countering the polygraph

[Public Servant]

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

[Twoblock]

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.

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

You wrote to Twoblock in part:

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.

Could you expand on what you mean by "the rhetoric here?" Specifically, is there anything in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you believe to be either untrue or otherwise misleading? If so, please explain.

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.

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.

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).

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 (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.

[Public Servant]

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.

The 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!!

[George W. Maschke]

Public Servant,

You write in part:

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.

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:

Speaking 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[guest]

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?

[guest]

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!

[Skeptic]

Hmmm...duel of the "guest"s, or schizophrenic polygraph proponent?

What to make of all this?
Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Skeptic, for what it's worth, our two guests used different dummy e-mail addresses in posting.

[Skeptic]

Thanks, George

Skeptic

[Anonymous]

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.  

[Anonymous]

Public Servant,

You write:

...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.

[anonymus1]

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'.  

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.

[Public Servant]

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.

[George W. Maschke]

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:

Again 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.