Going in for a polygraph...

[Anthrax]

I will be going in for a polygraph for a job with the Canadian Government in the next couple days... now I have nothing to hide but know that shit happens regarding polygraphs... I have read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" a few times through... and am confident I can pass it... so this is basically what I have in mind...

I have naturally sweaty hands so theylll sweat through the whole thing.. shouldnt be a problem

Go into the polygraph, act like a dummy like I know nothing about polygraphy... act like I think the polygrapher is on my side

Maintain a steady breathing pattern the whole time through until the sensors are unhooked from my body

Raise my cardio activity (through method of doing math in my head) when I get a control question... and block my breathing activity for 4-5 seconds AFTER I answer the question

Keeping up the steady breathing pattern and with a lower heartbeat (cardio activity) than the control question, answer the relevant questions...

maintain the steady breath/cardio during the irrevlant questions (although they dont matter)

ADMIT NOTHING, tell as little as possible...


should I be OK?

[George W. Maschke]

While countermeasures may mitigate the risk of a false positive outcome, they do not offer certainty that one will pass. That said, it appears that you have understood the essential elements of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Keep in mind, however, that there is little one can do to prevent cardio reactions to relevant questions, and I think it is pointless to try. You might also bear in mind the behavioral countermeasures outlined in Chapter 4.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Keep in mind, however, that there is little one can do to prevent cardio reactions to relevant questions, and I think it is pointless to try.

This is quite an admission by you, George.  Yes, this is true.  While an examinee can try to do many things to influence the pneumograph channels, the cardio and electrodermal channels will usually betray him/her.  It is when these betrayals are consistent on the relevant questions despite the countermeasure attempts on the "control" questions that the examinee will be caught in the act.

[Bill Crider]

its not that simple. you have to have an understanding of what the appropriate level of effort is required to produce an adequate and not overly large physioloical change. Also, you have to have the correct timing because only a short portion of the time between questions is the scoreable range. On my tests the scorable rnage was right after the question was asked and maybe 1 or 2 seconds after the answer, not right after the answer as you might expect.

bottom line-CMs take practice and knowledge or its a real crap shoot.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

My point exactly, Bill.  Countermeasures are a real crap-shoot, and becoming more so as time goes by and more examiners receive additional training.

[George W. Maschke]

My point exactly, Bill.  Countermeasures are a real crap-shoot, and becoming more so as time goes by and more examiners receive additional training.

The underlying procedure (CQT polygraphy) is a crapshoot: telling the truth is no guarantee of passing. Given the availability of simple, effective countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect, those whose futures rest on the outcome of a polygraph crapshoot have little to lose, and potentially much to gain, by employing countermeasures.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

telling the truth is no guarantee of passing.

True, you may end up inconclusive.  Or you may get caught using countermeasures when the truth without countermeasures would have landed you the job.  Or, to give people like George the benefit of much doubt, you might be that one in a million who "undeservedly" fall way down into negative numbers and fail the exam.  Yes, a real crap-shoot.

[polyscam]

True, you may end up inconclusive.  Or you may get caught using countermeasures when the truth without countermeasures would have landed you the job.  Or, to give people like George the benefit of much doubt, you might be that one in a million who "undeservedly" fall way down into negative numbers and fail the exam.  Yes, a real crap-shoot.

 
a 0.0000001% chance of being a false positive?

Respectfully, I call bullshit.


But now I feel very special knowing that I was 1 in a million.  1st test accused of drug activity (false-positive); 2nd test cleared of drug activity, and 3rd test cleared of drug activity.

Yes, bullshit I say.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

But now I feel very special knowing that I was 1 in a million.  1st test accused of drug activity (false-positive); 2nd test cleared of drug activity, and 3rd test cleared of drug activity.

Yes, bullshit I say.

Well, I guess you win the lottery.  The other 999,999 people go on with their lives and don't frequent this website.  

[George W. Maschke]

True, you may end up inconclusive.  Or you may get caught using countermeasures when the truth without countermeasures would have landed you the job.  Or, to give people like George the benefit of much doubt, you might be that one in a million who "undeservedly" fall way down into negative numbers and fail the exam.  Yes, a real crap-shoot.

On what basis do you maintain that the risk of a false-positive result is 1:10^6? Please be specific.

[polyscam]

Well, I guess you win the lottery.  The other 999,999 people go on with their lives and don't frequent this website.  

Great.  My chance to win the lottery was wasted on a simpleton with a physio-gadget accusing me of lying.  Yeah, now I feel better.

Had the wonderful false positive polygraph opinion not cost me the chance to complete further hiring phases with the agency which conducted the "test" and another agency that immediately tossed my application due to the same test I may very well have gone on my merry way.  But unfortunately that did not happen.

No matter what anyone says, I am aware that false positives do occur much, much more frequently than 1/1,000,000.  That's just bad math.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

On what basis do you maintain that the risk of a false-positive result is 1:10^6? Please be specific.

It's an estimate, George, ok?  No, I haven't conducted one million polygraph exams yet.  But from personal experience I can tell you that my estimate is more likely than the sky-is-falling dramatic exaggeration of "false positives" claimed by this website.

And Brandon, although there is bitterness in your humor, I do appreciate your humor.  

[George W. Maschke]

It's an estimate, George, ok?

An estimate based on what? Why should a neutral observer accept your estimate?

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Why should a neutral observer accept your estimate?

Because a neutral observer doesn't carry the baggage of your personal agenda, George. Without that baggage, it's easier to trust experience over lack thereof.

[George W. Maschke]

Because a neutral observer doesn't carry the baggage of your personal agenda, George. Without that baggage, it's easier to trust experience over lack thereof.

I see. So a neutral observer without my "baggage" should accept your word for it, based on your (anonymously and unverifiably) professed experience, that the risk of a false positive outcome in a polygraph examination is 1:10^6. Yet somehow, the National Academy of Sciences did not accept such a notion, finding instead (at p. 202 of The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that "almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy" (original emphasis). How do you explain this? None of the authors of this report were saddled with my alleged "baggage."