Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge

[polyscam]

Nonombre wrote:

Okay, last question first.  Dolly and I are just friends (and you can't prove any different).

       ...and some people think polygraph examiner's don't have a sense of humor.

This statement does however give credibility to my post.

I would agree that the ignorant examinee would believe that the laundry would be pinned on the line within minutes of the exam's conclusion.

Let me expand on the question.  What of the knowledgeable examinee (not someone trained in polygraph, but someone who has done a bit of self-study on the topic)?  This would be an examinee that knows there is no way for such information to be discovered.  What fear would such an examinee have of discovery?  I would assert that there is no fear much as would likely be the case in the poly challenge.  Could such an examinee be deemed as non-cooperative?

Also, the only Dolly I have met is Dolly Madison.  She has some tasty treats but I would never do anything bah-ah-ah-ad with them.    

[DippityShurff]

Dr. Richardson,

I have an idea.  From what I've gathered watching this thread, the **stated** reason the polygraph community refuses to accept the challenge is because there is no fear of consequences.

How about we design some way that both sides have substantial "skin in the game".  Monetary perhaps.  A bet!  Whoever loses pays and pays big time.  If that's not possible, a serious and public loss of face.  What's important is that this applies to either side.  For the record, I think you'll win.

Food for thought.

[Drew Richardson]

Dippityshurff,

You write:

Dr. Richardson,

I have an idea.  From what I've gathered watching this thread, the **stated** reason the polygraph community refuses to accept the challenge is because there is no fear of consequences.

How about we design some way that both sides have substantial "skin in the game".  Monetary perhaps.  A bet!  Whoever loses pays and pays big time.  If that's not possible, a serious and public loss of face.  What's important is that this applies to either side.  For the record, I think you'll win.

Food for thought.

For the record, I expect to win too  As far as any loss of face is concerned, I suppose the national media coverage that I have insisted upon to cover all aspects of the procedure will likely take care of that issue.  I do not have time to discuss all the ramifications of fear of consequences and how it relates to external validity (completely misrepresented by commenting polygraphers and perhaps overstated with this exercise), but with regard to monetary incentives, a time-limited one was previously offered by one of the regulars on this site (5000.00) to any qualified (see my initial post for qualifications) polygrapher (and specifically not payable to me) who could systematically show an ability to detect countermeasures.  There were no takers on this offer.  

[ChallengeCash]

For the record, I expect to win too   As far as any loss of face is concerned, I suppose the national media coverage that I have insisted upon to cover all aspects of the procedure will likely take care of that issue.  I do not have time to discuss all the ramifications of fear of consequences and how it relates to external validity (completely misrepresented by commenting polygraphers and perhaps overstated with this exercise), but with regard to monetary incentives, a time-limited one was previously offered by one of the regulars on this site (5000.00) to any qualified (see my initial post for qualifications) polygrapher (and specifically not payable to me) who could systematically show an ability to detect countermeasures.  There were no takers on this offer.

Perhaps the Challenge incentive can be re-instated. Any polygraphers want to chime in on what they think might stimulate their interest?

-ChallengeCash-

[Gordon H. Barland]

Dippityshurff raises one of the issues that arose in my mind when Drew first made his offer.  The suggestion is that the question of whether examiners can truly recognize mid-level countermeasures is to be settled by the results of a laboratory experiment.  

      The web masters for this site, together with most people who have posted on this site categorically reject the results of laboratory research regarding the accuracy of the polygraph because they are not "real life" settings.  Why reject mock crime accuracy research yet advocate mock crime countermeasure research?  

      If you are so eager to accept the results of a laboratory CM study, why not accept the results of the many dozens of laboratory validity studies that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Peace.

Gordon

[Drew Richardson]

Hello Gordon,

Very nice to hear (indirectly) from you.  I don't speak for this message board or any of its other posters, but I will tell you why I distinguish between the necessities of lie detection research and that of countermeasure research.  I would agree (based on a differing rationale) with many polygraphers that real life conditions are needed for lie detection research.  By now you are no doubt aware that I am very skeptical about the fundamental underpinnings of most lie detection practice.  In particular I tend to believe that real world consequences (further investigation, imprisonment, denial of employment, etc.) stemming from having been found deceptive of relevant-question related activities are every bit of much of concern to innocent/truthful examinees as they are to guilty/deceptive examinees.  This is why I believe this sort of examination is greatly prone to false positive results, why the lies of polygraphers suggesting control material is really relevant is specious to the most naive of examinees and largely doomed to failure, and why I have been contacted by hundreds (if not in excess of a thousand) people representing themselves or others claiming to have been falsely accused (generally screening examinations) of deception.  

And now to the general thrust of your question--the reason I distinguish the countermeasure research and believe it is potentially less dependent on real world conditions is the following.  I believe you have a type of control built into this research not present with the detection of deception research.  That is regardless of the level of motivation/fear of consequences/etc, that condition is equal across various likely to be compared groups, e.g.. those deceptive study examinees employing countermeasures have the same motivation as those deceptive examinees who do not employ countermeasures (again independent of whatever the level of the fear of consequences (stemming from being found deceptive regarding relevant question activities) is, it should be roughly the same for these groups within a given simulated-crime study).  Although I would prefer to see real life consequences, at least in the absence of such, you do have the ability to compare apples with apples so to speak.  I don't believe this is true in basic lie detection research where an absence of a fear of consequences would mask the mechanism I previously suggested was that which made control question lie detection prone to false positive results.  In that case, I believe that extrapolating the level of false positives from a simulated-crime study to the circumstances of the real world is akin to predicting numbers of oranges from apple inspection.  Again, very nice to hear your message board voice--I'll look forward to continued discussion on this and other issues.  Best Regards, Drew

[polyfool]

Okay, last question first.  Dolly and I are just friends (and you can't prove any different).

Next, as you assume, A ethical police polygraph examiner would never publically release information,.  However, you must understand that has little effect on what goes through the mind of the polygraph subject.  Many times, they come into the room convinced their dirty laundry will end up on the front yard line for all to see.  We don't in any way tell them that, they believe it on their own.

Which leads me back to my original arguement.  As a calm,  rational person, sitting in your easy chair, posting on an internet web site, you feel quite comfortable there are no witnesses to you and Dolly, so therefore you have nothing to fear.  However, I would argue that in a good many cases, there is a significant fear, even real terror that the person(s) "dirty" little secret will be discovered during the investigative/polygraph process.  We call that "fear of detection of deception."   Brandon, this is not a circular argument in my opinion, just an honest difference in positions.

Nonombre

Nonombre: I am absolutely astounded by your ability to know what's going on in the mind of an examinee. Did they teach you that in school? Give me a freak'in break! You have no idea what an examinee is thinking. How could you and why do you believe that you can read minds? Is it because of the things examinees confess to you? Surely you would not be gullible enough to believe everything that someone tells you? Your comments are a perfect example of too much reliance on this tool. You know how to record a person's heart rate, sweat activity and breathing patterns, so you can read minds.

I disagree with your statement about an examinee fearing that his dirty laundry will be on display for all to see. I could buy that arguement if you were talking about a current employee, but you're not--you're talking about job candidates. If one is not already employed by the prospective agency, he is not thinking in those terms and therefore, not concerned about what agency employees will find out.  

It is true that an examinee may be thinking whether the deed he may be about to confess to is proveable and I would think that definitely has some influence on whether one confesses. The thought about whether certain deeds I was asked about being proved through corroborative (your  favorite word) statements definitely made me spill my guts when I really didn't want to. I knew the answers to the questions could be found in a background check, thus I came clean. However, I probably would have confessed to the deeds without witnesses anyway, because I believed all the bogus hype about polygraphs actually being able to detect lies. Stupid me.

I also would never have believed that anything I told the examiner would have been disclosed to my family or  that I would be prosecuted for it. Applicants disclose past drug use to LE agencies all that time, that doesn't mean they'll be booked and thrown in the slammer for hitting a bong when they were a teenager. Take your and Brandon's example of Dolly. Do you really think your hypothetical examinee would think that he would face charges for  getting it on with Dolly on the family farm when no one else was looking? That's ridiculous.  There are some practices that are still on the books as illegal, but aren't enforceable. Take for example, adultery--illegal in some states- but you don't see cops barging into bedrooms to enforce it. Spirit vs. letter of the law. Adultery would even be proveable since it would require the participation of another individual. The only evidence you would have with Dolly is the examinee's confession, but yet, you would expect the examinee to believe that on his way out the door, employees would be lined up, laughing at him with fingers pointed and that an agent would stop by his house to tell his family about his rendezvous with Dolly just before officers arrive to take him downtown for booking?

P.S. Just for the record, my misdeeds had nothing to do with Dolly.


            

[polyrized]

Great example!

So your hypothetical applicant who is not a security risk based on this episode years and years ago has a real problem.  He can;

1.  Be honest and confess - which will result in loss of the job and a permanent file of his behavior.

2.  Lie - either deny the behavior, use countermeasures, or make up some 'indiscretion' which will explain his emotional reaction to the polygraph examiner.


So honesty is punished, dishonesty rewarded, and national security not really served in any way.  Pre-employment lifestyle questions and control questions are prone to develop information which might be derogatory but which is not relevant.

[icotto56@yahoo.com]

looking for some insight, wanted to apply for a police job, they do polygraph. Prior to 2 months ago I had'nt smoked marijuana for over 8yrs (smoked 5 times before the 8 yrs) I want to make sure... if I lie on my recent drug use, I would just have to make sure I have a stronger reaction to control questions (tounge biting ect) than relevant questions? just want to make sure how should I treat the drug use questions?

Thanks

[Administrator]

looking for some insight, wanted to apply for a police job, they do polygraph. Prior to 2 months ago I had'nt smoked marijuana for over 8yrs (smoked 5 times before the 8 yrs) I want to make sure... if I lie on my recent drug use, I would just have to make sure I have a stronger reaction to control questions (tounge biting ect) than relevant questions? just want to make sure how should I treat the drug use questions?

Thanks

Please note that this is not the right message thread for posting personal inquiries - you should have started a new topic. Moreover, the purpose of this website is not to help liars to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons protect themselves against an invalid "test."

[nonombre]

...the purpose of this website is not to help liars to gain positions of trust for which they are not qualified, but rather to help truthful persons protect themselves against an invalid "test."

and in what way do you plan to tell the difference?

Nonombre

[Drew Richardson]

Nonombre,

Perhaps it's a bit like your suggestion to trust and confide in your (presumably a good) polygrapher.....hmmm.....how do you know the difference?

[George W. Maschke]

and in what way do you plan to tell the difference?

Nonombre

The general approach I take is to assume that all requests for information are for legitimate purposes, unless there is reason to believe otherwise (as was the case with icotto56's post).

[nonombre]

The general approach I take is to assume that all requests for information are for legitimate purposes, unless there is reason to believe otherwise (as was the case with icotto56's post).

I'm sorry, Mr. Maschke, but I akin your position to leaving a loaded shotgun at the entrance to the subway station and "assuming" it will only be picked up and used by little old ladies to protect themselves.

Regards,

Nonombre

 

[Sergeant1107]

I'm sorry, Mr. Maschke, but I akin your position to leaving a loaded shotgun at the entrance to the subway station and "assuming" it will only be picked up and used by little old ladies to protect themselves.

Nonombre,

I would be interested to listen to your explanation of that opinion.  How exactly is providing information on the way a polygraph is conducted in any way similar to placing a deadly weapon in a public place?

Providing information is not wrong or irresponsible, and certainly not akin to leaving a dangerous weapon unattended.  

I am still of the opinion that putting any faith in a supposedly scientific test that can be "beaten" after reading a couple of pages on the Internet is the truly irresponsible act.  If the polygraph relies on examinee ignorance in order to function, wouldn't that suggest a problem with the polygraph itself rather than a problem with anyone who provides information to enlighten the ignorant?