Hello,
I was wondering if you have to do your breathing like it says in the lie behind the lie detector, as well as doing the biting of the tongue during control questions? Is it possible to just breath asyou always do but just bite your tongue on the control question? or do you have to also be doing the breathing throughout the whole test. I was also wondering if it is possible to just remain calm when you answer a stressful question, without throwing everything out of wack so that the polygrapher thinks your lieing. Finally, If the polygrapher see's a part in the test where you spiked, and he thinks you might be lieing... he really has no proof that you are right, so if you deny it and dont admit to anything might he just let you go as possibly just being a little nervious on that one question....? sorrry about all these little questions, any help given would be appreciated :)
Quote from: AM- on Nov 21, 2002, 08:26 PM
Hello,
I was wondering if you have to do your breathing like it says in the lie behind the lie detector, as well as doing the biting of the tongue during control questions? Is it possible to just breath asyou always do but just bite your tongue on the control question? or do you have to also be doing the breathing throughout the whole test.
AM -- you want to control your breathing to avoid any "reactions" on relevant questions, and to enhance overall "reactions" to control questions.
QuoteI was also wondering if it is possible to just remain calm when you answer a stressful question, without throwing everything out of wack so that the polygrapher thinks your lieing.
Certainly, it's possible -- it depends upon the person. Which is one reason the polygraph isn't terribly reliable.
Still, a better approach, especially once you know the trickery behind the polygraph, is to enhance your reactions to control questions. If you fail to do this, as a person "in the know" you may end up reacting more to questions you know are important (the relevant ones).
QuoteFinally, If the polygrapher see's a part in the test where you spiked, and he thinks you might be lieing... he really has no proof that you are right, so if you deny it and dont admit to anything might he just let you go as possibly just being a little nervious on that one question....? sorrry about all these little questions, any help given would be appreciated :)
It would be nice if polygraphers acknowledged the flaws in the instrument, but if you have a strong reaction to a relevant question (as opposed to a control), they would probably score it as "deception indicated" and you'd get a follow-up interrogation for it.
But I sure as heck wouldn't start making admissions at that point -- they could be taken out of context, twisted, etc. Assert your truthfulness firmly, and if it isn't enough, then (at your discretion) end the session. A post-test polygraph interrogation is really not a fun experience.
Skeptic
so then by biting your tongue on a control question, that makes a bigger spike then if your telling a lie ?
Quote from: AM- on Nov 21, 2002, 11:58 PM
so then by biting your tongue on a control question, that makes a bigger spike then if your telling a lie ?
biting one's tongue, constricting one's anal sphincter muscle, even doing complex math or thinking of something exciting all tend to produce increases in blood pressure. By all accounts, it doesn't take much for that increase to be significant -- more than significant enough to produce a bigger spike on control questions than any reactions you might have on the relevant ones.
You might want to read some of the accounts on this site regarding people's experiences with the use of countermeasures.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
This does not sound like an innocent person trying to ensure they pass. If you re-read AM's first post it seems to be looking for a deceptive person to avoid detection and, if caught, an excuse to avoid the truth. The post does not even specify whether this a screening exam or a criminal specific exam. Who knows, this could be a felon trying to get away with this crime so he can continue to victimize persons like you, me, or our families!!
AM,
Feel free to correct any of these inferences. Just pointing out, as always, ethical flaws with this site and its proponents.
Another ethical flaw to the advice here, would be the good possibility that your attempts at countermeasures will be detected. And then, if you were actually honest, you have destroyed your credibility. If this is a screening exam, it is more than enough to disqualify you. If it is a criminal case, you ruin a good opportunity to eliminate yourself from suspicion.
NO ONE CAN TAKE YOUR INTEGRITY BUT YOU!!!
One more thing is for sure. The answer to the question below is "NO!":
QuoteFinally, If the polygrapher see's a part in the test where you spiked, and he thinks you might be lieing... he really has no proof that you are right, so if you deny it and dont admit to anything might he just let you go as possibly just being a little nervious on that one question....?
Public Servant,
You write in part:
QuoteAnother ethical flaw to the advice here, would be the good possibility that your attempts at countermeasures will be detected.
Actually, no polygrapher has demonstrated the ability to detect countermeasures of the kind described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml). Nor is there any evidence that actual countermeasure use increases the likelihood that one will be accused of using countermeasures.
See my recent post to the "challenge" thread. It's a decision for AM. Sounds like a gamble to me, since George's assertion comes from the failure of anyone to show him proof of countermeasures being detected. Why would anyone provide this site, or anyone posting here, such proof? --Or even documentation of success? There has been plenty of success in recognizing examinee chart manipulation. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it (or not -- no skin off my back) just as George would like AM to do on his behalf.
Public Servant asks:
QuoteGeorge's assertion comes from the failure of anyone to show him proof of countermeasures being detected. Why would anyone provide this site, or anyone posting here, such proof? --Or even documentation of success?
Clearly, the polygraph community wants the public to believe that it has the ability to reliably detect countermeasures such as those described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml). This is reflected in the representations of senior members of the polygraph community to the media, as well as to the National Academy of Sciences. Members of the NAS polygraph review panel were told that the U.S. Government has polygraph countermeasure studies, but that they are classified at the "secret" level. But when members of the NAS panel obtained secret security clearances and sought access to these studies, they were told that no such studies classified at the secret level had been completed.
If the polygraph community truly believes that it has a better-than-chance method for the detection of countermeasures such as those documented in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and would have the American people believe this, then it ought to be able to provide some evidence therefor.
QuoteThere has been plenty of success in recognizing examinee chart manipulation. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it (or not -- no skin off my back) just as George would like AM to do on his behalf.
No, Public Servant. AM does not "just have to take my word for it." What Mr. Scalabrini and I have written in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is well-annotated with references that skeptical readers may check. The same cannot be said for polygraphers' claimed ability to detect countermeasures.
Quote from: Public Servant on Nov 22, 2002, 05:34 AM
Skeptic,
This does not sound like an innocent person trying to ensure they pass. If you re-read AM's first post it seems to be looking for a deceptive person to avoid detection and, if caught, an excuse to avoid the truth. The post does not even specify whether this a screening exam or a criminal specific exam. Who knows, this could be a felon trying to get away with this crime so he can continue to victimize persons like you, me, or our families!!
Well there he goes again. I guess 'presumption of innocence' was a concept they forgot to teach you in Fred's Polygraf Skool.
QuoteFeel free to correct any of these inferences. Just pointing out, as always, ethical flaws with this site and its proponents.
Should properly read, "Feel free to defend yourself from groundless accusations I arbitrarily make here." And for the record, I'm just pointing out how you consistently think the worst in people.
QuoteAnother ethical flaw to the advice here, would be the good possibility that your attempts at countermeasures will be detected.
BWOOP BWOOP BWOOOP Bullshit detector!
Properly done, the kinds of countermeasures recommended and explained in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) are undetectable even by the most highly trained polygraphers.
I know, because I used them.
The fact that I answered truthfully on many of the questions is irrelevant-- although the polygraphers here will clamour desperately that all I did was pass a polygraph because I was truthful, the facts that I manipulated my baseline breathing pattern throughout the interrogation, that I artificially produced physiological reaction during the ludicrous Stim Test, that I consistently constricted my sphincter and used vivid imagery during Control Questions seems to blow right past them in their attempts to legitimize the process I endured. The fact that I was truthful (except for those questions centering around 'have you been entirely truthful with me today') has no bearing on the question of why I passed the polygraph. I even sat upon expensive, highly touted sensor pads (one of which was directly under sphincter central). My polygrapher never knew what hit him. Neither will yours if you decide to employ countermeasures.
QuoteAnd then, if you were actually honest, you have destroyed your credibility. If this is a screening exam, it is more than enough to disqualify you. If it is a criminal case, you ruin a good opportunity to eliminate yourself from suspicion.
Does anyone else find it hard to choke down yet another finger-wagging discourse on ethics from a man who lies every single day of his life to the people he interrogates?
Quote from: Public Servant on Nov 22, 2002, 05:34 AM
Skeptic,
This does not sound like an innocent person trying to ensure they pass. If you re-read AM's first post it seems to be looking for a deceptive person to avoid detection and, if caught, an excuse to avoid the truth. The post does not even specify whether this a screening exam or a criminal specific exam. Who knows, this could be a felon trying to get away with this crime so he can continue to victimize persons like you, me, or our families!!
Public Servant,
First, welcome back.
The solution to the above problems is obvious: the polygraph should not be a component of pre-employment screening, period, and should not be used to rule out suspects in criminal investigations. With or without the advice from this or many other web sites/books/other sources, the polygraph simply isn't reliable enough to meet the needs of national security and law enforcement.
You may indeed be correct regarding AM. I make no inferences beyond the fact that the polygraph too often finds the innocent deceptive -- a fact that runs counter to the spirit of our justice system.
QuoteAM,
Feel free to correct any of these inferences. Just pointing out, as always, ethical flaws with this site and its proponents.
Another ethical flaw to the advice here, would be the good possibility that your attempts at countermeasures will be detected.
This is a common boast made on this message board; one which no polygrapher has dared (thus far) to back up with a demonstration (see Drew Richardson's
Countermeasure Challenge on the home page of Antipolygraph.org). As I and many others can attest with first-hand knowledge, even the presumably best-trained and most experienced polygraphers cannot detect properly-done countermeasures.
There is simply no evidence that available techniques exist for detecting countermeasures with above chance accuracy.
Skeptic
Beech,
QuoteWell there he goes again. I guess 'presumption of innocence' was a concept they forgot to teach you in Fred's Polygraf Skool.
Yeah, and in Joe's school of Federal Law Enforcement, and Billy Bob State University, and Jimbo's School of Law. Presumption of Innocence has NOTHING to do with whether anyone actually did it or not. You're saying when a crime is committed, no one could have done it, because everyone is presumed innocent. Some of your posts truly deserve the knucklehead award.
I merely pointed out that AM sounded more like he was looking to conceal guilt than prevent false DI. I have no gavel and gave no sentence. But if it helps you feel better to
demonize me, then go ahead and vent.
Skeptic,
Thanks for the welcome. For answer to your post please see the thread on the "challenge."
Regards
SKEPTIC, i noticed you mentioned "flaws in the instrument" here. i disagree, there aren't any. it does exactly what it's supposed to do. register reactions. it does. unfortuneately, to every one you have. the misconception is on the part of the users! am on your side, just thought i'd add to the forum.
TALON
Quote from: TALON on Dec 12, 2002, 01:00 AM
SKEPTIC, i noticed you mentioned "flaws in the instrument" here. i disagree, there aren't any. it does exactly what it's supposed to do. register reactions. it does. unfortuneately, to every one you have. the misconception is on the part of the users! am on your side, just thought i'd add to the forum.
TALON
Hello, Talon,
Welcome to the board!
I stand corrected -- what I said and what I meant were two different things :)
In this context, I meant to refer to the polygraph as an instrument intended to determine truthfulness. For such purposes, it is a clearly flawed instrument.
Thanks for the correction, and I'll offer one of my own: the polygraph at its most basic doesn't actually register reactions. Rather, it measures pressure and electrical conductance, from which one can infer breathing rate and depth, blood pressure and heart rate, and skin conductance. All of these bodily characteristics can be brought under a degree of conscious control, which means changes in them may or may not be reactions (to external stimuli, at least).
In the above, I'm honestly not trying to be a smart-ass. I feel it's important to note that there are several things that can influence the readings on a polygraph chart, and reactions (involuntary changes due to external stimuli) are only one of them.
Regards,
Skeptic
Public Servant
Since all polygraph operators believe anyone who fails the polygraph or anyone who uses countermeasures are liars or trying to hide something in their past, I have some more questions because I am still trying to learn a thing or three.
It has been a while since I read the NAS report but, when they asked about counter-countermeasures, seems like I remember that they were told yes we do have counter-countermeasures but they are too secret to divulge. However, when pressed harder, the team was told "no we don't have counter-countermeasures. Which one is a lie?People there is definately a lie here. Shades of old "Red" !!! People of our government, being paid by our tax dollars, lies?? Polygraph those raskels.
You state that you can detect countermeasures at much better that chance. Some probably believe 100%. Why, then, are you on these boards telling prospective hires "go ahead and use countermeasures if you want to be DQd beacuse we WILL catch you? Why let your pussy out of the bag? Let them come on without any warning and be DQd. You state that you don't want this kind of person in your department. Is this a pre-stimmy lie?
Any of you care to comment on this point by point or do you wish to Washington D.C. one-step,(or ten) around it?
Breeze, do a good job on this and it might earn you an invitation to an Alaska moose hunt.
Two Block,
Careful with the generalizations. I wouldn't say all examiners believe countermeasures equals a liar in regard to relevant questions. With the advent of sites such as this one, I'd say it's quite possible someone who fully swallows the rhetoric here may use countermeasures, even if they are truthful.
And this is why I try to advise against such foolishness. If you are truthful to the relevant issue, why would you risk being caught in countermeasure attempts and compromising your integrity. I've had more than one person I believed to be innocent, who increased suspicion of himself (criminal exams), by being caught in obvious attempts at countermeasures. I don't want to see misled innocent persons DQ'd or further investigated because of bad advice.
In regards to counter-countermeasures, it would be foolish to give specifics. Suffice to say that examiners receive training, and work hard, in preventing and identifying countermeasures. I won't be so bold as to say examiners can detect countermeasures at a rate of 100%; but more than a few have been caught (and many confessed to using them).
So, does the invite to the moose hunt apply to me as well?! I've been to Alaska this time of year...I like it better between April and October!!
And in regard to the DC Two Step I'll quote the immortal Jack Ryan: "Sorry...I don't dance."
Regards
Public Servant
Thanks for responding. You and Breeze are pretty good responding although your responses are not always complete. For example not admitting that there was a lie to the NAS. I would think more of the people who did that if they had said "go to hell. Yes, we have counter-countermeasures but, do you think we are dumb enough to reveal them for publication". I hate to be lied to, especially, by people on public service payroll. More importantly, the ones we elect.
Yes, the invite includes you.
Public Servant,
You wrote to Twoblock in part:
QuoteCareful with the generalizations. I wouldn't say all examiners believe countermeasures equals a liar in regard to relevant questions. With the advent of sites such as this one, I'd say it's quite possible someone who fully swallows the rhetoric here may use countermeasures, even if they are truthful.
Could you expand on what you mean by "the rhetoric here?" Specifically, is there anything in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) that you believe to be either untrue or otherwise misleading? If so, please explain.
QuoteAnd this is why I try to advise against such foolishness. If you are truthful to the relevant issue, why would you risk being caught in countermeasure attempts and compromising your integrity. I've had more than one person I believed to be innocent, who increased suspicion of himself (criminal exams), by being caught in obvious attempts at countermeasures. I don't want to see misled innocent persons DQ'd or further investigated because of bad advice.
We don't want to see innocent persons disqualified either. The National Academy of Sciences has found polygraph screening to be
completely invalid. But the FBI and LAPD have pre-employment polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%. In the San Diego Police Department, the failure rate is about 40%. Clearly, many innocent persons are being wrongly disqualified because of the random error associated with a completely invalid procedure (polygraph screening). In view thereof, it is eminently sensible for truthful applicants to practice and employ polygraph countermeasures. If you disagree, please explain.
QuoteIn regards to counter-countermeasures, it would be foolish to give specifics. Suffice to say that examiners receive training, and work hard, in preventing and identifying countermeasures. I won't be so bold as to say examiners can detect countermeasures at a rate of 100%; but more than a few have been caught (and many confessed to using them).
Actually, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures of the kind described in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy. Such a demonstration could presumably be performed without revealing the "secret" of countermeasure detection. But this has not been done. Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) (321 days and counting) is shows that the polygraph community lacks confidence in its ability to detect countermeasures. Indeed, if the polygraph community had a robust methodology of countermeasure detection, it would not matter if it were made public.
George,
The rhetoric I speak of is the constant encouragement of the use of countermeasures. Such advice encourages the honest or innocent to compromise their integrity; and encourages the guilty/dishonest to try to evade detection.
QuoteThe National Academy of Sciences has found polygraph screening to be completely invalid.
Speaking of rhetoric, are you sure this is a quote from the report? The NAS report was quite damaging to screening exams, but I don't recall it saying anything so direct and absolute. And if this is what one believes, then tell the examiner that. Use the complete honesty technique from TLBTLD. Better to try honesty about what you know than trying to tamper with your examination. Again, no one can take your integrity but you.
In regard to Drew's countermeasure challenge, I'll say it again: The challenge is being met out there in the real world every day, not as some circus side show set up by Drew or you. I think only your colleague Doug Williams likes to turn this debate into self serving publicity stunts.
Happy Holidays!!
Public Servant,
You write in part:
QuoteThe rhetoric I speak of is the constant encouragement of the use of countermeasures. Such advice encourages the honest or innocent to compromise their integrity; and encourages the guilty/dishonest to try to evade detection.
It is for each individual to determine for him- or herself whether employing countermeasures as a protection against the
pseudoscientific fraud of polygraph screening constitutes compromising one's integrity or not. In my opinion, it does not. I note that you have declined to state (after I invited your comment) whether there is "anything in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you believe to be either untrue or otherwise misleading."
You also write:
QuoteSpeaking of rhetoric, are you sure this is a quote from the report?
When I wrote "The National Academy of Sciences has found polygraph screening to be completely invalid," I did not represent it as a quote from the NAS report. It's not. But I believe it succinctly and accurately summarizes the conclusions of the NAS panel regarding polygraph screening (which are found at pp. 8-3 to 8-4 of the report).
QuoteAnd if this is what one believes, then tell the examiner that. Use the complete honesty technique from TLBTLD. Better to try honesty about what you know than trying to tamper with your examination. Again, no one can take your integrity but you.
I agree with you that the "complete honesty" approach is the ethically preferable one. But it entails the likely consequence that the truthful examinee will be arbitrarily accused of deception and/or countermeasures use and wrongfully disqualified. Agencies like the CIA, FBI, and NSA apparently cannot abide applicants who are honest enough to admit they know that polygraph "testing" is a fraud.
If you would pontificate on ethics, I suggest that you save your sermons for those responsible for the continuation of polygraph screening.QuoteIn regard to Drew's countermeasure challenge, I'll say it again: The challenge is being met out there in the real world every day, not as some circus side show set up by Drew or you.
You are deluding yourself, Public Servant. The challenge to the polygraph community is to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. This challenge has not been met in the real world on
any day, let alone every day, as you claim. Drew's challenge is no circus side show: it's a dead serious one first made at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review panel.
That you and your colleagues in the polygraph community have not accepted it (323 days and counting), and instead choose to ridicule it, is evidence that privately, you lack confidence in your ability to detect countermeasures.
Oh yes, I cannot tell you how impressed I was to hear that Drew taught his 10 year old son to perform countermeasures and defeat a polygraph test. That is surely what I would want parents to do...teach their children to lie and "reward" them for it. Great role model ther Drew. Does Mrs. Richardson ascribe to this type of parenting as well?
Quote from: guest on Dec 17, 2002, 01:52 PM
Oh yes, I cannot tell you how impressed I was to hear that Drew taught his 10 year old son to perform countermeasures and defeat a polygraph test.
No, not defeat a polygraph test-- defeat a polygraph examiner! It's so easy a ten year old can dupe you boyz!
Hmmm...duel of the "guest"s, or schizophrenic polygraph proponent?
What to make of all this?
Skeptic
Skeptic, for what it's worth, our two guests used different dummy e-mail addresses in posting.
Thanks, George :)
Skeptic
Guest,
As predictable and as clueless as ever, you seem to have missed the point of that which you offer commentary regarding. That which was presumably demonstrated through such an exercise was that if a ten year old can be shown to have the necessary cognitive reasoning/verbal ability and requisite motor skills to (1) distinguish relevant and probable-lie control questions and (2) produce responses to the latter, other more mature members of society would likely fare similarly successful when facing such a challenge. I suspect even the children of polygraphers could demonstrate such a limited skill set, particularly since you and friends have developed the directed-lie CQT thereby eliminating one of the two trivial required tasks. ;D
Public Servant,
You write:
Quote...The challenge is being met out there in the real world every day, not as some circus side show set up by Drew or you. I think only your colleague Doug Williams likes to turn this debate into self serving publicity stunts...
The only circus that would be revealed is what you keep referring to as the "real world" of polygraph exams. If you truly believed what you say regarding the lack of viability of polygraph countermeasures, one of your colleagues (I don't know if you would qualify) who meets Drew's previously stated qualifications (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=7.0 ction=display&num=101223641) for participation could accomplish the following:
(1) Demonstrate Drew to be wrong, if not altogether misguided and foolish.
(2) Give some credibility to your warnings and pleadings to innocent examinees. You might even develop some degree of trust with a prospective examinee if something you said of importance was unequivocally and publicly shown to be true.
(3) Put the fear of God in guilty examinees about any contemplated use of countermeasures.
Because the polygraph community and you know that one or more of your esteemed colleagues (and indirectly the whole community) would be completely embarassed before an international audience while CQT polygraphy was demonstrated to be the quackery that it is, no doubt, this challenge will likely continue to go unmet while you play with yourself in some "real world" polygraph suite. Although you and your colleagues continually show yourselves to be cowards, I don't necessarily think you're all completely stupid.
Anonymous,
The polygraphers are far too busy following their own high-brow intellectual research, booking spots on such bastions of culture as the Jenny Jones Show, the Howard Stern Show, and Jerry Springer to engage in your 'circus'. ;D
Quote from: Anonymous on Dec 17, 2002, 03:27 PM
Public Servant,
You write:
The only circus that would be revealed is what you keep referring to as the "real world" of polygraph exams. If you truly believed what you say regarding the lack of viability of polygraph countermeasures, one of your colleagues (I don't know if you would qualify) who meets Drew's previously stated qualifications (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=7.0 ction=display&num=101223641) for participation could accomplish the following:
(1) Demonstrate Drew to be wrong, if not altogether misguided and foolish.
(2) Give some credibility to your warnings and pleadings to innocent examinees. You might even develop some degree of trust with a prospective examinee if something you said of importance was unequivocally and publicly shown to be true.
(3) Put the fear of God in guilty examinees about any contemplated use of countermeasures.
Because the polygraph community and you know that one or more of your esteemed colleagues (and indirectly the whole community) would be completely embarassed before an international audience while CQT polygraphy was demonstrated to be the quackery that it is, no doubt, this challenge will likely continue to go unmet while you play with yourself in some "real world" polygraph suite. Although you and your colleagues continually show yourselves to be cowards, I don't necessarily think you're all completely stupid.
First of all you won't find a government employed examiner on Jenny Jones or Springer.
Secondly, don't think that to answer the challenge would not entail subjecting to the format and facilities provided by Drew or George -- something else a government employee could not (and would not) do.
Lastly, don't think that the real world is not the polygraph suites where criminal suspects and screening examinees meet the examiners. The real test of this debate, is in real world scenarios, where the examinee may, or may not, try to employ your techniques. That's what examiners are paid to do... Get to the truth in real world situations; not pander to the whims of persons seeking to further their own personal agenda.
Again to all seeking advice I would say, it's your integrity, no one can take it but you.
Public Servant,
If the polygraph community would have the public believe that it has the ability to detect countermeasures, it will have to prove it. The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute supposedly has a mandate to study countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. But it has not published any research on this subject. Federal polygraphers told the National Academy of Sciences that such research studies existed, but were classified at the secret level. But when properly cleared NAS panel members sought these studies, they were told that no such studies existed. Why did federal polygraphers mislead the NAS?
You conclude with:
QuoteAgain to all seeking advice I would say, it's your integrity, no one can take it but you.
Please explain by what logic a person who employs countermeasures to protect him- or herself against the random error associated with an invalid technique (polygraph screening) that depends on its administrator lying to and otherwise deceiving him/her sacrifices his/her integrity thereby.
I think the ethics of countermeasures deserves some serious consideration and discussion. I have to say that I have never been comfortable with the idea of countermeasures, and much prefer the total honesty approach.
George, since you mentioned that the total honesty approach is ethically preferable to countermeasures, perhaps you can expand on your reasoning.
One of the problems, probably the main problem, with countermeasures is that it forces you to live a lie. For as long as one is in law enforcement, and even thereafter, you must always lie when asked about it. This raises an ethical red flag in my book.
The ethically superior position is to stand behind whatever you do, unashamedly, without need to hide it from anyone, and seek to shape the consequences, accepting what one must accept. There are exceptions to this of course, such as when personal safety is involved, but I don't believe a polygraph screening rises to that level. Yet even in a dangerous situation, after the danger has passed, there is no shame in admitting that you lied to a criminal in order to protect yourself and/or others.
I understand that foregoing countermeasures exposes one to risk of random error, but again, I think it ethically superior to combat that risk by exposing the fraud behind the polygraph, such as George has done tirelessly, rather than "countermeasuring" it. From a personal standpoint, I would have rather gone through my ordeal than live with the discomfort and dissonance of having employed countermeasures. In many ways not using countermeasures worked very much to my disadvantage (I didn't even know what a countermeasure was back then), but in this battle on this site and these boards and out there in the non-cyber world, I would much prefer to be right where I am. Had I "passed" the polygraph with countermeasures, I doubt I would be too exercised about the polygraph, and I suspect that's true for many others.
The fact that the polygraph examiner lies to and deceives the subject is not, in and of itself, a reason to lie. I think there are ethically superior ways to expose their lies.
Ironically, countermeasures mask the polygraph's true nature and artificially prop its accuracy by "passing" people who should "pass".
At some point it may be possible for examiners to detect countermeasures. It's clear that they have not proven they can, and from what I can tell, probably proceed on hunches and supposed "irregularities" in the charts. I got accused of countermeasures because the examiner didn't like my breathing.
But, it's not hard to imagine that they will some day, with more advanced instrumentation, be able to detect countermeasures. If and when that day comes, the polygraph is still equally invalid, and screening in particular should be abolished just the same, and probably all CQT too, whether they can detect countermeasures with 0% accuracy or 100% accuracy.
(I'll be out tomorrow (Wednesday) so won't be able to post)
Mark,
You ask:
QuoteGeorge, since you mentioned that the total honesty approach is ethically preferable to countermeasures, perhaps you can expand on your reasoning.
My reasoning in this regard is based on the principle that candor is generally preferable to dissumulation (which is required to a certain extent when one chooses to employ countermeasures).
I also agree with you that "the fact that the polygraph examiner lies to and deceives the subject is not, in and of itself, a reason to lie." But this fact does help to put the ethics of countermeasure use in proper context. Honesty is a two-way street. If our government expects honesty from applicants for employment, it should not resort to a patently fraudulent and unreliable method like polygraph screening in the hiring process.
Quote from: Mark Mallah on Dec 18, 2002, 03:35 AM
I think the ethics of countermeasures deserves some serious consideration and discussion. I have to say that I have never been comfortable with the idea of countermeasures, and much prefer the total honesty approach.
George, since you mentioned that the total honesty approach is ethically preferable to countermeasures, perhaps you can expand on your reasoning.
One of the problems, probably the main problem, with countermeasures is that it forces you to live a lie. For as long as one is in law enforcement, and even thereafter, you must always lie when asked about it. This raises an ethical red flag in my book.
The ethically superior position is to stand behind whatever you do, unashamedly, without need to hide it from anyone, and seek to shape the consequences, accepting what one must accept. There are exceptions to this of course, such as when personal safety is involved, but I don't believe a polygraph screening rises to that level. Yet even in a dangerous situation, after the danger has passed, there is no shame in admitting that you lied to a criminal in order to protect yourself and/or others.
I understand that foregoing countermeasures exposes one to risk of random error, but again, I think it ethically superior to combat that risk by exposing the fraud behind the polygraph, such as George has done tirelessly, rather than "countermeasuring" it. From a personal standpoint, I would have rather gone through my ordeal than live with the discomfort and dissonance of having employed countermeasures. In many ways not using countermeasures worked very much to my disadvantage (I didn't even know what a countermeasure was back then), but in this battle on this site and these boards and out there in the non-cyber world, I would much prefer to be right where I am. Had I "passed" the polygraph with countermeasures, I doubt I would be too exercised about the polygraph, and I suspect that's true for many others.
The fact that the polygraph examiner lies to and deceives the subject is not, in and of itself, a reason to lie. I think there are ethically superior ways to expose their lies.
Ironically, countermeasures mask the polygraph's true nature and artificially prop its accuracy by "passing" people who should "pass".
At some point it may be possible for examiners to detect countermeasures. It's clear that they have not proven they can, and from what I can tell, probably proceed on hunches and supposed "irregularities" in the charts. I got accused of countermeasures because the examiner didn't like my breathing.
But, it's not hard to imagine that they will some day, with more advanced instrumentation, be able to detect countermeasures. If and when that day comes, the polygraph is still equally invalid, and screening in particular should be abolished just the same, and probably all CQT too, whether they can detect countermeasures with 0% accuracy or 100% accuracy.
As I see it, there are two primary purposes to advocating countermeasures. Number one, helping the innocent to ensure a correct outcome on a polygraph (surely, a messy situation at best). Number two, to bring increased pressure and attention towards eliminating a fraudulent, counterproductive and dangerous procedure that amounts to a security flaw and violation of civil rights. I agree that the main problems with the polygraph are completely independent of widespread knowledge of countermeasures, but spreading knowledge about countermeasures shines a brighter light upon them and helps to rob polygraph proponents of their "utility" smokescreen.
Personally, I believe lying about countermeasure use and nothing else is justified and ethical, given the circumstances and the alleged purpose of the polygraph in the first place. But I think we all agree here that the ethically preferable choice (and one that perhaps brings the most pressure towards ending the use of the polygraph) is the "total honesty" approach.
I must also admit that, in my case, I did not feel completely comfortable with lying about countermeasures, which is why I chose to reveal my knowledge when specifically asked about it. But given the nature of the polygraph, I will not fault someone else ethically for choosing to lie regarding countermeasure knowledge and/or use.
Skeptic
This thread has transformed into an ethics discussion on "countering the polygraph."
I have recently been forced to make this decision in my last polygraph. I quickly made my mind up that I was not going to use countermeasures but I do not have as much to lose as many other applicants of being labeled deceptive.
1. My currrent federal law enforcement employer does not use the polygraph nor will the introduction of stand alone polygraph results disqualify me from performing my mission.
2. I have developed a long history of security background checks and life history which would negate any accusations if investigated.
3. I like my job but a job is just a job. There is so much more to life. The hiring authority only has as much power over my life as I am willing to give them.
My second polygraph from hell experience (posted on other threads) was caused by an extremely aggressive examiner who I believe was irritated that I did not "live, breath, and dream" of being employed by the FBI. I was there for a job interview. I think that the Special Agent had lived his life for his job and expected all applicants to do the same.
I believe the "ethics" in my case of the FBI have more to do with the moral and ethical considerations of their applicant process.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS UNETHICAL AND LACKING COMPLETE INTEGRITY FOR THE FBI TO BASE ANY HIRING DECISION STRICTLY ON POLYGRAPH RESULTS WITHOUT CORROBORATED EVIDENCE.
I believe it is the option for any agency to use any hiring procedure which has integrity in its action. The polygraph exam used in the current way by the FBI has no integrity.
I informed the FBI examiner in my case that I had read the NAS report and agreed that specific incident and GKT might have uses with further research. I also informed him that I believed a pre-employment polygraph, without corroborated evidence normally obtained by an investigation, was useless.
My last sentence is a summary of all of my ethical and scientific feelings about the FBI's use of the polygraph.
As I read many of my postings, this summary has been the core of my arguments and source of frustration after my polygraph experience.
To all,
Before we lose ourselves once again in self righteous proclamations about the ethics of deception, let's focus for a moment on where that deception occurs. The following was written in a different thread by Dr. Richardson discussing polygraph deception with a polygrapher quite some time ago. I think it is worth posting again for those who may not have seen it and for those who seem to have lost appreciation for where the bulk of deception in the polygraph suite and the responsibility for that deception lies.
Quote... You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter? ...
Quote from: Anonymous on Dec 18, 2002, 12:48 PM
To all,
Before we lose ourselves once again in self righteous proclamations about the ethics of deception, let's focus for a moment on where that deception occurs. The following was written in a different thread by Dr. Richardson discussing polygraph deception with a polygrapher quite some time ago. I think it is worth posting again for those who may not have seen it and for those who seem to have lost appreciation for where the bulk of deception in the polygraph suite and the responsibility for that deception lies.
Anonymous,
While there can be no argument that Dr. Richardson is completely correct in his analysis, I think Mark is saying (if I may be so bold) that being lied to does not justify lying yourself.
I'm not sure I agree with him completely on that, and I think the larger purpose of the background investigation/polygraph has to be taken into consideration. But I just wanted to clarify his argument as I see it. If I misstated it, I invite him to correct me.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
I understand the point of view that Mark was expressing, but I must respectfully take exception to that point of view. As Mark would know from his role as a former FBI agent, when an undercover agent works with thugs he may well (perhaps will be compelled to) have to adapt his own behavior in an otherwise unpleasant and unacceptable manner in order to associate with and interact successfully with such. I would suggest that the role of a polygraph examinee who is familiar with the deception of polygraphy, has any sense of self preservation, and while interacting (i.e., taking a polygraph exam) with a polygraph examiner is not unlike that of the aforementioned undercover agent.
In the Drew Richardson quote cited by Anonymous, Drew does indeed make a devastating indictment of the polygraph, with which I wholeheartedly agree. And yet, I still believe that one's ethical choices must flow from bedrock principles, and not turn on whether others are ethical or not.
If countermeasures are ethically justifiable, they should be so even if the examiner told no lies, but simply used a machine such as the polygraph that gets it wrong far too often. Your thought on that, Anonymous? (and anyone else)
Turning that around a bit, what if the examiner was a liar but the test was as valid as a urine test?
With that in mind, I think the strongest justification for countermeasures is not that the examiner is a liar, but the self-preservation approach. Why should one use the total honesty approach and risk being a martyr? I do think there is a case to be made for this. However, I still think it is an ethical compromise.
As Anonymous points out, there are definitely times when one must and should lie. An undercover operation itself is a lie about identity, and lying is part of the process. As I mentioned before, when confronted by a criminal, any type of lie is appropriate. Many polygraph situations are, I believe, different though. And even within the polygraph, I think it's a different ethical scenario if given a polygraph as a falsely accused murder suspect versus as an applicant.
Quote from: Mark Mallah on Dec 19, 2002, 04:00 AM
In the Drew Richardson quote cited by Anonymous, Drew does indeed make a devastating indictment of the polygraph, with which I wholeheartedly agree. And yet, I still believe that one's ethical choices must flow from bedrock principles, and not turn on whether others are ethical or not.
I agree. But self-defense can be a bedrock principle, which would lead to the ethic that lying in order to defend oneself from fraud is an allowable, even necessary action (more on principles in a moment).
QuoteIf countermeasures are ethically justifiable, they should be so even if the examiner told no lies, but simply used a machine such as the polygraph that gets it wrong far too often. Your thought on that, Anonymous? (and anyone else)
I believe it is not enough to say, "I won't lie because it's wrong" -- that's not a principle so much as an internalization of a rule. I think one needs to look at underlying principles that lead to the notion that lying is wrong in a given context. The purpose of a background check/polygraph is to determine the suitability of a candidate for a given position, which includes requisite skills and abilities, behavioral tendencies (e.g. committment to keeping a secret, willingness to inform the employer of security problems and attempts at subversion, etc.), and situational considerations (e.g. what could be used to put pressure on the candidate to break faith with the employer? etc.).
Thus, in the context of a background check/polygraph, I believe the ethical purpose of candidate truthfulness is twofold. First, to facilitate judgement regarding the general suitability of a candidate for a position of trust. Second, to demonstrate a behavioral tendency to not withold important, relevant information from the employer.
Now, consider a part of the hiring process (the polygraph) that tends to lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the suitability of a candidate for a given position. In order to facilitate the original purpose of the background investigation, one could make a very strong argument that it is ethically necessary to do what is possible to ensure a correct outcome on the polygraph, just as it is necessary to answer all relevant questions truthfully in a security interview. In doing so, not only are you facilitating a correct judgement regarding your suitability, but you are demonstrating that the employer can trust you to deliver important, relevant information accurately and truthfully, and to prevent misunderstandings.
By correcting a highly-flawed information-gathering procedure through the use of countermeasures, you are fulfilling your ethical responsibility to facilitate and cooperate fully with the very purpose of the background investigation, including the polygraph.Skeptic
Mark,
You wrote, among other things:
QuoteTurning that around a bit, what if the examiner was a liar but the test was as valid as a urine test?
If the polygraph "test" were as valid as a urine test, any discussion of the ethics of polygraph countermeasures would be rendered moot by the fact that it would be unbelievably stupid to employ such. Polygraphers would be able to detect countermeasures with a very high degree of confidence simply by asking, "Did you employ countermeasures?" ;)
Mark,
You write:
Quote...If countermeasures are ethically justifiable, they should be so even if the examiner told no lies, but simply used a machine such as the polygraph that gets it wrong far too often. Your thought on that, Anonymous? (and anyone else)
...
I couldn't agree with you more. The reason and the justification for countermeasures stems from polygraphy's (screening's in particular) lack of diagnostic validity and accompanying consequences which requires adopting a mode of self preservation (countermeasures) completely justified by the bedrock principle of self-defense as outlined by our friend, Skeptic. The deception inherent in CQT polygraphpy is merely the icing on the cake if you will...just one more repugnant act which I suppose adds a degree of feeling as well as the obvious purpose to the required countermeasures.
Skeptic/Anonymous/George:
Thanks for the comments; good points.
We apparently agree that it's the error rate--and not the examiner's lies--that is the decisive factor.
I don't believe the examiner's deception, or any amount of venality on the part of the examiner, justifies countermeasures. But protecting oneself against the high risk of a false positive outcome is a persuasive argument for countermeasures, and on those grounds, are ethically justified.
Given the need to continually lie about having used countermeasures, it's probably not the tactic I would choose. And it does, in some way, indulge the process.
The ethically best option, as The Lie... states, is to refuse to take the test. I realize that this is not always possible, particularly for applicants. Those applicants should be aware though that the use of the polygraph is a direct reflection of the agencies using them.
I just wanted to say that is an excellent point you raised -- about the use of the polygraph being a reflection of the agencies that use them. You are absolutely right -- but poly's are an unfortunate method that is used to screen candidates for some very rewarding occupations (FD, PD, etc.). That is why the use of countermeasures is so important -- so people can work around some of the ridiculous obstacles placed in their path (i.e.: polygraphs). Sometimes it is a reflection of "the system" more than a particular agency.
Keep on fighting!
QuoteI just wanted to say that is an excellent point you raised -- about the use of the polygraph being a reflection of the agencies that use them. You are absolutely right -- but poly's are an unfortunate method that is used to screen candidates for some very rewarding occupations (FD, PD, etc.). That is why the use of countermeasures is so important -- so people can work around some of the ridiculous obstacles placed in their path (i.e.: polygraphs). Sometimes it is a reflection of "the system" more than a particular agency.
I agree, there is definitely a distinction between the occupation and the agency. Law enforcement and intelligence can be wonderful and rewarding occupations, and needless to say, vitally important.
Then there are the law enforcement and intelligence
organizations. Whether those organizations function effectively is a separate issue.
My main point is that now, especially since the NAS report, it reflects very poorly on any organization that continues to use polygraph screening. Chances are, their myopia and blinkered approach about this particular issue repeats itself in other areas too. No organization is perfect, each has flaws, but when the evidence is so overwhelming, and the old approach is adhered to nevertheless, there's a problem.
Very true. Unfortunately, I feel like we are living in a society that is quite blindly groping for an adequate solution to the events of 9-11. Notwithstanding the NAS report, I think most public safety agencies will begin to rely even more heavily on the polygraph as a screening tool. Because it gives some of these organizations with less than stellar records (read: FBI, CIA), a false sense of security and feeling like they are accomplishing something tangible (ruining the career aspirations of potential job candidates). Sort of like the old police adage that the only way to really site an officer's effectiveness is through the number of traffic citations they issue. For example, the FBI's reaction to the Hansen (sp?) espionage case was to begin polygraphing all employees! You really have to wonder about the mentality behind silly decisions such as that!
As for any deflectors – yes, I have an axe to grind. When I was an undergraduate in college, I interviewed with the CIA. I had to rank their polygraph process as the worst experience of my life. I had no knowledge of polygraphy (rhymes with polygamy!) and their "interrogation" techniques. Basically, I was accused of being a homosexual drug pusher! Talk about scary false positives. I can't possibly see the benefit of that whole process. There I was – young, well-educated, trilingual – and I was humiliated and rejected on the basis of that stupid machine! And to think federal agencies are suffering a dearth of qualified LEO and intelligence personnel – and they still use the polygraph (after Aldrich Ames, Robert Hansen, etc.) I really have to wonder what nimrods are running the system we live in? Just some letting off some steam....
Stopnik,
I can directly relate to your experience with the CIA. I had a specific issue test with them, to "verify" my stated drug-use of a one-time experience with marijuana. It was without a doubt the most degrading experience of my life. The examiner's conclusion was that I was not only a habitual user (including the eve of the polygraph itself), but also a dealer. He didn't go homosexual on me though, but I assume your polygraph was much longer than the 5 hours I was under, because I was working for a defense contractor and not the CIA itself.
Much like you and Mark have stated, the organizations behind these polygraphs need serious revamping. Since the inertia behind the polygraph ball and chain is so great, these agencies don't want to hear about change, or about anything requiring serious effort. I remember trying to reason with my CIA adjudication officer if it made any sense to her whatsoever that the examiner's accusations were true, given my academic and professional history (and my clean police record etc..). She didn't want to hear about it. The polygraph gives them a nice, simple "pass" or "fail". Any reasoning transcending this model is systematically rejected. It works great for the people that are "IN".
Quote from: Mark Mallah on Dec 20, 2002, 03:52 PM
...
My main point is that now, especially since the NAS report, it reflects very poorly on any organization that continues to use polygraph screening. Chances are, their myopia and blinkered approach about this particular issue repeats itself in other areas too. No organization is perfect, each has flaws, but when the evidence is so overwhelming, and the old approach is adhered to nevertheless, there's a problem.
Mark,
I think a key aspect of the problem is that the counterintelligence arms of federal agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and NSA are largely in the hands of buffoons. Polygraph advocate Ed Curran, who wreaked havoc while maladministering counterintelligence for the FBI, CIA, and DOE is a prime example of the problem.
The abolishment of polygraph screening will have to come from the outside: the senior management of these organizations are too corrupt and/or incompetent to make a policy change that would necessarily involve an implicit public admission of a past error of such magnitude.
Do I detect a bit of animosity between Georgie Porgie and Ed Curran? Hmmmm....let's see...was HE the "buffoon" who was managing the FBI program when George crashed and burned? I think you should try to develop a better relationship with Ed and maybe he will answer some of your questions. Can't blame him if all you do is attack him (and call him names). Don't know the gent, but you sure seem to be pretty tough on him.
Quote from: Guest on Dec 24, 2002, 12:56 AM
Do I detect a bit of animosity between Georgie Porgie and Ed Curran? Hmmmm....let's see...was HE the "buffoon" who was managing the FBI program when George crashed and burned? I think you should try to develop a better relationship with Ed and maybe he will answer some of your questions. Can't blame him if all you do is attack him (and call him names). Don't know the gent, but you sure seem to be pretty tough on him.
Guest,
Your ignorance is apparent without your explicit admission -- on many levels.
It's obvious that, like so many other pro-polygraph posters here, you know nothing about that on which you comment; rather, your main purpose is merely to incite.
In 'net lingo, therefore, you are a "troll".
Skeptic
Quote from: Guest on Dec 24, 2002, 12:56 AM
Do I detect a bit of animosity between Georgie Porgie and Ed Curran? Hmmmm....let's see...was HE the "buffoon" who was managing the FBI program when George crashed and burned?...
No. At the time of my FBI pre-employment polygraph, Ed Curran was at CIA.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 22, 2002, 07:13 AM
Public Servant asks:
Clearly, the polygraph community wants the public to believe that it has the ability to reliably detect countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).
I have been trying to d/l this and am unable to. I continue receiving error messages saying I am missing a DLL file or something like that after d/l'ing pdf. When I try to read the html version it won't open, I keep clicking on the page numbers and nothing happens.
Is there *any* other way to receive this document?
Thanks!