OVERcountermeasures?

[Quezocotl]

Is there any way to score "suspiciously well" on a polygraph?  Like, what is a typical scoring range for someone who is NDI?  What is a "good" score, an "exceptionally good" score and a "something must be afoot" score?

[Dan Mangan]

Speaking as a lowly civilian polygraph operator with a mere ten years of experience, any NDI score that exceeds 50% of the passing threshold is suspect.

In other words, if the cut-off score for an NDI result is a +6, anything greater than +9 would likely attract CM-oriented attention -- or at least it should, in my opinion.

Generally speaking, NDI scores are smaller (in respective value) than their DI counterparts. That's because, to some extent, polygraph testing is biased against the truth-teller.

It is not uncommon, however, to see DI scores that are two, three or even four times that of the Deception-Indicated threshold.

In polygraph, that's simply the way the cookie crumbles.

[Quezocotl]

Is that a score to a specific spot or a chart or the test as a whole?

[Quezocotl]

Wait, this doesn't make sense for a few reasons.  First, how do you determine the cut-off score?  If there are 2 relevant questions in a test (which means 2 spots), and you're a +1 on each measurement, that's a +3 spot score and a +6 on one chart.  3 charts yields a total score of +18, and that's using moderate NDI spot scores.

Second, how are NDI scores smaller?  Especially if I'm taking a Directed-Lie test?  If I'm assumed to have lied on the control question, wouldn't a truthful answer on a relevant yield a higher score?  I mean, truth is a lot different from deception than deception is from deception.  So, wouldn't 2 lies elicit a more similar response than a truth and a lie?

[Dan Mangan]

The example I used was for a Utah 3-RQ single-issue CQT, with +6 being the total points needed to "pass." The Utah format calls for a minimum of three charts, and as many as five. With the Utah method, the thresholds of +6 (NDI) and -6 (DI) are fixed, regardless of the number of charts collected.

Depending on the kind of exam administered, the rules, scoring variations (as with directed lies) and numerous other possibilities can get dizzying.

And then you have to anticipate dealing with the computerized scoring algorithms, upon which more and more examiners are relying. Good luck with that.

First, you might want to do some reading. Start with these:

>The Lie Behind The Lie Detector

>Federal Examiners Handbook

>Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph: Scientific Truth Verification - Lie Detection (Matte)

>The Handbook of Polygraph Testing (Kleiner)

By the way. There are no shortcuts to understanding this material. The books must be read -- or preferably  studied -- in their entirety.

Even if you could memorize the books, your chances of beating a polygraph conducted by an expert examiner -- without the benefit of coaching and practice -- are slim.

That said, there are examiners out there whose skills are lacking, which, at least theoretically, improves one's chances for prevailing with CMs.

[Quezocotl]

I have read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  It basically says that everything you just told me is bullshit.  I'm talking about a test that I gave TWO false positives, then I learned how to give a truthful chart.  Even if they get suspicious, that's better than a THIRD false positive.  I just think it's sad that so much credence is given to this junk science, which I've now had the unfortunate, first-hand opportunity to see is tantamount to absolute, unadulterated voodoo.

[Dan Mangan]

"I have read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  It basically says that everything you just told me is bullshit."

And you believe that?

Perhaps you do.

As I have often said, I only have a mere ten years of experience as a certified polygraph examiner -- the majority of that doing Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing.

Anyway, tell us, Quezocotl... What is your exact situation?

Why can't you just say "No!" to the so-called test?

And you've suffered TWO "false positives"?  Interesting. With the same examiner?

If that's all true, then challenge the "test."

Meanwhile, try to understand this: You don't know what you don't know.

Countermeasures are very likely to complicate your life.

Why?

You'll get bagged.

Then what?