How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph

[orolan]

Gotcha. Sorry about that :-/

[The Shadow]

George,

You wrote:

In addition, the claim in the report that "7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information" is simply not credible. The only way one obtains such a low false positive rate (0%) is by deeming reactions to relevant questions as "insignificant" if the examinee provides no "substantive information." Which is precisely what it appears the DoD is doing.

I am of the understanding that when a DoD TES test is determined to be NSR that indicates the three askings of the relevant questions were less significant than the DLC questions that bracketed each asking, ie.  the combined numeric score applied to the TES Test was a total of +4 or better for both questions.  A TES test that results in a determination of SR had a -3 or less at one question (total score from all three askings) or a total combined score of -3 or less for both questions (all three askings combined)  If the reactions are significant at the DLC questions it is a NSR test, if the reactions are significant at the relevant questions it is SR test.  If the reactions are middle of the road, it is a No Opinion and further testing is conducted.

The report claims that 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information.  Doesn't that mean that those people passed the test and the other 202 individuals had greater responses to the relevant questions?

You may be correct in your explanation of how the term "and/or" is used in the real world; however, I just don't think that is what the DoD report is trying to imply (purely my own opinion).  I wish to state that I'm not a big fan of the TES technique.  .  I feel that it is important not to put spin on the information.  The polygraph has enough flaws that no spin is needed to show its weaknesses and faults.  Report just the facts and let them speak loud and clear.

[George W. Maschke]

Shadow,

The report claims that 7,688 showed no significant physiological response to the relevant questions (non-deceptive) and provided no substantive information.  Doesn't that mean that those people passed the test and the other 202 individuals had greater responses to the relevant questions?

If the (FY 2000) report is taken at face value, it would indeed mean that 7,688 showed no significant response to the relevant questions and provided no substantive information. However, because of the high false positive rates to be expected with CQT polygraphy, DoD's claim of a 0% false positive rate is highly suspect. Many of the 7,688 may have indeed shown no signifigant response and as a consequence have been spared a post-test interrogation and hence made no "substantive admissions." But it is hardly conceivable that such would be the case for all of them. Note that in the Department of Energy polygraph program, which, like DoD, uses the TES format, some 20% of examinees showed "significant responses" to the relevant questions, but were somehow "cleared" after additional polygraphic interrogation. (See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of this.)

The plain language of the report does not mean that the other 202 individuals all had greater responses to the relevant questions. Again, the other 202 showed "significant responses" and/or provided substantive information. I don't see any reason to suppose that "and/or" means anything other than what it means in common English usage. This chosen wording of the report would include such cases as where an examinee makes a "substantive admission" during the pre-test phase and the subsequent chart collections yield a "no significant response" outcome. The "and/or" formulation would also account for cases such as that of Daniel M. King, the U.S. Navy cryptologist who, following an "inconclusive" polygraph examination, was subjected to a coercive interrogation that included threats against his family and sleep deprivation, and ultimately made "substantive admissions." (This shameful episode was never mentioned in any of DoD's polygraph reports to Congress. You'll find it documented in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.)  Note also that this "and/or" formulation appears in successive DoD polygraph program reports to Congress, and not just in the FY 2000 report.

I stand by my initial assessment that it appears that it is the presence or absence of "substantive admissions" that ultimately decides whether subjects pass or fail the DoD counterintelligence-scope polygraph.