I have taken two polygraphs in the past so my wife has assurance I am not having sex with anyone else. The third one taken last week I failed. I know I am innocent. So I began searching the internet for polygraph accuracy and such. Once I learned more about it, I realize now, the polygraph examiner set me up to fail.
During the interview process, the examiner told me that he is going to ask me some control questions such as, "have you ever told a lie, have you ever done anything embarrassing, and have you ever ___" I don't remember the last one. I was to answer no to all three. Not a problem. I can follow directions.
So, during the test, the control question comes up, have you ever told a lie, I say no (lie) and think no more about it. It was the answer he wanted me to give. Then he asks a question have you had sex with anyone other than your wife since your last polygraph, I say no (truth). All the while, I am stressed that this guy has the fate of my marriage in his hands. Is he going to read the question properly. Plus, he read a question last time incorrectly. So I already did not trust the guy.
After going through the questions twice, he told me I failed all the questions but one. Then he does the post test interview. Did you do ___. I said no. Because I had not done so. All the while trying to offer possible reasons why I would have failed the questions. I was angry and now scared that my marriage is over. I said thank you and I left.
In his exam report, he states: "During the actual polygraph examination (2) charts utilizing the Backster Zone Exploratory Technique (Exploratory) were conducted. After careful evaluation and numeric scoring of the physiological responses recorded on the charts administered during the examination, the final determination is Significant Reaction Indicated.
So I wanted to request this numeric data. Our email conversation is below:
Me: "We received your report. Please send the detail including all measures recorded so I may have the validity evaluated."
Mr. Keith: "I do not understand what you are requesting."
Me: "I assume the questions and answers were recorded as well as the measurements that lead you to believe deception was indicated. Please send that information that shows the numeric variance. We received your written report. I would like the computerized report from which you discerned the results."
Mr. Keith: "You are requesting charts?"
Me: "If you were going to read a polygraph that another examiner conducted to validate the real questions against the control questions and the filler questions. To see what happened as if you actually cared about the results. That is the data I want."
Mr. Keith: "Rudeness will not get you very far with me. Just FYI."
Me: "If charts are all you have, I would appreciate those. Thank you. Will the questions also be labeled on the charts?"
I am still waiting for his response to my request.
The wife and I decided before taking the polygraph that if the result was perceived to be incorrect, we would schedule another exam with a different examiner. I did go to take a second polygraph yesterday. After the interview process, the examiner asked me why I was so agitated and angry. I explained that I did not trust the polygraph process. I was burned and that I detest that a flawed test is going to determine the state of my marriage.
After he spoke for a while, he told me he would not give me a test. That if he were to test, I would fail due to my current state of mind. He refused payment and sent me on my way with his business card that if I wish to have an exam in the future I can call.
So now I guess I get to re-schedule and fake kindness. I just want this nightmare to be over.
I should add, I have not been a saint in my marriage. I have had a history of infidelity and the polygraph was being used as a tool to promote trust and healing in our relationship. So I truly understand why my spouse would not believe me. Honestly, I wouldn't believe me either. Except, I know the truth. It was just not reflected as such on the 'test'. I will be interested in the charts if they are ever given.
Was you polygrapher Brett Keith (Indiana)?
Quote from: woodlair on Sep 18, 2015, 02:33 PMSo, during the test, the control question comes up, have you ever told a lie, I say no (lie) and think no more about it. It was the answer he wanted me to give. Then he asks a question have you had sex with anyone other than your wife since your last polygraph, I say no (truth). All the while, I am stressed that this guy has the fate of my marriage in his hands.
TW, he had the fate of your marriage in his hands because you put it there. It appears that he used a directed lie technique with a Backster Exploratory ZCT. I'm not so sure Cleve would have approved of that. Also, I wouldn't hold my breath expecting charts; it's not going to happen.
I think you've lost enough money. Just be honest with your wife and swear that you will always be loyal from here on out. If that's not good enough for her...well, there are plenty of fish in the sea friend.
Evan S.
Do you share a similar experience?
Not with marital infidelity polygraphs.
My only polygraphs were federal Counterespionage Scope Polygraphs (CSP).
I hope the other polygraphers will chime in. Maybe Dan Mangan, pailryder, quickfix, Joe McCarthy, Bill Brown, etc. will be willing to pressure your polygrapher to release the charts so that they can independently score them.
Quote from: woodlair on Sep 18, 2015, 02:33 PMAll the while trying to offer possible reasons why I would have failed the questions. I was angry and now scared that my marriage is over. I said thank you and I left.
In all fairness to the examiner, what I read above could be interpreted that he was poised to utilize the Successive Hurdles approach and break out a specific issue with additional testing. If this is the case, then I commend him and you should not have barged out. However, that is an assumption as I have no way of knowing what his next steps were.
tw, you are indeed a victim of polygraph. Had you been aware of the risks, realities and limitations of the "test," you would have likely opted out of the process.
A bill of rights for polygraph test subjects -- similar in scope to what exists for patients in the medical and mental health fields -- would have clearly identified the pitfalls of the "test" and paved the way for a hassle-free release of the data and independent review after the fact.
For the past few years I've been vigorously advocating for such a bill of rights, but the industry politicos want nothing to do with it. Why? It would be bad for business.
Now, get ready for some irony...
These same pro-polygraph propagandists liken accuracy of the polygraph "test" to that of certain medical exams, such as film mammography. (The comparison is absurd, I know, but let that go for now.)
The point is this: Can you imagine a doctor (or medical facility) refusing to release diagnostic materials -- such as x-rays -- for review by a patient-requested third party? Of course not.
In your case, it seems the polygraph operator is reluctant to release the raw data. The obvious question is "why"? If the operator stands by his work product, there should be no hesitation.
In my view, if the operator refuses to cooperate, he should give you a full refund and rescind his report.
About fidelity "tests" in general...
As I state on my web site www.polygraphman.com, fidelity polygraphs are usually a waste of time and money. I discourage them. That said, in some cases, they can be used as a launching pad to get a couple into counseling, which is where they should be.
I invite you and/or your wife to call me for a fuller explanation. See the contact page on my web site www.polygraphman.com for details.
Should the examiner in your case agree to release the complete data file -- including video -- I would be happy to conduct a QA review at no charge.
Finally, absent an independent review of your polygraph "test," the results should be considered null and void.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 19, 2015, 09:11 AM
In your case, it seems the polygraph operator is reluctant to release the raw data. The obvious question is "why"? If the operator stands by his work product, there should be no hesitation.
Dan, to play devil's advocate, asking polygraph examiners to make raw data available for scrutiny for all public eyes, given the various techniques, schools and opinions, could open up a Pandora's box of non-stop discourse on every single spot or question formulation, possible countermeasures etc.
Perhaps a more prudent and realistic expectation would be for the examiner to provide the data in confidence to you for a review and critique, with the understanding that such would be kept within the attention of those with a need to know.
Ark, there's an old joke in polygraph circles...
Question: What do you get when you put two polygraph examiners in the same room?
Answer: An argument.
Your point about going public with the data is well taken, and it illustrates the absurdity of likening the accuracy of a polygraph "test" to that of certain diagnostic medical procedures.
But here's the hell of it...
Today's nouveau "scientists" who are driving the polygraph-validity narrative that's currently in vogue -- mainly ex-cops or former counselors who subsequently donned (figuratively) their white lab coats -- are trying like hell to distance themselves from the hocus-pocus foundations of the "test."
In fact, these polygraph-science hipsters have eschewed the time-honored clinical (expertise driven) model of polygraph administration and analysis, and have declared the "test" process to be a purely cause-and-effect analytical model that relies only minimally on the abilities of the polygraph operator.
So, which model is it? Clinical or analytical?
That's a good question.
It seems to me that if the validity-preaching hipsters are right, there should be no problem with releasing the raw data carte blanche.
After all, what harm would there be in releasing the x-ray films, technical details and the scientific background of, say, film mammography to a patient seeking a second opinion?
None whatsoever.
But, if the "test" indeed relies on examiner expertise, proficiency and artfully applied technique, then those tortured machinations need to stay behind the curtain where they've been since the 1920s.
God forbid the secret gets out.
I hope readers see the intellectual dichotomy.
Now, a note about the directed-lie "test"...
In my experience, about half of the test subjects "flatline" through the DLCQs. Why? My hunch is that since they've been instructed to lie, there's insufficient concern, conflict or consequence to spark the desired reactions. Thus, a false positive result is more likely to occur. Conversely, a DLCQ "test" is an open invitation for countermeasures.
As always, all of my comments are merely the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 20, 2015, 10:05 AMIn my experience, about half of the test subjects "flatline" through the DLCQs. Why? My hunch is that since they've been instructed to lie, there's insufficient concern, conflict or consequence to spark the desired reactions. Thus, a false positive result is more likely to occur. Conversely, a DLCQ "test" is an open invitation for countermeasures.
It's a interesting topic. Backster's (although he did not originate the idea) concept of the Psychological Set is very intuitive in the sense that we, as humans since childhood, associate lying with guilt and fear. So, with a RQ and CQ set which is fairly balanced, the PS for the truthful examinee should be oriented toward the CQ's. However, the DL technique as you noted is counter intuitive, because how could the truthful examinee perceive an instructed lie to be a threat? There is also an analog to this when considering the results of laboratory versus field studies (the latter having the intuitive fear/guilt element).
So, some are suggesting that fear/guilt are actually a secondary and less significant element of producing reactions with diagnostic value. The idea of "Differential Salience" (signal value), where the importance of the issue causes them to think more is being explored. This is also congruent with the work of Aldert Vrij, where it is posited that cues to deception are related to an increase in cognitive load, where fear/guilt may only serve as a mild enhancer in real world field testing. In other words, lying is more difficult cognitively than truth telling.
The idea of cognitive load being the impetus for reactions of diagnostic value
could also explain the mechanisms behind mental countermeasures and the emerging ocular technology.
Ark,
QuoteSo, some are suggesting that fear/guilt are actually a secondary and less significant element of producing reactions with diagnostic value. The idea of "Differential Salience" (signal value), where the importance of the issue causes them to think more is being explored. This is also congruent with the work of Aldert Vrij, where it is posited that cues to deception are related to an increase in cognitive load, where fear/guilt may only serve as a mild enhancer in real world field testing. In other words, lying is more difficult cognitively than truth telling.
I don't think cognitive load comes into play in any way in an examinee uttering a pre-agreed upon "no" to every question (relevant or comparison, truthfully on deceitfully answered) posed on a polygraph exam. The substance of the truth or falsehood and the associated cognitive load is presented/contained within the examiner's question and is not provided in the examinee's answer. If such a dialogue were presented during the examination of a witness in court, it would be properly objected to as leading the witness.
You are quite correct that there is cognitive load involved with mental countermeasures--whether it is quickly thinking of the square root of 23, the notion of being bitten by a poisonous snake, or the thought of being cheated upon by one's significant other.
Absent mental (or other) countermeasures as I have said before I believe the cognitive load relates (directly or indirectly) for both truthful and deceitful examinees to the consequences of being found deceptive to relevant question material (largely, although not entirely, of those yet-to-be-asked-about questions in a series of questions posed in unknown order). The approximate 15 to 25 second of inter stimulus spacing (time between questions) is quite sufficient for this to occur...
I should add that I believe the latter explanation better accounts for the greater number of false positive vs false negative errors that occur with real life exams--a phenomenon which is fairly generally recognized (even by proponents of probable lie control question testing).
Doc,
If I may venture a follow up question: do you believe that cognitive load is central to the "disturbances" (being that there is no "recognition response") which Lykken referred to in the GKT?
Concealed information testing to include David Lykken's ANS-based guilty knowledge test (GKT) clearly involves various cognitive processes, amongst others-memory encoding and retrieval.
The fact that we can anatomically isolate where some of this occurs in the brain provides the ability with proper tools to selectively and figuratively see (different electrical potential responses as measured at specific points on the scalp with knowledgeable vs. non-knowledgeable examinees) what is going on in the brain of an examinee when the different types of stimuli are presented during a concealed information test.
Although more than a decade and a half after testifying before the United States Senate and my having called for its increased use within the FBI, I am happy to see the merits of concealed information testing being reported in an FBI-sponsored publication. If investigating agents are taught to collect, protect, and properly document privileged information from the scene of a crime, a terrorist event, etc., I think this format can be effectively and ethically applied in a wide range and high percentage of Bureau investigations.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/august/the-concealed-information-test-an-alternative-to-the-traditional-polygraph (for the time being copy and paste the WHOLE link in your browser in order to view)
Thank you everyone for your responses to this topic. The examiner will not respond to my email requesting a copy of the graphs and recordings. I will assume he is on vacation. I know that is absurd, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I have also requested information from the state association regarding how to file a grievance. I have not yet gotten a response from them either.
If all else fails, my only recourse is to create a website that fully identifies his business and make sure others do not sit in his chair. I am pretty good at getting high rankings on popular search engines.
tw, it would depend a lot on what kind of releases you signed before the exam. I'm not sure refusing to turn over raw data would be viewed as a substantive ethics complaint, nor is giving a decision that you disagree with. Putting up a website alluding to possible misconduct could set you up for a possible libel suit. I stand by my previous comment that your focus should be on seeing if your marriage can be salvaged, seeking relationship counseling rather than going after the examiner. It's akin to denigrating a fortune teller whose divination failed to materialize.
Quote from: woodlair on Sep 18, 2015, 03:06 PMEvan S.
Do you share a similar experience?
Not for purposes of "verifying" sexual fidelity, but I did have problems with the CIA and NSA vetting and polygraph charades. :-[
I did get the charts from the examiner. He did not provide access to video. So, I dont know if this provides any help whatsoever.
To my untrained eye, I would assume there was a reaction on the relevant questions. However, there appears to be relatively little reaction to the control questions.
Charts attached below. Modified orientation for easier reading.
tw,
I have to admit, I'm bit shocked that he provided the charts to you, but at the same time I respect him for doing so.
The charts are interesting. In my previous comments, I mentioned that he may have been poised to do some follow up testing before you left.
My observations:
1. You are showing some mild reactions to the Relevant Questions.
2. I'm concerned about that lack of diagnostic data in the EDA channel. Did he use the "stick on" electrodes on your palm? A gain of 1 is pretty low.
3. "Have you acted out sexually in anyway?" in my opinion is more like a Comparison Question. Just giving your morning erection a squeeze could be a "yes" to this question.
He should not have said to you that you "failed" some questions; a more appropriate response would have been "it appears that some of the questions are bothering you, let's see if we can work through it."
Even in light of this, I hold this examiner in somewhat high esteem for being forthcoming with the charts, and I don't see anything really out of line here.
Thanks Ark. I have to admit, I thought about that as well when he asked that question, but I figured the mystery machine would reflect the truth.
The electrodes were Velcro on ring and index finger. pretty standard from what I have heard / read.
Yes, there was a reaction to the relevant questions. My marriage was at risk. Plus, he said I had been deceptive during a previous polygraph when I was not. So I already did not trust the guy. From what I can tell, it looks like there is almost no response to the control questions.
I appreciate you looking at it and responding. I just have to figure out how to move forward in my marriage from here. If that is even possible.
Yes, that is question 42R and as I predicted, it was the strongest of the reactions and indicates the struggle you had with that question.
You may ask him if he will do a breakdown exam for you, asking for a specific issue: "Did you insert your penis into the vagina of another woman?" - straight forward, single issue ZCT.
If he wants more money tell him that according to the APA protocol on "successive hurdles", that it should be included in the original price.
Thank you for the recommendation Ark, but I will not go back to him. I would rather be waterboarded. I told my wife I would have a follow up polygraph with a different examiner just to give her the assurance I am still not sleeping with anyone but her. However, I am not going to do it in the future and if our marriage is contingent on future polygraphs we can call it now and save the money.
I think she thinks I will relent in the future. I am not seeing it though. You have been quite helpful. Thank you.
Do you have any good links that teach me how to read the charts? I have looked at other charts online that show deception and there is a large change. I dont see those on my chart. so I just wonder what is considered significant reactions. I guess I am looking for a manual of sorts...
It really doesn't matter what the call was if the question about sexually acting out is accurate.. the question is inappropriate. current research does not support vertical scoring ..rather it supports total values.
If you want a written report of the examination feel free to contact me at 866 535 8969..
tw, I wouldn't waste too much brain power on this unless you are thinking of going to polygraph school.
Quote from: woodlair on Sep 28, 2015, 04:49 PM...I would rather be waterboarded...
Indeed. If a loving relationship can be saved by a dispositive unmonitored hostile interrogation, why go halfway with a poly?
I see the opportunity for a whole new industry here. I'm'a hang out a shingle offering to torture any troubled couple until one of them admits to cheating.
For an additional fee I will keep it up until they both admit it.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 29, 2015, 06:56 PMtw, I wouldn't waste too much brain power on this unless you are thinking of going to polygraph school.
tw, in retrospect, I think I was too dismissive of your honest inquiry. I apologize. I will show you what a good spot looks like. The attachment is from my own research. The examinee had much at stake and was properly stimulated.
Please zoom in a bit and take note of the following:
1. The Comparison Questions I formulated are effective. You can see the reactions; note the complex EDA reaction in C3 and the robust cardio reaction in C5.
2. However, comparing these reactions to those of the Relevant Questions, it is clear that this examinee's PS (salience) was oriented to the RQ's; robust complex cardio arousal in R4 & R6 along with relief is very clear. The EDA reactions speak for themselves. I did not calculate RLL in the Pneumo channels, but some suppression is noticeable in the RQ's.
Lacking ground truth, does this mean the subject is lying? Alas! Therein lies the conundrum.
Hope this helps your insight.
Thanks Ark. The eda channel in your chart looks quite interesting. The one on the charts given to me looks broken.
I hear from you that the readings given to me show stress. Since I know I was truthful, it tells me I was not properly introduced the directed lie control questions. That, and the one question was trash. Plus, there was no exploration done. And he ran the minimum number of runs. Basically, it appears the examiner just did the bare minimum to get me in and out the door.
Based on what I have read in the APA bylaws, I may have a case for a grievance, but I am not sure it is worth it. On one hand I want to bring awareness to others in my situation that this is not a good place to go. On the other, I want to just forget it ever happened. My wife wont let that happen though.
The examiner did inform me he would not release the video unless ordered by the court. Thank you everyone for your time on this topic. It has been very helpful.
Quote from: woodlair on Oct 01, 2015, 11:30 AMOn the other, I want to just forget it ever happened. My wife wont let that happen though.
Rather than go through all of this misery, why not introduce your wife to Anti-Polygraph.org ? Show her that the polygraph is a joke and not worth taking serious. How more obvious can it be ? You have guys like Dr. Drew Richardson and other PhD's that have testified that it is a fraud. The people who support the polygraph are all scaming a living with it. Like Dr. Richardson said in his testimony before Congress, having the polygraph community researching their product is like having the tobacco industry conducting cancer research.
Quote from: woodlair on Oct 01, 2015, 11:30 AMThe eda channel in your chart looks quite interesting. The one on the charts given to me looks broken.
I hear from you that the readings given to me show stress. Since I know I was truthful, it tells me I was not properly introduced the directed lie control questions.
Your EDA tracing is not broken; it's just that it contains no diagnostic data. This could have been due to a sensor not being properly fitted, or your skin could have had something which impeded current flow, or, there was simply minimum sympathetic arousal to those nerves in your fingertips.
If the last option is the case, we could couple it with your lack of responses to the Directed Lie Comparison questions to support the notion that DLC's are not perceived as a real threat, nor stimuli which result in a significant increase in cognitive load.
K
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Oct 01, 2015, 02:15 PMQuote from: woodlair on Oct 01, 2015, 11:30 AMThe eda channel in your chart looks quite interesting. The one on the charts given to me looks broken.
I hear from you that the readings given to me show stress. Since I know I was truthful, it tells me I was not properly introduced the directed lie control questions.
Your EDA tracing was not broken, it's just that there was no diagnostic data. This could have been due to a sensor not being properly fitted, or your skin could have had something which impeded current flow, or, there was simply minimum sympathetic arousal to those nerves in your fingertips.
If the last option is the case, we could couple it with your lack of responses to the Directed Lie Comparison questions to support the notion that DLC's are not perceived as a real threat, nor a stimuli which result in a significant increase in cognitive load.
Either that or the tea leaves and/or the goat entrails were not proper placed so as to allow an accurate viewing and diagnosis of the results.
Can we PLEASE stop trying to use science to explain this ridiculous procedure which is nothing more than me last vestige of witchcraft - polygraph testing.
There are two facets to dissect this issue.
1. Is the polygrapher competent enough to properly follow the technique proffered by the industry? In this case, fellow polygraphers exhibit angst against shoddy work which reflects poorly on them.
2. Or, as I demonstrate, that even if the "technique" is carried out properly, can it distinguish truth tellers from liars?
I hope to get others to chime in.
I have to say I am quite thankful for everyone who has chimed in on this topic. I needed to make some sense of what happened with my experience and I needed to talk about it with someone who might believe me without judgement (at least openly).
Thanks Ark for all of your input, Gary Davis for reading the charts and sending a report, and Dan Mangan for the offer to help.