircher, & Roben L. Hodes, Effects of spontaneous
countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception, 16,
Training is hopefully difficult to obtain. 28 Honts and Perry note that while there are no easy answers to the problem of countermeasures, it appears that computerized analysis of the physiological records substantially reduces the false negative rate attributable to countermeasure
use.29
JOURNAL OF POLICE SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION, 91 (1988).
28 Supra note 18 at 376 (Honts and Perry); there are no field
studies that address the countermeasures.
29 Id at 374; also see supra note 22 (Honts et al., 1994).
You wrote;
Quote:
No. As I recall, in the studies by Honts et al. cited in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, "innocent" subjects were not given countermeasure instruction.
Quote:
You next adduce a list of non-peer-reviewed studies (for which you provide inadequate citations) purporting to support the validity of "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy and ask me to "scientifically disprove" them. Again, I remind you of the basic principle that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not on others to disprove it. CQT polygraphy has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. Moreover, since CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity.
Quote:
For more on the scientific status of polygraphy, see Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there. See also Professor William G. Iacono's recent article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis."
Please read;
Quote:
From http://www.admpoly.com/ccss_3.htm
A second and more important indicator of the acceptance of polygraph
testing in the scientific community is provided by the large number of
original scientific studies published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals. Studies reporting positive results for the validity of the
polygraph have appeared in journals such as: The Journal of Applied
Psychology, The Journal of General Psychology, Psychophysiology, The
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Psychological Bulletin, The Journal of Research
in Personality, and Law and Human Behavior, to name but a few. To
be published in any of these journals, the editor first sends an article
out for review by two or three independent scientists who know the area
but are not personally involved with the article under consideration.
Those peer-reviewers comment on the quality of the literature review,
the research design, the statistical analysis, the reasonableness of the
conclusions drawn, and the appropriateness of the article for the
respective journal. The Editor of the journal also reviews the article
and, based on her or his evaluation and on the comments and
recommendations of the reviewers, makes a decision about publication.
Often revisions are required before publication. Articles with
unacceptable scientific methods, statistics, or insupportable conclusions
are not published. Articles which are not acceptable within the scientific
discipline covered by the journal are simply not published in that journal.
For example, the Journal of Applied Psychology rejects 85% of the
manuscripts submitted to it for publication. Articles which report matters
that are not acceptable psychological science do not usually make it through
the peer review (unwise to use the Iacono and Lykken data for any substantive purpose at
this time) process and are not published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
The Journal of Applied Psychology has published numerous articles
on the psychophysiological detection of deception.22 The publication of numerous articles
in main stream journals of scientific psychology gives a clear indication that the psychophysiological detection of deception is generally accepted as valid science by the community of
scientific psychologists.
The increasing acceptance of the psychophysiological detection of
deception is evidenced by the increasing number of scientific publications
on the topic and the involvement of a larger number of psychological
laboratories. In addition, a new peer-reviewed archival scientific journal
devoted to the topic of credibility assessment began publication in early
1997.23
22 Some of the articles on the polygraph published in the
Journal of Applied Psychology are as follows: P. J. Bersh, A
validation study of polygraph examiner judgments, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 399, 53 (1969); P.O. Davidson, Validity of the guilty
knowledge technique: The effects of motivation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 52, 62-65 (1968); E. Elaad, Detection of guilty knowledge in
real-life criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75. 521-529 (1990); E. Elaad, A. Ginton & N. Jungman, Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 757-767 (1992); A. Ginton, D. Netzer, E. Elaad & G.
Ben-Shakhar, A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life
situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 131-137 (1982); C. R.
Honts, R. L. Hodes, & D. C. Raskin, Effects of physical countermeasures on
the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 70, 177-187 (1985); C. R. Honts, D. C. Raskin, & J. C.
Kircher Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph
tests, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-259 (1994); Supra note
16 (Horvath); Supra note 2 (Kircher & Raskin); Supra note 13 (Patrick, &
Iacono); Supra note 7 (Podlesny & Truslow).
23 The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness
Psychology published its first issue on 7 February 1997. One of the main topics
You say;
Quote:
On a final note, you assert that "a study reported by Rovner (1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 1978) has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity."
Quote:
On what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, "the lie behind the lie detector," if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to "control" questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP discussion list), he declined to answer.
Throughout our discussion and assertions of studies, I would think it can be accepted and agreed upon that there are no available scientific studies that proves one can achieve better or desired results with the implementation of countermeasures. Would you suggest to a person who did not touch or access the safe in a burglary that they should wipe clean all fingerprints from the safe? Or to the person who did commit the crime to place more of their fingerprints on the safe? This is not a rational process of thought. To suggest one to distort or add to a sample is not logical. If evidence or data is distorted or altered, it would give suspect to the motive of the person doing so.
J.B. you are obviously a man of science, and so I am in no position to argue with you about physiological responses.
However, I recently took a polygraph for pre-employment (Law-Enforcement) that was structured as a probable-lie control questions test. I knew I would have to lie on a few relevant questions, and so I decided to use countermeasures.
I used the oldest trick in the book--the tac in the shoe tactic
(no pun intended), and created pain responses as soon as I heard each control question asked. On the relevants I simply kept a calm head and made sure my breathing didn't change.
I kept a 1:3 ratio the whole way through on breathing, but I'm not sure if the pain from the tac caused me to breath a bit deeper or not...I applied significant pressure to the tac and it did "sting."
The examiner ran two tests and that was it. Never suspected a thing. I even got a glimpse at the chart and saw a HUGE Pyramid effect on the GSR where I used the tac/on the controls.
Knowing that I lied on two of the relevant questions, I got my results back in the mail saying there were NO indications of emotional responses correlated with deception.
How can this be explained? The polygrapher used was a very reputable one that is referred to by nearly all the local PD's around this area?
Netin,
First, I would need to see a copy or the direct wording of your results. I have never been instructed nor do I know of any document that says an examiner should say that no deception was indicated when the charts score different but I have seen it happen. Some examiners will say that no deception was indicated on deceptive charts if there were pre-exam admissions to the relevant questions. After you provide the information, if this does not answer the question, I will respond with further explanation.
J.B.
The Polygraph results started with a page of all the admissions I made. Then, after the last description of admissions, it states:
After the pre-test interview, two polygraph tests were performed on the subject.
It is in the examiners opinion that there were no emotional responses indicative of deception on any any of the relevant questions, and that the subject was truthfull on all the relevant questions.
Thats all the polygraph results state.
Go figure?
Here's a question, what if polygraphers do read this site, and learn about these counter measures being used by applicants, then basically I'm screwed if the polygrapher performing my interrogation learns about these techniques and would probably assume I used countermeasures, how can I get around this?
Netin,
Are the admissions you made in the pre-exam the same as the relevant issues on the exam? If so, my prior post would possibly explain the examiner's findings. I read one of your other posts on another discussion. You said you had admitted to drug use in the late 90's. Depending on the department?s cutoff, within the last five or 10 years, you may have made an admission to a relevant issue.
The Rock,
Properly trained examiners already know about all the countermeasures purported on this site and others that are not. There is some good information to educate yourself on polygraph, so it is not so mystique when you take one, located here and on the internet. I would advise you not to take any one site as the law on this issue. I would tell you to look at all the information, read the research material in its entirety, and become truly educated as to the factual validity of the process you are involved in. I must point out, that the issue of specific issue testing and pre-employment are separate and not to be confused. Pre-employment deals with multiple issue testing and has not faired well in studies. I have posted in the past, that if you have issues that you know you will have to be deceptive about, do not take the exam. The only way the information on this site can hurt you is if you attempt to employ countermeasures on an exam that you have no deceptive issues on the relevant. There are no studies to support that this venture will help you and I would argue it would inversely cause detriment to your outcome. Again, if someone attempts to alter or distort the results of any examination, the motives of that person would become suspect.
J.B.
Yes I admitted to using Marijuana in 98/99, and that was a relevat question. I thought the department wanted a 2 year break from any drug use, which seems to be the norm around here, but it turns out the wanted a three year break, and so I "didn't make the cut." I was eliminated based on this admission to a relevant questions.
However, this was the only relevant question I messed up on
by making admissions.
During the interview, they also asked questions about dealing, being involved in a felony, and knowingly receiving stolen goods.
These questions are all WAY more serious, in my opinion, than the use of Marijuana (A "drug" grown by the goverment, distributed by the government, and prohibited by the government based on an inability to create a fullproof way of marketing it. Gee...what is the public supposed to think...they see the government giving packages of Joints to sick people to do a study to see if it helps them feel BETTER and aid in the recovery process. Some things just absolutely AMAZE me...but enough about Marijuana).
I lied in the interview about these issues by saying no involvement and never did any of them.
I also lied on these three issues during the test, using a physical countermeasure on the controls.
I passed the test, and have read the results stating, "There were no emotional reactions indicative of deception on any of the relevant questions, and it is in the opinion of the examiner that the subject was telling the truth."
JB:
Your missing the point that I passed the test using the oldest trick in the book.
There is obviously something to countermeasures.
Netnin
Netin,
I think you are missing my point. There are examiners who pass individuals on the exam even if the exam is deception indicated. They justify this by saying the reactions to the relevant were caused by the admissions in the pre-exam phase.
If someone makes an admission in the pre-test to an issue that excludes them from the process in pre-employment or that implicates them in a crime, the test should not be administered on that issue. Example; John Doe is being tested for stealing 100 dollars from his employer. In the pre-exam phase he admits to stealing 10 dollars of the 100. The examiner would note these admissions and not test the subject. The reason is that the test questions will refer to "any of that money" and not exact dollar amounts. If the subject fails one relevant issue, they fail the exam. Administering the exam on that issue would result in deception indicated and knowing the prior admission invalidate the exam. The examiner cannot seperate the test questions and score one no deception indicated and another deception indicated.
J.B.,
QuotePre-employment deals with multiple issue testing and has not faired well in studies.
That which defines pre-employment or other screening is
not that it is a multiple issue test (it may or may not be), but that it seeks to address one or more issues that are
not known to have occurred at the time of the polygraph examination. This type of polygraph examination is by definition a fishing expedition. You are quite correct, though, to (1) raise the issue of (pre-employment) screening (it is that which has brought most of this board's readers to this site) and in accessing that it has not faired well in studies (and, in fact, in theory either). Due to base rate considerations, one would expect that a screening exam that had an 85 per cent accuracy rate (far higher than I would assume but that which the Attorney General of the United States has suggested) for innocent subjects would produce
1500 times more false positive results than true positive results in an effort to find one spy in a population of 10,000 FBI agents. This phenomena would, of course, make it highly unlikely that the spy would be rooted out (akin to finding a needle in a haystack) while it would almost certainly lead to a significant number of people being falsely accused and likely having their lives and/or careers ruined.
QuoteAgain, if someone attempts to alter or distort the results of any examination, the motives of that person would become suspect.
In view of the aforementioned false positive/true positive rate on a screening exam discussion, is there really any question why an intelligent person with any sense of self-preservation would attempt to manipulate the results of a polygraph exam? I think not. I suggest that a knowledgeable and innocent examinee would have to be incredibly pollyannaish regarding his examiner's good intentions to participate in an exercise with such stacked odds and not attempt to manipulate those odds in his favor... Contrary to that which your quote would suggest, it is the motivation of such an examinee (one who realizes the need and methods to protect himself but fails to do so) that should be questioned.
J.B.
Let me correct you again. A man of science and logic, you are surely not. I conclude that you are just another polygrapher coming on this board in an attempt to help protect your profession (in what little ways you can).
Let me try, for the third time, to clarify this. I'm going to put this in third-grade language so that it is easier to follow (I believe my last post was at the fourth-grade level).
Here it goes:
I was given a pre-employment polygraph examination...that means that I had to take a "Lie-detector" test for a job I was trying to get.
The test was a probable-lie control questions test.
In the pre-test interview (not hooked up to the polygraph machine, just a face to face interview), the examiner went over a group of questions with me.
Some of the questions were clearly relevant questions, while others were clearly questions that were going to be set up and used as control questions during the examination.
During the course of the interview, I admitted to nothing except (making the mistake of admitting to) using drugs in the late 90's.
This question was not asked during the adminstration of the polygraph examination it was stated in the admissions section of the results so that the employment agency to eliminate me based on a stated admission.
During the exam, there were Five (that's 5....hold up one hand and thats how many fingers are on it) relevant questions asked with control and irrelevant questions mixed in in an appropriate fashion.
Those five questions--RELEVANT QUESTIONS--were questions that I said "No" to during the pre-test interview. I denied having any part in any of them.
During the exam, I stuck with my "no" answers and lied on the RELEVANT QUESTIONS ASKED ON THE EXAM.
I also used a countermeasure on the control questions.
Here's where it gets tricky J.B....see if you can follow me here:
BASED ONLY ON THE RELEVANT QUESTION ASKED DURING THE ACTUAL POLYGRAPH EXAM (NOT BASED ON ANYTHING ELSE), the examiner found that there were
"no emotional responses indicative of deception on ANY of the relevant questions, and that the examinee was telling the truth on all relevant questions asked during the exam."
Now if we read the above in English, this means that I was found to be truthful on the questions that I was asked during the polygraph examination.
If I was found to be deceptive on any of the relevant questions asked during that actual exam, the results would read, for example,
"There were no emotional responses indicative of deception on questions 3,5, & 8....
There were emotional responses indicative of deception on questions 2,4,6,7,..."
I don't know what reality your living in, but this is the way the polygraph results are expressed. They specify what questions were found to be deceptive on the polygraph exam.
If they didn't, THEN HOW THE HELL would the employment agency know whether the examinee was telling the truth if the examinee denied everything in the interview?
Your statement:
"There are examiners who pass individuals on the exam even if the exam is deception indicated. They justify this by saying the reactions to the relevant were caused by the admissions in the pre-exam phase."
Does not correspond to the situation I have expressed to you.
AGAIN, you are missing the point that I LIED to 3 very relevant question during the interview, then was hooked up to the machine and LIED about those very same questions again, and was found to be telling the truth about THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS ASKED ON THE EXAM.
If an examinee admits to a relevant question during the interview, the examiner will either: 1)Use another relevant question on the exam since there was an admission, or 2)Create a modified relevant question based on the admission.
That is how the exam works. Your suggestion that the examiner wouldn't state whether or not deception was indicated on particular relevant questions asked during the exam is MIND BLOWING!
They have to so that the employment agency knows whether or not the examiner was lying on questions that no admissions were made to.
For you to argue against my situation and insist that I did not pass the test using countermeasures would be to deny reality itself. Moreover, it would be a clear indicator of your intent to coming on this board.
Face it buddy...countermeasures CAN work. If they couldn't ever work, then your ass wouldn't waste your time coming on here trying to insist to everyone that they don't. You would just let the liars use their countermeasures and "easily get caught," as you suggest would happen when using countermeasures.
Netnin
(PS: Slap yourself upside the head and get with it)
Netin:
I have been watching this topic for a while and am a little dismayed by some of your comments to J.B. While it is commendable that you've done some research into polygraphy, I would remind you to be courteous and civil to polygraph proponents as well as to those opposed to its use. It is extremely important that polygraphers participate in this dialogue and that we treat them respectfully. While J.B.'s opinion is incongruous with yours, there is no reason to be smug, condescending or rude even if it is in response to the same.
V/r
AMM
So let me get this str8, if the issue about theft of money from employment comes up, and let's say the question comes up did you ever steal money from an employer, adn I say when I was 13 I stole 10 dollars from my fathers register, then does this mean the the question will not be administered during the "in test" phase, or am I missing something?
AMM (George or Gino--which ever one you are in disguise):
You are right. I was a total ass in my last posting to J.B.
J.B.: I am sorry for my "know it all" and condescending attitude. I just went back and realized that I didn't correctly clarify my situation in the post before my "outraged" post.
I just was really frustrated because in reading your other posts, I could tell that you truly are a man of intellect, and I was angry that you couldn't figure out what I was trying to say.
Maybe it was my own inability to clarify my situation that was subconsciously causing my anger--anger at one's self so to speak.
Again, I apologize. I expect that my last post clarified the situation (in an ass-hole-ish manner).
Sincerely, Netnin
Netin,
You wrote in your first post regarding this question;
Quote:
QuoteThe Polygraph results started with a page of all the admissions I made. Then, after the last description of admissions, it states:
After the pre-test interview, two polygraph tests were performed on the subject.
It is in the examiners opinion that there were no emotional responses indicative of deception on any any of the relevant questions, and that the subject was truthfull on all the relevant questions.
Thats all the polygraph results state.
Go figure?
In your second;
QuoteJ.B.
Yes I admitted to using Marijuana in 98/99, and that was a relevat question. I thought the department wanted a 2 year break from any drug use, which seems to be the norm around here, but it turns out the wanted a three year break, and so I "didn't make the cut." I was eliminated based on this admission to a relevant questions.
However, this was the only relevant question I messed up on
by making admissions.
During the interview, they also asked questions about dealing, being involved in a felony, and knowingly receiving stolen goods.
These questions are all WAY more serious, in my opinion, than the use of Marijuana (A "drug" grown by the goverment, distributed by the government, and prohibited by the government based on an inability to create a fullproof way of marketing it. Gee...what is the public supposed to think...they see the government giving packages of Joints to sick people to do a study to see if it helps them feel BETTER and aid in the recovery process. Some things just absolutely AMAZE me...but enough about Marijuana).
I lied in the interview about these issues by saying no involvement and never did any of them.
I also lied on these three issues during the test, using a physical countermeasure on the controls.
I passed the test, and have read the results stating, "There were no emotional reactions indicative of deception on any of the relevant questions, and it is in the opinion of the examiner that the subject was telling the truth."
There is nothing in either one of these posts that would give me the information that the
Quoterelevant issue
you admitted to was not a
Quoterelevant issue
on the exam.
I am not protecting anything or anyone. I am against pre-employment polygraphs in their current state and feel they are invalid. Again, I do not conduct pre-employment exams. I agree with Drew that there are no studies supporting this method and would add that polygraph was not designed for the currently used method. As I have said previously, if there is one issue of concern in a properly investigated background investigation, that issue could be tested using specific issue. Example; An applicant, who just graduated from college, says s/he has not used marijuana in the last five years. However, a person contacted in the background investigation says s/he smoked marijuana with him in college.
Is there a possibility you may beat an examiner? Yes. I have never said that every examiner can detect countermeasures. The examiner is only as good as their training, knowledge, and experiences. You have told me that the examiner is reputable in your area and was recommended by other police officers. Since you have not said so, I will gather you are speaking of police officers and not polygraph examiners who are police officers. Police departments and police officers usually view polygraph examiners work in specific issue exams, not pre-employment. Regardless of this, they do not know much about polygraph. If you have read just the sections dealing with the exam outline in
QuoteThe Lie Behind The Lie Detector
, you most likely have more knowledge on the issue. I am not saying the examiner is not good. However, it is an unfortunate fact that many examiners go to a polygraph school and get little to no training or education after that. If you went to a dentist who had been practicing dentistry for 50 years, who only went to dental school, did no refresher courses, internship, continuing education, and simply updated themselves on current issues to keep abreast with the field, you would most likely have your teeth drilled with no Novocain and your filling material would most likely be carcinogenic.
As for your comments on my status of scientific thinking, I would gladly defend any comment or assertion I have made. I have not made a comment regarding the scientific aspects of polygraph that I cannot back up with supporting information. On an issue brought to one for comment or enlightenment, one can only do so based on the information that is available to one for comment on.
Drew,
I agree with you on the issue of pre-employment polygraph validity in its current state. My point on the multiple issue aspect of pre-employment is that it is most often a multiple issues exam. Cleve Backster has spoken at length about multiple issue testing and his feelings on its use and abuse in polygraph. More directly to its use in his Zone Comparison Test format. I am sure you have most undoubtedly heard this lecture and spoke with him on this issue.
My comments on countermeasures stand as is. Given that there are no studies to support a truthful subject can better their position with the use of countermeasures, I would not suggest one use them and chance a heightened risk of being deemed deceptive. Literature and studies both point to the success of countermeasures in repetitive training. If one employs countermeasures and is found in doing so they will most likely be found deceptive. If you consider the limited research, which I will only for the context of what if, Honts et al say examiners can detect countermeasures at no better then chance. This would say approximately 50 percent. If the examiner could only detect countermeasures even 20 percent of the time, it would still produce a higher rate of false readings due to their venture then the percentage of false positives. I am unsure of the from what you are deducting the
Quote1500 times more false positive results than true positive results in an effort to find one spy in a population of 10,000 FBI agents.
If this is to suggest that 1500 of 10000 would be false positive, that would mean a 15 percent false positive rate. If this is what you meant, I have seen nor read of such a study. Even so, adding the low estimation of 20 percent found countermeasures to the false positive rate would in turn produce 3500 false positives in a pool of 10000 and 35 in a pool of 100 applicants, as opposed to 1500 and 15 respectively with no countermeasures used.
The only method to the madness is to find a pre-employment polygraph exam that studies support works, and/or stick to specific issue exams on pre-employment as I suggest, or simply abandon pre-employment screening altogether. Regardless of the above numbers suggested for what if, I suggest either and both are to high for the likes of a truthful person who deserves better.
J.B.,
QuoteI agree with you on the issue of pre-employment polygraph validity in its current state...The only method to the madness is to...simply abandon pre-employment screening altogether...Regardless of the above numbers suggested for what if, I suggest either and both are to high for the likes of a truthful person who deserves better.
Well, my friend, perhaps we do have a basis for meaningful conversation and collaboration. Although we clearly have differences of opinion regarding the utility of countermeasures and the use of polygraphy for criminal specific-issue testing, once your colleagues can reach your level of appreciation regarding the cancer that we know as polygraph screening, we can make progress regarding the understanding and practice of the remaining issues. There will likely be little to no progress until the foolishness and victimization of polygraph screening ceases. Regards, D
Drew,
As best as I can demise, the fuel behind this issue is not so much the examiners themselves but the departments who use it to save time and money. Depending on how much a polygraph examiners existence depends on pre-employment screening, they may blindly push for its continued use. I know from first hand experience that the heads of a department or agency, which are worried about the bean counting, usually begin inquiry into the use of polygraph screening. As you know from working for the government, you can educate them on the issues, show them the studies, bombard them with facts, and warn them of pitfalls but if the money and time issue is still there it is hard to convince otherwise.
On what issue or issues of criminal specific issue examinations do we disagree? I would be interested and open to hear your input on any differences. You can post here if you think it is appropriate or send it to my listed e-mail address.
I do not profess to know it all and I never will. I continue to learn with each day that I am blessed to wake and proceed in my path through life. I subscribe to the school of thought that when and if you think you can learn no more you have stopped growing and life has ceased.
Nobody answered my post regarding the pre test question and in test question. For example if they ask have you ever stolen money from work or if they ask have you ever stolen 50dollars or more from work in the pre test questions and I reply I stole so little amount 5-10 dollars from my fathers register when I was 13 at the store will this question pop up during the intest phase or if they ask have you ever stolen any amount of money from work and I reply when I was 13 I stole 10 dollars from my fathers register, will teh question be administered during the in test phase, just curious?
The Rock,
The answer to your question would be dependent on the agency's criteria for disqualification. Most likely the question you posed would be a comparison question and any admissions would be covered by a preface in the exam question, if it were a probable lie exam. In this scenario, the question would still be asked regardless of the admission.
Again, the status of the question depends on the criteria of the agency and the laws in your state. For instance, if your state has a law that makes larceny from a business or employer a felony, your admission would be to that of a commission of a felony. If this admission is a disqualifier, then you will have admitted to an issue that eliminates you from the process and a polygraph would not be needed.
J.B.,
QuoteDepending on how much a polygraph examiners existence depends on pre-employment screening, they may blindly push for its continued use...
I worked for a federal agency for approximately ten years while at the same time openly and publicly opposing its official policy regarding polygraph screening. I am not inclined to have much sympathy or understanding for a polygraph examiner who would allow people (examinees) to be victimized through his practice(s) and continued silence simply so that he might conform to the norm allowing him to go along to get along within his agency. I believe that there will come a day when we will no longer be plagued with polygraph screening. For those who would have a role in criminal specific-issue testing following the fall, they will need to have demonstrated some principle and conviction now if they are to have any credibility on the other side...
Quote...the fuel behind this issue is not so much the examiners themselves but the departments who use it to save time and money...
If a shortsighted view of time and money (completely ignoring the worth of the product obtained) is preferred over rational thought, truth and lasting value for both agency and citizen alike, then I suggest we switch this to an arena all will understand. I would suggest the individual examiners and agencies alike be the target of civil suits based on Constitutional issues so that there might be a clear accountability in terms of that which they value as precious...
With regard to criminal specific-issue testing, I have posted concerns regarding the underlying theory of CQT polygraphy and its impact on practice and research as well as concerns with the obligatory deception associated with this type of testing. Perhaps you might want to become familiar with those postings (I will cut and paste if you have trouble locating them) and comment, as you like. There are a variety of other issues related to validity of published research, resource utilization, etc that I would also enjoy discussing. These concerns having been raised, I still believe there is a very real role for and meaningful way to apply polygraphy to resolving issues related to criminal and administrative matters....
QuoteAs best as I can demise...
On a lighter note, I believe you meant to say something to the effect of "As best I can surmise..." instead of that which you did say in the aforementioned quoted material. I point this out not to poke fun (I am quite susceptible to the same error), but because I believe the slip of the tongue you made is, albeit unintentional, yet nevertheless quite apropos if the word demise refers to polygraph screening. Best for now and have a pleasant weekend, Drew
Drew,
First, thank you for the correction of wording on my last post. Yes, demise is quite whimsical in light of the issue at hand.
I agree that there will come a day, if drastic reform is not implemented, that pre-employment polygraph falls to a page in history. Again, I do not conduct pre-employment screening. I only conduct criminal specific issue examinations.
QuoteIf a shortsighted view of time and money (completely ignoring the worth of the product obtained) is preferred over rational thought, truth and lasting value for both agency and citizen alike, then I suggest we switch this to an arena all will understand. I would suggest the individual examiners and agencies alike be the target of civil suits based on Constitutional issues so that there might be a clear accountability in terms of that which they value as precious...
I agree. If someone is knowingly doing something that would violate our professional obligation to uphold the constitution, there should be ramifications for their actions. The color of the law is quite broad and may be applicable to this issue depending on the case.
See;
QuoteFrom: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=325&invol=91
U.S. Supreme Court
SCREWS v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945)
'Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, will-fully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'
There are pitfalls within the opinions on this issue;
Quote
From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=491&invol=58#64
U.S. Supreme Court
WILL v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)
Held:
Neither States nor state officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" within meaning of 1983. Pp. 62-71.
(a) That a State is not a person under 1983 is supported by the statute's language, congressional purpose, and legislative history. In common usage, the term "person" does not include a State. This usage is particularly applicable where it is claimed that Congress has subjected the States to liability to which they had not been subject before. Reading 1983 to include States would be a decidedly awkward way of expressing such a congressional intent. The statute's language also falls short of satisfying the ordinary rule of statutory construction that Congress must make its intention to alter the constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government unmistakably clear in a statute's language. Moreover, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is one of the well-established common-law immunities and defenses that Congress did not intend to override in enacting 1983. Cf. Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 ; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 . The "Dictionary Act" provision that a "person" includes "bodies politic and corporate" fails to evidence such an intent. This Court's ruling in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 - which held that a municipality is a person under 1983 - is not to the contrary, since States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not. Pp. 63-70. [491 U.S. 58, 59]
(b) A suit against state officials in their official capacities is not a suit against the officials but rather is a suit against the officials' offices and, thus, is no different from a suit against the State itself. Pp. 70-71.
428 Mich. 540, 410 N. W. 2d 749, affirmed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 71. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 87.
QuoteThese concerns having been raised, I still believe there is a very real role for and meaningful way to apply polygraphy to resolving issues related to criminal and administrative matters....
Please expound on what you would deem administrative matters.
I do not think our thoughts are very different if at all on the criminal specific issue testing. I agree that CQT has a degree of probing, if this is the issue at hand, and I would prefer the DLT. I know you prefer the GKT and have read at length the debates between Honts and Furedy. The only way to better our profession is by cultivating change in fallible issues and expounding upon successful ones. In some issues it may need to be forced change.
QuoteFor those who would have a role in criminal specific-issue testing following the fall, they will need to have demonstrated some principle and conviction now if they are to have any credibility on the other side...
Again I concur with you. There were many more polygraph examiners pre EPPA. The truly professional examiners will push for change, standardization, licensing, research and any and all continual improvements of polygraph as a science.
J.B. I am trying to understand your case law and its relevance to polygraphy. If you are saying that polygraphers enjoy immunity, you are correct. State polygraph boards will stop at nothing in protecting their members. I read of a lawsuit where an examinee sued to get a copy of his chart so it could be reviewed by independant polygraphers. They state board went to bat for the p[olygrapher and won with the statement "it is impossible for one polygrapher to interpret and pass judgement on another polygrapher's chart". I wish I had kept the article but, unfortunately, I didn't.
State's qualified immunity is ever evolving. Given that U.S. SpCt. rulings are controlling, there are Courts of appeal that rules for and against "Collateral Order Doctrine". In Garrett v. Alabama,(ADA Title l, employment) the high court ruled that Congress didn't use the language necessary to abrogate state's qualified immunity. However, ADA Title 11, (Hospitals, prisons, etc.) Congress, even though they didn't have to, used the talismanic language to ,and it was their intent to, abrogate state's immunity because they proved a pattern of abuse. State's do NOT enjoy immunity under Title 11.
Again, this has little to do with polygraphy except to ask the question "why does polygraphers enjoy qualified immunity?"
How would you answer this question?
Netin:
I can assure you that I am neither George nor Gino in disguise. I am just another victim of LAPD's pre-employment polygraph policy who believes that ridiculing polygraph proponents does nothing to further an ongoing dialogue. This site has been fortunate to have several polygraphers participate and I would like to see that continue.
J.B.: Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging problems with pre-employment polygraph screening. I have first-hand knowledge that honesty does not guarantee passing and that effective countermeasures can be utilized successfully by honest applicants to avoid false positive outcomes. I hope that you will continue to participate.
Very respectfully,
AMM
QuoteJ.B., quoting George Maschke: It is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.
End quote
JB: Actually, if I am not mistaken, Gino first introduced a proclamation, in this discussion forum, based on a study of countermeasures and you exclaim they work in your book. Thus, in you proposed discourse, it would be incumbent upon both of you to prove your assertion.
We could play "chicken and the egg" on this one forever. The buck, however, should stop with those who maintain that polygraph "tests" are a reliable method of detecting deception. The fact is that polygraph "tests" have never been proven to determine truth from deception with better than chance accuracy in a peer-reviewed study conducted under field conditions. I would be inclined to accept your argument if polygraph "testing" was already widely accepted by scientists. Since the validity of polygraphic lie detection has never been sufficiently established in the first place, those attempting to make a case for it should also be responsible for demonstrating that the "tests" are accurate against those attempting to beat them using widely available information.
QuoteI am against pre-employment polygraphs in their current state and feel they are invalid . . .As best as I can demise, the fuel behind this issue is not so much the examiners themselves but the departments who use it to save time and money.
JB,
It is good to see that we have found some common ground here. While the examiners may not be 100% to blame, they are certainly a "but for" cause of the irreparable damage that is occurring the reputations of truthful and innocent individuals on a daily basis.
I suggest that you check out the personal statements section of this website to view anecdotes of the damage that is occurring to people. A large number of agencies are eliminating applicants
based on polygraph screening alone. Some agencies, like the US Secret Service (arguably the most abusive in the nation when it comes to polygraphy) will DQ an applicant without even polygraphing him if he admits in his application to failing even a single previous polygraph "test."
I agree with Drew that the greed of the examiners plays a large part in what is going on. There is nearly universal agreement among researchers (even among those who support specific issue "testing") that
polygraph screening is invalid and should be stopped. Even the scientific advisory board at DoDPI held this view (all members of the board were dismissed soon after they stated this publicly). Ethical examiners could refuse to engage in screening. More importantly, the American Polygraph Association could declare it an act of misconduct to conduct screening "exams." At the very least, the APA could declare that no examiner should conduct screening for an agency that has a policy of eliminating applicants based solely on polygraph results. A number of APA Presidents including Richard W. Keifer have said that no employment decision should be made based only on polygraph results, yet this practice is extremely widespread.
On ABC News' Sam Show webcast on Friday, 2 March 2001, American Polygraph Association President Skip Webb actually stated
QuoteSkip Webb: ...in the federal government, both the Department of Defense and in other areas of the government, we do not make any decision based solely on the adverse results of a polygraph. So no adverse action is every taken on anyone based simply on the results of a polygraph....
As George pointed out in a previous thread, Webb's statement was completely false and he knows it. In many cases, a single failed pre-employment polygraph is enough to get one blacklisted for life from federal employment. The applicant is afforded no background investigation, no re-test, no due process—nothing.
The fact is that polygraphers are aware of what is going on yet most have made no efforts to stop it (JB: Have you written the APA to let them know your position on screening?). If a substantial number of examiners actually cared about what is happening to people's lives instead of their own bank accounts and had simply done something like I suggested above when this problem first surfaced, it is likely that websites like this one would not even exist.
Unfortunately, it appears that those who run the APA have decided to embrace screening to the end, even if it means going down with the ship. Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that a few years from now, polygraph associations will look back on their decision to do nothing to halt the damage being caused to individuals by polygraph screening as a tremendous mistake.
JB,
As always, I sincerely value your participation in this forum.
QuoteJ.B., quoting George Maschke: It is a fundamental principle of rational discourse that it is incumbent upon him who makes a positive assertion to prove it, not upon others to disprove it. If you can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, prove it.
End quote
JB: Actually, if I am not mistaken, Gino first introduced a proclamation, in this discussion forum, based on a study of countermeasures and you exclaim they work in your book. Thus, in you proposed discourse, it would be incumbent upon both of you to prove your assertion.
We could play "chicken and the egg" on this one forever. The buck, however, should stop with those who maintain that polygraph "tests" are a reliable method of detecting deception. The fact is that polygraph "tests" have never been proven to determine truth from deception with better than chance accuracy in a peer-reviewed study conducted under field conditions. I would be inclined to accept your argument if polygraph "testing" was already widely accepted by scientists. Since the validity of polygraphic lie detection has never been sufficiently established in the first place, those attempting to make a case for it should also be responsible for demonstrating that the "tests" are accurate against those attempting to beat them using widely available information.
It is good to see that we have found some common ground here. While the examiners may not be 100% to blame, they are certainly a "but for" cause of the irreparable damage that is occurring the reputations of truthful and innocent individuals on a daily basis.
I suggest that you check out the personal statements section of this website to view anecdotes of the damage that is occurring to people. A large number of agencies are eliminating applicants
based on polygraph screening alone. Some agencies, like the US Secret Service (arguably the most abusive in the nation when it comes to polygraphy) will DQ an applicant without even polygraphing him if he admits in his application to failing even a single previous polygraph "test." In the words of one polygraph victim I know,
It's like you set off the metal detector at the airport and they ban you from flying for life.
I agree with Drew that the greed of the examiners plays a large part in what is going on. There is nearly universal agreement among researchers (even among those who support specific issue "testing") that
polygraph screening is invalid and should be stopped. Even the scientific advisory board at DoDPI held this view. (Former DoDPI director Michael H. Capps dismissed the board.) Ethical examiners could refuse to engage in screening. More importantly, the American Polygraph Association could declare it an act of misconduct to conduct screening "exams." At the very least, the APA could declare that no examiner should conduct screening for an agency that has a policy of eliminating applicants based solely on polygraph results. A number of APA Presidents including Richard W. Keifer have said that no employment decision should be made based only on polygraph results, yet this practice is extremely widespread.
On ABC News' Sam Show webcast on Friday, 2 March 2001, American Polygraph Association President Skip Webb actually stated "no adverse action is ever taken on anyone based simply on the results of a polygraph."
As George pointed out in a previous thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=77.msg252#msg252), Webb's statement was completely false and he knows it. In many cases, a single failed pre-employment polygraph is enough to get one blacklisted for life from federal employment. The applicant is afforded no background investigation, no re-test, no due process—nothing.
The fact is that polygraphers are aware of what is going on yet most have made no efforts to stop it (JB: Have you written the APA to let them know your position on screening?). If a substantial number of examiners actually cared about what is happening to people's lives instead of their own bank accounts and had simply done something like I suggested above when this problem first surfaced, it is likely that websites like this one would not even exist.
Unfortunately, it appears that those who run the APA have decided to embrace screening to the end, even if it means going down with the ship. Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that a few years from now, polygraph associations will look back on their decision to do nothing to halt the damage being caused to individuals by polygraph screening as a tremendous mistake.
Gino,
I am glad that we do see together that the pre-employment polygraph screening in its current state is invalid and unacceptable. I am not alone in the polygraph field in this view. Many examiners I have spoken with share the need for reform and national standards. You suggest that I contact the APA with these views. In here lies a current problem that I have discussed with Drew. There is no current national governing board of polygraph. The APA may make suggestions and impose rules and sanctions on their members but have little to no power when an examiner is not a member.
You wrote;
QuoteThe buck, however, should stop with those who maintain that polygraph "tests" are a reliable method of detecting deception. The fact is that polygraph "tests" have never been proven to determine truth from deception with better than chance accuracy in a peer-reviewed study conducted under field conditions. I would be inclined to accept your argument if polygraph "testing" was already widely accepted by scientists. Since the validity of polygraphic lie detection has never been sufficiently established in the first place, those attempting to make a case for it should also be responsible for demonstrating that the "tests" are accurate against those attempting to beat them using widely available information.
You bring up several arguments in this statement and I will address them separately.
First, you say I am passing the buck. My intention was not to pass the buck but to enlighten that both George and you have made assertions prior to my coming here. It was George's proper method of discourse. I have provided evidence to my assertions. My assertions are provided with illustrations of true tracings, physiological explanations and scientific cites. Added to these, I have specific education and experience in this field. It is your right to express your views and feelings. However, to offer them as true to fact or scientific is misleading and confusing to those coming to your site to obtain credible information and education. I encourage people to educate themselves on polygraph weather for the purpose of taking a or just have interest in polygraph. That is why I come to this site and provide information. There is no need to keep any aspect of the polygraph a secret. A properly educated examinee is less likely to be apprehensive and more likely to be comfortable with the known. That is why I here and in my polygraph examinations openly answer questions that examinee's or readers have.
Secondly, you say the accuracy of polygraph is no better then chance in field settings. I have provided you with a long list of peer reviewed studies on polygraph. None of these studies or any or all combined support a 50 percent accuracy rate. Chance is 50/50. The only study I know of that suggests chance is the Honts study that deals with an examiner's ability to detect countermeasures, not polygraph accuracy.
Last, you state that polygraph is not scientifically accepted. Honts would disagree with this assertion and has argued at length with Furedy on this issue.
Quote
From: http://truth.boisestate.edu/honts/pdorpc.html
Attitudes in the Scientific Community Regarding Polygraph Testing
In light of the lengthy and often acrimonious debate in the scientific literature, and the negative opinions expressed by Furedy (1993) and others (Furedy's letter to the SPR in 1994), one might expect the scientific community to hold sharply divided opinions regarding the accuracy of polygraphs. However, in the last two decades, two scientifically-conducted surveys have clearly demonstrated that the relevant scientific community holds positive views regarding the utility of polygraph testing, including the CQT.
In 1982, a scientific telephone survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) was conducted by the Gallup Organization (1984). The purpose of the Gallup survey was to assess the opinions held by the scientific community in order to meet a Frye standard regarding the offer of polygraph evidence by The Wall Street Journal, then defendants in a civil libel suit. The Frye standard required scientific findings and techniques to gain general acceptance in the appropriate scientific community before they were admitted as evidence. The principal findings of the 1982 Gallup survey are shown in Table 1. Approximately two-thirds of the scientists reported favorable opinions concerning the usefulness of polygraph tests. Only 1% of the respondents indicated that the polygraph was without value.
Amato (1993; also see Amato & Honts, 1994) replicated the 1982 Gallup study using a mail survey of the SPR membership. Their principal results are also shown in Table 1. Considering all respondents, their findings closely mirrored those reported by Gallup in 1982. In addition, Amato and Honts separated respondents who characterized themselves as highly informed about polygraph tests from those who indicated they were not highly informed. The highly-informed subjects reported much more favorable opinions regarding the validity of polygraph testing; 83% of them endorsed the favorable alternatives. Additional questions indicated no significant differences between respondents attitudes twoard control question and guilty knowledge tests.
Note: A Table appears in the printed article rather than the color graphic.
The results of these studies strongly contradict Furedy's (1993; Ben-Shakhar & Furedy, 1990) assertions of widespread negative attitudes in the scientific community. The data clearly indicate that a substantial majority of psychophysiologists and the majority of highly-informed psychophysiologists believe that the CQT is a useful diagnostic tool for assessing truthfulness. Scientists who are familiar with the polygraph literature have not been persuaded to ignore the majority of published data, nor have they been persuaded by vocal polygraph critics who cite only a few weak studies to support their negative biases and minority views.
Note: The table is not present here but is available at the provided link within the quote.
J.B.,
This message thread began with Netnin posting the explanation he received from certain polygraphers of how they can allegedly detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. Netnin did not find the answers he received satisfying, and asked for comment.
You at first responded with a discussion of "invoked" vs. "evoked" physiological responses, without explaining how these can be distinguished from the examination of polygraph charts. I asked you to do so, and to "be specific, and support your reply with references that skeptical readers may check."
On 20 Nov. you replied:
QuoteFor the questions about "self-stimulation (e.g., contracting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, thinking arousing thoughts, or manipulating one's breathing patterns) vs. those that are attributable to other factors (e.g., fear of the consequences of not being believed, anger, embarrassment, etc., etc.)?"
The sphincter contraction causes specific and notable changes in another component tracing.
Manipulating ones respiration is evident in the inhalation- exhalation ratio factor and tracing appearance.
Mental imagery is invoked at the examinee's perceived point of implementation. Invoking a response with mental imagery would then involve one hearing the question, perceiving the question to be one that they should use CM, beginning mental imagery, and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system possibly being triggered. However, a person responding to a question is different. The question and answer are reviewed prior. The person already knows if their answer will be truthful or deceptive. Hence, to process this involves hearing the question and then the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.
But again, you did not explain how to detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts...
On 24 Nov., you claimed that "rounded breathing is not normal" and on 27 Nov., I posted the illustrations you sent me along with your explanation of how to detect respiratory countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. Your argument was that rounded pneumo tracings are indicative of attempted countermeasures. Although you also provided an illustration showing apneas in conjunction with anal sphincter contractions, you provided no explanation of how the presence of such apneas can be correlated with attempted countermeasures. (Indeed, according to DoDPI, apneas such as those shown in your illustration are a scorable physiological reaction.)
On 28 November, I posted an illustration from Reid & Inbau's
Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique titled "Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns." Most of the pneumo tracings show rounding, which contradicts your claim that rounded breathing is indicative of attempted countermeasures.
Finally, and also on 28 November, you conceded that you are "unaware of any published or publicly available documentation or scientific study" regarding how countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts. You also stated that your argument regarding countermeasure detection "is a hypothesis not a theory" and that you are "in the infant stages of studying, researching, documenting and validating the ideas [you] have shared..."
On 29 November, I challenged you, "If you have a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures can be detected from the examination of polygraph charts, please state it formally."
To date, you have not done so, though on 5 December you posted a non sequitur discussion of respiratory volumes. In the same post, you wrote regarding the Reid & Inbau illustration, "In the example you provided, Reid & Inbau are making a generalization of possible normal respiration tracings, which are illustrated in the form of character drawings and not true tracings." You obviously did not read the text at the top of the illustration. It states, "All of the following reproductions comprising Figures 9 through 22 are from actual case records and the tracings are the same size as the originals."
Today (11 December), you wrote regarding me and Gino, "It is your right to express your views and feelings. However, to offer them as true to fact or scientific is misleading and confusing to those coming to your site to obtain credible information and education." Our arguments in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are based on our research of the literature, and are extensively annotated with citations that the skeptical reader may check.
Addressing Gino, you wrote, "you say the accuracy of polygraph is no better then chance in field settings. I have provided you with a long list of peer reviewed studies on polygraph. None of these studies or any or all combined support a 50 percent accuracy rate. Chance is 50/50."
What Gino and I have both argued is that Control Question Test (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to operate at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. Such peer-reviewed studies as you cite apply to analog (laboratory) studies, not field studies. And it bears repeating that as CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity.
In addition, the chance level of accuracy is not necessarily 50/50. It is governed by the base rate of guilt. For example, in screening for espionage, where the base rate of guilt is quite small (less than 1%), an accuracy rate of over 99% could be obtained by ignoring the polygraph charts and arbitrarily declaring all "tested" to be truthful. However, such a methodology would not work better than chance.
With regard to Honts and Amato's survey of scientific opinion regarding polygraphy, note that the question of whether polygraphy has "utility" is different from the question of whether is has "validity." A completely invalid truth test may nonetheless have utility if it leads to confessions that would not have been made absent the "test." In a survey published in 1997 by William G. Iacono & David T. Lykken (see the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a full citation and abstract), members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research were provided with an explanation of how the CQT works and were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed. In addition, when asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions," 99% of the 96% of respondents with an opinion agreed.
You also claim in your latest post, "There is no need to keep any aspect of the polygraph a secret. A properly educated examinee is less likely to be apprehensive and more likely to be comfortable with the known."
Again I ask you, as I did on 29 November (you did not answer), "on what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, 'the lie behind the lie detector,' if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP discussion list), he declined to answer."
George,
I will respond to you at length in a later post in regards to your last post. I apologize for delay. I have been quite busy.
I will respond quickly to some of your questions posed in your last post.
You wrote, in part, about my statement of Reid & Inbau illustrations;
Quote.... "All of the following reproductions comprising Figures 9 through 22 are from actual case records and the tracings are the same size as the originals."
The key word in this sentence is "reproductions". As I wrote prior, they are not true tracings. (i.e. photocopies of real charts) Furthermore, I wrote of numerous factors that are considered in the appearance of respiratory tracings within one of my prior posts;
Quote..... Physiology documentation would not argue that respiratory norms do not very in adults. Some factors effecting respiration rate and volume are physical fitness, height, weight, gender, age, illness, and physiological defects in a given individual. ...... One must take into consideration the subjects medical history, all the other criteria I listed in the previous paragraph, and possible outside effectors. (i.e. noise disturbance, defective equipment, etc)
You wrote;
QuoteAlthough you also provided an illustration showing apneas in conjunction with anal sphincter contractions, you provided no explanation of how the presence of such apneas can be correlated with attempted countermeasures. (Indeed, according to DoDPI, apneas such as those shown in your illustration are a scorable physiological reaction.)
Physiologically speaking, when the sphincter muscle is contracted the muscles within the thoracic region contract as well. (i.e. diaphragm and intercostal) This is due to the physiological reason for sphincter muscle contraction, defecation. The contraction of the sphincter signals to the brain that defecation is being initiated and the thoracic region in turn contracts to aid the movement downward and prevent it from moving upward. This action is intrinsic and would be imposed inversely if the action were to prevent excretion. Thus, hypothetically speaking, if one employs the sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure, the apnea I noted in the true tracings would be the result.
You wrote;
QuoteAgain I ask you, as I did on 29 November (you did not answer), "on what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, 'the lie behind the lie detector,' if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive? When I put this question directly to Professor Honts (via his CAAWP discussion list), he declined to answer."
I responded previously by telling you that the idea of greater response for the employment of countermeasures along with the normal physiological reactions was illogical. The reason I said this is because if one employs countermeasures it will negate the ability to discern the true physiological reaction/response. This is not because one would produce greater or lessor response but because the distortion would negate it as a true reaction/response. Although all or part of one or more reactions/responses may be true, the presence of distortion would not allow them to be scored as such. Take for example, and I know this is not a countermeasure you support, if one takes a deep cleansing breath every time a comparison question is asked. This may cause a noticeable change in respiration, cardio, and GSR but it is not a normal reaction/response. It becomes an imposed artifact so, as in the material you have read, it would not be scored. Also, as you stated, apnea is a scoring criteria for respiration. However, the apnea I presented is not caused or the same in true tracing appearance as the apnea for scoring. Thus, it is not scored as a normal reaction/response because it is not truley apnea but again is considered as an artifact.
I will follow up more in a later post.
J.B.,
Regarding four points you briefly addressed...
1) Reid & Inbau made it abundantly clear that their illustrations are of actual tracings, shown actual size, and are not "character drawings" as you suggested. The fact that they used the term "reproductions" does not suggest that they provided stylized cartoon drawings (such as are found, for example, in DoDPI's Test Data Analysis (http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#dodpi-test-data-analysis) document).
2) You still provided no explanation whatsoever of how apneas associated with contraction of the anal sphincter muscle can be correlated with attempted countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts.
3) Your answer to my question, "on what theoretical basis can sophisticated subjects (that is, those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy, 'the lie behind the lie detector,' if you will) be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to the relevant questions, if deceptive?" was completely non-responsive. (This is not a question about countermeasures.)
4) Lastly, you wrote, "the apnea I presented [in the 2nd illustration that you provided and I posted on 27 Nov.] is not caused or the same in true tracing appearance as the apnea for scoring. Thus, it is not scored as a normal reaction/response because it is not truley apnea but again is considered as an artifact." Do you suppose that all apneas associated with contraction of the anal sphincter muscle will look like those in your illustration? If so, on what evidence do you base this belief? If not, then how do you distinguish between a "true apnea for scoring" and an "untrue" apnea?
J.B.
You make the following argument in your latest post:
"Physiologically speaking, when the sphincter muscle is contracted the muscles within the thoracic region contract as well. (i.e. diaphragm and intercostal) This is due to the physiological reason for sphincter muscle contraction, defecation. The contraction of the sphincter signals to the brain that defecation is being initiated and the thoracic region in turn contracts to aid the movement downward and prevent it from moving upward. This action is intrinsic and would be imposed inversely if the action were to prevent excretion. Thus, hypothetically speaking, if one employs the sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure, the apnea I noted in the true tracings would be the result."
As far as I understand it, though I may be wrong, the only method used to monitor breathing is through the use of two pneumo tubes: One placed around the upper portion of the chest, and one placed around the abdomen area.
The two pneumo tubes that are used to record tracings of breathing feedback do so by the manipulation (of the tubes) by either being stretched outward by inhalation, or by being contracted inward by exhalation.
I have practiced using the sphincter contraction countermeasure technique a number of times now, and don't understand what you mean by this countermeasure causing "apnea."
I have employed the sphincter contraction during the inhalation, exhalation, and slight pausing phase of the breathing process, and have found that doing so does not affect, in any way, the flow of breathing. Furthermore, contracting the sphincter does not cause a short pause in breathing.
Perhaps you were referring to your idea of invoked and evoked physiology. Were you trying to say apnea would be caused if the sphincter was contacted as the result of a NORMAL reaction to outside stimuli? If this is the case, then your insight on this subject only proves to be informing--it does not, however, demonstrate that the sphincter contraction countermeasure technique lends itself to easy
detection through the gazing of the polygraph charts (the head subject of this particular post).
In conclusion, I find that the self-induced contraction of the anal sphincter has no affect on breathing, as far as breathing tracings on a polygraph chart are concerned. It is not up to me to determine whether or not a sphincter contraction caused by outside stimuli would cause apnea, as this is something I am not able to self-test.
J.B.:
I urge you to turn your focus of discussion to how countermeasures suggested in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" are recognized through chart-gazing.
Sincerely, Netnin
George,
QuoteReid & Inbau made it abundantly clear that their illustrations are of actual tracings, shown actual size, and are not "character drawings" as you suggested.
Although Reid & Inbau's reproductions are considerably better then those produced by DODPI, they do not appear as they would and I have seen in true tracings. They are still illustrations or "reproductions" and the word they used to describe the tracings were "same" not actual or exact size.
As for the sphincter contraction and notations within the pneumo tracings of my prior post, these noted tracing will be produced within the pneumo tracings at the onset of the produced GSR response caused by the contraction. This is not apnea. Apnea is ceased respiration at the end of exhalation and continues until the carbon dioxide becomes concentrated to the point of stimulating the inhalation. This is normally seen in hyperventilation. It appears like apnea and referred to like such because in the noted tracings it occurred where apnea would. Apnea is much longer in the tracings and appears between end of exhalation and beginning of inhalation. The short flat tracing noted within the pneumos tracings is caused by the muscles contracted intrinsically and is abnormal to respiration. The pneumo tubes are placed on or near the diaphragm and on the upper thoracic cavity, which the intercostal are present in, to monitor respiration. Although the diaphragm and intercostal muscles are primarily used for respiration, they are also used in a process known as the defecation reflex. This tracing will occur where the contraction is initiated and may occur automatically subsequent to because of the initiated reflex. This flattening of the tracing due to contraction of the given muscle is evident and reproduce within the given pneumo tracings with each sphincter muscle contraction at the point of contraction and in direct correlation with the onset of the produced GSR response. Although this process might not be noticeable to a person practicing, as Netin claims, it is noticeable in the tracings as noted in the previously provided examples.
As for your question about knowledge and its effect on response to the CQT, I am sorry I misunderstood the question posed. Please remember that my response to your question deals only with criminal specific issue examinations. A person knowing how a polygraph is administered will have no relevant bearing on their physiological responses to questions. They will not respond more or less then if they knew nothing of the process. I know of and have administered polygraphs to polygraph examiners resulting in both confirmed deceptive and truthful in the respective different cases. Their responses were no different then John Know Nothing's. The advantage I see of an educated examinee is that the fear of the unknown is removed and thus they are usually more relaxed at the onset of the process, if truthful. If deceptive and educated, I would think they would not take the exam.
I hope these answers better explain some of your questions.
QuoteI hope these answers better explain some of your questions.
J.B.,
Yes, they did. Respectfully, these answers (and your previous ones) lead me to conclude, among other things, that you are presently unable to articulate:
1) A testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be reliably detected from the examination of polygraph charts;
2) A theoretical explanation of how sophisticated subjects (those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy) can be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to relevant questions, if deceptive.
George,
These have been your prior requests;
Quote1) A testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be reliably detected from the examination of polygraph charts;
2) A theoretical explanation of how sophisticated subjects (those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy) can be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to relevant questions, if deceptive.
1) A testable hypothesis by Webster definition as I earlier cited "... implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation."
My explanations have met the defined criteria for a testable hypothesis.
I have explained to you in-depth what is seen when a sphincter muscle is contracted within the "tracings" and explained scientifically why. These examples and the explanations imply that if this tracing is seen it is the proposed countermeasure, not a normal reaction/response but a voluntary action causing an involuntary reaction as shown in the tracings and explained in science, and specifically in my examples a sphincter muscle contraction.
I have explained respiration ratios and the factors that effect them. The complexity of normal respiration would prove that someone with no formal education of Anatomy and Physiology would not be able to generally calculate or even estimate what their normal respiration is. Even if one were to have this knowledge, they would not be able to maintain an appeared normal controlled breathing pattern for the approximate half a hour they are attached to the instrument. Unlike analog polygraph which record or show tracings when the examiner begins the chart, the computerized polygraph shows the respiration and GSR tracings the entire time the person is attached to the instrument.
I am already in the process of testing these along with other countermeasures and when I am finished I will have a theory.
You asked for a testable hypothesis and I have provided you with more then one. Now I say to you, "How will you test my hypothesis?"
2) I cannot give a theoretical explanation of something that will not occur. They are not expected to or will they produce any more or less and in the prior cited studies;
"(1986; Rovner, Raskin, & Kircher, 197 has clearly demonstrated that secrecy about the nature of the CQT is not necessary to maintain its validity. Rovner fully informed groups of innocent and guilty subjects about nature of the CQT, how the CQT was scored, and about ways to beat the test. When these subjects were compared to naive subjects, there were no differences in accuracy rates.? http://truth.boisestate.edu/honts/pdorpc.html "
"From http://www.admpoly.com/ccss_3.htm
A. Countermeasures
Countermeasures are anything that a subject might do in order to distort
or defeat a polygraph test. Detailed reviews of the scientific literature
on countermeasures are available in a number of locations.24 This research leads to several conclusions. First, there is no credible scientific evidence that drugs or other countermeasures designed to affect
the general state of the subject are effective against the CQT.25 However, laboratory studies have suggested the possibility that training in specific point countermeasures designed to increase responding to comparison questions might be effective in producing false negative outcomes.26 Nevertheless, it is also important to note that training in the countermeasures appears critical to their effectiveness.
Subjects who spontaneously attempt countermeasures or are only given the
information are unable to achieve effects,27 and the required identified in this journals charter was the psychophysiological detection of deception.
24 e. g., Supra note 18 at 373 (Honts & Perry); Charles R. Honts,
Interpreting research on polygraph countermeasures. 15 J. POLICE
SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION 204 (1987); Supra note 23 (Honts, et. al);
Raskin et. al., supra note 1.
25 Id., Honts (1987); Supra note 1 (Raskin et al.); David C. Raskin,
1986 The Polygraph in 1986: Scientific, Professional, and Legal Issues
Surrounding Application and Acceptance of Polygraph Evidence, UTAH LAW
REVIEW 29 (1986).
26 See e.g.. Honts, et al., Supra note 22.
27 Rovner(1986), supra note 7; also see, Charles R. Honts, David C.
Raskin, John C. Kircher, & Roben L. Hodes, Effects of spontaneous
countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception, 16,
Training is hopefully difficult to obtain. 28 Honts and Perry note that while there are no easy answers to the problem of countermeasures, it appears that computerized analysis of the physiological records substantially reduces the false negative rate attributable to countermeasure
use.29"
As I said in my last post, " ..not because one would produce greater or lessor response but
because the distortion would negate it as a true reaction/response." There is only one known and studied reason for someone to employ countermeasures and that is to attempt to hide their deceptive answers with distortion of the tracings.
I warn anyone who follows this discussion that,
if you employ countermeasures, you will be found to be inconclusive at best and most likely deceptive.
J.B.
Your intent becomes clearer and clearer with each post you contribute to this board: To try and scare off people from using countermeasures by using scientific talk that leaves people confused and wrongfully convinced that countermeasures are easily detectable when visually analyzing polygraph charts.
I suspect your understanding that this particular chain of posts is the most popularly viewed chain (created thus far) gives you more incentive to type off intimidating messages warning not to use countermeasures...you understand that you are reaching--and potentially scaring off--a lot of people (possibly hundreds) from going ahead and using effective countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
You have failed to give the readers who have been following this chain of posts any uniform standard of detecting countermeasures vie gazing at polygraph charts. Instead, you have attempted to lend scientific support to a machine that has already been determined to be JUNK-science by many professionals in many areas.
Why do you consistently deny reality?
Why do you insist on denying the findings of professional studies done by researchers like Iacono and Honts?
Why would people like George Maschke and Gino Scabarini go to such extensive lengths and efforts to investigate and provide the public with free information (backed by countless numbers of documented evidence) if there was nothing to it?
These men are professionals who contribute greatly to the art of learning, and would not spend their time or money supporting something if it was a hoax. If they were to sell their book for 50$ through mail-order, then we might question their intent, but the fact that they provide this information free to the public is evidence enough of the validity behind their rightful motives.
And again I ask you, why are seeming to miss the point that I am a perfect example of someone who passed the polygraph using a physical countermeasure on the control questions?
I requested, obtained, and reviewed the results MYSELF!
I read the examiner's findings: "There were no emotional reactions indicative of deception on ANY of the relevant questions."
On what grounds do you make the following claim:
"I warn anyone who follows this discussion that, if you employ countermeasures, you will be found to be inconclusive at best and most likely deceptive,".....?
I didn't even receive training...I simply read the information on this site and employed countermeasures in a timely fashion on the control questions. And you are going to make a claim such as that? Just imagine what one could do with professional training!
Again, I understand if you insist I didn't pass the test using countermeasures. It is my mistake if I believe what I see for myself, and you believe what you make up in your head and convince yourself of.
I think the answers to my question I post to you are clear. There is no other possible explanation other than the fact that you are coming on here and working for the other side--the side that is trying to save their profession.
A person who denies REALITY is doing one of two things:
They are psychotic and know no better of what they do, or they know exactly what they are doing and are attempting to mislead people. I don't think your psychotic by any stretch of the imagination. :-*
Netnin Yahoo
J.B.
I am extremely glad you are still participating in this discussion, but I must take exception with the concluding remarks from your latest post.
Quote from: J.B. on Dec 14, 2001, 07:14 PM
There is only one known and studied reason for someone to employ countermeasures and that is to attempt to hide their deceptive answers with distortion of the tracings.
I warn anyone who follows this discussion that, if you employ countermeasures, you will be found to be inconclusive at best and most likely deceptive.
I am a LAPD applicant and successfully employed countermeasures to avoid a second "false positive" outcome. The details of my first polygraph exam are located under another topic on this bulletin board, so I won't repeat them here. I followed the behavioral countermeasures found in the "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" and cardio/breathing countermeasures found in Doug Williams publication "How to Sting the Polygraph." Specifically, I controlled my breathing during all relevant questions and produced "deceptive" breathing patterns on all control questions. Additionally, I constricted my anal spinchter muscle accordingly to manipulate my blood pressure and pulse rate during control questions. It was quite easy to manipulate both my breathing and cardio tracings during the entire test. We ran seven charts: one "diagnostic," and two sets of questions performed three times each.
My test was taken on a computerized polygraph and was administered by a retired Detective who, at one time, ran the LAPD polygraph program. He is currently employed under the USIS/LAPD contract and also works for the LASD administering polygraphs in their pre-employment screening program. Following my exam, he told me he was passing me and noted that I had absolutely no problems with any questions whatsoever. I can attribute my success to: my previous experience, information found in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" and Mr. Williams manual.
AMM
J.B.
You wrote that countermeasures produces distorted responses:
"As I said in my last post, " ..not because one would produce greater or lessor response but
because the distortion would negate it as a true reaction/response.""
If you are right and the response produced by countermeasures are not true responses, then how would it be possible to categorize the charts as anything other than inconclusive?
You stated that the person employing countermeasures will be found inconclusive or deceptive.
J.B.,
With regard to my observation that you are presently unable to articulate "a testable hypothesis regarding how polygraph countermeasures such as those described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector can be reliably detected from the examination of polygraph charts" you wrote:
QuoteMy explanations have met the defined criteria for a testable hypothesis.
In your rambling and oftentimes incoherent discourses, the only thing approaching a testable hypothesis which you offered was your suggestion that rounded pneumograph tracings indicate controlled breathing which in turn indicates attempted countermeasures. Such a hypothesis could be tested. But it is prima facie implausible, as Figure 9 ("Normal (Nondeception) Respiration Patterns") in Reid & Inbau's
Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique makes abundantly clear. I had supposed that you had abandoned this hypothesis. However, your mystifying insistence that the respiratory tracings in Reid & Inbau's Figure 9 "do not appear as they would" (and by implication are somehow altered) makes me question my suppostion that you had abandoned the notion that rounded pneumograph tracings indicate attempted countermeasures. If this is still your hypothesis, I admit that it is testable. But it is also absurd.
Your other suggestion is that there is some nexus between apneas and constriction of the anal sphincter muscle which will enable better than chance detection of countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts. But you have still not formulated a testable hypothesis in this regard.
Second, with regard to my conclusion that you are presently unable to articulate "a theoretical explanation of how sophisticated subjects (those who understand the nature of CQT polygraphy) can be expected to produce stronger physiological reactions to 'control' questions if truthful and, conversely, to relevant questions, if deceptive" you wrote:
QuoteI cannot give a theoretical explanation of something that will not occur. They are not expected to or will they produce any more or less...
Your response is an utter non sequitur, and helps to illustrate my point.
By the way, the Rovner, Raskin, and Kircher citation to which you refer (Rovner, L. I., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. [1979]. Effects of information and practice on detection of deception.
Psychophysiology, 16, 197-198) "clearly demonstrates" nothing. It is an abstract of a study that has never passed peer review. And Rovner's 1986 article in the (non-peer-viewed) American Polygraph Association quarterly provides inadequate evidence of anything. Rovner doesn't even disclose what information about the CQT he provided to his test subjects.
For commentary regarding Professor Honts' dubious claim that knowledge of CQT methodology does not affect CQT validity, see my earlier post, A Criticism of Honts' Testimony on Countermeasures. (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=23.msg59#msg59)
You also wrote:
QuoteThere is only one known and studied reason for someone to employ countermeasures and that is to attempt to hide their deceptive answers with distortion of the tracings.
Nonsense. As Professor Emeritus David T. Lykken of the University of Minnesota observes at p. 277 of the 2nd edition of
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards..."
And in a recent study published in
Polygraph, Professor Honts and collaborators wrote, "Field polygraph examiners appear to operate under the notion that a detection of countermeasure attempts is synonymous with attempted deception to the relevant questions of the examination [reference deleted]. Clearly, that notion is incorrect. The results of this study show that an examiner's decision of countermeasure use is unrelated to both countermeasure use, and to deception. These results strongly suggest that the field practice of equating countermeasure attempts with deception to the relevant issues of an examination should be abandoned." (Honts, Charles R., Susan L. Amato, & Anne K. Gordon. "Effects of Spontaneous Countermeasures Used Against the Comparison Question Test,"
Polygraph, Vol. 30 [2001], No. 1, pp. 1-9, at pp. 7-8)
J.B., you concluded your post with the admonition:
QuoteI warn anyone who follows this discussion that, if you employ countermeasures, you will be found to be inconclusive at best and most likely deceptive.
Prove it.
AMM,
As I have said, my comments regarding polygraph are restricted to criminal specific issue only. I do not support, believe in, have never conducted, or will ever conduct a pre-employment polygraph screening in its current form. In my opinion, polygraph was not designed for this type of examination and there are no studies that support or validate it.
Mark,
If there is unexplainable distortion in the charts, you are absolutely correct that the only proper decision would be inconclusive. However, if the distortion is a known countermeasure and the examiner can explain it, the decision could be deceptive. Again this is for criminal specific issue exams.
Netin,
My intentions are to give unadulterated and unbiased education to those interested in polygraph. My life and career does not depend on polygraph. If polygraph was gone tomorrow, I would still have a job. I do not tell people not to use countermeasures because I fear they will "beat" a polygraph examiner or me if they did use them. Inversely, I tell them this because there is no evidence that supports they do or will work. The only scientific study about countermeasures and polygraph deals with an examiners ability to detect them. As George has eluded to, in quoting Honts et al, the popular belief is that if they are used it is for the purpose of masking deception.
Dr. Honts and many other psychologists have studied and use validated psychological tests. I do not see them supporting or saying that someone should distort their answers to these tests. If someone was to distort their answers to a psychological test, I am sure they would be asked to come in for further psychological examination. This usually entails a psychologist interrogating the person about their answers and what they "really meant by that answer."
If I were attempting to mislead anyone and purposely trying to confuse them, I would probably say the following: Polygraph is 100% accurate; It can be used in any form to detect truth or deception; If a person has an instrument, trust them, they know exactly what they are doing and won't make any mistakes; You don't need to know anything but to show up, get attached to an instrument, and read the results. Now that would be a load from the farm I would not wish to be down wind from.
I have and still do support people educating themselves about polygraph. I have said pre-employment polygraph screening is invalid in it's current form and polygraph was not designed for this type of use. I have told them to check the licensing requirements in their area and those of the examiner.
The reason this discussion has become confusing to some is because I was replying to George repeated call for scientific evidence to support the detection of countermeasures. I explained it in simple terms. He again asked for scientific proof and the stating of a testable hypothesis. I explained it a little more complex. This cycle continued until we have come to the last post which I know is confusing to those who have never had any formal education in anatomy or physiology. I have had formal college education in both and I am not including polygraph training.
As for your polygraph, I do not know your examiner or by what protocol he goes by. To tell you the truth, I am baffled by what you have told me. For instance, put a precursor in front of a relevant if there was an admission. As far as I know and I read and research daily, comparison questions are the only questions that may contain this. If you make an admission prior to the exam that disqualifies you from the process, there should be no exam. The most valid reason, considering the invalidity of the pre-employment exam, is you have already disqualified yourself. The purpose of the exam is to see if you have been truthful about all of the areas they are concerned about and for which they would not hire you if you had not. His administering an exam after this just made an invalid test worse. Did the report say you made the admission prior to the exam? I have never said that someone could not beat an examiner. I never said that countermeasures will not produce tracings but that the tracings will not be normal and they will have the indications I have discussed. I will say this, from what I have heard our results don?t surprise me.
George,
For the sake of not confusing others with physiological terms and definitions, I will explain one of my current testable hypothesis in layman?s terms.
If a sphincter muscle contraction is employed, the first indication the examiner will see in the chart is a short flattened mark within the respiration tracings. The next thing that must be present to support this is a direct correlation with a GSR response. If the examiner can draw a line from the flattened tracing in the respiration to the beginning of a GSR response, the person has used a sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure.
For you, the tracing and correlated GSR response I described is not nor is it indicative of apnea or its appearance in the tracings. If you would read and check my prior post, the reason for apnea and when it occurs is described as it will so similarly be in any physiology text. It will not occur within the inspiration or expiration. It will not occur in normal settings with a healthy person breathing at a "normal" rate. It is induced by the sudden lack of carbon dioxide within the blood.
If you would please explain to me, what is there about this hypothesis that makes it not testable? I ask because I am testing it now and wonder if you have knowledge of something I have never read, learned or know.
As for my statement about the use of countermeasures, this is a moot point. You are prescribing that people use something that is not proven to work at all and I am telling them not to use it based on they have by scientific study a chance and by my experiences far greater than chance ability of being detected. We both know what Honts et al recent study says. I think we can both agree to say, "Call, write, e-mail your state?s senators and representatives with the facts on pre-employment polygraph screening." We both have a common goal in this and in wanting honest people to remain and be treated as such.
J.B.,
You wrote in part:
QuoteFor the sake of not confusing others with physiological terms and definitions, I will explain one of my current testable hypothesis in layman's terms.
I think you needn't fear confusing others with physiological terms and definitions. The problem with your highfalutin responses to simple questions on such topics as how polygraphers can detect countermeasures from the examination of polygraph charts, and on what theoretical basis CQT polygraphy can be expected to work with subjects who understand the trickery behind it, is that they (your responses) have been largely non-sequiturial, which might lead readers who understand the terms you are using to conclude that you have merely been putting into practice the popular maxim, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."
QuoteIf a sphincter muscle contraction is employed, the first indication the examiner will see in the chart is a short flattened mark within the respiration tracings. The next thing that must be present to support this is a direct correlation with a GSR response. If the examiner can draw a line from the flattened tracing in the respiration to the beginning of a GSR response, the person has used a sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure.
Here, I think you have finally articulated a hypothesis that could be tested. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that respiratory blocking (your "short flattened mark") timely with the onset of a galvanic skin response indicates that the subject has contracted his anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure. Such a hypothesis is testable, but on its face seems implausible. As Netnin pointed out, it is a trivial matter to constrict one's anal sphincter muscle without concomitant respiratory blocking.
You also wrote (by "it," I presume you mean "apnea"):
QuoteIt is induced by the sudden lack of carbon dioxide within the blood.
Do you mean to say that instances of apnea (whether blocking or holding) which occur as scorable reactions in the context of a polygraph interrogation occur because the subject's blood suddenly lacks carbon dioxide? You're joking, right? If not, please tell me where I can read more about this phenomenon.
J.B.
I thank you for taking criticism in a mature manner, and for your persistence in contributing to the boards. You have assisted greatly in advancing an already interesting topic.
But I do find myself totally confused when reading your explanation as to how an "anal sphincter contraction" is detected via visually analyzing the polygraph chart.
You are ultimately claiming that, regardless of when implemented, the anal sphincter contraction will cause apnea because of a sudden build-up of carbon-dioxide.
The respiration tracings are based solely on two pneumo tubes fitted around the upper and lower abdomen.
Respiration tracings go up on inhalation, and down on exhalation. They also go flat when there is no breathing activity.
The polygraph test does not deal with carbon-dioxide levels within the body. Respiration tracings are based on the PHYSICAL MANIPULATION of the pneumo tubes, and only based on the physical manipulation of the pneumo tubes.
Are you claiming that the contraction of the anal sphincter
will undoubtedly correlate with the appearance of apnea within repiration tracings? Furthermore, are you claiming that this apnea will be present regardless of when the anal sphincter contraction takes place?
I would have to thoroughly disagree with your claims.
I have practiced (and I BEG of anyone who reads this post to practice) the following a number of times:
Breathing at a uniform and steady rate, and then contracting my anal-pucker during all phases of the breathing process. During inhalation, there is NO INDICATION that breathing ceases, by any means, when the anal pucker is contracted. During exhalation, there is NO INDICATION that breathing ceases, by any means, when the anal pucker is contracted. And during the slight pause after exhalation, there is a slight phase of apnea because THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SLIGHT pause in breathing.
Are you claiming that the pneumo tubes can detect a pause in breathing even though my human hands--and overall bodily sensory perception--tell me that there is absolutely no pause in the expansion or contraction of my rib-cage when employing an anal-pucker contraction during the course of breathing? I find this hard to fathom.
And, just for the sake of argument, lets say that there is a detectable apnea when employing the anal-pucker contraction during either inhalation or exhalation (I strongly do NOT believe this is true...I even find the claim absurd!).
If this were the case (again, I'm only expressing this idea for the sake of argument), then one would have absolutely NO PROBLEM successfully using the anal-pucker countermeasure during the "slight-pause" phase of the breathing process. The very short time period between the end of an exhalation and beginning of inhalation is a time period where breathing ceases slightly. If one were to employ the anal-pucker technique at this point in the breathing process, there would be no visible detection of apnea on the charts because there is a normal cease of breathing at that point in the breathing pattern. It takes a FRACTION of a second to tighten the anal-pucker.
As for an apnea in the GSR as the result of an anal-pucker contraction, how do you come to this conclusion? It is my understaning that, if ANYTHING, a muscle contraction (of any kind) will cause a heightened GSR response(?).....
J.B:
I ask you to drop your discussion about the "build-up" of carbon dioxide as it relates to polygraph tracings. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with how the polygraph works is fully aware that a build-up of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with respiration tracings. The pneumo tubes are either manipulated outward, or inward, resulting in lines that go up, go down, or stay level.
Discuss your theory on the basis of how tracings are RECORDED...polygraph chart tracing elements are VERY restricted in their abilities, and are unbiased in many ways.
Is it just me, or does anyone else following this post find some of the claims on this board absurd, illogical, and irrelevant?
Netnin
Netnin,
If you re-read J.B.'s most recent post, you'll see that he attributes apneas to a "sudden lack of carbon dioxide within the blood," not a build-up of CO2 levels. In addition, J.B. nowhere spoke of "an apnea in the GSR" as you suggested.
J.B.:
I am aware of your previous posts regarding the validity (or complete lack thereof) of pre-employment polygraphs and I should have acknowledged it in mine. Thank you for your honesty; I applaud you for participating in this forum.
The point, obviously buried in my last post, that I was trying to make was that despite my extremely limited experience with polygraph countermeasures, I believe I could pass a Control Question Test polygraph (criminal or pre-employment) by employing the techniques I learned. I also believe that deceptive candidates in either criminal or pre-employment settings could use the same techniques to defeat the polygraph. This truly scares me especially when considering the National Security implications and our country's apparent reliance on the polygraph to ferret out spies.
My question to you is this: If countermeasures can be discerned during criminal or incident-specific polygraphs, how is it that, (using the same type of computerized polygraph equipment) seeminly qualified, experienced examiners are missing them during pre-employment polygraphs? It would seem to me that if the techiques are the same, polygraphers should be able to detect countermeasures in either situation.
I realize you may feel bombarded from all sides from time to time, but I truly hope that you will continue to participate in this discussion.
AMM
AMM,
First, The information provided is crucial to administering a valid polygraph. The more information an examiner has on an issue, the greater the probability they will ask the right questions. Pre-employment screening has little to no information on the issues at hand. Sometimes the only information the examiner has is obtained through a pre-test question form and interview. Even if the examiner was dealing with only one specific issue, a pre-test question format would most likely not provide enough information for a good exam.
Second, the relevant questions asked on a polygraph exam must be relevant to the issue at hand. In my opinion, relevant questions that only a person's memory that committed the crime could hold are better then a generalized question. Pre-employment screening polygraph operates on multiple issue relevant questions that are generalized to the issues because they don?t know what the issue may or may not be.
Finally, Even if the examiner had all the information and asked all the right questions, their ability to discern physiological tracings is only as good as their training. Many examiners who work outside the "espionage" arena have never been trained in detecting and don?t think everyday persons no how to use plausible countermeasures. Why? Because until recent years the information was not readily available to the everyday person and they would have been mostly correct. As I have said previously, there are examiners who graduate from a polygraph school and get minimal to no advance training after that. Training and education play a major role in the examiners abilities.
I hope this answers your question. I will add that the techniques are not the same because they are not the same exam.
George,
I have been posting physiological reasons for certain occurrences of tracings caused by physiological responses or voluntary responses(countermeasures). I am not suggesting the tracing in the respiration is caused by apnea or is apnea but that it is caused by intrinsic muscle contractions. It is not apnea. I have explained the basic principle of why apnea occurs within a healthy conscious person. I did not talk about obstructive, central and mixed apnea because they are caused and seen in physical and physiological disorders. One of the texts I have previously suggested reading will explain the causes of normal apnea.
Quote
From: 'Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology'; by Seely, Stephens, Tate; Pg. 394
Stimuli that influence respiration, such as blood levels of carbon dioxide, blood pH, blood oxygen levels and emotions, do so by altering the activity of the respiratory center. Carbon dioxide levels in the blood and blood pH play an extremely important role in influencing activity of the respiratory center....decreasing carbon dioxide levels in the blood and an increasing pH results in slower rate and depth of respiration. Respiration may even stop for a period of time until carbon dioxide levels increase and pH decreases to a level that stimulates respiration.
J.B.,
The salient point here is that apnea (whether blocking or holding) is a scorable physiological reaction according to the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Apnea is simply a transient cessation of respiration, and it is readily producible at will. There are, to my knowledge, no published studies whatsoever that suggest polygraphers can distinguish between apneas induced by fear of detection (or fear of consequences) when answering a particular question and apneas produced either willfully or as an unintended consequence of the contraction of the anal sphincter muscle.
George,
I would agree with you that both holding and blocking are listed as scorable criteria for the purpose of deceptive respiration in the DODPI training material you have acquired. However, material you are reading and the cartoon characterized drawings that are associated with it are for basic discussion and basic training purposes. The information I have been providing you is a more advance description of apnea and its physiological causes. More specifically, I have been speaking of the chemical changes within the blood that trigger receptors to cease respiration. There are more intrinsic physiological factors associated with apnea holding and blocking then the simple cessation of respiration.
Another example of the difference of Apnea and Anal Sphincter Contraction as they appear within the tracings and physiologically factors involved; The onset of true apnea will result in a lowered blood volume, pressure, and heart rate. For the most part these factors are inversely seen in the case of an anal sphincter muscle contraction.
Also, true apnea does not cause a subsequent reflex response within the inspiration or expiration because apnea occurs at the end of expiration and before the inhibition of inspiration. The anal sphincter muscle contraction can and often does cause such reflex contraction reactions within the inspiration and expiration tracings.
It appears to me that your definition of blocking and/or holding would be a willful and wanton cessation of respiration. This would be much like a child, who when angered at his parents, holds his breath to get his way. This example, if it describes your definition of apnea, is not apnea. A person may hold or block their respiration voluntarily to attempt to slow or block physiological responses to, among other things, physical exertion or attempt to thwart detection. This is why a person attempts to employ controlled respiration countermeasures. This would be holding/blocking or controlled respiration but not apnea or the holding or blocking of it. The two are much different in how and why they occur.
Maybe Drew will help discern the intent of the wording in DODPI?s scoring criteria for added reference and clarification. This would also give us a mediated opinion of this discussion. I would suggest we wait for his response to avoid further impasse.
Another reference for the definition of apnea:
QuoteFrom: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2309&rd=1
Apnea: The absence of breathing (respirations). There are three type forms of apnea: blockage of the airways, cessation of respiratory effort (usually brain-related and referred to as "central"), and a combination of airways blockage and central apnea.
J.B.,
QuoteMaybe Drew will help discern the intent of the wording in DODPI?s [sic] scoring criteria for added reference and clarification. This would also give us a mediated opinion of this discussion. I would suggest we wait for his response to avoid further impasse.
I appreciate your suggesting that I represent a source of (neutral) mediation, but I'm afraid my former posts do not qualify me for such consideration. I have clearly stated and do believe that polygraph exams are readily countermeasured by motivated, knowledgeable, and trained examinees. With regard to the present thread it would appear that we have two parallel trains of thought going on (both largely correct) but neither directly addressing the other. Because this thread is both titled and relates to the detection of countermeasures via polygraph chart recordings, I am afraid it is you who must address George's concerns and not he that must engage you in a general discussion of physiology. Your understanding and articulation of the etiology of physiological response is quite admirable (a "should be" model for your colleagues), but I am afraid it does not address the issue at hand.
I believe the issue to be: For a polygraph exam involving both an experienced examiner and a motivated (to pass), knowledgeable, and trained (in countermeasures) examinee, is there information present in a polygraph chart recording that would allow that examiner to
practically and reliably distinguish between a deceptive response to a control question and a response to that question which was manufactured (countermeasured) by the examinee? For a variety of reasons (related to variation in uncountermeasured physiology and response and the power of countermeasure alternatives), I believe the answer is undoubtedly no. My assessment aside, I do believe that the aforementioned question is the one before you, in need of being addressed, and the basis and subject for any hypothesis (es) you might care to test.
With regard to the DoDPI material you refer to, the types of responses depicted (albeit drawn in cartoon fashion) are clearly those that were taught (at the time I was a student in their basic examiner course and for many years before and after) to polygraph examiner students as being indicative of deception and therefore scorable as such. There was (and presumably still is) no real additional level of sophistication and understanding taught beyond that which is evidenced in the referenced document with regard to categorizing and scoring polygraph responses.
Please accept my best wishes for a pleasant holiday season and a prosperous and happy new year. I will be away for several days during this time, but will look forward to future discussion when I return...
George,
I hope your holidays were as joyful and memorable as mine.
I am going to try to stick to Drew's suggestions and respond to your questions more directly. First the sphincter contraction countermeasure discussion and then the ability of a knowledgeable person to better pass the CQT question.
First, I will try to explain what an anal sphincter muscle contraction countermeasure will create in the polygraph tracings, physiologically why and how it can be labeled as an imposed tracing.
First, at or near the onset of an anal sphincter muscle contraction one will see a very short flattened line in the respiration tracing(s). This line is in direct correlation with an onset of a GSR response. It may also be in direct correlation with a rise of blood volume and/or heart rate but may result in no change in the cardio tracing.
Second, the short flattened line in the respiration tracings is caused by a cessation of the relaxation or a sudden increased contraction of the diaphragm or intercostal muscles with no regards to loss or cessation of respiration. The physical exertion of skeletal muscles causes an intrinsic response in the sweat glands, GSR, to prepare the body for the above normal temperature that is expected with above normal resting activity. The cardio response is also a preparatory response. The active muscles need more and more frequent oxygen carrying blood.
Finally, the anal sphincter muscle contraction can be labeled as an imposed tracing within the respiration for the following reasons. First, if the flattened tracing occurs within the respiration, meaning not at the end of inspiration or expiration, it is not a normal function of respiration activity or response. Second, if the flattened tracing occurs at the end of inspiration and before the beginning of expiration, it will again be a flattened line not indicative of normal respiration activity or response. There will be neither rounded nor pointed apieces as shown in the DoDPI illustrations of holding and blocking. Third, if the flattened line is at the end of expiration and before the beginning of inspiration, it will create a flattened line that may resemble an apnea tracing but that can be labeled as a sphincter muscle contraction because it lacks prior and post respiratory activity and/or responses and has inverse correlating GSR and cardio responses.
Now a separate issue. The question of will a truthful person with knowledge of the CQT and countermeasures be better suited to pass. I will use Drew?s question from his previous post as reference in answering. "For a polygraph exam involving both an experienced examiner and a motivated (to pass), knowledgeable, and trained (in countermeasures) examinee, is there information present in a polygraph chart recording that would allow that examiner to practically and reliably distinguish between a deceptive response to a control question and a response to that question which was manufactured (countermeasured) by the examinee?" My answer is yes and no.
Yes, if a truthful person knows how the CQT works and knows the needn?t dwell or worry about the relevant questions, they most likely will have little or no response to those questions. Yes, if the in turn focus on the comparison questions, they will most likely have greater response to those questions.
Yes, there is information presented in the tracings that can allow an examiner to practically and reliably distinguish it as a countermeasure.
No, if they attempt countermeasures at the comparison question, they are not guaranteed to produce a greater response then if they did not employ countermeasures. No, there is no assurance they will be detected or not detected in employing countermeasures. No, not every experienced examiner has the knowledge of how to distinguish between physiological and manufactured tracings.
So in part, "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" does provide a credible means for a truthful person who reads it to pass a polygraph and more so then one who does not read it. I think the knowing what they need to focus on and what they need not is probably the greatest and most undetectable tool for a truthful person.
I have been reading the posts on this forum for sometime. There are polygraphers out there and one in particular that states rather eloquently that he can detect countermeasures by reading of the polygraph charts. They especially think that they can detect the use of the anal sphincter contraction. If they truly believe that this is possible, they have been missing thousands of anal sphincter contractions on their charts and have been harming possibly hundreds of people by falsely accusing them of employing countermeasures.
What they fail to realize is: the anal sphincter contraction is a normal reaction of the autonomic nervous system. When one perceives fear, it is quite normal for the sphincter to contract all by it's little old self. This contraction is the body's way of not shitting on all over you.
As a Police officer that has been in more than one shooting, I can personally attest to the great relief that this little function has given me. Not to mention the lack of embarrassment. If you doubt that this is true, please take note of the next time your autonomic nervous system is triggered, such as that little jump you get when someone backs out of a parking space right in front of you. You will be able to feel the contraction. Now everybody's reactions are different, YES POLYGRAPHERS EVERYBODY'S REACTIONS ARE DIFFERENT. The point that I am trying to make is; the sphincter contraction is all over the polygraph charts and they can not DISTINGUISH between how it is triggered. This goes right to the point of showing how antiquated the polygraph really is. It has no place in pre-employment and a limited role in criminal cases.
J.B.,
Thank you for your holiday wishes; actually, I'm still enjoying an extended holiday. :-)
I agree with you, as I noted in my post of December 15th, that your hypothesis that an anal sphincter contraction applied as a countermeasure can be detected by a flattening of the respiratory tracings timely with the onset of a response on the electrodermal tracing is testable. But to my knowledge, there is no published research whatsoever (peer-reviewed or otherwise) testing your hypothesis.
This notwithstanding, in your post of January 2nd you assert, "Yes, there is information presented in the tracings that can allow an examiner to practically and reliably distinguish it as a countermeasure." On the basis of what evidence (apart from your say-so) should skeptical readers accept your assertion?
Anonymous,
You wrote:
QuoteThere are polygraphers out there and one in particular that states rather eloquently that he can detect countermeasures by reading of the polygraph charts. They especially think that they can detect the use of the anal sphincter contraction. If they truly believe that this is possible, they have been missing thousands of anal sphincter contractions on their charts and have been harming possibly hundreds of people by falsely accusing them of employing countermeasures.
On what basis to you make this statement?
You then wrote:
QuoteWhat they fail to realize is: the anal sphincter contraction is a normal reaction of the autonomic nervous system. When one perceives fear, it is quite normal for the sphincter to contract all by it?s little old self. This contraction is the body?s way of not shitting on all over you.
This is physiologically incorrect. The external anal sphincter muscle is voluntarily controlled. The internal anal sphincter muscle is involuntary. It is however stimulated by the presence of feces and the voluntary relaxation of the external anal sphincter muscle. Fear can cause the loss of voluntary muscle control which may result in one defecating. However, the element that affords you the lack of the defecation process completing is your ability to maintain control over these muscles in a fearful situation. A combination of experience, repetitive training, and physical and mental conditioning play a major role in your ability to productively react in a critical situation.
I agree with you that people will have different reactions to a perceived perilous situation. There are however some reactions that are intrinsic in these circumstances.
On a different note. Stay safe out there and continue to listen to those little hairs on the back of your neck.
George,
I am glad you are still enjoying the well deserved holiday.
You are correct that my hypothesis as it relates to polygraph and the lack of published peer reviewed research for it. My guess is we will have to wait for a published peer reviewed research study that supports it before some skeptics will accept it. So I surmise we are at an impasse on this subject until such completion.
Until then, I will follow the posts on this and other discussion topics and continue to reply when necessary. I will also continue to check my messages here and at my listed email address to respond to any questions you or anyone else may have.
Take care and stay safe,
J.B.
J.B.,
If we assume for the sake of argument that you are indeed correct about a flattening of the respiratory tracing timely with an electrodermal response being a reliable indication of an anal sphincter contraction employed as a countermeasure, then would not this counter-countermeasure technique of yours be foiled if the examinee were to apply a respiratory countermeasure (artificially producing any of the breathing responses recognized by DoDPI) at the same time as he employs the anal sphincter countermeasure?
Again, assuming for the sake of argument that your counter-countermeasure technique had some merit (I'm not conceding that it does), haven't you told us (from your point of view) how to make the anal sphincter contraction countermeasure failsafe, that is, undetectable from the examination of polygraph charts?
George,
The flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated and is not effected by the respiration pattern. The countermeasure of controlled breathing has no concealing effects on the production of this flattened tracing. I assume the DoDPI scoreable respiratory reaction you are referring to is holding or blocking? This respiratory pattern too has no effect on the flattened tracing production or lack there of.
I have only provided a portion of the anal sphincter muscle contraction detection process. I do not think or see where any of the information I have provided even remotely implies or provides a undetectable anal sphincter muscle contraction employment method.
Quote from: J.B. on Jan 09, 2002, 03:38 AMThe flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated and is not effected by the respiration pattern.
JB,
The above quoted sentence is a classic example of your nonspeak. It's gibberish. Grammatically, it's a train wreck and neither supports nor condemns your position. It is, however, a continuing illustration of what one respondent so eloquently described as your 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit' modus operandi.
I'm sorry if the tone of my writing is disrespectful, but you really need to come to the table armed with facts if you are going to debate the issue at hand.
BT
Quote from: J.B. on Jan 09, 2002, 03:38 AM
George,
The flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated and is not effected by the respiration pattern. The countermeasure of controlled breathing has no concealing effects on the production of this flattened tracing. I assume the DoDPI scoreable respiratory reaction you are referring to is holding or blocking? This respiratory pattern too has no effect on the flattened tracing production or lack there of.
I have only provided a portion of the anal sphincter muscle contraction detection process. I do not think or see where any of the information I have provided even remotely implies or provides a undetectable anal sphincter muscle contraction employment method.
J.B.,
What I was suggesting is that any "flattening" of the respiratory tracing that might be associated with contraction of the anal sphincter muscle applied as a polygraph countermeasure could be eliminated by keeping the pneumo tubes moving as one produces one of the breathing reactions recognized by DoDPI chart scoring doctrine. (In this regard, it bears repeating that the "flattening" of which you speak is indistinguishable from blocking or holding, both of which DoDPI holds to be scorable reactions.)
But if I understand you correctly, your claim is that this tell-tale "flattening" will appear (suddenly, as if by magic) in the respiratory tracing(s) when one constricts one's anal sphincter muscle and without regard to one's respiration. This is indeed an amazing claim, and one which, like your claim to be able to divine countermeasures attempts from the contemplation of polygraph charts, you have utterly failed to support with credible evidence (or even a rational argument).
George,
The flattened mark within the respiratory tracing will appear where the anal sphincter muscle contraction is initiated because of the reflective contraction of the either or both the diaphragm and intercostal muscles. This would make any other respiratory augmentation irrelevant to the flattened mark seen. In other words, the respiration continues but the momentary movement or contraction still places its mark.
Holding or blocking is not the same or relevant to the flattened mark created by an anal sphincter muscle contraction. There are discernable differences in both the physiological responses and the appearance of the tracings as provided with my explination of the differences in apnea as related to other physiological responses.
Credible evidence is in the eyes of the beholder or finder of fact. I have provided physiological reasons of why this flattened mark occurs in the tracings and why it is different from other responses or produced responses. Lack of published research on this specific instance dose not null and void those physiological known reasons. Medical Doctors' often make life or death decisions based on known or presumably known causes or symptoms of certain medical problems. Psychologists' often base their diagnostic opinion on ones psychological health or lack there of on that person's verbal responses to questions. Jurors' base their decision on weather or not a reasonable person could believe without a reasonable doubt what is presented is true. A juror who is found to have a prejudice toward one of the areas to be examined for decision purposes is usually removed without exemption.
J.B.,
While the absence of evidence in support of a claim is no proof of its falsity, absent any evidence to support a claim, there is no compelling reason to accept it as true. This being the case, I think it would be irresponsible for any polygrapher to maintain that a person had contracted his anal sphincter as a polygraph countermeasure based on your unproven methodology. (Likewise, it is irresponsible for a polygrapher to maintain that a person has answered a question truthfully or deceptively on the basis of polygraph chart readings).
George,
Although my hypothesis lacks published peer reviewed research documentation in its application, I believe it does provide sound evidence in its physiological explanation of what will or will not be produced and why. These elements, defecation reflex being one, are supported by numerous physiology and medical texts and studies. I have never purported the use of this countermeasure detection method as a thoroughly researched and accepted methodology in polygraph. However, its use would not be reckless if one could provide compelling and irrefutable physiological evidence to support it.
The last issue you bring up:
"Likewise, it is irresponsible for a polygrapher to maintain that a person has answered a question truthfully or deceptively on the basis of polygraph chart readings)."
I do not agree with this statement and believe it to be a different issue then the one at hand. I would however be willing to discuss or debate this issue in a different discussion area.
J.B.,
I would be happy to debate the validity of polygraphy in a separate message thread. This is a debate that the poobahs of the polygraph community (including American Polygraph Association president Skib Webb) seemingly lack the self-confidence to enter.
Feel free to start a new thread on this topic if you wish. You might care to take the arguments against the validity of polygraphy found in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (and the sources cited there) as a starting point for this debate.
To the polygraphers,
Does the trade you are in ever bother you? I only ask because I have read quite a bit on the subject, and it would seem that there are a lot of "ex" polygraphers who left because of moral convictions of some kind. Why would this be so? Also, do you consider it a science? Genuinely interested...
Friendtoall,
Far from bothering me, I find it absolutely fascinating. I know literally hundreds of examiners in the government, police, and in private practice. The only examiner I'm aware who claims to have quit for moral reasons is Doug Williams. And, yes, there is a firm scientific basis to lie detection. It has been studied for over seven decades with numerous research results reported in peer reviewed scientific journals.
George,
What is the basis for your claim that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal? How do you define "peer reviewed" journal?
Peace.
Gordon
Gordon,
My claim is that polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer-reviewed research conducted under field conditions, not that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal. For documentation, see David T. Lykken's discussion of polygraph field studies at pp. 133-35 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed.). Lykken notes that as of 1998, only four polygraph field studies had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (I believe that number remains unchanged today; please correct me if I'm mistaken.) One of those four peer-reviewed field studies was conducted by Charles R. Honts ("Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application," Journal of General Psychology, 1996, 123, 309-324) and purported to show a 100% accuracy rate, though as Lykken aptly demonstrates, that study was fundamentally flawed in its design and "no sensible reader can imagine that these alleged 'findings' of the Honts study add anything at all to the sum of human knowledge about the true accuracy of the [Control Question Test]."
My definition of a "peer reviewed journal" is the same used by Lykken in his discussion of "Science and the Lie Detector" at pp. 49-51 of A Tremor in the Blood.
Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), CQT polygraphy can have no validity because it is not a standardized (or standardizable) "test" at all and lacks scientific control. But you would have us believe otherwise. I would be happy to debate the scientific status of polygraphy in a new message thread. Would you care to begin the discussion by explaining the theoretical basis of polygraphy?
George,
Sorry I have not been able to start the validity discussion topic yet. I have been quite busy and plan to start it this coming weekend.
George,
you wrote
QuoteMy claim is that polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer-reviewed research conducted under field conditions, not that no field study finding that the polygraph technique works better than chance has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal.
I'm glad you clarified that, as I understood your manual to be saying that no field study showed that the technique worked. Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is. I do hope you clarify this in the next edition of your manual.
Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?
Peace,
Gordon
Gordon,
It was not clear to me that the question you asked directly concerned any statement in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I supposed you were referring to the current "headline" on the AntiPolygraph.org home page:
DESPITE POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS'
CLAIMS OF GREATER THAN 90% ACCURACY,
POLYGRAPH "TESTS" HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN
TO BE MORE ACCURATE THAN CHANCE
BY PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH
CONDUCTED UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS
Regarding peer-reviewed field studies of the CQT we write at p. 8 of the 1st edition of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:Quote...Professor David T. Lykken (Lykken, 1998 pp. 133-36) notes that as of 1998, only four studies purporting to assess the field validity of the "Control" Question "Test" had passed the muster of peer review in a scientific journal. Only four. And taken together, these four studies do not establish that polygraphy operates at above chance levels in specific issue "testing." It should be noted that in any event, these four studies could not possibly have established the validity of the CQT, because, as Professor Furedy has aptly pointed out, the CQT is not a standardizable and specifiable test such that its validity might be scientifically established.
Gordon, just what in the above passage do you think needs clarification? Or are you referring to something else?
You wrote, "Based on the comments others have made to this board, I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood what your position is." To which comments do you refer?
Finally, you asked, "Just out of curiosity, what field studies do you accept as showing that the polygraph works?" The short answer is "none," as I thought I had made clear in my earlier reply.
Gordon,
Perhaps our discussion would be more productive if you were to list the peer-reviewed studies purporting to show that polygraphy operates at better than chance levels under field conditions. We can then respond by telling you if we accept them (and if not, why).
If you choose to do this, you may wish to start another thread in "Polygraph Policy" entitled "Peer Reviewed Field Studies of Polygraphy" or something to that effect. This particular thread has run pretty far off topic on a number of occasions.
George & Gino,
I'll be away for several weeks, and will start a new thread when I return if JB has not already done so.
Peace.
Gordon
Gordon,
I wish you a pleasant trip and a safe return. If you have the time before you leave, I'd be interested in your reply to the questions I put to you in my last post.
George,
Yes, I was referring both to the pronouncement on your site and to your publication of Lykken's view without dissent or comment; to me that implies you agree with the view you are publishing.
Peace,
Gordon
Gordon,
Indeed I do agree with the views published on this site and in the book. We haven't claimed that no peer-reviewed field study purporting to show that CQT polygraphy works better than chance has ever been published, but rather that the validity of polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed field studies.
Just thought I'd jump in here with my own polygraph experience.
(I posted this a while back on the NoPolygraph web site.)
Here goes:
In my last year on active duty I was posted to a "secret" job near Wash DC. I was scheduled and took a CI polygraph administered by the NSA.
The questions were, "Do you intend to answer truthfully," "Are you concerned about something we have not discussed," "Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel," "Do you watch TV," and "Have you answered truthfully."
Well, according to the polygraph operator the first and last question, along with the watching TV and "concern" questions indicated "no deception," whereas the "Other than what you have told me, have you disclosed classified information to unauthorized personnel" question was inconclusive.
Great.
If I intended to lie I would have indicated something on the first question, right? And if I did lie, the last question would have trapped me, right? However, somehow, the middle question was inconclusive. This makes no sense and I was/am at a complete loss as to why it was supposedly inconclusive.
Story does not end.
The results were turned over to my military service's investigators and they started a full-blown investigation. . .all on an inconclusive. I was called in, interrogated, took the polygraph again, but this time the questions were expanded and included such things as "Have you ever stolen anything of any value from anyone," and "Have you ever lied or cheated on any test or measurement." Again, the result on the one question was inconclusive.
Things didn't end.
I was interrogated again and again, and was told by my organization that as long as I kept going back I would keep my clearance, but as soon as I said "no more," I would be denied access to classified information. Not officially suspended, barred or terminated, just not allowed access.
I went back and back, all with the same result.
Eventually, the investigators became more and more beligerant and the questions now included such things as "IN YOUR LIFE have you ever. . ."
(Casting a net. . .jsut to see what may be out there?)
At this time, and after 4-months of putting up with this abuse, the investigators wernt over the line and threatened my retirement---AND insisted I was hiding something—all because one question was inconclusive.
I spoke with a lawyer, told the investigators to pack sand, and I retired. Got my homorable discharge too.
I am still angry over this abuse and hold polygraph operators in such low regard that I seriously question their integrity and honor.
I am a former civilian police officer, held the highest security clearances for 20-yrs in the military, served on the ground in Iraq, NEVER compromised security, and then the last year of my career this happens??
Disgusting
Gunrunner,
I'm sorry, but not surprised, to read of your unpleasant experience. I'd be interested in disucssing it with you privately, if you'd like. You can reach me by e-mail to maschke@antipolygraph.org. Perhaps like you, I once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, and having done so, I find the fraudulent conduct of the polygraphers in federal employ to be intolerable (indeed, beneath contempt).
I am taking the LAPD polygraph in 3 1/2 weeks - can you email some specifics? Please? I would greatly appreciate any specific control and specific relevent questions asked - my email is experiment77@hotmail.com
After reading your post I had to write and warn you about the current policy at LAPD. Depending if you are a minority or not has much to do with the outcome of your poly. Seems that there is currently a large group of non-minority (white guys) who feel they have been disqualified by the polygraph only because other things in their background checks did not dis qualify them. So the department used this stupied pre employment test to take them out of the process.
LAPD has in place P-2 background officers who have less than 5 years on the job and are hiding in administrative jobs doing the backgrounds. Most of them are minoritys and we firmly believe they are disqualifing each and every non minority they can. They would not know a qualified candiate if one was standing next to them.
In any case, if you have made it far enough to be taking the poly. your background has been completed. But do not give notice at your current job as the pass rate is 1 in 150.......
And we can assure you that you can be as honest as a new born babe, and still fail.....The best part is that the largest number of disqualifications are due to "questionable findings" and you will not get another chance to re-take the test as LAPD has a rule 1 per candiate. Also you will never know the specific reason for your "inconclusive results". As they will not tell you....... You can spend a year or two taking tests, doing the oral,passing thePAT and the medical , taking several days off of work and in the end no one will tell you exactly why you were disquilified. You should apply at a department that has different standards than LAPD. Believe me the current command staff at LAPD has taken the Dept. to an all time low!!!! It will take years before it will turn around...if in fact it can ever turn around.
I'm not sure that the pass rate is low as 1 in 150. Nonetheless, I believe that that LAPD is falsely accusing a large number of candidates of deception (both by percentage and by numbers as a whole). Furthermore, the possibility of differential pass rates for whites and minority applicants is extremely likely. As many of the frequent visitors to this site know, the polygraph is the perfect "tool" for conducting racist or reverse-racist hiring practices in broad daylight.
Those who have been wronged by the LAPD polygraph should seriously consider getting together as a group and filing a lawsuit similar to the one Mark Zaid has filed against the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service.
Those interested are encouraged to use the AntiPolygraph.org message board for networking purposes. Once a group forms, a wise idea would be to visit as many attorneys in the area as possible for free consultations. The goal is to find an experienced employment law attorney with interest in the case.
I sincerely hope that some of our participants will step up and put some heat on the folks in LA and let them know that government wrongdoing will not be tolerated.
can you interpret this for me
Quotecan you interpret this for me
The polygraph chart you uploaded is stripped of relevant information that would be necessary for "scoring" the charts. If you could send me the computerized data file from the Stoelting CPSpro Fusion software that was used to generate this PDF file, I may be able to assist you further.