AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

I just found this site today and read most of TLBTLD, which I found very informative. I was aware there was so controversy over the relevance of polygraph tests, but I didn't know just how bogus they seem to be.
Anyway I am in the process of getting a career in LE, and the next step is the polygraph. Initially I planned to be truthful, but now I am beginning to question whether that is a wise idea. I have a clean record and my past drug use has been nothing but experimental, and I really haven't done all that much wrong in my past, but I'm still afraid about false positives that could keep me out of the job. I believe in my heart that I would be an excellent member of the LE community. Although I do struggle a little ethically with lying to my potential future employers, I think that ensuring my employment would be for the greater good, so I will probably use countermeasures on my polygraph.

Anyway my question is, if I'm to use countermeasures on the Control questions, would it be smarter to use them on ALL Control questions, or just some of them?

I saw the Nick Frost video on Youtube where the polygrapher catches Nick in the lie because he reacted to every question, Control and Relevant. Was he only caught because all the relevant questions were related to one incident in which he was guilty? Or, now that I think about it, was he only caught because he fell for a bluff from the polygrapher, who said that he knew he was lying from the results?

Quote from: Onthefence on Apr 25, 2009, 08:32 PMI just found this site today and read most of TLBTLD, which I found very informative. I was aware there was so controversy over the relevance of polygraph tests, but I didn't know just how bogus they seem to be.
Anyway I am in the process of getting a career in LE, and the next step is the polygraph. Initially I planned to be truthful, but now I am beginning to question whether that is a wise idea. I have a clean record and my past drug use has been nothing but experimental, and I really haven't done all that much wrong in my past, but I'm still afraid about false positives that could keep me out of the job. I believe in my heart that I would be an excellent member of the LE community. Although I do struggle a little ethically with lying to my potential future employers, I think that ensuring my employment would be for the greater good, so I will probably use countermeasures on my polygraph.

I think everyone seeking a position of public trust has an ethical obligation to answer the relevant questions truthfully. However, it is secretly expected that even persons a law enforcement agency would be eager to hire will be less than completely candid when answering the so-called "control" questions. Thus, I see no ethical problem with an applicant withholding information regarding these latter questions.

QuoteAnyway my question is, if I'm to use countermeasures on the Control questions, would it be smarter to use them on ALL Control questions, or just some of them?

All. Because they're all scored. If your reactions to any one relevant question are consistently stronger than your reactions to any one corresponding control question, you fail the entire "test." How did you get the notion that it might be preferable to augment reactions to only some of the control questions?

QuoteI saw the Nick Frost video on Youtube where the polygrapher catches Nick in the lie because he reacted to every question, Control and Relevant. Was he only caught because all the relevant questions were related to one incident in which he was guilty? Or, now that I think about it, was he only caught because he fell for a bluff from the polygrapher, who said that he knew he was lying from the results?

As pointed out in the info for this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqjMhNGyDyQ), the polygrapher's explanation that he knew "someone was messing around" because he saw reactions to both the relevant AND the control questions is utter nonsense.

Thanks for the reply. To be honest my fear kind of was the relevant questions possibly covering things I hadn't thought about or didn't think were relevant when I had initially filled out my background packet.
1.I used to buy alcohol for people under the drinking age, though they were all friends and none of them under 18. This one I simply didn't think about while filling out the packet.
2. I've technically seen child porn (Traci Lords, the porn actress who fooled the whole industry for three years until she turned 18 and announced her true age. I didn't know her story until AFTER I'd seen some of her work). This one I did think about, but didn't write it down because it was accidental, and I assumed accidental doesn't really count.
3. I've never sold drugs but a few years ago I invested a fairly large amount of money for someone else to do it. He claimed it all got stolen so as far as I know it was never sold, and that was the last time I ever did anything that stupid, about 4 years ago. I was honest in my packet about using drugs experimentally and even furnishing drugs one time, but I didn't count this since none of the wording ever said INVESTING.
In TLBTLD, it said several times not to admit to anything beyond childhood pranks and things of that nature. Of course I'll tell them everything that I had already written down in my packet, but especially regarding these things I don't know what to do.

So then should I be honest answering any relevant question regarding these areas, or would it be better to admit nothing? I'm willing to admit to all three of these (which was my initial plan anyway), since I feel I have a reasonable explanation for each of them, or at least the first two. Or would the polygrapher see my omission of any of these as an automatic DQ, whether the omission was intentional or not? :-?

Onthefence,

Before trying to use countermeasures, think carefully. I am a polygraph examiner, and I have often caught examinees attempting countermeasures. When I do, their career goal, at least with my employer, is essentially over. Attempting countermeasures is viewed as a lack of integrity and a lack of cooperation.

Some of the "experts" on this website would have you believe that it is very common for a person to be a "false positive" on a polygraph exam--i.e. to appear deceptive when in fact they are truthful. In my experience--which I've pointed out many times as more valuable and supportable than George's or anyone else's polygraph failure--it is much more common to be caught attempting countermeasures, or at best be labeled as "inconclusive" on the exam. Now, if you were hiring people, who would you want to take--a person who clearly passed the exam, or someone you weren't sure about? Easy choice when we're talking about two qualified employees, especially in today's world of high unemployment.

Whatever you decide to do, I'm just giving you fair warning. The people who pose as experts on this website are providing poor advice when they advocate using countermeasures on a polygraph exam. Could you actually be a "false positive" on your exam? Yes, possibly, but highly unlikely. I believe your likelihood of screwing yourself by messing around on the exam outweighs your likelihood of being a "false positive." You've potentially hurt yourself by listening to false "experts" on this site. Think carefully about hurting your career chances as well.

The question, as I've posed on this forum before is, Do you feel lucky? If you've really got nothing to hide, studies show that innocent examinees have nothing to gain from attempting countermeasures. There is also great risk. Here's what the NAS has to say about it:

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

Onthefence,

Regarding your three omissions, I think that the first one is unlikely to pose any great obstacle, the second will surely open a can of worms, and the third will undoubtedly disqualify you from employment with any law enforcement agency with which you might apply. I suggest that you pursue employment options outside of law enforcement.

LieBabyCryBaby,

I think that those facing pre-employment polygraph screening should weigh the evidence and make an informed decision regarding whether to use countermeasures. It's worth noting that the key conclusion of the NAS report is that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

Let's suppose that an examinee researches polygraph procedure and countermeasures and decides to use the "complete honesty" approach outlined in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf). How will your agency deal with such persons?

George, about Onthefence's three omissions, I agree with you. Onthefence, I really don't think you are cut out to be in law enforcement, especially considering that four years ago you "invested" a large sum of money for someone else to buy drugs to be sold. Four years ago? And you are supposedly older and wiser now? Perhaps you have changed, but engaging in criminal behavior, especially so recently, would be an immediate disqualifier, at least with my employer.

George, you asked what my employer would do should someone use the "honesty" approach before taking a polygraph exam, as outlined in TLBTLD. Since the polygraph is a required part of the employment process, if the person wanted the job they would have to submit to a polygraph examination, and I would have to administer it. If you don't want to take the exam, look elsewhere for a job, plain and simple. Of course, your question seems to imply that my employer might look at such a revelation (that the subject read TLBTLD) as "Oh, no, he knows our secret!  Gee whiz, what will we do now?" In fact my employer--and those of us who are polygraphers--don't give much credence to this website or its advice by self-portrayed "experts." Therefore, it would have little effect on our beliefs or attitude.

Now, if I learn that an examinee has read the advice on your website and believed what he/she read enough to actually proclaim to the polygrapher that he/she "knows" the truth about the "lie detector," I would immediately consider that examinee to be a bit arrogant and presumptuous.  After all, like you and other self-portrayed "experts" on this website, the examinee has simply read something second-hand and now feels that he/she has, as TLBTLD analogizes, pulled back the curtain from the Wizard of Oz, when in fact he/she has no experience whatsoever.

I would go ahead with the polygraph examination, obviously with an even closer watch for what I have learned to be key indicators of attempted countermeasures. And yes, these indicators do stand out like a sore thumb--especially when the radar is up due to advanced warning. If I saw no such attempts, and the examinee passed the exam, good for him/her, since I believe, and some studies show, that countermeasures do very little to aid an "innocent" examinee.

My advice to readers of this website is to simply approach the polygraph examination with an open mind and a spirit of cooperation. You are free to accept or refuse any advice from George, myself, or anyone else with regard to the subject of the polygraph, but if you want the job and it requires that you submit to a polygraph, follow the polygrapher's instructions to the letter and your chances are much better than not that you will pass the exam.  That's my experience talking, which should count for more than anything you read from people who have none.

LieBabyCryBaby,

Thank you for your explanation. I understand that the examinee who admits his knowledge of polygraph procedure and countermeasures will still have to take (and pass) a polygraph to be employed by your agency. But after such an admission, with you knowing that the examinee knows about polygraph procedure, do you proceed with a CQT like the LEPET anyway? Or do you switch to another technique? If you do proceed with a CQT, how do you "set" the control questions. Doesn't the whole thing seem ridiculous at this point?

George,

If I'm using a PLC format (probable lie comparison), I would most likely switch to a DLC format (directed lie comparison). At least that way I'm not introducing the comparison questions with a "wink wink" at the examinee, as though we're both in on a little secret. Even though his/her knowledge of polygraph is almost nil, I don't want to make the examinee assume anything. However, that switch from PLC to DLC would be more for the sake of appearances rather than utility because either PLC or DLC should work equally well, as I've discovered through testing conducted by my employer on myself. You see, even though I know all the "secrets" of the polygraph and have had years of training and experience, I still react much more strongly to PLCs and DLCs than I do to the relevant questions. And that's with no attempted countermeasures on my part.  I believe this is due to my never having committed or been involved with any of the relevant issues.

LBCB,

I know I am not "experienced", but I'd like to know what you do if the chart "indicates deception" but the guy isn't actually lying, holding anything back, or being otherwise deceptive?

TC

Mr. Cullen,

Since I don't think you're really as naive as that question sounds, but that you are instead being facetious despite the glaring admission that you are in fact without experience, I'll answer your question for the benefit of other readers.

If the conclusion, based on the data, is "Deception Indicated," I will of course want to know why. Nine times out of 10, there is a very good reason, and it comes out because the examinee realizes that he/she has been caught in a lie and doesn't want to leave those cards on the table, especially when he/she wants a job. Of course, there are other possibilities for the one out of 10. The examinee may have failed the exam because he/she decided to take the poor advice of this or another website and screw around during the exam, even though he/she really had nothing to hide with regard to the relevant issues; or the examinee failed and knows why but won't talk about it; or the examinee is truly being truthful but is a "false positive." The third of these possibilities (the false positive) in my experience, is quite rare, but since the polygraph examination is not a perfect process, I will concede that it could happen.

What I won't concede, though, is the erroneous assumptions that you and others on this forum hold that false positives are common, or that anyone can easily be taught to effectively use the countermeasures you advocate. Therefore, my experienced advice to potential examinees is, don't risk your career goals on the assumptions of those whose only experience with the polygraph is having failed it.

QuoteSince I don't think you're really as naive as that question sounds, but that you are instead being facetious despite the glaring admission that you are in fact without experience, I'll answer your question for the benefit of other readers.

Sorry, but you are the one who said we are all inexperienced and couldn't possibly know what we are talking about when it comes to the Polygraph.  But thanks for acknowledging that I am not naive.

QuoteIf the conclusion, based on the data, is "Deception Indicated," I will of course want to know why.

By "data" I am assuming you are referring to the chart readings.  But the chart data simply show physiological data, not whether a person is being deceptive or not.  And I believe in a previous post, you admitted that the machine does not measure "deception".  You're buddy Ed Van Arsdale claimed polygraphers do NOT use the phrase "deception indicated" to describe chart readings.  I was accused of "overgeneralizing" for claiming polygraphers DO.   Now, here you are USING THAT LABEL!  Do if the machine does NOT measure deception, why do you use that term?  Not just here, but during testing?

QuoteNine times out of 10, there is a very good reason, and it comes out because the examinee realizes that he/she has been caught in a lie and doesn't want to leave those cards on the table, especially when he/she wants a job.

Okay, so here you are making a claim of 90% accuracy with NO SUBSTANTIATION, and despite the conclusion of the scientific community.  Of course there will be always be a reason, or more accurately, an underlying cause, for a person's ANS to "react".  But "deception" is only one possibility.  For example, if you have "sensitized" the subject to a particular question (e.g. by looking at the chart after a reading, letting out a big sigh, then telling the subject "your having trub with the question on foreign contacts!")
Or course you claimed polygraphers do not do this (tell subjects they are "doing bad" on a given question in between chart readings).  Go ask a sample of NSA polygraph subjects, they will tell you just the opposite.

QuoteThe examinee may have failed the exam because he/she decided to take the poor advice of this or another website and screw around during the exam, even though he/she really had nothing to hide with regard to the relevant issues; or the examinee failed and knows why but won't talk about it; or the examinee is truly being truthful but is a "false positive."

And you have absolutely NO WAY, based on the charts of know which category they fall into.

QuoteWhat I won't concede, though, is the erroneous assumptions that you and others on this forum hold that false positives are common...

You claimed FPs to be "exceedingly rare" in a previous post, and, just as your 9 out of 10 claim above, is just an opinion, and not based on science.

My advice has always been to take the test, answer all question HONESTLY, but KNOW ahead of time the machine DOES NOT MEASURE TRUTH, and that what you are doing is walking into an INTERROGATION.  IF/WHEN the the examiner tries to talk you into believing your must be lying, hiding something, or be bothered about your ANSWER, ignore him and realize it's just all PART OF THE GAME.  As for the charts.  They measure data which is produced and controlled primarily by the subconscious mind and you have no direct control over them, so don't worry about it.   IOW, tell the truth and ignore the examiners lies.

TC

You sure are a tiresome fellow, Mr. Cullen. It would be so much wasted time for me to take each sentence you write, quote it, and respond to it. Of course, you and George know that, so your usual M.O. is to take a valid argument and then break it down into individual sentences and throw out unsupportable statements after each one in, I believe, an effort to fill your posts with so much psychobabble that almost no one would want to take all day to respond.

Your only defense is to spout second-hand rhetoric based on questionable studies that are often polar opposites of studies I would use to support my own arguments. Thus, we are left, as I said before, with two options for readers of this forum: Listen to someone with absolutely no experience with the polygraph make claims based on questionable studies; or listen to somone with a wealth of experience make claims based on questionable studies and experience. I think that's an easy choice.

The fact remains that fearful readers of this website have to take a polygraph if they want to have or keep a job. No one else has to take a polygraph--no criminal defendant is ever forced to take a polygraph exam. Therefore, it would behoove these potential examinees to do what you advocate at the end of your tiresome post: Be truthful during the polygraph exam, and, I would add, follow instructions and don't engage in any kind of countermeaure attempts because it's just not worth the risk. Your chances of passing the polygraph exam--if you haven't been engaged in any really serious crimes or integrity issues--are very, very good. And should you actually fall into that tiny, tiny percentage who are actually "false positives," defend your own integrity.

QuoteYou sure are a tiresome fellow, Mr. Cullen. It would be so much wasted time for me to take each sentence you write, quote it, and respond to it. Of course, you and George know that, so your usual M.O. is to take a valid argument and then break it down into individual sentences and throw out unsupportable statements after each one in, I believe, an effort to fill your posts with so much psychobabble that almost no one would want to take all day to respond.

Then answer a simple question.  If reactions measured by the polygraph machine, i.e. fluctuations in Blood pressure, breathing patterns and sweatiness at the finger tip do NOT directly indicate deception, why do you use the term "deception indicated", and refer to such reactions as "lies" that need to be "exposed" and "investigated"?  

Please, no double-talk Mr. Obama!

TC

We went over this question before, but if you insist on being redundant, I'll indulge you.

We use the words "deception indicated" or "significant response" because it sounds better than "ninety percent chance that the subject is lying" (or choose whatever percentage floats your boat, according to the study you prefer--the studies we prefer are approximately 90%). The polygraph process sn't perfect, much like many other types of diagnostic tests in medicine, psychology, or even your local auto mechanic's engine diagnostic machine. But it's pretty darned good, so we feel comfortable using these descriptions of our diagnosis, especially since we can't say something like "deception without a doubt" or "deception guaranteed."

QuoteWe use the words "deception indicated" or "significant response" because it sounds better than "ninety percent chance that the subject is lying"

"Deception indicated" and "significant response" (indicated) don't mean the same thing at all.

The word "response" can mean anything and begs the question:   "Okay, there is a significant response, so what the heck does that mean?  What is the underlying causality?".  

"Deception" means something specific and conclusive (i.e. "you're purposely trying to DECEIVE me by lying, not tell me everything...etc.")?  It also attributes some sort of causality.

QuoteThe polygraph process sn't perfect, much like many other types of diagnostic tests in medicine, psychology, or even your local auto mechanic's engine diagnostic machine. But it's pretty darned good,

When my doctor's nurse takes my temperature, and it reads 102, she doesn't say "FlU indicated".  And an auto mechanic CAN make valid inferential conclusions on the mechanical state of my vehicle based on the results of his diagnostic test, DUE to the very nature of that test.

If the test is not perfect, you shouldn't refer to physiological reactions as measured on you charts as "lies", or use the term "deceptive" in direct reference to your data.  Most science professors would laugh you right out of their classroom.

And that is my point.

First, let me apologize to readers for allowing myself to get off subject. The subject of this thread was Onthefence's consideration of countermeasures. But I fell into one of George's and the "anti-" crowd's three favorite ways to defend against a good argument. I went along with their first defensive tactic: (1) Change the subject when you are losing. The other "anti-" defensive tactics are: (2) Piecemeal your opponent's argument, breaking it down into individual sentences and throwing psychobabble at each one so that your opponent will grow weary with the prospect of so much tedious answering and go away; and (3) Banish your opponent from the forum.

What the "anti-" crowd can't defend is its lack of any practical experience whatsoever with the polygraph process. As I said before, you, the reader, have two choices.  You can either listen to someone with no experience, or you can listen to someone who has it. Without experience, all you are left with are two people citing questionable laboratory case studies. At least with the experienced polygrapher, he/she can back up his/her questionable case studies with real-life field experience, while the other individuals have only their experience of having failed a polygraph exam. We don't know why they failed because we weren't there and we didn't see the data. But does it really matter? These failures are such a tiny minority of all the people who take a polygraph, yet they come on this forum and portray themselves as experts when they have never sat on the other side of the table in a polygraph room and engaged in the process of conducting exams with real, live people.

Because this thread has strayed so far from its topic, perhaps it has reached a practical end. Therefore, I will repeat what I said with regard to countermeasures: It's not worth the risk. If you are a person of high integrity and you haven't committed or engaged in any serious crimes or integrity issues, your chances of passing the exam are extremely high. Countermeasures won't help you, and they may hurt you. If you are a person of low integrity, what are you doing sitting in that polygraph chair trying to fool people into thinking you are something that you are not?

Finally, a challenge.  If you have doubts about what I say, go ahead and attempt your countermeasures.  Do you feel lucky?  Then, come back here and tell us all about it. Tell us how you were guilty with regard to the relevant issues on the exam, and how your countermeasures saved you. I dare you. But don't expect us to believe that an innocent person, by using countermeasures, avoided failing the polygraph exam, because you have no way of proving that you wouldn't have passed it on your own. And turnabout is fair play, as they say. Therefore, when you are caught in your countermeasures and you fail the exam, even if you don't admit anything to your polygrapher after the exam, come back here and tell us how your countermeasure attempt backfired on you.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Apr 27, 2009, 02:35 PMBefore trying to use countermeasures, think carefully. I am a polygraph examiner, and I have often caught examinees attempting countermeasures. When I do, their career goal, at least with my employer, is essentially over. [/b]

I have big issues with this statement.  About 5 years ago, I failed a polygraph when I was applying for an internship at a state crime laboratory due to a false positive.  I was naturally devastated at the time because the laboratory I had applied to had previously had a long history of problems due to a particularly well known scientist.  Later, I applied to a much better agency and passed their polygraph and am now working for them as a fingerprint examiner.

Anyone with a real forensic background knows that you cannot be an objective scientist and an investigator at the same time - it's too easy to manipulate your results.  I think your statement reveals your true intent - it is to have some control over another person's future.  I think the real objective truth is unimportant to you.

As a forensic scientist, I am going to tell you flat out - you and I are not in the same league and we are not performing our work by the same ethical standard that the public deserves.  By your statement, it is clear we are not on the same side of the public's interests and that you have your own agenda.  When I identify someone, I make no assumptions about that person's guilt or innocence.  Can you say that you do the same?

I've seen a some defense of polygraphing based upon the 2003 NAS report.  In case you are not aware, in 2008, the NAS met again to review all forensic sciences, including fingerprints and death investigation.  The results of those proceedings WILL eventually have an impact on laws and law enforcement practices.  There is a big push for all expert disciplines with some scientific application to move toward a statistical basis for their conclusions.  Are you prepared for that since your discipline is not admissible in most courts?  Are you prepared to meet the guidelines prescribed by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) and have your discipline become accredited?  Are you prepared to participate in the mandating that all practitioners of your discipline (outside your agency) undergo the same training, validation, proficiency testing, and court/admissibility to the highest level of your discipline?

And just to let you know, in case you are claiming to be more psychology based that an applied science, as an expert in anything you can be called to defend the merits of your discipline in court (which polygraphy hasn't faired so well in the past).  In one of my cases, the officer is being called to testify in a Daubert hearing just so that he can be admitted as an expert in gang activity.

When I examine a latent print, I have to take into account all the distortions and potentially minimal area there by itself before I even assess whether it is an identification.  DNA examiners have to deal with mixed profiles.  Other disciplines have to shift through their data to find the appropriate conclusions for their examinations.  I find your view on countermeasures rather arrogant and unscientific.  Because you assume someone may not make it easier for you to do your exam through countermeasures that's an automatic determination of deception?  Grow up!  If you want to be an expert, the weight of analyzing an examination is on you - not the subject.

Nice rant LBCB

QuoteIf the conclusion, based on the data, is "Deception Indicated," I will of course want to know why. Nine times out of 10, there is a very good reason, and it comes out because the examinee realizes that he/she has been caught in a lie and doesn't want to leave those cards on the table, especially when he/she wants a job

.

There is a big flaw in that type of reasoning and is explained in the following article abstract:

Abstract

"Mangan et al. [D.J. Mangan, T.E., Armitage, G.C., Adams: A field study on the validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique. Physiol Behav 2008] have carried out a field study of polygraph test accuracy in which they relied on confessions to determine guilt as well as to clear co-suspects in the same case as innocent. Using this criterion for ground truth, they estimate polygraph accuracy by determining how often confessions are matched by failed polygraph tests and how often those cleared by confession have passed polygraph tests. They conclude that the polygraph was "100% accurate in the identification of the innocent and guilty." However, their method contains a flaw, not discernible by reading their article, that invalidates this conclusion. The flaw arises because confessions were obtained by the polygraph examiner who interrogated the examinee after deciding the test was failed. Under these circumstances, the criterion (the confession) and the test outcome (deception indicated) are not independent. The method thus virtually guarantees that the two will match, ensuring 100% "accuracy." Although largely ignored by the polygraph profession, this flaw inherent to confession-based field studies of polygraph validity has been known to confound these studies for over two decades. Hence, contrary to Mangan et al., their study design does not provide for an adequate estimate of polygraph test accuracy. Moreover, reviews of polygraph testing carried out by scientists at arms length to the polygraph profession have repeatedly failed to support the accuracy proponents claim for the polygraph."

Taken from:

"Accuracy of polygraph techniques: Problems using confessions to determine ground truth"  William G. Iacono

This backs up GM's claim made in a different thread, which you took issue with:

QuoteIf polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy, which has no scientific basis, is all about interrogation.

Quote from: examiner on Apr 30, 2009, 10:13 PMBy your statement, it is clear we are not on the same side of the public's interests and that you have your own agenda.

"Examiner," by stating that I have caught examinees attempting countermeasures, which effectively ended their career goals with my employer, I don't claim or imply that I am the deciding factor in the employment process. I simply report the data. Believe it or not, there are well-known criteria for countermeasures, and they often stand out so well that even a beginning student of polygraphy can easily see them. As the NAS report I quoted pointed out, there is no evidence and no supportable studies to show that, despite George Maschke's claims to the contrary, a person can quickly, easily and effectively learn to "beat" a polygraph exam through the use of countermeasures. My personal experience has confirmed that this is correct.

You say that I have an agenda--that I want to have some control over people's lives. Nothing could be further from the truth, and for you to assume that about me is either naive or intentionally provocative. When I conduct a polygraph exam, as I explained previously, I must go into the exam with an impartial frame of mind. I really have to not care one way or the other whether the examinee passes or fails the exam. However, I must confess my weakness in this area, because it is actually my hope before every polygraph exam that the examinee will pass the exam. I don't want to have to confront someone in his or her lies. I don't want to have the polygraph be one of the judgment criteria that my employer will use to disqualify a job applicant and take away his or her opportunity. Besides, it makes my job much easier and my day much brighter when someone passes the exam. I am not like a snake in the brush just waiting to strike, but rather like a porcupine that has the potential to "quill" someone. If an examinee chooses to use countermeasures, it's his or her choice. But again I say, it's just not worth the risk.

Furthermore, "Examiner," I didn't conduct your polygraph exam in which you claim to have been a "false positive." I haven't seen the data. I'd love to see your polygraph charts and question list, though. When someone fails a polygraph exam, there is almost always a very good reason why, but in your case perhaps you were indeed the victim of an imperfect process. I am happy to hear that you now have a good job with another agency, and you have my best wishes for a long and successful career in law enforcement.

As for Mr. Cullen, didn't you pay attention to my last post? If so, you wouldn't have wasted your time with any more off-the-subject tired rhetoric about polygraph validity. Remember, you admitted that you have no experience--which is absolutely correct--yet here you are again making claims you really know nothing about.

Quotethere is no evidence and no supportable studies to show that, despite George Maschke's claims to the contrary, a person can quickly, easily and effectively learn to "beat" a polygraph exam through the use of countermeasures.

And there is NO evidence or supportable studies that show a polygraph operator can detect the employment of countermeasures, or that there is a direct and predictable causal relationship between the physiological "rumblings"  charted by a polygraph machine and deception.  Though the machine IS a very effective interrogation "prop" used to  elicit information from uninformed, naive and gullible subjects.

TC

Mr. Cullen, if you or other readers wish to read my opinion regarding the nonsense you just posted, look for my posts in Drew Richardson's silly "Countermeasures Challenge" thread.

As for the reast of what you stated regarding "the machine," you really have no business commenting on a subject you know very little about other than what you've read on this forum and questionable lab studies.   And really, must I point out once again that you STILL have absolutely no experience? You've sat in a polygraph chair, and I assume you've failed a polygraph exam, but that doesn't mean you've "walked the walk," as the saying goes.   :o

QuoteAs for the reast of what you stated regarding "the machine," you really have no business commenting on a subject you know very little about other than what you've read on this forum and questionable lab studies.   And really, must I point out once again that you STILL have absolutely no experience?

Say what you will about me, but the National Academy of Sciences concluded:

"[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

I know you find the above conclusion "tiresome", but so is your unwillingness to accept the pseudo-scientific nature of your work.

So who should people believe, the nation's top scientists or a person who makes his living administering polygraphic interrogations?  

Well, Mr. Cullen, at least you didn't try to defend your lack of experience. Any defense would have been ridiculous, so I commend you for not opening yourself up for easy ridicule.  So, what we are left with in your latest post is yet another detour from the subject. As for the NAS, I obviously respect it because I quoted it with regard to countermeasures, which of course is the subject of this thread.  I accept that it has come to its own conclusions with regard to polygraph utility and validity based on a few laboratory studies, and I have read the report in its entirety several times.  As an actual polygrapher, though, the most credible laboratory studies are those that I can see confirmed every day in real life experience, which I believe does count for something.  Otherwise, I would be doing the same as you, which is simply going by the studies that support your own biased, inexperienced opinion.  Now, can you return to the subject of this thread, or must you continue to spout the usual second-hand rhetoric found either as the subject or the deviation of almost every thread on this forum? From personal experience (gee, we keep coming back to that word, don't we?) I predict that you will return once again with something about how the polygraph is a "pseudoscience," blah, blah, blah, when you really have no business pretending that you have any personal knowledge whatsoever.

Oh, just one more thing. Why do you use two different but similar user names on the forum? How am I to differentiate between one ignoramus and the other? Or is that the whole point?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Apr 30, 2009, 11:07 AMIf you are a person of high integrity and you haven't committed or engaged in any serious crimes or integrity issues, your chances of passing the exam are extremely high.

Upon what are you basing this statement?  I am a person of high integrity and I havent engaged in any serious crimes or integrity issues, and I failed three out of four polygraphs even though I told the truth and did not attempt any countermeasures.

If you test someone and they pass how can you be confident they were truthful and did not use counermeasures?  I think it is unlikely that anyone who passes their polygraph by using countermeasure will admit to you that they did so at the end of the test.

I understand you believe what you wrote but I don't see much objective justification for your belief.  I know from personal experience that telling the truth resulted in failing 75% of my pre-employment polygraph tests.  I know that for a fact.  When you polygraph someone and see no signs of deception, there simply is no way you can possibly know for a fact that they were not being deceptive or using countermeasures?

The polygraph is an imperfect process.  We have no argument there.  I base what I've said on studies we polygraphers believe are correct due to experience that backs them up.

Sergeant1107, I don't know why you've failed three out of four polygraph exams. I didn't conduct those exams, and I haven't seen the data. I'd love to see your charts and question lists. I can't judge your integrity or lack thereof. But I would never claim that one person's negative outcomes--even if they are true "false positives"--or even those of a handful of self-potrayed experts on this forum show that the process doesn't work, especially when I've seen hundreds or even thousands of times that it has. This is obviously a forum comprised almost entirely of people who failed the polygraph exam and those who will soon be taking a polygraph exam and are falsely led to believe that there's a good chance they will fail too. In other words, it's the blind leading the blind. People who pass the polygraph exam have no need to come on this website and complain about the process--it's over for them and they move on. And experience has shown me that the vast majority do pass the exam.

Now, I've stated before that countermeasures just aren't worth the risk. At the very least they may cause you to come up "inconclusive" on the exam, and at the very worst, which I've seen too many times, they lead to failure on the exam. Since you are an "Especially Senior User" on this forum, and you've taken four polygraphs, three of which you failed, you might be in a better position to tell all of us whether your countermeasure attempts were successful.  If you really believe in countermeasures, surely you've attempted them.  If so, you've obviously screwed yourself, which simply confirms what I and the NAS have said.

I must also assume that, like George Maschke and Mr. Cullen, you have no actual experience conducting polygraph exams, so why are you on this forum portraying yourself as having any idea what you are talking about?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 02, 2009, 12:29 PMThe polygraph is an imperfect process.  We have no argument there.  I base what I've said on studies we polygraphers believe are correct due to experience that backs them up.

Sergeant1107, I don't know why you've failed three out of four polygraph exams. I didn't conduct those exams, and I haven't seen the data. I'd love to see your charts and question lists. I can't judge your integrity or lack thereof. But I would never claim that one person's negative outcomes--even if they are true "false positives"--or even those of a handful of self-potrayed experts on this forum show that the process doesn't work, especially when I've seen hundreds or even thousands of times that it has. This is obviously a forum comprised almost entirely of people who failed the polygraph exam and those who will soon be taking a polygraph exam and are falsely led to believe that there's a good chance they will fail too. In other words, it's the blind leading the blind. People who pass the polygraph exam have no need to come on this website and complain about the process--it's over for them and they move on. And experience has shown me that the vast majority do pass the exam.

Now, I've stated before that countermeasures just aren't worth the risk. At the very least they may cause you to come up "inconclusive" on the exam, and at the very worst, which I've seen too many times, they lead to failure on the exam. Since you are an "Especially Senior User" on this forum, and you've taken four polygraphs, three of which you failed, you might be in a better position to tell all of us whether your countermeasure attempts were successful.  If you really believe in countermeasures, surely you've attempted them.  If so, you've obviously screwed yourself, which simply confirms what I and the NAS have said.

I must also assume that, like George Maschke and Mr. Cullen, you have no actual experience conducting polygraph exams, so why are you on this forum portraying yourself as having any idea what you are talking about?

Perhaps you should reread my post, or read it for the first time.  I am hardly portraying myself as an expert, and I specifically stated I did not use countermeasures.

It seems that of the two people involved in the polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for sure if the results are accurate or inaccurate.  Yet you obviously feel comfortable claiming that a person of integrity who tells the truth on their exam stands a high chance of passing.  Asking upon what you base that claim is a fair question.  

Research into such a topic would logically be impeded by the simple fact that people who pass a polygraph using countermeasures are highly unlikely to admit to doing so.  

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2009, 07:17 PMResearch into such a topic would logically be impeded by the simple fact that people who pass a polygraph using countermeasures are highly unlikely to admit to doing so.

Glad you said that, Sergeant1107.  It helps confirm my point. Where are all the people who passed the polygraph with countermeasures while lying to the relevant questions? That's right, we never hear from them.  Not even on an anonymous forum like this one.  Studies show that countermeasures don't help the innocent, and the NAS says that countermeasures may very well work the other way, making an examinee appear more deceptive. Furthermore, someone who does not lie on the relevant questions and passes the exam, even assuming that they escape detection, can't prove that they wouldn't have passed the exam anyhow.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 03, 2009, 01:40 AMlad you said that, Sergeant1107.It helps confirm my point. Where are all the people who passed the polygraph with countermeasures while lying to the relevant questions? That's right, we never hear from them.Not even on an anonymous forum like this one.Studies show that countermeasures don't help the innocent, and the NAS says that countermeasures may very well work the other way, making an examinee appear more deceptive. Furthermore, someone who does not lie on the relevant questions and passes the exam, even assuming that they escape detection, can't prove that they wouldn't have passed the exam anyhow.

Okay.  You write that you agree with me that research into the successful use of countermeasures is likely to be flawed and then you cite research into countermeasure use.

So what exactly makes you think that a person of high integrity who answers the questions truthfully has a very high chance of passing their polygraph?  I agree with you that if a person passes their polygraph without using countermeasures there is no way of knowing whether they may have passed without using countermeasures, but that's really begging the question.

If a person passes you have no legitimate idea if they told the truth and passed, or used countermeasures and passed, or if they are simply part of the (debatable) percentage of examinees for whom the admittedly imperfect polygraph doesn't work as purported.  As the examiner, you have no idea how accurate the results of your polygraph are unless there is some sort of incontrovertible physical evidence available that completely proves or disproves your results.

However, the examinee knows every time, in every polygraph, whether the results were accurate or not.  The examinee's opinion on the accuracy of the polygraph should carry at least as much, if not more, weight than the examiner's.

No, Sergeant, I did not agree with you that research into the successful use of countermeasures is likely to be flawed. In fact, ther IS no research that shows countermeasures to be successful.  Because you obviously didn't read a little further back in this thread, or you chose to ignore it, here again is what the NAS has to say about countermeasures and research into the same:

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

The claims by Maschke and others on this website that countermeasures work and can be successfully implemented have absolutely no basis.

Again, if a person is "innocent," there's no research to show that countermeasures will help ensure that he/she will pass the polygraph exam; in fact, studies show exactly the opposite to be more likely. So, no one who really didn't lie to the relevant issues and who passed the exam without detection using countermeasures can prove that he/she wouldn't have passed it anyhow. And where are all the people who lie on the relevant questions, but who pass the polygraph by using countermeasures?  That's right, we never hear from those people, do we? Not even on an anonymous forum.

Sergeant, you are just like the rest of the self-portrayed experts on this website who have no practical experience conducting polygraph exams, but who try to convince scared people that you know what you are talking about. Give it up because your ignorance is glaringly obvious, and you don't have a leg to stand on.

I, on the other hand, can point out my favorite polygraph studies just like you, Maschke, and all the other pretenders on this website, but unlike you I have a wealth of experience to back me up.

Ok, next pretender, please.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 03, 2009, 01:44 PMSergeant, you are just like the rest of the self-portrayed experts on this website who have no practical experience conducting polygraph exams, but who try to convince scared people that you know what you are talking about. Give it up because your ignorance is glaringly obvious, and you don't have a leg to stand on.

This is simply an ad hominem attack that lends you no credibility whatsoever.

Everyone who posts ideas with which you do not agree is not making themselves out to be a "self-portayed expert."I don't ever present myself as an expert and I certainly did not in any of my posts in this thread.

I merely asked a question.  If asking how someone can confidently make a statement that people of integrity have a high probability of passing a polygraph makes me a "self-portrayed expert" in your opinion, you obviously have a different definition of the term than most people.

I think you would be more credible in your responses if you addressed the points made by other posters, even if you did so solely to show why you believed them to be incorrect.  Attacking what you believe to be the character or motivation of the poster rather than the poster's arguments is, by definition, an argumentum ad hominem and in debating circles it is generally is seen as an admission that you are intellectually bankrupt.  It certainly has done nothing to enhance your credibility on this message board.

If your motivation for continuing to post here is to help enlighten people who (in your opinion) foolishly come to this site seeking advice, then it is probably in your best interests to present yourself as a neutral and detached "expert" rather than as someone who simply attacks anyone posting an opinion with which you disagree.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on May 04, 2009, 09:31 AM"I don't ever present myself as an expert and I certainly did not in any of my posts in this thread.

Sergeant, by calling polygraph a "pseudoscience," repeating unsupportable rhetoric from this website as if you have some inside knowledge about the subject, and then belittling someone who, unlike yourself, has actual experience with the process sure makes it appear that you think yourself to be an expert in the subject. It appears from this last post of yours that you acknowledge that you are not an expert in polygraph. Therefore, it would make you appear much less foolish if you didn't make statements as though you actually knew what you are talking about.

It's not an "ad hominem" attack to point out another's true ignorance, especially when that person has no practical knowledge or experience.  

QuoteSergeant, by calling polygraph a "pseudoscience," repeating unsupportable rhetoric from this website as if you have some inside knowledge about the subject,

It IS "pseudo-science".  A body of the nation's TOP scientists concluded it had NO scientific validity, yet it's practitioners PRETEND that it is    Of course, admittedly, none have ever conducted a polygraph test or graduated from a 14 week long polygraph school.  The ARE scientists, though.  Are you a scientist?  Do you have ANY experience in the science?  If not, how could you possibly be qualified to make any pronouncement in the area of science?  By following your argument, that would be a profusion of utter ignorance!

Here are a couple of dictionary definitions for your self edification.  Note, I have never written a dictionary, and have NO EXPERIENCE in the field of lexicography.  Now, with that disclamer out of the way, the definitions follow:

Quotepseu⋅do⋅sci⋅ence
   /ˌsudoʊˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soo-doh-sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

Quotepseudo-science
"a pretended or mistaken science," 1844, from pseudo- (q.v.) + science.

QuoteA pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative  science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.

Above: Johathan Hope: Theodorus' Spiral (2003)

If there any way in which I can further educate you, or point out the obvious to you, please let me know.  Otherwise, feel free to post more jibberish.  By doing so, you help the "anti-polygraph" cause.

TC

Although I have allowed this thread to once again get off-topic, which again I must point out is one of the "anti-" crowd's favorite defensive tactics when it is losing an argument, I will indulge you one more time, Cullen.

As I stated before, polygraph is not a perfect process. A "false positive" is a slight possibility. Also, proponents of the polygraph, i.e. polygraphers and administrators of most state and federal law enforcement agencies, use laboratory studies that support not only our opinion, but our experience in what we see played out on a daily basis with real, live people, not disinterested lab subjects. As I also stated before, I respect the NAS's opinion, and I quoted it twice on this forum when it stated that countermeasures are more likely to backfire on examinees and that there is no evidence or research to even suggest otherwise. But even such a respectable body as the NAS is limited in its ability to apply a few lab studies to the field, and it has stated this, which you will find if you read the full report. In my experienced opinion, which carries much more weight than your ignorant parroting of this website's rhetoric, the polygraph process, although perhaps not as accurate as the most favorable studies, which list it as 97-98% accurate, is still much better than chance, even in the area of screening exams, which I believe this forum most opposes. Thus, you don't see me on this forum ever claiming that the polygraph is accurate in the high 90-percentile, but experience shows me that the studies putting the polygraph between 85-90% appear to be right on target.  Now, you belittle experience as if it has no meaning because experience doesn't fall in line with your biased view. You've failed three out of four polygraphs, as you previously stated.  Although I am not here to judge you since I didn't conduct your exams and I haven't seen the data, I would be more inclined to believe that YOU, not the polygraph process, are more apt to be at fault.  And you still haven't revealed whether you attempted countermeasures in at least one of your failures, perhaps because that would support the possibility that you screwed yourself.

Cullen, you, like Sergeant1107, make yourself out to be an expert in the polygraph when you claim that my experienced opinion is "jibberish" when you have none of your own.  I believe that would, in a reasonable person's opinion, make your claims that polygraph is a "pseudoscience" about as intelligent-sounding as a screeching baboon.

There, I've compared you to both a parrot and a baboon. Now, I believe it's time to hear some more about "ad hominem" attacks.

Sergeant.  You said in a previous post "It seems that of the two people involved in the polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for sure if the results are accurate or inaccurate. " While I disagree that at the conclusion of the test only the examinee knows if the results are accurate, one point is perfectly clear; of the two people involved in the polygraph, only the examinee has anything to gain by successfully altering the outcome of the test. Despite a lack of supporting evidence and not withstanding evidence to the contrary, according to the authors, countermeasures may be used to successfully lie on a polygraph test. If someone is successful, he or she might win, but EVERYONE else loses.

Arguably, a dishonest person might have something to gain by successfully lying or using countermeasures on a polygraph test.  I do not believe honest people or society has anything to gain from someone successfully lying on the exam or the application of countermeasures. My personal opinion is that arguments to the contrary are selfish, egotistical, and morally dishonest.


Your signature line appears to tie you to a persistent "ad hominum argument" complaint. You seem to use it often. It equates ad hominum argument to intellectual bankruptcy. I suspect that you have discovered its usefulness as a red herring to toss into the fray when you are losing an argument. If someone gets agitated or frustrated by someone else's improper argument or continued display of stubborn ignorance and mentions something remotely objectionable you trot it out like actually means something. Your accusation often appears misapplied, for even an informal forum such as this. I think you do this in order to deflect an opposing argument and goad the respondent into defending your accusation at the expense of the initial argument. Casting "Red Herrings" is improper argument. Especially when used "Tu Quoque" as they often are by some of the posters here.

However in this case LBCB is not engaging in ad hominum attack per se'. He/She has not attacked anyone's character, just his or her qualifications. While everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion, in debate "Personal Opinion" should be clearly labeled as such. If one wishes to appear to be an authority on any subject, as many on here clearly have, then they should be able to establish, or at least claim, some reasonable qualification for that authority. Conversely, polygraph examiners, like LBCB, who reveal their qualifications, as a group, are constantly subjected to ad hominum accusations of dishonesty by posters on this board. Something you consciously and obviously choose to ignore. You also choose to ignore that some of the posters here appear to be trying to incite Ad Hominum comments from those who disagree.

For anyone to argue that simply because several of the posters here claim similar experiences some premise has been established or refuted is simply an Ad Populum argument, which is no less fallacious than a true ad hominum attack and no less intellectually bankrupt.

The common reasoning against polygraph that most often appears on this website divides into two predominant arguments. The first argument is inherently circular and is easily characterized as" Polygraph doesn't work/ How do you know? Because, I told the truth and failed anyway. / How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn't work/ How do you know? Because I told the truth and failed anyway/How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn't work" etc. ad nauseum. I do not think this argument is capable of resolving any of the issues presently under discussion because of its circular nature. Asserting or implying expertise based primarily on failing a test is probably insufficient to sway anyone with real qualifications. This brings me to the second predominant argument.

The second predominant argument is based on claimed expertise. A recent poster recently argued the expertise of the sites founder. To argue that the authors of a website are experts simply because they wrote a book that, while arguably published, has never been subjected to peer review is an argument from improper authority or "Ad Vercundium" argument. It makes no more sense than quoting Stephen W. Hawking on mountain climbing.

In this particular book, written curriculum vitae which might establish the level of expertise regarding qualifications, knowledge and experience or either or both of the authors regarding its subject matter is suspiciously absent. If you look at other instructional guides, I am sure you will find that a formal presentation of the author's qualifications, knowledge and experience to teach the subject matter are never omitted. When curriculum vitae are omitted, questions regarding the author's expertise are justifiable. When those questions are ignored, or fail to support a reasonable standard of qualification, knowledge and experience the more suspicious they become.

Suspicion or challenge of ones qualifications is not ad hominum argument by any accepted definition other than your own. In fact, position and point of view are very relevant to any discussion in order to identify bias that may cloud ones perception. Both the content of this book and this website appear to lack any convincing endorsement indicating that anyone has successfully applied its teachings about countermeasures to insure passing a test or any supporting documentation establishing sufficient expertise or qualifications to teach the subjectmatter being taught. If one buys a cookbook, it isn't the slightest bit unreasonable to expect the author actually knows how to cook and has in fact cooked on numerous occasions

Some Antipolygraph posters also engage in a lot of "deck stacking" by selectively choosing to ignore or dismiss any studies or relevant information contained therein that does not support their position. For example, in this thread, Cullen responded to a posting by LBCB by citing William Iacono's criticism of Matte's field study, but he failed to acknowledge that the study facing Iacono's criticism just happened to be one of the field studies that N.A.S. determined met their basic criteria for inclusion in their quantitative analysis. He also presents this citation in an apparent attempt to refute a claim of 100% accuracy, which LBCB never offered. Did he do this because he does not understand the material under discussion or because he was attempting to falsely, attribute a claim of 100% accuracy to LBCB? Maybe one, maybe the other, but I suspect it is a combination of both.

If you wish to complain about someone violating the "rules of argument", perhaps you should consider cleaning your own house first.

I am extremely impressed, JPW.  That's one of the best explanations--about anything--that I remember reading.

Quote" Polygraph doesn't work/ How do you know? Because, I told the truth and failed anyway. / How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn't work/ How do you know? Because I told the truth and failed anyway/How did that happen? Because Polygraph doesn't work"

The above IS a ""circular argument.  Fortunately, it's NOT our argument.  Out argument is more like this:

"The polygraph doesn't work.
 How do you know?  
Because, I told the truth and failed anyway.

 How did that happen?
 Because a consistent reaction on the chart was falsely assumed to indicate deception.

How do you know that?  
Because, the operator used the term "deception indicated" and told me the machine said I was lying or holding back information. This, despite the fact that there are many other possible/probable underlying causes (unrelated to veracity of my answer) for a such reactions.  

How do you know this?
Because, although the operator CAN measure physiological states of nervous arousal, he/she can NOT "read" the thoughts (conscious or unconscious) or sets of thoughts, that caused the persistent arousal so measured.

How do you know this?  

This is the nature of the human brain/mind/autonomic nervous system, based on our current body of knowledge.

TC

I hardly think that posting my own personal experiences can be accurately deemed proclaiming myself an expert.

Feel free to reread my posts.  I have always written that my experience with the polygraph is limited to four pre-employment exams, of which I failed three despite telling the truth on all of them.

My posts are generally nothing more than questions, sometimes referring to my own experience.  As someone who answered all questions honestly and without holding anything back, and was subsequently told by three different examiners that it was clear I was lying, I think any reasonable person would find it easy to understand how I might be inclinded to question anyone who claims the polygraph is highly accurate or that honest people are extemely likely to pass without a problem.

The habit of some polygraph operators to impugn the posts of essentially anyone who is not a polygraph operator rather than address the content of those posts is, by definition, an ad hominem attack.  There are virtually no members on this board who author posts that begin with "I am an expert in the field of polygraph examinations, so my word is final."  The overwhelming majority of people on this board have taken one or more polygraphs and encountered some problems, and they have questions and opinions of their own.

People posting opinions on the Internet is hardly unique, and I know of no requirement that posters either remain silent about fields in which they lack some sort of professional certification, or that anyone without professional certification specify that at the beginning of every post they author.

How much credibility is given to anti-polygraph posters who respond to a polygraph operator's post with something akin to, "You polygraph operators are all evil people, so no one should listen to your opinion."?  Not too much, I should think, and justifiably so.  Such a response is nothing more than an attack upon the original poster's credentials and/or motives, and as such is no more logical or compelling than sneering, "Oh, yeah?"

Similarly, polygraph supporters who often respond to civil and polite posts that contain questions or comments with attacks on the poster's lack of expertise in the field of polygraph examinations are doing nothing more than attacking that poster's credentials and/or motives.  Such responses do nothing to address the topic at hand and do nothing to enhance the responder's credbility.

I have never claimed to be an expert and have never claimed any more extensive experience with the polygraph than four pre-employment exams, of which I failed three.  Despite that perceived shortcoming (in some people's eyes), I am free to and plan to continue posting my opinions on this board.  I always try to avoid personal attacks and hostility in general, but I am well aware I have no control over how other members choose to post.

Sergeant, whether distinctly stated or not, you participate in a joint assertion or implication of shared expertise based upon your similar experiences and your combined/shared responses to persons who come to this board seeking advice or debate.

I can certainly understand, based on your personal experience, why you might be inclined to question a statement that the polygraph is highly accurate or that honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem. Your bias appears based upon your personal experience, bolstered by similar claims that appear on this board rather than training or expertise. I assert that this has resulted in a fallacious Ad Populum argument.

In support of this assertion, I offer the following.

There are real statistics regarding polygraph that do not involve the NAS report, or Scientific Studies by researchers that can easily be branded as Pro-Polygraph or Anti-Polygraph by those who disagree with their findings. For example, here is one that tends to indicate this Ad Populum argument will not hold water.

There is a link on this web site that accesses another web site belonging to the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, which includes Department of Defense Annual reports to Congress regarding polygraph from 1997 to 2002. Even though the content of this website appears, in my opinion, to be somewhat slanted against polygraph, I have no reason to believe that the copies they provide are inaccurate or differ in any material way from the reports actually submitted to Congress.

My review and compilation of these reports tend to support previous claims, including the assertions that "honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem", "false positive outcomes are an uncommon occurrence" and polygraph, as used in this program, proved to be a highly accurate method to screen individuals and help divide them into groups of those who have committed violations and those who have not.

Regarding these reports, I would direct your attention to statistics addressing the Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph, (CSP) which is a screening type exam for security issues and violations, because they provide a reasonably detailed breakdown on exam results and share taxonomical similarities with screening type polygraph examinations applied in different situations such as pre-employment and post conviction sex offender testing.

Over a six-year period, DoD conducted CSP exams on 48,552 persons. They reported that 47,289 displayed NO significant reactions indicative of deception. In other words, roughly 97% passed their exam without any problems. Approximately, 3% (1353) were reported as having significant reactions to relevant questions, which could be interpreted as deception by the examiner.

The group that displayed significant reactions would arguably contain both True Positives and False Positives. Out of 1353 examinees who exhibited significant reactions, 1158 made admissions to relevant issues. I think that it would be fair to include this sub-set in the "True-Positive" Column because they displayed significant reactions on their exam AND subsequently admitted violations. Simple subtraction reduces the POTENTIAL False Positive group to 195 or four-tenths of one percent (0.4%). This potential False Positive group will likely contain both unresolved True Positive and unresolved False Positive examinees. Probably, most if not all of those have been resolved one way or another by now.

False negatives are not considered in this commentary because there were none reported and False Negative outcomes have no bearing on whether or not honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem.

Unless you have some credible evidence that the Department of Defense lied to Congress, some statistic that establishes that a significant portion of the 97% of people who took this test and passed were actually dishonest or that the CSP has significantly different accuracy than other screening exams. I think that the statement attributed to LBCB that polygraph is highly accurate and that honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem is supported by the evidence presented.

In Summary; most (over 97%) of the people, taking the test passed it. This goes to the assertion that "Honest people are extremely likely to pass without a problem.
Most (over 92%) of the people who failed the test subsequently admitted violations. This goes to accuracy of the process in doing what it claims to be able to do which is identifying persons who committed violations regarding relevant issues.

This review of the reported statistics relating to almost 50,000 actual screening exams conducted by a changing cadre of approximately 200 trained and qualified polygraph examiners over a period of six years, certainly contrasts with an Ad Populum argument based on a comparatively small collection of limited personal experiences stemming from mostly failed exams. If you have read many polygraph studies, you should observe that based on review of the above statistics most polygraph research claims of accuracy are somewhat conservative in comparison to this "real world" application of screening exams.

If you are interested, each report provides anecdotal information regarding the scope and nature of the violations discovered as a direct result of polygraph screening.

Allow me to return this discussion to the subject of this thread.

I think that since the likelihood of a false positive is so small, (less than 1% based on the above information) and an opinion reached by the NAS that persons who attempt countermeasures may actually reduce their chances of passing a polygraph exam, as well as their observation that there is no credible research that someone can pass a polygraph examination using the instructional content of  this web site or associated book make countermeasure attempts a foolhardy activity. You may add to this what I regard as a lack of credible proof that the authors possess sufficient expertise, qualifications, knowledge or experience regarding the material they are attempting to teach.

While you are certainly entitled to possess your opinion, which certainly cannot be granted by nor restricted by me or anyone else, I am entitled to point out that your experience, based on your own statements, is limited to only four polygraph examinations which is a comparatively small number related to the thousands of exams conducted each year or the number of exams reviewed above.

I would argue that while your statement is indictaive of knowledge regarding 4 exams, there is nothing in your personal experience even when combined with the alleged experiences of the several other posters on this board that would remotley qualify as a sustainable indictment of polygraph in general and that the joint assertion or implication of shared expertise based upon similar experiences and combined/shared responses to persons who come to this board seeking advice or debate is innapropriate Ad Populum argument.

I believe for any naive individual who might come to this board and infer otherwise would be doing so at their peril.

Of course, I do not expect you or any other persona asserting a postion against Polygraph to agree.

JPW, I sincerely regret even inserting something here after you just authored another excellent post. The sayings "a tough act to follow" and "pale by comparison" come to mind. I can't say anything better than what you just did, and even though I support everything you said, your intellect when compared to most posters on this forum is, frankly, a bit intimidating. Intelligent people are a bit intimidated when confronted by someone of probably even higher intellect. In short, I appreciate your comments, and I'll step aside for now, sit back in my chair, and enjoy the show. Very, very impressive.

JPW,

The DoD reports to Congress are of little value for estimating the false positive rates associated with any other agency's polygraph program. The DoD understands that spies are rare, and thus it keeps the failure rate of its counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening program artificially low. As I pointed out in a letter (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-011.shtml) to then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, virtually the only persons who "fail" the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph are those who make "substantive admissions." This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts. Incidentally, it's worth noting that the DIA's senior Cuba analyst, Ana Belen Montes (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=272.msg1295#msg1295), who was already a Cuban agent at the time she sought DoD employment, didn't make substantive admissions and passed her polygraph screening examinations.

Polygraph failure rates for law enforcement agencies, where the relevant questions concern much more common transgressions than espionage, are typically much higher than at DoD. Failure rates on the order of 50% are not uncommon. Given polygraphy's complete lack of scientific underpinnings, its clear that many of those failing law enforcement pre-employment polygraphs are being falsely accused of deception.

The NAS did not suggest that the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) may reduce one's chances of passing a polygraph. The passage in question concerns a study on the use of so-called "spontaneous" countermeasures (things that persons unfamiliar with polygraph procedure sometimes do on their own in the [usually mistaken] belief that it might help them to pass).

Given polygraphy's shortcomings, I can only agree with the late David T. Lykken, who writes at p. 277 of 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..."

For prior discussion of these issues, see the discussion thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=139.msg525#msg525) started by Gordon Barland.

QuoteAs I pointed out in a letter to then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, virtually the only persons who "fail" the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph are those who make "substantive admissions." This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts.

And why it is EXTREMELY important those taking the CSP Polygraph at CIA/NSA/DIA or military facilities like the Kunia RSOC weigh carefully what they say.  Things they might consider unimportant or insignificant can and WILL be twisted and blown out of proportion by polygraph operators to justify/rationalize the squigley marks on their precious charts.  They know FULL WELL that a CHART ALONE is worthless.  If they get persistent "reactions", they must protect the precious "sanctity" of their chart by interrogating the naive examinee until they get something they can present to the adjudicating board  Their mistaken theory that reactions equal "deception" is at stake.  

For the examinee, the advice is simple.  Answer the test questions truthfully, and stick to your answers.  If you know you answered truthfully, ignore the bogus claims that the polygraph interrogator makes about the machine.  Reactions on the machine don't mean you are being deceptive if you are telling the truth.  Duh?

Also ignore the examiner when they say you "must have something on your mind.  What is it?  Blah, blah, blah..."   It is just an attempt to get you talking.  DO NOT FALL FOR IT!

QuoteThe passage in question concerns a study on the use of so-called "spontaneous" countermeasures (things that persons unfamiliar with polygraph procedure sometimes do on their own in the [usually mistaken] belief that it might help them to pass).

Like "puckering yer anus, REAL HARD", as suggested by DOD polygraph operators who posted here years ago under bogus pretenses.   :)    

Of course using CMs at an inappropriate time, and incorrectly will hurt one's chances of passing.  That polygraphers use that to concluded that "CMs don't work and will hurt your chances..."  is lame.

TC

Sargent 1107,

You leave me speechless with your fine post!  Oh the joy, oh the inspiration you afforded me with those fine words.  Expert or not, I gleefully basked in the glow of your humble eloquence.  I anxiously await the day in which I can truly fathom the depths of your wisdom.  That day might never come, but I shall endeavor to ascend to such a lofty and worthwhile goal!

Jolly good show old man!  I hope there will be more where that came from I can tell you!

TC

LBCB thank you, for your comments. Please don't stop posting. Your posts were what inspired me to comment in the first place. Besides, I may be close to done here for a while because I find repeating myself to those who seem unable or unwilling to grasp simple mathematics or rudimentary logic an exercise in futility.

Some of the posters here seem overly willing to proclaim success based solely on repetition of fallacious arguments gleaned by deck stacking and Ad Populum assertions. I have yet to see them come up with anything significantly different, in the last week or so, than the same stuff, they were spouting 5 or 6 years ago. So keep your pencil sharp, I may decide to leave at anytime. Of course, I would be willing to bet they trample each other in an effort to claim credit for my absence.

I am weary, and I suspect you are as well, of the nearly psychotic behavior (secondary rather than primary) of one poster in particular who appears incapable of refraining from feeble attempts at juvenile one-upmanship in an obvious effort to compensate for his/her lack of knowledge regarding the topic of discussion.  I suspect that everyone who is familiar with this website, Pro or Anti Polygraph, may guess who I am talking about. Everyone but him of course

G.M., welcome back to our discussion. Your claim regarding the value DoD reports to Congress in estimating false positive rates associated with other polygraph programs might carry more weight if you were able to produce substantial evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you are qualified to conduct a qualitative comparison of polygraph programs utilized by different agencies.

You also appear to be accusing the Department of Defense of lying to Congress, by reporting an artificial failure rate. If you have substantive proof that is the case, please present it. If it is simply conjecture, resulting from your inability to explain the reason behind their high accuracy rate you should identify it as opinion.

If I get the opportunity to speak to Donald Rumsfeld in the next few weeks, I will ask him if he recalls reading your letter and let you know if your comments made any significant impact on his opinion of polygraph.  Do not expect too much though, he is an attorney and you know how they are about examining one's credentials before acknowledging their opinion has value.

Your statement "This makes it clear that final determinations of whether or not one passes aren't being made strictly on the basis of polygraph charts."  is misleading. While it is entirely probable that decisions concerning whether or not someone is placed under a full blown investigation or subsequently adjudicated are likely made based on a combination of several factors which, by the nature and subject matter of the report, include polygraph, you have presented no proof that the results of the polygraph examination itself are based on anything other than the data collected on the charts.


If you have some substantive proof that the nature of the transgressions addressed by polygraph examinations have some effect on the results  based on some type of measurable or perceived intensity, I would be somewhat more interested in your, so far,  unsupported assertion that addressing more common transgressions than espionage have some quantifiable correlation to failure rate.

I would ask that you identify your comments regarding the scientific underpinnings of polygraph as personal opinion or conjecture unless you provide some evidence of your expertise, knowledge, training, or experience that would establish that you have sufficient scientific underpinnings to do otherwise. Simply voicing someone else's' opinion does not imbue you with their qualifications and tends to sound like you are trying to assume their expertise and represent it as your own. If only we were able to ask Dr, Lykken his opinion of your expertise regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology. Whether one agrees with him or not he often exhibited a singular ability to separate wheat from chaff,  oh well, one shouldn't spend too much time mourning missed opportunities.

But, getting back to the topic of this thread.

The NAS report says what it says. Since the exact language they used is indisputable, I choose to characterize their comments to mean that your claims regarding the effectiveness and ease of learning and applying countermeasure were not credible because they were unsupported by scientific research. I believe that this a reasonable characterization.

In other words, I interpret the NAS to mean that the countermeasures you teach in your book and on your website lack sufficient "Scientific Underpinnings" to be considered credible when weighed against NAS perception of the several aspects of manipulation that must be accomplished simultaneously in order to successfully apply countermeasures.

Their comments regarding countermeasures increasing the likelihood of someone failing their polygraph appears based on all of the scientific research made available for their consideration. If you have anything other than your opinion, perhaps some scientific evidence, that refutes their findings, I would certainly be interested.  

You are of course perfectly entitled to interpret their comments however you wish, but for you to continue to imply expertise regarding polygraph absent a clear statement of your qualifications is intellectually questionable.

JPW,

Yes, I feel the same as you when it comes to spending more than a few days posting on this forum.  As I said in a previous post, I enjoy coming here from time to time and ruffling these parrots' feathers, but then I become bored and move on to some other entertainment.  Perhaps we polygraphers shouldn't abandon naive readers to these self-portrayed experts; however, perhaps anyone who can't distinguish between actual experience and wishful thinking deserves what they get when they sit in that polygraph chair and screw themselves.  If I asked 1000 polygraph examiners whether they've seen an increase in failed polygraphs due to attempted countermeasures, I think at least 800 of them would answer in the affirmative.

I would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.  And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.  Could it be any clearer than this?

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

What part of that don't you understand, George? I know that one of the main pillars of this website is that anyone can easily learn to beat the polygraph simply by reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and putting its lessons into practice.  In fact, one of the first links people find when they look up the word polygraph on the internet proclaims "Learn how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test." Another advises people to "download our little book" (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) and learn how to beat a polygraph test.  However, the truth, as those of us with actual experience know (and as the NAS, even without actual experience with the polygraph process, has figured out), is that the real lie is your claim, George.  Sure, there's some truth in your little book, and there's some good information, but there is also a lot of faulty information, poor advice, and outright lies.  My mom used to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "The Devil is a liar, but he doesn't get anyone to follow him through lies alone.  He sprinkles his lies with a little truth, so if someone's not careful, they'll swallow it whole." The Lie Behind the Lie Detector appears like a well-written instruction manual, and it contains just enough good information that the unsuspecting, the frightened, and the foolish will indeed swallow it whole.  And I've personally seen these people come to a polygraph exam and choke on what they swallowed.  Often it's glaringly obvious, which of course falls in line with what the NAS has said.

You're peddling lies, George.  Years ago, you didn't get hired by the FBI because you failed every relevant question on a polygraph exam, and now you're responsible, whether you can accept it or not, of causing others to do the same.

JPW, what has never ceased to amaze me since I first visited this website is how someone like George, not to mention these ignorant fools who keep him regular company on this forum and treat him like an expert, could waste so much time and effort in a worthless cause, especially when we polygraphers regularly see the damage caused when examinees take his advice.  Seriously, what a pathetic loser! George is the perfect example of someone investing so much of his time in a worthless endeavor, that he is no longer capable of seeing how worthless it is, and he just can't give it up because he's invested so much of himself and his time that quitting would be admitting that so much of his life was wasted.

Readers might well conclude, based on the amount of time and effort you spend here, that you are in fact worried about the efficacy of the countermeasure techniques GM teaches, as well as the facts he has exposed about the true nature of the art of polygraphic interrogations.

A contrarian might well ask:  "If CMs are so ineffective, and the info about the polygraph on this website were so bogus, why is LBCB so neurotically fixated on this board.  I think GM has struck a real nerve.  Especially since banning/exposing your pal Ed Van Arsdale in Ponca City OK. (aka. Sancho Panza, Ed Earl, Phillip Queeg, Anonymous too).

You'll probably come back claiming it's because you are "concerned" about applicant's unwittingly ruining their chances for employment by following such "nonesense" advice provided here.  But you have already admitted you really don't care if given applicants are hired or not.  Which is one of the true things you've said.  Besides, you would probably dance in glee, and make it into the polygraph "Hall of Fame" if you caught an applicant "red handed" attempting the CMs listed in GM's book (which we know you can't really do anyway).  So, if you REALLY thought using GM's CMs were highly ineffective, you would probably WANT applicants to use them, so you could "catch on of GM's arrogant little punks"!  And what a great little feather that would be in your professional "cap".

TC

P.S.  But, please, don't you or JPW go away.  Keep posting.  Readers need to see just how arrogant old time polygraphers are, BEFORE being tested.  They need to get a glimse of the type of huge EGOs they will be up against.  Let's see, you know more about science than the NAS.  You know more about the human mind than Professor Zimbardo at Stanford.  I could go on and on.  A picture is worth a thousand words, so keep posting.  

Cullen, you've just revealed the fourth favorite defense that you and the "anti-" group on this website use when you're losing an argument: you throw out a meaningless post in an effort to quickly put some distance between an opponent's successful argument so that astute, perceptive readers might not go back and look at it and see what a fool you are.  In this case, JPW blew you fools out of the water, so you hope to throw up a smoke screen so that readers might not notice.

(Hint for readers: go back and read JPW's last couple of posts, and you'll find Cullen's latest idiotic attempts very amusing.)

Now, I've already stated many times that it would be foolish to take the advice posted on this website to try to "beat" the polygraph.  And I also stated that perhaps anyone who takes such advice deserves what they get when they sit in the polygraph chair and screw themselves.  However, I never EVER said that I don't care if given applicants are hired or not.  While any good polygrapher should go into the exam room with an impartial mind, not caring whether the examinee passes the exam or not, as I stated before, I always want the examinee to pass because it makes everyone happy, a good person cleared another hurdle toward getting a job he or she wants, and it makes my job easier and my day brighter.  But if an examinee chooses to ignore my instructions and attempts to implement faulty advice he or she read on a website such as this, full of ignorant, inexperienced, self-portrayed experts, THEN I definitely would NOT want such a naive, dishonest person working for my employer, and I would indeed be satisfied to thwart such a person's goal.

Of course, YOU will probably come back putting more words in my mouth because you have absolutely no knowledge, training or experience that would qualify you to make any claim whatsover about the polygraph process.

If countermeasures don't work, what are you worried about?  You seem intensely fixated on the advice given in TLBTLD, especially the part about CMs, and this website in general.  If the polygraph is so accurate, then a bunch of "bogus" information and advice provided here should not be a problem for you.  

If CMs are so easily detected, they shouldn't be that much of a problem for you, should they?  It should just make it that much easier for you to catch applicants silly enough to follow the advice on this board.  

OTOH, if CMs do work, and knowing ahead of time that the polygraph is all about INTERROGATION and applicantrs are duly forewarned to watch what they say (like a criminal suspect advised by his lawyer),  and informed that the polygraph has NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY according to the nations top scientists, that WOULD be a problem for you, and might explain your fixation with this site.  Just a thought.

BTW, what evidence do you have that you can even detect countermeasures?  

TC

QuoteI would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.  And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.  Could it be any clearer than this?

Beware of atheists who quote the bible, and beware of polygraphers who quote the NAS Report.

The NAS report also stated:

"[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

So maybe the best way to stop people from using CMs (and improve national security at the same time) would be to take the NAS advice to heart and stop using polygraphs to screen applicants and current employees.  Maybe they would have caught Aldrich Ames sooner.

Then again, using your absurd logic, the NAS had no business rendering such an opinion as they have absolutely NO EXPERIENCE conducting polygraph interrogations.  

LieBabyCryBaby,

You write, among other things:

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 08, 2009, 09:34 PMI would like to once again clarify what the NAS had to say about countermeasures, which is the exact opposite of what George Maschke is saying on this website.And they mention George by name, and they are clearly NOT referring to only spontaneous countermeasures, but rather ANY countermeasures.Could it be any clearer than this?

Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.

However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

What part of that don't you understand, George?...

The NAS report does not assert that use of the countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) by innocent persons results in an increased risk of their failing the polygraph. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.

Let's look at the first part of your citation. The following text appears at p. 147 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369&page=147) of the NAS report:

QuoteAuthors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.

Now let's look at the second part of your citation from the NAS report, which you present as if it immediately followed the preceding text:

QuoteThere is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will "pass" the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures.

However, the above portion actually appears on page 140 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369&page=140), seven pages before the earlier cited text. And you omitted an in-text citation to the studies referenced by the foregoing passage (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001), neither of which addressed the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

It is fair to say that the NAS report questions the ease with which countermeasures can be learned. What we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is that in peer-reviewed laboratory studies by Charles Honts and collaborators, some 50% of programmed guilty examinees were able to fool the lie detector after a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction, and even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect their countermeasures. It can be (and has been) argued that under field conditions, where the consequences of being judged deceptive are more serious, genuinely guilty persons would have a harder time producing strong enough reactions to the control questions to overcome any reactions to the relevant questions. On the other hand, those facing a polygraph under field conditions typically have much more than 30 minutes to prepare themselves and considerably greater motivation to do so than participants in a laboratory experiment. The ease with which countermeasures may be learned and successfully applied may also depend on the intelligence and educational background of the individual. As the NAS report correctly notes, research in this regard is wanting.

It's worth mentioning here the closest thing we have to a field study of countermeasures, which David Lykken relates in Chapter 19 (How to Beat the Lie Detector) of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., 1998):

Quote

Methods Taught by Floyd Fay

I mentioned earlier my correspondence with Floyd Fay while he was serving the first two years of a life sentence for murder. His conviction, since proven to have been in error, resulted in large part from testimony by a polygrapher that this defendant had failed a stipulated lie test. At his request, I had sent Fay some information about polygraphic interrogation, including an article of my own that explains how one might attempt to "beat" the Control Question Test. After some months, I received from Fay a letter that read, in part, as follows:

"Since reading the article that you sent me ... I have been running my own experiment. The prison that I am in forces anyone that is suspected of violating a prison regulation into taking a polygraph. I have been able to get to nine of these people prior to their taking a test. Out of the nine that I KNOW were guilty of the 'offense' that they were accused of, nine have beat the test! I realize that this is a small group to work with, but the 100% 'hit rate' is nothing to laugh at. All I have done is have them read the article that you have sent me and then explain exactly what you were saying and they have all beat the test."

It would be difficult for a researcher to set up a controlled study to determine whether guilty suspects, to be tested under real life conditions, could be trained to beat the lie test. Fay does not claim to be a scientist but I think he has helped to illuminate an inaccessible corner. As he remarks, nine out of nine is nothing to laugh at. Attorney F. Lee Bailey once offered a prize of $10,000 to "anyone who can beat the lie detector." I think that it would be only fair if Mr. Bailey would pay off this bet to Mr. Fay, in wholly inadequate compensation for Fay's two years spent in prison, falsely convicted by the lie detector Bailey claims to be almost infallible.

Quote. You have spliced together sentences from different portions of the NAS report and omitted an in-text citation to create such an impression. In academia, such intellectual dishonesty would be grounds for disciplinary action.

He pontificates most arrogantly here, and goes on and on about his vast experience, yet he resorts to such dishonesty.  People arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.

Shameful!

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 09, 2009, 03:29 PMPeople arguing from a position of superiority usually don't have to resort to these tactics.

I have noticed that, too.

People arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.

If people who believe the polygraph is not accurate are wrong it should be relatively easy to prove that, logically and scientifically, if the polygraph is in fact a scientific instrument that accurately detects deception.

Any neutral reader to this board will immediately notice the plethora of personal attacks made by polygraph supporters at a large number of people who simply post their opinion that the polygraph is not an accurate method of detecting deception.  Such attacks do nothing for their cause except lower their credibility.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on May 10, 2009, 09:58 AMPeople arguing from a position of strength generally need not engage in ad hominem attacks, and they have no need to disparage the credentials or qualifications of anyone posting their opinion on an Internet message board.

JPW already explained what an actual ad hominem attack is, so if you don't understand it, why do you keep using the term?  It is not an ad hominem attack to disparage the credentials or qualifications of people have who none.  A spade is a spade.  An ignoramus is an ignoramus.  When you make statements about something with which you have no experience, as if your opinion is factual, then you are indeed an ignoramus, and you should be disparaged.

Perhaps the following definitions of "ad hominem" may be useful:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack.  Civilized debate should consist of addressing the arguments or points proposed by whomever you are debating, not denigrating the debater himself.

I really don't understand why you would even come to this message board if you have no wish to be burdened by the opinions of people who are not professional polygraph operators.  There are closed boards for polygraph operators where you need never engage in what you obviously consider the mundanity of uninformed posters.  

I guess you are simply posting flame bait rather than engaging in a debate or answering questions.  Feel free to continue, if you must, but I do hope you grow weary of it before too long.  It does nothing to further any intelligent debate, but it does subtract from your credibility with each new flaming post.

Funny how you would say that my posting on this forum subtracts from my credibility, when you have absolutely no credibility yourself, Sergeant.

I'm big enough to apologize if my strong, experienced opinion comes across as "flaming."  However, when you say that "Choosing to address what you perceive to be a poster's lack of experience or qualifications is, by definition, an ad hominem attack," you give yourself more credit than is due.  I don't "perceive" you to lack experience or qualifications at all; it is without question that you have none of either, and I sometimes become impatient with ignorant (and that's not a "flame" or an ad hominem attack, but simply the truth) people who make statements as if they are fact, when those people have absolutely no training or experience  to make such statements.

My reasons for coming to this forum are:

1. For entertainment. It is quite entertaining, at least for a little while, to ruffle the parrots' feathers on this forum. Sometimes the spiteful side of me enjoys baiting and hooking little fish who want to be big fish.

2. I sincerely wish to educate ignorant, naive, gullible--but sincerely concerned--future polygraph examinees so that maybe they won't screw themselves when they come to take a polygraph.  You see, I don't enjoy warning people before they take a polygraph that they should simply follow my instructions and they'll do fine, and then watching them fall into the trap they set for themselves.

3. I enjoy exchanges with intelligent, experienced people who also come here for entertainment and to enlighten others.

But you are right about something: I will grow weary of my time on this forum after a little while longer, and then I'll leave for a few days, weeks, or even months.  Then you won't have to deal with trying to put out my fires each day, and you, George et. al can go back to patting each other on the back and giving future polygraph examinees poor, ignorant advice.

Perhaps I can save a few people, but I'm not going to make it my mission to save them all.  Unlike George, I've got better things to do with my life than sit all day on a forum in an obscure website such as this.  If you don't think it's obscure, and that it's readership is going down, check out the following link:

http://www.quantcast.com/antipolygraph.org

Half of the posts are by regulars like you and, yes, like me.  Kind of puts things into perspective, which I think you lack.

 

I think I've been lurking here long enough...

First I have taken no less than three polygraphs for Federal Agencies.  I passed all of them using the techniques I learned here.  They used the "Butt Pad" on all of them FYI.  So mental/breathing CMs only.

My problem is I did LSD twice when I was a teen.  It's something I have to hide because it is an automatic DQ in ANY LEO position.  The Federal Government is all about avoiding blame.  So even if there is a miniscule chance of a flashback one year after LSD use they still don't want to take the chance of hiring someone like me for the sole reason of covering their collective rears.

I have seen guys hired for LEO positions that had a DUI two years before applying which I find appauling.  These people are usually in their mid twenties and should know better.

If I could be given a chance to acknowledge my mistakes with out being shut out of a career I would.  

I think polygraph examiners come on this board for the sole reason of trying to instill doubt in their future "Subjects".  Only problem with that is the test they give you is straight out of the appendix of TBTLD. :P

So, which relevant questions did you actually lie to when you used your countermeasures, billson? Studies show that countermeasures do nothing to help the innocent pass an exam, so I assume that you were guilty to the relevant issues.  Otherwise, you're about as believable as the guy who says his lucky rabbit's foot helps him avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

Have you filled out your paperwork truthfully and completely?

Other than what you've told me have you ever used illegal drugs?